Mapping the Crisis of the Third Century
By John Nicols
Crises and the Roman Empire: Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Nijmegen, June 20-24, 2006), edited by Olivier Hekster, Gerda de Kleijn and Daniëlle Slootjes (Brill, 2007)
The Greek philosopher and sophist Protagoras would surely not mind this reuse of one of his most famous statements. “Concerning the crisis of the third century, I have no means of knowing whether there was one or not, or of what sort of a crisis it may have been. Many things prevent knowledge including the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life.” Within these proceedings one finds striking disagreement about whether there was a crisis as the term has been conventionally understood. And, if there was one, when did it begin?
Dictionaries define our word crisis as: “An unstable condition, as inpolitical, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abruptor decisive change”. During the years 235 to 285, the Roman Empire surely did enter a period of instability. The patterns of ‘emperor making and breaking’ and of barbarian invasion during this period mark in my estimation the characteristics of a major political crisis. Indeed, when one compares the overall stability of the Roman imperial system and government of the mid-second to that of the mid-third century,the differences are readily apparent both in terms of leadership and defense.
In sum, that there was a ‘crisis’ is a fundamental assumption of this paper; but it is also a demonstrable proposition. I am moreover especially concerned here not only how to understand the nature of the crisis as a complex set of related events, but also how to explain the complexities of the crisis to others, especially to students.
Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)
