Was the crisis of the 3rd century inevitable?

If the legions had been withdrawn from provinces which had been Roman for a century or two, I'm pretty sure their comrades in other units would soon have become aware of the fact. It's not the kind of thing you could keep secret.
Sorry, I don't get your point. And how it relates to my post.
 
Didn't plagues play a major role in the crisis as well?

Looking to the collapse of the economy, currency, and therefore logistics, yes. But you can't say that the collapse of the economy was just due to plagues. There were massive structural issues and other detriemental processes, too.

Actually I am convinced, that the Antoninian plague, 100 years before the 3rd century crisis, was a major factor. But we discussed this already elsewhere.
 
I can't see much evidence for this.

Emperors who won victories against he Barbarians, eg Gallienus and Aurelian, don't seem to have fared much better than the ones who didn't. FTM, there were a heck of a lot of Emperors who were dispatched after reigns of only weeks or months, ie before they had a chance to succeed or fail at anything.

Conversely Diocletian, who finally stemmed the tide, doesn't seem to have been noticeably more successful on the battlefield than many of his predecessors. Looks to me as though the legions misbehaved because they were confident that they could do so without undue risk, and sobered up a bit when they saw the Empire suffering serious losses.
Sobering up is an idea that w require require hindsight people back then did not have.
Usurpations were not a mere thing of the Legions, either. Lok at how fast Postumus gained the folowing o o administration from Hispania to Germania, for example.
 
Of course usurpations were not just caused by the legions or the legionaries themselves. This is just a new kind of usurpation, which arose in the 3rd century. According to Felix Hartmann's dissertation. However this new type became dominant during the crisis.

The older types of usurpations, which have been analyzed by Egon Flaig in his habilitation ("Den Kaiser herausfordern") still existed. These older types are mainly based on the legates starting an usurpation by various reasons. Or a dynasty dies out and succession is unclear. In this case every senator can apply legally in the roman world.

And of course, the 4th century developed new types of usurpations again. Now some usurpers applied just for Caesar. Not for the one and only Augustus as usual. As did the 5th century. Usurpators now often ignored the emperor and usurped for magister militum. Usurpation is something very complex and fastly developing over time.
 
Last edited:
What in fact was the cause of the crisis of the 3rd century. The answer, basically was devaluation of Au-coinage (and the solution was a revaluation in Ag). Given the conceptual economic model which any Roman is likely to be operating within, the probably of devaluation is unlikely to be recognised until its to late. A more stable dynasty might prolong this e.g Germanicus stable dynasty, Flavian longer-lasting dynasty &c but eventual circumstance will present a situation to an Emperor where devaluation will seem a good idea and from then on... crisis happens as the army inflates its pay demands.

If that isn't an appealing argument then try this one:

I recall once reading Macedon was democratic in some sense because all of the Army, an equal % of population as the voting population of Athens, had a say in the choosing of a new leader. Hyperbole perhaps, but in that sense the civil strife of the 3rd century isn't a new phenomenon - its just the P part of SPQR re-asserting its traditional voice in the running of the Roman state.
 
What in fact was the cause of the crisis of the 3rd century. The answer, basically was devaluation of Au-coinage (and the solution was a revaluation in Ag).

I like to disagree. The debasement of silver currency did not happen for laughs and giggles. There was a reason why the romans debased the currency. The debasement of currency was not the cause. It was just one of many consequences of the cause.

And hell no, of course the gold currency (solidus) did not solve the issues. Not at all. The inflation was still galopping for the denar and the sesterce until the early 5th century. So nothing changed for all people who were not able to pay something with a 1000$ bill. And this was the vast majority. The inflation stopped, when Maioranus stopped minting silver coins by accident. And the ERE copied it. Simple like that. The gold currency could never stop inflation of silver currency. No way!

PS: And finally, the debasement of currency, or the reason why the romans debased at all in the first place, was just one of many issues which led to the crisis. But definately not the one and only one.
 
Last edited:
What in fact was the cause of the crisis of the 3rd century. The answer, basically was devaluation of Au-coinage (and the solution was a revaluation in Ag). Given the conceptual economic model which any Roman is likely to be operating within, the probably of devaluation is unlikely to be recognised until its to late. A more stable dynasty might prolong this e.g Germanicus stable dynasty, Flavian longer-lasting dynasty &c but eventual circumstance will present a situation to an Emperor where devaluation will seem a good idea and from then on... crisis happens as the army inflates its pay demands.

If that isn't an appealing argument then try this one:

I recall once reading Macedon was democratic in some sense because all of the Army, an equal % of population as the voting population of Athens, had a say in the choosing of a new leader. Hyperbole perhaps, but in that sense the civil strife of the 3rd century isn't a new phenomenon - its just the P part of SPQR re-asserting its traditional voice in the running of the Roman state.
While I like your second point, it does not yet explain much (why did it Manifest itself only then in this form for example?).
Debasement, on th other hand, is, as Agricola pointed out, rather a consequence than a reason.
Here are some suggestions for causal chains:
Deforestation--soil degradation--rising food prices;
Monopolisation of power--popular political apathy--low military engagement;
No new conquests--fewer slaves--escalating latifundist-coloni antagonisms--lower social cohesion;
...
 
And while o course none of the above caused the usurpations directly, they explain why no debasement was not an option either.
 
Looking to the collapse of the economy, currency, and therefore logistics, yes. But you can't say that the collapse of the economy was just due to plagues. There were massive structural issues and other detriemental processes, too.

Actually I am convinced, that the Antoninian plague, 100 years before the 3rd century crisis, was a major factor. But we discussed this already elsewhere.
Would you have a link of the discussion? Very interested!
 
Would you have a link of the discussion? Very interested!

Dont't know. We had so many threats about the antoninian plague.

I looked at it from my point of view of an economist. A plague is a bad thing. But a plague combined with a big war is a catastrophe!
After a plague you lost a significant part of your population. So your gross national product drops. Consequently the governent should decrease now the volume of money in circulation, in order to avoid an inflation. This is what modern economists would advise.

But Marcus Aurelius was in the middle of the most dangerous war since centuries. He could not reduce the money spent by the government. He had to increase it. Well, Marcus opportunites were limited. Actually he was almost bankrupted. However he put all the money he could get into this war. His son Commodus now even debased the currency and increased the money in circulation. Although the national product was reduced. This had to lead to a significant inflation. Therefore Severus had to increse th salary of the army significantly. And Caraclla did it again. Until we had a hyperinflation during the crisis 235-285 AD.

The roman empire always had a small inflation since Augustus. And some debasements like during Neros reign. But this moderate increase of the money supply was fully ok and even needed, because the economy was growing, too.

Don't get me wrong. I do not blame Commodus. He and his advisors had no clue about economic science. I also do not blame Severus. Well, perhaps we should blame Caracalla a bit. And finally, the crisis was much more than just an inflation.
 
do not think so, since climate trouble played a role, the 3rd century was a cold snap during which the roman warm period started to end (that lasted until 400ad)

interglacial-temperature-last-10k-years-very-nice-artfig1_zps8eb1c4a0.JPG
 
These sinking temperatures should have played a role. Again less productivity and shrinking economy. If now a plague comes on top, you should reduce your public spendings even more.

On the other hand, Britannia and Africa were prospering during the 3rd century. And the economy of Hispania already started to suffer in the 2nd century. Historians also guess, that the climate change led to a migration in Germania and more pressure to the frontiers. On the other side, the sarmatian migration started around 1 AD during best climate. So climate plays a role, but it does not explain everything.
 
Top