The Rule of 2, Prosperity and Peril, A Roman Timeline

[StevenIronside]

Prologue
March 5th
177AD
Rome
Imperial Palace

With the Death of one son, came the birth of another. The night was dark even for a full moon as it was blocked by a barrier of dark clouds. The Emperor, Marcus Aurelius mourned for his son and Consul Commodus the Stoic in him forced himself to keep his face even and plain even as his inner thoughts raged in turmoil. However the more the he thought of his recently deceased son the more he realized that this was the gods way of making the world right, maybe he was never meant to have a son, and that in that way he could like the great Hadrian look to his relatives, in this case his daughters. At that moment the clouds in the sky opened up and the light of the full moon fell upon Rome, and a baby's cry split the night air.

Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus smiled as he held his wailing son for the first time. His beautiful wife Lucilla looked at him with a smile on her face, as her body was drenched in sweat. He handed their son to his wife, they had only had one other child a stillborn girl. "What shall we call him?"

Tiberius smiled at his wife, "Lucius Claudius Aurelius Pompeianus." His wife could only smiled a tear running down her cheek, "my little lucius" she wispered.

Within days the husbands of Marcus Aurelius daughters were trying to twist their way into the succession plans, that was other than two certain men. Pompeianus who had denied Aurelius before on becoming emperor, and with the birth of his son was rarely seen away from his house. The other was Gnaeus Claudius Severus. Both men were older, While Gnaeus was an able man good administrator he was no soldier, where as Pompeianus was also an able Administrator as well as one of Aurelius best commanders. Also missing from the constant harrasment was Gnaeus son and Aurelius's grandson, Tiberius Claudius Severus Procolus. It was then that he new what his plan would be, to convince the two men would be the trick.

On March 15th
Marcus Aurelius announced that his heir, and Co-Emperor would be Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus, who would in turn adopt Severus, and would name his son Lucius and Severus as his heirs. In one fell swoop like that of Augustus and Hadrian he had secured the succession for at least two generations, and like Hadrian had his heir name to young men as his heirs which would only make the rule of 2 emperors more imprinted into the succession of the empire. In time Emperors Lucius Aurelius, and Claudius Severus would lead the empire forward, through prosperity and peril.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Oh, very excellent start; I will be reading this TL with interest.

Incidentally, I had thought to discuss a similar PoD (Commodus is killed in 182), which would have a lot of similarities with what's likely to happen here; the OP of said thread goes into how the next 35 years of OTL would see a series of important and contingent turning points.

The only thing I'd add, for the purpose of this thread -- since obviously the years 180 to 182 will also be notably changed -- is that Pomeianus and Severus are significantly less likely to end the war in Germany as quickly as Commodus did OTL. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I'll leave open for discussion.

 

[StevenIronside]

Chapter 1

The convincing of Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus to finally take his place as emperor is said to have been a difficult arguement between the two men. Twice before Aurelius had asked the man to become his Co-Emperor, in those times the emperor and his wife were still bearing children, and had sons. With the loss of Aurelius last son, the urgency of becoming Co-emperor was finally brought to the forefront. Pompeianus is said to have at first baulked at adopting Tiberius Claudius Severus Procolus, as the boy was 14, and his own son and hopeful heir was a meir weeks old. However the bonuses of a dual emperor system seemed to have become obvious, as the threats to the empire seemed to becoming contagious, allowing one or both emperors to leave rome and deal with the problems of the empire.

This was something that would become evident, as only weeks into his reign Pompeianus would leave rome to the danube, taking command of the forces there and continued the Marcomanni war as the Marcomanni and Quadi rebelled together. Pompeianus and his foremost general Marcus Valerius Maximianus for the next two years would fight a viscious double campaign against the two tribes, coming to a culmination when in 179AD the two tribes brought their forces together and a major battle was fought between 40,000 Germanics, and 4 Legions and a force of Auxiliaries and Cavalry. The battle was heralded as a great victory in Rome, in which the dual emperors held a triumph, with a small portion of their army and its legates. In the winter of that year, Pompeianus and Maximianus held suffect consulships side by side. One of the results of this campaign, was the induction of Marcomannia as a province of the empire with two legions being garrisoned in the territory the X Gemina and II Adiutrix.

In the first two years of his reign Pompeianus had won a great victory, and he and Marcus Aurelius began making plans for a campaign against the Iazyges who held the territory between the province of Dacia to its east and the Danube to its west. The incorperation of these terrories becoming a main objective. To this end in 180AD the two emperors moved to Pannonia to overlook the administration of the new province of Marcomannia, and get the troops ready for further campaiging in the following year, however while Aurelius was on his return trip to rome, leaving Pompeianus on the frontier the emperor would pass at Aquileia. Pompeianus would be forced to abandon his current plans and would move back to Rome for the funeral of Marcus Aurelius.

The empire would mourn the loss of one of its great emperors. Pompeianus would abandon his plans for a campaign instead staying in Rome. He also gave a small but traditional Donative to the troops. For the next two years Pompeianus settled into something he did not much care fore, and that was the administrative side of being Emperor, and the politics that came with it. Holding off on naming Severus Procolus Emperor hoping not to until the young prince reached 20. But in 182 two events took place in a relatively close time frame that forced Pompeianus to name Severus as Emperor at 19. First came the third Marcomanni War. The Iazyges, rebels, some so called free dacians and small bands of Marcomanni started a war with the romans crossing the danube and raiding roman territory. Pompeianus left his Caesar in Rome and began the journey east gathering what forces he could, along with his general Maximianus. On the way east however word reached Pompeianus that The Picts and the tribes north of Hadrians wall had broken through Hadrians wall. Unceremoniously he named Severus as Co-Emperor and had him move north to oversee the campaign against the Picts, and with the further objective of occupying the Antonine Wall.

Over the course of 2 years Pompeianus reduced the Iazyges coalition, fighting the final decisive battle in late 184AD with 6 legions against a force of 45000 barbarians, and incorporated the territory between Dacia proper and the Danube into the Empire, naming it the province of Sarmatia. Severus would in the meanwhile learned what it was to lead soldiers. When he arrived in Britain late in 182AD the governor Ulpius Marcellus had brought his 3 legions together the II Augusta, XX Valeria Victrix, and VI Victrix, and defeated the barbarian coalition south of the wall and had already forced them back north. However in 183, the two lead once again defended the wall from a Pict onslaught before moving north of the wall in a campaign of conquest. By the end of 183AD they had reached the wall, and had defeated or allied with several of the tribes in the region. However not wanting to push logistics and strain relations with the locals the army pulled back to the southern wall for the winter, before moving north again in 184AD by the end of which they had occupied Antonines wall, and had incorporated the territory between the two walls into the empire. In 185AD leaving Vexillations of the 3 legions to garrison the wall and the territory between the walls along with a handful of Auxilia Cohors, the young emperor pushed past Antonines wall and campaigned well into the area that Agricola had nearly a 100 years before. It was here that young Severus personally oversaw his first battle without the advice of Ulpius Marcellus who had stayed at the wall. Severus and his 8,000 Legionaries, 8000 Auxilia, and 4,000 of the Sarmatian Cavalry that had moved to Britain in 175, crushed a large Pictish force of well over 20,000 men. While he breifly held onto the territory Agricola had once held, come winter he would move back to Antonines wall, though with the reluctant fealty of the majority of the Northern Tribes. In 186AD the Co-Emperors would hold another Triumph for their recent victories in Dacia and Britannia.

 

[Swown]

I really expected sith rule of 2 from the title😅😅

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So from the looks of it, Pompeiannus has annexed two significant piece of Roman territory north of the Danube, consolidating Rome's borders; meanwhile, Severus has led a punitive expedition to Caledonia, but otherwise left's Britain's borders be; do I have this right?

If so, that is quite the impressive feat, and already a very significant departure from OTL; a stabler border line in the north will certain help as things get hard for the empire, and it's probably a good thing that Rome is paying for it now, since the cooling climate and population strains mean it's likely only going to get harder later. (I mean, that's a big part of why "Hadrian's Consolidation" is a popular idea/TL.) On the other hand, it cannot be denied that these expeditions have put some strain on the empire's finances -- though again, so much better for men like Pompeiannus and Severus to be dealing with these strains than later emperors. Hopefully, this means their successors (Proculus and whomever his co-emperor is) will be able to focus on just securing the borders he inherits, and giving the empire another period of peace.

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

This is gonna be awesome. A more stable Rome might convince Ardeshir I to focus eastward in his expansions rather than westward

 

[Henry III]

Keeping with the system of adoption should insure effective rule at least for know but the crisis of the 3rd century are approaching

Also emperors will attempt to have their sons or blood relatives take the throne

 

[StevenIronside]

So from the looks of it, Pompeiannus has annexed two significant piece of Roman territory north of the Danube, consolidating Rome's borders; meanwhile, Severus has led a punitive expedition to Caledonia, but otherwise left's Britain's borders be; do I have this right?

If so, that is quite the impressive feat, and already a very significant departure from OTL; a stabler border line in the north will certain help as things get hard for the empire, and it's probably a good thing that Rome is paying for it now, since the cooling climate and population strains mean it's likely only going to get harder later. (I mean, that's a big part of why "Hadrian's Consolidation" is a popular idea/TL.) On the other hand, it cannot be denied that these expeditions have put some strain on the empire's finances -- though again, so much better for men like Pompeiannus and Severus to be dealing with these strains than later emperors. Hopefully, this means their successors (Proculus and whomever his co-emperor is) will be able to focus on just securing the borders he inherits, and giving the empire another period of peace.

Basically Pompeianus has just finished what Aurelius intended to do otl, but couldnt because of his death and his sons unwillingness to continue it. However it is a feat for sure.

As for Severus he has reconquered the land between the Antonine wall and Hadrians wall while leading a punitive expedition into Caledonia correct. Everything south of Hadrians wall is roman controlled.

While definitely putting a little bit of a strain on imperial coffers it is nothing more than what the empire experienced under Aurelius, and there has been no lavish spending by either emperor either which helps. Severus or Procolus which ever you guys prefer to call him, and his Co-Emperor will be very much military emperors, holding down the empites borders that is for sure they will also become two of the youngest emperors the empire has had to this point, Severus only being 19 when ascending beside Pompeianus.

This is gonna be awesome. A more stable Rome might convince Ardeshir I to focus eastward in his expansions rather than westward

Ardeshir and the sassanian empire will still come around very similar to how it did otl if the exact same way, and he will be a very big focus for our Co-Emperors, i will say that Rome and Sassanians will still fight their viscous wars, however the sassanians might eventually look elsewhere this timeline.

Keeping with the system of adoption should insure effective rule at least for know but the crisis of the 3rd century are approaching

Also emperors will attempt to have their sons or blood relatives take the throne

Well as of right now Pompeianus intends to have his son Lucius Aurelius become emperor after him and become Severus's Co-Emperor, meaning he will have one blood son become emperor and one adopted come to the throne, if everything works as he intends. As for the Crisis of the Third Century, i will not say weather it will happen as the same as otl or if it all, its causes are still around, and eventuallysomething will slip up, cause after all nothing ever goes totally perfect.

 

[Henry III]

Basically Pompeianus has just finished what Aurelius intended to do otl, but couldnt because of his death and his sons unwillingness to continue it. However it is a feat for sure.

As for Severus he has reconquered the land between the Antonine wall and Hadrians wall while leading a punitive expedition into Caledonia correct. Everything south of Hadrians wall is roman controlled.

While definitely putting a little bit of a strain on imperial coffers it is nothing more than what the empire experienced under Aurelius, and there has been no lavish spending by either emperor either which helps. Severus or Procolus which ever you guys prefer to call him, and his Co-Emperor will be very much military emperors, holding down the empites borders that is for sure they will also become two of the youngest emperors the empire has had to this point, Severus only being 19 when ascending beside Pompeianus.



Ardeshir and the sassanian empire will still come around very similar to how it did otl if the exact same way, and he will be a very big focus for our Co-Emperors, i will say that Rome and Sassanians will still fight their viscous wars, however the sassanians might eventually look elsewhere this timeline.


Well as of right now Pompeianus intends to have his son Lucius Aurelius become emperor after him and become Severus's Co-Emperor, meaning he will have one blood son become emperor and one adopted come to the throne, if everything works as he intends. As for the Crisis of the Third Century, i will not say weather it will happen as the same as otl or if it all, its causes are still around, and eventuallysomething will slip up, cause after all nothing ever goes totally perfect.

It reminds me a lot of the three emperors of the Apple TV foundation series's

Where their is the emperor doing the ruling, the elder emperor ruling from home and trying the next emperor

The issue with Rome is it's military taking on more political power over the civilian government emperor Augustus trade to hide that fact

But by the time after emperor Commodus and the Severus Dynasty it was the army that made the emperors

Also I believe both emperors should have nearly a decade of peace if not a bit more

I do believe that the other issue with Rome was that they did not pass on its legacy to the next generation I believe it was augustine who stated that

People did not fight for Rome because it was not worth fighting for and the historian Brandon Gibbon

Any book on the decline of fall of the Rome Empire it was Christianity being the religion of the slave that played a big part on why Rome lost confidence

 

[sstabeler]

Any book on the decline of fall of the Rome Empire it was Christianity being the religion of the slave that played a big part on why Rome lost confidence

Actually not really, or rather, the problems started significantly earlier than Christianity becoming the state religion.

The bigger problem can be summarised as "there was a reduction in state capacity that made the Roman Empire impossible in the end to maintain"- the main reason why the Eastern Roman Empire survived is that the loss of state capacity wasn't as acute. (and the Eastern Roman Empire was also Christian, putting the lie to the claim it was the rise of Christianity that caused the collapse)

Because the thing is, Christianity was far from the first time Romans had integrated deities worshipped by a subject people (not to mention the fact that it's very much a misnomer to say that Christianity was "the religion of the slave"- it started amongst noncitizens, sure, but Roman society wasn't split into just citizens and slaves- do you seriously think that the noncitizens that enlisted in the Roman Legions to gain citizenship were slaves? Nope, they were free noncitizens.

Essentially, it's more accurate to say that Christianity would have been considered a foreign religion, but by the time the Western Roman Empire collapsed, Christianity was very much a Roman religion, though for obvious reasons it's clearest with Catholicism.

 

[Henry III]

Actually not really, or rather, the problems started significantly earlier than Christianity becoming the state religion.

The bigger problem can be summarised as "there was a reduction in state capacity that made the Roman Empire impossible in the end to maintain"- the main reason why the Eastern Roman Empire survived is that the loss of state capacity wasn't as acute. (and the Eastern Roman Empire was also Christian, putting the lie to the claim it was the rise of Christianity that caused the collapse)

Because the thing is, Christianity was far from the first time Romans had integrated deities worshipped by a subject people (not to mention the fact that it's very much a misnomer to say that Christianity was "the religion of the slave"- it started amongst noncitizens, sure, but Roman society wasn't split into just citizens and slaves- do you seriously think that the noncitizens that enlisted in the Roman Legions to gain citizenship were slaves? Nope, they were free noncitizens.

Essentially, it's more accurate to say that Christianity would have been considered a foreign religion, but by the time the Western Roman Empire collapsed, Christianity was very much a Roman religion, though for obvious reasons it's clearest with Catholicism.

I am looking at from a Weastern and Europe perspective

As for the Eastern Empire it was a lot richer then the west

The culture of Christianity did play a massive part in weakening the western and eastern Empire I do believe constantinople's was burnt

Disputes of religion in the Eastern orthodox church

I am not saying it was the only reason just on factor among many reasons

 

[sstabeler]

I am looking at from a Weastern and Europe perspective

As for the Eastern Empire it was a lot richer then the west

The culture of Christianity did play a massive part in weakening the western and eastern Empire I do believe constantinople's was burnt

Disputes of religion in the Eastern orthodox church

I am not saying it was the only reason just on factor among many reasons

Kind of. Christianity probably did play a role, but it's got nothing to do with Christianity being "the religion of the slave" and more the reduction in state capacity I mentioned.

Ok, the simple way of explaining it is that the Roman Empire had been centralising, which needs greater state capacity to administer. The problem is that this coincided with a reduced ability to recruit the literate bureaucrats to actually provide that state capacity. (Or, to put it simpler, it's a case of "too much to do, too few people to do it with")

Christianity might have contributed to that, but only in the sense that the priesthood draws from the same pool of potential manpower as the bureaucrats.

 

[Henry III]

Kind of. Christianity probably did play a role, but it's got nothing to do with Christianity being "the religion of the slave" and more the reduction in state capacity I mentioned.

Ok, the simple way of explaining it is that the Roman Empire had been centralising, which needs greater state capacity to administer. The problem is that this coincided with a reduced ability to recruit the literate bureaucrats to actually provide that state capacity. (Or, to put it simpler, it's a case of "too much to do, too few people to do it with")

Christianity might have contributed to that, but only in the sense that the priesthood draws from the same pool of potential manpower as the bureaucrats.

That was what I got from the historian David Starkey and the writer Louise Perry

The Rome Empire started of as a city state and that was one read why the Republic failed and why it's an monarchy with a republican monarchy

And a city state trying to rule an Empire also the Romans did not call the emperor by that name it was first citizen

I would say it was Constantine the Great that made it Europe first monarchy or king.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

That was what I got from the historian David Starkey and the writer Louise Perry

The Rome Empire started of as a city state and that was one read why the Republic failed and why it's an monarchy with a republican monarchy

And a city state trying to rule an Empire also the Romans did not call the emperor by that name it was first citizen

I would say it was Constantine the Great that made it Europe first monarchy or king.

Constantine didn't change anything radical about the governing structure. You're looking for Diocletian, and even he didn't change much in practice. He mostly just changed the theory of how Emperors were legitimatized, and even then not much changed.

 

[Henry III]

Constantine didn't change anything radical about the governing structure. You're looking for Diocletian, and even he didn't change much in practice. He mostly just changed the theory of how Emperors were legitimatized, and even then not much changed.

The why I understand it Constantine was more influenced by Persia in regards to the understand of monarchy

And taking up eastern attitudes to monarchy to the west culturally in regards the Roman Empire more republican but that not the modern meaning of the words

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

The why I understand it Constantine was more influenced by Persia in regards to the understand of monarchy

And taking up eastern attitudes to monarchy to the west culturally in regards the Roman Empire more republican but that not the modern meaning of the words

Constantine's manner of rule wasn't any more authoritarian than Augustus's, he just wasn't paying lip service to the Senate anymore.

 

[Henry III]

Constantine's manner of rule wasn't any more authoritarian than Augustus's, he just wasn't paying lip service to the Senate anymore.

Augusta did everything possible to mask the nature of kingship/emperor in the clothing of republicanism most likely due to what happened to gaius Julius Caesar

It's the politics playing it's part and that it is technically not a Dynasty it's modern historians using modern concepts

People's in the middle East had a different attitude to monarchies same with the father East you go their is different words meaning different things

And In the modern world a king means different things to an American than it would to a person from Great Britain

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Augusta did everything possible to mask the nature of kingship/emperor in the clothing of republicanism most likely due to what happened to gaius Julius Caesar

It's the politics playing it's part and that it is technically not a Dynasty it's modern historians using modern concepts

People's in the middle East had a different attitude to monarchies same with the father East you go their is different words meaning different things

And In the modern world a king means different things to an American than it would to a person from Great Britain

Yes, Augustus did so, but he was just as authoritarian as Diocletian or Constantine.

 

[Henry III]

Yes, Augustus did so, but he was just as authoritarian as Diocletian or Constantine.

That means very different things to different people you could say anything before democracy was authoritarian

And then their is the difference between authoritative and authoritarian as well

Both emperors are in fact first citizens and they would do their best to keep the republican camouflage of Augustus

If not their would be the cycle of killings, the military talking power and instability

The Roman Empire was never a proper monarchy nor was it a republic

A good emperor has got to balance the army, the political powers in Rome which influence can be very disputed and hopefully not be assassinated

Both emperors are young but it's the military pressures of the next century that would push fiction and reality of the position of emperor

Into a far more militaristic settings and legions often created emperors because they needed their authority to deal with situations on the borders

But the title emperor would not be something they use themselves in that time period

It can get confusing and most likely why the writer of this story uses the title emperor due to convenience but it can be very misleading

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

That means very different things to different people you could say anything before democracy was authoritarian

And then their is the difference between authoritative and authoritarian as well

Both emperors are in fact first citizens and they would do their best to keep the republican camouflage of Augustus

If not their would be the cycle of killings, the military talking power and instability

The Roman Empire was never a proper monarchy nor was it a republic

A good emperor has got to balance the army, the political powers in Rome which influence can be very disputed and hopefully not be assassinated

Both emperors are young but it's the military pressures of the next century that would push fiction and reality of the position of emperor

Into a far more militaristic settings and legions often created emperors because they needed their authority to deal with situations on the borders

But the title emperor would not be something they use themselves in that time period

It can get confusing and most likely why the writer of this story uses the title emperor due to convenience but it can be very misleading

I know all of this, I'm very much a Romaboo.