Ave!

[Nathan Ross]

I am confident that the first real division starts with the military anarchy.

I take your point about Trajan being an anomaly, but I still don't see why the 'military anarchy' would represent a major change in the way the empire operated. There was certainly a lot of change at the top, but in order to effect more coherent changes you'd need a stable and lasting administration, which was fairly lacking during this period!

Most of the changes that we do see appear to have their origins in the Severan era. Macrinus was the first emperor from the Equestrian order, we see long-range legion detachments and brigaded cavalry detachments under Severus, along with the appointment of equestrians to high military commands formerly held by senators, and succession attempts by the western provinces too. The religious legislation of Decius and Valerian also has its roots in the later 2nd century, as do the attempts at dynastic father/son co-rulership.

Was Gordian III's administration really that different to Severus Alexander's? Was Macrinus ruling a very different empire to Decius, or even to Carus?

Compared with the distinct differences we see under the Tetrarchy, the 'third century crisis' period was, I still believe, the closing stage of the 'middle empire', not the beginning of some new era, nor of 'late antiquity'.

For the Votadini, it is mainly a reconstruction.

I've seen references to the 'Votadini client kingdom' all over the place, but there never seems to be any support presented for it! It could have existed, although I don't think there's evidence enough to show continued occupation of Traprain Law, or the existence of a settled Votadini kingship. Rome could certainly have given them subsidies (aka bribes!), but they gave them to all sorts of barbarian people across the borders, without any implication of clientship.