PC: China and Rome Switch Third Century Fates

[John Fredrick Parker]

So as we all know that the Roman and Han Empires were both mired in crises in the late second and third centuries, but that they emerged from said crises very differently -- China split into three kingdoms for most of the century, was briefly reunited by the Jin, only to fall apart again in the fourth century, and not be unified again for 285 years; Rome, by contrast, suffered a near collapse, fell to invasions and civil wars for a bit, then unified in the late third century, managing to preserve this unity (sort of, depending on how you view the tetrarchy) and territorial integrity for a time (aka the Dominate). Both China's period of disunity and Rome's subsequent unification would shape the subsequent histories of their regions in profound ways.

Which brings me to my question -- could China and Rome have, very broadly speaking, switched places in terms of these fates? Similar to another thread of mine, we can think of this as a discussion thread combining two fairly common WIs:

• What if Cao Cao had won the Battle of Red Bluff in 208 CE? (related)
• What if Rome fell apart in the midst of the Third Century Crisis? (previous)

What do you guys think?

-----​

CONSOLIDATE: And somehow I forgot that Rome was actually divided into three at one point during the Crisis, just like China was! The Gallic Empire was founded 260, about the same time Odenathus was becoming de facto emperor of the east (though it was his widow years later, not himself, who rebelled).

So if we want TTL Rome to really mirror OTL China in this period, we would start by keeping this split going for sixty years (220 to 280 for China; 260 to 320 for Rome), then have them briefly unify for not even a quarter of a century (280 to 304 and 320 to pre 345, respectively), only to see collapse again, with no reunification for centuries to come. How does that sound, plausibility wise?

 

[Salvador79]

Can't say much about plausibility of Han branch, but Rome's breakup is certainly plausible.

The novel aspect of this thread would be cross-continental interference. A big one is how Central Asian problems are dealt with by Han 2.0, do we get the avalanche which pushed Huns and Goths into Europe, too? What about kidarites et al. and their constant pressure on Sasanids, is that removed? Will India's foreign trade still decline or not? If not, is the quasi-feudalisation and the Brahmin land-grants avoidable? All sorts of totally open questions.

 

[acrsome]

So as we all know that the Roman and Han Empires were both mired in crises in the late second and third centuries...

You assume much...

It would be difficult to overstate my ignorance of ancient Chinese history.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

A big one is how Central Asian problems are dealt with by Han 2.0, do we get the avalanche which pushed Huns and Goths into Europe, too? What about kidarites et al. and their constant pressure on Sasanids, is that removed?

I don't see how a more united China would lead to fewer Central Asian people putting pressure on western empires; if anything, I expect if Han is able to hold their borders, you'd see the opposite happening.

Will India's foreign trade still decline or not? If not, is the quasi-feudalisation and the Brahmin land-grants avoidable?

I didn't know about this, but it's a really good point. Actually, did they trade more with the West (Rome and Persia) or the East (China)? Because while they might have stabler trade with the east, the Han may also be more wary of their influence; not sure how trading with the Palmyrene Empire instead of all of Rome affects things, but it might stabilize things as well, depending on how the various Romes manage their economic recoveries.

 

[Salvador79]

I don't see how a more united China would lead to fewer Central Asian people putting pressure on western empires; if anything, I expect if Han is able to hold their borders, you'd see the opposite happening.

I didn't know about this, but it's a really good point. Actually, did they trade more with the West (Rome and Persia) or the East (China)? Because while they might have stabler trade with the east, the Han may also be more wary of their influence; not sure how trading with the Palmyrene Empire instead of all of Rome affects things, but it might stabilize things as well, depending on how the various Romes manage their economic recoveries.

1) In fact, the northern kingdoms, being of Central Asian stock themselves, were much more meddlesome and aggressive than, say, the Han vis-a-vis the Xiongnu. So, I'm not so sure.
2) I don't know, i guess with the East. But yeah, the smaller kingdoms were usually very open to trade and didn't immediately have th Impulse to control it tightly. With the West, considering the Sassanids are in between, there's also the question of how safe the Red Sea pasage is. Might look better than OTL here, whereas economy is unpredictable, but honestly it can't be much worse than late Roman and post-Roman decline.