Marcus Aurelius establishes Marcomannia

[katchen]

hard money and hard stirrups

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.




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.



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.

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.
I'm sure you're right about that. And that's something that our contemporary Tea Party conservatives don't grasp any more than the Romans did. Yes, it's just as easy to inflate the currency by mining gold and silver and coining money as it is by printing money.

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.

That's very strange. How is it that the Parthians and the Kushans (Yuehzi) had stirrups and the Sarmatians and Huns (Zhongnu) didn't? We know the Parthians had stirrups because we read about the "Parthian shots" at Carrhae (unless of course the accounts of Carrhae were edited by later authors and anachronisms introduced, which is always possible).
Found this on a sister Forum (http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/7463-parthian-empire-vs-han-china/page-2 sted 07 October 2005 - 10:11 PM ( Borjigin Ayubarwada) "
I


Q

But...
Stirrups are crucial for accurate arrow shooting. Apparently, as someone else on our sister forum China History Forum points out a few years later (CHF has no problem with zombie threads), that is not how cathaphracts actually fight..:
avszabo http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/7463-parthian-empire-vs-han-china/page-3 3 January 2011 claims that what distinguished the Sarmatian cathaphracts from many others was it's reliance on lance charges rather than other cavalry tactics.
Lance charges would be what Sarmatian cathaphracts bring to the Roman legions if Sarmatia is incorporated into the Roman Empire by Marcus Aurelius. And a formidable

 

[Agricola]

There is no evidence, that the parthians had stirrups. But there is evidence, that a parthian shot is perfectly possible without stirrups.

Also a shock attack needs no stirrups. At least not the ancient way of shock attack with a 2-handed contus. Cruical is the saddle, as experimental archaeology showed.

The romans were world champion in copying military equipment since ages. The romans copied the sarmatian cataphract already during Trajans reign. Everything but the stirrup? And no ancient author ever mentioned them?

 

[Agricola]

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, ...

Actually, this is key for every timeline with a pacified Germania. But I would start a bit earlier.

The romans had pretty good relationships to the most german tribes beyond the Rhine after the Clades Variana and even during Germanicus' campaign.

- The Batavi and the Carnefacti, which lived partially east of the Rhine were some of Romes strongest allies. Also the Frisii were under fully control and did not participate in the Clades Variana. Even the Chauci, which lived north of the Cherusci at the north sea in todays northern Niedersachsen have been roman allies until Claudius.

- Even a bit more south the roman border of Germania inferior was not the Rhine. It was a street on the east side of the Rhine including a narrow roman territory. Germans were forbidden to settle there or cross this street. Most tribes directly behind the Rhine had contracts with Rome, e.g. the Sugambri, which were later moved into the empire.

- At the border of Germania superior the Mattiaci in the Frankfurt area were pacified. The Hermanduri living in todays Franken and Thüringen were friends of Rome. They even had the permission to easily cross the later limes to Raetia.

- The Cherusci had a lot of internal trouble after Arminius death. Finally they asked the romans for the cheruscian noble Italicus living in Rome for king. Later the romans worked together with the Langobards, which lived east of the Cherusci at the Elbe, to control the cheruscean civil wars.

- The only major threat in the first century after Germanicus were the Chatti in todays Hessen. But latest Domitian solved that militarily. Well, there was the Batavian Revolt. But this was initially a military thing between roman units and part of the roman civil war not a german war. It became one partially, by roman ignorance and other avoidable reasons, but thats another story.

With Claudius Britannia Campaign things started to get worse. The romans now really went behind the Rhine in Germania inferior and lost control over some northern tribes, first the Chauci and then the Frisii and others.

One reason might be, that the romans changed their strategy partially, when they reduced the german legions from 8 to 5. Later they reduced them even more. Add the later civil wars, which led to understrenght of most legions and auxilia at the german border and you get a hint, why the romans lost control over Germania Magna.

In the first half of the 1st century AD the romans were on a very good way to pacify and even slowly romanize Germania without a conquest. Nobody knows where this could have led, if they just continued with their former, more intensive strategy. In the 2nd century the rome-friendly german tribes west of the Elbe came under pressure by new tribes from the East. Same happend at the Danube. The Marcomanni and Quadi were under control until then.

I don't say, that Claudius campaign in Britannia was the beginning of the end. That would be too easy. Perhaps the romans could have managed a more intense strategy at the Rhine and Danube border with less legions. They could have helped the west-germans, keep them divided and avoid that elbgermans move into the west. But they also underestimated the germans and the change in Germany dramatically.

Most roman emperors focussed on the East now. The parthian border was obviously more attractive in terms of honor & glory. Also the loot there was more appropriate to compensate the costs of a campaign, if you just sack Ctesiphon or some other big cities. Often the romans have been the agressor in the East, even if the policy of Augustus until Nero showed, that in the East diplomatic measures are often very succesful. This did not change until the Rise of the Sassanids.

So if the romans would have just focussed more on the german border, things might have become better. Of course therefore they should not waste legions in Britannia, at least not yet. And they should avoid civil wars, which needs more than a proper succession model, as we already discussed.

My favourite scenario goes a step further. The romans re-conquer Germania Magna up to the Elbe. There are 2 good reasons to do so: the shame of the Clades Variana and the lot of allies they still have, which need their help and protection officially. They also invade Bohemia, when Marbod was dethroned around 18 AD, came to Rome and cried for help. They furthermore pacify ad slowly integrate the Iazyges, which were friends of Rome in the 1st century anyways. With the unavoidable Dacian wars they reach a border Elbe - Sudeten Mountains - Carpatian Mountains.

Now the romans have a 20% shorter border and even more military power, or the power to establish a central field army without vexillationes and understrength border legions. They go forward with their agressive strategy, they had before Claudius, which is a mix of diplomacy and military actions. The Langobards were friends of Rome initailly, so cut a deal with them, show them , that you are not interested in the rest of Germania and help them to control other tribes beyond the Elbe. Do the same at the Carpatian border, perhaps with the Vandals. There are not that many germans left then. This could end in a scenario where 2-3 bigger german kingdoms associated with Rome are controlling the northeast. They have not that many reasons to invade the empire, because they have support, the roman border is better fortified than ever and they should be able to manage any pressure from the eastern baltic or slavic tribes.

Thats a kind of compromise between the OTL border and strategy and the very difficult to reach Vistula border. Of course you have to start earlier in the 1st half of the 1st century. You have to implement a proper succession model or a different government at all, in order to avoid most civil wars, and you have to manage the economical problems of the roman empire better than in OTL.

If Commodus or another heir implements Marcomania and Sarmatia he has powerful, agressive, hostile tribes behind his new border immediatley. He still has to conquer Germania Magna up to the Elbe, to close the gap in his border, but now he has to deal with the early Franks and Alemanns supported by elbgerman tribes. Thats too much of a challenge while the economy is in trouble and additionally the plague is running. It is simply too late.

 

[DominusNovus]

I'm sure you're right about that. And that's something that our contemporary Tea Party conservatives don't grasp any more than the Romans did. Yes, it's just as easy to inflate the currency by mining gold and silver and coining money as it is by printing money.

I'd politely ask that you leave political rants where they belong.

 

[Max Sinister]

Despite of the name: Were there actual Sarmatians in Sarmatia-to-be?

 

[Agricola]

Despite of the name: Were there actual Sarmatians in Sarmatia-to-be?

Sarmatia was most probably planned in the area between Pannonia and Dacia. This region was inhabited by the Iazyges a Sarmatian tribe. They settled there since the early 1st century.

 

[Max Sinister]

OK. It's just a bit confusing, because the Romans also used Sarmatia for a much bigger area in the east. Just like when "America" can refer to the double continent or the US.