WI Commodus Dies 182 (No Commodus, Severus, or Caracella)

[John Fredrick Parker]

We’ve talked before about somebody other than Commodus from succeeding his father, or having him die much earlier in his reign; but what I’d like to do here is try to look at a PoD like this in a manageable, medium term way, where we look at what happened specifically in the subsequent generation of OTL history, and then ask if things could have happened differently. So let us suppose the plot to kill Commodus in 182 is successful -- meaning his sister Lucila and cousin Quadratus successfully kill him -- and someone else becomes the new emperor without too much fuss (maybe Pompeianus reluctantly accepts, maybe Quadratus takes it). Let’s first look at the most important over the next 35 years of OTL history:

• from 182 to 190, Cleander is the second most powerful official in the Roman government; in 190, riots rock the city of Rome; Cleander is removed from power; from 190 to 192, Commodus takes a… “different” approach to governing than he had previously; (we don’t have to get too much into how to characterize these two periods of reign, except in so far as to note how they pave the way for what comes next)
• in late 192, Commodus is assassinated; the following year sees the newly proclaimed emperor killed by the Praetorian Guard, and subsequently, there is civil war; the Parthians decide to give their support to one of the claimants, who happens to be governor of Syria; the winner of the war, however, is Septimus Severus, the newly appointed governor of Pannonia
• from 193 to 211, Severus reigns as emperor; since his reign depends on the support of the military, his is a military reign; also, he’s none too happy with the Parthians for backing someone other than him in the last power struggle, so his wars include an invasion of Mesopotamia; he also gives pay raises to the army, putting further strain on imperial finances, which he partly pays for by debasing the currency to some of its most extreme levels in the empire’s history
• the years 211 and 212 prove to be very important to Roman history - - first, Septimus Severus dies (of fairly natural causes, which would prove strange for the period); the new co-emperors, Caracella and Geta, would attempt ruling together for a few months, before one kills the other; than the new sole emperor would issue an edict declaring every free person in the Roman Empire to be a Roman Citizen (impacting the peregrini and freedmen)
• of the rest of Caracella’s reign, probably the most notable event (aside from further debasing the currency) was his war with Parthia, which, along with Severus’ war, effectively crippled the eastern empire, paving the way for the emergence of the Sassanid Empire; Caracella was killed in 217, leading a new military general to be proclaimed emperor... who didn't last long, before the army turned on him, due to him seeking to end the war with the Parthians, thus leading to a new emperor related to his predecessor being installed the following year

So looking over it, that’s quite a few very crucially important historical events happening in just a 35 year period; and I can't help but wonder how much of this general flow of events and policies, at least when looking at this narrow window, are contingent.

For example, it seems safe to assume a different emperor would implement different policies in the years 183 to 189; with a little more subtlety, we can also be fairly certain that an experienced public servant and/or soldier (like Pompeianus) would do a better job at containing corruption during this time, though the "why" of this would differ depending on how you view Commodus and Cleander OTL. To wit, if you follow the traditional narrative that Commodus was just "bad" and "incompetent" and followed "corrupt men", and the Pompeianus was a "good man", it follows straightforwardly enough; if, however, you take a more revisionist view, that Commodus was simply letting the political establishment do it's thing around this time (and decided to take a more hands on approach after 190), well then it also makes sense that someone with more experience will take a more hands-on approach, meaning you likely don't get the kind of "corruption" that the establishment tends to default to when nobody's paying too much attention. Whatever your historical view of Commodus, it's not hard at all to imagine that someone else would be doing a better job than him around this time period (182 to 190).

Okay, well that's the first few years down; what about after that? Well, if the government of the 180's is more competent, it's not too much of a stretch to think the grain dole could avoid running into problems around 190, even if climatological issues are making things more difficult; if you're willing to give that much, then we're probably significantly delaying the infamous Riots of 190 right there. And if the new emperor can keep things relatively stable in the 190's, there's a good chance the succession following their death isn't the crisis for Rome that 193 was OTL. And, because the new emperor and his successor are actually related to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, they're rule is on much more stable footing (comparatively speaking) than the Severans of OTL; and because they're not as overly reliant on the military, they're not issuing extensive bonuses to them or getting stuck in unnecessary wars just to keep them happy; and because they're not doing those things, they're not debasing the currency, or at least not to nearly the same kind of extreme levels. Plus, because there's no civil war, they've got no reason to suddenly be pissed at the Parthians, meaning the eastern neighbors don't get bludgeoned until they unexpectedly turn into the Sassanids. And on top of all this, unless some other kind of parallel family drama steps in, there's not really any compelling reason to issue anything like the Antonine Constitution.

You might have noticed, I've been making all these speculations while offering little in the way of who actually would be emperor; if it helps, the two most likely candidates for taking power in the event of Commodus' death in 182 would likely both have reigns roughly corresponding in period to his (Pompeianus died in 193 OTL, while Quadratus would live to 196 assuming he lived as to be as old as his brother-in-law). Their successor would likely be another relative of Marcus Aurelius -- like Proculus, Quintillus, or possibly even Pompeianus' own young son Commodus Pompeianus (though the latter would likely need a co-emperor if he succeeded his father) -- who could probably live at least as long as circa 205, probably longer (to 218 if Proculus, or potentially even to the mid-230's if Commodus Pompeianus). In any event, we can imagine the period discussed above as happening roughly over the course of these two emperors instead.

But what do you guys think? If I've managed to get this period (182 to 217-ish) to sound plausible enough, how does this affect Roman history going forward? Realize this before answering -- most of us here completely understand there are fundamental forces at work in making the Crisis of the Third Century what it is; nobody seriously thinks this is going to be a picnic. But it is worth remembering that these challenges started to face Rome in the latter Second Century, and for a time they managed to more or less mitigate them with effective governance (under Marcus Aurelius); it's absolutely worth asking what would have turned out differently if that kind of effective governance had lasted just a little bit longer.

Thanks.

-----CONSOLIDATE-----

Hell, as I've said before, I completely understand there were fundamental forces that were always going to make the Third Century a challenging period for Rome -- demographic loss due to the Antonine Plague, with more pestilence likely to come; collapse of inter-imperial trade; massive crop failures and other losses stemming from ecological catastrophe; and even if Rome goes on a different path that sees far less overextending of their military and needlessly destabilizing their neighbors, its likely these same forces are putting pressure on them as well -- but avoiding civil wars (for the time being anyway) was absolutely something that was within their power to do.

I think at some point, you would have seen a series of generals fighting civil wars in quick succession for the throne. After all, that was how the imperial system was established in the first place. But I do agree that it doesn't have to happen right when everything else goes wrong.

What you very well may not see -- and this gets to the point of the OP for this thread -- is a civil war which establishes an emperor firmly enough that he’s able to secure himself a dynasty; then, once that dynasty has ruled for a bit, starting with usurpations and civil wars one after the other, adding to the chaos of the already challenging times.

Instead, you very well could have had the Antonine Dynasty last longer; then, by the time the generals are ready to start jockeying for the top position, the empire itself is just under so much stress (climate cooling, etc), that even the shaky control exercised by Septimus Severus OTL would be too much for them. In other words, you go right from “Good Emperors” to Full Blown Crisis, with no Severan buffer.

Does that make sense?

 

[Andristan]

Enough Aurelian emperors and maybe the theodosian dynastic principle gets established, as weak as it was, a little early. We could see a division of the empire into a dual ruler system, if pompeianus and quadratus replace commodus, they split the duties.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Enough Aurelian emperors and maybe the theodosian dynastic principle gets established, as weak as it was, a little early. We could see a division of the empire into a dual ruler system, if pompeianus and quadratus replace commodus, [and] split the duties.

Pompeianus himself would technically only be related to Marcus Aurelius through marriage, so in that respect he's closer to the typical Antonines (Marcus himself being married his predecessor's daughter, who was also his cousin); though as it happens, Qunitillus was also nephew to Lucius Verus. If Quadratus does share power, it's a good way to resume the "rule of two" that worked well for Aurelius and Verus for a time, but I'm inclined to think with this particular PoD that this is unlikely (unlike new TL, where it does work), and that Pompeianus is stuck ruling alone, at least for a time.

As to whether dynastic succession would continue from there -- while he did have a son of his own, the new reluctant emperor is likely concerned about dying while his son is still young; in that scenario, I imagine Pompeiannus will be selecting one of the adult relatives of Aurelius, like Proculus or Quintillus, to be "co-heir". It's possible "rule of two" begins from this, or conversely, due to his co-emperor not being of age at ascention, this "second" could simply become de facto sole heir; we can leave that open for now. (Interestingly, this gives us a sort of more traditional familial dynasty starting after Hadrian -- in that each of them are a descendant of or married to a descendant of Marcus Annius Verus. Small detail, perhaps, but I think it's neat.)

In any event, what's interesting is that with these two generations of rule alone can easily get us to the 220's; and as mentioned, we can think of Pompeiannus' reign as overlapping chronologically with OTL Commodus (i.e. he dies circa 193), so this successor (let's say it's Proclus) is going to be covering ground overlapping with most of the Severan Emperors. The former we can think of as a series of small omissions, of dogs that don't bark -- no ridiculous corruption 182-90, no megalomania period of 190-92, and most importantly, no civil war of 193 -- which mostly serve to set up the very noticeably, and very historically important, different reign of the latter.

Even if the Antonine Dynasty were to fall apart right after (so circa 220 or so) -- which we're not even granting yet, but even if we did -- this modest extension of the "Good Emperor" period would prove monumentally important to how Roman Civilization as a whole evolves over the course of whatever Crisis subsequently develops. It could, of course, continue longer -- though, as we get deeper into the third century, the fundamental forces I was talking about earlier are only going to get harder and harder to deal with.

 

[AndreaConti]

Luckily for us, we are not in an Italian forum, otherwise a fight would have broken out: because on the one hand there is a minority, as a result of the Gladiator, who consider the son of Marcus Aurelius to be absolute evil. On the other hand there is a majority, which with different nuances, re-evaluates his actions. Finally, there is a minority of enthusiastic Commodus fanboys.😁

Perhaps the opinion I share most is that of a classicist colleague of mine, who tells his students

Commodus wasn't absolute evil: he was just disliked, like several other emperors, by a bunch of senators with a bad temper and a lot of gossip. He was also a bizarre personality, without a doubt: an unrepentant womanizer and a fan of gladiatorial games, whose hobby was to fight with ostriches (between us, they are also unsociable birds... Ever since a dear friend of mine opened a breeding farm for these beasts in the province of Palermo, I realized that in the arena I would have been cheering for Commodus 😁)

Commodus was no philosopher, without a doubt, but not even an opium addict like his father, given that the good Galen, in his formula of theriac, a remedy for all ills and a sedative that he regularly administered to Marcus Aurelius, included a little viper meat and a lot opium extract grown in Egypt. Furthermore, unlike his father, he was passionate about medical and scientific studies: for example, it was recently discovered that the infamous elephant banquet was nothing more than dissecting the animal, to understand its anatomy and identify its parentage with the other mammals known to the Romans.

Despite the historical judgment they may have on him, there is no doubt that Commodus was always, in his father's mind, the ideal successor. The young prince was associated with the throne in 177 at the age of fifteen, receiving the title of august and tribunician power, that is, the true "operational" attributes of imperial power. He was even ordinary consul, the youngest ever. At the time of Mark's death, in the spring of 180, there was therefore no need for any of the usual procedures that had characterized previous successions: the emperor, with all the constitutional attributes, was already there.

The first challenge the young emperor had to face was: continue the war against the barbarians?

Nineteenth-century historiography accused Commodus of a hasty departure that "saved" the Germans from a definitive defeat. More recent discoveries have instead suggested that Marcus Aurelius, due to the resurgence of the plague and the discontent of the eastern provinces, had already abandoned all expansionist ambitions.

Commodus inaugurated his reign by proclaiming peace. It wasn't just any peace: it was a solid, lasting and extremely important peace for the empire. Thus writes Hekster:

When blaming Commodus for his return to Rome, one should not forget how well the settlements with the Quadi and Marcomanni actually worked. Up to the calamitous years of Valerian and Gallienus (AD 253-260), no more serious threats from the area are reported… forcing the defeat enemy to be incorporated in a new province involved massive logistical and political problems… militarily, annexing new territory was also different from overcoming an enemy.

Ultimately, the choice of Commodus (or his advisors) was wise: the occupation of new provinces, which would have been climatically unsuitable for the agriculture practiced by the Romans and whose mineral resources were underestimated, would have been a useless cost, especially in periods of recurring pandemics. They could have been achieved (and were, in fact, achieved) by simpler diplomatic means.

The second challenge is economic: we have an empire prostrated by the Antonine plague, with the poorest social classes in enormous difficulty. If on the one hand Commodus accentuated the order and discipline imparted by Marcus Aurelius, for example fighting corruption and the abuses of tax collectors in the provinces, he started a program that today we would define as Keynesian, with a mix of subsidies and public works: however, for to finance it, he had to harass the senators, who obviously tied it to their finger.

Furthermore, Commodus, unlike his father, who in addition to protecting the interests of the senators, had, in a sort of parcelling out of power, to keep them happy, entrusted them with the monopoly of public offices, which often fell into the hands of complete idiots, was a convinced meritocrat: you could be a member of the equestrian class or even a freedman of the lowest origin, but if you were capable of your work, you had a career. The same approach that Septimius Severus would adopt both in the civil administration and in the army, which, let us remember, eliminated the damnatio memoriae to which the Senate had condemned Commodus, thus reconnecting to his politics.

Two documents testify to the sudden change between the reign of the father and that of the son. Both concern the composition of the consilium Principis, i.e. the informal body that the emperor consulted for the management of the state. In the Tabula Banasitana, an epigraph containing the granting of Roman citizenship to members of a Mauritanian tribe and dating back to 177 AD, the names of the twelve closest advisors of the emperor Marcus Aurelius are listed: among them, there are no fewer than five or six senators. On the contrary, in a letter addressed to the city of Athens in the year 186/187, no senator is listed among Commodus' advisors, who indeed includes the powerful imperial freedman Cleander.

The third problem is facing the age of anguish, caused by the collapse of the old order, due to war, epidemic and economic crisis

As the great Italian historian Santo Mazzarino says

The masses of the age of Commodus, exhausted by Marcus' wars, seek peace... Commodus puts an end to the wars. He replaces military glory... with another type of 'glory'... He must hunt animals, since he no longer wants to hunt Sarmatians. Commodus' 'pacifist' tendency necessarily turns towards the spectacular

In general, Commodus had realized how the ancient beliefs, embodied by the exasperated public religious traditionalism of Marcus Aurelius, had proven ineffective in the psychological crisis of the time: so from a "lucid madness", he decided to pursue a plan of centralization religious of the imperial figure, who was transfigured into a divine figure in which people, traumatized by the turmoil of that era, could find comfort. If you think about it, this sort of cult of personality is the same one that Diocletian and Constantine pursued, in different ways.

However, always with a view to calming public opinion, Commodus realized the value that cults of oriental origin had, from Mithraism to Christianity, from ascetic philosophies to the cult of Isis, so unlike Diocletian, he was much more tolerant. Another emperor, in his place, to address these structural problems, perhaps would have used another approach... Whether it could be more or less effective depends on our creativity in writing alternative histories 😊

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Indeed, one of the advantages of killing Commodus in 182 as opposed to before he became emperor is that it sidesteps the whole debate of whether he made the right call in how he made peace with the Germans; by the time of the assassination plot, the deal was already made, and his likely successors were unlikely to tear it up. And I'll admit, it's harder to see a reluctant emperor like Pomepiannus throwing himself so spectacularly into performing for the common people of the empire -- his reign would no doubt be more concerned with "bread" than "circuses".

Though that does bring us to one possible point of contention -- @AndreaConti would you say that the administration of Commodus had been doing a fair job managing the more dull affairs of state (the bread dole, etc) in the years leading up to the Riots of 190? Would you say the crisis was simply so systemic that even a more "boring" administrator would not have been able to prevent the food prices that contributed to the unrest? Or do the "new men" in Commodus' administration, like Cleander, deserve the historical scorn they received for contributing to the crisis (through selling offices and other forms of corruption)? I mentioned my impression that 190 proved to be a turning point in the reign of Commodus -- where before the riots, he certain have had a "popular" appeal, afterword he started to push his "cult" into overdrive (renaming the empire and city "Commodonia", etc). Would you say this impression of there being a turning point in 190 -- even if we may dispute how to characterize the periods on either side of it -- is by itself accurate?

Also, thank you for your response.

 

[AndreaConti]

What if I told you that there are strong doubts about whether these riots really happened? Or at least they have been expanded by senatorial propaganda?

1. The version given by Herodian is totally different from that of Cassius Dione, who attributes the responsibilities to the prefect of the annona Papirius Dionysius, which, given how supplies were organized in Rome, seems much more logical
2. Herodian makes extensive use of false news in his work. I'll give you some examples: the events of Tigidius Perenne and Cleander under Commodus; the story of Plautianus under Septimius Severus; the election of Elagabalus. The use of false news appears to serve at least two main functions: control and release of information at the end of falsification by those who exercise power; as a narrative expedient to dramatize events that sometimes take on less than credible contours... Given that the entire narrative of the events of 190 is structured in a similar way to a Senecan tragedy, including Fadilla's agnatio.... Which makes the his testimony
3. There is no archaeological evidence of such a large riots
4. There are a series of "specialist" problems, on the role of the equites singulares, who, being still in the castra vetera, currently under San Giovanni in Laterano, could not make the journey described by Herodian or on where Commodus was (even if he was in the villa of the Quintilis, is not isolated from the city, as appears in Herodian's story) or on the fact that from some epigraphs found near the Viminalis gate, according to Cleander, condemned to death by Commodus, he was killed in that place, in a later date but to the alleged revolt

What probably happens: 190 is a complicated year from a meteorological point of view... The production of Egyptian wheat is lower than normal, it must be compensated with the Sicilian production and furthermore the bad weather delays the arrival of the wheat ships in Rome, which resulted in the dismissal of Papirius Dionysius, as he showed his incompetence. The ships arrive, calming the crowd, whose protest however does not degenerate, and in the meantime, Cleander, who must have been guilty of some embezzlement scandal, is sentenced to death. Herodian mixes the different stories, dramatically loading the story, to entertain the reader and use everything as an exempla for his political and moral theses.

Even the fire is anything but large, given that it damages part of the Roman Forum, the house of the vestals and the temple of Vesta and the Forum of Peace... If you think about it, Rome has seen worse! 😁

On Commodus' decisions, I share an article, unfortunately in Italian, which explains the logic and highlights how it is in continuity and not in contrast with what was done by the previous Antonine emperors

LA PROPAGANDA POLITICA AL TEMPO DI COMMODO: ERCOLE, L’ANFITEATRO, UNA COLONIA (180-192 d.C.)

di Rebecca Goldaniga Ne “Il Gladiatore” (2000), Commodo appare ora pacato, ora collerico; ora fragile, ora crudele, ed il personaggio creato dalla regia di Ridley Scott pone l’accento s…

scacchierestorico.com

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

What if I told you that there are strong doubts about whether these riots really happened? Or at least they have been expanded by senatorial propaganda?

Ah, well now that is something; I’m certainly no stranger to Commodian perspectives, but this is something I admit I had not considered. If the events of 190 were indeed that (comparatively) mild, then we needn’t imagine they’d be too different TTL.

On Commodus' decisions, I share an article, unfortunately in Italian, which explains the logic and highlights how it is in continuity and not in contrast with what was done by the previous Antonine emperors

LA PROPAGANDA POLITICA AL TEMPO DI COMMODO: ERCOLE, L’ANFITEATRO, UNA COLONIA (180-192 d.C.)

di Rebecca Goldaniga Ne “Il Gladiatore” (2000), Commodo appare ora pacato, ora collerico; ora fragile, ora crudele, ed il personaggio creato dalla regia di Ridley Scott pone l’accento s…

scacchierestorico.com

OK, I just read the article. First thoughts -- it sounds like Commodus was drifting toward a Divine Right theory of rule, acting as a sort of first draft of the Dominate, that he was starting to really get into around the time of the Refoundation period of his rule circa 190-92; if I have this right, then it sounds like the reason 190 would be a turning point (and I was right about that much, at least) is that Commodus simply needed about a decade of rule under his belt, building his base of political support, before he could "refound" the empire based on his ideals. Related to this is the re-elevation of what we might call the "Cult of Hercules" to political prominence, which it enjoyed in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrain. Do I have things right so far? And if so, would you say it's possible to imagine the Cult of Hercules returning to power without bringing with it any kind of "Divine Right" political program?

If I am understanding things correctly, I might make some additional observations of my own, that would prove pretty relevant for the conversation at hand -- namely, that it's very important to note when Commodus came to power and began to reorient the empire in this direction; a plague had reached the empire only 15 years earlier, and by traditional estimates, only really came to an end (or a sort of "leveling", might be another way to put it) around the time of his rise to power, killing around 10-15% of the empire's population. That's going to leave a mark, and it makes sense that much of the imperial population would be receptive to a complete overhaul of order in the world they knew at that point in time.

But of course, we're imagining a different scenario. So I ask -- if Pompeiannus does not move for any kind of fundamental "revolution" during his reign, for at least a decade, would the empire still be as receptive to it by the time his successor comes to power? Even if Proculus restored the prominence of the Cult of Hercules at the start of his reign in the mid-190's, would the empire be nearly as receptive to any hypothetical push toward a Rule by Divine Right? I'm inclined to think "no", in which case the Principate as an institution may well be going into the Crisis to Come on a more solid footing.

What do you think?

 

[vandevere]

All I can say is that anything that helps Rome survive the Crisis in better shape can only be good

 

[AndreaConti]

Ah, well now that is something; I’m certainly no stranger to Commodian perspectives, but this is something I admit I had not considered. If the events of 190 were indeed that (comparatively) mild, then we needn’t imagine they’d be too different TTL.

OK, I just read the article. First thoughts -- it sounds like Commodus was drifting toward a Divine Right theory of rule, acting as a sort of first draft of the Dominate, that he was starting to really get into around the time of the Refoundation period of his rule circa 190-92; if I have this right, then it sounds like the reason 190 would be a turning point (and I was right about that much, at least) is that Commodus simply needed about a decade of rule under his belt, building his base of political support, before he could "refound" the empire based on his ideals. Related to this is the re-elevation of what we might call the "Cult of Hercules" to political prominence, which it enjoyed in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrain. Do I have things right so far? And if so, would you say it's possible to imagine the Cult of Hercules returning to power without bringing with it any kind of "Divine Right" political program?

If I am understanding things correctly, I might make some additional observations of my own, that would prove pretty relevant for the conversation at hand -- namely, that it's very important to note when Commodus came to power and began to reorient the empire in this direction; a plague had reached the empire only 15 years earlier, and by traditional estimates, only really came to an end (or a sort of "leveling", might be another way to put it) around the time of his rise to power, killing around 10-15% of the empire's population. That's going to leave a mark, and it makes sense that much of the imperial population would be receptive to a complete overhaul of order in the world they knew at that point in time.

But of course, we're imagining a different scenario. So I ask -- if Pompeiannus does not move for any kind of fundamental "revolution" during his reign, for at least a decade, would the empire still be as receptive to it by the time his successor comes to power? Even if Proculus restored the prominence of the Cult of Hercules at the start of his reign in the mid-190's, would the empire be nearly as receptive to any hypothetical push toward a Rule by Divine Right? I'm inclined to think "no", in which case the Principate as an institution may well be going into the Crisis to Come on a more solid footing.

What do you think?

Personally, I have the impression that the mechanism of the principality, due to economic problems, inflation and decreased agricultural production and the need to militarize society due to the pressure of external enemies, could survive, increasingly delegitimized, for another two or three generations: the fatal blow would have been given to him by the Plague of Cyprian, which although less famous, was even more lethal than the Antonine Plague, which would have definitively jammed all its mechanisms... Therefore, the transition to the Dominated, certainly different from that thought by Domitian and Constantine, it would always have happened, but delayed by about sixty years

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Personally, I have the impression that the mechanism of the principality, due to economic problems, inflation and decreased agricultural production and the need to militarize society due to the pressure of external enemies, could survive, increasingly delegitimized, for another two or three generations: the fatal blow would have been given to him by the Plague of Cyprian, which although less famous, was even more lethal than the Antonine Plague, which would have definitively jammed all its mechanisms... Therefore, the transition to the Dominate, certainly different from that thought by Domitian and Constantine, it would always have happened, but delayed by about sixty years

Decreased agricultural production? Check. Pressure of external enemies? Check. Plague of Cyprian? Triple checks, because it absolutely was going to devastate the empire as badly as you say. I would quibble on inflation -- yes, the currency does tend strongly to devalue over time, but that doesn't mean the kind of hyperinflation that started under Septimus Severus was inevitable -- but otherwise, I completely agree on all the fundamental problems facing the empire you listed.

Interestingly, you mention the principate's institutions surviving another two or three generations, and that's about how long the Severan Dynasty was; so if I understand you right, the Crisis starts about the same time as OTL (circa 235)? In any event, s***'s certainly going to still hit the fan circa 250. And when you mention the transition to the Dominate being delayed by about 60 years -- do you mean to around the mid 4th Century?

 

[AndreaConti]

Decreased agricultural production? Check. Pressure of external enemies? Check. Plague of Cyprian? Triple checks, because it absolutely was going to devastate the empire as badly as you say. I would quibble on inflation -- yes, the currency does tend strongly to devalue over time, but that doesn't mean the kind of hyperinflation that started under Septimus Severus was inevitable -- but otherwise, I completely agree on all the fundamental problems facing the empire you listed.

Italian scholars instead hypothesize how Caracalla's reform is the effect and not the cause of inflation and this is linked to structural problems such as the lack of food products in the first place; then the circulation of too much divisional money, that is, of little value; and finally the loss of the intrinsic value of coins with noble mintage, hoarded and disappeared from circulation.

The first phenomenon, that is, the shortage of products on the market, was due to two main causes: the scarcity of agricultural production, in turn due to the depopulation of the countryside, and the practice of an agriculture that can still be defined as archaic, that is, with little use of techniques and technology and impact, as various sources of the time tell us and is confirmed by dendrochronology; and to the distortion of the normal flow of goods on the market, caused by the State as a hoarder of large quantities of agricultural commodities.

Studies on plagues report that the demographic decline initiated by the Antonine Plague and continued over time; the population therefore fell - it is estimated - to 45-50 million, but it is assumed that the decline in the population engaged in agricultural production was higher in percentage than the overall average, therefore more than 25-30%, because it completely lacked prevention measures and care compared to the city population. Therefore, the profitability of cultures consequently collapsed, with the relative increase in the prices of primary goods.

To these considerations a second phenomenon must be added, which begins with the Marcomannic wars which caused - during the 3rd century - a serious distortion of the market of agricultural products, as it removed, for a long time, huge quantities of goods from free circulation and self-regulation of prices on the market. The Roman State, to support the military, first became a large buyer of products which it paid with (debased) money; and then, when everyone's confidence in the stability of the purchasing power of the current currency was lost, the State itself, pressured by the military and the bureaucracy, required the payment of taxes with agricultural commodities, with goods in kind. In this way a large part of the agricultural production had a recipient who absorbed large quantities of products as payment of taxes and did not end up on the markets, preventing the free formation of prices. And that's not enough, because the State often proceeded with arbitrary requisitions of agricultural commodities to be allocated to the armies; the requisitions, which no one could escape, were sudden and upset the market for which those products were originally intended, causing a disorderly and irregular increase in the prices of the products that managed to reach the markets, while at the same time decreasing trust in money, as a guarantor of the purchase power

The Roman state, in the mid-third century, was supported by a gigantic apparatus of military and bureaucracy: approximately 500,000 soldiers between the army and navy, and a complex state bureaucratic apparatus estimated at 100,000 units. The State had, therefore, to pay a salary to approximately 600,000 people. The cost of maintaining the army was estimated by a British historian, Duncan Jones, to be, per year, 123 million denarii at the end of the age of Augustus , of 223 million at the death of Septimius Severus and close to 300 million at the end of the third century. The incidence of military spending on the gross domestic product of the Empire increased in percentage from 2.5% in the Augustan age to over 4% in the Severian age and increased further in the years of military anarchy.

It was also calculated by Duncan Jones, in the work cited, that the military expenditure which in the time of Augustus consumed 50% of the state budget, in the third century absorbed 75% of all the expenditure of the Roman State, which means of all tax collection, and it was a very significant percentage: the State used much higher resources in military expenditure than those used today by States with modern armies.
When the tax collection in money was transformed into tax collection in kind, the basic rule of the liberal economy, such as that of ancient Rome, disappeared, i.e. the self-regulation of the market which involves the adaptation of prices to the quantity of circulating goods, to money and the quality of the money.

The second phenomenon involved in the genesis of inflation was the excessive quantity of divisional money, of little value, in circulation compared to the spending capacity that the economic system as a whole still had. Where and why did the large quantity of circulating divisional money of little value originate?

First of all, the index must be pointed at the imperial system of mints. The organization of the imperial mints counted on a dozen production plants, located not only in Rome and in the imperial seat cities, but also in other locations, both in the West and in the East. It is not known how coordination took place between all the monetary production establishments to establish the correct quantity of gold and silver coins that could circulate in the Empire without altering the relationship between real wealth and circulating monetary quantity, but from the times of Hadrian onwards, this coordination mechanism seems to be jammed

Then, there is the impact of the pandemic, with a phenomenon similar to that generated in Europe by Covid. Following the Antonina plague, many coins were around for a reduced activity. For example, if we have a million coins in circulation but an economic activity of only 800,000, there is consequently a 20% increase in prices: it is not so mechanical, but it is understandable. Lacking a central bank, the Empire could not, like the modern European Union, compensate for this problem by increasing interest rates

Finally, a third element that favored inflation was the introduction into circulation of noble money with a reduced intrinsic value, which did not respect the legal value of the currency, but was much lower. At the time of Augustus, the first emperor, every denarius was composed of 95% silver and 5% other metals, such as bronze. A century later, with Trajan, the percentage of silver was 85%. Eighty years later, Marcus Aurelius once again depreciated the denarius, bringing it to just 75% silver. The denarius, therefore, had devalued by 20% in two centuries.

Therefore, the more valuable coins lost their intrinsic value, the more the race for hoarding became more pronounced. Therefore fine coins had little circulation and there was an abundance of divisional coins on the market. The phenomenon of hoarding occurs when there is fear of the future and with everything that was happening, from the time of Marcus Aurelius onwards, there was plenty of it!

Unlike Anglo-Saxon scholars, Italians tend to exclude the increase in prices of goods imported into the territory of the Empire from Arabia, India and Asia as the cause of inflation. Foraboschi, quantified the cost of purchases made by the Romans abroad, starting from a notation by Pliny the Elder, for whom, in his time (second half of the 1st century AD) on an annual GDP estimated at 20 billion sesterces l per year (equivalent to 5 billion denarii), the purchases amounted to 100 million sesterces per year, i.e. 25 million denarii. Bessone also recalls this assessment of Pliny the Elder. It was therefore 0.50% of GDP that was spent on purchases from abroad in the mid-1st century. Probably in the following two centuries, imports increased with the increase in well-being, but the percentage of GDP, even if it doubled, certainly could not exceed 1% or 1.50%, a percentage too low to cause inflation in the event that producers outside the Empire had raised the prices of their products.

It should also be considered that 100 million sesterces in gold and silver coins did not flow from the territory of the Empire to Arabia, India and China, because the merchants who brought oriental products to the Empire returned to their countries of origin with ships loaded with Roman products, precious ceramics, glass, copper and other goods, purchased with the same Roman coins that they had received on the occasion of the sales. The balance of payments is not known, whether positive or negative for Rome, but even assuming that it was negative, it is clear that the global expenditure for the import of oriental goods was reduced by a good percentage by exports. In short, it seems clear that foreign trade could not bring the Roman economy to its knees and cause a flare-up of inflation.

Therefore, the inflationary push has been structural and present since the time of Trajan and has had exponential growth from Marcus Aurelius onwards. Septimius Severus had to ride the tiger: while he exercised severe control over exchange rates and the black market, he tried to follow the upward trend of the inflation rate with a corresponding depreciation of the silver coin, which reached with it 50% metallic content.

Septimius Severus also tried to follow Trajan's example. obtaining considerable gold reserves with the confiscation of the major private assets of his political opponents and with successful military enterprises. With his actions he managed to maintain sufficient trust in the State as a guarantor of exchange rates, but he was unable to curb inflation, with public spending reaching unprecedented proportions under him. To reduce public spending, Caracalla decided to make a less heavy gold standard (6.50 grams), destroying what had been, up to that point, the untouchable cornerstone on which, despite everything, the fiduciary system continued to rest. Furthermore, he attempted to repeat the old system of saving on the silver coin, but not on the old denarius, fearing to create excessive distrust, but on a new coin, the antoninianus, which was officially worth two denarii but which contained less silver than two old ones. denarii. This solution, instead of stabilizing exchange rates, had the opposite effect.

Now, is it possible that an emperor of an emperor of an Elongated Principality chooses different solutions than the Severe? Absolutely yes. Could these solutions be more effective? Possible, but by not acting on the structural causes of inflation they limit themselves to postponing the effects that will arise sooner or later.

Interestingly, you mention the principate's institutions surviving another two or three generations, and that's about how long the Severan Dynasty was; so if I understand you right, the Crisis starts about the same time as OTL (circa 235)? In any event, s***'s certainly going to still hit the fan circa 250. And when you mention the transition to the Dominate being delayed by about 60 years -- do you mean to around the mid 4th Century?

Let's try to make a working hypothesis: a long principality would last around 250 and obviously, it will be very different from that of Trajan: it will be much more militarised, I will have to somehow increase the number of taxpayers (and it will have to adopt an ITL version with its specificities of the Constitutio Antoniana) and will have to address the problem of the relationship with the new oriental cults, which overall impact a large percentage of the population. The transition to a new Dynasty X will certainly not be smooth, but we will be able to avoid the so-called military anarchy.

The new dynasty will probably adopt reforms similar to those of Domitian in the fiscal and administrative field and in 360 there will be a more or less peaceful transition to the dominated, which will obviously be different compared to OTL

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@AndreaConti Amazing stuff, as always!

To see if I understand a part of it here -- Rome saw lower crop yields due to climate change, which naturally increased food prices, and plague destroyed large parts of the agricultural workforce; unlike the 14th Century, however, which partly alleviated similar issues with market forces that gave more negotiating power to the peasants who survived, the economy of the Roman Empire just wasn't designed to absorb that kind of pressure. Instead, since the authorities needed to maintain the grain dole in the cities, they taxed the farmers in kind, and when food prices went up, they paid their soldiers more in coin, and they paid for these increases by printing more money. Hence inflation.

Now Septimus Severus did make things worse here, and unnecessarily so -- he gave bonuses to the army to secure their loyalty, since his entire legitimacy came from their support after his coup; and he sent said army on a number of military campaigns, which obviously added to their expenditures still further. So it's unlikely that coins went from over 70% silver to under 40% during the course of his reign entirely due to the structural problems you mentioned -- but they absolutely were a factor.

Let's try to make a working hypothesis: a long principality would last around 250 and obviously, it will be very different from that of Trajan: it will be much more militarised, I will have to somehow increase the number of taxpayers (and it will have to adopt an ITL version with its specificities of the Constitutio Antoniana) and will have to address the problem of the relationship with the new oriental cults, which overall impact a large percentage of the population. The transition to a new Dynasty X will certainly not be smooth, but we will be able to avoid the so-called military anarchy.

This is really the really fun speculation starts. To start, and just to make sure we're covering bases -- will it need to be as militarized as OTL's Dominate Period if they're more concerned with defending their borders, and have little concern with military expansion?

Assuming the answer to that is "yes", than yeah, I don't see a way around the need to expand the imperial tax base -- at the very least, I don't think it's possible to preserve Italia's "special status" with respect to their free residents more or less being guaranteed a kind of elevated social status (which is what citizenship in the empire was, more or less, pre-212) above the non-colonist populations of the provinces. So it seems that the decline of the city of Rome's status within its own empire is determined by systemic factors that were already in play in the late 2nd Century, even though they didn't come to full fruition until the 4th -- which is pretty fascinating to think about, actually.

But anyway, yeah, some version of the Constitutio Antoniana seems locked in; arguably, if its passed before hyperinflation gets out of control (instead of after), that might put the empire's finances going forward in notably better shape. What's also fascinating here is, indeed, how the empire deals with the rise of these eastern cults; specifically, even if the aforementioned mass elevation of the empire's provinces still happens, is it inevitable that Rome officially embraces these religious developments (in the broad sense) to the extent they did OTL?

Let's imagine this in more concrete terms, say under the reign of our hypothetical emperor, Proculus (successor to Pompeiannus, reign starts in the mid 190's). Let's suppose that, like Trajan, Hadrian, and Commodus (and unlike Antonius Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Pompeiannus) he elevates the Cult of Hercules to a central role in state religion and imperial propaganda; unlike OTL Commodus, however, he doesn't shift toward any kind of Divine Right Theory of rule, avoiding any mythological faux pas against the institutions of the principate establishment. For funsies, we can also imagine him leaning into Hercules' connections to philosophers, and encouraging the active participation and cultivating of Stoic and Neoplatonist intellectuals and the like (sort of reminiscent of what Julian was going for OTL).

Now, what if it was this kind of figure -- as opposed to the son of a general who seized power in a coup, and a woman connected to an eastern cult -- who instituted TTL's equivalent to the Constitutio Antoniana? How might that, in itself, affect the ways in which the rest of the empire religiously integrates, or doesn't? I think there's a good case to be made that the faiths of the east (the Levant, Syria, Persia) don't pick up much steam in the rest of the empire; yeah, the Jewish Diaspora is still very much a thing, but there's no reason other eastern cults (Pauline Christianity, Manicheanism, etc) should become more popular, meaning the Jews likely remain the de facto representative of "the Orient" in the Roman World's (at least as the Roman World understands it).

What do you think?

The new dynasty will probably adopt reforms similar to those of Domitian in the fiscal and administrative field and in 360 there will be a more or less peaceful transition to the dominated, which will obviously be different compared to OTL

I think by the time we're in the mid 4th Century, a lot of things could be going differently for the empire; not everything, mind you (climate is still cooling), but any number of other things. So maybe we should content ourselves, in this thread, with ending our speculations chronologically with a characterization of the new Post Antonine (and Post Worst of the Crisis) Dynasty.

 

[Krishna123]

Essentially without either removing the plague or having 14th century Italian quarantine measures and medical knowledge in place it doesn’t matter who the Emperor was….
Changing the figurehead dosent change the fact that by that point the Empire was doomed.
Nero or Caligula were the last real chances to change the inevitable fall of Rome

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Essentially without either removing the plague or having 14th century Italian quarantine measures and medical knowledge in place it doesn’t matter who the Emperor was…. dosen't change the fact that by that point the Empire was doomed.

Well personally at least, I don't think changes to the historical timeline have to "save the Roman Empire" in order to be fascinating to think about; any thoughts on what's been discussed so far?

 

[Krishna123]

Well personally at least, I don't think changes to the historical timeline have to "save the Roman Empire" in order to be fascinating to think about; any thoughts on what's been discussed so far?

Yes the debasement of the currency, one thing that has not been mentioned was the primary driver of inflation during the republic and the Empire I.e the trade with east for Luxury products. Merchants wouldn’t take face value for debased Denarii…
So when a coin/bullion with higher purity was used the cost for spices/silk was lower. Use ‘new coins’ then price was higher hence inflating the cost for imported goods.
Also the removal of tax exemptions for citizens removed the motivation to join the military…. Hence causing at least in part the federati and mercenary/barbarian issue of the later empire.. possibly maybe lol

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

We’ve talked before about somebody other than Commodus from succeeding his father, or having him die much earlier in his reign; but what I’d like to do here is try to look at a PoD like this in a manageable, medium term way, where we look at what happened specifically in the subsequent generation of OTL history, and then ask if things could have happened differently. So let us suppose the plot to kill Commodus in 182 is successful -- meaning his sister Lucila and cousin Quadratus successfully kill him -- and someone else becomes the new emperor without too much fuss (maybe Pompeianus reluctantly accepts, maybe Quadratus takes it). Let’s first look at the most important over the next 35 years of OTL history:

• from 182 to 190, Cleander is the second most powerful official in the Roman government; in 190, riots rock the city of Rome; Cleander is removed from power; from 190 to 192, Commodus takes a… “different” approach to governing than he had previously; (we don’t have to get too much into how to characterize these two periods of reign, except in so far as to note how they pave the way for what comes next)
• in late 192, Commodus is assassinated; the following year sees the newly proclaimed emperor killed by the Praetorian Guard, and subsequently, there is civil war; the Parthians decide to give their support to one of the claimants, who happens to be governor of Syria; the winner of the war, however, is Septimus Severus, the newly appointed governor of Pannonia
• from 193 to 211, Severus reigns as emperor; since his reign depends on the support of the military, his is a military reign; also, he’s none too happy with the Parthians for backing someone other than him in the last power struggle, so his wars include an invasion of Mesopotamia; he also gives pay raises to the army, putting further strain on imperial finances, which he partly pays for by debasing the currency to some of its most extreme levels in the empire’s history
• the years 211 and 212 prove to be very important to Roman history - - first, Septimus Severus dies (of fairly natural causes, which would prove strange for the period); the new co-emperors, Caracella and Geta, would attempt ruling together for a few months, before one kills the other; than the new sole emperor would issue an edict declaring every free person in the Roman Empire to be a Roman Citizen (impacting the peregrini and freedmen)
• of the rest of Caracella’s reign, probably the most notable event (aside from further debasing the currency) was his war with Parthia, which, along with Severus’ war, effectively crippled the eastern empire, paving the way for the emergence of the Sassanid Empire; Caracella was killed in 217, leading a new military general to be proclaimed emperor... who didn't last long, before the army turned on him, due to him seeking to end the war with the Parthians, thus leading to a new emperor related to his predecessor being installed the following year

So looking over it, that’s quite a few very crucially important historical events happening in just a 35 year period; and I can't help but wonder how much of this general flow of events and policies, at least when looking at this narrow window, are contingent.

For example, it seems safe to assume a different emperor would implement different policies in the years 183 to 189; with a little more subtlety, we can also be fairly certain that an experienced public servant and/or soldier (like Pompeianus) would do a better job at containing corruption during this time, though the "why" of this would differ depending on how you view Commodus and Cleander OTL. To wit, if you follow the traditional narrative that Commodus was just "bad" and "incompetent" and followed "corrupt men", and the Pompeianus was a "good man", it follows straightforwardly enough; if, however, you take a more revisionist view, that Commodus was simply letting the political establishment do it's thing around this time (and decided to take a more hands on approach after 190), well then it also makes sense that someone with more experience will take a more hands-on approach, meaning you likely don't get the kind of "corruption" that the establishment tends to default to when nobody's paying too much attention. Whatever your historical view of Commodus, it's not hard at all to imagine that someone else would be doing a better job than him around this time period (182 to 190).

Okay, well that's the first few years down; what about after that? Well, if the government of the 180's is more competent, it's not too much of a stretch to think the grain dole could avoid running into problems around 190, even if climatological issues are making things more difficult; if you're willing to give that much, then we're probably significantly delaying the infamous Riots of 190 right there. And if the new emperor can keep things relatively stable in the 190's, there's a good chance the succession following their death isn't the crisis for Rome that 193 was OTL. And, because the new emperor and his successor are actually related to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, they're rule is on much more stable footing (comparatively speaking) than the Severans of OTL; and because they're not as overly reliant on the military, they're not issuing extensive bonuses to them or getting stuck in unnecessary wars just to keep them happy; and because they're not doing those things, they're not debasing the currency, or at least not to nearly the same kind of extreme levels. Plus, because there's no civil war, they've got no reason to suddenly be pissed at the Parthians, meaning the eastern neighbors don't get bludgeoned until they unexpectedly turn into the Sassanids. And on top of all this, unless some other kind of parallel family drama steps in, there's not really any compelling reason to issue anything like the Antonine Constitution.

You might have noticed, I've been making all these speculations while offering little in the way of who actually would be emperor; if it helps, the two most likely candidates for taking power in the event of Commodus' death in 182 would likely both have reigns roughly corresponding in period to his (Pompeianus died in 193 OTL, while Quadratus would live to 196 assuming he lived as to be as old as his brother-in-law). Their successor would likely be another relative of Marcus Aurelius -- like Proculus, Quintillus, or possibly even Pompeianus' own young son Commodus Pompeianus (though the latter would likely need a co-emperor if he succeeded his father) -- who could probably live at least as long as circa 205, probably longer (to 218 if Proculus, or potentially even to the mid-230's if Commodus Pompeianus). In any event, we can imagine the period discussed above as happening roughly over the course of these two emperors instead.

But what do you guys think? If I've managed to get this period (182 to 217-ish) to sound plausible enough, how does this affect Roman history going forward? Realize this before answering -- most of us here completely understand there are fundamental forces at work in making the Crisis of the Third Century what it is; nobody seriously thinks this is going to be a picnic. But it is worth remembering that these challenges started to face Rome in the latter Second Century, and for a time they managed to more or less mitigate them with effective governance (under Marcus Aurelius); it's absolutely worth asking what would have turned out differently if that kind of effective governance had lasted just a little bit longer.

Thanks.

-----CONSOLIDATE-----


What you very well may not see -- and this gets to the point of the OP for this thread -- is a civil war which establishes an emperor firmly enough that he’s able to secure himself a dynasty; then, once that dynasty has ruled for a bit, starting with usurpations and civil wars one after the other, adding to the chaos of the already challenging times.

Instead, you very well could have had the Antonine Dynasty last longer; then, by the time the generals are ready to start jockeying for the top position, the empire itself is just under so much stress (climate cooling, etc), that even the shaky control exercised by Septimus Severus OTL would be too much for them. In other words, you go right from “Good Emperors” to Full Blown Crisis, with no Severan buffer.

Does that make sense?

The Western Roman Empire, if the Empire is split at all, would likely survive beyond 476.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Yes the debasement of the currency, one thing that has not been mentioned was the primary driver of inflation during the republic and the Empire…

What do you mean “has not been mentioned”? I mentioned it back in the OP, and we came back to inflation a number of times! I mentioned my theory to start that it was the fact that Septimus Severus came to power in a military coup that lead him to adopt an aggressive border policy, and those two things combined led to increased spending on the military, which led to debasing the currency. (As I noted, silver share in coins went from 70% to under 40% over the course of Septimus’ reign.)

Also the removal of tax exemptions for citizens removed the motivation to join the military…. Hence causing at least in part the federati and mercenary/barbarian issue of the later empire.. possibly maybe lol

Also a good point, and OP did lay out the Antonine Constitution as a crucially important point in Roman history; current consensus seems to be that something-like-it may be unavoidable at this point, so that’s potentially at least some of Rome’s decline locked in right there.

 

[Andristan]

maybe something similar to the Antonine Constitution but with a conscription angle instead? all freeborn are citizens, if you do some time in the service, maybe not 20(40?) years of the old legions but a shorter term thing, say 5-10 years?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Let's imagine this in more concrete terms, say under the reign of our hypothetical emperor, Proculus (successor to Pompeiannus, reign starts in the mid 190's). Let's suppose that, like Trajan, Hadrian, and Commodus (and unlike Antonius Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Pompeiannus) he elevates the Cult of Hercules to a central role in state religion and imperial propaganda; unlike OTL Commodus, however, he doesn't shift toward any kind of Divine Right Theory of rule, avoiding any mythological faux pas against the institutions of the principate establishment. For funsies, we can also imagine him leaning into Hercules' connections to philosophers, and encouraging the active participation and cultivating of Stoic and Neoplatonist intellectuals and the like (sort of reminiscent of what Julian was going for OTL).

Now, what if it was this kind of figure -- as opposed to the son of a general who seized power in a coup, and a woman connected to an eastern cult -- who instituted TTL's equivalent to the Constitutio Antoniana? How might that, in itself, affect the ways in which the rest of the empire religiously integrates, or doesn't? I think there's a good case to be made that the faiths of the east (the Levant, Syria, Persia) don't pick up much steam in the rest of the empire; yeah, the Jewish Diaspora is still very much a thing, but there's no reason other eastern cults (Pauline Christianity, Manicheanism, etc) should become more popular, meaning the Jews likely remain the de facto representative of "the Orient" in the Roman World's (at least as the Roman World understands it).

What do you think?

By the way -- would you say the above scenario pretty much means the Romans are never going to be that receptive to Christianity (even if events broadly similar events to the 3C Crisis did their part)?

maybe something similar to the Antonine Constitution but with a conscription angle instead? all freeborn are citizens, if you do some time in the service, maybe not 20(40?) years of the old legions but a shorter term thing, say 5-10 years?

I had been wondering such a thing myself, but it’s likely you’d just see the entire citizen population in revolt as a result.

 

[vandevere]

By the way -- would you say the above scenario pretty much means the Romans are never going to be that receptive to Christianity (even if events broadly similar events to the 3C Crisis did their part)?

I had been wondering such a thing myself, but it’s likely you’d just see the entire citizen population in revolt as a result.

I don't know as much about this part of Roman History, but that would be a very interesting thing to explore. What if Christianity doesn't eventually become the State religion of Rome? The Butterflies from that alone would be ginormous...