To what extend is the third century crisis related to actions of the Severran dynasty?

And to what extend it is related with other more long term factors such as stronger barbarians, or change of roman economy unrelated to actions of the Severans, or Plague of Cyprian, the rise of the Sassanids or other factors.

Actions I am thinking about is Severus expansion of roman legions, destroying Albinus troops and both Severus and Caracalla debasing the currency for increasingly large payments to roman soldiers. Could this have started a death spiral in terms of discipline of the legions, and also economic development? We know the debasement causes important inflation problems. We also know that Macrinus have trouble keeping with the commitments of Caracalla for increased pay of troops.

Also interesting, every single individual who ruled as emperor and is usually called as part of the dynasty, ended up murdered by some kind of roman soldiers. Other than Severus. Whether it was Caracalla and praetorian guard, Macrinus by rebelling troops in Syria (which he refused to increase their pay), Elagabalus by Praetorian guard, and Alexander Severus by men of his legions.

In Alexander's case, there seemed to be a decline of discipline and attempted many mutinies in his eastern campaign, praetorians rose in mutiny in the streeets of rome against harsher rules of discipline

Indeed Elagabalus and Alexander, show a trend we also see in later byzantine period, which is mother regent and young king (or emperorship passes to one who marries the heiress), rarely ends with good results. Perhaps part of this is unsuitability for war leader for mother and young son, younger kings not being as able, another might also have to do with the society not liking a female leader and opposing them due to stereotypes or dislike seeing women in position of power.

Though young king in itself also is usually not that good.


What I see is that the institution of discipline which the romans have cultivated and used previously did decline during the severan dynasty, and I think it does have something to do with the Severruns actions, and in fact Septimius shares the blame along with of course Caracalla.

Also, add the tyranny and murders of Caracalla, the huge incompetence of Elagabalus, and then there is Alexander and his mother. They were trying, but for the role of being a general, and acting based on roman standards, they weren't suitable. Though part of the problem, has to do with this kind of behavior by the legions.

Anyway, I think the long civil war that followed, was related to only the increased Sassanid threat, but a loss of dynastical prestige. You have the rise of people like Thrax attempting to be emperors by killing Alexander. Again to be fair, the troops themselves, who chose this guy, are very much responsible, and if discipline is declining isn't necessarilly only due to the actions of the emperor.

Anyway, what does Maximinus Thrax do? He doubles the pay of soldiers. Increased pay, necessitated increased taxes as well.

And with Severus death, Thrax rise, and rise of other emperors, and a period of crisis, many wannabee emperors, lack of unified empire, we have the crisis of the third century.

In my view, institutions and actions taken by leaders in guiding those institutions matters. Isn't only thing that matters, but it does. At such the Severans, and some that followed, played a role in the rise of easier and quicker rebellion and break in discipline. I would put more of the blame on the first three (or four if we include Macrinus) than Alexander and his mother. I am not convinced the crisis was inevitable. Of course more troubles due to plague and rise of strong enemy were going to be there, but I see a transformation to the roman society that becomes more unstable, prone to usurpations and end of emperor through their own troops. Though Roman empire always had that problem. Perhaps there other factors at play influencing that beyond the actions of the Severans.
 
Actions I am thinking about is Severus expansion of roman legions, destroying Albinus troops and both Severus and Caracalla debasing the currency for increasingly large payments to roman soldiers. Could this have started a death spiral in terms of discipline of the legions, and also economic development? We know the debasement causes important inflation problems. We also know that Macrinus have trouble keeping with the commitments of Caracalla for increased pay of troops.

Severus did what he had to do to at the time. The three Legions that he created, the I, II and III Parthica, were created because he needed loyal soldiers, the II was placed near Rome because he didn't trusted the Praetorians. Now to keep the troops loyal he needs to bribe them so he was forced to give them raises and bonus more regularly, which was a stain upon the treasury yes but that practice was already common by the time he got to power.

Relating to discipline, since the days of the Late Republic that discipline was getting lax. The Legions understood their political power for a long time and with time they got less and less willing to submit to the brutal discipline of the legions of the Middle Republic, Severus had nothing to do with this, the trend was already on the way before he got to power.

Also interesting, every single individual who ruled as emperor and is usually called as part of the dynasty, ended up murdered by some kind of roman soldiers. Other than Severus. Whether it was Caracalla and praetorian guard, Macrinus by rebelling troops in Syria (which he refused to increase their pay), Elagabalus by Praetorian guard, and Alexander Severus by men of his legions.

In Alexander's case, there seemed to be a decline of discipline and attempted many mutinies in his eastern campaign, praetorians rose in mutiny in the streeets of rome against harsher rules of discipline

Again there had been mutinies against harsher discipline, and for bigger bonus, for a long time, just look at the Rhine Mutinies during Augustus reign, and the Praetorians were never exactly known for their iron discipline .

Indeed Elagabalus and Alexander, show a trend we also see in later byzantine period, which is mother regent and young king (or emperorship passes to one who marries the heiress), rarely ends with good results. Perhaps part of this is unsuitability for war leader for mother and young son, younger kings not being as able, another might also have to do with the society not liking a female leader and opposing them due to stereotypes or dislike seeing women in position of power.

Both Elagabalus and Alexander were weak puppets, Alexander less than Elagabalus but neither was a true Imperator like Severus. In both cases it was the fact that the Legions despised them that brought them down, not that they were opposed to female leaders, for the Legions what mattered was to have an Emperor that was there with them and that payed them in time.

What I see is that the institution of discipline which the romans have cultivated and used previously did decline during the severan dynasty, and I think it does have something to do with the Severruns actions, and in fact Septimius shares the blame along with of course Caracalla.

As I said before the trend was existing from a long time, and Severus actually tried to impose harsher discipline on the Legions and he succeeded during his reign. The disciplina of the roman army was just another virtus of the Romans but by the time of Severus the Romans were no longer willing to serve in the army when they could get more pay in other jobs and conscription was very unpopular.

Anyway, I think the long civil war that followed, was related to only the increased Sassanid threat, but a loss of dynastical prestige. You have the rise of people like Thrax attempting to be emperors by killing Alexander. Again to be fair, the troops themselves, who chose this guy, are very much responsible, and if discipline is declining isn't necessarilly only due to the actions of the emperor.

Anyway, what does Maximinus Thrax do? He doubles the pay of soldiers. Increased pay, necessitated increased taxes as well.

Maximinus Thrax, just like Vespasian, was a man selected by the Legions to become Emperor and he wasn't stupid, he knew that if he didn't rewarded the Legion that they would just choose another to replace him, so he had little option on increasing their pay.


In my view, institutions and actions taken by leaders in guiding those institutions matters. Isn't only thing that matters, but it does. At such the Severans, and some that followed, played a role in the rise of easier and quicker rebellion and break in discipline. I would put more of the blame on the first three (or four if we include Macrinus) than Alexander and his mother. I am not convinced the crisis was inevitable. Of course more troubles due to plague and rise of strong enemy were going to be there, but I see a transformation to the roman society that becomes more unstable, prone to usurpations and end of emperor through their own troops. Though Roman empire always had that problem. Perhaps there other factors at play influencing that beyond the actions of the Severans.

Again it weren't the Severans that caused the breaking of discipline and rebellion, the Legions had been on that path for a long time when they got to power.

I did a breakdown of the late roman army last year here on the forums and how the Crisis of the Third Century affected the way the legions and I think that this explains the spiral at it's worst:

A General declares himself, or his declared by his men, Emperor. His first move is to gain access to gold/silver to pay his troops and to conscript more men into his army so that he can face the Emperor. In this scenario it doesn't matters if the Emperor or the usurper wins for the loosing army will be integrated into the winning side, because extra soldiers were always welcomed by the Emperors and because if they disbanded the men it could lead to instability as they would most likely turn to banditry. Also disbanding the men would give a dangerous sign to his own men, after all if he did that to them what would stop the Emperor to do that to his own men, the logical end, to the legions, would be that the Emperor must be replaced for a more understandable candidate.
 

I am not really arguing that lax discipline was due to the actions of emperors specifically/only, and that other factors were not influential.

What effect do you think the decision for various emperors in a relatively small timeframe to largely increase the reward of the legions, as a way to gain their obedience?

My perception is that alone isn't necessarily the reason for decline of discipline, but it contributed to that. On the short term, the emperors are going to think of their own skin, though most of those including Maximinus Thrax, had a violent end anyway, and he didn't last that long. Many emperors followed different policies than Caracalla or Severus, those two didn't have to act as they did.

I just can't accept the idea that lavish rewards don't have to do with reduction of discipline, when you have the legions revolting for not getting previous rewards promised to them. These actions created a certain expectation, and a certain example for other emperors like Thrax to follow. It created a domino.

As far as foresight goes and long term stability, it isn't that good of a pollicy regardless of their reason. If for nothing else, increasing their pay, as a way to keep control of the legions, had a detrimental effect on the economy and perhaps even weakens the idea of loyalty to the state. And add to that the negative effects on the economy.

Now, the roman empire had something related to these problems previously as well, but there is very much an increase in the problems driven by large increase in payments in small time frame, and a dynasty that simply lacks good and effective leadership after Septimius , and in addition to that there is a rise of some outside factors as well, such as the rise of the Sassanids.


Karolus Rex said:
snip>A General declares himself, or his declared by his men, Emperor. His first move is to gain access to gold/silver to pay his troops and to conscript more men into his army so that he can face the Emperor. In this scenario it doesn't matters if the Emperor or the usurper wins for the loosing army will be integrated into the winning side, because extra soldiers were always welcomed by the Emperors and because if they disbanded the men it could lead to instability as they would most likely turn to banditry. Also disbanding the men would give a dangerous sign to his own men, after all if he did that to them what would stop the Emperor to do that to his own men, the logical end, to the legions, would be that the Emperor must be replaced for a more understandable candidate.

That is another issue, than bribing soldiers with increasingly large pay rises. There is some flexibility in the policies that emperors followed, as other emperors kept smaller army than Septimius did and pursued a less expansionist policy.



Karolus Rex said:
Both Elagabalus and Alexander were weak puppets, Alexander less than Elagabalus but neither was a true Imperator like Severus. In both cases it was the fact that the Legions despised them that brought them down, not that they were opposed to female leaders, for the Legions what mattered was to have an Emperor that was there with them and that payed them in time.

In Alexander's case it was a combination of his own decisions and taking the advice of his mother. It did matter that there was a female regent being obeyed by a young king.

Karolus Rex said:
As I said before the trend was existing from a long time, and Severus actually tried to impose harsher discipline on the Legions and he succeeded during his reign. The disciplina of the roman army was just another virtus of the Romans but by the time of Severus the Romans were no longer willing to serve in the army when they could get more pay in other jobs and conscription was very unpopular.

The issue with Severus is more how the debasement of the currency and expansion of roman military, in addition to the bloody results of his civil war, add up, when considered in combination with what happens with other Severan leaders, like his son Caracalla. Severus army was a huge force, and that was after a civil war. I am not sure how that is possible, if there was such dramatic change in willingness of romans to serve.
 
Last edited:
Regarding cause and effect, i tend more towards @Karolus Rex ' s view.
Generally, I think the Cot3c. had long-term structural reasons, economic, ecological, social, political ones, and the Sassanids were not helping either, of course. Every monarchy is in trouble when the Monarch is incompetent, and Elagabalus certainly wasn't the best. But even the best Emperors wouldn't have been able to save urban crafts, long-distance trade, agricultural productivity, steel quality, wood abundance, public health in times of New pandemics, political engagement, central authority etc. against very difficult odds and with the knowledge at their disposal, at least not without being a very thorough-thinking, Bold and lucky reform genius.

Who is surprised about bad morale in the legions during the Principate when what had fostered discipline in the young and middle Republic was no longer applicable and no other reason had taken its place?
 
What effect do you think the decision for various emperors in a relatively small timeframe to largely increase the reward of the legions, as a way to gain their obedience?

It was a short term decision, and as all short term decision it was bad in the long term. I understand why they did why they did it, and I can't really blame them because they didn't had the luxury to plan long term not they had the knowledge of how bad the trend would become.

I just can't accept the idea that lavish rewards don't have to do with reduction of discipline, when you have the legions revolting for not getting previous rewards promised to them. These actions created a certain expectation, and a certain example for other emperors like Thrax to follow. It created a domino.

Again you already had revolts and mutinies against harsher discipline and demands of better pay and more bonus since the days of Augustus, just like debasing the currency was normal in the reign of each Emperor. The Severan dynasty, and Thrax, did what was normal by that point, Marcus Aurelius bribed the Praetorians with a donation of 5000 denarii per capita when he became Emperor which was high compared to the bribes of the Severans.

The biggest problem for discipline was that the Legions understood, since the Late Republic, their political power and they knew that whoever was in power would want to keep them happy. It's no coincidence that the Latin word for Military Commander, Imperator, is the one that is associated with the Roman Rulers of the Empire, despite them having several other titles.

As far as foresight goes and long term stability, it isn't that good of a pollicy regardless of their reason. If for nothing else, increasing their pay, as a way to keep control of the legions, had a detrimental effect on the economy and perhaps even weakens the idea of loyalty to the state. And add to that the negative effects on the economy.

The thing is that they didn't had foresight nor they cared about long term stability, the Emperors usually cared about what would fix the problems on the short term.

The Antonines, the Juliu-Claudians and the Flavians also debased the currency and gave bonus to the troops, yet you are not blaming them for the Cot3c. This was a trend that came from long before Severus was born, he and his dynasty just happened to be at the end of the trend, right before the spiral phase.

Now, the roman empire had something related to these problems previously as well, but there is very much an increase in the problems driven by large increase in payments in small time frame, and a dynasty that simply lacks good and effective leadership after Septimius , and in addition to that there is a rise of some outside factors as well, such as the rise of the Sassanids.

That is another issue, than bribing soldiers with increasingly large pay rises. There is some flexibility in the policies that emperors followed, as other emperors kept smaller army than Septimius did and pursued a less expansionist policy.

The army had to be expanded. The raids on the borders were becoming bigger and bigger, a new power was raising on the East and the Germanic tribes were becoming more and more organized and more of a threat to Rome.

If Severus didn't expanded the army and hadn't bribed them to be loyal to him, his reign would be short and whoever came after him would realize the exact same problems and would had to do what he did to ensure short term stability everywhere.

Look at Pertinax, he tried to impose discipline on the Praetorian Guard and was murdered because of that, Severus didn't tried to do that because he know how that would end so he created the II Parthica and placed it near Rome so that he had loyal and disciplined soldiers near him when in Rome. Dididus literally bribed his way into the purple, this shows how common bribing soldiers for loyalty had become.

In Alexander's case it was a combination of his own decisions and taking the advice of his mother. It did matter that there was a female regent being obeyed by a young king.

If anything Alexander following the advice of his mother was what kept him in power for so long, that no one complained against her regency, and it was a good regency that fixed the worst excesses of the Imperial Court, is remarkable. The problem with Alexander was his actions in Germania that screwed him. The Army of Rhine wanted war, they wanted to raze the border regions to the ground and they wanted the spoils and slaves of a campaign and Alexander's attempts to bribe the tribes only made him look weak, so the Legions looked for a Emperor that was more for their liking.

The issue with Severus is more how the debasement of the currency and expansion of roman military, in addition to the bloody results of his civil war, add up, when considered in combination with what happens with other Severan leaders, like his son Caracalla. Severus army was a huge force, and that was after a civil war. I am not sure how that is possible, if there was such dramatic change in willingness of romans to serve.

Again the debasing of the currency was another trend for a long while and the bigger army after the civil war, was because of use of forced conscription, which was deeply unpopular, you don't see many volunteers during this period in the army, they were mostly conscripts.
 
If the "solution" to the Crisis was Diocletian's Tetrarchy then it could be legitimately argued that by refusing to divide the Empire into East and West Geta and Caracalla were the ones responsible for failing to carrying out the wishes in Severus' will. Of course this could have led to another round of civil war but it is possible that each of them would have enough other enemies to worry about to at least delay the civil wars until the empire was more stable.
 
Some historians believe, that the pay rise of Severus was badly needed due to an already existing moderate inflation. Remember, there was no pay rise since Domitian. Even if some usual deductions from salary were most probably canceled during the 2nd century as a kind of indirect pay rise. But Caracallas rise of pay shortly later, was rather not caused by inflation. It probably increased inflation significantly.
 
Top