mailinutile2 said:
1) Could a north-south partition of the empire work better than an east-west one?
2) Something on the lines of Rome-or-Costaninople vs Carthage-or-Alexandria?
any other candidates?
3) Advantages (if any)/disadvantages respect to OTL partition?
4) which way would Syria go?
5) Any idea to reach this point without subverting Actium?
maybe Gordian?
1) That depends what goes to the Northern Roman Empire and what goes to the Southern Roman Empire.
Also the division will try to be equal in size such as were the Western and Eastern Roman Empires in OTL : the South would probably get North Africa, Cyprus and the the Middeast provinces up to southern Turkey while the North gets the rest.
But if you look at it, the North doesn't get as much richness as the South and gets all the Barbarians while the South has safer border (except the Persian one), so it won't be a truly equal partition.
In this scenario, the North would collapse fastly, even if it holds most of the Legions : there are too many Germanic tribes going south and the Huns are going to do much damage when they'll come.
So my answer is that it won't work much better but probably worse.
2) Rome was no longer the Imperial Capital when the Partition took place if I'm not wrong : it was replaced by Ravenna in the West and Constantinople in the East.
In a North/South Division, Rome might stay as the Northern Capital. If it is not chosen, Constantinople would be the Northern Capital. Ravenna would be a third candidate but it has far less chances in my opinion.
As for the Southern Capital, Carthage and Alexandria are both possible candidates. Carthage holds the advantages of being close to Rome but it would be ironic for the Romans to choose the capital of Hannibal as theirs... As for Alexandria, it is a rich city but it is far too close from Persia.
3) See 1)
4) Probably to the Southern Roman Empire to make both Empire equal in sizes and relieve the Persian border of the North.
5) Currently, no.