Hadrian Keeps Trajan's Conquests

I notice A lot of people talking about Alexander Serverus, Crushing the Sassandids (Spelling?) early on, but he was emperor something like 55 years later, just wondering how it is related. There was some posts a while back about Marcus Aurelius being butterflied away, would it not be almost certain that Severus would be butterflied? If not, My apologies, still not 100% certain about butterflies

Alexander Severus would almost certainly be butterflied away.
 
For butterflies about how close to the event are we looking for people to be butterflied away?

A generation or two, depending, and looking within Rome and what was Parthia.

After that, you might get people somewhat similar, but by chance rather than anything else.

And even a generation or two is for those relatively uninfluenced.

Speaking as a small butterfly theorist, you still have a very significantly different world - which inevitably means different experiences for at least some people, which influence others, etc.
 
No offense, but I'm not feeling this was a near miss at all.
It sounds like a near miss to me. It's pretty simple, if he had carried out his plan, each Persian army would have faced a larger Roman army in battle by themselves rather than be able to link up with each other, and likely would have been badly mauled at best. Writing up a good plan which you then ignore is as classic a POD as you can get. You seem to just be disagreeing to be contrary here.
 
It sounds like a near miss to me. It's pretty simple, if he had carried out his plan, each Persian army would have faced a larger Roman army in battle by themselves rather than be able to link up with each other, and likely would have been badly mauled at best. Writing up a good plan which you then ignore is as classic a POD as you can get. You seem to just be disagreeing to be contrary here.

I agree that it's a good POD. I do not agree that the actual situation was near to launching a crushing blow - it sounds more like Alexander's failure OTL made it possible for the reverse of his intentions to happen, and for the PErsians to be in a position for him not to be able or willing to just push the issue in response to one element's defeat.

That's hardly a logical response to being on the brink of victory as distinct from something where much hard fighting might - or might not - lead to victory.
 
Just wondering what people thought, but what are the chances of Rome being able to hold the territory that Trajan conquered until say atleast the next civil war which was I think about 193 AD, so roughly sixty or seventy years
 
Just wondering what people thought, but what are the chances of Rome being able to hold the territory that Trajan conquered until say atleast the next civil war which was I think about 193 AD, so roughly sixty or seventy years


No problem about that. It just doesn't matter very much.

Given different decisions and/or better luck, the Romans could have kept Mesopotamia into the 3C - maybe as long as Dacia. What it won't do, of course, is change the big picture in any serious way. The main prtoblem was economic - the soldiers had woken up to how indispensible they were, and expected to be paid accordingly - and a province more or less doesn't help there.
 
No problem about that. It just doesn't matter very much.

Given different decisions and/or better luck, the Romans could have kept Mesopotamia into the 3C - maybe as long as Dacia. What it won't do, of course, is change the big picture in any serious way. The main prtoblem was economic - the soldiers had woken up to how indispensible they were, and expected to be paid accordingly - and a province more or less doesn't help there.

Mesopotomia is a very rich province though, doesn't that help the economic situation?
 
Top