Four Roman Empires

Hello, I'm new here in this forum and I'd like you help me with an alternate timeline I have been thinking about. Sorry if my English is not good enough, because I'm not a native speaker/writer.

I have read here several timelines and alternate histories about expanded and long-surviving Roman Empires that, despite containing amazing stories, challenge the concept I have about the absolute difficulty of ruling such distant and diverse lands as a centralized entity, especially at the early Middle-ages.

If I'm not wrong, I remember some comments about the possibility of this based on the hypothesis that a political stable Empire/Republic, which would allowed some sort of pioneering liberal democracy, would have avoided most of the problems that undermined the Empire and finally caused its fragmentation.

As a biologist, I'd like to add that the crisis that caused the decline of the Roman Empire was not only social and political, but it also had an environmental issue that would have handicapped a stable Empire anyway. So, a single PoD changing a political event couldn't save the Empire to suffer big troubles to keep it united, or even in two or three parts that would reunite sometimes. The climate changes, some of them produced by the impact of the Roman civilization, are an important key to understand the decline of the civilizations in the Western part of Eurasia by that time.

However, I have hypothesized about the viability of some kind of confoederatio comprising four entities, at the time of the end of the Classic Empire, possibly introducing a PoD right before or right after the reign of Diocletian.

The four entities would encompass what have been the four areas of civilization that were developed in OTL during the middle ages. My proposal would be based on these four entities:

- Northern Roman Empire. It would be the Roman-Germanic branch. It would had the origins in the Rhineland to later expand into the Baltic and Scandinavia, and later to the Arctic and the Atlantic coasts of North America, like the OTL Norse did. It would have embraced the Northern Church, a Germanic-influenced Christianism that, after some centuries, would have evolutioned into a form of Christianism resembling the OTL Reformed Churches.

- Western Roman Empire. It would be the Roman-Latin branch. It would expand later into West Africa and maybe America. It would stick to the Catholic Church or Western Church, being more conservative than the Northern Church.

- Eastern Roman Empire. It would be the Roman-Greek-Slavic branch. It would expand later into the OTL Russia and Ukraine, encompassing the Slavic nations. It would stick to the Orthodox Church or Eastern Church, a unified form of the Greek and Slavic Orthodox Churches in OTL.

- Southern Roman Empire. It would be the Roman-Semitic branch. It would have the origins in the Monophysite Egypt and Levant, expanding later into Arabia and the Upper Nile, until reaching the Indian Ocean. It would have embraced the Southern Church, similar to OTL Coptic Church but more influenced by Judaism, Arabic beliefs and Zoroastrianism. The coexistence with other religious communities would make it the most tolerant Church.

Those four Empires would have been de facto sovereign, but they could have share two things in common: a common Emperor reigning over the four Caesars, maybe only as a referee for their disputes, and a kind of synod of the Patriarches of the four Churches that would rule the Holy Land, an area surrounding Jerusalem not attached to any of the Empires.

However, I have not decided yet which PoD I could use to transform the late OTL Roman Empire into this confoederatio of four Empires. Any suggestion?

Thanks.
 
I guess 4 empires (though not necessarily in the same sense as in the OP) could be achieved in the crisis of the third century. You already have 3: Gallic Empire, Palmyrene Empire, and the Roman Empire. I'm trying to think where you can fit the fourth though. I guess maybe a breakaway Egypt from the Palmyrene Empire might work.
 
I think you'll need to edit this a bit to make it plausible. For starters, the divisions you've suggested are rather unlikely. Obviously the eastern and western empires were a reality, but the northern and southern ones don't make much sense unless they are established much later on. Another thing to consider is your religions. Monophysitism would not exist until after 451, meaning that a PoD that is late enough to establish Monophysitism as in OTL will likely kill the western empire, to say nothing of the division you made between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, which wouldn't exist until half a milennium after the fall of the western Roman Empire.

I would also look into the similar situations in OTL. Far and away the closest thing was the tetrarchy. Now I don't mean to be contrary, but it is pretty well established here that the tetrarchy was a terrible form of government. As a general rule, the Romans tended to perform better when central authority was strong, whereas in situations like the tetrarchy where the real power was not in the hands of the emperor, the state suffered from too much infighting.

The divisions you are looking for could still happen mind you, but it will likely be later, under very different circumstances. Likely we would see a Roman wank that sees northern Germany, Scandinavia, and parts of Russia and the middle east conquered between the PoD and the year 1,000, followed by a time of troubes wherein central authority degenerates and imperial claimants who aren't strong enough to take on the central authorities directly instead secede and claim the`imperial title anyways. Even then, I don't think you will get them all to recognize one single powerless emperor, but you at least can have the same four empires, and perhaps similar religious divisions.
 
I think you'll need to edit this a bit to make it plausible. For starters, the divisions you've suggested are rather unlikely. Obviously the eastern and western empires were a reality, but the northern and southern ones don't make much sense unless they are established much later on. Another thing to consider is your religions. Monophysitism would not exist until after 451, meaning that a PoD that is late enough to establish Monophysitism as in OTL will likely kill the western empire, to say nothing of the division you made between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, which wouldn't exist until half a milennium after the fall of the western Roman Empire.

I would also look into the similar situations in OTL. Far and away the closest thing was the tetrarchy. Now I don't mean to be contrary, but it is pretty well established here that the tetrarchy was a terrible form of government. As a general rule, the Romans tended to perform better when central authority was strong, whereas in situations like the tetrarchy where the real power was not in the hands of the emperor, the state suffered from too much infighting.

The divisions you are looking for could still happen mind you, but it will likely be later, under very different circumstances. Likely we would see a Roman wank that sees northern Germany, Scandinavia, and parts of Russia and the middle east conquered between the PoD and the year 1,000, followed by a time of troubes wherein central authority degenerates and imperial claimants who aren't strong enough to take on the central authorities directly instead secede and claim the`imperial title anyways. Even then, I don't think you will get them all to recognize one single powerless emperor, but you at least can have the same four empires, and perhaps similar religious divisions.

Thank you for your suggestions.

Of course, I know that the division of North and South should be later, the same with the division of the different Churches. I want to create a PoD that could mark the origin of the divisions but the Northern and the Southern would be developed much later.

For example, regarding the Northern Roman Empire, I considered to keep Tetricus as permanent Caesar of the Rhineland area he ruled by his time. So, at first, this Empire would be simply a kind of 'buffer state' between the WRE and free Germania. Later, by the V or VI centuries, it could be expanded into the Baltic zone and relocating the capital from Trier to Hafnia (Copenhaguen), which could become later a kind of Northern Rome dominating both the Baltic area and the Northern Sea shores.
 
I'm trying to think where you can fit the fourth though. I guess maybe a breakaway Egypt from the Palmyrene Empire might work.

There was a short-lived Britannic Empire around the reign of Constantius Chlrous (Constantine the Great's father). Here's the Wikipedia link on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannic_Empire

Depending on how old Carausius was, how successful he was and where his loyalties lay, he could possibly revolt earlier.
 
I think Avitus' post covers everything I would have said on the matter.

One idea is to have the Reges Romani that existed in southern Scotland and in the Atlas Mountains be replicated elsewhere. Historically, these were magistrates that were placed to rule over foreign peoples in territory the Romans considered their own, and seem to have been favoured by Valentinian's general Theodosius, the father of the Emperor Theodosius I. As the WRE's political grasp slackened after Valentinian, these magistrates were able to set up dynasties and call themselves monarchs (albeit rarely Emperors), Roman monarchs over non-Roman subjects.

So, one idea could be that the Romans beat back the Germanic incursions in an alternate fifth century, and set up Reges Romani to control the Germanic populations, initially in the frontier regions. These "Roman kings" eventually expand their power and influence deeper into "barbarian" territory in the reigns of weak Eastern and Western Emperors, before being reincorporated into the Empire, but messily.

There's maddeningly little online about Reges Romani, however. There seem to have been four in southern Scotland, about a dozen in North Africa (they're marked as "Romano-Moorish kingdoms" on maps) and perhaps one in Gaul in the later fifth century: Syagrius of Soissons is called a Rex Romanorum by Gregory of Tours, iirc.
 
Thank you for your suggestions.

Of course, I know that the division of North and South should be later, the same with the division of the different Churches. I want to create a PoD that could mark the origin of the divisions but the Northern and the Southern would be developed much later.

For example, regarding the Northern Roman Empire, I considered to keep Tetricus as permanent Caesar of the Rhineland area he ruled by his time. So, at first, this Empire would be simply a kind of 'buffer state' between the WRE and free Germania. Later, by the V or VI centuries, it could be expanded into the Baltic zone and relocating the capital from Trier to Hafnia (Copenhaguen), which could become later a kind of Northern Rome dominating both the Baltic area and the Northern Sea shores.

Alright, I just wanted to make sure that were on the same page, given that I've never spoken to you before. In that case, since step one is achieving a Roman Empire that retains its full extent long enough and healthily enough to potentially conquer northern Europe, while still being late enough to have Christianity as a majority religion, then the PoD you want might be a more successful Constantinian dynasty. Crispus or Constantius II (or maybe even Constantine II) surviving longer and leaving the empire to an established heir would each have potential, as all of them were competent Christian Emperors living in a time before the empire was too far gone to be fully restored.
 
There was a short-lived Britannic Empire around the reign of Constantius Chlrous (Constantine the Great's father). Here's the Wikipedia link on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannic_Empire

Depending on how old Carausius was, how successful he was and where his loyalties lay, he could possibly revolt earlier.

Right, I forgot how early that was. Though I'm doubting how long it could last, given how it was more the incompetence of Maximian than anything else that kept it independent for so long.
 
This is my idea about how the four Roman Empires would look like by 1.200 AD or so:

FourEmpires.png
 
I think the borders in Britain and the Middle East need tweaking. I don't see a particular reason for Israel to be its own state, given that it's not really buffering, and that the idea of that region as the holiest one on earth was more of a medieval thing. I also don't see why the WRE-NRE borders in Europe pretty much give things that were traditionally outside the empire to the north, while in Britain the province has ben cloven in to, presumably to accomodate the north. Even if we are to accept Brittania being split,I think the borders shown are rather unlikely. Giving the NRE either all of Britain, or only Scotland, seems like a better option IMO. Aside from that, you really arent going to get the Persian border to look like that, there just isn't a reason for them to lose Mesopotamia but keep their Caucasian holdings.
 
I think the borders in Britain and the Middle East need tweaking. I don't see a particular reason for Israel to be its own state, given that it's not really buffering, and that the idea of that region as the holiest one on earth was more of a medieval thing. I also don't see why the WRE-NRE borders in Europe pretty much give things that were traditionally outside the empire to the north, while in Britain the province has ben cloven in to, presumably to accomodate the north. Even if we are to accept Brittania being split,I think the borders shown are rather unlikely. Giving the NRE either all of Britain, or only Scotland, seems like a better option IMO. Aside from that, you really arent going to get the Persian border to look like that, there just isn't a reason for them to lose Mesopotamia but keep their Caucasian holdings.

I do appreciate your comments.

I'll try to explain the reason of these borders:

- Israel (Holy Land) is not a buffer state, it's a condominium of the four Empires, that is, it's ruled by a 'senate' composed by envoys of every Caesar. This is a measure implemented at the end of the first Millennia to ensure peace among the different Churches that would rivalize for control the holy sites. This is, along with the Emperor, the only thing that the four Empires share in common.
- Britain is split that way because of this population. In my idea of TL, Romanized Celtic people is resettled in Wales and South-Western England, while the rest of Brittain is settled by Germanic peoples (Saxons and so) that will stick to the Germanic NRE. While Wales-SW England will embrace, like Hibernia, the Catholic-like Western Church, the rest of Britain will stick to the Northern Church, that would evolve later to a kind of Reformed-like Church.
- The borders of Persia are provisional. However is most like the ERE and SRE left aside, because at the beginning ERE is only interested in holding Armenia while SRE, after regaining Mesopotamia, is not interested in the lands beyond the Zagros.
 
I can see the Northern Roman empire, but I don't really see a reason for why the Southern one should exist.
 
Top