Different Diocletian partition of the Roman Empire

Triarchy.png

What is the best division possible to get three roman empires and to get the central one to survive?

My idea is to leave the Persians to the Eastern one and the Low Danube (to lift the burden from the Central Empire).

The Western Empire would hold the Briton border and the Rhine, along with the area comprised between the sources of the two rivers.

The Central Empire would ward the Danube and the Berber tribes on the South.

Any suggestion?

Triarchy.png
 
We Postumus now

This was mainly how things were split up during the Crisis of the Third century. IMO it's better than how things were, because the amount of fronts to defend is lessened by the three divisions instead of 2 with the exception of Thrace area, which should go to the Central Empire so that the eastern Empire can have a more eastern capital, allowing it to come into its own in the east.
 
Last edited:
This was mainly how things were split up during the Crisis of the Third century. IMO it's better than how things were, because the amount of fronts to defend is lessened by the three divisions instead of 2 with the exception of Thrace area, which should go to the Central Empire so that the eastern Empire can have a more eastern capital, allowing it to come into its own in the east.

Wouldn't the whole Danube frontier be too much for the Central Empire? I mean, Thracia isn't really near Ravenna (where the capital would probably be). Its armies would lose focus, having to guard also the southern border.

Also, giving some european lands to the Eastern Empire would be wise, because otherwise it would be too "oriental", culturally speaking, loosing its ties with the whole roman world (just imo).

EDIT: If the Balkans are rich enough, i could see the Central Empire holding onto all of them. Also, i think the capital would have to be around the Adriatic Sea, but on which side? Maybe around Bari?
 
Partition

Wouldn't the whole Danube frontier be too much for the Central Empire? I mean, Thracia isn't really near Ravenna (where the capital would probably be). Its armies would lose focus, having to guard also the southern border.

Also, giving some european lands to the Eastern Empire would be wise, because otherwise it would be too "oriental", culturally speaking, loosing its ties with the whole roman world (just imo).

EDIT: If the Balkans are rich enough, i could see the Central Empire holding onto all of them. Also, i think the capital would have to be around the Adriatic Sea, but on which side? Maybe around Bari?

The Danube should be under the control of a single state. The Central Roman empire can pull recruits from Africa, Italy, and Greece/Macedonia upwards to defend the danube.

As for the Eastern Empire not having European land, I still think that it would be a good idea. A problem for permanent roman Conquests in the east was that the new lands were too far from the Roman Empire proper, including Rome itself. An eastern Roman Empire with a capital near-ish Damascus could better conquer and hold eastern lands.

As for not being Roman as time goes on, it would not be that big of a problem as long as they identify as Roman. OTL's Byzantine Empire was very different culturally from the Roman Empire of old, but they still identified as Roman.
 
Top