WI: No Antonine Plague

The Antonine plague was brought to the Roman Empire after the sacking of Ctesiphon by Lucius verries (co emperor with marcus Aurelius). The plague decimated the ranks of the legions and made it hard to fill the losses did to the effects it was having on the overran population as well. It is also believed that Lucius Verres and Marcus Aurelius succumbed to that very plague.


So what if it didn't come to the employee? Say, the legions don't sack ctesiphon and never bring the plague back. The ranks of the legions would be much more up to full strength, and the havoc the plague wreaked on the population would not be felt obviously. This also may effect the marcomannic war and make the Romans better able to handle it. Plus Verres and Aurelius living longer has butterflies all on its own (Aurelius not feeling a need to make commodus co emperor because Verres is.)
 
Last edited:
No Antonine plague would mean that the Empire would stand stronger in future confrontations both in the North and East.
 
Doesn't this only delay the inevitable? Possibly only making it worse? Eventually Rome's going to get hit hard by a plague as long as traders continue to head East, even without military conquests.
 
So the POD is a less successful Parthian War?

Lucius Verus was incredibly lucky in OTL in this war, so it should not take much to keep the Romans from sacking the Parthian capital.

So how about word of PLAGUE in Ctesiphon reaches the Romans on their march down river. Scouts are dispatched and return with confirmation. Does that sound reasonable?

Or the Romans lose General Avidius Cassius in some minor battle early in the war. Since it was he who beat the Parthians not Lucius Verus (who I think never even left the comforts of Antioch) his death could be as pivotal as if Marcus Agrippa had died before the Battle of Actium.

Hero of Canton
 
Last edited:
Would Aurelius deny his own son the purple?

I doubt it. What few people seem to remember when thinking of the "Five Good Emperors" wasn't that they were all smart enough to adopt a capable heir. It was that none of them except Marcus Aurielus had a son and they needed to adopt an heir or see a civil war break out when they died or even appeared weak enough for a general to make a move.

An emperor with a surviving adult son is going to at least try to have his son be his successor if not actually make that son co-emperor as soon as he is capable.
 
Lucius Verus was incredibly lucky in OTL in this war, so it should not take much to keep the Romans from sacking the Parthian capital.

So how about word of PLAGUE in Ctesiphon reaches the Romans on their march down river. Scouts are dispatched and return with confirmation. Does that sound reasonable?

Or the Romans lose General Avidius Cassius in some minor battle early in the war. Since it was he who beat the Parthians not Lucius Verus (who I think never even left the comforts of Antioch) his death could be as pivotal as if Marcus Agrippa had died before the Battle of Actium.

Hero of Canton
Yeah, I know Lucius Verres just sat back in the comfort of Antioch and just started claiming titles for himself without doing anything (Like Armenicus, Mediacus etc.).


Also, even if it's delaying the inevitable, delaying a plague can have a lot of effects on its own.
 
In 165 Faustna gave birth to twins, Titus and commodus. Titus died but commodus survived. What if commodus died and Titus lived, along with this plague not happening?
 
In 165 Faustna gave birth to twins, Titus and commodus. Titus died but commodus survived. What if commodus died and Titus lived, along with this plague not happening?

Interesting. Titus might be a long-lived sixth good emperor if the Empire was lucky. Add no plague to that and you have a powerful POD.
 
Yeah, I know Lucius Verres just sat back in the comfort of Antioch and just started claiming titles for himself without doing anything (Like Armenicus, Mediacus etc.). Also, even if it's delaying the inevitable, delaying a plague can have a lot of effects on its own.

Yeah IMCO Lucius Verus would if he had lived longer, gone the way of Caligula and Nero. But he didn't in OTL. :)

What if without the Antonine Plague he lives long enough to upstage Commodus? :eek:

On the other hand we pretty much know that Marcus Aurelius died of the Antonine Plague. If it is butterflied away he would have reigned long enough to see his plan for the northern frontier come to fruition. If he dies of old age perhaps something would have been done about Commodus. Maybe then we'd have no Crisis of the Third Century. :D

So I would hope.

Hero of Canton
 
Last edited:
Yeah IMCO Lucius Verus would if he had lived longer, gone the way of Caligula and Nero. But he didn't in OTL. :)

What if without the Antonine Plague he lives long enough to upstage Commodus? :eek:

On the other hand we pretty much know that Marcus Aurelius died of the Antonine Plague. If it is butterflied away he would have reigned long enough to see his plan for the northern frontier come to fruition. If he dies of old age perhaps something would have been done about Commodus. Maybe then we'd have no Crisis of the Third Century. :D

So I would hope.

Hero of Canton
Lucius Verres was a hedonist, yes. But he was nothing like Caligula or Nero, or Commodus for that matter. One redeaming quality was he was a master delegator: he always delegated his jobs to very capable men in that field, especially when it came to war (see the eastern campaign against Parthians). The major difference between him and Nero was he separated friends and drinking buddies from the men he actually gave powerful positions to. He never gave out powerful positions to his friends, but to very capable men.

So although an immature hedonist, Lucius Verres was no Nero, Commodus, and certainly not a Caligula.


Another Marcus Aurelius POD I've been thinking of: What if there is no eastern revolt right when he is about to wipe the Iazyges off the map in 175 lead by the governor of Syria, Avidius Cassius. It seems the revolt initially sprung up as a mis-communication when the legions thought Aurelius had died (rain miracle) and then kinda continued into a full blown revolt. Marcus Aurelius had just made peace with the Quadi (again) and was about to basically wipe the Iazyges people right off the map for good. Then the revolt came out of nowhere and a quick peace was made with the Iazyges and Aurelius went to quell it. This of course lead to the Quadi and Marcomanni and IIRC, the Iazyges (for a third time now) to revolt, and he had to go back to fighting along with Danube yet again after quelling the revolt. I really feel bad for Marcus.

Anyway, so what if there's no revolt in Syria? First thing on the list, the Iazyges are gonna get wiped off the map for good. He had just made peace with the Quadi and rewarded the Marcomanni for remaining neutral, and it looked like things were finally settling on the frontier. If he isn't forced to take his legions east, I really doubt the Marcomanni and Quadi are gonna try to start up a war again, unless they want to experience first hand what happened to the Iazyges.

So where does this leave the empire? I imagine Marcus Aurelius would live a few years longer (and in peace no less :eek: ). And if we couple this with Titus surviving instead of Commodus, he may leave it to a competent and capable successor (assuming we make Titus be one).
 
Lucius Verres was a hedonist, yes. But he was nothing like Caligula or Nero, or Commodus for that matter. One redeaming quality was he was a master delegator: he always delegated his jobs to very capable men in that field, especially when it came to war (see the eastern campaign against Parthians). The major difference between him and Nero was he separated friends and drinking buddies from the men he actually gave powerful positions to. He never gave out powerful positions to his friends, but to very capable men. So although an immature hedonist, Lucius Verres was no Nero, Commodus, and certainly not a Caligula.

Good point! I concede that I may have glossed over that part in my zeal to pillory him. Never mind. :eek:

Another Marcus Aurelius POD I've been thinking of: What if there is no eastern revolt right when he is about to wipe the Iazyges off the map in 175 lead by the governor of Syria, Avidius Cassius. It seems the revolt initially sprung up as a mis-communication when the legions thought Aurelius had died (rain miracle) and then kinda continued into a full blown revolt. Marcus Aurelius had just made peace with the Quadi (again) and was about to basically wipe the Iazyges people right off the map for good. Then the revolt came out of nowhere and a quick peace was made with the Iazyges and Aurelius went to quell it. This of course lead to the Quadi and Marcomanni and IIRC, the Iazyges (for a third time now) to revolt, and he had to go back to fighting along with Danube yet again after quelling the revolt. I really feel bad for Marcus.

Which if Cassius dies in a minor battle and this causes the Romans to not win the Parthian War so handily, he won't be around to "accidentally" become a rebel emperor. Nice!

Anyway, so what if there's no revolt in Syria? First thing on the list, the Iazyges are gonna get wiped off the map for good. He had just made peace with the Quadi and rewarded the Marcomanni for remaining neutral, and it looked like things were finally settling on the frontier. If he isn't forced to take his legions east, I really doubt the Marcomanni and Quadi are gonna try to start up a war again, unless they want to experience first hand what happened to the Iazyges.

IIRC Marcus finally got so frustrated that he essentially decided to genocide north of the Danube. Not at all the "reluctant warrior" and Philosopher-King he's usually portrayed as. I can understand however why he went there though.

So where does this leave the empire? I imagine Marcus Aurelius would live a few years longer (and in peace no less :eek: ).

Yeah, if only Antonius Pius hadn't lived so much longer than men of his family usually did, Marcus would have come to the throne in his late 20s instead of middle-age like he did. Antonius Pius really "kicked a lot of cans down the road" that Marcus had to deal with after they had become so much worse, especially Parthia. IIRC the Parthians attacked something like 10 minutes into Antonius' funeral...an exaggeration I know, but it was the Parthian KoK's perfidy that Antonius was railing against on his deathbed IIRC.

So if the Roman's don't get a full dose of the Antonine Plague or if its onset is delayed a few years maybe they will have gotten further along with Marcus' "Finally Solution to the Trans-Danubian Tribes Problem" just in time to get stabbed in the back by a resurgent Parthia.

Hero of Canton
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Antoninus really did kick a lot of cans down the road. IIRC, Hadrian really only expected him to rule for a decade at most.
 
What cans did he kick down the road?

The growing threat on the Danube, he failed to nip the Moorish threat in the bud, and failed to deal with Parthia. The man never left Rome. He also failed to start adjusting to the barbarian situation in general by altering client states and offering new payment to new client states, etc.
 
The growing threat on the Danube, he failed to nip the Moorish threat in the bud, and failed to deal with Parthia. The man never left Rome. He also failed to start adjusting to the barbarian situation in general by altering client states and offering new payment to new client states, etc.

Would it have been a better longterm strategy to incorporate the client kingdoms into the Empire as provinces instead of having to pay them bribes indefinitely?
 
Top