Could an Even Worse Crisis of the 3rd Century lead to a more permanent divided Rome?

The Crisis of the Third Century, while not exactly a subject I'm overly familiar, is an intriguing case that I actually want to learn about. The crisis as we all knew, spawned three states, a Gallic Empire (who controlled Britannia, Gallia & Hispania) seeking to conquer Rome, a possibly weak Palmyrene Empire (who controlled Egypt, the Levant and the Interior of Anatolia), and a Rump Roman Empire.

However what if say Aurelian and Diocletian failed to successfully defeat the rival states (more so in the case of Gallia than Palmyra), and reform the Empire to survive for the next 2 centuries.

Basically long story short, how can the Roman Empire at its height remain divided between the three for an extended period of time?
 
I'm not sure how much longer you could keep the Gallic Empire and Roman Empire separate. Both had as their end goal of uniting the empire, it's just that Posthumous realized that immediately marching on Italy would defeat his whole purpose of revolting-that being that the Rhine frontier was getting little support and was teetering on the brink of being blown fully open. Marching on Italy would have only exacerbated that problem. It was an eventual goal of his once he stabalized the frontier completely and sensed a weakness in the Roman Empire.

As for Palmyra...this is difficult as well. Once either the Gallic Empire or Roman Empire emerges victorious in the west, the winner's going to come storming east. The best case scenario for Zenobia is that that inevitable conclusion is delayed as long as possible. But the longer it is delayed, the better chance the Roman Empire stabilizes the Danube frontier (the splitting of the empire was a blessing in disguise I think. It allowed the legitimate Roman Emperor to focus solely on the Danube frontier, the Gallic Emperor to focus on the Rhine frontier, and Palmyra to focus on stabilizing the Persian frontier). So really, I think it will just be a matter of luck to have the Palmyrene Empire survive.


Now, if you really want a worse third century...don't have the Roman Empire split. As I mentioned above, the split was a blessing in disguise, and it may have been what saved the empire from total collapse. If it doesn't split, you'll continue to see a Roman Emperor struggling with the Sassanians completely overruning the eastern frontier, the Goths breaking open the Danube frontier further, and the Rhine frontier possibly collapsing (I mean, even IOTL the Franks raided as far south as Spain).

So how do you do this? Don't have Odenathus get lucky in the east and defeat the Persians returning from their decisive victory over Valerian, or have Shapur accept his gifts he sent him to placate the Persians, and he won't throw in his lot with Rome. Have someone more ambitious and less rational than Posthumous be in command of the Rhine legions and and declare himself emperor-he continues the time honored third century tradition of immediately going to fight a civil war. The cycle continues in other words as the Roman Empire falls apart.
 
I overall agree with Slydessertfox : the political divisions weren't representing some kind of independentism, but political realism. Usurpers weren't able to get to Rome, Emperors in Rome let Usurpers alone as for focusing on more pressing matters, etc.

All the "three empires" were deeply Roman in their mindset and goal : so-called Gallic emperors were relativly unlucky Roman usurpers; Palymrenian empire was based on "Dux Oriens" title and legitimacy.

I'm not sure, though, that the absence of division would really be the key there. The cycle of divisions and civil war for imperialship itself may lead to some sort of division of the Empire, half between diocese and WRE/ERE. Meaning duces responsibles of borders, not unlike Odenathus' power : totius Orientis imperator, in charge of all Orient.

Even without a de facto division as IOTL, I think we may see appear regional power with diverse degree of independence, especially military, but not challenging the imperial power whom importance may arguably decline from endless struggles.
 
Top