Editor says, what if Galerius had defeated the Persians? muses Richard Roper. Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This article is part of the Generals thread.
Alternate Historian and 1 other(s) like this article.
|Share this Article on: ||Myspace|
Editor says, in this scenario Diocletian cannot humiliate him for losing the battle. As he now gets prestige from his victory, he quickly captures and kills Diocletian and makes himself chief Emperor. Diocletian and his "arrangements" for dividing the Empire, four emperors, a military government and an orderly succession go out the window, the period of civil war in which Constantine comes to power, and subsequent coups and civils wars, particularly in gaul and toops removed from Britain for these coups bu ambitious generals wouls not take place. We are thus faced with the possibilty of the survival of the Western Empire. Diocletian, having set up his system of 2 Augusti - the 2 Emperors, and 2 Caesars - the Assistant Emperors with an order of sucession, then retired with his co-Emperor into private life and initiated his succession system. Civil war followed.Galerius becomes Galerius the Great.
So no Civil wars in the 4th century with multiple competing emperors, no army in nthe Western Empire virtually ceasing to exist because of the, no generals from Britian removing troops to set themselves up,, no intruguing with the barbarians, so no barbarian hordes crossing the frozen Rhine in dec 410. No Adianople and the Hunsaare defeated in Dacia north of the Danube. No loss of the West, so no long Persian wars in the 6th century so no hugely rich Mecca as the neutral power all the trade went through, so no rise of Islam. Editorial comments are entered in [light green] typeface.