Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Changed. Now, there is still the plan to grant it to all inhabitants of the empire, but nobody really has to do it.
Next update will see the death of Trajanus.
Optimus Princeps - A Trajan TL
- Thread starter Alcsentre Calanice
- Start date
Changed. Now, there is still the plan to grant it to all inhabitants of the empire, but nobody really has to do it.
Next update will see the death of Trajanus.
Trojan's conquests were historically the pinnacle of Roman glory - now we could well see those gains retained, kept and expanded.
I almost stopped reading here. Because the term "great" is so much against common opinion amongst historians about Trajan. I thought, you are kidding me or smoking some very expensive stuff. But then I recognized, you are just writing a novel from the perspective of an ancient autohor. Nice approach. Nevertheless, just a few questions:
Hatra was never conquered by the romans. Not by Trajan and not by other emperors. So how and why did Trajan conquer Hatra?
The province of Assyria is just mentioned once in a source of the 5th century. It is highly unlikely, that it ever existed. Probably Trajan implemented a client king in Media Adiabadene. So what are Trajans reasons to provincialise Media Adiabadene and call it Assyria?
Mid-Mesopotamia, the area of Ctesiphon / Seleucia was never provincialised by Trajan. Perhaps he tried, but failed early. So he made it a parthian client kingdom. Most historical maps about Mesopotamia in 117 are fully wrong. So why Trajan decides to provincialize Mid-Mesopotamia?
Well, implementing a parthian client king in Susiana, while the current king is ruling the rest of the former empire sounds interesting. Even more interesting is the question, how many days Osroes survived as king of persia. The land of the most powerful parthian vasall.
I am missing the province of northern Mesopotamia here. No way a single propraetor can govern one huge province across the syrian desert.
I already mentioned, that I am missing a reason for the provincialisation of Assyria / Adiabadene and Mid-Mesopotamia.
Babylonia includes Characene in the utter South of Mesopotamia at the Persian Gulf? You wrote above, that this became a client kingdom like IRL. Actually a provincialisation of Charcane is rather detrimental by economic reasons, like a provincialisation of Palmyra.
I say, these are way to many vasalls of the parthian king and therefore a strong violation of the roman rule and success model of divide et impera. Independent and competing client Kings in the former regions all reporting to Rome and the local propraetors in Armenia and Mesopotamia make more sense.
And what happned to Parthia? Not your new Parthia, which is Susiana. Who rules in the original Parthia east of Media?. Not talking about Bactria, Ariana, Drangiana, Arachosia, Gedrosia and Carmania. I guess they are clients of either (old) free Parthia or Persia?
I agree, that Rome should never provincialise Parthia. This is the highway to the Southwest for all mid asian steppe tribes. Just a lot of trouble. But Trajan must conquer it, just to implement a client king over there.
Last edited:
Is this your invention? I never heard about this old title optimus princeps. There was just a philosophical discussion about the so called optimus I know of.
And what happened to Hadrian, who was Trajans chief Commander in the East, when Trajan died?
I am afraid you need much more than 3 new legions. Severus needed 2 more legions for just northern Mesopotamia. You can't control all these new provinces and client kings with just 3 legions. But don't worry, Mesopotamia is very rich and can feed and pay a lot of legions. I say 6-8 would be needed. One of many reasons why Hadrian stopped that adventure. Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia not because he was a bad general, but because he was a very good and experienced general. Plus a great statesman.
Interesting move. So how he became a civilian?
You are sooo right! I am curious how this mess in the East far far away from Rome will end.
The idea about a Praefectura Orientis and a co-emperor in the East sounds like late empire. So how do you plan to avoid the issues coming with such a multi-emperorship? Btw, a "viceroy" is called a "caesar" these times.
Too bad, that Flavius Vespasianus already granted citizenship to all civitates in Iberia 30 years earlier.
So forget about it. And forget about the discussion here about Caracallas Constitutio Antoniana. At this point of time almost all western provinces had roman citizens rights already: Hispania, Africa, Gallia, Sicilia, Alpes, ....
Just the eastern provinces were not that interested in roman citizen rights on a broad scale. The greeks were always convinced, that their local greek citizenships are much more valuable anyways. Just the local elite used it by obvious reasons.
Last edited:
I thought the Senate officially declared him "optimus princeps"
That's actually a good point.
Also very true.
I don't think it's that much of a problem. Trajan could very easily be looking back at Augustus for precedence in granting several close allies essentially the powers of an emperor. The problem arises when Trajan dies if he hasn't clearly marked someone out as being his successor.
Huh, didn't know this. Interesting.
Interesting, you learn something new everyday. Then what were the practical effects of Caracalla's decree?
All these new roman citizens had to pay the death tax now. And Caracalla increased it from 5% to 10%.
You could say, that now, these former provincials should not pay land tax and head tax anymore like other romans. But thats wrong. Just Italy and some italian colonies and civitates foederatae were free of land tax. Romans always had to pay land tax, for properties in the provinces.
I guess Cassius Dio is pretty right about this financial manoeuver.
The effects on recruitment are overestimated imho. Most western provinces had already roman citizens rights. And some tribes were fully roman in the meantime, because their fathers were auxiliary soldiers. Just look at the Batavians. Scholars estimate that according to the special contract (foedus) they had, about 40% of the adult males went into the army. So how many batavians do you think were still non-romans 212 AD?
PS: 10 % death tax? I will never understand, how the roman empire could fall with such low taxes.
Last edited:
Of course Trajan could be able to manage it. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus are a perfect example, how it could work, if two good and not so greedy guys work together. Even if they were fully different regarding character and life-style. Aurelius was more the traditional guy like Octavianus and Lucius the bon vivant like Antonius. They even did not like each other very much. But obviously they respected each other and were not willing to become a murder, usurper or tyrann.
But honestly, how often, did it work like this? And how often did it not work? Latest after multi-emperorship was instutionialized. If Trajan starts with that model in 117, I bet it becomes the rule. Or somebody finds another way to rule the East behind the syrian deserts far far away from Rome.
I am just afraid, that such a co-emperor sitting in Seleucia surrounded by oriental feudals all day long is pretty soon convinced to become the new King of Kings. And now you got not an usurpation, but a super-usurpation.
Did I mention that Hadrian was a very wise man?
As more as I think about a roman expansion in the East, the only option I see is to smash the parthian empire up to the iranian deserts, implement a lot of client kings and repeat this process every 20-30 years. Same would help with the germans. btw
Last edited:
The roman senate was fully pissed off about the fact, that this emperor wasted a lot of the loot, he got in Dacia, with this desastrous adventure and mission impossible in Mesopotamia. Actually the war was already lost, when Trajan was on his way back to Rome and died in Minor Asia. Half of Armenia was conquered back already by the parthians. Quietus was busy in northern Mesopotamia, because almost all cities revolted. Hatra was free and safe anyways. And the glorious parthian client king in Ctesiphon was preparing to fight a losing battle.
Mommsen the great german historian of the 19th century was once asked, why he never mentioned Trajan or Antoninus Pius in his books. Mommsen answered: "Antoninus was nice, and Trajanus was brave. Thats all I can say about these two guys".
Well Mommsen was a political philosopher and historian. Never much impressed about conquests without a political plan.
PS: Nowadays we know, that Mommsen and others were a victim of the unreliable dating methods of their times. A lot of important political and adminstrative measures, which were dated to the "great reformers" like Claudius or Hadrian were indead done by not so popular guys like Nero, Caligula, Nerva or Trajan. So looking from the 21st century to the roman empire, Trajan was not that bad as a statesman. Just some keywords about his measures or implementations on a broader scale: curator alimentorum, advocatus fisci, beneficarius stationarius, centurio regionarius.
Last edited:
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
I see... Maybe I can defend my main points on Trajan.
Some modern historians, yes. But I think somebody like him simply deserves praises and compliments.
He besieged it, and now think of a Roman emperor with some legions sieging
a city. Why shouldn't he succeed...?
I made some mistakes here. E.g., I wrote that Edessa should be Assyria's capital. This is simply false. Edessa lays between the Euphrates and the Tigris, so it is basically part of Mesopotamia. The reasons for it's creation are simple: basically, Mesopotamia is to become Roman. But a province Mesopotamia, stretching from Arbela to Edessa is simply to big to be governed by one man. That's why I divided norther Mesopotamia in two parts, one encompassing Osrhoene, the banks of the Euphrates and the city of Seleucia, the other formed out of Corduene and Adiabene and centred around of Arbela.
I'm not writing a story of Trajans campaigns and their failure. That can be found in ervery book on Roman history, and I couldn't doubt you read many of them. The maps also I mostly... exaggerated, and the drawer most of the time doesn't exaggerate the size of the Parthian empire. Regardless, I'm writing a TL about the Kitos War failing (actually, he is only delayed), and I don't doubt that a militarly competent man like Trajan can efficiently use the new means becoming available to achieve some ambitionous goals.
Just like Napoleon wasn't directly deported to Saint Helena, you can't depose the king of kings and make him become a street sweeper. Maybe he wil try to regain his ancient position. And then, his familiy will deal with this problem using the oriental way.
Further up, you criticize the formation of one province of eastern northern Mesopotamia (Assyria). And now it's wrong to create one...?
The tariff revenues from the maritime trade to India (and China) are just to tempting for an empire having to pay a huge amount of hungry and expactant soldiers...
Right, right. In spite of that, you can't get all at once. Rome has to slowly disrupt the ties between Susanian Parthia and their vassals, until they can officialy become "independent" and "free"..
To begin with, at this point, the Romans haven't the strength to invade or even effectively hold these territories. Then, there is our friend Vologases III the usurper, who rules the east of the empire, claiming to be the only and rightful Parthian Shah. He didn't recognize Osroes and he won't recognize the Roman puppet Parthamaspates. Most of the eastern realms you mentioned are thus vassals of this "independant" Parthia, while the western part of Iran has to live with Rome and its rules.
Also, as you already said, the Romans have to accept the Parthian rule in central Asia, not only because they can't challenge them, but also because they are useful buffer against the Kushan and the nomadic tribes of the steppe.
Some modern historians, yes. But I think somebody like him simply deserves praises and compliments.
He besieged it, and now think of a Roman emperor with some legions sieging
a city. Why shouldn't he succeed...?
I made some mistakes here. E.g., I wrote that Edessa should be Assyria's capital. This is simply false. Edessa lays between the Euphrates and the Tigris, so it is basically part of Mesopotamia. The reasons for it's creation are simple: basically, Mesopotamia is to become Roman. But a province Mesopotamia, stretching from Arbela to Edessa is simply to big to be governed by one man. That's why I divided norther Mesopotamia in two parts, one encompassing Osrhoene, the banks of the Euphrates and the city of Seleucia, the other formed out of Corduene and Adiabene and centred around of Arbela.
I'm not writing a story of Trajans campaigns and their failure. That can be found in ervery book on Roman history, and I couldn't doubt you read many of them. The maps also I mostly... exaggerated, and the drawer most of the time doesn't exaggerate the size of the Parthian empire. Regardless, I'm writing a TL about the Kitos War failing (actually, he is only delayed), and I don't doubt that a militarly competent man like Trajan can efficiently use the new means becoming available to achieve some ambitionous goals.
Just like Napoleon wasn't directly deported to Saint Helena, you can't depose the king of kings and make him become a street sweeper. Maybe he wil try to regain his ancient position. And then, his familiy will deal with this problem using the oriental way.
Further up, you criticize the formation of one province of eastern northern Mesopotamia (Assyria). And now it's wrong to create one...?
The tariff revenues from the maritime trade to India (and China) are just to tempting for an empire having to pay a huge amount of hungry and expactant soldiers...
Right, right. In spite of that, you can't get all at once. Rome has to slowly disrupt the ties between Susanian Parthia and their vassals, until they can officialy become "independent" and "free"..
To begin with, at this point, the Romans haven't the strength to invade or even effectively hold these territories. Then, there is our friend Vologases III the usurper, who rules the east of the empire, claiming to be the only and rightful Parthian Shah. He didn't recognize Osroes and he won't recognize the Roman puppet Parthamaspates. Most of the eastern realms you mentioned are thus vassals of this "independant" Parthia, while the western part of Iran has to live with Rome and its rules.
Also, as you already said, the Romans have to accept the Parthian rule in central Asia, not only because they can't challenge them, but also because they are useful buffer against the Kushan and the nomadic tribes of the steppe.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
That was an official title as I remember.
Hadrian, chief commander in the east? He returned to Rome with Trajan, while Mesopotamia is commited to Lusius Quietus. He is much more experienced.
My maxim in this TL is: modesty. Don't exaggerate. At first, I wrote 5 legions, but I feared that this is too much. Now, I'll gladly change it into 8 new legions mustered after 117.
As long as he doesn't command an army, he is a civilian
. And he is in general against expansion and against the Mesopotamian campaign, as his reign proved it. He has some military skills, but he is surely surpassed by militaristic warmongers like Lusius Quietus."Caesar" was, in these times, used for the future emperor/the successor.
So I'll change it back to the whole empire.
Last edited:
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
So, what do you think of a controlling assembly (appointed by the emperor) supervising the prefect's acting and vetoing if necessary?
The negative image you have of Traianus imperator makes Hadrian looking like a splendid man having saved the empire from some completly useless conquests. Long live the emperor Hadrian.
About that,couldn't the Romans levy auxiliaries from the client kings when it's necessary?Also,wouldn't the four legions that were originally used to garrison Syria be deployed to Mesopotamia.Another thing is that the legions generally gets accompanied by a equal number of auxiliaries,so these so be factored in as well.
IIRC Hadrian was Legatus Augusti pro Praetore of Syria, when Trajan went home to Rome. And this governor was responsible for the entire new east and most of the legions. One of his commanders, I guess I mixed this guy up with Lusius in my post above, was still fighting the revolting cities in Northern Mesopotamia. Lusius Quietus was governor of Judaea at this point of time.
When Trajan died in Minor Asia, he probably had not appointed an heir so far. His wife claimed, that Trajan appointed Hadrian, the commander of the biggest roman army of these times, on his deathbed. A very clever move, which probably avoided another civil war.
Correct me if I am wrong. However, it makes sense to get rid of Hadrian and go for Lusius. It is just your wording, which declassifies Hadrian as a pure civilian, and neglects his high militarian rank and position at this point of time. I would like to read a bit more about how and when Hadrian was taken out of the game. This would make the story more realistic.
I am not sure if you need to raise 8 new legions. Some of the syrian legions, could be moved to Mesopotamia. On the other hand, Armenia needs legions, too. Of course, as soon as the jewish revolt starts you need every syrian legion onsite. This revolt was not just in Palaestina, but in the entire orient.
In a final stage I could see the following distribution of legions (plus auxilia):
Armenia 2
Cappadocia 1
Northern Mesopotamia 2
Babylonia 4
Syria 2
Judaea 1
Perhaps 1-2 additional legions as a mobile force of the new praefectus orientalis.
Of course you have to send the western legions back. So you do the math.
Yes, and due to the fact, that Quietus son is adopted by the new Augustus and co-emperor Hadrian his name changes automatically including "Caesar". An adult Caesar often acted as "viceroy". It was his damn job. Caesar was a name, a title, and a kind of military rank above legatus augusti pro praetore.
You already introduced a praefectura orientis as supreme command of the east. Why not introducing a praefectura gallorum for Gallia and Britannia? And of course in a next step also a praefectura illyricum to cover the Danube border. The interesting question is, if these prafecturae are all ruled by Caesars in future, like in the late empire or by a new high general rank above legatus augusti pro praetore. Remember the 4 praefects of the late empire were not generals but civil adminstrators.
This question is not trivial. With Caesars you go the late empire route already in the 2nd century. With (usually) non royal supreme commanders for the 3 big fronts, things could develop fully differently.
Oh god...optimus princeps. Why the hell do I keep thinking "Trajan=Optimus Prime"???
Freedom is the right of all uh...Roman citizens, especially landowning ones.
Freedom is the right of all uh...Roman citizens, especially landowning ones.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Hadrian taken out of the game? He is imperial heir after all. He was just, after occupying the position of Syrian Legatus augusti (thank you for the information), recalled to Rome where he waits for the takeover of central power (death of Trajan...). The thing is that Trajan has to live on (without taking Hadrian out) until it is no longer possible for Hadrian to relinquish Mesopotamia without triggering severe political resistance. A Lusius Quietus as a strong prafectus will somehow deter Hadrianus from doing this and destructing Trajan's lifework.
I'll think about it. Where do you get the exact numbers and positions of the legions?
So, Trajan is Augustus, Hadrian is by now Caesar and adopted son of the emperor, Lusius Quietus is praefectus orientis, Quietus' son was adopted by Hadrian and will soon be Caesar. A bit confusing... I admit.
I quote my own text:
A Praefectus Galliarum or Praefectus Occidentis (analogy to praefectus orientis) will be integrated in the line of succession and in the overall adminstration of the empire. He will be responsible of the Rhine and Caledonian front.
Yes, but there were similar positions under Diocletian - and as I understand it, the defense of the empire ws much more effective when organized by different emperors, since they were closer to the front...
You are joking, I'm joking:
Officially, at this stage (and OTL until the final disappearance of the comitia in the 3rd century) the Roman empire is a democracy. The election of the magistrates are confirmed by the assemblies, the legislative power is exercised only by the comitia and the democratic concilium plebis. The power of the aristocracy is broken, while a completely equal citizen is, out of a free decision of the people, Princeps and has some powers (imperium proconsulare) to secure the peace in the empire and to protect the simple inhabitants of the empire with its tribunica potestas.
Any ideas for the name of Lusius Quietus' son?
And will Antinous still fall in love with Hadrian? What do you think?
Well it is a mixture of historical evidence and a forecast based on this new situation:
Cappadocia 1
Initially this province had no legions but just auxilia, later it became 1 legion. So I guess, this is enough.
Syria 2
Syria had 4 legions most of the time. But without the Euphrat border 2 should be enough, even 1 is ok to secure the arabian border. But if the jews revolt. Syria always had to send troops.
Judaea 1
Initially Judaea had no legions. Later it had 1 legion. In bad times even 2. But with support from Syria and the new province of Arabia, 1 legion should be enough. Btw, don't let Trajan forget to estbalish this new province Arabia. It has a lot of potential.
Armenia 2
Armenia is a new border province, so 2 maybe 3 legions. But as long as Media is a friendly client state 3 would be overpowered. Armenia could always get support from Cappadocia, Northern Mesopotamia and even Syria.
Northern Mesopotamia 2
Severus put 2 legions in this province. Now the south is roman, too. So 1 could be enough. But together with Armenia and Cappadaocia you have a nice force of 5 legions covering northern Media
Babylonia 4
The south behind the syrian desert needs a strong force to at least survive until support from the north arrives. Perhaps 6 legions would be better. The usual parthian / persian army was 50-60.000 men strong. This matches with about 5-6 legions (plus auxilia). I would go for 4, because legions don't grow on trees.
IRL you had about 6-7 legions in this region. Now you got 12. These are 6 new legions. Mesopotamia is very fertile and should be able to supply and pay these new legions. And Armenia contributes, too. I also expect tributes from the client states. And don't forget the additional trade profit with India without the former middle-man. After all I do not expect a big net gain for Rome after all costs. But they get a lot more trouble.
Last edited:
This would be far more economically efficient without Britain hogging 2-3 legions.