Worst case scenario for Rome in the 2nd Century AD?

[GauchoBadger]

With a PoD between the Year of The Four Emperors (69 AD) and the death of Marcus Aurelius (180 AD), what could be the worst case scenario for the integrity and stability of the "late Principate" Roman Empire?
For a bit of context, OTL's 2nd Century AD saw a few invasions of Roman territory executed by first the Dacians, then the Parthians, and later a Quadi-Marcomanni-Iazyges coalition fleeing the Goths migrating from modern Poland. There were also some large-scale rebellions, such as the Bar Kokhba Revolt in Judea (130's AD) and the revolt of Avidius Cassius in Egypt (175 AD), and plagues, such as the Antonine Plague of the 160's.

 

[Tempered Zen]

Avidius Cassius doesn't revolt, remains in control of the East, when Commodus dies and his house with it, the following dynastic struggle ends up with Avidius supporting a candidate in exchange for his autonomy in the East, they agree, and bam! Divided Rome.

 

[GauchoBadger]

What would an earlier "Crisis of The Empire" mean for the development of Christianity?

 

[Kerney]

What would an earlier "Crisis of The Empire" mean for the development of Christianity?

Butterflied most likely, as in the 2nd century they are too marginal to survive any real cultural trauma without the security the Roman empire provided.

 

[Sertorius126]

Avidius Cassius doesn't revolt, remains in control of the East, when Commodus dies and his house with it, the following dynastic struggle ends up with Avidius supporting a candidate in exchange for his autonomy in the East, they agree, and bam! Divided Rome.

And that candidate would actually keep his word because? Also, why wouldn’t Commodus send someone to suppress Avidius and get the Eastern portion back?

 

[Tempered Zen]

And that candidate would actually keep his word because? Also, why wouldn’t Commodus send someone to suppress Avidius and get the Eastern portion back?

Because as in any situation, you don't want to have to drag your empire and drain your people's wealth into endless warfare when diplomacy exists. Though Avidius and his successors are screwed if they decide to rebel.

 

[Drewbdu]

And that candidate would actually keep his word because? Also, why wouldn’t Commodus send someone to suppress Avidius and get the Eastern portion back?

Commodus wasn’t really known for his competence. Perhaps he simply doesn’t care so long as he can continue his Herculean gladiator delusions.

 

[Sertorius126]

Commodus wasn’t really known for his competence. Perhaps he simply doesn’t care so long as he can continue his Herculean gladiator delusions.

You’re totally right, but even the most incompetent of rulers, like Elagabalus, were motivated by those around them to crush any form of rebellion. The Roman Empire wasn’t yet at the point where it was forced to accept to be split in half.

 

[Sertorius126]

Because as in any situation, you don't want to have to drag your empire and drain your people's wealth into endless warfare when diplomacy exists. Though Avidius and his successors are screwed if they decide to rebel.

So why didn’t Theodosius let Magnus Maximus be? Or Diocletian Carausius? After they took hold of their part of the empire they were all like “why don’t we reign all together in peace? I recognize you as Emperor, there’s no need for violence.” No matter how you seize power, if there’s already a living emperor kicking around, and you claim a part of the empire for yourself without their approval, you are rebelling, and there’s no case in Roman history where a general rebelled and the emperor was like “oh, fine, keep the crown, why bother? I’ve got better things to do”. No Roman emperor, not even Commodus, would have accepted such an act, he would have sent an army to crush Avidius, official rebellion or not, and Avidius would have been crushed, he didn’t have the prestige and the charisma to actually lead a serious revolt. The Empire was still strong enough to avoid being split in half.