AHC: Prevent the Crisis of the 3rd Century

Unfortunately the probability of an endless string of good rulers is not so good, the prospect of good rulers containing overmighty subjects is even less likely (see: Justinian and his issues with Belisarius as one example), and the danger of a weak ruler *and* an overmighty subject is how one can wind up in deep trouble. In an autocracy formed in an already-militarized society like the Empire, it only takes one such incident to create the OTL pattern.

The only ways to alter it are to make the entire Megastate system akin to the East-Roman system of dynastic rulers with a bureaucracy that endures no matter who rules, and that was not something the men that would found the Empire would want: like all people who commanded arbitrary, autocratic power they did not voluntarily want to yield any of it.

That's the rub. Although I would note that the concept of succession-by-blood does work, that just limits the pool of potential usurpers, it doesn't translate into "no would be usurpers" any more than Medieval England or the Ottomans (as the longest lasting dynasty that had to wrestle with the "But which descendant of the Great One?" problem) could eliminate the problem.

And I'm not sure how you make that work so as to eliminate the overmighty subject problem when Imperial authority really is arbitrary - meaning that if you win, you are legitimized.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it succeed, none dare it call it treason."
 
That's the rub. Although I would note that the concept of succession-by-blood does work, that just limits the pool of potential usurpers, it doesn't translate into "no would be usurpers" any more than Medieval England or the Ottomans (as the longest lasting dynasty that had to wrestle with the "But which descendant of the Great One?" problem) could eliminate the problem.

And I'm not sure how you make that work so as to eliminate the overmighty subject problem when Imperial authority really is arbitrary - meaning that if you win, you are legitimized.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it succeed, none dare it call it treason."

And this again goes back to the rises of both Julius and Augustus Caesar and how neither had a claim to power more sophisticated than winning civil wars. So it's the vicious circle of the Empire: the only way to avoid a Third Century Crisis is a major alteration of the entire system, which is what the OP does not want. If, however, this is permitted then something akin to a mixture of the Diocletian Reforms and the Medieval Empire's bureaucracy might well keep the state going for a very long time on its Julio-Claudian borders.
 
And this again goes back to the rises of both Julius and Augustus Caesar and how neither had a claim to power more sophisticated than winning civil wars. So it's the vicious circle of the Empire: the only way to avoid a Third Century Crisis is a major alteration of the entire system, which is what the OP does not want. If, however, this is permitted then something akin to a mixture of the Diocletian Reforms and the Medieval Empire's bureaucracy might well keep the state going for a very long time on its Julio-Claudian borders.

Can't think of anything to add to this.
 
Can't think of anything to add to this.

My proposed means to do this would be a Tetrarchy on the Diocletian model (two Senior Emperors with two Junior Emperors), with one of the two serving as a kind of US Presidential-style head of government and state together, the other as an Imperial Master of Soldiers-style figure commanding the army, but blending this with a bureaucracy that gives the state consistent revenue and prevents the potential damage that friction among the Tetrarchs would invariably lead to without it. This, however, is an idea with a great deal of hindsight influencing it, but ironically would be one of the few ways to get a Roman Empire of Eurofedian proportions as this Empire has much fewer internal constraints on expansion and a much more overall well-balanced political system.
 
Snake,

Your comment about "Eurofedian proportions" reminded me of a suggestion I made to Eurofed in one of his mega-Rome TLs.

Basically, I suggested a "mini crisis of the Third Century" that isn't nearly as destructive to the Empire, but was enough of a "Scared Straight" moment to institute something resembling the Tetrarchy.

It would need to be earlier, since the goal was to create a scenario conducive to continued Roman territorial expansion.

Pursuant to the OP, perhaps the Year of the Four Emperors is worse? Not "Crisis of the Third Century" worse, but bad enough to indicate things need reforming.
 
I may be missing something here, so let me ask -- what would have happened had Marcus Aurelius left a successor who wasn't an unstable megalomaniac, and who wasn't assassinated? Would this be enough, at least, to prevent the Crisis of 193? If so, what does the Antonine Dynasty need to do to survive for another century?
 
Top