Roman Empire Splits Earlier

I was playing around with the idea of the Roman Empire falling earlier than OTL and came across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_empire. The Palmyrene Empire was founded the same year. Could either of these empires survived?
In the long term, I think it's doubtful. The Palmyrene state appears to have been very fragile and the Gallic lands weren't rich or populous enough to support themselves in the long term against barbarian invasions, a problem that would be only worsened as the Huns pushed the Germanic tribes west. Persia would've been more than capable of handling Palmyrene, especially so because Rome proper is sure to be warring with Gaul and the Levant to reclaim what they view as their lost provinces.

It's definitely feasible for the two break aways to outlast the main Empire. It's a miracle that it came out of the third century at all.
 
They don't even need to outlast the Empire necessarily, just contribute significantly to it's downfall.
 
Based on some stuff I have read (which admittedly isn't a lot) the Gallic Empire had defensible borders and a good system of defense in depth, though in OTL it was stripped of troops to try to defend other parts of the Empire.

The Palmyrene Empire is more problematic, but if Rome fails to get a good enough Emperor in Rome to recapture them, then they might have a chance. They and the Gallic Empire were both regained by a single man who reigned only five years. Without Aurelian, Rome might well have been too busy with internal disputes and barbarian invasions to even attempt to regain lost territory, even if they didn't collapse.

The other major threat to the Palmyerene Empire, the Sanassids are going through a period where their rulers didn't last long and/or did poorly against the Romans. If this parallels OTL at all, that gives them until 75 years after their founding before the Sanassids are a real threat.
 
The problem with earlier PODs is that the centre of government is still located in ITaly, and if you don't control it, you are at a serious disadvantage. By the third century, it would probably have been feasible to split off a partial Roman Empire. The question is how to stop the all but inevitable attempts at reconquest. At that time, you don't really have a concept of separate Roman Emperors, so the likelihood is that the central power will not accept their legitimacy. This is made easier by the tendency of local commanders to try for the purple.

If the Palmyrene state had managed to develop its own regularised succession and adapted the Roman system of government, they would have had a chance to hold on to de-facto independence at least for a while. The Gallic Empire would be harder - I suspect it would only have that chance if it ended up conquering Rome rather than the other way around.
 
Does this sound realistic:

Aurelian is killed in 242 in battle against the Sarmatians. No major changes for a few years until:

256 AD: Major Gothic invasion in Asia Minor. Dacia is lost as well. In the west, the Franks cross the Rhine and the Alamanni reach Milan. Goths appear in Greece. In Africa, Berbers massacre Roman colonists. Persian Empire conquers Mesopotamia and Syria. The frontiers of the Empire are crumbling.


257 AD: Rhine defenses are overrun, barbarians flood into the Empire. The Goths separate into Visigoths and Ostrogoths. Roman forces are defeated along the lower Danube by Goths. Persecution of the Christians intensifies.


258 AD: The Goths ravage Asia Minor. Gaul, Britain and Spain break off and form the Gallic Empire.


259 AD: Valerian is captured and executed in Persia. Postumus becomes Emperor of Gaul and drives the barbarians from the Gallic Empire. Italy is invaded by Alamanni.


260 AD: Gallienus becomes emperor. He successfully defends Italy against the Alamanni. Syria, Egypt and Palestine break off the form the Palmyrene Empire.


261 AD: The Alamanni are defeated at Milan. Gallienus restores Dalmatia to the empire.


262 AD: Without the rich provinces of the east, the Roman economy collapses and inflation skyrockets. The Gallic Empire is spared the worst of the crisis as it has a more valuable currency. Postumus defeats the Franks in Belgica. The Temple of Artemis in Ephesus is burned down by the Goths.


263 AD: Postumus' success in Belgica is short lived: the province is overrun by the Franks. Gallienus defends Italy from the Alamanni once more, and once more he is successful.


264 AD: Odaenathus, king of Palmyra, conquers Edessa, Nisibis and Carhae. Seeing the weakness of the Rome, he breaks all relations with the Empire.


265 AD: The Ostrgoths invade the Balkans. Gallienus defends Dalmatia and Illyricum, but Thrace, Macedonia and Dacia all fall to the barbarians.

Thats what I have so far. With Aurelian dead, Rome wil have lost one of it's greatest generals of the time. Seeing as I did this in an hour, it is probably full of errors and its not all that different from OTL so far. The main change will be that Aurelian will not reunite the empire.
 
Top