Widespread slave revolt in Ancient Rome 3rd-4th century AD

Pellaeon

Banned
In the latter years of the Roman Empire slavery became the fate of many a dispossessed small landowner, free laborer, and even soldier.

What if between 300-450 AD there was a mass slave revolt or several slave revolts occurring simaltaneously throughout the empire from Britannia to Palestine?

Alongside that what if there was a more widespread Baguadae movement amongst dispossessed soldiers, bandits, and other rebels.

Alongside the empire's other many problems would this have hastened the collapse of the empire? Or would it have had some other political affect?
 
I've written a somewhat utopian timeline in which such revolts combined with religious (Christian and jewish) rebellions and mutinying soldiers, and i had politicised alt-neoplatonists join in and hijack the movement, leading to a splintering of the Empire in the Crisis of the Third Century into a confederation of theocratic and semi-tribal entities and city states in the South-East, a military autocracy in the Balkans, and an earlier feudalisation in the North-west. It's called Res Novae Romanae.

You had more of an indenturement / enserfment of coloni in that period instead of traditional slavery.

One big obstacle for amplification is that people weren't aware of an alternative to these transformations, except for what had immediately been their past, and that was often disparate or impossible to reconstruct. You change that and you can change a lot.
 
What if between 300-450 AD there was a mass slave revolt or several slave revolts occurring simaltaneously throughout the empire from Britannia to Palestine?

Had the revolt occurred down to say 370 CE, it probably would've been crushed since Roman armies were still big and powerful. After about 380, and certainly after 408, it would've stood a better chance, especially if barbarian "federates" could be induced to support it instead of help put it down.

Alongside the empire's other many problems would this have hastened the collapse of the empire?

Sure, especially after 400 CE; the problems were bad enough as it was. Barbarians could've capitalized on the resulting chaos, and economic damage would've been intensified.
 
In the latter years of the Roman Empire slavery became the fate of many a dispossessed small landowner, free laborer, and even soldier.

What if between 300-450 AD there was a mass slave revolt or several slave revolts occurring simaltaneously throughout the empire from Britannia to Palestine?

Alongside that what if there was a more widespread Baguadae movement amongst dispossessed soldiers, bandits, and other rebels.

Alongside the empire's other many problems would this have hastened the collapse of the empire? Or would it have had some other political affect?

300-450 AD?
That's not 'ancient' Rome. That's late Empire.

Contrary to popular belief the Roman Empire was not full of slaves since the very beginning till the very end. That's what you sometimes see on TV though.

There were a lot of slaves (proportionally) in 100 B.C. - 100 A.D. roughly.
And since then there was a steady decline in number of slaves.
That was for many reasons, the most evident of which was the end of rapid Roman territorial expansion.

So by 300-450 AD you won't have enough slaves even for a minor riot.
By the way there were definitely slaves among the Baguadae, but of course they were a minority there.
 
Top