The Great Disaster of 102 A.D.

[robertp6165]

About 20 kilometers southeast of Rome is the Alban Hills Volcanic Complex, a dormant volcano which last erupted about 37,000 years ago. To the Romans it was known as Albanus Mons. It is thought there is a slowly growing spherical magma chamber underneath the complex which will eventually erupt again. But what if it had grown somewhat faster? I offer the following scenario...

On July 21, 102 A.D., the Emperor Trajan is away in Dacia, fighting the First Dacian War. The people of Rome go about their business, unaware that, in the Albanus Mons, a disaster is in the making. The first inkling they have of trouble occurs when the ground in the center of the complex begins to bulge upward noticeably, and there is an earthquake, damaging a number of buildiings in Rome. Some people (about 1/10 of the population) leave the city. The bulge continues to grow over the next couple of days, then on July 23, there is a catastrophic explosion. An eruption basically equal in scale to the 1625 B.C. eruption of Santorini takes place, with effects very similar to those of the Santorini eruption. Rome is effectively wiped off the map, along with a number of surrounding towns, buried, like Pompeii, under tons of volcanic ash. Most of central Italy is laid waste by the explosion, by fires caused by the eruption, and by earthquakes accompanying the explosion. Huge plumes of ash are cast into the atmosphere, leading to colder temperatures across the Northern hemisphere for the next decade. There are crop failures in many places as a result, especially in Italy and Gaul, but also in many other places as well. A huge (100 ft or more high) Tsunami wave sweeps outward from the coast, hitting Sardinia, Sicily, Spain, and North Africa within 24 hours.

Can the Emperor Trajan pick up the pieces and save his Empire, or will the loss of the imperial center and the attendant environmental effects cause a system-wide collapse?

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

If there was an active volcanoe beneath Rome like the one at Santorini, then such a catastrophe would cause the end of the Roman Empire right then and there. There would be absolutely nothing Trajan, or anyone else could do to salvage the situation. With the destruction of most of Italy, the provinces may fall into anarchy, what with central authority gone. Crop failures across the western Mediterenean would lead to great famine, that would lead to resentment, and before long, the collapse of local authority. The provinces in Asia and Egypt might come off better than the west, but whats to stop them from dividing into independent factions, post disaster?

 

[Doraemon]

Wouldn't this have to be in the asb section because of the huge number of butterflies that result from a volcano erupting in 100,000 B.C.? Not to mention the huge geological changes that have to occur for the volcano to be there in the first place.

 

[robertp6165]

If there was an active volcanoe beneath Rome like the one at Santorini, then such a catastrophe would cause the end of the Roman Empire right then and there. There would be absolutely nothing Trajan, or anyone else could do to salvage the situation.

You are probably right about that. Although Trajan was certainly among the top five most capable Emperors Rome produced, and if anyone can save the Empire, it would be he.

With the destruction of most of Italy, the provinces may fall into anarchy, what with central authority gone. Crop failures across the western Mediterenean would lead to great famine, that would lead to resentment, and before long, the collapse of local authority. The provinces in Asia and Egypt might come off better than the west, but whats to stop them from dividing into independent factions, post disaster?

If the Empire does collapse, as is likely, I can see how the things you describe could happen. However, I also see a possibility that the provincial governors carve sub-Roman successor states out for themselves, then we see extended warfare as the stronger among them try to reunite the empire.

The provinces in the East, especially Egypt, might well come out to be dominant in this scenario. It would be cool if there were a native revolution in Egypt, a new Pharaoh is installed, and the Pharaoh reunites the former Roman Empire under the banner of Egypt.

Of course, a lot is going to depend on how the Parthians are affected. A few years of cooler, wetter, weather might actually benefit their agriculture. And given the weakness of Rome, we might see Parthia move in for the kill.

 

[Mikey]

102 AD? Well, considering John of Patmos had just published the Book of Revelation, the total destruction of Rome is going to be seen as one hell of an endorsement of Christianity.

That's going to establish a very vengeful Christian god and a fanatical church.

 

[robertp6165]

102 AD? Well, considering John of Patmos had just published the Book of Revelation, the total destruction of Rome is going to be seen as one hell of an endorsement of Christianity.

That's going to establish a very vengeful Christian god and a fanatical church.

That could be. Of course, one thing I had wondered is what the effect on Christianity would be of the destruction of it's Roman congregation? Rome was one of the great centers of early Christianity and held one of the largest of the early Christian communities, after all.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Actually, the OTL Christian presence in Rome itself, in the first three centuries of the Common Era was quite small compared to cities Antioch, Ephesus, and Alexandria. And while such a disaster might look like the perfect situation for the early Christian Church to spread it's messege amongst the less educated, using the overnight destruction of Rome, and the resulting famine around the Mediterrenean as a sign of their god's disfavour, there is no reason to assume that everyone else would willingly bend the knee to it.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

You are probably right about that. Although Trajan was certainly among the top five most capable Emperors Rome produced, and if anyone can save the Empire, it would be he.

As great as Trajan was, I think that such a catastrophe would traumatize him deeply, like it would so many others. If he was in Dacia at the time, then upon hearing the horrific news, he might abandon the campaign, and turn south to check on the provinces. All in all, I think that this situation would be too big even for Trajan's statesmanship to handle. The simple fact here is that pre-industrial culture like Imperial Rome wouldn't have the means or the know-how to recover from this.

If the Empire does collapse, as is likely, I can see how the things you describe could happen. However, I also see a possibility that the provincial governors carve sub-Roman successor states out for themselves, then we see extended warfare as the stronger among them try to reunite the empire.

Thats what I thought.

The provinces in the East, especially Egypt, might well come out to be dominant in this scenario. It would be cool if there were a native revolution in Egypt, a new Pharaoh is installed, and the Pharaoh reunites the former Roman Empire under the banner of Egypt.

While Egypt may recover faster in the long run, even that will suffer a period of famine. And any new regime that arises in Egypt after the breakdown of Roman authority, will not be tempted to restore the Roman Empire. Like everyone else, they would be too concerned about their own defence.

Of course, a lot is going to depend on how the Parthians are affected. A few years of cooler, wetter, weather might actually benefit their agriculture. And given the weakness of Rome, we might see Parthia move in for the kill.

This disaster could allow the Parthians the chance to expand into Syria and Judea, but I don't think that trade in the Mediterrenean would be as vibrant as they would have liked. Needless to say, the fresh victories that the Parthians achieve in the wake of the catastrophe, will taste like the ashes from the fictional volcanoe beneath Rome.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Why will Egypt have famine if it was the grain-basket of Rome ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[serebryakov]

What if the seven hills of Rome were actually the remains of a volcano which last erupted in the year 100,567 B.C. But the volcano is not dead, merely dormant.

Actually, there is almost no "if" - there IS a dormant volcano 20 km southeast of Rome: Alban hills volcanic complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alban_Hills

 

[robertp6165]

Wouldn't this have to be in the asb section because of the huge number of butterflies that result from a volcano erupting in 100,000 B.C.? Not to mention the huge geological changes that have to occur for the volcano to be there in the first place.

Actually, there is almost no "if" - there IS a dormant volcano 20 km southeast of Rome: Alban hills volcanic complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alban_Hills

That's interesting, thank you for bringing that to my attention. We can move the point of eruption from the fictional volcano directly underneath Rome to this complex which, if it erupted with the force of Santorini, would cause the same level of destruction.

 

[MerryPrankster]

And while such a disaster might look like the perfect situation for the early Christian Church to spread it's messege amongst the less educated, using the overnight destruction of Rome, and the resulting famine around the Mediterrenean as a sign of their god's disfavour, there is no reason to assume that everyone else would willingly bend the knee to it.

What do you think would happen, then?

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Why will Egypt have famine if it was the grain-basket of Rome ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

In 1815, Mount Tambora exploded in Indonesia. Ninety-two thousand people were killed in the area. The eruption sent thousands of tons of sulfide gas into the upper atmosphere. This blocked a lot of sunlight from penetrating the atmosphere, causing a cooling effect. The year following the disaster was known as the "Year Without Summer." The result of widespread cooling caused snowstorms during summer in the northern hemisphere, which in turn caused widespread crop failures. If there was a volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean at this stage, Egypt will suffer from the fallout like everywhere else, imperial breadbasket or no.

 

[Canadian Dragon]

Actually, there is almost no "if" - there IS a dormant volcano 20 km southeast of Rome: Alban hills volcanic complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alban_Hills

The central part of the Italian peninsula has not one, but several volcanoes within a few hundred km of Rome. Some of them have had violent caldera-forming eruptions within the last one million years, and some still do exhibit some geothermal activity. This includes the Alban Hills (Colli Albani in Italian), of course.

In this link, http://boris.vulcanoetna.it/Italiahome.html, there's a map of Italy showing the locations of volcanoes. Rome isn't shown, but sits right between Sabatini and the Alban Hills (Colli Albani on the map).

There's yet another link on the Alban Hills: http://boris.vulcanoetna.it/ALBANI.html. Check out the geological map in that site - it shows that pyroclastic flows (ignimbrite) apparently went as far as right where Rome sits today. They went even further, as outcrops have been found up to 80 km from the caldera.

And note that there is yet another caldera complex just to the north of Rome, the Sabatini Volcanic Complex (http://boris.vulcanoetna.it/SABATINI.html), whose pyroclastic flow deposits went as far as the north side of Rome.

Earthquake swarms have been recorded in the Alban Hills since Roman times, indicating that there's a molten magma chamber sitting right underneath the Alban Hills complex. CO2 emissions have killed livestock there as well.

If the Alban Hills blew up big time during Roman times...well, think of Pompeii, but on a much larger scale. Rome had at least 1.25-1.5 million people by 102 AD.

 

[Fardell]

This would be an interesting scenario. Trajan could abandon the Dacia campaign and then set up a 'temporary' capital in Byzantium as he tries to hold the Empire together in this time of crisis.

 

[General Mung Beans]

This would be an interesting scenario. Trajan could abandon the Dacia campaign and then set up a 'temporary' capital in Byzantium as he tries to hold the Empire together in this time of crisis.

I think Alexendria would be a more likely canidate for subsitute capital.

 

[robertp6165]

This would be an interesting scenario. Trajan could abandon the Dacia campaign and then set up a 'temporary' capital in Byzantium as he tries to hold the Empire together in this time of crisis.

I think Alexendria would be a more likely canidate for subsitute capital.

I agree that Byzantium might not be the best choice at this time...it was a relatively small city at this time (Constantine later chose it partly for this reason...he was able to basically rebuild it according to his own plans and have things as he wanted them). Alexandria would be a logical choice, although Trajan might want something a bit closer to where he is in Dacia. Ephesus in Asia Minor might be a good choice, if he doesn't want to go to Alexandria. But I agree that Alexandria would be an excellent choice.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

Grain from across the Empire flowed to Rome and the cities of central Italy. What happens when this great consumptive core of the Empire is blown out?

 

[robertp6165]

As great as Trajan was, I think that such a catastrophe would traumatize him deeply, like it would so many others. If he was in Dacia at the time, then upon hearing the horrific news, he might abandon the campaign, and turn south to check on the provinces. All in all, I think that this situation would be too big even for Trajan's statesmanship to handle. The simple fact here is that pre-industrial culture like Imperial Rome wouldn't have the means or the know-how to recover from this.

Well, the Minoans were hit by a similar disaster when the 1625 B.C. Santorini eruption took place, and managed to recover and actually prosper for about 200 more years, until they were finally taken over by the Mycenaeans. And their technology level was much lower than that of Rome. I think Rome would have the knowhow to recover from it. The question is whether or not they can hold onto the empire long enough to mobilize the resources to do it. If the imperial center is suddenly gone, I think there will be a lot of centrifugal forces which will make mobilizing those resources very difficult.

This disaster could allow the Parthians the chance to expand into Syria and Judea, but I don't think that trade in the Mediterrenean would be as vibrant as they would have liked. Needless to say, the fresh victories that the Parthians achieve in the wake of the catastrophe, will taste like the ashes from the volcano.

quite likely true.

 

[robertp6165]

The central part of the Italian peninsula has not one, but several volcanoes within a few hundred km of Rome. Some of them have had violent caldera-forming eruptions within the last one million years, and some still do exhibit some geothermal activity. This includes the Alban Hills (Colli Albani in Italian), of course.

In this link, http://boris.vulcanoetna.it/Italiahome.html, there's a map of Italy showing the locations of volcanoes. Rome isn't shown, but sits right between Sabatini and the Alban Hills (Colli Albani on the map).

There's yet another link on the Alban Hills: http://boris.vulcanoetna.it/ALBANI.html. Check out the geological map in that site - it shows that pyroclastic flows (ignimbrite) apparently went as far as right where Rome sits today. They went even further, as outcrops have been found up to 80 km from the caldera.

And note that there is yet another caldera complex just to the north of Rome, the Sabatini Volcanic Complex (http://boris.vulcanoetna.it/SABATINI.html), whose pyroclastic flow deposits went as far as the north side of Rome.

Earthquake swarms have been recorded in the Alban Hills since Roman times, indicating that there's a molten magma chamber sitting right underneath the Alban Hills complex. CO2 emissions have killed livestock there as well.

If the Alban Hills blew up big time during Roman times...well, think of Pompeii, but on a much larger scale. Rome had at least 1.25-1.5 million people by 102 AD.

Absolutely. It does sound like the Alban Hills is a good choice for this scenario.