The Many Shades of Rome: Severus Dies at Nicaea Timeline

Do You Want Albinus to Succeed?

  • Yes, Long Live the Republic!

    Votes: 69 69.0%
  • No, Stop the Madness!

    Votes: 31 31.0%

  • Total voters
    100
I ve heard of the neck thing, but this is the first time I hear about this theory. Couldn't this just be an error of the author/copier or an exaggeration useful to present Caracalla in a darker light?

That is a very possible. Though if it's true it would mean Caracalla killed his step brother Geta, who was certainly Domna's son, not his blood brother. This might make more sense as to why he did it.

EDIT: Its also mentioned in the gossip filled Historia Augusta.
 
Last edited:
One question, and maybe I missed this in the earlier chapters of the story. What was the reasoning behind the tactical from the cohort system to the phalanx system in the eastern legions? Is this based on Alexander's easy conquest of Persia with a phalanx-centric army? Because I believe Alexander's successes were largely related to his superior cavalry and the Persian's over-reliance on elephants and chariots (both of which would be militarily obsolete by this time and the phalanx's advantages against them wouldn't apply to the highly specialized Parthian cavalry). Or is this based on some other historical sources that cite phalanxes as being effective against cataphracts or mounted archers? Not meant to sound overly critical, since Roman generals were never known for their creativity, and imitating Alexander the Great was always an important "celebrity" for lack of a better word amongst the Romans
 
One question, and maybe I missed this in the earlier chapters of the story. What was the reasoning behind the tactical from the cohort system to the phalanx system in the eastern legions? Is this based on Alexander's easy conquest of Persia with a phalanx-centric army? Because I believe Alexander's successes were largely related to his superior cavalry and the Persian's over-reliance on elephants and chariots (both of which would be militarily obsolete by this time and the phalanx's advantages against them wouldn't apply to the highly specialized Parthian cavalry). Or is this based on some other historical sources that cite phalanxes as being effective against cataphracts or mounted archers? Not meant to sound overly critical, since Roman generals were never known for their creativity, and imitating Alexander the Great was always an important "celebrity" for lack of a better word amongst the Romans

Very good question! You are completely correct Alexander was effective for a whole number of reasons not just the phalanx. What I'm referring to is the Roman armies resurrection of the phalanx in the early 3rd century. The Romans, when fighting the Parthians, put a focus on Hasta spears over their traditional weapons. Caracalla, who loved Alexander, during his reign formed a Macedonian and Spartan "Phalanx" for his army. Its very debatable exactly what form it took and the length of its spears. Whatever the case Macrinus used this "phalanx" system effectively at the Battle of Nisibis against Parthian cavalry. In this timeline I have Niger "New Alexander" taking up OTL Caracalla's idea. If you would like to learn more about this both Syvanne in his Caracalla bio and Cowan in his book Imperial Roman Legionary 161-284 discuss the subject.


I found this image below, its a representation of Nisibis. Note the Roman "phalanx" beating back Parthian cavalry.

cc19c6348de33b6cf4f14f4e442d3dc5.jpg
 
Last edited:
That is a very possible. Though if it's true it would mean Caracalla killed his step brother Geta, who was certainly Domna's son, not his blood brother. This might make more sense as to why he did it.

EDIT: Its also mentioned in the gossip filled Historia Augusta.
Probably it makes sense but can it be considered justified? After all Geta was still a brother, and it seems that Severus granted the empire to both his sons, regardless of the mother
 
Very good question! You are completely correct Alexander was effective for a whole number of reasons not just the phalanx. What I'm referring to is the Roman armies resurrection of the phalanx in the early 3rd century. The Romans, when fighting the Parthians, put a focus on Hasta spears over their traditional weapons. Caracalla, who loved Alexander, during his reign formed a Macedonian and Spartan "Phalanx" for his army. Its very debatable exactly what form it took and the length of its spears. Whatever the case Macrinus used this "phalanx" system effectively at the Battle of Nisibis against Parthian cavalry. In this timeline I have Niger "New Alexander" taking up OTL Caracalla's idea. If you would like to learn more about this both Syvanne in his Caracalla bio and Cowan in his book Imperial Roman Legionary 161-284 discuss the subject.

Shows what I know about the Severan period I suppose. Very interesting, and an excellent chapter!
 
Probably it makes sense but can it be considered justified? After all Geta was still a brother, and it seems that Severus granted the empire to both his sons, regardless of the mother

You are correct Severus did grant the empire to both brothers. I don't think Caracalla could be justified unless it was in self defense. Caracalla did claim this at the time but who knows how legitimate it was. Syvanne presents it as more than just a conflict between siblings and into a clash between the African-Syrian branches of the Severan house. This would make more sense in my view. Both Caracalla and Geta were probably under pressure to strike, Caracalla just moved first.

In regard to our previous discussion, Herodian mentions Julia Domna being called "Jocasta" from the Oedipus story. Again implying Domna isn't Caracalla's mother than Elagabalus and Severus Alexander, in turn, wouldn't have any blood relation to Caracalla at all and thus weren't even Severans. Unless you believe the gossip claim that they were his children.
 
Last edited:
Top