Can a better division of the Roman Empire be made?

I've always thought that an Augustus should rule directly in Italy, Hispania, Africa and Egypt, with one Caesar watching the Germans based in Gaul, Britannia and Raetia, and another watching the Danube and Persian based in Greece, Illyria, Pannonia, Noricum, Anatolia and Syria. You have one senior emperor in the centre with the power to enforce his rule, and two junior emperors holding the frontiers. Obvious capitals would be Rome for the centre, Trier for the west, and Antioch for the east.

For your East Antioch is a poor capital as it has no reach to the Balkans, it's why OTL Nicomedia then Constantinopolis were chosen.

I would have everything west of Thrace to Central, with Egypt and perhaps both Libyas to the East
 
I've always thought that an Augustus should rule directly in Italy, Hispania, Africa and Egypt, with one Caesar watching the Germans based in Gaul, Britannia and Raetia, and another watching the Danube and Persian based in Greece, Illyria, Pannonia, Noricum, Anatolia and Syria. You have one senior emperor in the centre with the power to enforce his rule, and two junior emperors holding the frontiers. Obvious capitals would be Rome for the centre, Trier for the west, and Antioch for the east.
I see the senior emperor as pretty powerless in this scenario.Apart from holding economic power,this emperor would have very little physical power,given most legions were based in Gaul,Britannia,the Danubes and Syria.The senior emperor probably only has control over four legions plus the Praetorian Guard and the Urban Cohort.IIRC,there's one legion in Hispania,one legion in Africa,two legions in Egypt and no legions at all in Italy.The only military force situated in Italy are the Praetorian Guards plus the Urban Cohorts.
 
For your East Antioch is a poor capital as it has no reach to the Balkans, it's why OTL Nicomedia then Constantinopolis were chosen.

I would have everything west of Thrace to Central, with Egypt and perhaps both Libyas to the East
Nikomedia would probably be a better choice then, or a port city like Ephesus because you could reach Egypt and Syria much faster than by land.

I'd keep everything west of Thrace under the eastern Caesar, because they are the ones who are meant to be holding the frontiers. The central Augustus would need a lot of money and men to enforce his rule (This ties into what you said, darth). Italy, Spain, Africa and Egypt would provide enough money to raise a large army and have the population needed to keep it up to strength.

Under this model, the Roman Empire would remain de facto united because their is only one Augustus. The Caesars are subordinates, like a dukes would be to a king, or a king to an emperor. They are of imperial rank, but they are not emperors in the same manner as the Augustus is. The Roman Army under Constantine had around 400,000 men for the whole empire. I'd allocate 100,000 for the defence of Britain and the Rhine, 140,000 for the defence of the Persian and Danube frontiers, and 160,000 for the garrison of the interior, which would also act as a strategic reserve in the event the frontiers were broken.
 
I see the senior emperor as pretty powerless in this scenario.Apart from holding economic power,this emperor would have very little physical power,given most legions were based in Gaul,Britannia,the Danubes and Syria.The senior emperor probably only has control over four legions plus the Praetorian Guard and the Urban Cohort.IIRC,there's one legion in Hispania,one legion in Africa,two legions in Egypt and no legions at all in Italy.The only military force situated in Italy are the Praetorian Guards plus the Urban Cohorts.
Those areas have the population necessary to support more legions. If you could station one legion in Mauretania, two in Africa, four in Egypt, three in Hispania, and five in Italy, plus the Praetorian Guard/Scholae Palatinae, you'd get 70,000 men alone (Assuming each legion has an average of 5,000 men). Add in auxiliaries and the urban cohorts and you could easily reach 160,000 men or more.
 
Those areas have the population necessary to support more legions. If you could station one legion in Mauretania, two in Africa, four in Egypt, three in Hispania, and five in Italy, plus the Praetorian Guard/Scholae Palatinae, you'd get 70,000 men alone (Assuming each legion has an average of 5,000 men). Add in auxiliaries and the urban cohorts and you could easily reach 160,000 men or more.
But does this leave the Rhine,the Danube and the East poorly defended or are you raising newer legions?
 
No, because you have ten legions and attached auxiliaries along the Rhine and in Britannia and fourteen legions plus auxiliaries along the Danube and in Syria.
So this is similar to what Constantine did in real life with him detaching troops from the frontiers to form an imperial escort army and the comitatenses?
 
So this is similar to what Constantine did in real life with him detaching troops from the frontiers to form an imperial escort army and the comitatenses?
Essentially, yes. Think of like the difference between the Byzantine themes and the tagmata. You have dedicated troops watching the frontiers and acting as local garrisons, and then a large reserve in the interior.
 
Let's assume we have a Western Caesar with Britannia-Gaul-Hispania, an Eastern Caesar with Thrace-Anatolia-Syria-Egypt-ELibya, and the Augustus holding what's left and senior to the other 2.
We've got a roughly stable succession of West>East>Centre by the 350s.

What happens when the Huns hit?
I assume the Foederati idea will still occur - where do these get settled?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Let's assume we have a Western Caesar with Britannia-Gaul-Hispania, an Eastern Caesar with Thrace-Anatolia-Syria-Egypt-ELibya, and the Augustus holding what's left and senior to the other 2.
We've got a roughly stable succession of West>East>Centre by the 350s.

What happens when the Huns hit?
I assume the Foederati idea will still occur - where do these get settled?

Fully depends on the actions of the Caesars in the meantime. A well led Western Empire could fight alongside, stabilize or annex/integrate/assimilate the tribes that Attila displaced - which would render Attila vastly weaker, if poorly led, the West could be hard pressed on the Rhine, and relying on the Centre for support.

If well led, the East could defend against the Sassanids, likely with help from the Centre, but if poorly led, the Centre may have to give all its resources to supporting the East.

If well led, the Centre could grow vastly, and create a strong frontier (perhaps adding territory for strategic depth), If poorly led, the Empire could fragment.

Assuming all things good/average/better - the western Empire would likely be responsible for settling foederati. But if the foederati can be used to prevent Roman territory being depopulated in the first place, then they can stay beyond the borders. Which, IMO, is the best way to use them. Having an Emperor focusing on the West, well aware of his limited resources, but able to use his resources well, would probably find such a policy, even if partially fulfilled by the Centre, the best way to expand/defend his turf. Winter is coming, and if you can make winter less awful, you win the hearts and minds of a lot of tribes.

Regarding the Huns, if the Romans have shown that they're more than capable and willing to fight in Germany, etc
alongside the Foederati, then they become a less tempting meal, and are more agile at defending their European Borders.

They could well decide that the Sassanids were a better target than the larger, stronger, well-organised Romans regardless, and invade them in full force.

But assuming an invasion - probably fought off as per OTL. Perhaps easier with the border forces better led. Crucially, the Earthquake that threw the East into chaos can be ignored by the Centre - who can prevent the devastation of the Balkans.

Even earlier, if the Huns can be prevented from their invasions of the East and Centre in the first instance, which with more troops from the Centre in the Balkans, and the East fortifying Armenia against the Sassanids and others, could be done - I just don't know the numbers of Huns there were in those invasions.

TL;DR - all things going well, the Huns can be repelled without the worst of their devastation. Just don't let them gain non-Roman European Hegemony in the first place.
 
IIRC there was a proposal after the death of Septimius Severus that the two brothers Caracalla and Geta would split the Empire into the European and Asian parts. Geta being the younger was to get the Asian part of the Empire, which was considerably smaller. I cannot recall where his capital was proposed to be, I imagine Antioch. In any event it never happened because Caracalla outmaneuvered and tricked the naive Geta into a meeting without his guards. Caracalla's men hacked him to death in the arms of his mother. You might wish to explore this as a POD, though it will be tricky to maintain the peace I suspect. However if there is a successful precedent, and so long as the Eastern Emperor accepts a junior status then there is potential. While this makes the Western Empire have a larger frontier, it also gives it access to more wealth and arguably the best legions.
 
Top