Preventing the 3rd Century Crisis

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.
 
Last edited:
Could there be a way to prevent rebellion by Avidius Cassius, whom might have been made a colleague of Marcus Aurelius under different circumstances?
 
If you're a fan of Heather's thesis, as I am, I'd suggest that the best way to avoid the Third Century Crisis is to avoid the rise of the Sassanid dynasty; Heather argues that it was the sudden emerge in Persia of a superpower that matched Rome in aggression and belligerence that toppled the old structures of the Principate and caused the Third Century Crisis.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
If you're a fan of Heather's thesis, as I am, I'd suggest that the best way to avoid the Third Century Crisis is to avoid the rise of the Sassanid dynasty; Heather argues that it was the sudden emerge in Persia of a superpower that matched Rome in aggression and belligerence that toppled the old structures of the Principate and caused the Third Century Crisis.

I'm firmly in agreement, having also read that book. It makes a good deal of sense though.

For most of the Principate's existence, it had no real threats. But the Sassanid Persians were powerful enough to make the Romans take real notice, and sent a serious shock. Military expeditures skyrocketed as the Romans adapted to the new threat.

But I wouldn't say that that is the only reason. Although the occasional general rebelling to seize power was relatively harmless, and may even have been beneficial to the state at times. But by the mid 200s, emperors were being deposed at extreme rates, with practically every general trying to take control.

Those two factors led to extreme destabilization of the Empire. All it took for the whole stack of cards to fall was the intervention of external forces.
 
I completely agree that getting rid of the Sassanids would prevent the 3rd century crisis.

It would also remove a powerful barrier between Rome/ Byzantium and the nomads of Central Asia. That wouldn't make any difference in the short term, but in the 5th century the Hephthalites will arrive and, with no Sassanids (or equivalents), overrun Persia completely. The Romans will be facing Hunnish threats in the North and the East.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I'm firmly in agreement, having also read that book. It makes a good deal of sense though.

For most of the Principate's existence, it had no real threats. But the Sassanid Persians were powerful enough to make the Romans take real notice, and sent a serious shock. Military expeditures skyrocketed as the Romans adapted to the new threat.

But I wouldn't say that that is the only reason. Although the occasional general rebelling to seize power was relatively harmless, and may even have been beneficial to the state at times. But by the mid 200s, emperors were being deposed at extreme rates, with practically every general trying to take control.

Those two factors led to extreme destabilization of the Empire. All it took for the whole stack of cards to fall was the intervention of external forces.

Well, in my long-standing opinion, the two factors that led to the downfall of the Roman Empire, the 3rd centruy crisis being a critical component of the whole process, were 1) the excessive political instability, with a lack of a socio-political counterbalance to military despotism, and 2) missed conquest and assimilation of Germania-Pannonia-Dacia, up to the Vistula-Carpathians-Dniester border, and Mesopotamia, up to the Zagros border, if not conquest or vassallization of Persia itself.

Achievement of these two key developments during the apex of Roman strength, in the 1st-2nd centuries, would have prevented the 3rd century crisis and the 5th century crisis. As it concerns the Sassanids, even if Rome had failed the conquer Persia, Romanization of Mesopotamia would have deprived the Sassanids of their richer and most popolous province, greately dinimishing their military resources, as well as given Rome a much better natural border at the Zagros, than OTL. And, of course, if Persia had been conquered or vassallized, the rise of the Sassanids would have been

As it concerns the reduction of political instability, it would have required at least one or both of: a well-defined imperial succession system and some serious power-sharing between the Emperor and a Senate with extensive representation of the provincial elites; an empire-wide socio-political balance to the professional military, such as a Chinese-style professional scholar civil service, or more powerful and influential urban trading elites. Less important, but still rather useful, a military balance in Rome to the Pretorian Guard (e.g. a Senatorial Guard).

Last but not least, even if not directly involved in the Sassanid threat, or the recurring military coups, one must not undervalue the indirect benefits that previous conquest and proper development of Germania-Pannonia-Dacia, with the Vistula-Carpathians-Dniester border, would have ensured, both as it concerns addtional manpower and taxes, a shorter border freeing up substantial military resources for use against Persia, and a more concentrated army on two shorter borders, which would have made for shoter and less destructive civil wars if and when they happened.
 
Last edited:
Top