WI: Drastic Roman defeat in the Marcomannic Wars

Would it have been possible for the Romans to lose the Marcomannic Wars?

If so, how bad might the aftermath be for Rome? Could much earlier barbarian kingdoms have been established in the Roman Empire?
 
Perhaps Marcus Aurelius dying of illness at the same time as Lucius Verus could trigger a succession crisis, evening the odds for the Germanic invaders.
Considering the (large) preceding Parthian invasion from the Orient, perhaps having both MA and LV die at around 161 AD could spell certain disaster for the empire. It was at its height during that period, but we may see an earlier crisis period, counting characters such as the Egyptian usurper, Avidius Cassius.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Marcus Aurelius dying of illness at the same time as Lucius Verus could trigger a succession crisis, evening the odds for the Germanic invaders.
Considering the (large) preceding Parthian invasion from the Orient, perhaps having both MA and LV die at around 161 AD could spell certain disaster for the empire. It was at its height during that period, but we may see an earlier crisis period, counting characters such as the Egyptian usurper, Avidius Cassius.
What would a decisive defeat entail?
 
Would it have been possible for the Romans to lose the Marcomannic Wars
There would be various way for Romans to loose them : are we talking a crushing defeat, or just the Roman unability to really defeat the various Barbarians? In which part of the wars : early on or in the last years?
Note that Romans, while victorious, had to withdraw after several campaigns, eventually content having made their point.

If we have an early death of the emperor on the battlefield, as propose @GauchoBadger , then it would have decisive political consequences in a worst-case scenario (possibly entiering in a similar crisis than at the death of Commodus, with an usurper as Septimus eventually taking the purple). If we're talking of the failure of one of the later expeditions, much less so.

If so, how bad might the aftermath be for Rome? Could much earlier barbarian kingdoms have been established in the Roman Empire?
That would be extremely unlikely IMO. Barbarians chiefdoms weren't as bent on settling in Romania than raiding it

Now, the early militarisation of Barbarian peoples and coalitions wouldn't be challenged, and you might see a really important pressure on the Danubian limes that would force relocating significant forces along the region for strategical reasons, as IOTL but earlier, which would have consequences on the Parthian wars.
Furthermore, while Barbarians still at this point acknowledged the authority of the emperor in interfering with their inner matters (such as having dominance over their kings, even if it had to be stressed at sword point), the prestige and credibility of imperial authority among them would be lessened, meaning less breathing room for Rome during these raids.

Nevertheless, Rome would be too strong yet, even in crisis, to really be unable to defeat raids : it would take her more ressources and more times, but control of the territory is largely eexpectable. I said more costly because instead of taking auxiliaries among Germans as IOTL, you might have an stronger use of Barbarian mercenariate.
 
There would be various way for Romans to loose them : are we talking a crushing defeat, or just the Roman unability to really defeat the various Barbarians? In which part of the wars : early on or in the last years?
Note that Romans, while victorious, had to withdraw after several campaigns, eventually content having made their point.

That would be extremely unlikely IMO. Barbarians chiefdoms weren't as bent on settling in Romania than raiding it

Nevertheless, Rome would be too strong yet, even in crisis, to really be unable to defeat raids : it would take her more ressources and more times, but control of the territory is largely eexpectable.
By defeating the raids or being eventually able to defeat the various attacks, do you mean they would be able to stop the bulk of the various individual raids or that they would generally be able to stop further raids from happening?

I said more costly because instead of taking auxiliaries among Germans as IOTL, you might have an stronger use of Barbarian mercenariate.
What would be the consequences of that?
 
By defeating the raids or being eventually able to defeat the various attacks, do you mean they would be able to stop the bulk of the various individual raids or that they would generally be able to stop further raids from happening?
Both, in time, not unlike Severus dealt with Pictish raids in Britain.

What would be the consequences of that?
It wouldn't be particularily noticable at first, IMO, in the misdt of an earlier crisis : still the increasing use of Barbarians in the army (which was already existing by then) would be possibly made along more autonomous lines, both in a make-do fashion, and with a sensibly less firm loyalty of Barbarian troops able to sell themselves to the highest bidder in case of succession crises.
 
Both, in time, not unlike Severus dealt with Pictish raids in Britain.
From the Barbarian side, do they generally stop raiding when they simply encounter stiff resistance on the ground or did they also proactively act to stop based on inner Roman events?
 
Last edited:
From the Barbarian side, do they generally stop raiding when they simply encounter stiff resistance on the ground or did they also proactively act to stop based on inner Roman events?
Pretty much this IIRC, with the latter being not being tied only to geostrategical situation (appearing, at least partly, to consider treaties passed with emperors on a personal level rather than with the Roman state itself)
 
Interestingly, there's an Austrian AH book which covers this very PoD. The author's Dr. Reinhard Pohanka, an Austrian historian, expert for medieval history and former curator at the Vienna museum.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/found-an-ah-book-for-austria.276808/

1. Marcus Aurelius loses against the Germanics in 172

Consequences: Avidius Cassius rebels successfully against Marcus. The area between Danube and Alps (plus Dacia) is lost by the Romans, a new state with a mixed Germanic-Romanic population emerges. Western Rome falls around 300, the pope has to flee to Carthage, Catholicism becomes a sect. The Arian Christianity wins instead, western Europe gets christianized much later.
 
@Max Sinister
It's interesting (I'll try to find a copy if I can), but I really doubt the capacity of both Roman state to durably lose control of Illyricum that was far too important strategically to just being given up, and of Barbarian coalitions to set up durable states when they didn't form even at this point stable kingship without Roman intervention and subsides.
An earlier abandonment of Dacia, that said, as with a much lesser Roman interventionism past Danube; however, is concievable in such a scenario, as well possible early raiding in Gaul due to soldiers being moved to Danube (and probably as well to join the bandwagon of "who wants to be an emperor" for some years).
 
@Max Sinister
It's interesting (I'll try to find a copy if I can), but I really doubt the capacity of both Roman state to durably lose control of Illyricum that was far too important strategically to just being given up, and of Barbarian coalitions to set up durable states when they didn't form even at this point stable kingship without Roman intervention and subsides.
An earlier abandonment of Dacia, that said, as with a much lesser Roman interventionism past Danube; however, is concievable in such a scenario, as well possible early raiding in Gaul due to soldiers being moved to Danube (and probably as well to join the bandwagon of "who wants to be an emperor" for some years).
Wasn't the process already ongoing? As I understood between the Marcomannic wars and the Third Century crisis, the various coalitions of Alemanns, Franks and Goths emerged(Saxons as well?), would a different outcome or course of the Marcomannic war changed much in which coalitions emerge?
 
Wasn't the process already ongoing? As I understood between the Marcomannic wars and the Third Century crisis, the various coalitions of Alemanns, Franks and Goths emerged(Saxons as well?), would a different outcome or course of the Marcomannic war changed much in which coalitions emerge?
While some conditions for these coalitions just were present, I don't think they really acted as such at this point IOTL : after the Marcomannic wars, the Danubian border was calm enough, and the departure of Septimus Severus from the region didn't really led to real problems.
The appearance of these coalitions really can be pointed in the early IIIrd century in the end of Severine dynasty, and critically during the Anarchy period, before this, the Roman Empire is simply too strong of an entity to either be targeted or allowing the constitution of such coalitions.

ITTL, however, competition for the imperium is still likely to happen, but Danubian peoples are left unchecked and could lead to some coalized raids in Illyricum and Balkans centered on Quadi and Marcomanni. It could hasten the development of other coalitions in the limes a bit, altough too early on IMO to really lead to a re-edition of the IIIrd century crisis just right then. It could force, as I tried to propose, as well an earlier set of coalitions in the Rhine due to possible need of soldiers both against Persia and in the Danubian limes.
Overall, if not comparable to the Anarchy IMO, a more tense late IInd century.
 
While some conditions for these coalitions just were present, I don't think they really acted as such at this point IOTL : after the Marcomannic wars, the Danubian border was calm enough, and the departure of Septimus Severus from the region didn't really led to real problems.
The appearance of these coalitions really can be pointed in the early IIIrd century in the end of Severine dynasty, and critically during the Anarchy period, before this, the Roman Empire is simply too strong of an entity to either be targeted or allowing the constitution of such coalitions.

ITTL, however, competition for the imperium is still likely to happen, but Danubian peoples are left unchecked and could lead to some coalized raids in Illyricum and Balkans centered on Quadi and Marcomanni. It could hasten the development of other coalitions in the limes a bit, altough too early on IMO to really lead to a re-edition of the IIIrd century crisis just right then. It could force, as I tried to propose, as well an earlier set of coalitions in the Rhine due to possible need of soldiers both against Persia and in the Danubian limes.
Overall, if not comparable to the Anarchy IMO, a more tense late IInd century.
Could the Quadi and Marcomanni(and others neighbors) build up into a larger confederation or where those 2 constituent group too internally heterogeneous already?
 
Could the Quadi and Marcomanni(and others neighbors) build up into a larger confederation or where those 2 constituent group too internally heterogeneous already?
Generally these coalitions were led, while not by a single king, at least by defined chiefs/petty-kings.
Quadi and Marcomanni had both and were already partly defined apart so I'd suppose they would form two groups : it's more guesstimate than anything tough, as we don't know a lot of their social or institutional management.
 
Top