Third century crisis WI

So what if this edict is never issued?
As you said, he did that for money. You'll need to find another source and eventually you'll have no big choice : eventually the selling of tax offices like in the IV seems unavoidable and having it without citizenship...

You have another motives though for this edit : as said, you had in the III century the struggle between senatorial, roman elites and military provincial ones. Making such edict was probably a move towards provinces in hope to have them supporting the emperor.

Finally a simplification of the roman law (that was the Holy Grail of many emperors, as Theodose or Justinian) is probably to be noticed.

For the barbarisation of Roman army...It played a role but not directly : indeed it's more a late III century feature coming from the need of replacing auxiliaries but critically to answer the germanic threat more effitiently by using barbarians letae.

Futhermore, many germans were already used as auxiliares as far than the Ist century BC. So, blaiming Caracalla edict for the "barbarisation" of the roman army is a bit short-sighted.

Probably that, at least, the edict forced the army to reorganise itself...Or at least would have allowed without the Military Anarchy.
The High Imperial roman legion was simply too slow, not fitting the new needs of the western front.

A note about women and the edict : I searched in all the text and I didn't found one occurence of this. It's really astonishing anyway, being in total contradiction with all roman tradition and laws.

So back to the question, I would see this, not mutually contradictory.

1) Edict is made by another emperor in need of money. Maybe it would be made by separate ones but finally you'll have it.
2) Only part of the edict is made ATL, but the army ends by being an even more conservative body than OTL and maybe lost there an opportunity to adapt itself.
3) As the taxes remains more in the local institutions rather than imperial ones, you'll have a more important rise of localism and regionalism. More odds of having "secessions" in the empire during the crisis.
 
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.QUOTE]

Yes. The debasement began with Caracalla, who introduced a new silver coin, the antoninianus, which was valued as a double denarius, but which didn't weigh twice as much.

The antoninianus was briefly abolished later, and Maximin (235-8) didn't mint it, but it returned to circulation in the very short reign of Pupienus and Balbinus (238). After Gordian III (238-44), very few denarii were struck.

The silver content of the antoninianus declined steadily to around 4% by the time of Gallienus (260-69). [The coins of the Gallic usurper Postumus actually had a somewhat higher silver content than those of the central empire]. The coins still looked silver when the were first minted because they were given a silver wash at the mint, but I doubt that anyone was fooled.

By the time that Diocletion reformed the currency, the antoninianus was totally discredited.

P.S., Valerian was the emperor captured by the Persians.
 
Basically, the taxes that non-citizens payed will continue to go in local taxes, being used by local institutions instead of imperial treasury.

Therefore, it would reinforce localism and regionalism during the III crisis.
What if we avoided the crisis? (the political fiasco part of it.)

I know this really didn't have anything to do with the third century crisis, but lets say we go back to a POD involving Marcus Aurelius. If Commodus (and if he had any other sons, those too) die and he continues the adoption trend of the previous 4 emperors, and adopts a competent and good ruler, would this be far back enough to prevent the political/military usurper aspect of the 3rd century crisis?
 
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.QUOTE]

Yes. The debasement began with Caracalla, who introduced a new silver coin, the antoninianus, which was valued as a double denarius, but which didn't weigh twice as much.

The antoninianus was briefly abolished later, and Maximin (235-8) didn't mint it, but it returned to circulation in the very short reign of Pupienus and Balbinus (238). After Gordian III (238-44), very few denarii were struck.

The silver content of the antoninianus declined steadily to around 4% by the time of Gallienus (260-69). [The coins of the Gallic usurper Postumus actually had a somewhat higher silver content than those of the central empire]. The coins still looked silver when the were first minted because they were given a silver wash at the mint, but I doubt that anyone was fooled.

By the time that Diocletion reformed the currency, the antoninianus was totally discredited.

P.S., Valerian was the emperor captured by the Persians.
Ok. And yeah, now I remember about Valerian.


Anyway, what kinda tax reform would be needed to help the empire? Would Diocletian's tax reforms work well if implemented prior to the crisis?
 
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?

Why would they survive in the long run?


2.) what if the third century crisis was avoided? What of Alexander Severus was not killed,

Why would the Severan dynasty surviving for a longer period of time prevent any sort of crisis from happening?

or what if the emperor (forget his name) was not captured by the Persians?

Valerian is the Emperor you are talking about. If Valerian have a successful Persian campaign, then chances are his dynasty will probably last a little longer.

This would butterfly away Diocletian's reforms which I'd argue hurt the empire more than it helped it.

Kind to explain this? Without Diocletian reforms, chances are the empire will have even more civil wars as one Emperor simply cannot be in multiple places at once.


Personally I do not think that the reason why the crisis of the third century occurred was because of one or two bad Emperors. Rather, the need to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously was the thing that caused the imperial crisis in the first place.

Emperors who wanted to shore up their powerbase in Rome would sent out Generals to fight the various invading forces such as the Goths. What happened was successful Generals often declare themselves Emperors instead.
 
What if we avoided the crisis? (the political fiasco part of it.)

Even if the political CAUSE of the crisis is avoided, you'll still have to deal with the other issues (namely, economical, strategical, social, climatic).

Having the cities, the local institutions having still an important treasury is a call for having more regionalist reaction within the empire at this moment.

I know this really didn't have anything to do with the third century crisis, but lets say we go back to a POD involving Marcus Aurelius. If Commodus (and if he had any other sons, those too) die and he continues the adoption trend of the previous 4 emperors, and adopts a competent and good ruler, would this be far back enough to prevent the political/military usurper aspect of the 3rd century crisis?

As ray say, this don't have many things to do with "good emperors vs. bad emperors". I don't see how adoption would have consequence on climate, decline of latifundiarian agriculture...
And it could actually reinforce the clash between senatorial and italian elites, and military provincial ones as adoption is a clear way to promote the first ones.

Furthermore, the vision we have of "bad emperors" is partially biased, due to sucessors and new dynasties wanting to impose themselves.
Commodus by exemple, seems to have clashed many times with the senatorial elites, relying in humiliores-issued people and while he probably wasn't an able politician and a violent one...I think we can forget the disney-esque villainy mental picture.

Again, in my opinion, to get rid of the crisis you'll need to have two or three PODs back in the I century BC at least. The causes are to be searched in the latifundia-based agriculture, the imperial institution and imperial army.

Furthermore, as Feelin said, the crisis wasn't insurmontable. Rather than butterflying it, you should search to make it less important.
Ride the worm, in few words. :D
 
Even if the political CAUSE of the crisis is avoided, you'll still have to deal with the other issues (namely, economical, strategical, social, climatic).

Having the cities, the local institutions having still an important treasury is a call for having more regionalist reaction within the empire at this moment.
True.
Again, in my opinion, to get rid of the crisis you'll need to have two or three PODs back in the I century BC at least. The causes are to be searched in the latifundia-based agriculture, the imperial institution and imperial army.

Furthermore, as Feelin said, the crisis wasn't insurmontable. Rather than butterflying it, you should search to make it less important.
Ride the worm, in few words. :D
Would you happen to know what specific POD's would be needed?
 
Would you happen to know what specific POD's would be needed?

Err...You beat me there...

Maybe Gracchi reforms being implemented would be nice to limit latifundias.
Manage to have a lasting civil war between Parthians and Sassanids.
For the army, the structure...hell the nature itself of the Roman Empire make a military crisis pretty much unavoidable.

But I think it would be pretty much hard to reach. Not ASB but improbable. As I said, Ride the worm, tame him. It would be easier than destroy ;)
 
True.

Would you happen to know what specific POD's would be needed?

You could always "reduce" or "minuscule" the so called "crisis of the third century" to a much shorter time span. If Philip or Decius were more capable of eliminating the Carpi, Goths and their rivals, the crisis could have ended during their reign.

A more established dynasty would be helpful in reducing the amount of opportunistic generals rebelling.

Err...You beat me there...

Maybe Gracchi reforms being implemented would be nice to limit latifundias.

Why would limiting the latifundias have any impact in stopping such a crisis from happening?
 
Last edited:
Why would limiting the latifundias have any impact in stopping such a crisis from happening?

As said, the III crisis had an important agricultural cause.

Not only the climatic changes slowed the production, but the great latifundiae allowed less profit for the landowners. As the production cost was too important for what was excpected you had a decentralisation of production.

Basically, freed slaves and clientele recieved part of lands to work directly with part of the recolt to be recieved by the landowner.
(If you want, it's becoming a villa system instead of a latifundia).

It gaves great landowners a more important clientele, more power, and led to a more regional interest rather than imperial.

Furthermore, keeping a little peasantry not incorporated into latifundia would preserve the possibility of recruitment for army from people politically and socially less tied to senatorial elites.
 
It gaves great landowners a more important clientele, more power, and led to a more regional interest rather than imperial.

But the rebellion of the Gaulic provinces was the result of soldiers putting more faith in their local commanders to defend their provinces rather than being initiated by the great landowners.

Landowners have no major role to play in the 3rd century.

Furthermore, keeping a little peasantry not incorporated into latifundia would preserve the possibility of recruitment for army from people politically and socially less tied to senatorial elites.

The late Roman army was still capable of recruiting enough men from the latifundia. Senators were explicitly required to furnish money or recruit during the fifth century.





Regarding the point on debasement, scholarly views seems to argue against inflation being as bad as we imagine. The Empire was largely an agricultural empire. Inflation would have less impact on such an Empire when compared to our modern day economy.


Cambridge Ancient History said:
Similarly,debasement of the coinage and ensuing price-inflation would have been of only marginal importance to those who, as farmers or landlords, had direct access to the products of agriculture, by far the main element in the imperial economy.

Also, historians do not view the "Gallic" and "Palmyrene" empires are actually states trying to break away from Roman rule. The term Gallic Empire and Palmyrene is largely a modern invention by historians. I do not recall any sources actually supporting the idea that the two "empires" were trying to break away.

Thus, for example, both the ‘Gallic’ and the ‘Palmyrene’ empires advertised themselves as ‘Roman’, and their long-term survival would have necessitated their rulers’ becoming emperors in Rome itself, and taking on responsibility for the whole empire
 
You could always "reduce" or "minuscule" the so called "crisis of the third century" to a much shorter time span. If Philip or Decius were more capable of eliminating the Carpi, Goths and their rivals, the crisis could have ended during their reign.

QUOTE]
So maybe have Decius not die in the battle of Abrittus?

Also, are there any earlier POD's, still in the third century, that could mitigate the crisis?
 
Also, are there any earlier POD's, still in the third century, that could mitigate the crisis?

Alexander Severus somehow managing to win his Persian wars (easier said than done). However, even this might not prevent such a crisis from happening.

The success of one Emperor at a particular point in history does not meant his successors will not fuck things up at a later stage.
 
That would make sense. Would Aurelius not havinga son (or having him die) and adopting an heir have any effect?

No major difference. Would his adopted heir avoid the same mistakes made by Commodus (namely alienating the aristocrats in favour of the masses and the army)? Can you promise the adopted heir would not have a son?

Civil wars will always occur in the Roman Empire no matter what Point of divergence you make. Even Marcus Aurelius faced a rebellion by one of his greatest generals.
 
But the rebellion of the Gaulic provinces was the result of soldiers putting more faith in their local commanders to defend their provinces rather than being initiated by the great landowners.
Not exactly, as these commanders were often or tied to these great agricultural demesnes or had on their own (as Tetricus).

Furthermore, the provinces the more close to senatorial circles were the first to defect the Gallic empire to join Claudius II

So if the factual cause was indeed the rebellion of Rhine military, it was possible to evolve like it did OTL thank to the struggle between provincial and senatorial elites that is well documentated.

Landowners have no major role to play in the 3rd century.
You mean except that every elite, senatorial or provincial, were landowners, that the major part of the production (agricultural OR pre-industrial) was made in rural domains?

This is relatvily well explained in the Lexique d'histoire et de civilisation romaine by Thibault and Lamboley. (While I'm not sure if you can find it)

The late Roman army was still capable of recruiting enough men from the latifundia. Senators were explicitly required to furnish money or recruit during the fifth century.

ENough men? While it certain it was possible to recruit from these great demesnes (While we could argue that in IV century, proper latifundia became rarer in comparison of what we call villae) it lead to the formation of militia more or less under the direction of private owners.

The problem is not having enough men, it's having enough men under direct imperial control. It why Romans emperors had to use laetii as armed forces (while they confiscated their weapons before forcing them to settle inner lands).

While it didn't became such an institutionalised thing in the III, with the bucelarii, before the IV century, the state of anarchy in the western province DID saw appear private armies issued from clientele of landowners.

Regarding the point on debasement, scholarly views seems to argue against inflation being as bad as we imagine. The Empire was largely an agricultural empire. Inflation would have less impact on such an Empire when compared to our modern day economy.
I don't get the point there : you can have highly monetarised agricultural societies, and some that aren't. Clearly Rome was more close from the first case.

The consequences of the devaluation are well known :

-Pay of soldiers reduced in reality to nothing with no reevaluation (I advise you this article)
-The blockade of prices provoked the fall of profit of many productive activities
-Thesaurisation and blockade of precious metal. With coins being worth of less and less value, you have many hides of money made by big whigs. Basically taxes began to being payed in cooper and no longer silver.

So basically, yes : the loss of profit was one of the factors pushing the latifundae owner to "give" part of the demesne to their clientele in order to lower the cost of production (while the movment already began in the early III century

Also, historians do not view the "Gallic" and "Palmyrene" empires are actually states trying to break away from Roman rule. The term Gallic Empire and Palmyrene is largely a modern invention by historians. I do not recall any sources actually supporting the idea that the two "empires" were trying to break away.

I don't see the point there. It's basically what we said from the beggining of this thread.
 
Not exactly, as these commanders were often or tied to these great agricultural demesnes or had on their own (as Tetricus).

Furthermore, the provinces the more close to senatorial circles were the first to defect the Gallic empire to join Claudius II

So if the factual cause was indeed the rebellion of Rhine military, it was possible to evolve like it did OTL thank to the struggle between provincial and senatorial elites that is well documentated.

Without Postumus or any Generals leading the rebellion against Gallienus, would the local aristocrats be willingly to rebel?


You mean except that every elite, senatorial or provincial, were landowners, that the major part of the production (agricultural OR pre-industrial) was made in rural domains?

This is relatvily well explained in the Lexique d'histoire et de civilisation romaine by Thibault and Lamboley. (While I'm not sure if you can find it)

I meant the decision to rebel against Gallienus was undertaken by a military commander rather than the aristocrats of Gaul.

ENough men? While it certain it was possible to recruit from these great demesnes (While we could argue that in IV century, proper latifundia became rarer in comparison of what we call villae) it lead to the formation of militia more or less under the direction of private owners.

The problem is not having enough men, it's having enough men under direct imperial control. It why Romans emperors had to use laetii as armed forces (while they confiscated their weapons before forcing them to settle inner lands).

Does it matter whether the Emperors could recruit these men directly? As long as the landowners is willingly to listen to the Emperor and provide ample men, the Roman army can still be maintained.

While it didn't became such an institutionalised thing in the III, with the bucelarii, before the IV century, the state of anarchy in the western province DID saw appear private armies issued from clientele of landowners.

May I have a source for this? I have yet to hear private militas being prominent in the III and IV century.

I don't get the point there : you can have highly monetarised agricultural societies, and some that aren't. Clearly Rome was more close from the first case.

The consequences of the devaluation are well known :

-Pay of soldiers reduced in reality to nothing with no reevaluation (I advise you this article)

Didn't they started to pay the soldiers via rations fodders? Anyway, I'll look into the article.


-The blockade of prices provoked the fall of profit of many productive activities
-Thesaurisation and blockade of precious metal. With coins being worth of less and less value, you have many hides of money made by big whigs. Basically taxes began to being payed in cooper and no longer silver.

Is there any articles that explain this point in greater detail? I'll like to compare this argument against the argument made by R Remondon.

So basically, yes : the loss of profit was one of the factors pushing the latifundae owner to "give" part of the demesne to their clientele in order to lower the cost of production (while the movment already began in the early III century[/QUOTE]

May I have a source for this? I will be interested in reading the "decline" of the latifundae.




I don't see the point there. It's basically what we said from the beggining of this thread.

Oh. Thought there is a need to highlight that the two empires names are largely a modern invention.
 
Without Postumus or any Generals leading the rebellion against Gallienus, would the local aristocrats be willingly to rebel?

Probably. After all that was their ressources that were taken for persian matter, their domains being raided, their trade being piraced.

I meant the decision to rebel against Gallienus was undertaken by a military commander rather than the aristocrats of Gaul.
Most certainly. My point was to show that without this social base, his rebellion would have been like other Rhine revolt and couldn't have turned in a de-facto separate state.

Does it matter whether the Emperors could recruit these men directly? As long as the landowners is willingly to listen to the Emperor and provide ample men, the Roman army can still be maintained.
You misread me : I said direct control.

Many of Late Roman empire armies were in fact not under direct control of the emperor, whatever bucelarii, militias, or foedii. Usually, even when "allied" they ended by turning against imperial power because their commanders/patron had his own interests and often collapsing with imperial ones.

May I have a source for this? I have yet to hear private militas being prominent in the III and IV century.
Be not confuse, I didn't say they were proeminant in the imperial army (though some of the limitanei could have been issued from great farms clientele).

Still, Private Armies and Personal Power in the Late Roman Empire of Ryan Wilkinson could interest you. I had only a resume and parts of the book, and admittedly wait for an eventual translation (it was made in 2011), but it looks really interesting.

Didn't they started to pay the soldiers via rations fodders? Anyway, I'll look into the article.
They did, when virtually unpaid soldiers would become an obvious threat. The issue there, that they were paied with rations fooer from unpaid food requisitions, reinforcing the rural crisis.

Is there any articles that explain this point in greater detail? I'll like to compare this argument against the argument made by R Remondon.
I'm not sure there's a contradiction there. So far I understood Remondon's book, he says that the monetary crisis didn't doomed the roman economy.

Everyone here agree : most of western provinces was still prosperous in the IV and the reforms made by Dictoletian were based on something existing.

More than destructuration of economy, you had a great regionalisation (By exemple, you had 4 or 5 coinage workshop for the Gallic Empire only).

Again, I had acess only to parts of it "The Financial Collapse of the Roman Coinage in the 3rd Century A.D"

Here's an article summing up

May I have a source for this? I will be interested in reading the "decline" of the latifundae.
It's less the "decline" (bad choice of word, my bad) than its evolution.

For source, aside the book I've quoted and my own notes...I'l search in my books tomorrow.

You have aslo "parallel" indications such as the appearance of a semi-mechanical harvester in Gaul that indicate a lack of men working on a same land; the development of colonate system,
 
Top