Crisis of the Third Century
The third-century crisis conventionally designates 235–284, between Severus Alexander’s death and Diocletian’s accession. Frequent changes of emperor, civil warfare, invasions, epidemics and monetary difficulties affected regions differently. Historians debate the crisis’s causes, scale and regional boundaries.
Its background includes the wars following Commodus’s death in 192 and the army’s growing political importance under the Severans. Septimius Severus defeated rivals in 193–197; higher military expenditure supported his power while creating strain. Caracalla ruled alone after Geta’s murder in 211 and died in 217.
Macrinus ruled in 217–218, Elagabalus in 218–222 and Severus Alexander in 222–235. Their downfall involved armies, court coalitions and warfare, not merely personal morality. The rise of the Sasanians changed the eastern confrontation. Soldiers’ assassination of Severus Alexander in 235 conventionally begins the next phase of instability.
The Roman Empire before the crisis of the 3rd century ADThe first stage of the crisis
In 235 and the following decades, frequent changes of emperor, revolts and warfare severely affected armies and civilians. The exact number of rulers depends on whether regional usurpers are counted. Not every emperor died violently: deaths from disease also occurred.
238 is called the Year of the Six Emperors. Gordian III ruled in 238–244 and died during warfare against the Sasanians; accounts differ over the circumstances. He was followed by Philip the Arab (244–249) and Decius (249–251). Decius died fighting the Goths at Abrittus in 251.
Pressure on the Danube frontier increased, but the final abandonment of the province of Dacia belongs to Aurelian in the 270s, not to a single decision in 242. Military command changed gradually: contingents from several provinces could be combined for a campaign under a dux. The permanent late Roman system of commands was not already fully established in the early 240s.
The second stage of the crisis
The second stage of the crisis, which has become the culmination, is already characterized by continuous wars waged simultaneously with several opponents. During this period, Gallienus ruled (253-268). At the same time, the emperor, who was at the head of the central government, was forced to both repel the attacks of external enemies and fight the Roman troops supporting the usurpers. The western part of the empire suffered from constant invasions by the Alemanni and Franks, the former even penetrating into Italy in their raids, and the latter ravaging Roman territory as far as southern Spain; the sea coast was ravaged by the Saxons, and the Marcomanni managed to get Gallienus to cede part of Upper Pannonia. The eastern provinces of the state suffered no less damage from the invasions of the Goths, Persians and other nationalities. At this stage, the process of disintegration of the empire takes place, when the Gallic Empire and the Palmyra Kingdom fall away. Gallienus took decisive steps to reform not only the army, but also partly the management system. Although he did not manage to solve all the problems that confronted him, however, as a result of his reforms, which did not affect the foundations of the Roman military organization, but significantly modified it, a more mobile army was created, capable of responding in a timely manner to external and internal threats.
The third stage of the crisis
After Gallienus died in 268, Claudius II, Aurelian and their successors achieved important military successes. Claudius defeated the Goths but died of disease in 270. Aurelian (270–275) repelled invasions of Italy, restored control of eastern provinces and subdued the Gallic Empire. Construction of Rome’s new defensive wall began under him; Dacia north of the Danube was abandoned.
Following further coups and Carus’s Persian war, Diocletian was proclaimed emperor in 284. His accession conventionally marks the crisis’s end. Reforms helped strengthen the state without eliminating civil wars and frontier conflicts for an entire century.
The Roman Empire after the crisis of the 3rd century ADResults
The crisis affected regions differently. Warfare and epidemics caused destruction and population loss, while army expenditure increased fiscal pressure. Lower precious-metal content in coins and price changes complicated currency circulation. The state increasingly relied on supplies and taxation in kind.
Trade, cities and monetary transactions nevertheless did not disappear throughout the empire. Archaeology and coin finds reveal different regional trajectories. Late Roman changes were not simply a return to subsistence exchange but a restructuring of military, fiscal and administrative systems.
Related topics
Literature and sources
Interested in Ancient Rome beyond reading? Join Legio X Fretensis or explore our reenactment directions.
