Challenge: Keep the Pax Romana going until at least 300 AD

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

In our timeline, the Pax Romana lasted from 27 BC to 180 AD (or 225, take your pick), from the Ascension of Augustus to the death of Marcus Aurelius. This was the peak of Roman power and influence and lasted until the turmoil filled Crisis of the Third Century.

Your challenge is (with a POD of lets say, the Battle of Actium in 31 BC) to keep that initial period of relative peace and prosperity going until 300 AD, at which point have fun coming up with ways to crush, dismember, maim, bankrupt or otherwise screw with the Roman Empire.
 
Okay, so the third century Crisis is going to happen, the thing is it was made way worse by the inability of an emperor to remain on the throne for long. So I think you can keep the empire from falling apart in the third century with a long lived and competent ruler-this won't butterfly a lot of the crisis, that is the economic hardship, disease, and external pressures, but it should get rid of the splitting up of the empire and the breakdown of order and near collapse of the Roman state.

Of course to survive the whole crisis you'd need two of these long lived emperors-so presumably the first would have a son who is an adult by the time he dies and is supported by the military (so he has to have some serious military experience).

I'm not sure how likely this is, and it certianly won't be the Pax Romana that we knew until the late second century, but I could still see some historians make a case for the Pax Romana lasting through the third century.
 

Deleted member 67076

Okay, so the third century Crisis is going to happen, the thing is it was made way worse by the inability of an emperor to remain on the throne for long. So I think you can keep the empire from falling apart in the third century with a long lived and competent ruler-this won't butterfly a lot of the crisis, that is the economic hardship, disease, and external pressures, but it should get rid of the splitting up of the empire and the breakdown of order and near collapse of the Roman state.

Of course to survive the whole crisis you'd need two of these long lived emperors-so presumably the first would have a son who is an adult by the time he dies and is supported by the military (so he has to have some serious military experience).

I'm not sure how likely this is, and it certianly won't be the Pax Romana that we knew until the late second century, but I could still see some historians make a case for the Pax Romana lasting through the third century.
How come the Crisis is inevitable? Was the Principate that much of a timebomb?

Is there anyway to deal with the economic crises and external pressures? (maybe nip the Sassanids in the bud or at least neuter them?)

Would it be possible to delay the Crisis as well, or institute some reforms that ensure more stability in the Roman state so as to keep the provinces from breaking away?
 
How come the Crisis is inevitable? Was the Principate that much of a timebomb?

Is there anyway to deal with the economic crises and external pressures? (maybe nip the Sassanids in the bud or at least neuter them?)

Would it be possible to delay the Crisis as well, or institute some reforms that ensure more stability in the Roman state so as to keep the provinces from breaking away?
Well I'm talking about the economic, climatic, and disease effects (aside from devaluation). Some mixture of that happening in the third century I think was outside of the control of Rome.

You did bring up an important contributor to the collapse of the empire during the third century though: The Sassanids (Peter Heather is pretty big on their importance and I agree wholeheartedly). Nip them in the bud and that goes a long long way.
 
You did bring up an important contributor to the collapse of the empire during the third century though: The Sassanids (Peter Heather is pretty big on their importance and I agree wholeheartedly). Nip them in the bud and that goes a long long way.

He also sees changes among "barbarians" as important thing since the tribes started coalescing into lerger entities that were able to, at least locally, challenge Roman authority.

I think Roman problem was that it was too big to respond effectivelly to multiple challenges on the borders from central point and splitting the authority (or giving local commanders or governors more authority) allowed them to challenge central authority. I think establishing solid dynasty that would be widely accepted as legitimate and not challenged by those who felt they can would go a long way.
 
Top