Wi: Rome doesn't survive the Third Century?

What would it take for the near collapse of the Roman Empire in the Third Century to actually result in its collapse? What would the effect be on western history, a super early dark ages, no Christianity?
 
I wonder if the gallic and palmyrene empires will be able to survive for longer.
Either way, goths are gonna be running around the former empire for quite a while.
 
Last edited:
What would it take for the near collapse of the Roman Empire in the Third Century to actually result in its collapse? What would the effect be on western history, a super early dark ages, no Christianity?

Roman civilization won't collapse as much. I suspect you'd see more Gallic Empire-like things, but they were culturally Roman, very much so. In terms of Christianity, without any single imperial system, it won't rise quite as much.
 
Falling into several Roman entities would actually be a boon for Roman civilization. They could defend themselves more effectively even. Problems would be internal still; solve them and you can keep going for a long while. Palmyra was in a better position here with regards to establishing a stable dynasty (based on tribal loyalties) than the Galloromans, who had several usurpations among themselves.
 
Why is it assumed that three or more competiting smaller empires, that, by the definition of this discussion, never succeed in rallying all the resources of the full Empire (or else we could say Rome survived), would do better than the united Roman Empire?

Why assume that a Palmyrene Empire would do better than the Byzantines, who owed much of their longevity to their impregnable fortress of a capital?

Why assume that a Gallic Empire could hold the Rhine, when the entire Roman Empire couldn’t?

Why assume any of them would succeed, when the Eastern/Westnern Emperors, supporting each other, couldn’t?

Why assume turning the Med Sea into a war zone a century early, and inhibiting trade, would help?

Why assume that avoiding the administrative, cultural, religious, and economic reforms of the Tetrarchy and Constantinian dynasties, would help? (yes, both groups made some huge mistakes, but, in general, reorganizing the provinces, stablizing the currency, and embracing Christianity were all net positives)

Roman civilization was, by and large, defined by its ability to support an urbanized society. None of these changes make it easier to support such a society.
 
Why is it assumed that three or more competiting smaller empires, that, by the definition of this discussion, never succeed in rallying all the resources of the full Empire (or else we could say Rome survived), would do better than the united Roman Empire?

Why assume that a Palmyrene Empire would do better than the Byzantines, who owed much of their longevity to their impregnable fortress of a capital?

Why assume that a Gallic Empire could hold the Rhine, when the entire Roman Empire couldn’t?

Why assume any of them would succeed, when the Eastern/Westnern Emperors, supporting each other, couldn’t?

Why assume turning the Med Sea into a war zone a century early, and inhibiting trade, would help?

Why assume that avoiding the administrative, cultural, religious, and economic reforms of the Tetrarchy and Constantinian dynasties, would help? (yes, both groups made some huge mistakes, but, in general, reorganizing the provinces, stablizing the currency, and embracing Christianity were all net positives)

Roman civilization was, by and large, defined by its ability to support an urbanized society. None of these changes make it easier to support such a society.
Not do better than byzantium. But survive for centuries and still fend off the Sassanids...

A Gallo-Roman Empire, for example, could hold the Rhine if it doesn't just withdraw all legions for a power struggle in Italy (and kill off many in its course).

Rome had enormous resources even in the late 4th and early 5th century only they somehow were not at its disposal. That was a political problem. A smaller pool is not a problem IF it is decently used.
 
Why is it assumed that three or more competiting smaller empires, that, by the definition of this discussion, never succeed in rallying all the resources of the full Empire (or else we could say Rome survived), would do better than the united Roman Empire?

Why assume that a Palmyrene Empire would do better than the Byzantines, who owed much of their longevity to their impregnable fortress of a capital?

Why assume that a Gallic Empire could hold the Rhine, when the entire Roman Empire couldn’t?

Why assume any of them would succeed, when the Eastern/Westnern Emperors, supporting each other, couldn’t?

Why assume turning the Med Sea into a war zone a century early, and inhibiting trade, would help?

Why assume that avoiding the administrative, cultural, religious, and economic reforms of the Tetrarchy and Constantinian dynasties, would help? (yes, both groups made some huge mistakes, but, in general, reorganizing the provinces, stablizing the currency, and embracing Christianity were all net positives)

Roman civilization was, by and large, defined by its ability to support an urbanized society. None of these changes make it easier to support such a society.

So are what you saying is that the so-called
"Dark Ages" would have begun about 200
years earlier than they did IOTL? (An out-
come, DominisNovus, that does sound most
plausible)
 
So are what you saying is that the so-called
"Dark Ages" would have begun about 200
years earlier than they did IOTL? (An out-
come, DominisNovus, that does sound most
plausible)

I think that outcome is more likely than things going better than OTL. If I were to make an overall judgement, I’d guess that the overall result would be a stronger linguistic and political continuity, but a poorer economy and material culture in Europe. Religion would be a complete wildcard.
 
I think it makes Christianity harder to manage to become a centralizing force and rather will be defined by the internal divisions of the Church. The Slavic incursions might become bad enough that they are able to settle in breakaway imperial land, with the same happening for the Alemanni and Franks as early as the end of the 3rd century.

The Hunnic empire probably goes about how it did OTL.

The loss of trans-Mediterranean trade will be absolutely devastating for economic circumstances in the region at whole.
 
Which could theoretically hinder technological development due to the lack of an institution as strong as the church for archiving and providing a literate priesthood.

Quite possibly. Alternatively, its not unreasonable to see a super-Sassanid Persia here, and they might provide a nice intellectual continuum, particularly given their position on the crossroads between east and west. Not that it would help Europe much in this scenario.
 
The problem with the Gallic Empire surviving is, of course, the Gallic emperors will at some point attempt to take back the rest of the European half of the Empire at least if it appears on the verge of collapse, as they did not view themselves as a separate state. The best thing that every happened to Rome in the third century was that three way split-it allowed them to secure all of their borders before dealing with the internal split and re-uniting under one administration.

If you want the Roman Empire to collapse in the third century, don't have Odenathus surprise and defeat the Sassanians after they destroy Valerian's army, and have Postumus decide to march on Rome after being proclaimed emperor-keeping that cycle going. Rinse, repeat, and you have a recipe for complete Roman collapse.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
Wouldn't the Palmyrenes be vulnerable from renewed attacks from the Persians?

And like mentioned earlier the Galloromans would seek to retake the European parts of the empire and would probably either succeed or fail and collapse on themselves in usurpations and civil war.

If the empire collapses at this stage perhaps the Germanic migrations occur sooner-they'd see weakness and division and the Roman factions would be happy to use barbarian foderati against their rivals.
 
Top