WI: Crispus lives

Flavius Crispus was the eldest son of Roman emperor Constantine I, born sometime around 300 AD. He had a good military career in Gaul and against Licinius, former friend of Constantine who later turned into an enemy, in the East. He seemed like a promising figure and potential successor to Constantine, and the soldiery held him in high esteem.
However, he was suddenly executed on the orders of his own father in 326. Constantine's motivation for killing his own favorite child is mostly obscure.
Constantine, on his deathbed, divided his empire between his three remaining sons (Constans, Constantine II, and Constantius II) and a relative (Dalmatius) by his will. After he died, the empire fell to civil war, and the Constantinian dynasty quickly disappeared due to infighting.
But what if Crispus had never been executed, and inherited Constantine's empire in one whole piece, with the consent of his father?
I hear that Constantine was planning to invade Persia before he fell ill and died. Would Crispus carry out this same plan? Curiously, there was a Constantinian named Hannibalianus who, in coinage, claimed the title of King of Pontus, so could this ancient state be restored, this time with a Christian aspect? Or would he be given land further east, in Armenia or even Persia itself?
 
Flavius Crispus was the eldest son of Roman emperor Constantine I, born sometime around 300 AD. He had a good military career in Gaul and against Licinius, former friend of Constantine who later turned into an enemy, in the East. He seemed like a promising figure and potential successor to Constantine, and the soldiery held him in high esteem.
However, he was suddenly executed on the orders of his own father in 326. Constantine's motivation for killing his own favorite child is mostly obscure.
Constantine, on his deathbed, divided his empire between his three remaining sons (Constans, Constantine II, and Constantius II) and a relative (Dalmatius) by his will. After he died, the empire fell to civil war, and the Constantinian dynasty quickly disappeared due to infighting.
But what if Crispus had never been executed, and inherited Constantine's empire in one whole piece, with the consent of his father?
I hear that Constantine was planning to invade Persia before he fell ill and died. Would Crispus carry out this same plan? Curiously, there was a Constantinian named Hannibalianus who, in coinage, claimed the title of King of Pontus, so could this ancient state be restored, this time with a Christian aspect? Or would he be given land further east, in Armenia or even Persia itself?

Crispus living is an interesting scenario. If he reigned for a while and had a child it would provide the Empire with some much needed stability. The war between Constantius II and Magnentius was very bloody. I could see Crispus trying to invade Persia but it wouldn't be an easy task. Shapur II was a skilled enemy, I imagine he would end up losing similar to Julian. Constantius II had the right idea in doing a defensive war, Shapur failed to take Nisibis 3 times:p

Overall Constantius II was a very effective ruler, I can't see Crispus surpassing him. The main issue however with Constantius is that he didn't produce heirs. His choice of Julian as a successor was a positive development if short lived. Why Constantine didn't trust Constantine II enough to give him the whole empire is another question....
 
Bumping.
Would Crispus find less difficulty in dealing with the barbarians than OTL's successors of Constantine?

He would have to appoint deputies of skill, for instance Julian was able to deal with the Alemanni handily for Constantius. If not Crispus might be pulled in two many directions and ineffective. Having a Caesar emperor in the West seems like the best choice at this point. Perhaps Crispus could share power with whatever brother he trusts the most?
 
Top