WI: Roman Empire collapses before Diocletian reformation

Considering that an anticipated wave of invasions could have make collapse the Roman Empire in the mid-3rd century (when Rome was just declining) before the Diocletian reformation, what could have happened in this scenario?

Thoughts:

- As Rome was still not divided, an eventual collapse would hit all the Empire, because there was still only one Emperor, only one capital city etc. IOTL the later division much saved the ERE to be affected because of the collapse of the WRE, but in this scenario this is more unlikely.
- Christianity could have had more difficults in spreading across the Empire if this collapse earlier and ERE is not preserved. Probably the invaders would not adopt this religion, as it was neither official nor widespread then, so it could be more difficult for Christians to reach the power.
- Constantinople would be probably not built.
- Sassanid Persia would probably extend further to Syria, Egypt etc.
- The risk of losing most of the Classical literature, knowledge etc. if the Church can't preserve them.
 
I don't know the details about the rest however:

- Constantinople would be probably not built.

Constantinople wasn't built it was already in existence but its' name at the time was Byzantium.
 
Last edited:
- Sassanid Persia would probably extend further to Syria, Egypt etc.

This would most probably happen. Including Minor Asia and perhaps even the rich Africa. And 300 years later the arabs would have much worse chances to spread the Islam. If it would be founded at all.

For the rest of the Roman Empire in Europe expect a big chaos of roman and german war- and landlords.

Regarding christianity, you should know, that christianity was pretty strong in the Sassanid Empire. But it could never become the #1 state religion. But it was a close match and with more christians living in the empire now, things might work different.

PS: Andn don't forget. In this case Greece needs a new Leonidas badly.
 
Considering that an anticipated wave of invasions could have make collapse the Roman Empire in the mid-3rd century (when Rome was just declining) before the Diocletian reformation, what could have happened in this scenario?

Thoughts:

- As Rome was still not divided, an eventual collapse would hit all the Empire, because there was still only one Emperor, only one capital city etc. IOTL the later division much saved the ERE to be affected because of the collapse of the WRE, but in this scenario this is more unlikely.
- Christianity could have had more difficults in spreading across the Empire if this collapse earlier and ERE is not preserved. Probably the invaders would not adopt this religion, as it was neither official nor widespread then, so it could be more difficult for Christians to reach the power.
- Constantinople would be probably not built.
- Sassanid Persia would probably extend further to Syria, Egypt etc.
- The risk of losing most of the Classical literature, knowledge etc. if the Church can't preserve them.

You may have a few facts wrong. For one the Empire was already divided, just not willingly. In the west there was the breakaway Gallic Empire and in the east the Palmyrene Empire. Second, the empire was never really in danger of being overran by Barbarians. Sure there were a few close calls during the Crisis but most of the fighting was between various Roman generals and the revolving door of Emperors. If the Empire were to fully collapse, I think we'd most likely see multiple successor states, centered in the major provinces, each claiming to be the "True Rome", with a high probability that the Sassanids will try and reestablish the Achaemenid empire. IDk how that will go.

To Christianity, I'm honestly not sure. Yes it would lack the later support of the Emperor of the entire Roman world, but chances are it will remain popular and probably gain even more converts thanks to Rome's collapse. Maybe this could be called God's wrath towards the debauched and corrupt Empire? And yes Constantinople, or at least the city as we know it will never be built. Though considering the key strategic and economic location it occupies I imagine that someone will eventually turn Byzantium into a major city. And I doubt most Classical knowledge would be lost. This isn't the Dark ages, with Barbarian hordes invading and destroying everything. The centers of Knowledge in the East will remain, as will Rome itself. The city never suffered major damage until the 400s, and controlling it would give the successor states legitimacy, so they'll be aiming to get it intact.

Hope this helps!
 
This would most probably happen. Including Minor Asia and perhaps even the rich Africa. And 300 years later the arabs would have much worse chances to spread the Islam. If it would be founded at all.

For the rest of the Roman Empire in Europe expect a big chaos of roman and german war- and landlords.

Regarding christianity, you should know, that christianity was pretty strong in the Sassanid Empire. But it could never become the #1 state religion. But it was a close match and with more christians living in the empire now, things might work different.

PS: Andn don't forget. In this case Greece needs a new Leonidas badly.

Islam wouldn't exist period, with a POD in the 200s.
 
constantinople wasn't built it was already in existence but its' name at the time was Byzantium.

I know Byzantium just existed, but it was not the big city (capital) that become later thanks to Constantine. So, in this scenario, Byzantium would have not rised to become that important city.

This would most probably happen. Including Minor Asia and perhaps even the rich Africa. And 300 years later the arabs would have much worse chances to spread the Islam. If it would be founded at all.

For the rest of the Roman Empire in Europe expect a big chaos of roman and german war- and landlords.

If Christianity would have not consolidated in Minor Asia, it's unlikely that Islam could be founded, at least as we know it today.

I wonder if some Germanic people could have established a broader kingdom/empire in this scenario, rather the diverse kingdoms existing IOTL due to the fragmented political status of the WRE.
 
Islam wouldn't exist period, with a POD in the 200s.

Every religious Muslim will disagree with you. Allah would enlighten Mohammed no matter what. :p

From a historical point of view, it is hard to believe, that Mohammed will come up with the same ideas living in a different world. And the arabs would most probably have no chance to expand without the desastrous 40-year war between the ERE and the Sassanids around 600.
 
Every religious Muslim will disagree with you. Allah would enlighten Mohammed no matter what. :p

From a historical point of view, it is hard to believe, that Mohammed will come up with the same ideas living in a different world. And the arabs would most probably have no chance to expand without the desastrous war between the ERE and the Sassanids around 600.

Mohammed wouldn't exist either. MAYBE a religion similar to Islam would develop, but besides that it would be relatively impossible.
 
Mohammed wouldn't exist either.

You did not get my point. :D
Allah would of course take care, that he exists. Humans can't act against the will of god!



But from a scientific historical point of view, we are on the same page, don't worry.

I just do not think, that christianity will not spread. There is no reason, why it should not. As already mentioned, it was pretty succesful in the Sassanid Empire. I am also convinced, that monotheism is unstoppable these days. And with more chaos it would just grow faster. Of course christianity would have a much bigger competition by other strong eastern monotheism.
 
You may have a few facts wrong. For one the Empire was already divided, just not willingly. In the west there was the breakaway Gallic Empire and in the east the Palmyrene Empire.

These divisions were made in the 2nd half of the 3rd century. I was wondering around the year 240-250, after the Severan dinasty ended and started a period of political unstability.

Second, the empire was never really in danger of being overran by Barbarians. Sure there were a few close calls during the Crisis but most of the fighting was between various Roman generals and the revolving door of Emperors.

I know, but the PoD will be right this: an anticipated pressure of those Barbarian peoples. Just make the (mostly climatical) events that lead to Huns and other Central Asian nations to increase the pressure over Rome and other empires to happen earlier, just in this period.

If the Empire were to fully collapse, I think we'd most likely see multiple successor states, centered in the major provinces, each claiming to be the "True Rome", with a high probability that the Sassanids will try and reestablish the Achaemenid empire. IDk how that will go.

You are right. I wonder if some of these new 'Romes' could impose to the others years later.

And I doubt most Classical knowledge would be lost. This isn't the Dark ages, with Barbarian hordes invading and destroying everything. The centers of Knowledge in the East will remain, as will Rome itself. The city never suffered major damage until the 400s, and controlling it would give the successor states legitimacy, so they'll be aiming to get it intact.

No need of hordes of destruction to lose that. Church was the key to preserve it and in this scenario may be not Church. The cities could decline because of the severed economy, no need to be phisically destroyed to become increasingly depopulated. In that era, cities depended very much on commerce.
 
Considering that an anticipated wave of invasions could have make collapse the Roman Empire in the mid-3rd century (when Rome was just declining) before the Diocletian reformation, what could have happened in this scenario?

Thoughts:

- As Rome was still not divided, an eventual collapse would hit all the Empire, because there was still only one Emperor, only one capital city etc. IOTL the later division much saved the ERE to be affected because of the collapse of the WRE, but in this scenario this is more unlikely.
- Christianity could have had more difficults in spreading across the Empire if this collapse earlier and ERE is not preserved. Probably the invaders would not adopt this religion, as it was neither official nor widespread then, so it could be more difficult for Christians to reach the power.
- Constantinople would be probably not built.
- Sassanid Persia would probably extend further to Syria, Egypt etc.
- The risk of losing most of the Classical literature, knowledge etc. if the Church can't preserve them.

Before we ask such a question, I think it is important to try and answer why do you think it is possible for the Empire to collapse at this stage. There has been considerable amount of debates on whether the crisis of the third century is really that much of a crisis.

There a a wide variety of events that might have led to the end of the Empire, and each one of them could have led to radically different timeline.

Let's not forget that it took the Empire decades of constant crisis on a massive scale for it to collapse in the west. The Roman Empire is far more resilient that most people think, especially in the third century.
 
These divisions were made in the 2nd half of the 3rd century. I was wondering around the year 240-250, after the Severan dinasty ended and started a period of political unstability.



I know, but the PoD will be right this: an anticipated pressure of those Barbarian peoples. Just make the (mostly climatical) events that lead to Huns and other Central Asian nations to increase the pressure over Rome and other empires to happen earlier, just in this period.



You are right. I wonder if some of these new 'Romes' could impose to the others years later.



No need of hordes of destruction to lose that. Church was the key to preserve it and in this scenario may be not Church. The cities could decline because of the severed economy, no need to be phisically destroyed to become increasingly depopulated. In that era, cities depended very much on commerce.

TBH I don't think that moving the barbarian invasions earlier will be enough. For one thing I'm not sure whether the big confederations were firmly-enough established at this point, but even assuming that they were, the Empire of the 240s still hadn't had that much civil war (the crisis only started in 235), and so would be in a stronger position to fight back.
 
Top