AHC: Make a Short-Lived Roman Emperor or Usurper Reign Longer

[Atamolos]

In the long span of Roman history, the average length of an emperor's reign was something like seven years. This average only includes the emperors generally regarded as "legitimate" by historians. When factoring the total number of men who have, at one time or another, claimed the imperial dignity, that number will shrink considerably. So my challenge is this: find a plausible POD that could reasonably extend the reign of a short-lived emperor or usurper to at least the average length of an emperor's reign, if not longer.

There are, of course, the obvious examples in the various Years of the "x" Emperors (which by themselves are highlights of Roman history imho), but dozens of other examples exist. The Crisis of the Third Century and Tetrarchic periods are full of little-known usurpers with tons of potential for interesting ATLs.

What piqued my interest in this was reading Tacitus' Histories, which covers the chaotic Year of the Four Emperors. The companion analysis I have read postulates numerous potential claimants to the imperial throne between 68 and 71 CE (including Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Piso, and Nymphidius Sabinus) with potential claimant status for numerous more including Verginius Rufus, Piso's brother Crassus Scribonianus, Mucianus - the governor of Syria at the time, and interestingly, perhaps even Vespasian's son, Titus. Obviously the uncertainties of battle lend themselves easily to probable PODs, but what other plausible circumstances could lend themselves to any one of these men holding power for a decade or more?

Some interesting possibilities:
--Caligula or Nero: both died very young and had tremendous potential as descendants of Augustus and powerful political followings in the senate and the legions that they inherited
--Titus or Domitian: both died prematurely and had considerable merits and potential for innovative leadership
--Avidius Cassius
--Year of the Five Emperors (Pertinax, Clodius, or Niger)
--Caracalla or Geta (or both?)
--any of the Gordians
--Valerian and Gallienus
--Diocletian (if he had not stepped down after twenty years)
--Licinius, Flavius Severus, Maximinus Daia, Galerius, Maxentius, Chlorus, or any other Tetrarchs

I've mostly focused on the earlier empire, because during the late empire, intervention from the East to usurp the Western emperor became very common after the Tetrarchic division of the empire, and so shorter reigns became more commonplace.

 

[GauchoBadger]

I wonder how differently the Council of Nicaea of 325 could have turned out if Licinius had defeated Constantine in the prior political struggle. Pro-Constantine sources depict him as a pagan, but i doubt the veracity of that claim.

 

[piratedude]

The easiest are Titus and Domitian imo. They were definitely competent enough, and with only a few changes in decision or luck they can go far.

The idea of Geta offing caracalla is interesting to me. Though they were both seemingly pampered and hedonistic jerks, only caracalla seems bloodthirsty. Or at least Mike Duncan's podcast made it sound like it was him who was constantly plotting/attempting to kill. Geta seemed like he at least had more sense in him.

 

[Atamolos]

I wonder how differently the Council of Nicaea of 325 could have turned out if Licinius had defeated Constantine in the prior political struggle. Pro-Constantine sources depict him as a pagan, but i doubt the veracity of that claim.

I always thought it was interesting that during late imperial history, the East is typically depicted as stronger than the West (Theodosius repeatedly deposing western usurpers, for example). However, in this conflict, among a few others, the West was able to impose leadership upon the East. The only other example of this I can think of is the rise of Julian half a century later. So I wonder what the probability of a victorious Licinius might be, and of course, the religious implications of this are as numerous as they are unpredictable.

The easiest are Titus and Domitian imo. They were definitely competent enough, and with only a few changes in decision or luck they can go far.

I'd guess that without two major losses to the Dacians, Domitian would've stood a chance of reigning for another fifteen or twenty years, surpassing the length of Tiberius' reign with massive implications on the future of Roman policy, particularly against the Jews, who would likely revolt during those years, even if Domitian doesn't invade Parthia as Trajan did.

The idea of Geta offing caracalla is interesting to me. Though they were both seemingly pampered and hedonistic jerks, only caracalla seems bloodthirsty. Or at least Mike Duncan's podcast made it sound like it was him who was constantly plotting/attempting to kill. Geta seemed like he at least had more sense in him.

I love his podcast, but something he's lacking is a healthy skepticism for the embellishments on the shenanigans of the "bad emperors" (Caligula, Nero, Commodus, Caracalla, etc). I've recently been reading rehabilitated histories of Caligula which portray him as exacting payback against the people who were complicit in the regime that led to the deaths of his mother and brothers. Not that they were all good, but men like Caracalla with a competent military record and a vicious streak that wasn't too excessive for an average Roman emperor, are likely not as bad as they're depicted. If Caracalla hadn't offed Geta, then it's likely that Geta would've done the same to him. The two of them were on bad terms well before their participation in Severus' British campaign, and I doubt Caracalla ignoring the threat Geta posed would have meant Geta would do the same. It's interesting to think about though, whether or not Geta would be deposed as quickly as Caracalla was. Or whether his eventual campaigns against the Parthians would prove as successful.

 

[Eparkhos]

Alexios Philanthropenos-Tarkhaneiotes

 

[Atamolos]

Alexios Philanthropenos-Tarkhaneiotes

That was sneaky subbed

 

[Atamolos]

So here's a couple relevant POD's I've come up with that may be interesting:

Claudius dies in 37 CE - I've seen it argued that Claudius executed one of the most successful coups in history, managing to depose his nephew and yet remain above suspicion for the whole thing for almost his entire reign - even to the point of being deified under his successor. Assuming this is at least partially correct, Claudius' death in 37 (during his first consulship) will prolong Caligula's reign. To what extent is unsure. As the son of Germanicus, he would have probably possessed some degree of popularity with the legions, so it is probably unlikely that any governor would have the means (or even the desire) to overthrow him. Look how the revolt of Scribonianus played out for a probable look at the outcome of such designs. If he lived anywhere close to as long as Tiberius or Augustus did, this would give him a reign on the order of another thirty years at a minimum. When compared with the lengths of each emperor's reign from IOTL, he would rank third behind only Augustus and Theodosius II. Of course, without Claudius, there would be no other adult men within the Julio-Claudian family, and so any premature death on his part would almost certainly provoke civil war if Caligula were to be assassinated prior to selecting an heir. (Caligula reigns from 37 to mid-70s CE)

68 CE, The Year of Four Emperors - The emperors in order would be: Nero, Galba, Nymphidius Sabinus, and finally Verginius Rufus. Here's how: Vitellius pretty easily overwhelmed Otho's relatively meager defense of Italy with a rapid two-pronged invasion. Furthermore IOTL, after the revolt of Vindex was suppressed, the victorious Verginius Rufus refused to make a bid for the throne, despite being a competent leader and administrator (he was thrice consul under Nero, Otho, and Nerva). When compared with the ease of Vitellius' victory over Otho and the relative hesitation on the part of the Flavians, it is entirely probable that Verginius Rufus could defeat the meager forces of Galba, never even giving Otho a chance to usurp the throne and preventing the rise of Vitellius altogether. His arrival at Rome would see the death of Sabinus, ending his brief attempt at usurpation after the death of Galba. With a decisive end to the civil war in 68, it's unlikely that Vespasian would even make an attempt at revolution. IOTL, he waited until after the death of Otho to make royal pretensions, and with his hands tied in Judea, it would have been inconvenient for him to make diplomatic overtures to the Danube legions, who only attached to Vespasian's cause after their champion, Otho, was defeated. The legions of the East on their own would not be capable of making the long march to Rome to carry out any seizure of the throne. Verginius would have command of at least fifteen legions (perhaps more if the Spanish and African garrisons defected to him) compared to Vespasian's six or seven (at least three of which would be tied down besieging Jerusalem at this time). (Verginius reigns from 68 to late-90s CE)

Caecina Hesitates in 69 CE - Vitellius himself was not renowned for being a competent general, and he can largely credit his rise to power to the military capabilities of his lieutenants Valens and Caecina, who not only prompted him to march on Rome, but then commanded the invasions in Vitellius' absence. Caecina himself attempted to defect to Vespasian around the time of the Battle of Cremona, so if anything were to delay the Vitellians' arrival in Italy, the Danube legions would likely rally to Otho's cause, and Caecina may defect to their side (or at least try to). The failure of Vitellius' invasion of Italy means a secure reign for Otho for the same reasons that Verginius would be secure above: Vespasian would not be able to challenge him if the Danube legions stay loyal. Otho was a former friend of Nero and was likely very familiar with the political environment in Rome (or at least how to operate within it effectively), probably being able to parry the threats posed by powerful senators (many of whom were already dead anyways thanks to Nero). Galba's faction may split in the following year between loyalties to Otho and the brothers of Piso, but it's not a mystery who would win that fight with the praetorians at his back. How the situation may settle in the following years is uncertain, but Otho's family certainly enjoyed a good standing in the senate - his brother was appointed as ordinary consul by Claudius and was later the governor of Asia. He would likely attempt to co-opt the support of other powerful families like the Flavians, Pisonians, and Lentulans to form something of a coherent regime following the upheavals of the civil war, likely rife with purges aimed at the instigators of Nero's fall. He would establish himself as Nero's avenger and leverage the dead emperor's popularity to establish his own dynasty. Since Otho was 36 and still did not have children, he would likely not have adult male children by the time of his natural death and may resort to adoption to decide on a successor - possibly even Domitian or the younger son of one of Rome's leading families (one of Crassi or maybe Marius Celsus). (Otho reigns from 69 to late 80s CE)

Pertinax is Reduced to Bribery in 193 CE - Just pay the praetorian guards man. You can punish them later, but you gotta secure your reign first. It's an open question whether or not the other three claimants still revolt at this time, but the support of the praetorians and the senate might make this less likely. Maybe we end up with Severus as emperor anyways, but at least Didius Julianus doesn't get a shot an the throne, thus averting the most shameful period in the history of the praetorian guard. (Pertinax reigns from 193 to 198 or maybe is deposed in 194)

Caracalla Doesn't Bring Macrinus to Parthia in 217 CE - Caracalla basically had the empire handmade for him by his father. Septimius Serverus craftily won the civil war after the death of Pertinax and then spent his entire reign ensuring the loyalty of the British and Eastern legions to his family, hence, "Enrich the soldiers and scorn all other men." The ease with which he dispatched Geta further indicates that he had a powerful following among the military elite. So, if during his Parthian expedition, he brought the praetorian prefect Adventus with him instead of Macrinus, he might remain not be assassinated as he was IOTL. The Severan dynasty was never lacking available heirs, so by adoption or natural parentage, Caracalla would likely manage to secure his regime for at least another decade. The rise of the Sassanids in that time might precipitate his early death and probably a period of crisis. Whether or not this is as severe at OTL's third century crisis remains to be seen, but ironically, if Caracalla manages to lose to Artabanus in 217, Artabanus might have sufficient strength to challenge the Sassanid usurpation and defeat his brother Vologases. Maybe a long-lasting Severan dynasty ensues, even if Caracalla still meets an untimely demise. (Caracalla reigns from 211 to 230 CE)

Any of these seem plausible or interesting?

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

The only other example of this I can think of is the rise of Julian half a century later.

I’ve always wondered why no one ever wrote a timeline about this fairly popular emperor. It should be easy to grant him a fairly long reign given his young age and skills.

Anyway I find Procopius and Priscus Attalus and the possible implications of their eventual successful usurpation rather interesting. I’ll probably write a short timeline about the latter (and other V century characters) sooner or later, unless someone else does it first.

 

[Mike Stearns]

My picks would be either Caligula or Titus. Caligula was considered to be popular and competent before getting sick and going crazy and Titus only reigned for two years, but an overall argument could be made for the Flavians as Good Emperors.

 

[piratedude]

Caligula was considered to be popular and competent before getting sick and going crazy

Popular yes, but competent? Certainly not, given how spendthrift he was even before falling ill, which was at least part of his motivation behind targeting Senators. The first few months (6 i think?) showed that he was more reckless than he had a right to be. That said, there's nothing wrong with changing him for the purposes of an ATL

 

[Mort the Reaper]

Popular yes, but competent? Certainly not, given how spendthrift he was even before falling ill, which was at least part of his motivation behind targeting Senators. The first few months (6 i think?) showed that he was more reckless than he had a right to be. That said, there's nothing wrong with changing him for the purposes of an ATL

Maybe his illness has a different effect on him?

 

[Atamolos]

I’ve always wondered why no one ever wrote a timeline about this fairly popular emperor. It should be easy to grant him a fairly long reign given his young age and skills.

Anyway I find Procopius and Priscus Attalus and the possible implications of their eventual successful usurpation rather interesting. I’ll probably write a short timeline about the latter (and other V century characters) sooner or later, unless someone else does it first.

Both good. My personal favorite late Empire usurper would have to be Magnus Maximus. If he gave Theodosius a good kick in the teeth, the ERE might not have been able to leverage so much power over the WRE and the whole fifth century may have turned out differently (since IOTL the West had a shrinking army partially due to the losses of Maximus and Eugenius to Theodosius' invasions).

My picks would be either Caligula or Titus. Caligula was considered to be popular and competent before getting sick and going crazy and Titus only reigned for two years, but an overall argument could be made for the Flavians as Good Emperors.

Popular yes, but competent? Certainly not, given how spendthrift he was even before falling ill, which was at least part of his motivation behind targeting Senators. The first few months (6 i think?) showed that he was more reckless than he had a right to be. That said, there's nothing wrong with changing him for the purposes of an ATL

I think it's important to consider the historiographical context that Caligula's reign is portrayed in. First and foremost, Caligula was deposed and assassinated in a coup, and his successor, Claudius, was not descended from Augustus by blood or by adoption, and thus he likely played a significant role in tarnishing Caligula's memory in order to legitimize his rise to power. Secondly, most sources we have for the Julio-Claudians were authored during the Flavian and Antonine periods, and for the same reasons, those dynasties necessarily demonized most of the later Julio-Claudians as a means of legitimizing their own regimes. Now of course, it's also possible that Caligula was insane and incompetent, but having a full understanding of the historical context that he is portrayed in is crucial. Furthermore "being a spendthrift" may well be a valid criticism depending on your political views. Many of the things he spent money on were aimed, at least in part, at securing the support of Rome's urban population, who at this point still played a not insignificant role in the security of the regime. From the perspective of long-term grand strategy and statesmanlike leadership, these policies were certainly not sustainable for very long, but Caligula himself was probably not an extremely adept statesman, given the nature of his childhood, and his regime was likely predicated on these short-term policies.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Both good. My personal favorite late Empire usurper would have to be Magnus Maximus. If he gave Theodosius a good kick in the teeth, the ERE might not have been able to leverage so much power over the WRE and the whole fifth century may have turned out differently (since IOTL the West had a shrinking army partially due to the losses of Maximus and Eugenius to Theodosius' invasions).

I would say mostly due to the losses of these 2 guys (and I would also add Mursa) however, had things gone differently, the Goths could have been eliminated as a fighting force thus at least partially offsetting the loss of Roman manpower. Furthermore the consequences of a Christian East and a Pagan/Pluralistic West would be really interesting.

 

[Tarabas]

A relatively easy one with huge consequences: Aurelianus. From what I've read, he was assassinated by one of his secretaries for personal revenge while going against the Sassanians. I could not find any more details on the assassination, but say that a praetorian stumbles on him, and the guy executed for treason. Aurelianus goes to war and, being the competent military leader he was, wins said war (the usual sack of Ctesifon and the securing of Mesopotamia). Given his age, let's give him an extra 10 years of reign, until 285. This gives him the time to consolidate his many reforms, as well as increasing a lot the popularity of the cult of the Sol Invictus. Not sure about his successor, but he could really become one of the best Emperors ever, remembered and revered after centuries as the Good Emperor (yes, the last is a reference to Andreas Niketas in An Age of Miracles).

 

[piratedude]

I think it's important to consider the historiographical context that Caligula's reign is portrayed in.

True enough, our limited historical sources (both in terms of number and quality) will always get in the way of properly contextualizing people like Caligula.

 

[Atamolos]

I would say mostly due to the losses of these 2 guys (and I would also add Mursa) however, had things gone differently, the Goths could have been eliminated as a fighting force thus at least partially offsetting the loss of Roman manpower. Furthermore the consequences of a Christian East and a Pagan/Pluralistic West would be really interesting.

Honestly, I've been debating what to make the exact POD for my Stilicho TL (I'm still gonna do it eventually, I promise). I was considering Adrianople, but I couldn't figure out a plausible way to make Stilicho emperor with a POD that far back. If Theodosius died at the Frigidus (or maybe even the Save), Stilicho would already be well-established in the imperial establishment, and he manage to finagle a coup of the West through his Theodosian allies in Spain (which IOTL he leveraged to fight Constantine III). This would simultaneously be a huge blow to the Goths (and probably kill Alaric as well), leaving Stilicho with a free hand in the west without the Goths constantly pressuring him. The only hard part is figuring out a plausible way for him to rule the West without a) a well-established and powerful Honorius and b) too many costly civil wars depleting the WRE's manpower.

A relatively easy one with huge consequences: Aurelianus. From what I've read, he was assassinated by one of his secretaries for personal revenge while going against the Sassanians. I could not find any more details on the assassination, but say that a praetorian stumbles on him, and the guy executed for treason. Aurelianus goes to war and, being the competent military leader he was, wins said war (the usual sack of Ctesifon and the securing of Mesopotamia). Given his age, let's give him an extra 10 years of reign, until 285. This gives him the time to consolidate his many reforms, as well as increasing a lot the popularity of the cult of the Sol Invictus. Not sure about his successor, but he could really become one of the best Emperors ever, remembered and revered after centuries as the Good Emperor (yes, the last is a reference to Andreas Niketas in An Age of Miracles).

The question here is how forward thinking was Aurelian? It's impossible to know, but I think merely military victories over the Persians and Germans would not be enough to end the crisis for good. He would need to reform the bureaucratic structure of the empire in order to accommodate its governing needs, which is what Diocletian did IOTL. Aurelian's OTL reforms were focused primarily on the empire's internal military disposition (and so a continuation of Gallienus' overall strategy) as well as economic issues. Whether or not these would have been sufficient to end the crisis had he lived is uncertain, but since a number of militarily competent emperors after him were also assassinated and failed to fully restore order, it seems likely that he would have to address these inherent political and logistical issues to a degree greater than he was able to IOTL.

 

[isabella]

Killing off Honorius some years after his father’s death would not be enough? Stilicho was married to Theodosius’ own niece, their son was engaged to the younger half-sister of Honorius and Arcadius and Honorius himself was engaged to their daughter (and would eventually marry both of them)

 

[Tarabas]

The question here is how forward thinking was Aurelian? It's impossible to know, but I think merely military victories over the Persians and Germans would not be enough to end the crisis for good. He would need to reform the bureaucratic structure of the empire in order to accommodate its governing needs, which is what Diocletian did IOTL. Aurelian's OTL reforms were focused primarily on the empire's internal military disposition (and so a continuation of Gallienus' overall strategy) as well as economic issues. Whether or not these would have been sufficient to end the crisis had he lived is uncertain, but since a number of militarily competent emperors after him were also assassinated and failed to fully restore order, it seems likely that he would have to address these inherent political and logistical issues to a degree greater than he was able to IOTL.

We cannot be sure, but I tend to believe that his economical reforms and the use of the cult of the Sol Invictus to strengthen Imperial power show that his abilities were beyond the military sphere, although the latter was of course his forte. As for addressing political and logistical issues, he hardly had the time to address them IMHO. Just five years of reign, in which he conquered back both the Palmyrene and the Gauls Empires, quite an impressive feat if you ask me. As for the forward thinking part, the Tetrarchy was a clear example of unfortunate forward thinking: a very good idea- on paper, which however failed miserably due to human nature. I don't see the Restitutor Orbis coming up with such an idea, everything Aurelianus did went on the path of a stronger central authority. But say that he has 8 years of peaceful reign to capitalize his military successes, and to spread further the Imperial cult... if he can choose the right successor, say, Diocletian for some reason, maybe this could give more solid foundations to an alt-tetrarchy, with a single Augustus/Sol Invictus with some lesser and subordinate Ceasars/"planets" (to use an inappropriate astronomical figure) controlling frontier regions. Just stream of consciousness, I admit it.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Honestly, I've been debating what to make the exact POD for my Stilicho TL (I'm still gonna do it eventually, I promise). I was considering Adrianople, but I couldn't figure out a plausible way to make Stilicho emperor with a POD that far back. If Theodosius died at the Frigidus (or maybe even the Save), Stilicho would already be well-established in the imperial establishment, and he manage to finagle a coup of the West through his Theodosian allies in Spain (which IOTL he leveraged to fight Constantine III). This would simultaneously be a huge blow to the Goths (and probably kill Alaric as well), leaving Stilicho with a free hand in the west without the Goths constantly pressuring him. The only hard part is figuring out a plausible way for him to rule the West without a) a well-established and powerful Honorius and b) too many costly civil wars depleting the WRE's manpower.

Wouldn’t suffice to have him rule behind his son and be the effective powerholder of the West. Have Honorius die shortly after his brother (or while Arcadius is dealing with Gainas), so that the East is less ready to reclaim the West. As an half barbarian (and not a Theodosian himself) Stilicho would struggle to have his rule acknowledged but his son would have a better chance (like the partially barbarian Theodosius II in the East).