Roman Empire Timeline Cliches To Avoid

The " One Bad Emperor" Theory of Change: The timelines where you remove an emperor like Nero or Commodus or whatever emperor you personally blame for a lot of Rome's troubles, and Rome is in a significantly better position. Particularly popular to halt the Third Century Crisis, the favorite emperor for these What Ifs is always Commodus, who create a convenient break between the last "good" emperor Marcus Aurelius and the start of all Rome's troubles heading into the Third Century. Ignoring that Commodus's "Level of Badness" for lack of a better term is often over exaggerated (he kept in place many of Marucs Aurelius's own men and his foreign policy was pretty sound, at least early on), it ignores or downplays the many structural factors that were causing the crisis-namely climate change, plague, increased and more intense threats along all of Rome's frontiers, monetary supply issues and all the imperial management issues this in turn created.
Relevant to your One Bad Emperor Goes, Everything is Fine - I'm going to say that there's obviously a lot of the opposite. One Good Emperor would need a lot going his way to respond to some of the empire's really dark periods, not just "personally being both virtuous and able".
Agreed-one look at the third century alone and you see the corpses of a lot of "virtuous and able" emperors who were powerless to do more than hastily plug a hole and then die. Diocletian is a notable exception here (though even he had notable failures, from the collapse of the tetrarchy to the his fialed attempts at curbing inflation and the failed persecutions), but even the "successful" emperors of the period like Septimius Severus largely failed to actually significantly alter whatever trajectory the empire was on at the time.
The thing with Emperors during the earlier period is that his relationship with the Senate, who he uses to govern the empire and command armies as legates, is very personal. If they cannot trust him to advance their careers and all that goes with it in a safe and orderly manner it causes instability. The very fact of instability leans itself to a nervous central government that hands out more and larger donatives to the troops that often requires the coinage to be debased while at the same pulling troops away from the frontiers so that if the local governor revolts he doesn't have too many veteran soldiers. Which is what weakens the Roman position on the frontier more then the idea that the tribes on the other side are suddenly allot stronger.

If one removes an bad emperor with one that has a better relationship with the ruling class allot of stability issues will solve itself. One major problem why it ever did after Commudos death was due to the fact their is a civil war in every life time till the end of the Empire.
 
Last edited:

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
Re: that lack of cold calculation, I think its safe to say that Augustus'd intent in Germania was some kind of permanent conquest, even if it was not as intentional as "the Elbe is going to be Rome's frontier." The planned campaign against the Marcomanni that was aborted when the Great Illyrian revolt broke out does have the trappings of mopping up remaining threats to consolidate control. And the choice of Varrus, a guy more known for his civilian administrative capabilities than for being a frontier military man, suggests the intention of establishing some permanent form of Roman provincial administrative control.
To add to your post, the Augustan conquest of Germania was VERY intentional and systematic. Permanent forts were errected on the right bank of the Rhine, as well as civilian settlements and mines to exploit Germania's mineral deposits. The Roman presence reached deep into Germanic territory, along a wedge marked by the rivers Rhine, Lippe and the lower part of the Main. Even though the details of the conquest are still being discussed, and although the picture is constantly shifting due to new archeaological discoveries, findings from the early 2000s have confirmed ancient accounts who report an Augustan provincialization of Germania: Germania, situated both left and right of the Rhine, had arguably been a Roman province for more than twenty years when Arminius defeated Varus. Scholarship hasn't been able to settle on the projected eastern border of the province, but more optimistic authors point to either the Weser or the Elbe.
 
The thing with Emperors during the earlier period is that his relationship with the Senate, who he uses to govern the empire and command armies as legates, is very personal. If they cannot trust him to advance their careers and all that goes with it in a safe and orderly manner it causes instability. The very fact of instability leans itself to a nervous central government that hands out more and larger donatives to the troops that often requires the coinage to be debased while at the same pulling troops away from the frontiers so that if the local governor revolts he doesn't have too many veteran soldiers. Which is what weakens the Roman position on the frontier more then the idea that the tribes on the other side are suddenly allot stronger.

If one removes an bad emperor with one that has a better relationship with the ruling class allot of stability issues will solve itself. One major problem why it ever did after Commudos death was due to the fact their is a civil war in every life time till the end of the Empire.

I am not an expert on the pre-Byzantine days of the empire, but this feels like it puts too much weight on if the emperor has a good relationship with the ruling class to "whether or not stability issues are a thing" to me. A civil war in every lifetime till the end of the empire is the kind of problem that makes Rome's prospects more complicated than one man's personal qualities.
 
Last edited:
I am not an expert on the pre-Byzantine days of the empire, but this feels like it puts too much weight on if the emperor has a good relationship with the ruling class to "whether or not stability issues are a thing" to me. A civil war in every lifetime till the end of the empire is the kind of problem that makes Rome's prospects more complicated than one man's personal qualities.
That is the root cause of the stability issues thou. Everybody engaged high politics knows that they are never completely safe, it doesn't matter if you are an Emperor or a high ranking official. There are too many recent examples of someone in your position getting killed due to be suspected of plotting against an Emperor or supporting the Emperor on the side of a losing civil war.

The issue was that no Emperor was able to recreated a stable environment that existed in during the first three Roman dynasties, despite the many issues they had to endure. Diocletian system doesn't even outlive him and more importantly goes against the grain of Roman society. Constantine was murderous against his greatest supporters, his own family, so why should some support one member feel safe?
 
That is the root cause of the stability issues thou. Everybody engaged high politics knows that they are never completely safe, it doesn't matter if you are an Emperor or a high ranking official. There are too many recent examples of someone in your position getting killed due to be suspected of plotting against an Emperor or supporting the Emperor on the side of a losing civil war.

The issue was that no Emperor was able to recreated a stable environment that existed in during the first three Roman dynasties, despite the many issues they had to endure. Diocletian system doesn't even outlive him and more importantly goes against the grain of Roman society. Constantine was murderous against his greatest supporters, his own family, so why should some support one member feel safe?
This really isn't disproving my point that you need more than One Good Emperor to deal with these things, though. Or that they come from more than just one bad emperor whose removal addresses that powerful Romans (not unique to Rome, but we're not writing a list of cliches about other states) are a suspicious and ambitious/self-serving bunch.
 
It all went bad with Commodus or insert Emperor here. The nature of a military dictatorship is rarely discussed nor was the need for powerful local commanders given the Empire's size. Roman TLs have set-backs sure but rarely prolonged internal strife; the staple of both Roman empires.

That and Marcus Aurelius stacked the government full of loyalists and yes-men before Commodus.
 
This really isn't disproving my point that you need more than One Good Emperor to deal with these things, though. Or that they come from more than just one bad emperor whose removal addresses that powerful Romans (not unique to Rome, but we're not writing a list of cliches about other states) are a suspicious and ambitious/self-serving bunch.
It all went bad with Commodus or insert Emperor here. The nature of a military dictatorship is rarely discussed nor was the need for powerful local commanders given the Empire's size. Roman TLs have set-backs sure but rarely prolonged internal strife; the staple of both Roman empires.

That and Marcus Aurelius stacked the government full of loyalists and yes-men before Commodus.

Its the damage bad emperors do and that you can not be a good emperor without succeeding because the Romans viewed virtue very differently then us.

Marcus Aurelius stacked the government with loyal men in important decision who will execute ones orders because that's what every government does... You cant have a knowingly disloyal praetorian prefect who doesn't like you because that's death wish....
 
Its the damage bad emperors do and that you can not be a good emperor without succeeding because the Romans viewed virtue very differently then us.

Marcus Aurelius stacked the government with loyal men in important decision who will execute ones orders because that's what every government does... You cant have a knowingly disloyal praetorian prefect who doesn't like you because that's death wish....
Monopoly of force is something integral to every state. Plenty of nations get by with some distribution of power in who gets to tell the military what to do, whereas the Roman Empire skewed towards the military. I'm pointing out the systematic weaknesses of autocracies in general, control of which is summarized as who so happens to be in command within a few days' march or whomever was born to the last guy.
 
Its the damage bad emperors do and that you can not be a good emperor without succeeding because the Romans viewed virtue very differently then us.

Marcus Aurelius stacked the government with loyal men in important decision who will execute ones orders because that's what every government does... You cant have a knowingly disloyal praetorian prefect who doesn't like you because that's death wish....

I'm not sure what Roman ideas of virtue vs. ours have to do with the Roman Empire's problems being more than just "if only X was a Good Emperor, everything would be fixed."? Unless you're suggesting Roman ideas of virtue were incompatible with imperial stability.
 
I think the usual cliché of "Rome Never Stops Expanding until they have conquered Creation" is a pretty big one that was already mentioned here in many ways, the empire was already badly overextended as Roman troops needed to garrison borders from the Rhine to the Caucasus to Syria to Arabia to Brittania and the Northern African deserts, adding places like Mesopotamia or Ireland or as is more commonly see Germany is just giving the Romans yet another amount of decades of spending resources sending colonists, putting down rebellions, fighting off raiders, building forts and the typical politicking that comes with these types of major decisions. "Just one more province bro, I promise you bro, this is the one province that's gonna solve all of our issues bro I promise"


That also ties into not exactly a cliché but something I've seen nonetheless where Rome is treated as this sort of unbreakable, unchanging stagnant pyramid where the typical issues you find in any empire or the usual roman ones are either glossed over or become trapped in this time loop of going on forever without being changed or challenged in any meaningful way, like the use of slaves in Roman society, in a TL where the Roman Empire keeps on trucking without major issues is absolutely something that would need to be addressed by emperors with the consequences of having something like a economic crisis or severe opposition from people who profit from slavery or something like the major religious disputes that even before Christianity were pretty important but became even more when the majority of the empire became Christian, iirc something like the failure of emperors to deal with stuff like the Cacheldonian disputes or heresies like Arianism or Donatism were key causes in making territories break away more easily ie: Arab invasions as the mostly Orthodox Cacheldonian Greek people of Anatolia, Balkans and Antioch were in dispute with the Syriac church, Coptic church and Nestorian church over the nature of Christ meaning that these people actually preferred the rule of Arabs instead of "living under heretic Emperors".
 
I think the usual cliché of "Rome Never Stops Expanding until they have conquered Creation" is a pretty big one that was already mentioned here in many ways, the empire was already badly overextended
This begs the question on what's a good "big Rome" size that ISN'T over-extended? No, really, the idea's fascinating me now.
 
Crises after Crises is my pet peeve in Roman TLs. Rome's history is incredibly long and so of course underwent many crises throughout it's existence, but in TLs these are near unending in some.
 
Crises after Crises is my pet peeve in Roman TLs. Rome's history is incredibly long and so of course underwent many crises throughout it's existence, but in TLs these are near unending in some.
depends on what Define crisis because small crisis even during good reigns were common we think Justinian rule was a golden age when shit hit the fan many times like when Khosrow sacked antioch or how zeno had to deal with a crisis of the church big crisis that depended on good responses or things really would go bad are less common
 
I am not an expert on the pre-Byzantine days of the empire, but this feels like it puts too much weight on if the emperor has a good relationship with the ruling class to "whether or not stability issues are a thing" to me. A civil war in every lifetime till the end of the empire is the kind of problem that makes Rome's prospects more complicated than one man's personal qualities.
the senate practically lost its power during the third century crisis and Diocletian help to make them more irrelevant but even before the crisis you see a shift as the severans put more attention to the army , severus would not be the first emperor hated by the senate heck Domitian and Hadrian were seen as tyrants, and yeah rome complicated issue goes way beyond the emperor and the senate
 
the senate practically lost its power during the third century crisis and Diocletian help to make them more irrelevant but even before the crisis you see a shift as the severans put more attention to the army , severus would not be the first emperor hated by the senate heck Domitian and Hadrian were seen as tyrants, and yeah rome complicated issue goes way beyond the emperor and the senate
This is something that changes in the 5th century quite dramatically, however, directly related to a couple parallel developments: The weakness of Roman Emperors (Honorius and Valentinian III being little more than puppets of their court) and the consolidation of western imperial military might around northern Italy and southern Gaul. This suddenly gave the Italian elite (read: Senators) a position of poltical influence they had not known since the time of Valerian.
 
The biggest Roman Empire Timeline cliche to avoid is when SlyDessertFox starts a Roman Empire Timeline, and abandons it after one update.
 

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
the empire was already badly overextended as Roman troops needed to garrison borders from the Rhine to the Caucasus to Syria to Arabia to Brittania and the Northern African deserts,
That's actually not a problem if your tax income and your recruitment pool expands together with you empire, which happened in Rome's case.
adding places like Mesopotamia or Ireland or as is more commonly see Germany is just giving the Romans yet another amount of decades of spending resources sending colonists, putting down rebellions, fighting off raiders, building forts and the typical politicking that comes with these types of major decisions.
And after these decades, Germania might actually pay for itself 1) by account of the coal, lead and other minerals you might mine there, 2) due to a population activated as potential recruited for the Roman army, but neutralized as hostile forced, and 3) by acting as a glacis for more wealthy provinces like Gaul.

No, for Rome, I don't really buy the overextension trope.
 
Last edited:
That and Marcus Aurelius stacked the government full of loyalists and yes-men before Commodus.
given the scarcity and polarization of sources we often deal w/ for roman times, I'd be very sceptical of any claim of who was or wasn't a "yesman" more than 18 centuries ago
 
Top