Third century crisis WI

So I have two third century crisis what it's I was thinking about.

1.) What if the Gallic empire and/or, The palmyrean empire, survived? The Gallic empire had its own senate and two covss elected every year, just as the Roman Empire did. What short term and long term effects would their survival have?

2.) what if the third century crisis was avoided? What of Alexander Severus was not killed, or what if the emperor (forget his name) was not captured by the Persians? This would butterfly away Diocletian's reforms which I'd argue hurt the empire more than it helped it. Henry moss described the economic situation before the crisis:
" Along these roads passed an ever-increasing traffic, not only of troops and officials, but of traders, merchandise and even tourists. An interchange of goods between the various provinces rapidly developed, which soon reached a scale unprecedented in previous history and not repeated until a few centuries ago. Metals mined in the uplands of Western Europe, hides, fleeces, and livestock from the pastoral districts of Britain, Spain, and the shores of the Black Sea, wine and oil from Provence and Aquitaine, timber, pitch and wax from South Russia and northern Anatolia, dried fruits from Syria, marble from the Aegean coasts, and – most important of all – grain from the wheat-growing districts of North Africa, Egypt, and the Danube Valley for the needs of the great cities; all these commodities, under the influence of a highly organized system of transport and marketing, moved freely from one corner of the Empire to the other."
 
So I have two third century crisis what it's I was thinking about.

1.) What if the Gallic empire and/or, The palmyrean empire, survived? The Gallic empire had its own senate and two covss elected every year, just as the Roman Empire did. What short term and long term effects would their survival have?

A survival of the so-called Gallic Empire is really unlikely.

At first it was only an usual military coup d'etat, Posthumus claiming the imperial title. Mostly because Gallo-Roman elites and Roman military felt that Rome didn't worked much enough to counter germanic raids.

As it failed, Posthumus being unable to reach Italy, and roman Emperors unable to go in Gaul, the situation last in a de facto situation.

So, it was only a matter of time before one of the two romans emperors take over the other one. As Gaul support for "their" emperor was fluctuant at best, and Rome finally beneficied from more ressources...

At the very best, you could have a "Dux Occidens" policy (as Palmyre's king was declared "Dux Oriens" before Zenobia) but when the barbarian threat would be decreasing, Gallic emperors would known the fate of undesired co-emperors.

2.) what if the third century crisis was avoided? What of Alexander Severus was not killed, or what if the emperor (forget his name) was not captured by the Persians? This would butterfly away Diocletian's reforms which I'd argue hurt the empire more than it helped it. Henry moss described the economic situation before the crisis:
This was one of the political side but the Thrid Century crisis was due to a conjonction of factors hardly butterfliable :

- Climatic change
- Decline of latifundian agriculture
- Monetary penury and reappearance of troc in noticable scale.
- Germanic raids and piracy
- Struggle between military and senatorial elites
- Sassanid threat

Finally you don't have a clear rupture between 250's and 300's : some provinces knew great issues but in the general trend many were prosperous and it wasn't the ones that escaped civil war and germanic raids (Gaul by exemple, went fine).
 
I think Alexander Severus has a tiny shot at averting the crisis, since some of his policies were the right thing to do. However, he needs, IMHO, to do the following:

step 1 - be very, very lucky and survive assasination attempts
step 2 - stay healthy and live long
step 3 - have a single grown up, competent heir
step 4 - intervene in the Parthian Civil War in 224,
step 5 - sack Ctesiphon and thoroughly plunder Mesopotamia
step 6 - defeat the Sassanid rebels and support a Shahanshah (King of Kings), either Artabanus the IV or Vologases the VI, who is both strong enough to remain on the throne, yet weak enough to be able to raise a large army
step 7 - vassalize the whole of Armenia
step 8 - annex most of northern Mesopotamia, especially Nisibis
step 9 - exact tribute from the weakend Persians
step 10 - after succesfully completing steps 1-9, focus on expeditions into Germania, it will give the Legions something to do and keep him popular
step 11 - continue the policy of re-valuing the currency
step 12 - continue the policy of reducing luxury at the court
step 13 - slowly integrate bits and pieces of Germania (which is now much more prone to Romanization than in the time of Augustus)

IMO, his failure to take advantage of the civil war in Persia was one of his biggest mistakes, as was the lack of an aggresive policy in Germania.

Other long-term projects that can be undertaken later would be:

- The invasion and enslavement of Celtic tribes in Scotland and Ireland. While costly at first, it will almost remove the need for a large armed presence in the British Isles as well as providing a boost to the slave trade in the rest of the Empire.

- The settling of veterans on small plots of land in newly-conquered Germania, to provide a source of Roman manpower for the future (while banning large scale purchases of land in the area by wealthy senators)

- Replacing Persian influence along the sea route to India with Roman influence
 
I think Alexander Severus has a tiny shot at averting the crisis, since some of his policies were the right thing to do. However, he needs, IMHO, to do the following:

step 1 - be very, very lucky and survive assasination attempts
step 2 - stay healthy and live long
step 3 - have a single grown up, competent heir
step 4 - intervene in the Parthian Civil War in 224,
step 5 - sack Ctesiphon and thoroughly plunder Mesopotamia
step 6 - defeat the Sassanid rebels and support a Shahanshah (King of Kings), either Artabanus the IV or Vologases the VI, who is both strong enough to remain on the throne, yet weak enough to be able to raise a large army
step 7 - vassalize the whole of Armenia
step 8 - annex most of northern Mesopotamia, especially Nisibis
step 9 - exact tribute from the weakend Persians
step 10 - after succesfully completing steps 1-9, focus on expeditions into Germania, it will give the Legions something to do and keep him popular
step 11 - continue the policy of re-valuing the currency
step 12 - continue the policy of reducing luxury at the court
step 13 - slowly integrate bits and pieces of Germania (which is now much more prone to Romanization than in the time of Augustus)

IMO, his failure to take advantage of the civil war in Persia was one of his biggest mistakes, as was the lack of an aggresive policy in Germania.

Other long-term projects that can be undertaken later would be:

- The invasion and enslavement of Celtic tribes in Scotland and Ireland. While costly at first, it will almost remove the need for a large armed presence in the British Isles as well as providing a boost to the slave trade in the rest of the Empire.

- The settling of veterans on small plots of land in newly-conquered Germania, to provide a source of Roman manpower for the future (while banning large scale purchases of land in the area by wealthy senators)

- Replacing Persian influence along the sea route to India with Roman influence
Yeah, I would agree his biggest mistake was not taking advantage of the Parthian Civil War.

Climatic change
Would we really know of this? I'm not saying it's not true, just interested into how we could come to this conclusion.
- Decline of latifundian agriculture
Is there anyway to prevent this or slow its decline?
- Monetary penury and reappearance of troc in noticable scale.
Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't this be prevented or severely scaled back if they crisis had not happened in the first place? The political crisis itself seemed to be the major player in disrupting the economies.
- Germanic raids and piracy
Germanic raids seemed to have been held pretty handily be the Gallic Empire, so I don't see why this would not be able to butterfly away ther crisis. Germanic raids still weren't anywhere near the intensity they would become in the 4th and 5th centuries.
- Struggle between military and senatorial elites
Somethign that's been going on since the beginning of the empire. I don't see how this can be prevented from getting to the levels at which it helps cause the crisis.
- Sassanid threat
Unless Severus takes advantage of the Parthian Civil War and prevents the Sassanids from coming to power.
 
I think Alexander Severus has a tiny shot at averting the crisis, since some of his policies were the right thing to do. However, he needs, IMHO, to do the following:

step 1 - be very, very lucky and survive assasination attempts
step 2 - stay healthy and live long
step 3 - have a single grown up, competent heir
step 4 - intervene in the Parthian Civil War in 224,
step 5 - sack Ctesiphon and thoroughly plunder Mesopotamia
step 6 - defeat the Sassanid rebels and support a Shahanshah (King of Kings), either Artabanus the IV or Vologases the VI, who is both strong enough to remain on the throne, yet weak enough to be able to raise a large army
step 7 - vassalize the whole of Armenia
step 8 - annex most of northern Mesopotamia, especially Nisibis
step 9 - exact tribute from the weakend Persians
step 10 - after succesfully completing steps 1-9, focus on expeditions into Germania, it will give the Legions something to do and keep him popular
step 11 - continue the policy of re-valuing the currency
step 12 - continue the policy of reducing luxury at the court
step 13 - slowly integrate bits and pieces of Germania (which is now much more prone to Romanization than in the time of Augustus)

IMO, his failure to take advantage of the civil war in Persia was one of his biggest mistakes, as was the lack of an aggresive policy in Germania.

Other long-term projects that can be undertaken later would be:

- The invasion and enslavement of Celtic tribes in Scotland and Ireland. While costly at first, it will almost remove the need for a large armed presence in the British Isles as well as providing a boost to the slave trade in the rest of the Empire.

- The settling of veterans on small plots of land in newly-conquered Germania, to provide a source of Roman manpower for the future (while banning large scale purchases of land in the area by wealthy senators)

- Replacing Persian influence along the sea route to India with Roman influence
Is there any chance the crisis can be prevented with a POD after Severus' death, or no?
 
Would we really know of this? I'm not saying it's not true, just interested into how we could come to this conclusion.

By digs in artic ices, by studies of agricultural remains, dendochronology (study of trees)...

Today, the climatic change of III is out of discussion, and the debate is more on his role on the crisis, which is assumed being important (as Rome, depsite the mental image we have, was still based on rural agricultural economy).

The germanic migrations of the III century are usually explained by this climatic change and the fact that Rome while weakened and divided, was still really prosperous.

Is there anyway to prevent this or slow its decline?
Not without a POD in the Ist century BC at the very last in my opinion.

See, not only the climatic changes provoked a decline of the ratio sow/recolt, but aslo a loss of profit and a relative loss of population.

It led to the creation of demesnes where it wasn't slaves that worked the land belonging entierly to the master, but where clients (former slaves, former independent peasants) worked on lands that were "their" but under the economical influence of the landowner or given by this one.

Basically, it allowed to put the cost of production for the clientele peasantry, while the landowner assured the return of production and even (critically with the IV century) taxes.


Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't this be prevented or severely scaled back if they crisis had not happened in the first place? The political crisis itself seemed to be the major player in disrupting the economies.

Not really. As said, the roman agriculture and latifundia economy was declining and the Roman Empire relied a lot on these : many production centers weren't urbans but rural as pottery by exemple. Cities played a role of redistribution or trade, but not really of production center itself and when it was the case, it was often for local usage.

So, conjonction of economical, social AND political crisis provoked a great inflation.

Germanic raids seemed to have been held pretty handily be the Gallic Empire, so I don't see why this would not be able to butterfly away ther crisis. Germanic raids still weren't anywhere near the intensity they would become in the 4th and 5th centuries.

1) I'm not sure that civil war and civil unrest between the Gallo-Roman themselves (not talking about Rome here) can be defined as "handly policy"

2)Before the crisis, Romans were able to prevent germans to form confederations by its influence, bribe or by making military offensive. Not only gallo-romans emperrs were unable to do that (too busy fighting each other).

But Alamans and Franks (to quote only the most important in west) while beaten by Posthumus (that was admittedly the most able of these gallo-roman leaders but didn't prevented Alamans to raid before the battle of Arleate) continued their raids reaching up to Hispania, and even settled in Gaul (Toxandria, Batavia, Moselle basin)

3) I agree it was nowhere of the intensity of V century. The III century raids were clearly more importants.
III : Franks as ennemy of Rome, raiding and piracing as far as Portugal, inflicting defeats, and only a large scale army able to defeat them and while entiere cities are destroyed, others build quickly (using monumental constructions as quarry) a wall.
V : Franks as allies of Rome, reinforcing its armies, largely romanized, and making migrations and raids as far as Seine basin, no known destruction of city.

Somethign that's been going on since the beginning of the empire. I don't see how this can be prevented from getting to the levels at which it helps cause the crisis.
1)Sassanids weren't preseent from the beggining of the Empire : you confuse with Parthians. Sassanids are known for their more agressive policies against Rome.

2) While Rome suffered from climatic, political, economic crisis, Persia knew a renew. I don't want to sound patronizing, but when a major power is weakening, another rival major power is going to use this.
 
Is there any chance the crisis can be prevented with a POD after Severus' death, or no?

No. Too much factors led to the crisis.

-Political
-Economical
-Climatic
-Social / Military

Two words about this one, as it wasn't quoted before :

The social crisis of III opposed basically the old "senatorial" class, in fact the great landowners of Italy and some provinces that had urban power in their hands, and military elites that believed having the right (as they protected the empire) to be more representated.

Adding to that the incapacity to understand the changes (both because of a too great focus given to the inner situation, and a relative conservatism of military) happening outside the empire (demographic important of germanic confederation, renew of Persia, etc)...

Well, recipe for disaster.

MAYBE, it's possible to butterfly this. It would require many PODs though, and not before the Ist century BC.
 
I generally agree with you LSCatilina, but ITSM that the 4th century empire's prosperity suggest that these problems weren't insurmountable. IMO the real problem was the rise of the Sassanids, who forced the Empire to spend far, far more resources in the East.
 
I generally agree with you LSCatilina, but ITSM that the 4th century empire's prosperity suggest that these problems weren't insurmountable. IMO the real problem was the rise of the Sassanids, who forced the Empire to spend far, far more resources in the East.

Insurmontable? No, certainly not and i didn't wanted to imply that.

The point I wanted to made was the crisis itself was kind of unavoidable after the end of Military Anarchy.

At the contrary, as I said, the prosperity of western provinces is still quite attested depsite (and maybe because) a great decentralisation both in economical managment and institutional power, demonstrating the Roman Empire COULD adapt itself.

But the union of factors, different crisis happening in the same time and feeding a vicious circle made the whole thing a rupture and hard to repair entierly.

For the strategical matter, even if the Sassanids threat played a great role, the underestimation of Romans towards Germans and Celts strength was determining for the West.

Finally, it lead western elites to be reluctant to give more and more ressources in the east when more powerful, more organised and less opposed barbarians raided anything they could.
 
By digs in artic ices, by studies of agricultural remains, dendochronology (study of trees)...

Today, the climatic change of III is out of discussion, and the debate is more on his role on the crisis, which is assumed being important (as Rome, depsite the mental image we have, was still based on rural agricultural economy).

The germanic migrations of the III century are usually explained by this climatic change and the fact that Rome while weakened and divided, was still really prosperous.
Okay.



See, not only the climatic changes provoked a decline of the ratio sow/recolt, but aslo a loss of profit and a relative loss of population.

It led to the creation of demesnes where it wasn't slaves that worked the land belonging entierly to the master, but where clients (former slaves, former independent peasants) worked on lands that were "their" but under the economical influence of the landowner or given by this one.

Basically, it allowed to put the cost of production for the clientele peasantry, while the landowner assured the return of production and even (critically with the IV century) taxes.




Not really. As said, the roman agriculture and latifundia economy was declining and the Roman Empire relied a lot on these : many production centers weren't urbans but rural as pottery by exemple. Cities played a role of redistribution or trade, but not really of production center itself and when it was the case, it was often for local usage.




1) I'm not sure that civil war and civil unrest between the Gallo-Roman themselves (not talking about Rome here) can be defined as "handly policy"

[quote2)Before the crisis, Romans were able to prevent germans to form confederations by its influence, bribe or by making military offensive. Not only gallo-romans emperrs were unable to do that (too busy fighting each other).[/quote]
So if you avoid the fiasco that unfolded in the years after Severus' death, could this not be maintained?




1)Sassanids weren't preseent from the beggining of the Empire : you confuse with Parthians. Sassanids are known for their more agressive policies against Rome.
I wasn't referring to the Sassanids in that quote... However, if Severus takes advantage of the Parthian civil war, and somehow helps to prevent the Sassanids from overthrowing the Parthians, this could change things.
2) While Rome suffered from climatic, political, economic crisis, Persia knew a renew. I don't want to sound patronizing, but when a major power is weakening, another rival major power is going to use this.
What if the Parthians, with the help of Severus, survive the Civil War?
 
Before the crisis, Romans were able to prevent germans to form confederations by its influence, bribe or by making military offensive. Not only gallo-romans emperrs were unable to do that (too busy fighting each other).
So if you avoid the fiasco that unfolded in the years after Severus' death, could this not be maintained?

I don't think so, romans didn't percieved the changes happening in the germanic tribes (changes they somewhat provoked themselves).
The unification of German tribes into confederation was pretty much unavoidable due to the stabilisation of Roman Empire, trade, growing demography as well ponctual service within roman military (Franks, by exemple, had adopted romans tactics during the III century).

Maybe Romans could have be more careful and prevent Germans and Celts raid going as far they did, but it wouldn't stop this.

I wasn't referring to the Sassanids in that quote... However, if Severus takes advantage of the Parthian civil war, and somehow helps to prevent the Sassanids from overthrowing the Parthians, this could change things.

1) Many romans emperors, including Severus, went quite deep in Persia, taking Selucia and Ctesiphon. But they were victories without great strategical impact.
Rome didn't had the forces to control even the Caucasus, so I doubt much that Romans would have been able to help Parthians (would have they agreed to, as they would have favoured a civil war between Persians)

2) Let's admit that Parthians survive and Sassanids are crushed. Rome would still know the different other crisis and Persia would be still a major power in cultural, economical renew.

Things would be less harsh for Rome, but I don't see well how it would prevent the germanic raids in western provinces in a first time. You see, the main part of the roman army was already on the east since the II century, and few legions were present in the west.

I don't think roman emperors would take legions away from persian border (at the very best let's say one) because of the lasting threat (even if less agressive than Sassanids).
 
Just for clarification, when I asked if they could avoid the third century crisis, I mean the fiasco of the rise of the Gallic and Palmyrene empires and the like. Was it also not the widespread unrest that made it no longer safe for merchants to travel as they once had, and the financial crisis that struck made exchange very difficult with the debased currency? Did the increased amount of Roman soldiers and generals fighting each other and neglecting the borders have a significant impact on the severe barbarian raids that occurred?

edit: I'd like to point out that I am not at all trying to say you are wrong. I am actually really intrigued by this period, and it is admittedly, probably the period I know the least about in Roman history, as I did not start focusing on it until right around now.
 
Just for clarification, when I asked if they could avoid the third century crisis, I mean the fiasco of the rise of the Gallic and Palmyrene empires and the like.
Palmyrenians? Probably, as it fed itself on the urge of persian front, gaining an awful lot of power before Zenobia with gain of "Dux Oriens", "Leader of All Romans in the East" and so on.

So-called Gallic Empire? Err...Yes and no. Things would probably evolve differently but you'll still have troubles : Rome didn't envisioned the germanic stregnthening, wouldn't be able to give much troops to the West, still ask for many things...

At the very last, you'll have the usual rebellion of border legion with the as much usual soldier-emperor usurper. Probably less sucessful than OTL, though.

Was it also not the widespread unrest that made it no longer safe for merchants to travel as they once had, and the financial crisis that struck made exchange very difficult with the debased currency?

Germanic raids and piracy did more for unsafe roads than civil unrest. Roman Empire was a Cluedocracy : if civil unrest only should have made it collapsed, it would have been ashes since Marius and Scylla.

Furthermore, the decline of trade wasn't particularly definitive and the western provinces were still fairly prosperous in this regard after the end of raids.

Exchanges seems to have continued, at least thanks to barter.
For Gallic situation, the appearance of multiples coinage workshops is less the symptom of a great devaluation that the decentralisation of power : Aurelius himself would keep these after the reconquest of Gaul.

Did the increased amount of Roman soldiers and generals fighting each other and neglecting the borders have a significant impact on the severe barbarian raids that occurred?

Well, it didn't helped. :D
But it was less the infighting itself that a non-adaptation of roman tactics face to more organised germans and lack of troops.

edit: I'd like to point out that I am not at all trying to say you are wrong. I am actually really intrigued by this period, and it is admittedly, probably the period I know the least about in Roman history, as I did not start focusing on it until right around now.

Hey, that's cool. I can say something really stupid (and others, these vultures, wouldn't mind about feeding on it) about it, so better if you check by yourself :D
 
Palmyrenians? Probably, as it fed itself on the urge of persian front, gaining an awful lot of power before Zenobia with gain of "Dux Oriens", "Leader of All Romans in the East" and so on.

Makes sense.

At the very last, you'll have the usual rebellion of border legion with the as much usual soldier-emperor usurper. Probably less sucessful than OTL, though.

So Posthumus doing signicantly worse than OTL?

Germanic raids and piracy did more for unsafe roads than civil unrest. Roman Empire was a Cluedocracy : if civil unrest only should have made it collapsed, it would have been ashes since Marius and Scylla.
My mistake, I should have clarified better. When I said unrest, Ieant to include the Germanic raids.

Furthermore, the decline of trade wasn't particularly definitive and the western provinces were still fairly prosperous in this regard after the end of raids.

Fair enough I guess.

For Gallic situation, the appearance of multiples coinage workshops is less the symptom of a great devaluation that the decentralisation of power : Aurelius himself would keep these after the reconquest of Gaul.
Didn't the short lives emperors after Severus debase the currency signicantly to pay for their troops? IIRC, Diocletian took over with a denarius that was near worthless.

But it was less the infighting itself that a non-adaptation of roman tactics face to more organised germans and lack of troops.
Is there any chance of getting them to adapt?
 
There's another WI that I was thinking of that kinda has to do with the topic (well the 3rd century at least). What if, the Edict of Caracalla in 212 never comes into existence? (for those that don't know, it granted all males within the empire Roman citizenship and all women equal status to Roman women). It was a move to gain more money through taxes, but it probably hurt the empire in the long run. Although Caracalla may have been hoping it would increase the available recruits(only citizens could become full legionarries), I feel it only hurt in this regard.

Enlisting in the army was one of the main ways to gain citizenship upon completion of service. By giving everyone citizenship, Caracalla made a career in the army extremely less attractive, as now the incentive of gaining citizenship was no longer there. This contributed to the recruiting difficulties that the Romans started to experience by the end of the century. It also came at a cost to the auxilarries, and can be seen as a cause of the barbarization of the Roman military that would plague the empire later.


So what if this edict is never issued?
 
Top