Third century: federal Rome

Hello everyone,

It's more of a question really. I'm listening to the History of Rome podcast and we are now at the Three Empires crisis of the 3rd century. And the more I listen to it, the more it reaaally looks like it could be the start of a federalised Rome, united nominally under a central, roman, ruler. Stranger things have happened (those weird colonists in New England forming a full blown nation and becoming the World's powerhouse a century or so later)

So, what are the chances of that happening? Would that change anything in the grand scheme of things?
 
Which is basically my question.

Also, there are instances of Emperors presiding over de facto federal states. The Holy Roman Empire actually
 
Because the imperial authority was so low, the governorship in some great prvoinces could have become de facto hereditary, a succesion accepted by the emperor in exchange of nominal loyalty.
 
Because the imperial authority was so low, the governorship in some great prvoinces could have become de facto hereditary, a succesion accepted by the emperor in exchange of nominal loyalty.

How?

If it didn't happen in the total collapse of the seventh century Empire, then I struggle to see why it would happen in the comparatively considerably less bad circumstances of the third century.
 
Because the imperial authority was so low, the governorship in some great prvoinces could have become de facto hereditary, a succesion accepted by the emperor in exchange of nominal loyalty.
So basically a Feudal Roman Empire? I guess with an influx of Germanic tribes, this could have happened, but it would be in no way Thr Rome of the Imperial Era.
 
I'm having a hard time figuring out how. I mean, for a brief period I guess you can have something resembling this (Gallienus accepting Odenaethus as de facto ruler of the east in his name being an example) but it's not going to last.
 
I'm just going to say no. I don't think that rome has an advanced enough economy or bureaucratic apparatus to make federalization work. There is just to much endorsed corruption and devolution of power to make it possible
 
I don't think so. The 'traditional' Roman Empire (the principate) collapsed in the Third Century, including many of its ideals, political ideology and importance of Roman identity, and was replaced by a more autocratic regime based on mostly on military power. Attempts by Diocletian to federalize the Roman Empire (or some Roman facsimile of federalization), would have been quickly undone by ambitious generals/leaders soon after his reign was over, similar to OTL.
 
I don't think so. The 'traditional' Roman Empire (the principate) collapsed in the Third Century, including many of its ideals, political ideology and importance of Roman identity, and was replaced by a more autocratic regime based on mostly on military power. Attempts by Diocletian to federalize the Roman Empire (or some Roman facsimile of federalization), would have been quickly undone by ambitious generals/leaders soon after his reign was over, similar to OTL.
Couldn't Diocletian's reforms itself be seen as about the closest to federalization you're going to get in the empire (that is, the tetrarchy)? Find a way for that to succeed and that's the best I can think of.

That said I don't know how you can get the tetrarchy to work, given how it was bound to blow up in Diocletian's face once he was gone.
 
Top