AHC: Alternate High Pax Romana (circa 120 to 160)

[John Fredrick Parker]

So what I'm interested in here is, with no PoDs prior to the death of Trajan (other than him choosing a plausibly* different heir), how much can the OTL high period of Roman Civilization (which OTL was 117 to 161, corresponding to the reigns of Hadrian and Antonius Pius) be as different as possible, in a way that has massive changes for Western History for centuries to come. To be clear here -- while I am partial to making sure we do not unduly shorten this period of Roman prosperity, I fully understand that there would be serious challenges in trying to expand it, which only get more implausible the longer you try to delay the decline.

Given these parameters, what can we really do? Well, previous discussions on the topic seem to imagine scenarios where Hadrian does more to keep or consolidate the expansions of his predecessors -- whether that means trying to keep Trajan's conquests in the east, or a more subtle kind of conquest and mild expansion** -- but would you guys agree this would be our best bet? If so, what would you say is the best PoD (within parameters) of making this happen?

Thanks.

*so basically -- at most, we can make Lucius Neratius Priscus instead of Hadrian, and we don't even have to do that much; if we don't know what changes, then Hadrian can absolutely still be emperor
**great TL by @Hecatee by the way!

 

[Hecatee]

So what I'm interested in here is, with no PoDs prior to the death of Trajan (other than him choosing a plausibly* different heir), how much can the OTL high period of Roman Civilization (which OTL was 117 to 161, corresponding to the reigns of Hadrian and Antonius Pius) be as different as possible, in a way that has massive changes for Western History for centuries to come. To be clear here -- while I am partial to making sure we do not unduly shorten this period of Roman prosperity, I fully understand that there would be serious challenges in trying to expand it, which only get more implausible the longer you try to delay the decline.

Given these parameters, what can we really do? Well, previous discussions on the topic seem to imagine scenarios where Hadrian does more to keep or consolidate the expansions of his predecessors -- whether that means trying to keep Trajan's conquests in the east, or a more subtle kind of conquest and mild expansion** -- but would you guys agree this would be our best bet? If so, what would you say is the best PoD (within parameters) of making this happen?

Thanks.

*so basically -- at most, we can make Lucius Neratius Priscus instead of Hadrian, and we don't even have to do that much; if we don't know what changes, then Hadrian can absolutely still be emperor
**great TL by @Hecatee by the way!

First : thanks for the kind words on my old TL's

Now to your questions.
- Trajan's succession : a big question is who did actually choose Hadrian ? It seems to have be mainly the women around Trajan that choose him : it was set up through wedding and politicking years ahead, and still took some killing to install Hadrian when the time came. So to me it seems you are stuck with Hadrian if there is to be no POD before Trajan's death
- The succession of Hadrian is something completely different. Antoninus Pius was a last ressort choice after previous candidates died before Hadrian, and was already rather old when he took the throne. So you could play with Hadrian's death and succession to get entirely different characters in play : given the ill health of Hadrian in his later years you could probably kill him a decade early. Now doing that could have one major impact, namely postponing or even cancelling Bar Koshba's revolt, leaving the issue of Jewish revolts to someone later on, possibly even to the Christian domination's period (Theodosius vs a Jewish Palestina ? Now that would be an issue... Or even before that, a Palmirene empire with an independant Jewish kingdom against Aurelian ?... ).
- In terms of territories and conquests, there are only a few directions :
-- north west (Britannia) : a more complete antonine campaign is not a big issue, ressources are present and opposition in the end rather limited, but the cost is higher than the worth, at least at first, although it might allow for later ressources re-allocation
-- north (netherlands/germany) : no real opportunity there in this period
-- center (danube) : a push in this direction could be interesting, especially in the Hungarian plain, and eventually on the Bohemian area : it would pre-empt the troubles of the 160's that took so much of Marcus Aurelius' time, and allow to deal with it without the plague sapping at the empire's strenghts
- Armenia/Mesopotamia : the Parthians are quiet in this period, and there is no real impetus to change things in the area as they have been dealt a very hard blow by Trajan. The Jewish revolt on Trajan's rear make it so that I believe Hadrian's decision to leave the new provinces was inevitable.
- Arabia : this is a possible extension zone, but it would cost a lot to hold the area. And withouth (southern) Mesopotamia (Basra area) is makes no sense to try to capture the arabian side of the persian gulf
- Africa : no impetus to capture Nubia, nor any to expend in the southern deserts.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

... given the ill health of Hadrian in his later years you could probably kill him a decade early. Now doing that could have one major impact, namely postponing or even cancelling Bar Koshba's revolt, leaving the issue of Jewish revolts to someone later on, possibly even to the Christian domination's period

Assuming the latter even happens, but point absolutely taken. That would be fascinating to think about. I haven't been able to find anything on who Hadrian had planned to be his successor prior to 136, so I do wonder who would take over if he happened to die circa 128. There's also the possibility that, in his (first) decade of rule, he just decides to handle Rome's, er, "territorial" policy differently than he did OTL.

- In terms of territories and conquests, there are only a few directions :
-- north west (Britannia) : a more complete antonine campaign is not a big issue, ressources are present and opposition in the end rather limited, but the cost is higher than the worth, at least at first, although it might allow for later ressources re-allocation
-- center (danube) : a push in this direction could be interesting, especially in the Hungarian plain, and eventually on the Bohemian area : it would pre-empt the troubles of the 160's that took so much of Marcus Aurelius' time, and allow to deal with it without the plague sapping at the empire's strenghts
- Armenia/Mesopotamia : the Parthians are quiet in this period, and there is no real impetus to change things in the area as they have been dealt a very hard blow by Trajan. The Jewish revolt on Trajan's rear make it so that I believe Hadrian's decision to leave the new provinces was inevitable.

These are the most interesting to think about, in any event. To start with the most challenging: do you think it's possible* that Hadrian could at least decide to hold off on withdrawing from Mesopotamia? If he does that much, giving him a shorter reign could do the rest. Aside from that, having him decide to "fill in" the territory between Pannonia and Dacia, and then decide to just go on and handle Caledonia for good measure, doesn't seem like it would be out of character for him.**

*I mean yes, I know you did this more or less in your TL, I mean for the sake of discussion here
**again, obviously we both your work on the subject, just get laying it out for conversational purposes

 

[Hecatee]

Assuming the latter even happens, but point absolutely taken. That would be fascinating to think about. I haven't been able to find anything on who Hadrian had planned to be his successor prior to 136, so I do wonder who would take over if he happened to die circa 128. There's also the possibility that, in his (first) decade of rule, he just decides to handle Rome's, er, "territorial" policy differently than he did OTL.

These are the most interesting to think about, in any event. To start with the most challenging: do you think it's possible* that Hadrian could at least decide to hold off on withdrawing from Mesopotamia? If he does that much, giving him a shorter reign could do the rest. Aside from that, having him decide to "fill in" the territory between Pannonia and Dacia, and then decide to just go on and handle Caledonia for good measure, doesn't seem like it would be out of character for him.**

*I mean yes, I know you did this more or less in your TL, I mean for the sake of discussion here
**again, obviously we both your work on the subject, just get laying it out for conversational purposes

My way of looking at thinks is all about logistics. There is a very good set of maps at Orbis (https://orbis.stanford.edu/) under "gallery" that shows that the limits of the Roman empire are linked to travel time from Rome. Mesopotamia was just too far from where every limit in the empire was set, which was roughly a month's summer travel from Rome. Add to that the tenuous logistics, either through the northern (armenian) or the southern (syrian) routes, both of which went through "trouble prone" areas (armenia due to persian activities, which the conquest of Mesopotamia would not solve, and the judaic question in the south) and you see why I really doubt Rome could have held Mesopotamia before at least genociding the Jews. But such hold would also require many soldiers to block the main passes out of the Iranian plateau as well as hold the locals in check and keep the armenian honests, and that might well be more legions than what is availlable. This is why I went with my Hadrian's choices in my TL.
In this context the Hungarian plain is a logical choice to expend, if expension must take place.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Relevant here - - what are your thoughts on the Antonine Plague, specifically the various theories as to its origin and the extent to which something like it can be thought to be inevitable within the 2nd Century? I’m of the school that an event like it (as well as corresponding plague in Han China)* was pretty much inevitable with the rise of commerce between the empires of Eurasia; it’s also possible that Verus’ war against the Parthians helped spread it, but the probability that it wasn’t a necessary condition, combined with the high likelihood of another Parthian war happening in any event, means that this doesn’t do much to make the plague as such more avertable.

In other words, I think it’s pretty much guaranteed, with the PoDs we’re talking about, that the Roman Empire is going to take a massive demographic hit sometime in the last third of the 1st Century. Which means, when we look at how these “peaceful years” (the years OTL associates with the reigns of Hadrian and Antinious Pius), and imagine them being less “peaceful”, we’re invariably also talking about shrinking ever more the window when Roman Civilization could comfortably enjoy its golden years.

So let’s say Hadrian comes to power and focuses on securing these two “soft” western borders -- so fully annexing the Iazyges and planting colonies in Caledonia -- which, along with the Marcomanni feeling provoked and an earlier Jewish revolt, all end up taking quite a bit of his attention and treasury in (what would be) the first decade of his reign. Then he dies a decade earlier than OTL. Who is Hadrian’s successor likely to be in this scenario? Will this successor be able to give the empire’s finances a break from conflict? And given the now shrunken "widow", how, if at all, does that change affect the empire going forward?

What do you guys think?

*the period of periodic pestilence prior to the outbreak of the Yellow Turban Rebellion

 

[Arkenfolm]

- Africa : no impetus to capture Nubia, nor any to expend in the southern deserts.

Mauretania south of Volubilis was hardly a desert and was the last good agricultural land in the Mediterranean not under Roman control. It was also known for dye production and could theoretically have produced argan oil (although that was only known to local Berbers). There is also opportunities for an early trans-Saharan trade (gold and slaves). I would assume the area was more densely populated than other Berber areas at the northern fringe of the Sahara so this would be interesting from the perspective of the Romans securing North Africa. Probably it would take a second legion in North Africa but this could be beneficial in terms of increasing ties with Rome via more coloniae.

So it has a high investment cost, but potentially very high rewards in terms of developing Mauretania as a whole.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

If I could ask a related question -- what would you guys say is the latest PoD to avert the Antonine Plague, or at least to delay by at least a generation, without curving the demographic or material growth of the Roman Empire?

 

[Hecatee]

If I could ask a related question -- what would you guys say is the latest PoD to avert the Antonine Plague, or at least to delay by at least a generation, without curving the demographic or material growth of the Roman Empire?

Hard to say as such plagues are now known to have often been linked to climatic events that caused animals in Asia to cause the plague's diffusion to humans... Now it is also true that no mass legionary movements in the eastern part of the empire around the 160's might have limited or slowed the diffusion of the plague inside the empire, but I'm not sure it would be enough to achieve your goals.

 

[Evil Crusader]

If I could ask a related question -- what would you guys say is the latest PoD to avert the Antonine Plague, or at least to delay by at least a generation, without curving the demographic or material growth of the Roman Empire?

Plague is incredibly tough to change, but a good writer / a stroke of luck could help it have long-reaching useful effects. Have somebody, in the fear-stricken paranoia frenzy of "try not to get ill", stumble upon and codify the idea of "quarantine", even in reduced form. Have Commodus, rather than Verus, die. Prosperity ebbs and flows, but the ebbs tend to bring about wider societal restructuring that helps in the long term.

 

[Hecatee]

Plague is incredibly tough to change, but a good writer / a stroke of luck could help it have long-reaching useful effects. Have somebody, in the fear-stricken paranoia frenzy of "try not to get ill", stumble upon and codify the idea of "quarantine", even in reduced form. Have Commodus, rather than Verus, die. Prosperity ebbs and flows, but the ebbs tend to bring about wider societal restructuring that helps in the long term.

quarantine was known and existed in antiquity, you find it in the old testament but also in hypocratic writings which are the one actually proposing a period of 40 days, 40 being said "quarante" in French, "quaranta" in Italian, where some of the earlier medieval quarantine rules were taken

 

[Evil Crusader]

quarantine was known and existed in antiquity, you find it in the old testament but also in hypocratic writings which are the one actually proposing a period of 40 days, 40 being said "quarante" in French, "quaranta" in Italian, where some of the earlier medieval quarantine rules were taken

Yes, but it wasn't really heeded outside of specific cases (mostly lepers), hence why the name comes from early modern romance languages.