AHC: Save the Roman Empire (with a twist)

[Mental_Wizard]

Save the Roman Empire...
By having a more competent successor to Marcus Aurelius do everything positive he could, while explaining your rationale.

I would take increased stability, wealth, territorial bounds, or technological progress in the long-term as successful. Take into account stuff like earthquakes and plague cannot be butterflied. Watch out for barbarians too.

Go!

 

[Jan Gronvik]

I think the trick is to avoid civil wars so that the empire can stand united both when it tries to conquer and when it has to defend its assets. To make this possible, you need to solve the question of succession. My preferred solution would be to have adoption institutionalized (difficult) and protected by the senate. Hopefully, this would butterfly away the civil wars during the crisis of the 3rd century.

I also think that every conquest has to be economically and/or strategically sound for the empire, at least in the long run. This might ease both the economic and military problems during the crisis of the 3rd century. The traditional way of handling tribes on the other side of the border buy paying them off and making them clients might be hurtful in the long run. Maybe better to make real provinces out of those areas.

A POD could be that Marcus Aurelius did not have a son and that he therefore adopted a competent heir (X).

The sucessor (X) makes it his calling in life to secure the Northern border of the Roman Empire.

He keeps Marcomannia and Sarmatia and make them provinces, thereby protecting parts of the Danube border.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Marcus_Aurelius
The Tisza Valley would add good agricultural land to the empire.

X reconquers Ad Moesiam and makes it a province. This adds more agricultural land to the empire. Now The Danube is fully protected

It is also during X’s reign that the adoption system is institutionalized.

 

[Agricola]

My preferred solution would be to have adoption institutionalized (difficult) and protected by the senate.

The senate has no power at all. It cannot enforce anything against the will of a princeps who has absolutistic monarchic power. The only way is conspiration & assassination and/or a civil war.
So you cannot instutionalize adoption against the will of the princeps. And even if it is instutionalized by accident, the princeps can abolish the law whenever he wants.

And btw, replacing Commodus leads to nothing. We already discussed this more than once. You cannot avoid the 3rd century crisis this way because the reasons for the crisis were longterm structural changes and deficits, not the personal deficits of a single emperor. However a discussion about a change of the imperial constitution in order to avoid civil wars is always welcome. I am just afraid such a change is damn tricky to achieve, if not impossible at all.

 

[Mental_Wizard]

@Agricola I have to disagree on the account of Commodus changing nothing. I believe it did. With a stable succession, we may not get the military anarchy that so contributed to the chaos of the Crisis. The Severan Emperors also spent a lot of money. Money the Empire would still have here. The Empire could have more stable frontiers in Europe, such as the Danube as previously discussed. A frontier on the Zagros being established earlier could also hamper the abilities of an alt-Sassanid Empire/similar Persian kingdom to attack on another front. Indeed the barbarians will come, as well as probably climate change. However, strong and competent Emperors with ample resources could deal with it IMO. A great reforming Emperor who fixes the structural changes and deficits is completely possible if the succession is stable. Stable succession = higher likelihood of good rulers

Indeed the constitutional changes may be tricky, but perhaps an Emperor can write a code enforcing it?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The senate has no power at all. It cannot enforce anything against the will of a princeps who has absolutistic monarchic power. The only way is conspiration & assassination and/or a civil war.
So you cannot instutionalize adoption against the will of the princeps. And even if it is instutionalized by accident, the princeps can abolish the law whenever he wants.

And btw, replacing Commodus leads to nothing. We already discussed this more than once. You cannot avoid the 3rd century crisis this way because the reasons for the crisis were longterm structural changes and deficits, not the personal deficits of a single emperor. However a discussion about a change of the imperial constitution in order to avoid civil wars is always welcome. I am just afraid such a change is damn tricky to achieve, if not impossible at all.

Presumably with a more competent succession you avoid the Severans and the train wreck they were. Thus you can avoid the worst of the 3rd century crisis with a POD at this time.

 

[Russian]

...The traditional way of handling tribes on the other side of the border buy paying them off and making them clients might be hurtful in the long run. Maybe better to make real provinces out of those areas.
...
He keeps Marcomannia and Sarmatia and make them provinces, thereby protecting parts of the Danube border...
The Tisza Valley would add good agricultural land to the empire.

X reconquers Ad Moesiam and makes it a province. This adds more agricultural land to the empire. Now The Danube is fully protected
...

The problem with conquering is that it doesn't solve the problem with "bordering the evil Barbarians".
Every time you conquer new territories you get other Barbarians bordering your new province(s) - usually even more warlike and unruly.
And instead of one problem you now have two problems - 1) new provinces are restless by definition; 2) these unstable provinces face new unstable warlike Barbarians across the border.
You might get kind of a perfect storm here...

Stable succession = higher likelihood of good rulers

Actually no.
I mean what is a "stable succession"?
- That's usually mean that if you are the first son (or if no sons the other closest relative) - you are getting the throne no matter what. You might be as dumb as a cork but you get the throne.
That's what a "stable succession" is.
Because if you won't - that won't be a "stable succession"; that would mean that you'll have a bunch of relatives fighting for the imperial purple on the ground that they are better suited, and you might add some generals... that's actually opposite to the idea of a "stable succession".

 

[Jan Gronvik]

The emperors should try to shorten the Northern border and at the same time get some more manpower. The only way to get a real shortening of the Northern border would be to reach the Vistula - Tyras, something that would take generations, if it is doable.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The emperors should try to shorten the Northern border and at the same time get some more manpower. The only way to get a real shortening of the Northern border would be to reach the Vistula - Tyras, something that would take generations, if it is doable.

I think @LSCatilina has spoken favorably of a Weser border in Germany. And something like Hadrians consolidation by @Hecatee might work for a more defensible northern border in Dacia.

 

[Agricola]

Presumably with a more competent succession you avoid the Severans and the train wreck they were. Thus you can avoid the worst of the 3rd century crisis with a POD at this time.

Except Caracalla, the Severans were no bad emperors. And again, you will not avoid the collapse of the empire after Alexanders death. It may just happen a bit later.

 

[Agricola]

The emperors should try to shorten the Northern border and at the same time get some more manpower. The only way to get a real shortening of the Northern border would be to reach the Vistula - Tyras, something that would take generations, if it is doable.

Forget the Vistula - Tyros line. That is way too difficult. And makes no sense at all from a roman point of view. Therefore it is close to ASB. However, invading Germania and avoiding the rise of the supertribes like Allemans and Franks would be helpful. 200 AD is just damn late, actually too late!

After the plague the roman economy was not in a good shape. The GNP was greatly reduced. They can't finance an offensive war. They must now reduce the public spendings (the army) in order to reduce the amount of money circulating. They did not. And this caused a massive inflation.

 

[Spartacus1224]

Except Caracalla, the Severans were no bad emperors. And again, you will not avoid the collapse of the empire after Alexanders death. It may just happen a bit later.

Ever hear of Elagabulus? And it's not like Alexander Severus was some great leader btw. The Severans were an incredibly harmful dynasty long term, as I'll explain below

Forget the Vistula - Tyros line. That is way too difficult. And makes no sense at all from a roman point of view. Therefore it is close to ASB. However, invading Germania and avoiding the rise of the supertribes like Allemans and Franks would be helpful. 200 AD is just damn late, actually too late!

After the plague the roman economy was not in a good shape. The GNP was greatly reduced. They can't finance an offensive war. They must now reduce the public spendings (the army) in order to reduce the amount of money circulating. They did not. And this caused a massive inflation.

If you prevent the wasteful spending of Commodus, the civil war that followed, and the rise of the Severans, you go a long way towards reducing overall spending of all sorts, including military spending. It is hard to understate how much the Severans(and the other self proclaimed emperors in various civil wars) spoiled the military with unsustainable pay rates and bonuses. Without them, public spending is reduced. There won't be a constant need for various emperors and pretenders to constantly up pay rates and offer insane bonuses for the loyalty of the guard or different legions time and time again. Rome will recover from the plague, especially if ruled by a competent successor for 2-3 decades.

If this were a tl, you could just have Commodus die as his brothers did from disease or whatever, and thus Marcus Aurelius continues the chain of adopting a capable successor(likely giving us at least a sixth good emperor). Or you could even have Commodus die and one of his brothers live. Either way, Rome isn't doomed no matter what to have a crisis in the third century.

 

[TheCataphract]

Ever hear of Elagabulus? And it's not like Alexander Severus was some great leader btw. The Severans were an incredibly harmful dynasty long term, as I'll explain below



If you prevent the wasteful spending of Commodus, the civil war that followed, and the rise of the Severans, you go a long way towards reducing overall spending of all sorts, including military spending. It is hard to understate how much the Severans(and the other self proclaimed emperors in various civil wars) spoiled the military with unsustainable pay rates and bonuses. Without them, public spending is reduced. There won't be a constant need for various emperors and pretenders to constantly up pay rates and offer insane bonuses for the loyalty of the guard or different legions time and time again. Rome will recover from the plague, especially if ruled by a competent successor for 2-3 decades.

If this were a tl, you could just have Commodus die as his brothers did from disease or whatever, and thus Marcus Aurelius continues the chain of adopting a capable successor(likely giving us at least a sixth good emperor). Or you could even have Commodus die and one of his brothers live. Either way, Rome isn't doomed no matter what to have a crisis in the third century.

The biggest problem Rome has is that its survival relies on the competence of a very powerful man, and while having a more stable and non hereditary succession would certainly help things overall, something needs to be done to reduce that reliance on one man's strength because with every new emperor there is a serious gamble being taken on whether or not that emperor is going to be a bust. There is also the issue with power being so centralized that it attracts power hungry and corrupt men like flies.

My first thought (I say first, but I do think about this a lot.) is a sort of federalist system with the Emperor in charge overall, but with a limited Republican system on a local level organized like the old Republic except with military service being the way to earn the vote as opposed to land ownership. Ideally this also has the benefit of encouraging the average person to fight for the Empire, giving them a sense of ownership in their government, even if their votes really don't count for all that much in reality. This would spread power out as well, hopefully reducing corruption in Rome itself to a more sustainable level and nipping the later traditions of any competent and thus threatening leaders being killed in the bud. Thus keeping Rome from killing all of its own capable generals like we saw later on.

Again though, this is an ideal situation and would be massively difficult to actually put into practice. Though I think it is possible if it is done incrementally by a handful of skilled Emperors over time. Stranger things have happened and they at least of the illusion and memory of a Republican tradition to grant the idea some legitimacy.

 

[Agricola]

If you prevent the wasteful spending of Commodus, the civil war that followed, and the rise of the Severans, you go a long way towards reducing overall spending of all sorts, including military spending. It is hard to understate how much the Severans(and the other self proclaimed emperors in various civil wars) spoiled the military with unsustainable pay rates and bonuses.

I am afraid, I have to disagree. Commodus debased currency, first time since Nero, because he had no other chance. He had a war to finish and most probably faced dramatic drops in tax income due to the plague. The common opinion amongst historians about Septimus Severus is, that his increase of pay was badly needed to compensate inflation. Since Domitian there was no pay increase. Elagabalus and Alexander were not good. But Alexander had a competent staff. Caracalla was and idiot and very harmful, but so where others.

As already mentioned, you will not avoid the crisis with other emperors. You need to change the detrimental processes which will lead to the crisis, no matter what.
Like recruitment processes, which led to legions loyal to their province, not to the empire. Reinforced by this stupid emperor-cult, which fired back heavily in the 3rd century. Or processes which led to massive indeptedness of more and more cities, followed by an autocratic and corrupt centralized imperial administration. Or processes which led to a fatal concentration of capital ending in serfdom, and other inefficient models, harming the economy. And did I mention the chronically high foreign trade deficit?

There are lots of such internal processes, you need to cover. I am afraid 180 AD is way too late to react. Best case you start 100-200 years ago. Plus some external processes like the rise of german supertribes and the rise of the Sassanids.

And finally we should not distract ourselves from the mother of all questions: How to avoid civil wars!

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Honestly, I think one of the best ways is probably the federal republican model under the Emperor. But to get this to work you need a way to essentially vet the Senate.

I introduce to you... A Roman Internal Affairs. Quite literally an anti-corruption campaign by name, senatorial blackmailer by action, that acts independently (in theory) of the Emperor, and put forward corrupt senators to magistrates.

After the Senate can be 'Trusted', then it can be used to rubber-stamp inheritance, until it is seen as legitimate. Perhaps even debating and rejecting a candidate or two.

That at least resolves the inheritance and civil wars - someone must be approved by the senate. Spin that out into regional candidate councils that can become local senates that put forward candidates for inheritance.

The problem is that you need at least an Emperor who recognise the value of a stable succession, and the need to institutionalise it. Essentially realising that Julius Casear and the two Triumverates were a mistake. These need to be avoided with proper institutions.

Perhaps the successor to Aurelius is both warrior and administrator, and recognises that whilst he's very powerful, if someone 'wrong' had the throne, it would be very bad, and since it doesn't impact on his direct rule, sets up these institutions, and more as he gets older.

1) It helps him to undermine the senators and other political figures that are corrupt, giving him more control
2) Since the only power he is giving up is succession, and has corruption charges as blackmail to use against Senators, he can use them as a rubber stamp at this point.
3) Recognising that the obvious flaw in the proposal is the army - as such whilst the Senate decides, it must get official support from either the Emperor, and/or the Army). This way whilst the Senate vets the candidates for their shortlist/preferred option, if neither the Emperor or the Army will stand for them, they have to go back. This should prevent usurpation in most cases. In case of no designated heir, the Empire would be led by two consuls as of old - one in the field, and one in Rome, alternating as suitable.

After this is set up, the control over the succession is a slow-moving but powerful political tool. Any other institutions he sets up (i.e. the selection councils, army approval system) can be under the premise of "No more Triumverates"

It is a bit of a step back, and besides the anti-corruption arm is almost stepping back to having a Senate with a Permanent Dictator in play, but in my naivety about the powers of the Senate at this time, this seems to be the best approach. Essentially, an Emperor who fears his own awesome power in the hands of another.

 

[Jan Gronvik]

Agricola said:

And finally we should not distract ourselves from the mother of all questions: How to avoid civil wars!

Yes, without the civil wars, the empire would be in much better shape. According to Mental_Wizard, the Antonine Plague can not be butterflied away, but is there a way to make it much less disasterous?

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Agricola said:

Yes, without the civil wars, the empire would be in much better shape. According to Mental_Wizard, the Antonine Plague can not be butterflied away, but is there a way to make it much less disasterous?

Generally improved sanitation? Perhaps a very early sanitation movement - hospitals and miasma theory?

I mean, heck - it is AFAIK smallpox. Now, if there are less civil wars then the Empire may be overall wealthier, and could support more hospitals, but short of rolling out a clinic to every town of relative significance, I don't think there is a lot that can be done. It isn't like the Romans can spontaneously develop germ theory.

Well, unless we get a Roman 'John Snow' - which would be pretty epic tbh.

 

[Jan Gronvik]

Maybe a POD at the very start of Marcus Aurelius reign along these lines:

"Ancient
429 BCE. Though there was no knowledge of antibodies in ancient Greece, physicians at the time were beginning to understand that getting infected with certain viruses could later prevent re-infections. For example, in 429 BCE, Greek historian Thucydides recorded that people who survived the smallpox epidemic in Athens were safe from re-infection.

Medieval
900-1000 AD. The first precursor to a modern vaccination, however, occurred in China. The Chinese were the first to develop a primitive form of a vaccine around the 10th century, according to the NHS. Known as variolation or inoculation, the method was developed to prevent smallpox — a destructive disease that frequently plagued Europe and Asia in the Middle Ages. Chinese physicians discovered that when healthy people were exposed to smallpox scab tissue, they were less likely to get infected with the disease later on (or if they did, it was a much milder, less dangerous version). The most common form of inoculation in China was to crush smallpox scabs into powder, then breathe it in through the nose."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/history-vaccines-variolation-378738

 

[Spartacus1224]

I am afraid, I have to disagree. Commodus debased currency, first time since Nero, because he had no other chance. He had a war to finish and most probably faced dramatic drops in tax income due to the plague. The common opinion amongst historians about Septimus Severus is, that his increase of pay was badly needed to compensate inflation. Since Domitian there was no pay increase. Elagabalus and Alexander were not good. But Alexander had a competent staff. Caracalla was and idiot and very harmful, but so where others.

As already mentioned, you will not avoid the crisis with other emperors. You need to change the detrimental processes which will lead to the crisis, no matter what.
Like recruitment processes, which led to legions loyal to their province, not to the empire. Reinforced by this stupid emperor-cult, which fired back heavily in the 3rd century. Or processes which led to massive indeptedness of more and more cities, followed by an autocratic and corrupt centralized imperial administration. Or processes which led to a fatal concentration of capital ending in serfdom, and other inefficient models, harming the economy. And did I mention the chronically high foreign trade deficit?

There are lots of such internal processes, you need to cover. I am afraid 180 AD is way too late to react. Best case you start 100-200 years ago. Plus some external processes like the rise of german supertribes and the rise of the Sassanids.

And finally we should not distract ourselves from the mother of all questions: How to avoid civil wars!

You're being ridiculously deterministic here and incredibly vague. Firstly, what was Commodus doing for most of his reign? It wasn't fighting a war. He finished his father's war very quickly and then returned to Rome. He squandered untold amounts of money on his delusional gladiatorial games, while yes men like Cleander further enriched themselves by selling offices and military commands throughout the empire. He reigned for 12 years or so, and he wasn't fighting foreign wars for most of that time. The increased spending was on games.

I already explained how you would avoid the year of 5 emperors and the rise of Severans by having a capable successor to Marcus Aurelius, thus avoiding a series of civil wars as well. You're right that the troops would have needed a pay raise eventually(thanks to inflation, something which the Romans didn't really understand). But there's a difference between a pay raise, and years of exorbitant donatives and bonuses from various emperors hoping to buy loyalty, and the founding of three new legions. You fail to address the incredible amounts of money squandered by each of the "emperors" in the various civil wars in the post-commodus empire and the continued debasement of the currency throughout said period(especially in the reign of Caracalla).

Elegabalus was a horrible emperor btw. No question about it.

Please expand and provide some evidence for pretty much all of the "processes" you described, like the poor recruitment process or the "indeptedness" of cities and the corrupt administrations.

You need to explain how these various problems were inevitable and would happen to the same degree no matter what.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

There are parts of the crisis you can't avoid-there will still be financial strain, plague will still decimate the population and manpower pool, climate change and migrations will still cause havoc. The third century won't be pretty. But you can stop the worst of it. The political crisis doesn't need to be anywhere near as bad and the fiscal crisis can be mitigated a bit without the Severans.

 

[Jan Gronvik]

So, a very capable Emperor X adopted by Marcus Aurelius might reign for, let's say, 20 years (180 CE - 200 CE), butterflying away the excesses of Commodus, the short reigns of Pertinax and Didius Julianus, and at least the first half of Septimius Severus' reign with the civil war against Perennius Niger and Clodius Albinus.