Slavic France
- Thread starter Berus
- Start date
No, even if the slavs had managed to move further west, the frankish kingdom was already pretty well established by the time the slavs did move and even if the slavs had managed to beat the franks and penetrate frankish territory far enough to be on uptime french soil Gaul was far too romanized and densely populated, especially in the south, for them to have any more lasting effects on modern day France than the franks or normans did, they would have been completely assimilated within a few generations and, unlike the poles in Lorraine, would not even be distinguishable by their slavic surnames.
Honestly your best bet is to keep Rome from being more than a peninsular state as Rome had conquered/annexed a good chunk of Southern France by 100 BCE and had conquered all of Gaul by 50 BCE.
Yeah but then one or two of the gallic federations could have achieved local power if Rome stayed a peninsular state (or even if they came latter). And then it's not sure that the slav could go west, as with the Roman Empire absent, there will probably be a power vacuum in the eastern mediterranean. Also, more than half a millenium of butterflies. In fact, anything could happen.
What if Pomeranian and Prussian cities got rather prosperous around 50 CE? And that got a real trading area, like Phoenicia, Rome etc. Then, they perhaps could establish settlements in southwestern France, which they reached travelling all over the Baltic Sea and the Atlantic Sea.
Plausible: not really.
Possible: perhaps.
Possible in alternate history: probably.
Plausible: not really.
Possible: perhaps.
Possible in alternate history: probably.
Their were no cities there at that time, in fact the Baltic was one of the last areas in Europe to develop state-level socities and was very sparsely populated even then.
Incidentally the oldest city on the Baltic is Ribe, and it was founded in the 8th cenruy CE.
The Mediterannean city-states were prosperous because they were located in the middle of a region home to several developed and developing civilizations.
Honestly I don't think their are any real estimates, the Romans only ever did the census regularly in Italia.
That said I'd say it was probably around 1 million for the whole region; the Gallic wars are reported to have killed 1 million people in the rest of Gaul, so I figure Southern France would've had around a million itself if the rest of Gaul could survive a million deaths and not be completely depopulated.
Last edited:
http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=wars&FileName=wars_romandacian.php
"Hard time"?
And I'm not sure how they're going to form a Frankish empire equivalent in very different circumstances.
"An empire" is one thing. "A Frankish Empire equivalent" in terms of size, longevity, and influence is another problem.
At the core is the fact that the Frankish Empire only existed because of the Roman Empire having set the conditions for it to.
Slavic Gaul : No. The population was amonst the greatest of Europe, even before the roman conquest. There's no way that another people could, except by migrating entierly (and it would even be a certainity of sucess) in Gaul.
Dacians : No, the gallo-roman elites were really well present and would manage to "infiltrate" any conquering minority as it did for Franks OTL. At best, you'll have a "Dacian" kingdom where Dacian means "elite" without real ethnic definition.
To quote Braudel, speaking about french population.
Population in southern Gaul in 100 AD : hard to say. Maybe 3, 4 millions.
Southern France : giving how much southern Gaul was hellenized and romanized even before the roman conquest, I'm pretty sure that it would be the LEAST credbily slavized/germanized land of Gaul in an ATL.
Barbaric level : again, as I told you on another thread, define "barbaric level".
If it's not knowing the pleasures of large-scale slavery-based economy, yes probably.
Without Rome exanding outside Italian peninsula, it's likely that Celts tribes and statelets will evolve in a situation analog to VI or even V century Greece. An invasion in Gaul at this time could be defeated (especially coming from a Dacian or Germanic people that would have certain logistic troubles, and if they kept tribal institutions)
Dacians : No, the gallo-roman elites were really well present and would manage to "infiltrate" any conquering minority as it did for Franks OTL. At best, you'll have a "Dacian" kingdom where Dacian means "elite" without real ethnic definition.
To quote Braudel, speaking about french population.
Population in southern Gaul in 100 AD : hard to say. Maybe 3, 4 millions.
Southern France : giving how much southern Gaul was hellenized and romanized even before the roman conquest, I'm pretty sure that it would be the LEAST credbily slavized/germanized land of Gaul in an ATL.
Barbaric level : again, as I told you on another thread, define "barbaric level".
If it's not knowing the pleasures of large-scale slavery-based economy, yes probably.
Without Rome exanding outside Italian peninsula, it's likely that Celts tribes and statelets will evolve in a situation analog to VI or even V century Greece. An invasion in Gaul at this time could be defeated (especially coming from a Dacian or Germanic people that would have certain logistic troubles, and if they kept tribal institutions)