The Troubles Of The Second And Third Centuries Ad

[Tobias]

G'day everyone

 

"Trajan's conquests in the east proved impossible to hold, and his successor Hadrian (117-138) immediately pulled the frontier back to the Euphrates, although Armenia remained a client state. The following Pax Romana lasted until the murder of Commodus, the last adopted Emperor. The ensuing civil war (193-97) was won by Severus, whose dynasty maintained stability until 235. The coinage was repeatedly debased from about 170 onwards. In 212 all free men in the Empire were made citizens, an attempt to increase its tax base. With economic decline came political instability: in the half century after 235, there were 15 Emperors, most ruling only a few years. At the same time, Rome's enemies had become more powerful. In the east, the Parthians had been replaced in 226 by the Sassanid Persians, who sought to restore the glory of the Persian Empire 700 years before. They sacked Antioch in 253 and took the Emperor Valerian prisoner at Edessa in 260. Simultaneously, Germans raided deep into the Empire, reaching the Mediterranean at several points. The Empire's impotence prompted regional commanders to seize control in the worst affected areas. In the west, Postumus founded a Gallic Empire in 260, including Spain and Britain. In the east, the semi-independent trading city of Palmyra became the centre for resistance. Its ruler, Odenathus beat back the Persians and even sacked their capital Ctephiston. On his death in 267, his more ambitious widow, Zenobia, took power, and had by 269 conquered Roman Syria, Palestine and Egypt." -via The Roman Empire: 18 centuries in 19 maps.

 

The Roman Empire is trembling. It seems as if nothing can stop the downhill slide. If you were the ruler of a nation on Rome's borders (you chose which one), what do you do? Will you ally yourself with Rome, or will you help it on it's downward fall? And if you were the Emperor of the Romans, what would you do to help check the decline?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Three things I wished that happened:

1) Julius Caesar should have conquered Germania Magna, imagine Romanizing them and which they would provides the best soldiers to protect Roman borders against the future Huns and other Roman enemies.

2) I really wished Germanicus didn't die so he could have finished his German conquest

3) If Julius Caesar and Germanicus didn't do it, Trajan and other emperors would have.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Caesar was about to possibly conquer Parthia but not Germania. Perhaps if Caesar had been successful, being rid of a powerful eastern empire could have changed everything.

[Ursus]

Even if Germania were conquered, there were still Persians on the eastern flank. There was still economic debasement and political instability.

 

Some of the Western provinces were simply more trouble than they were worth. For instance, Britain in the short term provided some raw materials, but in the long term it tied up three legions that could have been used elsewhere.

 

 

Had I been emperor I think I might have shifted the capitol east and let the West decline a century before Constantine.

[Zeke]

Most likely I would kept the Capital in Rome, not invaded Britian and tried to pacify Parthia. Parthia was the real threat it could host standing armies unlike German warlords. I would have consentrated most of the Legions on the Western Front. I would have kept Pagan Tradditions alive and I would have restored more power to the Senate so they could pick emperors instead of the army picking emperors for them.

 

Zeke

[Favonius Cornelius]

Conquest of Parthia would also have been a real cash cow, during and always after with the silk road caravans.

[Lex]

Most likely I would kept the Capital in Rome, not invaded Britian and tried to pacify Parthia. Parthia was the real threat it could host standing armies unlike German warlords. I would have consentrated most of the Legions on the Western Front. I would have kept Pagan Tradditions alive and I would have restored more power to the Senate so they could pick emperors instead of the army picking emperors for them.

 

Zeke

I agree.

 

In addition, I would have made a very serious effort to conscript more Romans into the army and to make sure that training and equipment stayed at a good level. I would also have strengthened the city of Rome's defences and walls. I would also have corrupt officials hounded down and try my best to ensure more accountability and checks and balances in the government.

 

I would also reduce all wasteful expences and live in moderate conditions as an example to the citizens and only allow gross extravagences in triumphs. I would also reduce expenses in the games and try to improve the currency and its quality. I would also reduce taxes and try to create a feeling of confidence and stability in the government. In addition, I would make an effort to prevent the decline in jurisprudence and to ensure that the law is constantly developing and that the rule of law is respected.

 

I would then disband the Praetorian Guard and not allow any soldiers to be near the capital. I would have a smaller group created who would each only serve a few months at a time. I would then gather the greatest minds that are available across the Empire and appoint them as advisors and encourage learning and education among the public.

 

And if any Germanic tribe attempted to infiltrate the borders or demand tribute, then I would send a few legions to wipe them out as an example, and then inform the other barbarians that if they show any hostile intentions then they'll meet the same fate.

[Legatus Legionis]

I thinks the conquest of Prathia would have been the best thing for the Empire. But the Romans had already tried and failed twice. Crassus may not have been the best general but he was still decent. Antony was supposed to be the heir to Caesar's military genius and even he failed. I think even if Parthia had been conquered it would have passed out of the Roman's hands soon afterward. Im not sure what the best answer is to the Partian question though.

[sullafelix]

This is a very difficult area but a great one for an armchair meglomaniac like me.

 

A lot of the problem was the fact that the frontiers of the empire were fixed under Hadrian, no new territory = no new resources = economic crisis.

 

The policy of defence in depth was, in my humble opinion anyway, a flamin' disaster because it ruined the quality of the army.

 

No overseas expeditions = little chancy of booty for your average legionary = recruitment problems for the army.

 

Personally i would have abdicated and moved to the carribbean but if that weren't an option then adopting diocletian's tetrarchic reorganisation pretty sharpish and also inventing the fiduciary coinage system so that money works like it does under our system instead of only being worth whatever it was made of. Oh and banning christianity

[Tobias]

I was wondering whether it would be at all possible for the Romans to have taken a more subtle approach with Parthia. If they could have inserted clever individuals, loyal to Rome, to have them gain high positions in Parthian Government, perhaps even become a ruler of the Parthians, then Parthia may have slipped downwards to become another puppet state of Rome's. However, i answer my own thoughts with the realisation that the deadly hierarchy of the Parthians would have caused the death of any but the most incredibly ingenuious roman to become anywhere near a high authority. Even then should a secretly loyal Roman or even pro-roman Parthian gain the throne, then the army or some ruling family would depose him. But, i believe it could have been possible, especially if there was something of an influx of pro-romans.

On the point of Hadrian, i can only suppose that he or the people had expressed the want for peace. Rome was a nation made rich by war, constant war. Hadrian was perhaps totally persuaded or convinced that it was the right thing to do to create a total Pax Romana throughout the empire. Unfortunately, as was mentioned above, this was really an unworkable policy. It's like what has been said about communism; it's a good idea, but it won't work

[Favonius Cornelius]

I was wondering whether it would be at all possible for the Romans to have taken a more subtle approach with Parthia. If they could have inserted clever individuals, loyal to Rome, to have them gain high positions in Parthian Government, perhaps even become a ruler of the Parthians, then Parthia may have slipped downwards to become another puppet state of Rome's.

 

I imagine they would have tried if it could have been possible, but aside from perhaps Armenia, I do not recall this method working with much success. Major obstacles to overcome: only well known people are often entrusted to high positions, and often people from the same loyal families. And anyway what would be in it for a Parthian to betray his own people to the Romans?

 

As far as Trajan's conquests being too hard to hold, frankly I don't buy it. I think Hadrian didn't want to worry about battle and rather travel and fornicate, this being his whole reason for foolishly retracting the borders. Sure it would not be easy, and would take more war, but bottom line there were still enemies at the gates.