Plausibility check - Roman rule collapses in the west during crisis of the third century...

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
...and an empire continues in the east-

Could there have been a series of political developments coming out of the Roman "Crisis of the 3rd Century" broadly matching (while differing in all the local particulars) the outcome of the OTL "crisis of the 5th century", and the end of the imperial institution in the west?

So, here's how this early collapse would have to match OTL's situation a couple centuries:

Fixed features-

1) Roman rule collapses in Britain, Gaul, Spain, Africa west of Cyrenaica, Italy and Illyria completely between 200 CE and 300 CE.

2) Barbarian peoples migrate at will into the western Roman territories and barbarian, mainly Germanic, Kingdoms come to political authority over Britain, Gaul, Spain, Africa west of Cyrenaica, Italy and Illyria.

3) Roman rule survives, at least in Greece and Anatolia, for over half a millenium at least. In the meantime, the surviving Eastern Roman Empire may hold onto rule of Syria, Egypt, Cyrenaica, the Balkans east of Illyria and possibly Armenia or Mesopotamia in the near term, if not longer.

4) The maximum amount of the west that the surviving ERE can recover matches the extent of Justinian's OTL 6th century conquests (Italy, Africa, southern Spain, Illyria)


Variable factors to play with:

1) The ability of the East Roman Empire to hold onto territory south of Anatolia

2) The particular barbarians who invade and establish rule over particular Western portions of the Roman Empire

3) The religious history of the world (for example, the fate of Christianity and other religions in the Roman rump empire, post-Roman western Europe, the Persian Empire, etc. Also, whether new religions of geopolitical significance emerge in the world, ie, Islam, Manichaenism)

4) The particulars of who, whether and how other groups (Vikings, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Slavs, Arabs, Berbers, Persians, Nubians) invade Europe and the Mediterranean basin over the succeeding millenium from 300 CE to 1300 CE

---Is this type of general pattern of Rome collapsing to Teutons in the west and surviving in the east a plausible outcome of the 3rd century crisis, or is the best/most that can be achieved the fragmentation of Rome into multiple local "empires"?
 
Rome was too strong then, I think. If Italy loses control over Gaul, the Gallo-Romans (and even Roman Britons, really) are able to defend themselves against the Germans. If the emperor of Rome has control over Italy and Gaul, the Gallic frontier may be weakened, but the emperor can focus on defeating the Palmyrenes--which secures Rome's power and wealth and allows them to fortify Gaul again.

It would take a perfect storm of Persian invasion, and withdrawing troops from the Rhine, and a really skilled Germanic warlord, and an emperor much worse than Aurelian but managing to last for multiple years, for the crisis of the 3rd century to be as bad as the 5th century. Even then, 400s Rome dragged on quite a bit longer than it should have, considering everything that was thrown at it.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hmm, I vaguely recall reading in a few threads about longevity of the Roman Empire, "it's a wonder the Empire survived the Crisis of the 3rd Century" - I guess it was having a crappy century compared to the previous couple centuries but Rome wasn't quite "collapsible" yet.
 
Top