Marcus Aurelius establishes Marcomannia

[DominusNovus]

Before dying, Marcus Aurelius wanted to be done with the obnoxious Marcomannic wars by just annexing the entire area, presumably with the Caparthians as the border (if anyone has any better info on what the exact territory would be, I haven't found a precise picture of his plans). So, lets assume that he's able to establish his provinces of Marcomannia and Sarmatia.

While they would be a strain upon the resources of the state, I can think of some key advantages:
- They'd shield Dacia to some extent, filling in the gap between the Dacian frontier and the Danubian frontier west of Dacia.
- Mountains are, generally speaking, pretty good borders, Roman preferences for rivers notwithstanding
- The length of the border itself would be reduced by a small amount (more importantly, it just wouldn't be longer).

On the downside:
- The border would be further away from Rome and, thus, harder to control.
- The border would not be based as much on an easily supplied major trade route, like the Danubian border was; one major advantage of using major rivers for borders is that you can just ship men and material along to any given garrison. As a corollary, the Danube is not only cheaper, but also quicker to reach.
- The newly-conquered territory would require further pacification and Romanization (though, it is worth noting that the Romans were pretty successful in Romanizing the Marcomanni beyond their borders over the next few centuries).


Now, presuming that Marcus Aurelius makes this stick, what effects might we see in the coming years?

 

[Mikestone8]

Marcomannia lost again in the 3C crisis, along with Dacia. Thereafter, much as OTL with some names changed.

 

[DominusNovus]

Marcomannia lost again in the 3C crisis, along with Dacia. Thereafter, much as OTL with some names changed.

Would they necessarily have been lost? Would there necessarily be the same crisis? When the crisis of the third century occurred, and the empire split up, the Emperors 'in Rome' were able to focus their efforts on the Danube frontier almost single-mindedly, since the other factions were manning the Rhine and Persian frontiers.

 

[Mikestone8]

Would they necessarily have been lost? Would there necessarily be the same crisis? When the crisis of the third century occurred, and the empire split up, the Emperors 'in Rome' were able to focus their efforts on the Danube frontier almost single-mindedly, since the other factions were manning the Rhine and Persian frontiers.

The Empire didn't split up permanently until after the 3C Crisis.

As for whether it still happens, why not? There's no obvious reason why having a couple of extra provinces on the Danube should prevent it. Why assume anything else?

 

[DominusNovus]

The Empire didn't split up permanently until after the 3C Crisis.

During, more like it.

As for whether it still happens, why not? There's no obvious reason why having a couple of extra provinces on the Danube should prevent it. Why assume anything else?

They may be more defensible, there may be fewer potential invaders, Dacia might be more easily held onto, the new provinces might prove to be useful staging points for other attacks on the Germanic tribes, or even other annexations...

Or, on the other hand, the extra exertion in taking the region might weaken the Empire enough to cause a whole new list of problems...

Beyond the possibility of butterflying the whole chaos of the 3rd century away.

 

[Agricola]

As you already mentioned, the two new provinces Marcomannia and Sarmatia will not shorten the border that much, if you compare it to the Rhine-Danube border without Dacia. Even a border Elbe - Sudeten Moutains - Carpatian Mountains - Lower Danube, which was perhaps Augustus grand strategy, if he ever had one, is not that much shorter. It is about 20%.

The real deal with conquering Germania is not a shorter border (if not up to Vistula), but making the Germans German-Romans over time, like they did it with the Gauls, the Spanish and others. German Romans means less barbarian enemies and more roman soldiers and citizens paying taxes. But in 180 AD it is too late for that benefit.

Historians claim, that after conquest the romans usually implemented a military government for 3 generations until they started to establish an official province. The exception was Germania Magna and this accelerated provincialization failed badly.

Historians also claim based on vague ancient sources, that the Marcomanns and Quadi started this war, because they were under heavy pressure from other german tribes coming from the North. Actually the Marcomanni asked for settlement in the empire before they attacked. Most probably the Vandali, Burgundi and such were moving, because they were under pressure themselves by the Goths moving south to Sarmatia. Perhaps a change in climate played a role. We don't know exactly.

That means, if the romans occupy Marcomannia and Sarmatia, they will immediately face trouble at their new northern border: the relatively open Sudeten- and West-Carpathian-Mountains. A border which is perhaps not worse than the Danube, but much less known and fortified yet. And this with not pacified Marcomanni, Quadi and Sarmates behind them. So I can understand Commodus, to not realise this plan (if this plan ever existed).

Perhaps you might explain, how these 2 new provinces butterfly the 3rd century crisis away. The main reason for this crisis was, that multiple factors became detrimental together:

- the multi-front war against stronger enemies than before (Sassanids, Franks, Alemanns, Goths, ...)
- the economical and social issues due to ongoing structural changes, additionally worsened by the plague
- the political system of the principate which was obviously not able to resist major pressure

I don't see, how the two provinces might help to solve these issues.

 

[DominusNovus]

Isn't the whole point of the butterfly effect that it can't really be explained away? Unpredictable situations arise and can go in any direction. The crisis, itself, wasn't inevitable up until the assassination of Alexander Severus (if he dies a natural death in his 50s-70s, you're looking at an Empire that avoids civil war for another 3 decades or so, while being pressed from the outside).

I'm just pointing out that, with a half century lead up, all sorts of things could change.

 

[katchen]

Well for one thing, it gives the Romans the silver deposits of the Hartz Mountains, the Ore Mountains and the Carpathians. More legal tender is always helpful for a government in crisis, particularly currency that IS NOT debased.
And incorporating the Sarmatians into the Empire may well revolutionize Roman warfare. For the first time, Rome is incorporating heavy cavalry, cathaphracti WITH STIRRUPS!!
If the Romans can't learn enough new Central Asian tactics from the Sarmatians to conquer the Vandals and the Goths and the Saxons and the Suevi and the Langobards now and withstand the Sassanids and later the Huns with the Sarmatians fully incorporated within the Empire before 200AD, the Romans don't deserve to survive.
So yes, the Marcomanni are very important. The Sarmatians are even more important for Rome.

 

[Mikestone8]

Isn't the whole point of the butterfly effect that it can't really be explained away? Unpredictable situations arise and can go in any direction. The crisis, itself, wasn't inevitable up until the assassination of Alexander Severus (if he dies a natural death in his 50s-70s, you're looking at an Empire that avoids civil war for another 3 decades or so, while being pressed from the outside).

I'm just pointing out that, with a half century lead up, all sorts of things could change.

Or things could go to pot earlier - maybe as soon as Aurelius dies. That's at least as likely.

And even before 235, the reigns were getting quite short. Caracalla lasted six years, Macrinus only one, Elagabalus four. All three had died by violence. Alexander's reign of 13 years was already longer than most. and even had he escaped death in 235, there's little reason to suppose it would be more than a stay of execution.

 

[Agricola]

The crisis, itself, wasn't inevitable up until the assassination of Alexander Severus (if he dies a natural death in his 50s-70s, you're looking at an Empire that avoids civil war for another 3 decades or so, while being pressed from the outside).

Why should Alexander survive for another 3 decades? The basic reasons for usurpations, as described in this thread are still there and the external and internal situation gets worse.

 

[Agricola]

Well for one thing, it gives the Romans the silver deposits of the Hartz Mountains, the Ore Mountains and the Carpathians. More legal tender is always helpful for a government in crisis, particularly currency that IS NOT debased.

At this point of time, the problem was not the debasement of the silver currency anymore, but the amount of money in circulation. The romans have to reduce and adapt the amount of money and therefore the expense of the state to the reduced economic output. The romans did never understand that, because ancient science had never an economic branch. The rock-solid gold solidus of Constantin did not fully stop inflation. The inflation of silver currency was still in place until in the 5th century. And this was still a desaster for regional economy and trade. Then an emperor (Majoranus?) decided by accident, that it does not make sense to mint silver and copper coins anymore. And big surprise, the inflation stopped. The ERE copied that measure.

And incorporating the Sarmatians into the Empire may well revolutionize Roman warfare. For the first time, Rome is incorporating heavy cavalry, cathaphracti WITH STIRRUPS!!

The sarmatians had no stirrups as well as the huns had none. IIRC current state of science is, that the stirrups were introduced to Europe by the Avars in the 6th century. And the romans started already to incorporate cataphracts into their cavalry under Trajan.

So yes, the Marcomanni are very important. The Sarmatians are even more important for Rome.

Of course they are, as every german tribe would be very very helpful. Look at the Iazyges Marc Aurel deported to Britain. Unfortunately they have not the time to integrate them onsite at the Danube, if they start end of the the 2nd century to do so, as mentioned above.

 

[DominusNovus]

Why should Alexander survive for another 3 decades? The basic reasons for usurpations, as described in this thread are still there and the external and internal situation gets worse.

My point was simply how easily things can swing one way or another.

 

[DominusNovus]

Or things could go to pot earlier - maybe as soon as Aurelius dies. That's at least as likely.

Things certainly could go directly to pot, I'm curious if there's anything specific that these conquests could alter.

 

[DominusNovus]

At this point of time, the problem was not the debasement of the silver currency anymore, but the amount of money in circulation. The romans have to reduce and adapt the amount of money and therefore the expense of the state to the reduced economic output. The romans did never understand that, because ancient science had never an economic branch. The rock-solid gold solidus of Constantin did not fully stop inflation. The inflation of silver currency was still in place until in the 5th century. And this was still a desaster for regional economy and trade. Then an emperor (Majoranus?) decided by accident, that it does not make sense to mint silver and copper coins anymore. And big surprise, the inflation stopped. The ERE copied that measure.

Wasn't one of the key problems with Constantine's Solidus was that it could only be used for large scale transactions, making it useless for the everyday citizen?

 

[Agricola]

Wasn't one of the key problems with Constantine's Solidus was that it could only be used for large scale transactions, making it useless for the everyday citizen?

Exactly. Thats what I was trying to say

Imagine we would have hyper-inflation and the government would tell you: "Don't worry, the 1 ounce Krueger-Rand is stable"

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Marcomannia lost again in the 3C crisis, along with Dacia. Thereafter, much as OTL with some names changed.

I should point out that Dacia wasn't abandoned until the very end of the third century crisis, with Aurelian.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Or things could go to pot earlier - maybe as soon as Aurelius dies. That's at least as likely.
.

No, that's not likely at all. The soldiers, for all the blame they get for starting civil wars, like dynasties and they liked stability. That's why, when an adult Commodus succeeded Aurelius, there wasn't a peep. It's also why future emperors like the Severans tried to legitimize their rule in a way by using the Antonine name.

 

[bm79]

If the Marcomanni and Sarmates are facing pressure from the north and east from other Germanic tribes, then what if Marcus Aurelius were to, instead of denying them entrance into Roman territory, agree to establish Marcomannia and Sarmatia as client kingdoms and extend Roman protection to their northern borders? I know by this point there were few is any client kingdoms that hadn't been been provincialized, but then again at this point it's been 3 generations at least since Rome had added any new territory. It's a very traditional way of extending Roman rule to the Carpathians, and this set up adds 2-3 legions' worth of auxilliaries that won't have to be paid for out of the Roman coffers. Seems to me the easiest way to create a situation where Rome might get some benefit from this expansion as well as it not putting undo strain on Rome's already thinly stretched finances.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The Romans operated with the Germanic tribes on their border as if they were client states already. They made sure friendly leaders were in place and where possible, were paying tribute to Rome. Aurelius also tried this in the marcomanic wars but the policy failed which is why it is wars and not war.

 

[bm79]

The Romans operated with the Germanic tribes on their border as if they were client states already. They made sure friendly leaders were in place and where possible, were paying tribute to Rome. Aurelius also tried this in the marcomanic wars but the policy failed which is why it is wars and not war.

True dat. OK, so what if, when the Marcomanni ask Aurelius for permission to migrate into the Empire, what if Aurelius decides to flip the script and proposes to instead incorporate their lands as a new province? Same difference, you've a situation where the Marcomanni get what they want, Roman protection, but the Romans don't have to settle new people in their lands... Should this work, then the Sarmates could well ask for the same for their lands as they'll be facing the same pressure. It's a way of expanding the Empire further without too much overreach, to a defensible border along the central European mountain ridges, as well as keeping two important tribes on the Roman side come the 3rd c.