Aurelian vs Trajan

If Aurelian had lived longer, he would without a doubt be classified as one of the greatest roman emperors ever imo. He still outclasses Trajan in my book. I mean the guy was the restorer of worlds (resitutor orbis). When Aurelian set his mind to something, it got done. Just ask those living in the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires. I have a feeling he would have been successful against the Persians had he not been assassinated (oddly enough, it was based off a false report that he was going to kill most of his officers, spread by a man who screwed up and was fearing punishment, that got him assassinated. Needless to say, when everyone else found out, that one guy didn't live much longer).
 
Let's say that Aurelian had lived a long life, 15 years longer than OTL. What difference would it have made for the empire?
Would he have succeded with conquests or social reforms that did'nt happen in OTL?
 
I'm going to say Aurelian. Trajan inherited the empire at it's near zenith, Aurelian inherited an empire in shambles. Both men were able to complete Herculean tasks.

Had Aurelian survived, monotheism would be more prevalent sooner, and perhaps Christianity would be side-lined for the Cult of Sol Invictus. With an heir presumptive, there could even be a new Imperial dynasty. His attempts at fiscal reforms were so-so, I doubt Aurelian would be as drastic as Diocletian. An interesting what if, to say the least.
 
Aurelian's reign, though short, was an incredibly important step in the resolution of the Crisis of the Third Century - the political fragmentation of the Empire was reversed, the external threats were deflected, the Empire's political stability was superficially restored. But it was only a single step - whether Aurelian could have executed the necessary reforms and restructuring of the Empire that Diocletian and Constantine did is just a maybe: credit for that work, and the 'greatness' it brings in the eyes of posterity, has to lie with the latter two rather than with Aurelian.

As for Aurelian vs. Trajan, I don't see a basis for comparison.
 
A Roman world with a very weak Christianity because of Sol Invictus would butterfly away a lot of later history in my opinion.
 
Let's say that Aurelian had lived a long life, 15 years longer than OTL. What difference would it have made for the empire?
Would he have succeded with conquests or social reforms that did'nt happen in OTL?

The Cult of Sol Invictus becoming more popular is one big thing. The continued decline of Rome in importance in the Roman Empire. Aurelian wouldn't pull a Diocletian though for sure and set up a tetrarchy. He was a one man wrecking ball, and had no problem running across the empire from problem to problem and personally seeing to it that it was extinguished.

The move to 1,000 man legions is probably going to take a little slower. IMO Diocletian just made official policy what was already going on: legions were operating more and more in smaller and faster vexellatios (if that's how you spell it) which were more efficient.
 

girld22

Banned
Personally id go Aurelian because hes kick ass. That guy should have recieved the title the great puts a lot of leaders to shame.
 
Top