Surviving Palmyrene Empire

The Palmyrene Empire, one of the four short lived breakaway states of the Empire during the Crisis of the Third Century was one that held the greatest potential of surviving as an independent state, unlike either the Gallic Empire (since the soldiers sought to rule over a united Rome rather than as just a breakaway Empire), or the longer lasting but more unlikely Britannic Empire.

As such, could there be a way for the Palmyrene Empire to survive? Perhaps to serve as a significant buffer between Rome and the newly established Sasanian dynasty? Could such an empire establish a distinct Palmyrene culture?
 
Initially Zenobia was not intending to establish an independent empire. She just liked to get the same extraordinary privileges and titles for her son, her husband Odeonathus had. So there is a chance in earlier times of the separation, that a roman emperor is cutting a deal with her. But this is not the scenario you are looking for.

Latest after the Palmyrenenans conquered Egypt (the "crown jewels" of the roman empire), it was clear for every roman emperor, that the conflict is unavoidable. Of course it is possible, that an emperor looses a decisive battle against the palmyreneans. But I doubt the romans would really stop to try it again and again. And there is always the danger, that the rich province of Asia would also call Palmyra for help and break away.

Well, if the patt situation amongst the 3 empires survives for very long, by whatever reasons, there might be a chance. Actually, the gallic empire was in a relatively good shape with a strong economy. The most devastating raids of Gallia happenend after the fall of the gallic empire.

The culture of Syria and the neighbouring provinces was already different. A mixture of greek, roman, syrian, oriental and arabian culture with also a strong jewish component. Perhaps the arabian part would become a bit stronger. But nothing significant.

IIRC, we already had similar discussions on this forum. So the search function might be your friend.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that Zenobia was at least notionally going for Rome itself, as opposed to seceding from it.
Vaballatus was given Imperial titles after all, as far as I can remember (the relevant epigraphic documentation is largely in the process of being dynamited by Da'ish, BTW).
It is pretty unlikely that she would succeed in establishing her "Palmyrene" ("Syrian" would be a better word; the seat of government was not even Palmyra but Homs, for the most part) rule over the whole Roman Empire though. A stalemate with effective secession of the East under the house of Odenathus (Aurelii Septimii IIRC) is possible, but I am not sure it can last. The resulting state would be sanwiched between vengeful Rome and probably very hostile Sasanians, with the center of power in uncomfortably close to both.
Syria is uniquely ill-placed to be center of big empires, as opposed to being where said big empires squabble among themselves, because it lacks strategic depth (the only important exception I can think of is the Umayyad Caliphate).
A reunified Roman empire under the Aurelii Septimii, however unlikely, would be a pretty different beast from the Dominate that emerged historically, and an interesting concept in itself.
 
My understanding is that Zenobia was at least notionally going for Rome itself, as opposed to seceding from it.
Vaballatus was given Imperial titles after all, as far as I can remember (the relevant epigraphic documentation is largely in the process of being dynamited by Da'ish, BTW).
It is pretty unlikely that she would succeed in establishing her "Palmyrene" ("Syrian" would be a better word; the seat of government was not even Palmyra but Homs, for the most part) rule over the whole Roman Empire though. A stalemate with effective secession of the East under the house of Odenathus (Aurelii Septimii IIRC) is possible, but I am not sure it can last. The resulting state would be sanwiched between vengeful Rome and probably very hostile Sasanians, with the center of power in uncomfortably close to both.
Syria is uniquely ill-placed to be center of big empires, as opposed to being where said big empires squabble among themselves, because it lacks strategic depth (the only important exception I can think of is the Umayyad Caliphate).
A reunified Roman empire under the Aurelii Septimii, however unlikely, would be a pretty different beast from the Dominate that emerged historically, and an interesting concept in itself.

So in a way, the situation with Palmyra is similar to that of Gallia, thus rendering it impossible for it to simply survive as an independent polity due to leaders wanting to actually rule over all of Rome.

What do you mean by Syria lacking strategic depth though?
 
My understanding is that Zenobia was at least notionally going for Rome itself, as opposed to seceding from it.
Vaballatus was given Imperial titles after all, as far as I can remember

Yes, but he used imperial titles like Dux Romanorum and Corrector orientis like his father, even imperator after the victory in Egypt. But the real crucial titel Augustus was not used before it was obvious, that Aurelianus marches against Palmyra.
 
So in a way, the situation with Palmyra is similar to that of Gallia, thus rendering it impossible for it to simply survive as an independent polity due to leaders wanting to actually rule over all of Rome.

What do you mean by Syria lacking strategic depth though?

Is is a relatively narrow stretch of arable land between the sea and the desert, with other, agriculturally more productive centers on all sides (Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Egypt...). Rich and important enough to be a very tempting target, not enough to sustain a comparable center of its own for long (also, fragmented geography; Syria was rarely a unified polity; Damascus and Aleppo have been squabbling for most of documented history, which in the region means since the Early-Mid Bronze Age, and arguably still are).
One could name the Seleucids as evidence of the contrary, but I would argue that the Seleucid power was not, and could not be, based on Syria alone: as long as they were a big power, they relied on Mesopotamia as well.
 
Yes, but he used imperial titles like Dux Romanorum and Corrector orientis like his father, even imperator after the victory in Egypt. But the real crucial titel Augustus was not used before it was obvious, that Aurelianus marches against Palmyra.

It seems to be a little controversial, but I am under the very clear impression that the Palmyrene elite was very serious about feeling Roman. I never returned to study the actual epigraphic corpus in recent years though, so I am not 100% sure.
 
Is is a relatively narrow stretch of arable land between the sea and the desert, with other, agriculturally more productive centers on all sides (Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Egypt...). Rich and important enough to be a very tempting target, not enough to sustain a comparable center of its own for long (also, fragmented geography; Syria was rarely a unified polity; Damascus and Aleppo have been squabbling for most of documented history, which in the region means since the Early-Mid Bronze Age, and arguably still are).
One could name the Seleucids as evidence of the contrary, but I would argue that the Seleucid power was not, and could not be, based on Syria alone: as long as they were a big power, they relied on Mesopotamia as well.

I figured as such with the Seleucids, it seemed as if once their power was confined to Syria they were goners. I'd be tempted to ask further but now that I see what is to become of Palmyra I see no point in elaborating any further. Thanks for your help, it at least puts into perspective that I won't be doing a Palmyrene Empire TL just yet.
 
So in a way, the situation with Palmyra is similar to that of Gallia, thus rendering it impossible for it to simply survive as an independent polity due to leaders wanting to actually rule over all of Rome.

Even more critically, whoever rules in Rome is very unlikely to leave them alone even if the Palmyrenes abandoned such designs. Syria and Egypt were VERY important parts of the Empire (although history would show that it could survive without either, that would only come to pass four centuries later).
I would like to see a Palmyrene Empire TL, but in my opinion, the premise, while not impossible, stretches plausibility.
 
I would like to see a Palmyrene Empire TL, but in my opinion, the premise, while not impossible, stretches plausibility.

I've been gathering info on the possibility of a Palmyra TL a while ago.

My intuition is that if Aurelian fails to reconquer Palmyra in 272, or is killed, it could lead to an early collapse of the Roman Empire, especially if no competent successor is found quickly. I don't think the Palmyrenes can hold Egypt for long (even if Zenobia obsessed over the country), they have better chance with the Euphrates Valley as their new breadbasket, possibly the whole Iraq if they are successful against Persia. Odeanathus beats the Persian several times, and without the Romans to worry about and later the ERE existence being butterflied, the Palmyrenes can concentrate on that front, making alliance with Armenia, and whatever Roman successor state in Asia Minor.

The inner stability of the empire is not to be overlooked, but having been a multicultural region of the world for centuries would help cement a common identity. It will be up to the ruler to manage wisely the rights and representations of the various ethnic and religious groups.

As other people pointed out, the main problem with Palmyra's survival is it own geographical position: a natural crossroad of invasion routes. Persia, the Rashidun Caliphate in the 630s, the Seljuks, the Mongols, the Timurids... and that's just from OTL.

In the end, you can make a relatively plausible Palmyra TL, but you'll have to accept it will be kind of wankish... which is not necessarily a bad thing in my book.
 

fi11222

Banned
My understanding is that Zenobia was at least notionally going for Rome itself, as opposed to seceding from it.
Maybe, and precisely for that reason, a Constantine-like scenario could take place ?

What if Zenobia had her army paint a Chi-Rho on their shields and declare that her son had a dream in which he saw an angel tell him "In hoc signo vinces" (under this sign, you will conquer). If it worked for Constantine at the Milvian bridge in 312 why could it not work for Zenobia 40 years earlier ? Then she could follow basically the same trajectory as Constantine: toleration of all faiths (edict of Milan), heavy funding of Christianity, Council of Nicea, etc.
 
Last edited:
What if Zenobia had her army paint a Chi-Rho on their shields and ...

Of course she could do that. But why the hell she should? Palmyra was a centre of Sol Invictus!

And even if she does. Her battle against Aurelian was her first battle against a roman emperor. Not the last decisive one. Behind Aurelian comes the next roman emperor, and the next, and ...
 

fi11222

Banned
Of course she could do that. But why the hell she should? Palmyra was a centre of Sol Invictus!
Constantine was also a devotee of a Solar deity (Apollo) before he decided to throw his lot behind the strange new god. In any case, any big city at that time was also a major center of some deity or other. That did not stop Constantine. Why should it stop Zenobia ?

And even if she does. Her battle against Aurelian was her first battle against a roman emperor. Not the last decisive one. Behind Aurelian comes the next roman emperor, and the next, and ...
The battle of the Milvian Bridge was also the first major battle for Constantine. He had many other rivals left to deal with after that.

But anyway, the point here is why did Christianity worked for Constantine ? And if it worked for him, why could it not work also for Zenobia ? She had imperial ambitions for her son, and maybe for herself (à la Cleopatra) Why not enlist a new religion to legitimize this ambition ?
 
Top