Crisis of the Third Century much worse

[Burton K Wheeler]

After the Roman emperor Alexander Severus was killed fighting the Persians in 235, the increasingly fragile empire collapsed, in what became known as the Crisis of the Third Century. Following a period of civil war, the empire split into three parts, the "Gallic Empire" of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, the "Palmyrene Empire" of the east, and the "Roman Empire" based on Italy. Numerous barbarians on Rome's frontiers took advantage of the chaos, until Claudius II and Aurelian defeated the Goths at Naissus, leading the way for a series of military emperors to reunite the empire.
The empire following the crisis (known as the 'Dominate' from the new title of the emperors) was totally different from the preceding 'Principate,' and many of the foundations for medieval Europe were set, especially under Diocletian.
But what if Naissus had gone the other way and Claudius and Aurelian had died? The empire would almost certainly have disintegrated totally. What would be the long-term effects of three Roman empires and an earlier Dark ages?

 

[Max Sinister]

If Diocletian doesn't die in the chaos, he might take power in the East and build up a kind of early pagan Byzantium. Hard to tell how the christians would do if their religion isn't declared state religion first, but they survived worse.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

When I posted this, I'll admit the Christianity question hadn't even crossed my mind, but you're right, it's very unlikely that all of the Roman world will be Christianized nearly so successfully. What religions are likely to fill that space?
I've been around this board long enough to know the Byzantine question would pop up right away. Diocletian is probably not going to be successful without Claudius and Aurelius to build on. And, being Illyrian by background, if he took over any peice of the empire, it would be the Italian part.
Zenobia, to me, is a more interesting historical figure. The question is, if Aurelian hadn't defeated her, could her Palmyrene empire have survived without falling into the hands of either the Sassanids or the other Romans?
Rome is doubtful, I see both the Gallic and Italian halves falling into the hands of a variety of little warring states, with both Roman and barbarian rule. But the Sassanids at this time are pretty dangerous.
Another couple things. How will the Migration Period look without a unified Rome to challenge the barbarians? What will be the ultimate fate of Islam and its interaction with the Persians and Palmyrenes?

 

[stevep]

When I posted this, I'll admit the Christianity question hadn't even crossed my mind, but you're right, it's very unlikely that all of the Roman world will be Christianized nearly so successfully. What religions are likely to fill that space?
I've been around this board long enough to know the Byzantine question would pop up right away. Diocletian is probably not going to be successful without Claudius and Aurelius to build on. And, being Illyrian by background, if he took over any peice of the empire, it would be the Italian part.
Zenobia, to me, is a more interesting historical figure. The question is, if Aurelian hadn't defeated her, could her Palmyrene empire have survived without falling into the hands of either the Sassanids or the other Romans?
Rome is doubtful, I see both the Gallic and Italian halves falling into the hands of a variety of little warring states, with both Roman and barbarian rule. But the Sassanids at this time are pretty dangerous.
Another couple things. How will the Migration Period look without a unified Rome to challenge the barbarians? What will be the ultimate fate of Islam and its interaction with the Persians and Palmyrenes?

It might actually fare better. I get the general impression that the most important cause for the collapse of the empire was that it had got into such a desperate state that the bulk of the people didn't consider it worth perserving. Especially in the period of the latter empire with high taxes, inflation, the growing indiscipline of the army and restrictions on peoples lives it does not seem to have been a pleasant place for most people to live. Coupled with the rise of Christianity and presecution of non-Christians probably meaning a lot of those in the west welcomed the invaders. Its famously said that under Odovacar and then Theodoric and the Ostrogoths Italy was more stable and better ruled than it had been for about a centrury before.

If you had had three successor states and they hadn't squabbled too much they might have been more capable of giving a better deal to their populations and hence been more successful in terms of economics and social support. Might still have had problems with the Huns but then they were checked by a coalition of powers that were arguably much wesker than say the Gaullic empire could have put together.

Think the big problem would have been avoiding attempts by powerful rulers to 're-unite the empire'. It had been a single state that long that division probably seemed highly unnatural and also most rulers would have felt more comfortable and secure as the sole emperor. However, if that had occurred it might have enabled a period of greater stability and most of the relatiively small numbers of Germans being absorbed more successfully.

Steve

 

[Keenir]

When I posted this, I'll admit the Christianity question hadn't even crossed my mind, but you're right, it's very unlikely that all of the Roman world will be Christianized nearly so successfully. What religions are likely to fill that space?

why does anything have to "fill the space"? couldn't there just be several fair-sized faiths in the place of one state faith?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

The best case scenario for the Italian Empire is that it improves its administration and gets its case just together enough to defend itself from both the barbarian hordes and the other fragments of Rome (the "Byzantine Scenario" suggested by Max Sinister). In all likelihood, it would probably be the most appealing target for all around and wind up divided as spoils of war. This would give Palmyra a chance to move into the Greek-speaking parts of Rome, as well.
I can't really predict what the fate of the "Gallic Empire" would be. Probably further disintegration into Iberian, Gaulish, and British military dictatorships, and possible. The need for defense would probably lead Roman warlords to invite in barbarian warriors for assistance, with the results witnessed in OTL Britain two centuries later.
As for religion, I don't see any form of religious unity for Europe. Without a Roman church to unify doctrine, a dozen opposed brands of Christianity will appear, similar to the Arian/Athanasian split of OTL but worse. I imagine a form of Mazdaism or Manicheanism to be the most likely religion of Palmyra, but I'm not sure.
In my mind, Palmyra is the most interesting and important factor in this scenario, and I'd love to hear someone's ideas of what would happen if Zenobia's rule survived.

 

[MerryPrankster]

why does anything have to "fill the space"? couldn't there just be several fair-sized faiths in the place of one state faith?

Possibly. However, many of the other "competitor religions" were poor competitors owing to their elitist nature--Mithraism, for example, would not admit women or non-elite men.

I think the East is going Christian regardless--by the time of Constantine, Egypt was solidly Christian, as were a few other places.

However, IIRC Christianity was not particularly widespread in Britain and some other parts West.

 

[Faeelin]

I think the East is going Christian regardless--by the time of Constantine, Egypt was solidly Christian, as were a few other places.
.

For what it's worth, Zenobia either supported Manichaeanism, was a follower of Mani, or may have been Jewish.

Muahaha!

 

[Faeelin]

Possibly. However, many of the other "competitor religions" were poor competitors owing to their elitist nature--Mithraism, for example, would not admit women or non-elite men.

What was wrong with Paganism?

 

[Keenir]

What was wrong with Paganism?

for one, its a catch-all term, meaning simplly "non-Christians".

 

[Iñaki]

Hmm, first of all this would be an interesting scenario, I love also the character of Zenobia (in our history is very difficult to see women that rule great states and when this happens I feel a fascination about this women rulers -Zenobia for example, but also Artemisia of Halicarnasus that was queen of Caria and commanded personally his own contingent of ships in the side of the perses during the battle of Salamina, Cleopatra queen of Egypt that almost with his roman husband Marcus Antonius transforms the east in a kind of egyptian-roman empire and some others), in fact in Changing the times there is a short scenario about a succesful Palmira empire http://athens.dnstraffic.net/~changing/samples/0to9/roma_finis.htm.

Well after making some propaganda about these magnificent women (and Zenobia was a very beautiful women apart of a great ruler -some kind of Angelina Jolie of that time but with the politic skills of Margaret Thatcher -) commenting the possible scenario or scenarios we have forget in these posts an actor very important and precisely the actor that made possible this scenario: the goths, after the victory at Naissus and the situation of chaos in the empire with the division and rebellions that originated the yet said situation of three empires the goths (in this case the visigoths) would have a very easy task in form a kingdom within the Roman Empire: surely in the region of Thracia-Moesia and could be Greece (in this case all depends of the possibilities of resistence in Greece and the manouvers of the goths) an even trying to pass to Anatolia and besieging Byzantium, the sure thing is that at least a visigoth kingdom would be formed in the region of Thracia-Moesia, possibily the goths would be with the time romanized -or more civilized if you prefer this word instead of civilized- the importance of this would be great, although Greece was at the end free of goths the presence of this gothic kingdom in Thracia-Moesia would be a hard charge for the roman faction that try to control the balkans (and I suppose only Greece, after the disaster in Naissus in TTL I think that little roman rulers would want a direct confrontation with the goths), the presence of the goths also would weakened the position of the romans in Anatolia (and naturally there is also the option of a possible goth expansion in Anatolia) this would come in the worse moment with Palmira being independent a possible expansion of Palmira in Anatolia (in OTL Palmira controlled Egypt, Palestine, Syria and southern Anatolia -more or less until Caesarea-) with the anatolian roman garrison having to watch the goths would can bring a relative easy conquest of the most part of Anatolia by Zenobia.

Respect to the Galic Empire, the name of galic could bring to confusion to some, although Galic was an adequate name for an empire that had his center in the Galia we have to not forget that the rulers considered them as authentic romans, so although had a separate empire, in fact the rulers considered themself as romans that by the circunstances of the anarchy had decided to organize his own empire to defend better against the barbarians and to administrate better the lands governed by them that by a distant ruler in Rome but with the chaos far worse that in OTL the Galic Empire could attempt a march for conquest Rome and Italy -so making the Galic Empire a Roman Empire or if you prefers Galo-Roman Empire (surely if this option is used and made it succesful we have two capitals -Rome and Treveris that would permit to watch the two principal menaces for this new empire, Treveris to watch franks and saxons, Rome to watch this interesting and dangerous new goth kingdom in Thracia-Moesia).

By last another component of the equation would be the attitude in the future of the Sassanid Empire, they had proved to be an authentic superpotence in the Oriens capturing the roman emperor Valerian and showing all that Sassanid Empire was an empire very different than the Parth Empire, a lot of stronger than the parths, so for the moment Palmira could have some peace moments but it is clear that in the future Zenobia and succesors have to make possible a strong state that at least could develop a system of fortifications and troops so strong as Rome could develop in the fourth century to get maintain the sassanids out of the Palmira empire.

 

[Faeelin]

for one, its a catch-all term, meaning simplly "non-Christians".

And that's what I mean.

Perhaps something organized along the lines that Julian the Apostate tried.

 

[LordKalvan]

And that's what I mean.

Perhaps something organized along the lines that Julian the Apostate tried.

Wasn't it a very elitist revisitation of the pagan ideals? I doubt very much that it might have made an impact on the bulk of the population, while I agree it might have been quite ok with the educated portion of the population.
IMHO, the success of christianity is due to the simplicity of the message (ok, quite soon it became much more complicated, in particular with regards to the nature of Christ, but the impact was made) as well as to the promise of a reward in the after-life (which, for opposite reasons, was a seller with both the elites and the masses)

 

[Smaug]

Mithraism might have been a player.

But what if Rome had decided on 3 consuls, rather than two. This might have prevented the wars between East and West. It might have encouraged the various Emperors to cooperate and and set the tone for better managed government, and for the later possibility that the Empire might have broken 3 ways.

In my opinion, Rome didn't respect the needs of the far flung provinces, even when they split them up. Perhaps a three-way division of power would keep the people happier until the inevitable split, and prepare the people for the new political divisions.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I don't see any kind of amicable relations between the various "Roman Empires". Remember, unlike OTL, where the Empire was divided for administrative reasons, the Gallic Empire was formed by rebellion. Both the Gallic Empire and Rome proper believe they have claim to all Roman territory. The best that could happen is that the two agree to stop fighting, but any agreement about borders will have to wait for years.

 

[Faeelin]

Wasn't it a very elitist revisitation of the pagan ideals? I doubt very much that it might have made an impact on the bulk of the population, while I agree it might have been quite ok with the educated portion of the population.

Not to revive a dead thread, but....

A thought occurred to me. This is still early in the Sassanid Empire, and if they can overrun Palmyra (I'm not convinced, but let's say they can), perhaps Zoroastrianism becomes open to converts?

Gives the Light House of Alexandria a whole new significance, doesn't it?

 

[Massis]

After the Roman emperor Alexander Severus was killed fighting the Persians in 235, the increasingly fragile empire collapsed, in what became known as the Crisis of the Third Century. Following a period of civil war, the empire split into three parts, the "Gallic Empire" of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, the "Palmyrene Empire" of the east, and the "Roman Empire" based on Italy. Numerous barbarians on Rome's frontiers took advantage of the chaos, until Claudius II and Aurelian defeated the Goths at Naissus, leading the way for a series of military emperors to reunite the empire.
The empire following the crisis (known as the 'Dominate' from the new title of the emperors) was totally different from the preceding 'Principate,' and many of the foundations for medieval Europe were set, especially under Diocletian.
But what if Naissus had gone the other way and Claudius and Aurelian had died? The empire would almost certainly have disintegrated totally. What would be the long-term effects of three Roman empires and an earlier Dark ages?

Essentialy what happened from 410 AD onwards would have happened from 270 AD instead.
Western regions taken over by pretenders to the throne.
Italy probably ruled by a Gothic regime, like that of Theodoric in 490 AD.
The east would have survived.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Not to revive a dead thread, but....

A thought occurred to me. This is still early in the Sassanid Empire, and if they can overrun Palmyra (I'm not convinced, but let's say they can), perhaps Zoroastrianism becomes open to converts?

Gives the Light House of Alexandria a whole new significance, doesn't it?

Or if Palmyra becomes a Sassanid client to fend off the Eastern Romans.

 

[Homer]

At that time, the Roman empire was stronger then 200 years later. It didn't suffer major invasions by barbarians yet, nor a century of inflation and economic downturn. Of course, this could be lost within years due to war between the states. But on the other side, the Gallic union would be a lot stronger then any Western successor-state that evolved after the Western Empire ended.

It would be very interesting to see if a partitioned Roman world could survive and how that would look like.

I'd say further development would depend on the degree of inner-Roman wars. Would all these states be able to survive - even survive invasions by barbaric forces, like we saw some periods in chinese history with several states fighting each other and barbarians as well - or would they exhaust themselves in inner fights without achieving a union, so that the Roman world would fall as OTL - only at an earlier time?