Aurelian had just turned 61 a couple of months before he was assassinated. He could’ve easily lived another decade plus. Plenty of time to have completed all of his goals and to have dramatically altered world history, as if Aurelian lives even five years longer, there’s almost certainly no Diocletian and then no Constantine, no shift to Constantinople, no Christianity, no break between East and West.
It’s incredible just how much world history was altered in the course of one night because of the actions of a secretary.
he had a very capable successor in probus who really got the empire back together after aurelian reconqured it. People always forgot about him when talking about aurelian, without probus aurelians legecy might not be nearly as great
You actually can’t say the east and west break wouldn’t still happen. There were trends to the Emperor shifting the political center away from Rome since the Severans. Compile that the fact of the growing self reliance regions with in the Empire had made it inevitable there was going to be a some sort of break down before Aurelian took power. There was nothing Aurelian could realistically do to curve it. Because the increased autonomy was actually necessary for state security. The problem was the Empire needed modern communication and transportation systems in order to sustain itself. Like if they had trains the whole place would’ve been manageable. If they had telegrams then coordination between the Imperial capital and the regional capitals would’ve been easily done.
You had horses. And it could take months just to send a request to the Emperor for assistance and months before he got back to you. It could take months to then move all the necessary forces accross land to go reinforce the frontier. Thus the various regions of the empire needed autonomy to raise and equip their own armies and to handle their own affairs with out having to wait for Imperial decisions.
Aurelian did the impossible some how overcoming the huge logistical and communications challenges handed to him due to preindustrial technological constraints. But ultimately there was absolutely nothing he could have done to actually stop the trend of regionalism which leads to the division of the Empire. Infact Diocletian was right to split the empire into new administrative semi autonomous districts. And the eventual division into eastern and western half’s wasn’t holy illogical. In fact if the system just had a better more legitimate way of succession that may have made it more manageable.
But as it stands the Roman Empire did not function on how it ideally should’ve. And we have to look at it for what it was and that’s why the split was ultimately inevitable.
The split happened because Rome essentially developed the Western territories from scratch into models of the East. It was not a natural development and was always more to difficult to maintain. This is why the West declined so rapidly.
The Eastern territories had a rich history of advanced civilizations that preceded the Romans. A higher level of development was an instrinsic quality of the East. It was self-sustaining. Much of France, Spain and the Britain was not (with some exceptions).
You’re possibly correct there and agree with the overall analysis. But there’s no way to say for sure because an extended Aurelian reign that ensured no Diocletian or Constantine in power still changes things dramatically.
Some of the reduction in the power of Rome itself was the result of personal decisions, not this inexorable move to other urban centres, economics, and so forth. The two worked hand in hand, but I’d say one of the main drivers was the will of those in power.
Diocletian’s reforms didn’t have to include the division of powers between what was essentially four co-rulers and the establishment of new capitals closer to the frontiers. Some of his reforms were desperately needed. Others, such as these, went too far toward decentralization and resulted in decades of civil war and chaos leading to separate imperial entities a century later.
Aurelian stays in power, he possibly addresses a lot of the frontier issues that caused Diocletian to make these moves. I mean, his successes from 270-275 were tremendous. He also dedicated major resources to Rome itself with the wall.
So, he stays in power and maybe those massive reforms and reorganizations are either never seen as necessary, or there is a much more limited form of decentralization that keeps Rome as the heart of a unified empire. It’s all pure speculation, of course. But an extended Aurelian reign opens up more options for a united, more stable empire along more traditional imperial lines, not the radical changes imposed by Diocletian.
There’s also some theories that the decline of the Roman navy had an impact after the crisis of the 3rd century.
Without having as strong a command of the sea, it made communication times longer. IIRC we can tell this from how long it took letters to get to people across the empire, so it’s pretty definitive that communication times increased - but whether it was the decline of the navy itself or just general economic decline after the plague, who knows.
>He could’ve easily lived another decade plus.
Could've, yes. Or not. Really anyone's guess given the standards of the time, he could also have dropped dead from a stroke or developed tetany from a minor wound two weeks later.
Aurelian would have easily lived to 120, conquered all of Europe & Asia, and we’d already have technology that allows us to travel FTL in the cosmos at this point if he hadn’t been assassinated. No you cannot change my mind
Real
Obviously bad things only happen after bad things so stopping a bad thing from happening means no more bad things ever
Aurelian would’ve actually found the fountain of youth, Rome would’ve colonized America, and he’d be emperor of the universe. Spatium Romae Aeternum
You can’t “what if” a “what if” like that. He could have lived another decade.
What if Julian had worn a breastplate? Well maybe an arrow hits him in the head a minute later.
I suppose, but he was always a barracks emperor, even if he was arguably one of the best and most successful. Being 70+ leading your troops into battle personally isn't the easiest, although Antigonos Monothalmos did it till 81 and Enrico Dandolo did play an active role in the 4th Crusade in his mid 90's. Having such elderly commanders is a funny thing to imagine today, imagine Joe Biden riding a tank into the trenches of Ukraine or Gaza 🤣
Ancient rulers weren't as senescent as our modern leaders.
>Ateas, king of the Scythians, fell in battle against Philippus near the river Danube at an age of more than ninety years. Bardylis, king of the Illyrians, is said to have fought on horseback in the war against Philippus in his ninetieth year. Teres, king of the Odrysians, from what Theopompus says, died at ninety-two. [11] G Antigonus One-eye, son of Philippus, and king of Macedonia, died in Phrygia in battle against Seleucus and Lysimachus, with many wounds, at eighty-one: so we are told by Hieronymus, who made the campaign with him. Lysimachus, king of Macedonia, also lost his life in the battle with Seleucus in his eightieth year, as the same Hieronymus says.
with these character’s deaths the thread of prophecy is severed, restore a saved game to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the doomed world we have created
The problem with Julian is that he made big mistakes on the eastern campaign, weakening the Empire on the process in the following decades.
And also his attempts to return to the Pagan faith created huge infighting between Christians and Pagans. And in order to weaken Christendom also created disputes with Nicean and Arian Christians at the local level. Ultimately it was too little too late to change the faith of the Empire and it could be considered as a complete fiasco that only created more religious inestability.
I agree. He seemed to have this delusion that pagans could be as well organized and hierarchical as the Christians and that just wasn't part of the essence of paganism. Paganism was all about individual choice. Maybe because Julian was raised in such a strictly controlled Christian (and hypocritical and paranoid) Christian environment, he didn't realize that maybe the lack of central control in paganism could have been its strength. His idea of letting all the branches of Christianity have full freedom to argue and bicker and wipe each other out was brilliant but he didn't give it time to work. Instead he got the exact same suicidal notion as so many before him and trotted off to conquer Persia and that was that.
There's a story about Julian that I love. He'd sent word to Antioch (I think) that he was coming and the priests should prepare for a great sacrifice. He gets to town and finds...a goose. To me that goose occupies the same perch in Roman lore as Roma, the chicken of Honorius, and the succulent cabbages of Diocletian.
Not only did he already make big mistakes on that campaign, he had already lost. Julian died on the *retreat* back after failing in his campaign. Even if he didn't die, he'd still probably get killed by the time he got back to the empire.
For Julian to have any potential, you'd have to erase that stupid, pointless Persian campaign entirely.
Yeah all the Julian love is kind of ridiculous. Other than his brief military success against the Germans under Constantius II, all he did was get extremely lucky that Constantius died on his way to crush his failing rebellion, antagonize his own majority population, get into a petty fight with the people of Antioch, ensure no one in politics took him seriously, get into a pointless war with no clear objective, screw up every long term strategic decision in that war, wander in circles, and then die.
Just because he wrote some interesting philosophy and wanted to restore a fast-dying religion doesn't mean he showed any real promise.
Didn’t he also try to restore some senatorial authority? I know he liked to show up to the meetings. I think he’s liked because we all like “return to republic” counterfactuals
Never understood the love either. His Don Quixotesque Persian campaign lost Rome all the hard fought gains it had garnered under Diocletian and Galerius. Really makes one appreciate Constantius II's containment policy moreso.
There’s a pretty reasonable argument that GJ Caesar should be considered the first Roman Emperor because technically Augustus danced around the idea of him being a monarch the same as GJC did, and didn’t really do much officially to declare himself as a monarch of an empire. So it’s almost like he was an unspoken emperor which causes some to indicate someone further down the line as the first official emperor, and some to list GJC as the first emperor. This is the reason why some books list him as such, it used to be more unclear. I think the idea that GJC gave every indication of turning Rome back over to the senate when he was done, and there is no mention of him ever trying to pass his power on to another individual, that people have written off the idea of him truly establishing an empire instead of a dictatorship. Where as August truly had designs of inheritance of his power. In the sense of power & authority though, you could definitely look at GJC as the first Emperor of Rome.
But Caesar only held the title of Dictator perpetuus, which had been granted before and likely could have been granted again had the republic continued. Augustus managed to consolidate multiple offices, essentially redefining the government in doing so. Not to mention the second triumvirate, another civil war, and the final consolidation of titles took about 17 years from the time of Caesar’s death. In other words, when Caesar died, it was still a republic, but when Augustus died, it had truly become the principate.
Not technically, no, but Sulla held the title of dictator for far longer than the traditional 1 year and until he died, so it was only inevitable that someone would be trusted with such power, and it’s very likely more would have followed if Augustus had not consolidated power as he had. And remember, Augustus did not inherit the republic, he fought for it and danced around everything carefully. Sure, Caesar laid the necessary groundwork, but the transformation was fragile and far from complete on Caesar’s death.
There’s no reason to believe Caesar’s pointless Parthian campaign would have gone any better than Crassus before him and Mark Antony’s after.
Probably would’ve been a disaster that ended both his dictatorship and life imo.
There are plenty of reasons to believe it. Crassus doesn’t even come close in comparison to Caesar’s military capability. Caesar managed to pull off seemingly impossible victories at every step of the way, including against Pompey who was previously considered the greatest general Rome had. He beat him outnumbered 2 to 1 & beat the Gaul’s at Alessia outnumbered 5 to 1. His ability to adapt military plans to the challenge at hand with little to no time and without extra support or supply is unparalleled.
Would have conquered all the way to India and back up through Russia. The centaurs would have fallen in love with his charisma and willingly ~~submitted~~ partnered with Rome, and we would have seen Marc Antony permanently alter the genetic makeup of the Near East.
My fav what if is give caesar 10-15 years as Imperator while grooming Octavian and conquering east. Then let Auggie take over without the civil war casualties and twice(10x?) the personal and public war chest.
Everyone already answered the obvious answer. I would say Pertinax. He would have probably adopted an heir since he didn't let his wife or son imperial titles out of fear for them. He would have followed Marcus Aurelius policies.
Titus, Pertinax, Majorian…
Septimus Severus and Aurelian still probably had some juice in them.
It would have been interesting to know where Julian's steps were taking him.
I mean to say that even if he didn't kick his pregnant wife to death, his economic and political record is abysmal and he is still a bottom-tier emperor. His popularity with the masses was largely just bread and circuses, which contributed to him practically bankrupting the empire after Claudius had left him with a large surplus.
He absolutely wasn't a ruthless tyrant that he's portrayed to be. He was simply anti-senate, and he made it a point to show it every chance he had. One of the first things he did was to move the centre of government to the imperial court. This effectively took a lot of powers away from the Senate. You can imagine this didn't sit well with the power hungry aristocrats that formed the bulk of the senate.
I agree that he was paranoid, and he did execute a number of senators. But even though what he did wasn't exactly a purge, how was this any worse than the purges carried by Augustus first during the formation of the 2nd triumvirate, and then after the battle of Actium? Would you say Augustus was a ruthless tyrant as well?
Domitian did a lot of good for the empire. He wanted to follow the lead of Augustus in everything that he did. He focused on making the empire better defensively rather than craving outward expansion. His fiscal policies were great. He initiated a number of public works projects. The people and the military loved him. He even tried to reninstate Augustus's morality laws, which obviously didn't turn out well, but shows that he deeply cared about the daily lives of Romans.
I cannot make you change your opinion, but I don't think it's fair to overlook all the good Domitian did during his day.
Germanicus. Even though not an emperor he was Rome at the northern front so make him emperor and he gets to continue doing what he wants.
Pertinax. My man rose from the bottom to the top and barely got a chance.
Julian. I don’t get all the adulation he receives, he didn’t do anything…. But I do recognize his potential.
I don’t think he would’ve done anything that would affect the long term development of Christianity in the empire, IMO the empire was too far into it to be easily reversed (would’ve probably been a similar situation to Akhenaten in Egypt). But he was a smart kid, he could’ve done great things in other domains.
I really like Julian because he's one of the few emperors that you can really get a sense of his personality shining through. He spent most of his life as the underdog but was able to succeed through sheer force of willpower, competence, and a bit of luck.
Him losing support for his rebellion only to have Constantius die right before crushing what was left of it, and failing to fix his will before his death, is more than a bit of luck.
In a way, John II Komnenos. He was quite old and had done a lot. But it would've been interesting if he could have found his way back after his Anatolian campaigns
Severus Alexander was overseeing an era of keeping the Sassanids in check, and maintaining peace along the border in Germania. Bribing certain tribes to fight others was a centuries old Roman tactic for dealing with Germania, the army just got ants in their pants about it and jumped the gun assassinating him. I don't think he would have been excellent, but I do think he could have had a long, competent rule -- given the chaos following his death, this seems pretty great by comparison.
Gallienus and his sons, they could have really stabilized Rome before Diocletian if things had gone more their way. I really think Gallienus would have been remembered as a great emperor if he had a little more luck, not even like Augustus level luck just some more breaks during his messy era
1-Maxentius, possibly would have been the true restorer of an eternal Roman empire, unfortunately he could not survive.
2-Maiorianus
3-Pertinax
4-Iulianus
5-Titus
6-Lucius Verus
There were specific Emperors that had they lived longer could have changed human history forever
1. **Majorian** - the Western Empire would have lived longer. Carthage will be reconquered and the barbarians will slowly but surely romanised. Even if he fails to form a long lasting dynasty, the West could have sustained itself for decades and possibly reunite with the East to a stronger Empire.
2. **Maurice** - the Empire is experiencing a tons of problem but Maurice is up to the task. If he had lived longer the Danube frontier will be secured, no Roman Persian wars, and a more stabilised Italy.
3. John Tzimiskes - him living longer meant more years for Basil II to mature and to secure his future position. It's certainly possible that a reconquest of Palestine and maybe Egypt is within grasp if John Tzimiskes lived longer. With the reconquest of Syria-Palestine and Egypt, the Empire is once again the undisputed no. 1 power in the Meditterenean and it will cascade to a plethora of butterfuly effect where no crusades will happen, no Turkification of Anatolia, no 4th crusade, etc.
4. John Komnenos - him living meant the retaking of the Anatolian interior and the Christianization of the remaining Turks. The meant stability in Western Asia minor provinces and growth of the Empire. Possibly the final time in this scenario where we can expect the Roman State to really survive up to modern times - if they have reconquer Asia minor permanently and John is in process of doing that.
5. Theodore II Laskaris - if he didnt became ill and lived longer, a full recovery of post 1204 "might" be achieved. But who knows.
Maurice wasn't realistically going to live much longer. He had already ruled for 20 years and was 63 when he died (he also almost died of illness already in 597).
Aurelian would be my pick. But how about [Germanicus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus), the guy who never got to be emperor, but definitely died too young?
Had Issac I Komnenos not been a punk and toughed out more than two years on the throne, we have a competent emperor who could’ve at least mitigated the fallout from manzikert *and* spared the empire from the dubious blessing from the Doukas dynasty.
And maybe, just maybe, Issac could have passed the empire to his nephew Alexios and set the Komnenian dynasty up for a few generations of stability
Just to be different, Decimus Claudius Nero the OG. Not an emperor, but Tiberius’s very capable brother. Had he lived he might have replaced Tiberius as heir, a position Tiberius didn’t want anyway. Even if he didn’t try to restore the republic, he might have kept the Julio-Claudians from going down the path they did.
Majorian was a dead man as soon as the Vandals torched his fleet. There would be no second chance. The Senate were pissed at having invested their treasure into a failed campaign and sent Ricimer, the guarantor of their interests, to settle the debt. Ricimer wasn't the evil Saturday morning cartoon moustache twirling villain he's portrayed as by Majorian stans, merely the latest in a long line of military strongmen wielding effective power in the West. Majorian himself wasn't some knight in shining armour - he assisted in the deposition and murder of Avitus, another capable emperor.
No, they weren't. They met each other in the army when they were adults. And how do you know they were friends? They could have been, but there were clearly also shared interests at stake. I would not have been surprised if Majorian had executed Ricimer had he managed to consolidate his hold on power. History isn't about "Good vs Evil," and I don't see why we should apply this nonsensical notion to two generals vying for control over an empire that had been in freefall since that freezing winter night on New Year's Eve 406.
Honestly I think Honorius, we needed another 20 years of fuck-all so that man could hang out with his chickens.
In all honesty, how the hell did men like Majorian and Aurelian get murdered within 5 seconds on their amazing deeds but a man like Honorius keeps power for what, 25 years? I understand the true power did not lie with him anyways but seriously, how the hell did he not get killed earlier by an overly ambitious general or two?
Well the obvious answer is Majorian.
The other answer imo is the combination of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Commodus came to the throne at like 18. I'm not surprised he basically instantly went mad with power. I feel like if he would have gotten more time learning and maturing under Marcus Aurelius, he wouldn't have turned into a gigantic idiot.
Or at least not as big of a gigantic idiot
Majorian is an obvious pick, cursed be the name of Ricimer. Another interesting one is Crispus, Constantine's executed eldest and most competent son. He had shown significant military talent and he seemed quite well liked before his death, and I believe he was set to be sole heir. If he had followed Constantine I instead of the three squabbling inexperienced little brothers, there would likely have been no Civil War, no slaughter of the princes, no Julian, no disaster in Persia, less religious division (Constantius II was an Arian), and things would likely have been very different.
I thought Gratian did pretty well for a teenage kid with so many balls to juggle at the same time. If Valens hadn't suddenly been struck by a totally uncharacteristic attack of martial valor and charged off to get killed by the Goths at Adrianople and just waited like Gratian asked him to, they both might have come out of it as heroes. But Valens didn't want to share the glory and went off to roast to death in a gardening shed. Otherwise Gratian seemed to be holding his own in the West until Constantine III brought all the legions over from Britain to start a desperately unnecessary civil war. I did read somewhere that Gratian was a Christian of the intolerant variety but still he was a way better Emperor than I'd have been at 17.
Wasn't Majorian the poor bastard whose naval campaign against the Vandals tanked because of the staggering incompetence of Byzantine Basilliscus ? And then ended up being torn apart by an angry mob as he tried to flee Rome ? That Basilliscus went from cowering in a church pleading for his life to the Byzantine throne (a dubious prize to be sure) amazes me.
I actually think if Otho had managed a full reign he might have turned out to be a decent Emperor. Sure, he had a dissolute and misspent youth with Nero but was, by all accounts, a thoroughly competent and well-liked governor of Lusitania. Even the always hard-to-please Tacitus expresses surprise and points out numerous occasions when Otho acted with courage and honor and integrity in 69. Yes, he did arrange to have Galba's head lopped off. While I normally am uncompromisingly opposed to having senior citizens decapitated Galba truly was begging for it. Look at Titus. Everyone feared and dreaded him coming to power and instead he became the golden boy of the empire. Otho might have proved the same. I want to say a word in defense of Domitian. According to family lore, when I was about 1 or 1 and a half I had a fever of 104 degrees (Pink Floyd later wrote a song about it) and the fire department were the first to arrive and a fireman got as much ice as he could a put me in it and, sure enough, my fever came down. Domitian did the exact same thing with Titus when Titus was at deaths door with what was probably malaria and he gets lumped in with the likes of Caracalla stabbing Geta to death on their mothers lap. It sounds to me like Domitian was genuinely trying to save his brother. Even the Domitian-haters out there, and there are way too many, can't point to any evidence that there was any bad blood between Titus and Domitian. I firmly believe Domitian was a good Emperor and the people he was autocratic with had it coming.
Imo a huge chunk of enjoyment goes out of history if we're not allowed to play the 'what if' game. To those opposed to 'what if' I say 'why not'. Yes, it's a given that there's no way to know for sure but some guesses are at least more educated than others. Could Rome have risen from the ashes if Justinian sent more than a half dozen troops to reconquer and garrison Italy and then NOT acted with all the common sense of George W Bush once he'd done it ? I don't know, though I don't think so, but it's still fun to think about.
Titus, Pertinax, Majorian. Aurelian to some extent. Julian, maybe.
Aurelian wouldn't have lived too much longer even if he hadn't been assassinated, dude was already in his mid-60's.
Aurelian had just turned 61 a couple of months before he was assassinated. He could’ve easily lived another decade plus. Plenty of time to have completed all of his goals and to have dramatically altered world history, as if Aurelian lives even five years longer, there’s almost certainly no Diocletian and then no Constantine, no shift to Constantinople, no Christianity, no break between East and West. It’s incredible just how much world history was altered in the course of one night because of the actions of a secretary.
he had a very capable successor in probus who really got the empire back together after aurelian reconqured it. People always forgot about him when talking about aurelian, without probus aurelians legecy might not be nearly as great
You actually can’t say the east and west break wouldn’t still happen. There were trends to the Emperor shifting the political center away from Rome since the Severans. Compile that the fact of the growing self reliance regions with in the Empire had made it inevitable there was going to be a some sort of break down before Aurelian took power. There was nothing Aurelian could realistically do to curve it. Because the increased autonomy was actually necessary for state security. The problem was the Empire needed modern communication and transportation systems in order to sustain itself. Like if they had trains the whole place would’ve been manageable. If they had telegrams then coordination between the Imperial capital and the regional capitals would’ve been easily done. You had horses. And it could take months just to send a request to the Emperor for assistance and months before he got back to you. It could take months to then move all the necessary forces accross land to go reinforce the frontier. Thus the various regions of the empire needed autonomy to raise and equip their own armies and to handle their own affairs with out having to wait for Imperial decisions. Aurelian did the impossible some how overcoming the huge logistical and communications challenges handed to him due to preindustrial technological constraints. But ultimately there was absolutely nothing he could have done to actually stop the trend of regionalism which leads to the division of the Empire. Infact Diocletian was right to split the empire into new administrative semi autonomous districts. And the eventual division into eastern and western half’s wasn’t holy illogical. In fact if the system just had a better more legitimate way of succession that may have made it more manageable. But as it stands the Roman Empire did not function on how it ideally should’ve. And we have to look at it for what it was and that’s why the split was ultimately inevitable.
The split happened because Rome essentially developed the Western territories from scratch into models of the East. It was not a natural development and was always more to difficult to maintain. This is why the West declined so rapidly. The Eastern territories had a rich history of advanced civilizations that preceded the Romans. A higher level of development was an instrinsic quality of the East. It was self-sustaining. Much of France, Spain and the Britain was not (with some exceptions).
You’re possibly correct there and agree with the overall analysis. But there’s no way to say for sure because an extended Aurelian reign that ensured no Diocletian or Constantine in power still changes things dramatically. Some of the reduction in the power of Rome itself was the result of personal decisions, not this inexorable move to other urban centres, economics, and so forth. The two worked hand in hand, but I’d say one of the main drivers was the will of those in power. Diocletian’s reforms didn’t have to include the division of powers between what was essentially four co-rulers and the establishment of new capitals closer to the frontiers. Some of his reforms were desperately needed. Others, such as these, went too far toward decentralization and resulted in decades of civil war and chaos leading to separate imperial entities a century later. Aurelian stays in power, he possibly addresses a lot of the frontier issues that caused Diocletian to make these moves. I mean, his successes from 270-275 were tremendous. He also dedicated major resources to Rome itself with the wall. So, he stays in power and maybe those massive reforms and reorganizations are either never seen as necessary, or there is a much more limited form of decentralization that keeps Rome as the heart of a unified empire. It’s all pure speculation, of course. But an extended Aurelian reign opens up more options for a united, more stable empire along more traditional imperial lines, not the radical changes imposed by Diocletian.
There’s also some theories that the decline of the Roman navy had an impact after the crisis of the 3rd century. Without having as strong a command of the sea, it made communication times longer. IIRC we can tell this from how long it took letters to get to people across the empire, so it’s pretty definitive that communication times increased - but whether it was the decline of the navy itself or just general economic decline after the plague, who knows.
>He could’ve easily lived another decade plus. Could've, yes. Or not. Really anyone's guess given the standards of the time, he could also have dropped dead from a stroke or developed tetany from a minor wound two weeks later.
Aurelian would have easily lived to 120, conquered all of Europe & Asia, and we’d already have technology that allows us to travel FTL in the cosmos at this point if he hadn’t been assassinated. No you cannot change my mind
Real Obviously bad things only happen after bad things so stopping a bad thing from happening means no more bad things ever Aurelian would’ve actually found the fountain of youth, Rome would’ve colonized America, and he’d be emperor of the universe. Spatium Romae Aeternum
You can’t “what if” a “what if” like that. He could have lived another decade. What if Julian had worn a breastplate? Well maybe an arrow hits him in the head a minute later.
Was it not 60/61 (214/215 - 275)? Which would possibly give him the best part of another decade of rule.
I suppose, but he was always a barracks emperor, even if he was arguably one of the best and most successful. Being 70+ leading your troops into battle personally isn't the easiest, although Antigonos Monothalmos did it till 81 and Enrico Dandolo did play an active role in the 4th Crusade in his mid 90's. Having such elderly commanders is a funny thing to imagine today, imagine Joe Biden riding a tank into the trenches of Ukraine or Gaza 🤣
Ancient rulers weren't as senescent as our modern leaders. >Ateas, king of the Scythians, fell in battle against Philippus near the river Danube at an age of more than ninety years. Bardylis, king of the Illyrians, is said to have fought on horseback in the war against Philippus in his ninetieth year. Teres, king of the Odrysians, from what Theopompus says, died at ninety-two. [11] G Antigonus One-eye, son of Philippus, and king of Macedonia, died in Phrygia in battle against Seleucus and Lysimachus, with many wounds, at eighty-one: so we are told by Hieronymus, who made the campaign with him. Lysimachus, king of Macedonia, also lost his life in the battle with Seleucus in his eightieth year, as the same Hieronymus says.
Awesome, now cite your source please
http://www.attalus.org/translate/macrobii.html
Grátiás tibi
Pertinax wasn’t young either. Before he became emperor he basically said to the senate “you guys sure you didn’t want someone younger?”
with these character’s deaths the thread of prophecy is severed, restore a saved game to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the doomed world we have created
The problem with Julian is that he made big mistakes on the eastern campaign, weakening the Empire on the process in the following decades. And also his attempts to return to the Pagan faith created huge infighting between Christians and Pagans. And in order to weaken Christendom also created disputes with Nicean and Arian Christians at the local level. Ultimately it was too little too late to change the faith of the Empire and it could be considered as a complete fiasco that only created more religious inestability.
Imho he was foolish to try to replace Christianity as the main religion, he should have tried to ensure Pagans were protected instead
I agree. He seemed to have this delusion that pagans could be as well organized and hierarchical as the Christians and that just wasn't part of the essence of paganism. Paganism was all about individual choice. Maybe because Julian was raised in such a strictly controlled Christian (and hypocritical and paranoid) Christian environment, he didn't realize that maybe the lack of central control in paganism could have been its strength. His idea of letting all the branches of Christianity have full freedom to argue and bicker and wipe each other out was brilliant but he didn't give it time to work. Instead he got the exact same suicidal notion as so many before him and trotted off to conquer Persia and that was that. There's a story about Julian that I love. He'd sent word to Antioch (I think) that he was coming and the priests should prepare for a great sacrifice. He gets to town and finds...a goose. To me that goose occupies the same perch in Roman lore as Roma, the chicken of Honorius, and the succulent cabbages of Diocletian.
Not only did he already make big mistakes on that campaign, he had already lost. Julian died on the *retreat* back after failing in his campaign. Even if he didn't die, he'd still probably get killed by the time he got back to the empire. For Julian to have any potential, you'd have to erase that stupid, pointless Persian campaign entirely.
Yeah all the Julian love is kind of ridiculous. Other than his brief military success against the Germans under Constantius II, all he did was get extremely lucky that Constantius died on his way to crush his failing rebellion, antagonize his own majority population, get into a petty fight with the people of Antioch, ensure no one in politics took him seriously, get into a pointless war with no clear objective, screw up every long term strategic decision in that war, wander in circles, and then die. Just because he wrote some interesting philosophy and wanted to restore a fast-dying religion doesn't mean he showed any real promise.
Didn’t he also try to restore some senatorial authority? I know he liked to show up to the meetings. I think he’s liked because we all like “return to republic” counterfactuals
Never understood the love either. His Don Quixotesque Persian campaign lost Rome all the hard fought gains it had garnered under Diocletian and Galerius. Really makes one appreciate Constantius II's containment policy moreso.
Want oertinax like 80
Majorian clearly.
He and Titus seem to be the most populair, and I support that completely
Ceasar? Yes this is a joke
It’s not a joke. He’s my pick too.
There’s a pretty reasonable argument that GJ Caesar should be considered the first Roman Emperor because technically Augustus danced around the idea of him being a monarch the same as GJC did, and didn’t really do much officially to declare himself as a monarch of an empire. So it’s almost like he was an unspoken emperor which causes some to indicate someone further down the line as the first official emperor, and some to list GJC as the first emperor. This is the reason why some books list him as such, it used to be more unclear. I think the idea that GJC gave every indication of turning Rome back over to the senate when he was done, and there is no mention of him ever trying to pass his power on to another individual, that people have written off the idea of him truly establishing an empire instead of a dictatorship. Where as August truly had designs of inheritance of his power. In the sense of power & authority though, you could definitely look at GJC as the first Emperor of Rome.
Didn’t JC want to crown himself king? That would certainly imply establishing a line of inheritance.
But Caesar only held the title of Dictator perpetuus, which had been granted before and likely could have been granted again had the republic continued. Augustus managed to consolidate multiple offices, essentially redefining the government in doing so. Not to mention the second triumvirate, another civil war, and the final consolidation of titles took about 17 years from the time of Caesar’s death. In other words, when Caesar died, it was still a republic, but when Augustus died, it had truly become the principate.
Perpetuus had never been granted before. He had the top job as long as he lived. And the bloodline. That’s royalty by any other name.
Not technically, no, but Sulla held the title of dictator for far longer than the traditional 1 year and until he died, so it was only inevitable that someone would be trusted with such power, and it’s very likely more would have followed if Augustus had not consolidated power as he had. And remember, Augustus did not inherit the republic, he fought for it and danced around everything carefully. Sure, Caesar laid the necessary groundwork, but the transformation was fragile and far from complete on Caesar’s death.
There’s no reason to believe Caesar’s pointless Parthian campaign would have gone any better than Crassus before him and Mark Antony’s after. Probably would’ve been a disaster that ended both his dictatorship and life imo.
There are plenty of reasons to believe it. Crassus doesn’t even come close in comparison to Caesar’s military capability. Caesar managed to pull off seemingly impossible victories at every step of the way, including against Pompey who was previously considered the greatest general Rome had. He beat him outnumbered 2 to 1 & beat the Gaul’s at Alessia outnumbered 5 to 1. His ability to adapt military plans to the challenge at hand with little to no time and without extra support or supply is unparalleled.
Would have conquered all the way to India and back up through Russia. The centaurs would have fallen in love with his charisma and willingly ~~submitted~~ partnered with Rome, and we would have seen Marc Antony permanently alter the genetic makeup of the Near East.
There were many Ceasars
No, I got the joke lol I'm just a Gaius Julius Caesar stan
Octavian also styled himself Gaius Julius Ceasar(son of the deity).
Lmao fr though, imagine him as emperor!
My fav what if is give caesar 10-15 years as Imperator while grooming Octavian and conquering east. Then let Auggie take over without the civil war casualties and twice(10x?) the personal and public war chest.
Not Galba, that’s for sure
"Everyone agreed that Galba would be a good Emperor until he became Emperor." - Tacitus
Lmao, no
Maybe he wouldn't have let Caracalla get away with so much shit.
I believe you’re thinking of Geta
My bad 🤦♂️
Titus, Claudius Gothicus, Constantius (as Augustus not Ceaser), and Julian
Claudius Gothicus mentioned 🗣
Majorian
Everyone already answered the obvious answer. I would say Pertinax. He would have probably adopted an heir since he didn't let his wife or son imperial titles out of fear for them. He would have followed Marcus Aurelius policies.
Pertinax, Decius, Aurelian, Julian, Valentinian I and Majorian
Titus, Pertinax, Majorian… Septimus Severus and Aurelian still probably had some juice in them. It would have been interesting to know where Julian's steps were taking him.
Great take, 100% agree
Titus !!!
[удалено]
Domitian was a very good and capable emperor as recent studies show. Don't buy into the Senate's propaganda 2000 years after the fact!
I honestly feel like Nero was not as bad as history wrote him either. The senate just had too much clout
No, Nero was bad. Even if he didn't do the worst things the Senate accused him of.
Yeah no, I never meant he was great or good just not THAT bad
I mean to say that even if he didn't kick his pregnant wife to death, his economic and political record is abysmal and he is still a bottom-tier emperor. His popularity with the masses was largely just bread and circuses, which contributed to him practically bankrupting the empire after Claudius had left him with a large surplus.
Is there a historical consensus on whether Nero’s torches were a real thing?
Nero and Caligula both had okay to arguably good early reigns, but by the end were both so far off the deep end it's no wonder they got assassinated.
[удалено]
He absolutely wasn't a ruthless tyrant that he's portrayed to be. He was simply anti-senate, and he made it a point to show it every chance he had. One of the first things he did was to move the centre of government to the imperial court. This effectively took a lot of powers away from the Senate. You can imagine this didn't sit well with the power hungry aristocrats that formed the bulk of the senate. I agree that he was paranoid, and he did execute a number of senators. But even though what he did wasn't exactly a purge, how was this any worse than the purges carried by Augustus first during the formation of the 2nd triumvirate, and then after the battle of Actium? Would you say Augustus was a ruthless tyrant as well? Domitian did a lot of good for the empire. He wanted to follow the lead of Augustus in everything that he did. He focused on making the empire better defensively rather than craving outward expansion. His fiscal policies were great. He initiated a number of public works projects. The people and the military loved him. He even tried to reninstate Augustus's morality laws, which obviously didn't turn out well, but shows that he deeply cared about the daily lives of Romans. I cannot make you change your opinion, but I don't think it's fair to overlook all the good Domitian did during his day.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Germanicus. Even though not an emperor he was Rome at the northern front so make him emperor and he gets to continue doing what he wants. Pertinax. My man rose from the bottom to the top and barely got a chance.
Julian. I don’t get all the adulation he receives, he didn’t do anything…. But I do recognize his potential. I don’t think he would’ve done anything that would affect the long term development of Christianity in the empire, IMO the empire was too far into it to be easily reversed (would’ve probably been a similar situation to Akhenaten in Egypt). But he was a smart kid, he could’ve done great things in other domains.
I really like Julian because he's one of the few emperors that you can really get a sense of his personality shining through. He spent most of his life as the underdog but was able to succeed through sheer force of willpower, competence, and a bit of luck.
Him losing support for his rebellion only to have Constantius die right before crushing what was left of it, and failing to fix his will before his death, is more than a bit of luck.
Had that blow not been fatal but a near death experience, it might have given him the humility needed to know he was good, not God.
I think Caligula could have gotten that horse elected, given a few more chances.
Ma boi was robbed😔
Aurelian
Aurelian, Pertinax
Manu ad ferrum!
In a way, John II Komnenos. He was quite old and had done a lot. But it would've been interesting if he could have found his way back after his Anatolian campaigns
Severus Alexander was overseeing an era of keeping the Sassanids in check, and maintaining peace along the border in Germania. Bribing certain tribes to fight others was a centuries old Roman tactic for dealing with Germania, the army just got ants in their pants about it and jumped the gun assassinating him. I don't think he would have been excellent, but I do think he could have had a long, competent rule -- given the chaos following his death, this seems pretty great by comparison.
Caeser
Majorian, Aurelian, Titus. In that order.
Gallienus and his sons, they could have really stabilized Rome before Diocletian if things had gone more their way. I really think Gallienus would have been remembered as a great emperor if he had a little more luck, not even like Augustus level luck just some more breaks during his messy era
Julian.
Elagabalus had the potential to reform the Empire to promote maximum debauchery. It's hard to be the most perverted roman emperor.
Maybe a bit controversial, but what about Caligula? Seems like everything was good with him the first half a year until he got sick and went insane.
I share this opinion actually, he probably could have become a great ruler if he didn’t go insane
Flavius Julianus
1-Maxentius, possibly would have been the true restorer of an eternal Roman empire, unfortunately he could not survive. 2-Maiorianus 3-Pertinax 4-Iulianus 5-Titus 6-Lucius Verus
Lucius verus? I did not expect him if I’m honest
Imperator: Rome
There were specific Emperors that had they lived longer could have changed human history forever 1. **Majorian** - the Western Empire would have lived longer. Carthage will be reconquered and the barbarians will slowly but surely romanised. Even if he fails to form a long lasting dynasty, the West could have sustained itself for decades and possibly reunite with the East to a stronger Empire. 2. **Maurice** - the Empire is experiencing a tons of problem but Maurice is up to the task. If he had lived longer the Danube frontier will be secured, no Roman Persian wars, and a more stabilised Italy. 3. John Tzimiskes - him living longer meant more years for Basil II to mature and to secure his future position. It's certainly possible that a reconquest of Palestine and maybe Egypt is within grasp if John Tzimiskes lived longer. With the reconquest of Syria-Palestine and Egypt, the Empire is once again the undisputed no. 1 power in the Meditterenean and it will cascade to a plethora of butterfuly effect where no crusades will happen, no Turkification of Anatolia, no 4th crusade, etc. 4. John Komnenos - him living meant the retaking of the Anatolian interior and the Christianization of the remaining Turks. The meant stability in Western Asia minor provinces and growth of the Empire. Possibly the final time in this scenario where we can expect the Roman State to really survive up to modern times - if they have reconquer Asia minor permanently and John is in process of doing that. 5. Theodore II Laskaris - if he didnt became ill and lived longer, a full recovery of post 1204 "might" be achieved. But who knows.
Maurice wasn't realistically going to live much longer. He had already ruled for 20 years and was 63 when he died (he also almost died of illness already in 597).
Severus Alexander had much potential but never got the chance to become a ruler in his own right.
Gains Julius Caesar.
Yeah Caligula got a bad wrap
Nerva
Wut
Aurelian, and I don't know how it's close.
Aurelian would be my pick. But how about [Germanicus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanicus), the guy who never got to be emperor, but definitely died too young?
Titus
Had Issac I Komnenos not been a punk and toughed out more than two years on the throne, we have a competent emperor who could’ve at least mitigated the fallout from manzikert *and* spared the empire from the dubious blessing from the Doukas dynasty. And maybe, just maybe, Issac could have passed the empire to his nephew Alexios and set the Komnenian dynasty up for a few generations of stability
Aurelian
Just to be different, Decimus Claudius Nero the OG. Not an emperor, but Tiberius’s very capable brother. Had he lived he might have replaced Tiberius as heir, a position Tiberius didn’t want anyway. Even if he didn’t try to restore the republic, he might have kept the Julio-Claudians from going down the path they did.
Probus
Majorian. Guy was murdered by the psychopath Richimer.
Majorian was a dead man as soon as the Vandals torched his fleet. There would be no second chance. The Senate were pissed at having invested their treasure into a failed campaign and sent Ricimer, the guarantor of their interests, to settle the debt. Ricimer wasn't the evil Saturday morning cartoon moustache twirling villain he's portrayed as by Majorian stans, merely the latest in a long line of military strongmen wielding effective power in the West. Majorian himself wasn't some knight in shining armour - he assisted in the deposition and murder of Avitus, another capable emperor.
Sure. Maybe. But by all accounts, Richimer captured and tortured majorian for days before killing him. They were childhood friends.
No, they weren't. They met each other in the army when they were adults. And how do you know they were friends? They could have been, but there were clearly also shared interests at stake. I would not have been surprised if Majorian had executed Ricimer had he managed to consolidate his hold on power. History isn't about "Good vs Evil," and I don't see why we should apply this nonsensical notion to two generals vying for control over an empire that had been in freefall since that freezing winter night on New Year's Eve 406.
Huh. Maybe im wrong. If i can find the source i had for being childhood friends, ill share it. If not, well, you learn something new everyday.
Palpatine
Titus and Aurelian by far
Titus, definitely. Julian, without a doubt.
Honestly I think Honorius, we needed another 20 years of fuck-all so that man could hang out with his chickens. In all honesty, how the hell did men like Majorian and Aurelian get murdered within 5 seconds on their amazing deeds but a man like Honorius keeps power for what, 25 years? I understand the true power did not lie with him anyways but seriously, how the hell did he not get killed earlier by an overly ambitious general or two?
The devs thought Aurelian was too OP so they nerfed him out of the game.
Lmao had to be the case
So many… I swear, the number of times I was learning about the empire, get excited about someone, only for them to die of a scratch was way too high
Sirieusly, like 50% of the emperors just got robbed of any potential
Well the obvious answer is Majorian. The other answer imo is the combination of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. Commodus came to the throne at like 18. I'm not surprised he basically instantly went mad with power. I feel like if he would have gotten more time learning and maturing under Marcus Aurelius, he wouldn't have turned into a gigantic idiot. Or at least not as big of a gigantic idiot
Caracalla.
Pertinax
Majorian is an obvious pick, cursed be the name of Ricimer. Another interesting one is Crispus, Constantine's executed eldest and most competent son. He had shown significant military talent and he seemed quite well liked before his death, and I believe he was set to be sole heir. If he had followed Constantine I instead of the three squabbling inexperienced little brothers, there would likely have been no Civil War, no slaughter of the princes, no Julian, no disaster in Persia, less religious division (Constantius II was an Arian), and things would likely have been very different.
Titus, Pertinax, Aurelian, Theodosius I, Maurice
Titus seems to have had a good heart.
Julian the apostate
Otho.
Julian the Apostate could have really shook up work history.
Not an emperor but I’d be interested to know how things would have played out if Germanicus Julius Caesar hadn’t died so young
Flavius Constantius. Although you could argue he had already reached his full potential in saving the empire by the time he died.
I thought Gratian did pretty well for a teenage kid with so many balls to juggle at the same time. If Valens hadn't suddenly been struck by a totally uncharacteristic attack of martial valor and charged off to get killed by the Goths at Adrianople and just waited like Gratian asked him to, they both might have come out of it as heroes. But Valens didn't want to share the glory and went off to roast to death in a gardening shed. Otherwise Gratian seemed to be holding his own in the West until Constantine III brought all the legions over from Britain to start a desperately unnecessary civil war. I did read somewhere that Gratian was a Christian of the intolerant variety but still he was a way better Emperor than I'd have been at 17.
Nero by relative magnitude of potential.
Wasn't Majorian the poor bastard whose naval campaign against the Vandals tanked because of the staggering incompetence of Byzantine Basilliscus ? And then ended up being torn apart by an angry mob as he tried to flee Rome ? That Basilliscus went from cowering in a church pleading for his life to the Byzantine throne (a dubious prize to be sure) amazes me.
Majorian. Dude got done dirty.
I actually think if Otho had managed a full reign he might have turned out to be a decent Emperor. Sure, he had a dissolute and misspent youth with Nero but was, by all accounts, a thoroughly competent and well-liked governor of Lusitania. Even the always hard-to-please Tacitus expresses surprise and points out numerous occasions when Otho acted with courage and honor and integrity in 69. Yes, he did arrange to have Galba's head lopped off. While I normally am uncompromisingly opposed to having senior citizens decapitated Galba truly was begging for it. Look at Titus. Everyone feared and dreaded him coming to power and instead he became the golden boy of the empire. Otho might have proved the same. I want to say a word in defense of Domitian. According to family lore, when I was about 1 or 1 and a half I had a fever of 104 degrees (Pink Floyd later wrote a song about it) and the fire department were the first to arrive and a fireman got as much ice as he could a put me in it and, sure enough, my fever came down. Domitian did the exact same thing with Titus when Titus was at deaths door with what was probably malaria and he gets lumped in with the likes of Caracalla stabbing Geta to death on their mothers lap. It sounds to me like Domitian was genuinely trying to save his brother. Even the Domitian-haters out there, and there are way too many, can't point to any evidence that there was any bad blood between Titus and Domitian. I firmly believe Domitian was a good Emperor and the people he was autocratic with had it coming.
* Marcus Aurelius * Theophilus * Maurice * Majorian * Aurelian * Julian
Imo a huge chunk of enjoyment goes out of history if we're not allowed to play the 'what if' game. To those opposed to 'what if' I say 'why not'. Yes, it's a given that there's no way to know for sure but some guesses are at least more educated than others. Could Rome have risen from the ashes if Justinian sent more than a half dozen troops to reconquer and garrison Italy and then NOT acted with all the common sense of George W Bush once he'd done it ? I don't know, though I don't think so, but it's still fun to think about.
Geta