AHC & WI Rome Falls Earlier

I wonder if anyone thought of this, because there are so many ideas on how to try and keep the Roman Empire alive. But what would it take to make it fall earlier?

Your challenge, should you take it, is to make the Roman Empire fall some time in the 3rd century AD.

Preferably with a POD before or during the 3rd century, otherwise you have free reign on your POD.
 
Either or.

I thought Rome fell because of over expansion and over reliance on Gothic barbarians for protecting the borders? Is there a difference between the fragmentation or the fall?
 
Either or.

I thought Rome fell because of over expansion and over reliance on Gothic barbarians for protecting the borders? Is there a difference between the fragmentation or the fall?
There's a lot of reasons why Rome fell but that's not really why. Rome fell, to put it simply, because of political instability mixed with a lot of bad luck, mixed with increased pressure from more organized barbarian entitities pressing on the frontier and forced to find shelter across the border due to climatic changes and to escape Hunnic expansionism. Rome's army was perhaps better quality wise in the 4th and 5th century than in previous eras. They had no more reliance on barbarians than they had on non-Roman auxillaries in previous centuries. Reliance on, say, the Franks to defend the Rhine frontier paid off quite well: the Franks defended the frontier mostly very well. Even in the crossings of 406-407, Frankish forces came very close to defeating the forces attempting to cross, only failing when reinforcements arrived to turn the tide against them. Now onto why the west fell...

Basically, the west was hit with a quick succession of body blows, rather than one or two knockout punches. Towards the end of the 4th century, western forces lost 2 civil wars in quick succession to Theodosius, hurting their manpower. Stilicho, being half Vandal, would have trouble with the Roman senate basically out to get him, and so he faced trouble with getting money and men to bulk up his numbers. Then you have the Rhine crossings in December 406, and Stilicho's inability to deal with it due to Constantine III crossing into Gaul and then basically letting them into Spain where they ran rampant. Political instability that would result in the next 2 decades aside (fall of Stilicho, sack of Rome,rise of Constantius, his unexpected death, brief civil war and rise of Aetius), Alans and Vandals getting control of Spain (and the Goths moving into Aquitaine) seriously hurt Rome's revenue and further limited their manpower pool. Losing North Africa however was a death blow, since that was the breadbasket and wealthiest province in the empire. With North Africa, the empire could theoretically survive indefinitely. Without North Africa, they were on borrowed time (468 being the last best chance for the west to survive).


But back to the third century, I'll take a shot at it:

-260 CE: Postumus proclaimed emperor. Marches on Italy, defeats and kills Gallienus.

Odenathus, who initially supported Gallienus, gives his public support to Postumus, but Postumus becomes wary of the man who supported his rival
-261: Rhine frontier even weaker now from civil war, facing increased pressure. Postumus moves to try and stabilize Danube frontier first.

262: Postumus killed in battle against the Goths.
-The Praetorian Praefect, Victorinus[1] is proclaimed emperor when the soldiers regroup. A temprorary treaty is patched up with the Goths as he tries to solidify domestic control.
-A usurper arises in the east. Odenathus dutifully crushes the revolt, and is awarded with the title of totius Orientis imperator[2]

264: With a weakened Rhine frontier, Franks resume their raids. [3]Victorinus marches on to that frontier in an attempt to stabalize it.

267: Massive invasion of the Balkans begins by the Goths and Heruli begins. It starts with an Heruli expedition from the black sea ravaging much of Greece. The invaders were defeated at sea, but on land the Romans struggled. They defeated the Heruli and Nessus leading to them coming to terms, but the struggle had only begun.

268: A second Gothic invasion begins, achieving much greater success. After raiding Byzantium, they break into the Aegean and ravage as far south as Rhodes and Crete. Before the emperor can respond, Thessaloniki and Cassandreia are taken[4] and sacked.

-Discontent with Victorinus' failures mount, and his own men murder him on the march to take on the Goths and Heruli. An obscure officer by the name of Claudius (OTL Claudius Gothicus) is proclaimed emperor.

-268: Alemannic and Juthungi raid into Italy defeated by hastily raised force by Aureolos, former officer under Gallienus who had switched sides to Postumus early on. Aureolus is proclaimed emperor by his troops.

269: Claudius fights an indecisive battle with the Goths at Salonica. Dies shortly afterward of the Cyprian Plague. His brother Quintillus is proclaimed emperor with the backing of the officer Aurelian. Quintillus is soon ambushed however by Gothic forces, and suffers a crushing defeat, with Aurelian dying and himself committing suicide after the battle (other narratives say he was assassinated by his own officers).

-The Goths, and Heruli pour into Greece.

270: After a brief sojourn west while Gothicus and Quintillus were tied down in the Balkans, Aureolos heads into the Balkans.
-While fighting Vandals in Pannonia, he learns of an Alemannic and Juthungi invasion of the Po Valley, and quickly heads back into Italy, being ambushed and defeated at Placentia.
-Rome is sacked by Juthungi and Alemannic forces. Aureolos is murdered by his own troops, and an officer named Saturninus[5] is proclaimed emperor. He shortly thereafter chases down and defeats the Juthungi and Alemanni, forcing them back outside of Italy.

271: Roman forces are at this point completely absent from the Balkans. Saturninus' attempts to re-establish control there meet with limited success.
-increased pressure on the Rhine frontier causes MArcianus to be proclaimed emperor. His reign is shortened however by a defeat to the Franks and subsequent murder by his troops, causing a breakthrough on the Rhine frontier.
-governor of Britain, another Claudius, proclaims himself emperor but does not immediately sail to Gaul.

272: Saturninus falls victim to the plague
-Constantius declared emperor in North Africa, sails to Italy and seizes power

273: Franks and other barbarian allies break into Spain once more, pouring into the province a la the barbarians of 406-407.

274: Zenobia seizes Byzantium, ostensibly in support of Constantius against the Goths, but in reality to obtain control of the Bosporous and assist her in repelling Gothic raids on northern Asia Minor.

-Constantius focuses on regaining control of Spain. Achieves some success before arrival of Claudius in Gaul forces him to cut a deal with the Franks as he turned north.

-Salian and Ripaurian Franks partition controlled parts of Hispania between them

276: Hostilities reopen in Spain. Ripaurian Franks begin raiding Balaeric Isles and Numidian coast. Salian Franks dealt decisive defeat and merge with Ripaurian Franks. Constantius settles once more as he turns his attention to Gothic raid into Italy.

278: Franks cross into North Africa. By 280, most of North Africa under their control. The rest falls to them in 284.

288: Gruthungi Goths cross into Italy and defeat Constantius' successor, Quietus. Defeated in turn by Juthungi-Alemannic invasion which takes over Italy.

The Roman empire, aside from holdouts in Spain, Gaul, and Britain, ceases to exist. The Palmyrene Empire led by Zenobia remains a powerful force in the east.

Not sure how plausible all this is, and I'm sure LSCatalina will come on here and assess that, but this is what I could come up with.



[1] He was appointed Praetorian prefect under Postumus's Gallic Empire, so Postumus must have had a high opinion of him-it would make sense for him to appoint an ally like Victorinus to this position in the empire here as well.
[2] similar to OTL
[3] OTL the Franks stopped raiding for a decade after Postumus defeated them in 260 and due to the Gallic empire's stabilizing of the borders. Here, the forces withdrawn by Postumus' march on Italy aren't fully replaced, leading the Franks to try raiding again earlier.
[4] OTL they were close to being taken before news of Claudius Gothicus' arrival prompted them to retreat.
[5] Made up guy.
 
I thought Rome fell because of over expansion and over reliance on Gothic barbarians for protecting the borders? Is there a difference between the fragmentation or the fall?

It's really far more complicated that that, and nobody entierly agrees on which factors were really decisive. Can I suggest you to read on this thread?

The general agreement focus on a net of factors.
Classical imperial structures weakened by epidemics, climatic changes, Barbarians getting out of Roman control and raiding the empire and political crisis.
The IIIrd century was really a bad time for the Empire, but it did managed to overcome. On a ATL viewpoint, it's probably the more interesting place for having Rome falling earlier.

That the Empire managed to overcome the crisis doesn't mean it didn't have to deal with consequences : the lack of manpower in countryside (that would be a thing up to VIIIth century) provoked important societal and fiscal changes, going in the way of a more formally structued society during the Dominate.

Eventually, the problems with fiscality in a period of geopolitical crisis, the latter allowing Barbarians people either to movin to escape Hunnic hegemony, or simply to raid Romania, really were a blew. While ERE beneficied from having Asian and African provinces spared on this regard, WRE lost a lot of its income, and when Carthage was lost, they were toast.

As for the Barbarisation of the Army...yes, and no.
See, when we say Roman army was Barbarised, we think about an ethnic and cultural change. It wasn't the case. Barbarians at this point were fairly romanised (at least the ones present on the limes since a long time already, such as western germanic leagues or Danubian groups. To say nothing about groups of refugees or deportees settled in the Empire since the IIIrd) and entering the army was itself an important tool of romanisation.
It was, if you prefer, in the continuity of the auxiliary feature (not that auxiliary feature or roman part of the army ceased to be : you had a really important circonscription part up to the Vth century, when the imperium ceased to be able to pay for it and to maintain it).

Rome's army was perhaps better quality wise in the 4th and 5th century than in previous eras.
IMO, probably better or at least more adapted than during the IIIrd, even if the Augustean army was a long disappeared thing by the Marcomannic Wars. The main issue wasn't their efficiency or numbers, but that it relied on a political-military and societal-fiscal system to works. Strokes of bad luck could be really problematic on the long run, and Rome suffered this in the Vth century (while I think the anti-Barbarian cultural features and strong political factions, essentially blaming the more important weight of Barbarians having important fonctions in the Roman state, did prevented to overcome this crisis, at least partially)




-260 CE: Postumus proclaimed emperor. Marches on Italy, defeats and kills Gallienus.
You'd need to either nerf Gallienus even more, or to increase Postumus' ressources there. His main focus was on the Rhine border and its defense (would it be only because it was why it was made imperator in first place) and it would take some earlier changes to allow your PoD.
Far from impossible, mind you, but need some work.

-261: Rhine frontier even weaker now from civil war, facing increased pressure. Postumus moves to try and stabilize Danube frontier first.
There I think would be really more hard. I repeat myself a lot, I know : but his power base was on the Rhine border (as the origin of his main supporters points out). Focusing on Danube would really, really damage his legitimacy and power.
Having simply Posthumus being killed by an anti-Gallic faction or in another way would make more background sense.

Overall I've only two issues with the general plan, that aren't putting in question your main point.
- The provincial passivity.
Before the Domintian reforms, you had more of a political regional solidarity, expressed for exemple by the very regular "regional" revolts from Danubian/Rheinish/Illyrian military uprising supported by local elites.
You should at least have regional "self-defense" popping more around, especially if the imperial powers simply fail to do his job, with huge consequences on the political organisation (especially with the emperors' waltz)

- Barbarians "Scramble for Romania".
The Vth romano-german foedi/kingdoms was, IMO, made much more possible by the imperium official transmission that allowed the collaboration of roman elites and romanized Barbarian elites as much than earlier cultural and political integration of the former.
In the IIIrd century, while this romanization exists culturally, it doesn't as much politically-wise, and the Barbarians aren't yet reinforced as IOTL by the addition of several groups (including many provincial Romans, roman deserters, and whatever crossed the road of these Barbarian peoples).
It's likely that Barbarians will cut themselves a realm over Romania, at the very least on provincial borders (as Goths in Moesia) but I'm less sure about going far deeper in more limited political and numerical possibilities.

With the former point, I'd think (but I should really work more than just "thinking" there, granted) that you'd end with a mix of border kingdoms (more or less supported by provincial Roman entities, that may as well end as tributatry, IVth century style) and Roman "duchies" with a strong Barbarian presence (think Stlilico/Ricimer style, only with a more important Barbarian identity), divided while the imperium fall. (Also Persians taking their share in the East).

Not sure how plausible all this is, and I'm sure LSCatalina will come on here and assess that, but this is what I could come up with.
Hey, no need to make me a reputation of "guys that comes in the threads and assess things".
It's not because it's entierly true that you shouldn't let the new guy deal with my previsible posts himself.:D

And that's CatIlina, damnit!:mad:
 
Thanks guys!

Just recently was learning about Rome in class, but we pretty much skipped the entire Roman Empire (its community college)
 
You'd need to either nerf Gallienus even more, or to increase Postumus' ressources there. His main focus was on the Rhine border and its defense (would it be only because it was why it was made imperator in first place) and it would take some earlier changes to allow your PoD.
Far from impossible, mind you, but need some work.
YEah, I knew this was a massive stretch because Postumus' whole reason for being made emperor was to defend the Rhine. I guess if a timeline were to be made, the details could be filled in.

There I think would be really more hard. I repeat myself a lot, I know : but his power base was on the Rhine border (as the origin of his main supporters points out). Focusing on Danube would really, really damage his legitimacy and power.

That's true.
Having simply Posthumus being killed by an anti-Gallic faction or in another way would make more background sense.
This would work better.

Overall I've only two issues with the general plan, that aren't putting in question your main point.
- The provincial passivity.
Before the Domintian reforms, you had more of a political regional solidarity, expressed for exemple by the very regular "regional" revolts from Danubian/Rheinish/Illyrian military uprising supported by local elites.
You should at least have regional "self-defense" popping more around, especially if the imperial powers simply fail to do his job, with huge consequences on the political organisation (especially with the emperors' waltz)
Noted. I agree mostly.
- Barbarians "Scramble for Romania".
The Vth romano-german foedi/kingdoms was, IMO, made much more possible by the imperium official transmission that allowed the collaboration of roman elites and romanized Barbarian elites as much than earlier cultural and political integration of the former.
In the IIIrd century, while this romanization exists culturally, it doesn't as much politically-wise, and the Barbarians aren't yet reinforced as IOTL by the addition of several groups (including many provincial Romans, roman deserters, and whatever crossed the road of these Barbarian peoples).
It's likely that Barbarians will cut themselves a realm over Romania, at the very least on provincial borders (as Goths in Moesia) but I'm less sure about going far deeper in more limited political and numerical possibilities.

With the former point, I'd think (but I should really work more than just "thinking" there, granted) that you'd end with a mix of border kingdoms (more or less supported by provincial Roman entities, that may as well end as tributatry, IVth century style) and Roman "duchies" with a strong Barbarian presence (think Stlilico/Ricimer style, only with a more important Barbarian identity), divided while the imperium fall. (Also Persians taking their share in the East).
This is true as well. Was the Palmyrene Empire too weak to stand up to Persia permanently on its own?

Hey, no need to make me a reputation of "guys that comes in the threads and assess things".
It's not because it's entierly true that you shouldn't let the new guy deal with my previsible posts himself.:D
Well you're like the Basileus Giorgios of Roman threads. :p

And that's CatIlina, damnit!:mad:
sorry, I always spell that wrong-mostly because when I think of the Roman Catiline I always spell it with an "a" too. :eek:
 
Thanks guys!

Just recently was learning about Rome in class, but we pretty much skipped the entire Roman Empire (its community college)
No problem. I always thought the third century was fascinating and had great potential for a very interesting alternate history.
 
This is true as well. Was the Palmyrene Empire too weak to stand up to Persia permanently on its own?
Frankly, I don't really know...I'd tend to say they'd have an hard time at least, but I suppose Palmyre could pull an ERE and stand its ground if it expand more by benefitting from Roman chaotic fall.

Well you're like the Basileus Giorgios of Roman threads. :p
While it hurt my ego deeply, I'm more interested in Late Antiquity : once going in classical Rome, if we past Gaul, Vercingetorix and Astérix; I'm more at loss :)
 
Postumus?

Simply put, Postumus would not march on Rome or Gallienus unless under extreme circumstances.

He went out of his way to avoid a pitched battle between their two armies, and even politely declined Gallienus's invitation to single combat.

Postumus is a very enigmatic and interesting character, which is why I started a TL on him. His goals were straightforward: defend the Rhine frontier and protect his people, the Gallo-Romans. His powerbase was in Gaul, where he minted his own coins (of more value than the coins in Rome), and maintained his own Senate and Praetorian Guard.

In other words, Postumus has no real reason to invade Rome. He even had a chance at annexing Mediolanum and other surrounding areas, but for whatever reason he did not take advantage of that. It would have given him a good place to march onto Rome.

TL;DR Postumus would not march on Rome because he did not have huge Imperial ambitions. Odeanathus, however, is much more likely to have marched on Rome. A POD where he survives his potential assassination, inflicts a crushing defeat on the Persians would be good, because it would give a huge amount of prestige and popular support.
 
TL;DR Postumus would not march on Rome because he did not have huge Imperial ambitions. Odeanathus, however, is much more likely to have marched on Rome. A POD where he survives his potential assassination, inflicts a crushing defeat on the Persians would be good, because it would give a huge amount of prestige and popular support.
I don't see why. Odenathus's extraordinary command was granted him by the emperor and he was essentially de facto ruler of the east with imperial backing. More importantly, he's not Roman (even if Palmyra's elites may have been granted Roman citizenship) and has a lot on his plate managing affairs in the east. His support would immediately evaporate in the west, and like I said, he has no good reason to go west. Even Zenobia, who was actually for all intents and purposes in rebellion against the empire, had no intent on moving outside of her wealthy powerbase.

While everything you said about Postumus is certainly true, it still stands it was an eventual goal. I can only assume that there were some internal matters that prevented him from marching on Italy when Gallienus died that we simply have no information on-the possibility is certainly there, given how things exploded in the Gallic Empire in 269. I have my doubts that his murder was as spontaneous as as presented-the fact that he had a usurper proclaimed against him in the first place shows that there may have been discontent beneath the surface already, and perhaps the refusal to allow his troops to sack Mogontiacum was merely the final straw in the mind of the troops. It's a shame we don't have more sources to go off of for this period.
 
I wonder if anyone thought of this, because there are so many ideas on how to try and keep the Roman Empire alive. But what would it take to make it fall earlier?

Your challenge, should you take it, is to make the Roman Empire fall some time in the 3rd century AD.

Preferably with a POD before or during the 3rd century, otherwise you have free reign on your POD.
Well, you could have the Seljuks take Constantinople instead of the Ottomans. That wouldn't be 3rd century, but it WOULD be earlier.


Oh. You meant the WESTERN Empire...:mad:

Repeat after me. The Roman Empire survived until 1453.
 
Well, you could have the Seljuks take Constantinople instead of the Ottomans. That wouldn't be 3rd century, but it WOULD be earlier.


Oh. You meant the WESTERN Empire...:mad:

Repeat after me. The Roman Empire survived until 1453.

...T-the Roman Empire s-survived until 1453...

(Seriously though, the EASTERN roman empire wasn't a thing, even when Constantinople was first created in 330 AD)

330 AD, which is not the 3rd Century
 
Top