PC:Roman warring states period

Could the Roman empire collapse in the third century into various warring states similar to various periods of Chinese history as opposed to otl short-term breakaway empires

Could a roman warring states period last a century or two with a roman unification or would the empire be permanently divided
 
The crisis of the third century is basically the warring states period except for its length, I think the op meant a centuries long division rather than the short time the gallic and palmyrene empires lasted before being reabsorbed
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Spengler would tell you that the classical world did have its warring states period. It started with the death of Alexander, and it ended with the consolidation of power by Augustus. One may criticise that view either completely or in part (I myself belong to that second group of critics), but it's an interesting view: that looking for "Roman warring states period" is kind of weird, because Rome was one of the warring states-- in fact, it's the warring state that won, and thus established the Empire.

Spengler also notes that the Empire typically lasts about 500 years in largely undamaged state (true for both the Han dynasty and the united Roman Empire), that it is divided into two recognisable phases (Western Han and Eastern Han; Principate and Dominate), and that those two phases are divided by a shorter period of trouble (Wang Mang's reign and civil war; crisis of the third century). This part, I find very convincing. For this reason, I would indeed see the crisis of the third century as a very typical "mid-imperial crisis period", and not as an analogue to the Warring States Period at all.
 
Spengler would tell you that the classical world did have its warring states period. It started with the death of Alexander, and it ended with the consolidation of power by Augustus. One may criticise that view either completely or in part (I myself belong to that second group of critics), but it's an interesting view: that looking for "Roman warring states period" is kind of weird, because Rome was one of the warring states-- in fact, it's the warring state that won, and thus established the Empire.

Spengler also notes that the Empire typically lasts about 500 years in largely undamaged state (true for both the Han dynasty and the united Roman Empire), that it is divided into two recognisable phases (Western Han and Eastern Han; Principate and Dominate), and that those two phases are divided by a shorter period of trouble (Wang Mang's reign and civil war; crisis of the third century). This part, I find very convincing. For this reason, I would indeed see the crisis of the third century as a very typical "mid-imperial crisis period", and not as an analogue to the Warring States Period at all.
I have nothing to say other than wow thats a good answer
 
I think an earlier warring states breakup, most likely in the 1st century bc is more likely than the Crisis of the 3rd Century to create a permanent breakup. The cultural ideology/cement of Empire led by a semi divine Emperor had had nearly three centuries to set and with it the urge to reunite the Empire set in. We see this same urge three centuries later with Justinian's conquests.

If you want to break it, let Lepidus and Sextus Pompey and the like hold territory but be unable to reunite the Republic/Empire. Let them have children and those children grow up in this disunited world wear loyalty to Rome is a fading ideal.

I think Mr Greyowl's Furor Celticus may be going down this path.
 
Spengler would tell you that the classical world did have its warring states period. It started with the death of Alexander, and it ended with the consolidation of power by Augustus. One may criticise that view either completely or in part (I myself belong to that second group of critics), but it's an interesting view: that looking for "Roman warring states period" is kind of weird, because Rome was one of the warring states-- in fact, it's the warring state that won, and thus established the Empire.

Spengler also notes that the Empire typically lasts about 500 years in largely undamaged state (true for both the Han dynasty and the united Roman Empire), that it is divided into two recognisable phases (Western Han and Eastern Han; Principate and Dominate), and that those two phases are divided by a shorter period of trouble (Wang Mang's reign and civil war; crisis of the third century). This part, I find very convincing. For this reason, I would indeed see the crisis of the third century as a very typical "mid-imperial crisis period", and not as an analogue to the Warring States Period at all.
Rome was not part of a previously unified Greek-Macedonian state, the Diadochi period can be considered a warring state but Rome is really external to that.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Rome was not part of a previously unified Greek-Macedonian state, the Diadochi period can be considered a warring state but Rome is really external to that.

That is also my exact criticism of Spengler's view on this point. His argument is that Rome was already quite influenced by Hellenic culture, and that it was a 'peripheral state' just as Qin was a peripheral state-- and swooped in to win the contention when the other 'core' states had fought each other bloody... but I don't find his reading of that matter to be persuasive. For starters, while there was a lot of cultural cross-pollenation, Spengler severely uder-estimated how much of Rome's adoption of Hellenic cultural practices came about after (and because) Rome absorbed the Hellenic world. So I'd rather say that Rome and the Hellenic world were two distinct (but inter-acting) cultural spheres, and that Rome conquered and absorbed the Hellenic sphere. (I do believe that if Rome hadn't existed -- and no-one else had filled that exact vacuüm -- it is quite likely that the contention of the Greek states would have ended in one of them defeating the others and establishing a 'Hellenic Empire' in the Eastern Med. But that's another discussion!)

This view is perhaps a bit unconventional, but I think that Rome's pre-imperial period still nicely equates to the Warring States Period in China, though. It's just that the contentions in Roman culture took the form of civil wars and social strife, rather than state-based warfare. The three-century period before the Empire is one of ill-fitting politics, enormous 'growing strains', a Republic designed to be a city-state trying to govern an imperium, class strife, the absorbtion of new ethnic groupd (and attendant troubles thereof), etc. etc. -- culminating in an escalating cycle of violence. Caesar is still the Roman equivalent to Qin Shi Huangdi; Augustus is still the Roman equivalent to Gaozu, and the last civil war after Ceasar's death (which Augustus ends up winning) is still the equivalent to the Chu-Han contention after the death of Qin Shi Huangdi and the subsequent collapse of his would-be dynasty. That part of Spengler's comparison, I feel, is extremely insightful.
 
Last edited:
I will provide my thoughts in a bit of a different way. I think the short answer is yes. For example, imagine that Diocletian gets the plague in AD 285 and dies (rather than having 20 years to established the Dominate). It is quite plausible that you have fragmenting successor states. Arguably this is what happens in the West 150 years later when Majorian is killed. Therefore, I think the interesting part of your question is after warring states period could the empire come together in something close to its previous form as the Chinese Empire did several times (Tang, Song, Ming etc). Here I think the answer is much more complex. Obviously we know after 450-550 the empire came apart and never came together again in anything like its prior form. This fact raises two inter-related questions: why didn't the Roman empire ever come back together and why did the Chinese (and the Persian) empires reform several times. A theory that has recently gained some traction (Walter Schiedel at Stanford makes this argument) is that most of the great empires basically emerge in agricultural areas that border on the great Steppes. In other words, they form as a way to keep the Steppe people (Mongols, Tatars, Huns etc) from riding in and stealing your agricultural produce. Therefore, there is always an incentive to re-form the empire. He also argues that this is why Chinese empires typically emerged in the North and went south. You don't really have this in the West. It is a really long way from the Loire valley to the Steppes. If this theory is right it suggests that Rome was more of an anomaly compared to China and therefore a warring states period in the 3rd century would have resulted in an earlier permeant disintegration of the empire as happened 150 years later.
 
Maybe you could do something between the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Principate. Though eventually Octavian managed to reunite the Roman Empire, perhaps some scenario could be conjured up in which lasting disunion for over a generation becomes the new status quo, rather than being seen as an interruption. If it includes disruption of Roman control over the seas, all the better. Until Pompey’s 40-day campaign, the Mediterranean was rife with pirates, who captured Caesar and attempted to raid Rome itself at one point (two separate events btw). IIRC the different overseas provinces had been somewhat disconnected at that point and communication and trade were difficult.

The Crisis of the Third Century could also be a place too look for lasting disunion. Though it was pretty bad, the Empire managed to reunify after thirty or so years, thanks to the efforts of Gallienus and Aurelian. Had either or both failed to be in the right place at the right time, the Empire could’ve remained fractured into three. Add the germanic barbarians and energetic Sassanians to the mix, and given the circumstances, you might see the Gallic and Palmyrene Empires fracture as the people look to local forces to protect them. Palmyra would have to contend with the Sassanians and any last blows from a central Empire looking to retain it, possibly coupled with secessionist tendencies in Egypt? Britannia might secede from or be abandoned by Gallia, and Hispania might become de facto independent as both the Gallic and rump Roman Empires lose effective control over it. The Roman rump state at the center would certainly be in trouble, beset by barbarians down a long Danube frontier with little manpower to defend against it, and might be partially or completely overrun, with the remainder splintering as well. That would give you quite a few statelets, all (or almost all) Roman and all divided.
 
Spengler severely uder-estimated how much of Rome's adoption of Hellenic cultural practices came about after (and because) Rome absorbed the Hellenic world.
To be more precise, the roman invention of being part of the greek tradition (Aeneas, Rome's belief that their government was the answer to the Greek problem who should govern. Etc) There was cultural influence from the beginning of Rome, but it was limited and indirect through the Etruscans.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
To be more precise, the roman invention of being part of the greek tradition (Aeneas, Rome's belief that their government was the answer to the Greek problem who should govern. Etc) There was cultural influence from the beginning of Rome, but it was limited and indirect through the Etruscans.

Exactly. Observe also that the great codification of the whole Aeneas myth is a creation of the early Principate. After the Romans had absorbed Greece. (And in the late Republic, conservative romans worried about Roman culture becoming diluted by Greek influences!)
 
Top