WI: Valerian and Shapur trade fates?

What if the Romans won the battle of Edessa instead of the Persians, and Shapur became a hostage of Valerian instead of the other way around?
 
This could end the 3rd century crisis. With his son and co-emperor Gallienus in the West, he himself in Rome, and the corrector orientis Odeonathus in the East (if he stays loyal) the empire looks pretty stable. If this reign of Valerian and Gallienus could last for a few decades more and Gallienus appoints a good and loyal co-emperor after Valerian dies peacefully it might lead to a rennaisance of the good emperors.

However, every talented and ambitious general could blow them all out of the water in these stressy days.
 
This could end the 3rd century crisis. With his son and co-emperor Gallienus in the West, he himself in Rome, and the corrector orientis Odeonathus in the East (if he stays loyal) the empire looks pretty stable. If this reign of Valerian and Gallienus could last for a few decades more and Gallienus appoints a good and loyal co-emperor after Valerian dies peacefully it might lead to a rennaisance of the good emperors.

However, every talented and ambitious general could blow them all out of the water in these stressy days.

The problem with the 3rd Century is a lot of it was essentially random politics and battles potentially starting usurpations and civil wars and there is always going to be friction thanks to there being 2/3 of the army needed to defend the entire Imperial border so whenever shit goes down somewhere somewhere else will likely see a raid or full scale invasion whilst the troops are away.
 
The problem with the 3rd Century is a lot of it was essentially random politics and battles potentially starting usurpations and civil wars and there is always going to be friction thanks to there being 2/3 of the army needed to defend the entire Imperial border so whenever shit goes down somewhere somewhere else will likely see a raid or full scale invasion whilst the troops are away.

Yes, as we already discussed elsewhere one major reason of the 3rd century crisis was the multifront war. And a single roman princeps could just be at one front at a given point of time. This (amongst other reasons) led to usurpations in the defenseless provinces.

But with his co-emperor Gallienus and the capable and rather independently acting Odeonathus, Valerius could have covered all 3 major fronts (Rhine, Danube, Euphrat). A kind of tetrarchy without multiple emperors and without a division of the empire. Of course more measures were needed, but Gallienus was not that bad in introducing reforms. At least, there is a chance, that the principate recovers and changes into the right direction. A very late POD to change the empires fate, but perhaps not too late.

And I do not think, that you really need 2/3 of the entire army to repel an invader. Postumus in Gallia did very well and so did Zenobia in the East. And both had not 2/3 of the army. Actually no roman army ever was 200.000 men strong. The exercitus of a princeps on campaign was rather 60.000-100.000 men strong. It is rather a question of strong government and onsite presence of powerful representatives of the emperor onsite and trust into the capability of the emperor and his guys to secure the borders.
 
Last edited:
Nothing happens to the Persians. This was not the first and not the last time, they were defeated by the romans. Sometimes the Romans made it to Ctesiphon. And the more lucky romans even managed to grab the treasury.

But it does'nt matter. Just business as usual. The show goes on.

In Persia you get the usual civil war. Nothing noticeable. Just the same procedure than ...
 
Top