WI: Severus Alexander is not assasinated?

In OTl Severus Alexander was assasinated for trying to buy off Germanic Tribes, which was seen as weakness by the legions. His death would lead to the Third Century crisis.

So what if Alexander does not try to buy off the Tribes and thus the soldiers have no reason to assasinate him?
 
If he can still manage to survive or preempt any other attempts to overthrow him, he could keep everything together for at least as long as he rules.
 
perhaps a slightly better POD would be him doing MUCH better against Parthia during the civil war that saw the rise of the Sassanids (i.e. sack Ctesiphon, plunder the Mesopotamian for loot and slaves, establish small vassals all over the place to act as buffer states, have the core Parthian territory divided between two rival factions for longer and have them pay tribute to Rome, gain control of the Red Sea trade route to India etc)

Then, he can go about keeping the legions busy by conquering Germania (which was now much more developed than at the time of Augustus and a much better candidate for a successful Romanization), while, at the same time, continue his efforts to revalue the currency and keep trade strong.

With luck and a good successor, we might see a "Crisis of the fourth century" at worst, and no major crisis and no proto-feudalism at best.

The plagues, environmental changes and population migrations to come would still be a very big challenge for the Roman state though...
 
perhaps a slightly better POD would be him doing MUCH better against Parthia during the civil war that saw the rise of the Sassanids (i.e. sack Ctesiphon, plunder the Mesopotamian for loot and slaves, establish small vassals all over the place to act as buffer states, have the core Parthian territory divided between two rival factions for longer and have them pay tribute to Rome, gain control of the Red Sea trade route to India etc)

Then, he can go about keeping the legions busy by conquering Germania (which was now much more developed than at the time of Augustus and a much better candidate for a successful Romanization), while, at the same time, continue his efforts to revalue the currency and keep trade strong.

With luck and a good successor, we might see a "Crisis of the fourth century" at worst, and no major crisis and no proto-feudalism at best.

The plagues, environmental changes and population migrations to come would still be a very big challenge for the Roman state though...
This. if he does a better job against the Parthians, he does Rome a huge favor.
 
In OTl Severus Alexander was assasinated for trying to buy off Germanic Tribes, which was seen as weakness by the legions. His death would lead to the Third Century crisis.

So what if Alexander does not try to buy off the Tribes and thus the soldiers have no reason to assasinate him?


If the mortality rate among Roman Emperors from Commodus to the accession of Diocletian is anything to go by most likely someone else assassinates him a few years later for some other reason.
 
If the mortality rate among Roman Emperors from Commodus to the accession of Diocletian is anything to go by most likely someone else assassinates him a few years later for some other reason.
I think the whole premise of the idea is he survives other assassination attempts as well. It's not that of a stretch to assume he could die of natural causes and have a long reign. Septimius Severus did IIRC.
 
I think the whole premise of the idea is he survives other assassination attempts as well. It's not that of a stretch to assume he could die of natural causes and have a long reign. Septimius Severus did IIRC.


OTOH, every emperor since SS had been either assassinated or killed in civil war - as had his three predecessors.

There seems no obvious reason for SA to be an exception to that general pattern, and even if he is, he is most probably just an "exception that proves the rule" and things revert to normal thereafter.
 
And that changing would require a more significant change than not being assassinated at the time he was OTL.

Even if he's successful in certain areas he wasn't OTL, or didn't live to be successful at, that is only a start.
 
And that changing would require a more significant change than not being assassinated at the time he was OTL.

Even if he's successful in certain areas he wasn't OTL, or didn't live to be successful at, that is only a start.

A start to what exactly ?
 
A start to what exactly ?

A scenario where he gets to die of old age in his bed and/or the Third Century Crisis is delayed.

I mean, let's say he doesn't bribe the German tribes. Fine, what does he do? How does the army react to that?
 
A scenario where he gets to die of old age in his bed and/or the Third Century Crisis is delayed.

I mean, let's say he doesn't bribe the German tribes. Fine, what does he do? How does the army react to that?


Lead the Legions in glorious battle against the barbarian hordes of the east ? :p
 
That was a serious question. Is this a serious answer?


Yes and no. I started the sentence trying to be serious but then realized half way how silly the whole thing was.

The legions (the gaulish ones) were pissed since the Germans had plundered parts of Gaul (the very area they were supposed to protect). With this, the Germans had basically given them a massive "f*ck you!". Thus, revenge for them was necessary since it was their honor at stake.

Then there where the eastern legions. These had just marched for God knows how many weeks to take part in something that now seemed to be called off, which was a little bit insulting.

Plus, for both groups, there was the promise of wealth (gold, land, slaves whatever). Now, not only were they not getting any from their enemies, but the emperor seemed to be giving away THEIR wealth to the Germans (in the form of the tribute he payed to the tribes).

This inexorably leads to the conclusion that a very belicose attitude by the emperor, coupled with strong offensive actions, would look best in the eyes of the Legions, which would shower him with praise should he be successful - hence why I used "lead them in glorious battle against barbarian hordes".


Sorry if it came off as offensive.
 
Top