Developing Two Different Third Century Crisis Scenarios

[John Fredrick Parker]

So here's the idea -- we have two different challenges where we're looking for PoDs between 256 and 269, and then try to develop a basic series of alt events that brings about the scenarios described from there.

• Scenario One -- the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empire, and the "Central" Empire break apart and remain separate, for at minimum six decades (so until the 320's); the Gallic and Palmyrenne Empires, at the very least, continue to successfully fight off barbarian and Sassanid invasions
• Scenario Two -- the "Central" part of the Empire, including Italy, is completely overrun by German invaders; meanwhile, a big chunk of the eastern empire, from Antioch and Edesa to Jerusalem and Arabia (and also possibly Anatolia and Egypt), falls to the Sassanids

Once we have a couple of PoDs and basic scenarios for how they lead to these two outcomes, we can start asking bigger questions, like how they each change history, how they might compare, etc. If I might make a suggestion for a PoD that may work for at least one of them -- what if the the army of Claudius Gothicus was completely devastated at the Battle of Lake Benacus?

Any ideas?

 

[Andristan]

You could have Aurelian get stomped by Zenobia and die or he is killed in a mutiny like with Constantius in the 360s, when he ordered Rhenish troops to the East. This would weaken the empire and allow Italy and the Balkans to be overrun. Plus fighting Zenobia could weaken her so that the Sassanids can try again and conquer Palmyra and the Roman East.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

You could have Aurelian get stomped by Zenobia and die or he is killed in a mutiny like with Constantius in the 360s, when he ordered Rhenish troops to the East. This would weaken the empire and allow Italy and the Balkans to be overrun.

Hell, you could also kill Aurelian earlier than that -- he was at the aforementioned Battle of Lake Benacus in 268.

Plus fighting Zenobia could weaken her so that the Sassanids can try again and conquer Palmyra and the Roman East.

That is a good point as well.

Claudius Gothicus?

I guess if he lived longer, we might not have had Aurelian as emperor.

If he had lived longer, he might have become Restorer of the World -- though that would be a different TL entirely.

You think he could have been another Aurelian?

I mean, it's also possible he doesn't, I suppose.

Actually (why I'm moving this here) -- what do you guys think? If Claudius Gothicus lives, would he be more likely to seek peaceful co-existence with the Gallic and Palmyrenne Empires (giving us Scenario One); or does he seek to do what his lieutenant did OTL (which would be a different topic)?

 

[Domz]

Hell, you could also kill Aurelian earlier than that -- he was at the aforementioned Battle of Lake Benacus in 268.

That is a good point as well.




I mean, it's also possible he doesn't, I suppose.

Actually (why I'm moving this here) -- what do you guys think? If Claudius Gothicus lives, would he be more likely to seek peaceful co-existence with the Gallic and Palmyrenne Empires (giving us Scenario One); or does he seek to do what his lieutenant did OTL (which would be a different topic)?

This is kind of out of my wheelhouse but according to Eastern Roman History: Palmyra was already in open revolt when Claudius Gothicus died. Perhaps it was a good thing that Aurelian came to power when he did (it certainly was one of the best scenarios that could have happened to Rome, aside from Aurelian dying). Also according to Eastern Roman, he seemed to be a competent emperor but the sources have been very biased in favor of him due to later emperors trying to claim him as their ancestor. So therefore doing my own psuedo-standard deviation, I'd expect Claudius Gothicus to achieve at least some of the things Aurelian did but not all (perhaps 60% to 80% of what Aurelian achieved).

Spoiler

 

[Domz]

Wait, do you mean “it was good thing Aurelian ruled when he did, except for the part where he died early”? Or do you mean “it’s a good thing for Rome that Aurelian died early”? Because one of those is significantly more controversial than the other…

The first one.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

This is kind of out of my wheelhouse but according to Eastern Roman History: Palmyra was already in open revolt when Claudius Gothicus died. Perhaps it was a good thing that Aurelian came to power when he did (it certainly was one of the best scenarios that could have happened to Rome, aside from Aurelian dying). Also according to Eastern Roman, he seemed to be a competent emperor but the sources have been very biased in favor of him due to later emperors trying to claim him as their ancestor. So therefore doing my own psuedo-standard deviation, I'd expect Claudius Gothicus to achieve at least some of the things Aurelian did but not all (perhaps 60% to 80% of what Aurelian achieved).

OK, I got around the watching the attached video. I will say, looking it over, it actually looks like having Claudius Gothicus live longer could very well give us Scenario One -- while he was able to rally the army against the Gothic threat and check them, and to take advantage of the Gallic Empire's weakness to retake Spain, he did struggle a little as his forces seemed to tend to squabble among themselves, with factionalism between the cavalry and the infantry creating problems, and he was not able to bring Palmyra back into the fold. And, looking at the reign-lengths of other rulers during the Crisis, I figure six-years-nine-months (the length of Valerian's reign) is reasonable; that would bring his death to around the time of Aurelian's OTL. It also goes without saying, Aurelian himself can die in battle easily enough TTL, taking him out as a factor.

Does this work for everyone? To be thorough in making sure it meets OP criteria -- would you say having Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire hold off against both the Sassanids and the (weakened) Central Empire is plausible? What about the (reduced) Gallic Empire?

 

[Domz]

OK, I got around the watching the attached video. I will say, looking it over, it actually looks like having Claudius Gothicus live longer could very well give us Scenario One -- while he was able to rally the army against the Gothic threat and check them, and to take advantage of the Gallic Empire's weakness to retake Spain, he did struggle a little as his forces seemed to tend to squabble among themselves, with factionalism between the cavalry and the infantry creating problems, and he was not able to bring Palmyra back into the fold. And, looking at the reign-lengths of other rulers during the Crisis, I figure six-years-nine-months (the length of Valerian's reign) is reasonable; that would bring his death to around the time of Aurelian's OTL. It also goes without saying, Aurelian himself can die in battle easily enough TTL, taking him out as a factor.

Does this work for everyone? To be thorough in making sure it meets OP criteria -- would you say having Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire hold off against both the Sassanids and the (weakened) Central Empire is plausible? What about the (reduced) Gallic Empire?

Yeah, seems alright. Although whether or not Aurelian was popular among the other officers pre-ascension I don't know (considering he did get assassinated by his troops as emperor). Maybe he still gets assassinated anyways, or at least gets outmaneuvered politically and is executed/imprisoned/sent to a faraway outpost.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Anyway, unless anyone else has objections or thoughts, I'd say we have our Scenario One. Looking now to Scenario Two --what do you guys think of the OP's suggestion, of Claudius Gothicus' army being devastated at the Battle of Lake Benacus? Or maybe preventing any such similar Roman victory in the face of Alamanni invasion of Italy -- perhaps because Aureolus' rebellion causes too much problems for the Gallienus or his army -- and as a result, the Romans can't put together a capable response, leaving the Germans free to ransack Italy, leaving the Romans to put their legions together in a hasty poorly-thought-out response, and handing them a crushing defeat?

Would this much be plausible? If so, that handle the first half of the scenario's requirements; for the other half, how plausible would it be for Zenobia's Palmyrene Empire to be crushed by the Sassanids?

-----CONSOLIDATE-----

Another way of achieving Scenario Two -- supposing Odenathus fails against Shapur (either at initially repelling him in 260 or, more likely, being completely defeated in the punitive expedition of 262); Roman Syria is once again open for invasion, and now there's considerably fewer Roman legions available to come to their defense. By 265, the Sassanids may conceivable have overrun Syria, the Levant, and possibly Antioch. By the time the Alamanni invade a few years later, the "Central" Empire's reserves are likely very depleted, and it's not long before towns and cities across Macedonia, Dalmatia, and possibly even Italy are being sacked by barbarians. Shapur uses this chaos to move into Egypt and Anatolia (and maybe even Cyrenaica), effectively recreating the Acchaemenid Empire (or claiming to).

What do you guys think? (If this much is possible, I'd also be curious to discuss how Christianity may develop in such a TL.)

 

[Collondi]

I don’t think you could keep Gaul and palmyra independent without extending the crisis or parts of it significantly, since reconquering Gaul was easy and Palmyra would be fighting against two empires. I also don’t think the Germanic tribes cound continue fighting decades-long offensive wars against Rome when even after the crisis they’re still heavily outnumbered. One solution could be to have the heavy plow be invented much earlier and adopted by the Germanic tribes, causing their numbers to explode.

I actually have been working on writing a TL that might be what you’re looking for here. I’ve been meaning to make a thread asking about its plausibility for a little while now, but now is a good a time as any to share it.

In 251, the Goths, under the leadership of king Cniva, recognize Julius Priscus as the emperor of Rome and establish a Romano-Gothic state controlling all the land south of the Danube from Byzantium to the gates of Trajan. The Romans are unable to reconquer this land for a variety of reasons. The Goths spend the 250’s navally attacking Greece much like they did OTL, except they conquer the land rather than sack it. Once they have the land to use for naval bases, they spend the 260’s looting the entire Mediterranean. The grain trade is completely cut off from Egypt and North Africa, and mass starvation ensues, which makes every other aspect of the crisis worse.

Assuming what I’ve just laid out is plausible, I think it could allow for either scenario A or B to occur. Thoughts?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I actually have been working on writing a TL that might be what you’re looking for here. I’ve been meaning to make a thread asking about its plausibility for a little while now, but now is a good a time as any to share it.

In 251, the Goths, under the leadership of king Cniva, recognize Julius Priscus as the emperor of Rome and establish a Romano-Gothic state controlling all the land south of the Danube from Byzantium to the gates of Trajan. The Romans are unable to reconquer this land for a variety of reasons. The Goths spend the 250’s navally attacking Greece much like they did OTL, except they conquer the land rather than sack it. Once they have the land to use for naval bases, they spend the 260’s looting the entire Mediterranean. The grain trade is completely cut off from Egypt and North Africa, and mass starvation ensues, which makes every other aspect of the crisis worse.

Assuming what I’ve just laid out is plausible, I think it could allow for either scenario A or B to occur. Thoughts?

On the whole, it is definitely a very fascinating idea; my one concern, if you're going for Scenario B, would be whether the PoD is too early for the Sassanids to take full advantage? And if it's Scenario A, how do you get the wider east (Anatolia, Egypt, etc) to break with Rome?

 

[raharris1973]

Scenario One -- the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empire, and the "Central" Empire break apart and remain separate, for at minimum six decades (so until the 320's); the Gallic and Palmyrenne Empires, at the very least, continue to successfully fight off barbarian and Sassanid invasions

So separatist empires hold, but in between, it's 'hey diddle, diddle, barbarians seize the middle'?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So separatist empires hold, but in between, it's 'hey diddle, diddle, barbarians seize the middle'?

Put it this way -- that's a permissible way to approach Scenario One. If you need to answer "Why doesn't the Central Empire just re-unify everything?", this can be your answer; conversely, if you don't know why the Central Empire would be more in danger of getting overrun by barbarians than say the Gallic Empire, you don't necessarily have to have it play out that way.

 

[Collondi]

On the whole, it is definitely a very fascinating idea

I’m glad you liked it

my one concern, if you're going for Scenario B, would be whether the PoD is too early for the Sassanids to take full advantage?

What do you mean by this? It wasn’t too early for the Sassanids OTL, since they began their war almost immediately after Cniva’s war.

And if it's Scenario A, how do you get the wider east (Anatolia, Egypt, etc) to break with Rome?

I was thinking things could go similar to OTL, with the emperor failing to defend the territory, so Oadenathus and Zenobia take over. They might not directly declare independence but they’d be the de facto emperors of Egypt and the east. For Anatolia, they could be conquered by the palmyrenes or they declare someone emperor so that person can defend their territory.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

What do you mean by this? It wasn’t too early for the Sassanids OTL, since they began their war almost immediately after Cniva’s war.

Ah, you're right -- I completely forgot about the Campaign of 252-53; to be fair, a lot of these Roman-Persian Wars don't have the best names (meanwhile, nobody can forget "that time a Roman Emperor was taken into slavery").

I was thinking things could go similar to OTL, with the emperor failing to defend the territory, so Oadenathus and Zenobia take over.

Odenathus rose to become "Defender of the East" in the 260's, so you'd have to get everything to go as OTL only earlier; probably safer to just go with Scenario B here.

 

[Evil Crusader]

On the whole, it is definitely a very fascinating idea; my one concern, if you're going for Scenario B, would be whether the PoD is too early for the Sassanids to take full advantage? And if it's Scenario A, how do you get the wider east (Anatolia, Egypt, etc) to break with Rome?

I feel it'd be a 50:50 affair with slight advantage for the Sasanids, as while the strategic initiative most often laid with them OTL, they have a surprisingly bad track record against the united Empire, with them starting to see actual lasting successes (rather than the occasional opportunistic gains quickly reversed when Imperial attention turns there) only after the partition and into the 5th Century. It also must be noted that the timeframe in which this Empire could assert itself was a bit of a stall of the Sasanids, who had weak leadership and a lot of Zoroastrian influence going on, apparently not for the best; in fac tof the thirteen Sasanid-Roman conflicts, only three were initiated by Rome, and two are roughly the proposed timeframe.

 

[Andristan]

Ah, you're right -- I completely forgot about the Campaign of 252-53; to be fair, a lot of these Roman-Persian Wars don't have the best names (meanwhile, nobody can forget "that time a Roman Emperor was taken into slavery").

Poor Valerian, he got a bum deal, plus the christians despise him for the persecution, so his reputation is shot.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

In 251, the Goths, under the leadership of king Cniva, recognize Julius Priscus as the emperor of Rome and establish a Romano-Gothic state controlling all the land south of the Danube from Byzantium to the gates of Trajan. The Romans are unable to reconquer this land for a variety of reasons. The Goths spend the 250’s navally attacking Greece much like they did OTL, except they conquer the land rather than sack it. Once they have the land to use for naval bases, they spend the 260’s looting the entire Mediterranean. The grain trade is completely cut off from Egypt and North Africa, and mass starvation ensues, which makes every other aspect of the crisis worse.

So I was looking over this, and think I may have spotted a problem -- did, by any chance, you mean Jotapian (the usurper in 249)? Or did you mean Phillip the Arab’s brother -- in which case, is it even clear he was still alive as of 251? The PoD might need tweaking here.

So how about this -- in 249, Jotapian defeats the army (that OTL was) commanded by Decius, and then subsequently allies with Cniva. The rest of the scenario plays out as quoted. Does that work?

 

[Malta]

*CoughCough*

My scenario revolves around Gallienus getting an arrow to the eye and Claudius and Aurelian being unluckily betrayed and beaten by Postumus. Leading to a decentralized version of the Roman Empire.

 

[Collondi]

So I was looking over this, and think I may have spotted a problem -- did, by any chance, you mean Jotapian (the usurper in 249)? Or did you mean Phillip the Arab’s brother -- in which case, is it even clear he was still alive as of 251? The PoD might need tweaking here.

So how about this -- in 249, Jotapian defeats the army (that OTL was) commanded by Decius, and then subsequently allies with Cniva. The rest of the scenario plays out as quoted. Does that work?

No, I meant Titus Julius Priscus, governor of Thrace at the time. The POD takes place during the siege of Phillipopolis in 250. From what I gather based on the few sources we have, OTL, after a long siege, Priscus surrendered the city in exchange for the goths promising not to sack the city and supporting Priscus’s claim to the throne. Cniva betrays his promise and sacks the city anyway.

ITTL, Cniva keeps his promise, doesn’t sack Phillipopolis, and instead makes it his new capital, with Julius Priscus recognized as the emperor.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@Collondi Ah yes, Titus Julius Priscus; found him. Incidentally, Decius' OTL, short though it was, was absolutely f***ing nuts! He has Priscus declaring himself emperor in Moesia, and while he marches off to deal with him and the goths, Julius Valens Licinianus declares himself emperor in Rome; and all through this you have his persecutions and generally heavy-handed religious policy creating even more chaos. Oh, and there's also the Plague.

Yeah, there's plenty to work with here in destroying the empire. Your PoD of Cniva and Priscus actually working together looks like it could work quite well.

-----

Looking at other usurpers at the time - - do you think Valens (in Illyria) could join with Priscus and Cniva? And how do you think this affects the legions revolting on the Rhine? I imagine Licinianus is still crushed by Valerian, but if Decius is oiled in battle befire he can return, does that mean Valerian takes over in Rome earlier? And even though Syria isn’t revolting at the moment, they did have one only just put down in 249; and of course, the Sassanids are coming in 252.