Axel Wers

I read some articles about this. During 3rd century discipline in army decreased which was influenced by marriages too.

Romans had some plans for territory behind Hadrian's wall. Maybe settling or overcome and defeat tribes who lived there. Antonine wall had enclose this area and later, after total romans victory, should be north border of empire. But Romans weren't able to pacify this area. It seemed war with tribes would be longer and some other parts of empire were more important (eastern borders). So military campaign failed and Romans abandoned Antonine wall.

I think northern part of modern Scotland wasn't interresting for Romans for few reasons: foggy mountains, bad weather and no cities suitable for looting. All military campaigns would be worthless.

9 AD - Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Romans there lost three legions as we know. In my opinion probably here started some later issues in roman-germanic relations. This lost battle had a much greater impact than it might seem. Once for all divided western Europe to "roman" and "german" part. Augustus had some plans for romanization of Germans. If he would be successful he could gain lot of settlers and good warriors too. Rhine border would be secured. Some legions stayed on this border could be moved to eastern parts of empire and help to defeat Parthians and maybe later in future Persians. Sense of this lost battle in 9 AD we could see few centuries later. Stillicho's withdrawal of legions from Rhine border weakened defence and german tribes could swarm into Western part of empire.

Hi Viggen, thanks I did some similar quizzes and reached score as Traianus or Antoninius Pius too

I thinks yes. It's possible that fall of Constantinople helped to rise of Renaissance and West could move forward. This is one of the example of Roman Empire legacy.

Yes, this is my opinion too. "Justinian's plague" was one of the worst plagues in roman history. And worse was, that plague hit practically just empire in its borders, but not 'enemies' behind borders (for example Arabs on the south). Plague dramatically weakened economy of empire, what influenced power of army and defence. In some parts of empire died almost half of people.

Mainly Justinian, Heraclius and Basil II. Justinian (or rather his successful generals) gained again many parts of former Western Roman Empire. Heraclius saved whole empire from massive persian attacks and stabilised situation after bad rule of Phocas who almost ruined whole empire. Basil II was probably last emperor of really superpower. After his reign empire gradually decreased into local power, vasal state and city state finally.

First to say "Byzantine empire" never existed. It was still Roman Empire. Byzantine Empire is a modern term, which had marked the transformation of antic empire into medieval empire. I think era which began with emperor Heraclius reign could be marked as Byzantine empire because empire was losing definetely its roman character. Heraclius introduced greek language as official language instead of latin. Romans definetely ended wars against Persians, but had to face islam expansion from south which changed political situation in many parts of empire.

Based on know sources Iulius Caesar never recognised Caesarion as his son. This is probably main reason why Caesarion's political influence was only little. If any.

Iulius Caesar (100%) Paulus (92%) Hadrianus (87%) Augustus (82%) Scipio Africanus (73%)

Hard to tell how Europe would look today if Eastern Roman Empire would fell 12 centuries ago. We know Eastern Roman Empire was strong shield against islamic expansion in eastern Europe and this is one of the reasons why muslims took rather north Africa than Anatolia and Balkan. Visigoths in Hispania slowed muslim expansion but only Franks were able to stop them. Without Byzantium it would be probably harder for Franks.

Generally I can agree with this list. Maybe Valerianus would be better choice instead of Arcadius, because his failed military campaign against Persians was not only the worst defeat during 3rd century crisis, but the biggest shame for empire too.

Commodus ended Marcomanic wars, maybe for this reason his reign could be more stable, more peaceful respectively. But it's weird why Commodus withdrew from Danube when german tribes were almost defeated? Maybe Commodus didn't know how many barbarians lived in today parts of Czech or Slovakia, so marcomanic wars would be "infinitely". Withdrawal of roman legions from northern parts of Danube river allowed restoration of germanic tribes who lived there. Severian dynasty wasn't very stable era in empire for more reasons: During reign of Septimius Severus raised influence of roman army. Caracalla hated Geta. It's not worse when is rivality between emperors. Elagabalus was very influenced by oriental mysticism. Lot of Roman citizens didn't like it. And Alexander Severus wasn't very successful in his eastern military campaigns. For this reason was murdered because unable emperor is evil for empire. But after this I must to say that Severian era was much more stable than era after Alexander. That know every.

Augustus' era was good era. But his successors were not very successful. Emperors like Caligula or Nero would be killed very fast in 3rd century crisis. They had only luck, that Roman Empire in their years was very strong. Then Vespasianus' era was relatively good era, Titus including. But not Dominitianus. And finally era since Traianus, through Hadrianus to Antoninus Pius. This is the best era in Roman Empire for me. Marcus Aurelius had to face lot of problems already. He was probably last emperors in the best times. With Commodus best years ended for good.

When Persian Empire was restored after 500 years, why Roman Empire shouldn't? But I think it's little impossible in this time. It's not good age for restore any imperium. I read articles that European union is something like modern Roman Empire, but there is lot of differencies. New Roman Empire should be restored from Italy, but in this case Italy should be strong (very strong) european superpower, what is not. Germany has better economy, Britain has better (maybe) army etc. But in future things can be changed.