Let's say that the plague that struck Emperor Valerian's army never happens. Let's say also, then, that with his legions at full strength, Valerian is able to defeat the Sassanids at Edessa, and drive them back into Persia for the time-being.
What does the future of Rome look like with a surviving Valerian? I don't know too terribly much about Valerian, but I do know that he had the favor of the Senate, being a former Senator, himself. His son and successor, Gallienus, had many conflicts with the Senate during his time as sole emperor, even causing them to almost execute his entire family upon Gallienus' own death. With Valerian still alive, could we have seen a Senate that cooperated with its Emperors vastly more than in OTL?
Additionally, Gallienus had an enormous number of military issues that resulted in many provinces seceding (and staying as such) during his reign; with the addition of a surviving Valerian as well as his 60,000 legionnaires, could we have seen enough military strength to return those rebellious governors and provinces to the fold?
Alternatively, rather than making the Empire more stable, could the survival of Valerian have caused some sort of major conflict between Gallienus and his father, perhaps from the former desiring sole Emperorship, or some such?
Valerian, of course, ruled in the very middle of the Crisis of the Third Century, so I'm doubtful as to exactly how much his survival could have changed the course of things; there would be plenty more opportunity for assassination attempts and rebellions and usurpations. Even so, I'm wondering how less unstable, so to say, Rome could have been if Valerian had stuck around for a few more years.
What does the future of Rome look like with a surviving Valerian? I don't know too terribly much about Valerian, but I do know that he had the favor of the Senate, being a former Senator, himself. His son and successor, Gallienus, had many conflicts with the Senate during his time as sole emperor, even causing them to almost execute his entire family upon Gallienus' own death. With Valerian still alive, could we have seen a Senate that cooperated with its Emperors vastly more than in OTL?
Additionally, Gallienus had an enormous number of military issues that resulted in many provinces seceding (and staying as such) during his reign; with the addition of a surviving Valerian as well as his 60,000 legionnaires, could we have seen enough military strength to return those rebellious governors and provinces to the fold?
Alternatively, rather than making the Empire more stable, could the survival of Valerian have caused some sort of major conflict between Gallienus and his father, perhaps from the former desiring sole Emperorship, or some such?
Valerian, of course, ruled in the very middle of the Crisis of the Third Century, so I'm doubtful as to exactly how much his survival could have changed the course of things; there would be plenty more opportunity for assassination attempts and rebellions and usurpations. Even so, I'm wondering how less unstable, so to say, Rome could have been if Valerian had stuck around for a few more years.
