Since I plan on writing a rather lengthy and detailed timeline on the subject I would like to sound out the opinions of the other members of the board on this subject. In short: what was the latest possible “point of divergence” for avoiding entirely, heading off, or at least minimizing the effects of the 3rd century crisis of the Roman Empire, and what would the necessary steps to that effect be?
In many ways the crisis was inherent to the state structure of the Principate, yet militarily, economically and culturally, it was entirely avoidable. Large scale barbarian invasions (which were still small in size when compared to those in the 5th century crisis) only occurred after the 250s and 260s, and even then they mostly took the form of deep, large scale raiding which could ordinarily have been handled by the Roman army. Economically, despite an increasingly debased coinage, the Mediterranean world remained prosperous. It was only in the 250s and 260s that the economy truly collapsed and urbanization declined drastically.
So, how could the Crisis of the 3rd century be prevented? Discuss.
In many ways the crisis was inherent to the state structure of the Principate, yet militarily, economically and culturally, it was entirely avoidable. Large scale barbarian invasions (which were still small in size when compared to those in the 5th century crisis) only occurred after the 250s and 260s, and even then they mostly took the form of deep, large scale raiding which could ordinarily have been handled by the Roman army. Economically, despite an increasingly debased coinage, the Mediterranean world remained prosperous. It was only in the 250s and 260s that the economy truly collapsed and urbanization declined drastically.
So, how could the Crisis of the 3rd century be prevented? Discuss.
Last edited: