PC/WI: Worse 3rd Century Crisis in Europe

Because I assumed Postumus would call all troops available from Dacia and Moesia to counter the invasion of 259, since as a usurper, his priority would be to defend Italy and the provinces closest to it. If he fails, the provinces in Eastern Europe will be the most exposed to subsequent attacks, while the Upper Danube would be a little closer to the Western Provinces, and be easier to aid.



No Roman emperor would be willingly down for that, especially considering whoever becomes emperor is supposedly a general. Optimistically, it’s more likely for the leaders to make an arrangement similar to the Tetrarchy, with each member holding a portion and all of them responding to the senior member.
Well in theory Raetia and Noricum are closer to Italy but I think the Illyrian region is far more important, if the Danube border is lot from the entire stretch from modern Budapest to Dobruja it looks to me that the remaining portions would be increasingly weak to supply using the river-based Roman system, it's not simply about where troops are at a specific point in time and after all I'm not sure the Danubian armies would be thrilled to move in Italy abandoning their territories to rampaging Goths, this looks like the groundworks for another proclaimed Danubian-Illyrian Emperor, which is pretty interesting in itself.

Why would Roman Emperors find this arrangement bad? They would be indisputed superiors and have a way to deal with local defenses without resorting to elevate others as their equals, and it would also divide the resources that any give dux can have and leave to themselves the core areas of Italy and the lucrative and secure African province(s).
It would be similar to the Tetrarchy afterall.
 
Well in theory Raetia and Noricum are closer to Italy but I think the Illyrian region is far more important, if the Danube border is lot from the entire stretch from modern Budapest to Dobruja it looks to me that the remaining portions would be increasingly weak to supply using the river-based Roman system, it's not simply about where troops are at a specific point in time and after all I'm not sure the Danubian armies would be thrilled to move in Italy abandoning their territories to rampaging Goths, this looks like the groundworks for another proclaimed Danubian-Illyrian Emperor, which is pretty interesting in itself.

Indeed it is, that’s why I think Gallienus losing and dying in 259 would really wreak the empire worse than OTL.

Why would Roman Emperors find this arrangement bad? They would be indisputed superiors and have a way to deal with local defenses without resorting to elevate others as their equals, and it would also divide the resources that any give dux can have and leave to themselves the core areas of Italy and the lucrative and secure African province(s).
It would be similar to the Tetrarchy afterall.

You’re right, it’d be convenient, and objectively the best solution for the crisis at end, but that’s just not how Roman emperors reasoned. Costantius III could have left Britain and Gaul to Constantine III, a co-emperor, it would have been the best thing to do for the moment, perhaps even long term wise, but he didn’t, he waged war against him, his son and his subordinates, dispatching them one by one, and we’re talking about the beginning of the fifth century, when the emperor of the west held the most beleaguered and poor of the two halves of the empire. We’re no more in the first and second century, if an emperor wanted to be respected and recognized, especially during hard times, he had to constantly display strenght, confidence and skill, letting others rule semi-independent fiefdoms of the empire is the opposite of that, people would just keep on conspiring and killing until the right guy seizes power. Diocletian put an end to the crisis by annihilating any usurpers rising up from the ranks, and personally choosing those who would share power with him. They were all loyal, they all recognized his authority, and none of them ever entertained the idea of going independent. Had Diocletian let usurpers rise and tried to reach an agreement with them, he would have been killed by a member of his close staff, or would have been attacked by one of them, and the cycle would have been repeated. If the empire has any chance to survive ITTL, is with an emperor of similar strenght and wit who manages to impose himself.
 
You’re right, it’d be convenient, and objectively the best solution for the crisis at end, but that’s just not how Roman emperors reasoned. Costantius III could have left Britain and Gaul to Constantine III, a co-emperor, it would have been the best thing to do for the moment, perhaps even long term wise, but he didn’t, he waged war against him, his son and his subordinates, dispatching them one by one, and we’re talking about the beginning of the fifth century, when the emperor of the west held the most beleaguered and poor of the two halves of the empire. We’re no more in the first and second century, if an emperor wanted to be respected and recognized, especially during hard times, he had to constantly display strenght, confidence and skill, letting others rule semi-independent fiefdoms of the empire is the opposite of that, people would just keep on conspiring and killing until the right guy seizes power. Diocletian put an end to the crisis by annihilating any usurpers rising up from the ranks, and personally choosing those who would share power with him. They were all loyal, they all recognized his authority, and none of them ever entertained the idea of going independent. Had Diocletian let usurpers rise and tried to reach an agreement with them, he would have been killed by a member of his close staff, or would have been attacked by one of them, and the cycle would have been repeated. If the empire has any chance to survive ITTL, is with an emperor of similar strenght and wit who manages to impose himself.
Constantine the III was an actual potential rival, a governor-like dux wouldn't be, on top of that we have emperors accepting Germanic confederations establishing distinct autonomous entities withint the borders of the empire during the same time, which is what the duchies would represent more than being more co-emperors.

What do you think would have happened with Odaenathus and all his titles and position had he lived?
 
Constantine the III was an actual potential rival, a governor-like dux wouldn't be, on top of that we have emperors accepting Germanic confederations establishing distinct autonomous entities withint the borders of the empire during the same time, which is what the duchies would represent more than being more co-emperors.

All governors are potential rivals, you can’t expect an emperor to actually trust any of these semi independent rulers, nor you can genuinely expect them to stay true to their word, were they to ever reach an agreement. It could have happened, but I highly doubt that.

What do you think would have happened with Odaenathus and all his titles and position had he lived?

If Gallienus hadn’t been murdered, he would have tried to take back the East in his control. I think a confrontation would have risen between the two, and Gallienus would have likely won, since he would have employed the likes of Aurelian and Claudius in the expedition.
If Gallienus dies like in OTL, than Odaenathus will have to face Aurelian like his wife did. Zenobia always stressed that she was formally submitted to the emperor, yet Aurelian attacked her anyway, I believe the same would have been for her husband.
 
All governors are potential rivals, you can’t expect an emperor to actually trust any of these semi independent rulers, nor you can genuinely expect them to stay true to their word, were they to ever reach an agreement. It could have happened, but I highly doubt that.


If Gallienus dies like in OTL, than Odaenathus will have to face Aurelian like his wife did. Zenobia always stressed that she was formally submitted to the emperor, yet Aurelian attacked her anyway, I believe the same would have been for her husband.
Yes but Rome had provicial governors and on a top of that new governor-type figures such as vicars well into the the dominate period. I mean the trend was one of decentralization and regionalization of power, the emperor had to deal with many different thigns that threatened its hold on power, like the Senate, it's not like they just removed the Senate as an institution or the Senatorial class.

I read from some post by @LSCatilina in older threads something similar, to me it seems to make sense that a gradual regionalization of power would allow the creation of de facto post-imperial states without the "input" of Barbarian confederacies, armies and rulers to replace the Roman state and political ethos. It would be gradual and it wouldn't be de jure, but I think it would happen if no emperor reasserts itself and if alternatives to the tetrarchy system are implemented instead.

Did Zenobia really acknowledge the Roman emperors in the West?
 
Yes but Rome had provicial governors and on a top of that new governor-type figures such as vicars well into the the dominate period. I mean the trend was one of decentralization and regionalization of power, the emperor had to deal with many different thigns that threatened its hold on power, like the Senate, it's not like they just removed the Senate as an institution or the Senatorial class.

I read from some post by @LSCatilina in older threads something similar, to me it seems to make sense that a gradual regionalization of power would allow the creation of de facto post-imperial states without the "input" of Barbarian confederacies, armies and rulers to replace the Roman state and political ethos.

Did Zenobia really acknowledge the Roman emperors in the West?

She did until Aurelian attacked her in 272, then she proclaimed her son emperor in response to that. Odaenathus would have probably followed the same pattern.

The Senate didn’t matter any longer by mid third century, Tacitus was the last emperor chosen within its ranks, and that was because Aurelian’s death came out of nowhere, without anybody actively conspiring against him. The senate’s influence then gradually dwindled to nothing more than a cerimonial role. The emperor had to be way more careful about his own entourage.

Governors were an integral part of the Roman Empire, but the emperor, at least all good emperors, always made sure to keep a tight hold on them. Diocletian’s reforms were strictly aimed at keeping an even tighter control on vicars, as well as over all the citizens of the empire. It was just by the fifth century that regionalization truly began to impose itself, and yet it didn’t become an established and inevitable reality until Majorian’s death.
 
If Rome collapses in the 3rd century. What I can say is that Islam might be in a worse position when the expansion starts. If ofcourse the wealthy East becomes a major power again in the Eastern Mediterranean. So more time to deal with reconquest and consolidating power.
 
She did until Aurelian attacked her in 272, then she proclaimed her son emperor in response to that. Odaenathus would have probably followed the same pattern.

The Senate didn’t matter any longer by mid third century, Tacitus was the last emperor chosen within its ranks, and that was because Aurelian’s death came out of nowhere, without anybody actively conspiring against him. The senate’s influence then gradually dwindled to nothing more than a cerimonial role. The emperor had to be way more careful about his own entourage.

Governors were an integral part of the Roman Empire, but the emperor, at least all good emperors, always made sure to keep a tight hold on them. Diocletian’s reforms were strictly aimed at keeping an even tighter control on vicars, as well as over all the citizens of the empire. It was just by the fifth century that regionalization truly began to impose itself, and yet it didn’t become an established and inevitable reality until Majorian’s death.
Yeah but we are assuming a 5th cenutry like situation more than 4th century one, you have multiple emperors killed, multiple regional armies fending off for themselves, even deep into Roman territories like Iberia. The point with the Senate was that the new general emperors still feared the Senate somewhat(the senate wasn't toothless inherently, it was toothless by the position it was put by the dominate emperors) and yet they didn't go smash it around like you presume emperors would do with more autonomous provinces, apparently you can have non-emperor figures running the bulk of the military in the late 4th century but a couple autonomous provinces is going to be impossible by nature?

In any case the main idea was that a break from Roman central authority doesn't necessitate Barbarian takeover, there are many ways to go about it, using the example of Byzantium it's not-Southern Italian territories gradually drifted off after the Arab invasions.
The entire premise of this WI is that more Roman Emperors and armies are dying in battle, the imperial central authority would have to deal with new regional armies and power centers that would in the chaos and IOTL demonstrated that there was a willingness to compromise when necessary.
If Rome collapses in the 3rd century. What I can say is that Islam might be in a worse position when the expansion starts. If ofcourse the wealthy East becomes a major power again in the Eastern Mediterranean. So more time to deal with reconquest and consolidating power.
Any pre-7th century POD would butterfly away islam as it is contingent to the life of one man, especially a pre Constantine POD
 
Yeah but we are assuming a 5th cenutry like situation more than 4th century one, you have multiple emperors killed, multiple regional armies fending off for themselves, even deep into Roman territories like Iberia. The point with the Senate was that the new general emperors still feared the Senate somewhat(the senate wasn't toothless inherently, it was toothless by the position it was put by the dominate emperors) and yet they didn't go smash it around like you presume emperors would do with more autonomous provinces, apparently you can have non-emperor figures running the bulk of the military in the late 4th century but a couple autonomous provinces is going to be impossible by nature?

The Senate was toothless since Gordian III, considering that emperors didn’t even bother staying in Rome for more than a few days at best, preferring to lead their own armies, and that most, if not all governors for the provinces were taken from the equestrian class since Marcus Aurelius. Also the bulk of the military wasn’t run by non-emperor figures in the fourth century, by then singular legions didn’t number more than 1000-1200 men, and most of the military operations were handled personally by the emperors or by their Caesars, leaving to subordinates only secondary roles or policing duties.

In any case the main idea was that a break from Roman central authority doesn't necessitate Barbarian takeover, there are many ways to go about it, using the example of Byzantium it's not-Southern Italian territories gradually drifted off after the Arab invasions.
The entire premise of this WI is that more Roman Emperors and armies are dying in battle, the imperial central authority would have to deal with new regional armies and power centers that would in the chaos and IOTL demonstrated that there was a willingness to compromise when necessary.

Compromise was always a temporary solution, and one that emperors begrudgingly acquiesced to in all cases. Whenever a governor, or someone higher in power, seemed to behave too independently from central authority in the fourth century, he was dismissed sooner or later, and perhaps even executed, like Constantius Gallus. In the fifth century, Boniface could have kept his own rule in Africa, but instead chose to meddle into the royal power struggle, so Aetius had to kill him or get killed. Rome was in dire conditions and yet its elite still saw opportunity for civil strife. Majorian did all he could to restore central authority, alas he failed his naval expedition to Africa and got murdered for that. If he could attempt to do that, when the empire was close to lost, I don’t see why future emperors, or indipendent rulers like Boniface, won’t try to do the same ITTL.
 
Top