PC: No Odenathus = Rome Falls Earlier

Supposing Odenathus hadn't raised an army to fight the Sassanids following the Battle of Edessa; would this have meant nobody was left to oppose the Persian army in the whole Eastern part of the Empire? And does that mean that whole half of the Roman Empire, or even the empire as a whole, falls earlier?

If so, what does this mean for subsequent Western History?
 
Odenathus may have initially defeated the Sassanians on his own, but his promotion to commander of all the forces in the east meant he had oversight of the Roman legions still there. That's how he maintained the east, largely with Roman soldiers. Those Roman soldiers are still there. In addition, it would be incredibly risky for the Sassanians to plunge into Anatolia. There are too many choke points and terrain disadvantages, and a smaller Roman force under an effective commander could easily make life hell for them. I doubt Shapur wanted to go any further east than Syria, and maybe taking a crack at Egypt.
 
Ah, thanks. Sounds like this take saw Rome's position at the time as far more precarious than it actually was.

Don't get me wrong, Odenathus was a godsend for the empire, and the Sassanians are gonna cause tons of problems that they didn't cause OTL. If someone else doesn't proclaim themselves emperor in the east to try and protect it like Posthumous in Gaul, then the western emperor is going to have to divert precious time and resources there. That means less time and resources spent on the Danube. That means more time at an uncomfortable distance from the Danube. That means more likelihood of the legions left to fight the Goths on the Danube proclaim usurpers.
 
Don't get me wrong, Odenathus was a godsend for the empire, and the Sassanians are gonna cause tons of problems that they didn't cause OTL. If someone else doesn't proclaim themselves emperor in the east to try and protect it like Posthumous in Gaul, then the western emperor is going to have to divert precious time and resources there. That means less time and resources spent on the Danube. That means more time at an uncomfortable distance from the Danube. That means more likelihood of the legions left to fight the Goths on the Danube proclaim usurpers.
Hm, so scrambling to save the east could mean the west falls earlier?
 
Hm, so scrambling to save the east could mean the west falls earlier?

The west doesn't necessarily have to fall. Certainly you can have a timeline where this leads to a chain reaction that eventually sees the dissolution of the empire. But I'm of the opinion that that's incredibly difficult in the 3rd century (though my no means impossible). The Gallic Empire isn't really in any danger of falling, and despite their reversals, the legions on the Danube are still crack troops, as are the legions in the east. I think more likely is the carasel to continue (it can't get much worse, what with usurpers being declared and as quickly killed by their own troops practically every other week). If push comes to shove, any emperor worth his salt will temporarily abandon the east (note this doesn't mean giving it up to the Persians), to fight the Goths if it's absolutely necessary. Another option is Posthumous surviving longer and eventually deciding on filling the void and marching on Italy.
 
Top