Hey I have a question: what about the Avars? Those guys are going to come riding out of the steppe and put major pressure on the existing political dynamics of the Balkans. Any thoughts?
Africa is not lost to the Western Roman Empire?
- Thread starter steven24gordon
- Start date
Valdemar II
Banned
I don't think they will be that great a problem in OTL they in alliance with the Langobards and supported by the Byzantines took something like twenty years to conquer the Gepids, with the stronger presence of the Ostrogoths (a people with a strong cavalry tradition and no "grand" alliance against the Gepids) insteads of the Langobards, I doubt they succed in conquering the Hungarian plains, likely they will settle in westen Ukraine, Moldavia and the Donau delta and live there until they're eradicated by next nomad invasion; the Magyars.
Last edited:
While you seem to have hinted that you think that the Ostrogoths may remain in the Balkans, I have a different idea. Humbled by their defeat at the Battle of Nola, the Western Romans in Africa (under the leadership of Anthemiolus the successor to the now dead Appius) accept an alliance with the Ostrogoths. With these new Gothic allies, Anthemiolus plans to re-invade Italia but his new reserve of Gothic manpower comes at a price: "federate" plan in northern Italia. How will this play out? Please check out the following chapter in our growing saga entitled: The Western Empire Restored (it is in the next post) and give me your thoughts.
The Western Empire Restored
In our ATL scenario, Africa has acted as a last safe haven for the Roman aristocracy and government, fleeing the war and poverty of continental Europe during the 5th century. As the Roman military machine on the continent breaks down, this exiled émigré increasingly turns to the Western navy and sea power to influence politics in Europe. This means a retreat from mainland Europe, and in many ways the ATL is similar to OTL: the Gaul, Britannia and Iberia are overrun by barbarian hordes and even Italia is severed from the legitimate Empire by the usurpation of the Gothic patricius et magister militum Thuruar and his puppet emperors. As the barbarians (sometimes acting as Roman ‘federates’) take over many of the old Roman provinces, Roman civilisation became increasingly centred on the Mediterranean. An important aspect of this is that commerce and communication (via the Mediterranean) between the East and West is stronger than OTL. Could this maintain the cohesion of a Greco-Roman culture and would this mitigate the cultural polarisation of OTL?
But how is the situation in Italia and the problem of Thuruar resolved? Maybe the situation there would not be so different from OTL; Anthemiolus (who succeeded Appius in 480) supports a joint Roman-Ostrogothic invasion of the peninsula. This decision is backed for three important reasons: 1) despite seizing Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica and raiding Campania Anthemiolus doesn’t have the manpower for a full scale invasion of Italia; 2) the Eastern Emperor encourages the union as he naturally wants to get rid of the Ostrogoths who have a nasty habit of rebelling and ravaging the Balkans whenever they are unhappy; and 3) the rex Gothorum Roderic is promised land in Italia and an amicably split of the spoils of war.
Using Ostrogothic manpower, Anthemiolus is able to succeed where his father had failed. Roderic and his Ostrogoths defeat the ‘Italian’ army (composed almost entirely of barbarian mercenaries) at the river at the Isonzo and again at Milan, forcing Thuruar to seek refuge in Ravenna. Anthemiolus’ army lands and defeats the last remnants of Thuruar’s army near Otricoli. In the peace conference near Ostia that follows the liberation of Rome, the fate of Italia and the Western Empire is decided. The ATL late 6th century satirist Quintus paints a rather a unflattering picture of the Ostian Conference: ‘The Emperor was a confirmed drunkard who could do no business except early in the morning; the Barbarian King was a lunatic who approached sense only late in the afternoon, after he had eaten and drunk; and the Pope was at any time of day the least reasonable, so far as his own interests were concerned.’ However we must take his description as rather tongue-in-cheek (as far as we know the Pope wasn’t even there) and instead look at the results of the Conference.
The Goths are given ‘federate’ land in northern Italian and Illyrium and charged with the defence of the eastern and northern borders (there will be no Ostrogothic rex Italia like OTL). Northern Italia, Noricum, Pannonia and Dalmatia will be settled and placed under the control of Gothic foederati but legally subject to control by the imperial government. Although the Goths effectively control the government of these ‘federate’ territories, much of the civil administration is given over to Romans. Southern and more or less central Italy remains under Anthemiolus’ direct imperial control. Roderic accepts the deal for two reasons: 1) the power of the Western navy (as well as the grain shipments that the navy controls) and 2) the legitimacy granted by imperial association (from the East as well as the West). Anthemiolus accepts the deal because he doesn’t have the military capacity to evict the Goths that are currently squatting in northern Italia. With most of Italian peninsula garrisoned by a Gothic soldiery, Rome (and certainly not Ravenna) is not considered a secure seat of Roman power and Anthemiolus retains the imperial residence at Carthage. Despite the cordial nature of the Ostian Conference, the peace deal worked out is an uneasy one. As both Italy and Africa recover from the devastation of the previous century, the strain on this relationship will begin to show and a break is inevitable.
But following the Ostian Conference, the Western Empire enjoys a resurgence of her imperial authority. In 493, Anthemiolus leads a Romo-Gothic army to victory over the Vsigoths near Narbo, restoring Roman control over Gallia Narbonensis (now ruled from the twin ports of Massiliensis and Arles). The power of the Visigoths, which had swelled during the period of known as the Interregnum, is sent into decline latter that year at the Battle of Aurelia. Here the Gothic king Aoric is slain and his army routed by the Romans with the aid of the Franks under Adalmun of Tournai. It was brutal and infamous battle, according to the ATL chronicle of Placius of Syracuse, who wrote “there was no numbering the slain; the amount is to this day conjectured from the space of ground overflowed with blood”. After the battle, the Visigoths are forced to resume their loyalty and federate status to the Empire. For their part in the victory, the Franks are awarded ‘federate’ land in Gallia Lugdunensis and Belgica. This was in keeping with the philosophy of late the 5th century Western Empire: the Empire in Europe has not been lost but the duty of controlling and maintaining many provinces has been "outsourced" to 'federates' or allies of Rome. Although the Western Emperors claim to have restored the Empire in the West, their own authority extends little beyond: the provinces of Africa, southern and central Italia, the Mediterranean coast of Gaul (principally the province Gallia Narbonensis and parts of Auvergne), the Western Mediterranean islands and southern Spain (the province of Baetica and southern Carthaginiensis).
Any thoughts on the new order? Will this new order last? Who will be the major players? All suggestions?
In our ATL scenario, Africa has acted as a last safe haven for the Roman aristocracy and government, fleeing the war and poverty of continental Europe during the 5th century. As the Roman military machine on the continent breaks down, this exiled émigré increasingly turns to the Western navy and sea power to influence politics in Europe. This means a retreat from mainland Europe, and in many ways the ATL is similar to OTL: the Gaul, Britannia and Iberia are overrun by barbarian hordes and even Italia is severed from the legitimate Empire by the usurpation of the Gothic patricius et magister militum Thuruar and his puppet emperors. As the barbarians (sometimes acting as Roman ‘federates’) take over many of the old Roman provinces, Roman civilisation became increasingly centred on the Mediterranean. An important aspect of this is that commerce and communication (via the Mediterranean) between the East and West is stronger than OTL. Could this maintain the cohesion of a Greco-Roman culture and would this mitigate the cultural polarisation of OTL?
But how is the situation in Italia and the problem of Thuruar resolved? Maybe the situation there would not be so different from OTL; Anthemiolus (who succeeded Appius in 480) supports a joint Roman-Ostrogothic invasion of the peninsula. This decision is backed for three important reasons: 1) despite seizing Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica and raiding Campania Anthemiolus doesn’t have the manpower for a full scale invasion of Italia; 2) the Eastern Emperor encourages the union as he naturally wants to get rid of the Ostrogoths who have a nasty habit of rebelling and ravaging the Balkans whenever they are unhappy; and 3) the rex Gothorum Roderic is promised land in Italia and an amicably split of the spoils of war.
Using Ostrogothic manpower, Anthemiolus is able to succeed where his father had failed. Roderic and his Ostrogoths defeat the ‘Italian’ army (composed almost entirely of barbarian mercenaries) at the river at the Isonzo and again at Milan, forcing Thuruar to seek refuge in Ravenna. Anthemiolus’ army lands and defeats the last remnants of Thuruar’s army near Otricoli. In the peace conference near Ostia that follows the liberation of Rome, the fate of Italia and the Western Empire is decided. The ATL late 6th century satirist Quintus paints a rather a unflattering picture of the Ostian Conference: ‘The Emperor was a confirmed drunkard who could do no business except early in the morning; the Barbarian King was a lunatic who approached sense only late in the afternoon, after he had eaten and drunk; and the Pope was at any time of day the least reasonable, so far as his own interests were concerned.’ However we must take his description as rather tongue-in-cheek (as far as we know the Pope wasn’t even there) and instead look at the results of the Conference.
The Goths are given ‘federate’ land in northern Italian and Illyrium and charged with the defence of the eastern and northern borders (there will be no Ostrogothic rex Italia like OTL). Northern Italia, Noricum, Pannonia and Dalmatia will be settled and placed under the control of Gothic foederati but legally subject to control by the imperial government. Although the Goths effectively control the government of these ‘federate’ territories, much of the civil administration is given over to Romans. Southern and more or less central Italy remains under Anthemiolus’ direct imperial control. Roderic accepts the deal for two reasons: 1) the power of the Western navy (as well as the grain shipments that the navy controls) and 2) the legitimacy granted by imperial association (from the East as well as the West). Anthemiolus accepts the deal because he doesn’t have the military capacity to evict the Goths that are currently squatting in northern Italia. With most of Italian peninsula garrisoned by a Gothic soldiery, Rome (and certainly not Ravenna) is not considered a secure seat of Roman power and Anthemiolus retains the imperial residence at Carthage. Despite the cordial nature of the Ostian Conference, the peace deal worked out is an uneasy one. As both Italy and Africa recover from the devastation of the previous century, the strain on this relationship will begin to show and a break is inevitable.
But following the Ostian Conference, the Western Empire enjoys a resurgence of her imperial authority. In 493, Anthemiolus leads a Romo-Gothic army to victory over the Vsigoths near Narbo, restoring Roman control over Gallia Narbonensis (now ruled from the twin ports of Massiliensis and Arles). The power of the Visigoths, which had swelled during the period of known as the Interregnum, is sent into decline latter that year at the Battle of Aurelia. Here the Gothic king Aoric is slain and his army routed by the Romans with the aid of the Franks under Adalmun of Tournai. It was brutal and infamous battle, according to the ATL chronicle of Placius of Syracuse, who wrote “there was no numbering the slain; the amount is to this day conjectured from the space of ground overflowed with blood”. After the battle, the Visigoths are forced to resume their loyalty and federate status to the Empire. For their part in the victory, the Franks are awarded ‘federate’ land in Gallia Lugdunensis and Belgica. This was in keeping with the philosophy of late the 5th century Western Empire: the Empire in Europe has not been lost but the duty of controlling and maintaining many provinces has been "outsourced" to 'federates' or allies of Rome. Although the Western Emperors claim to have restored the Empire in the West, their own authority extends little beyond: the provinces of Africa, southern and central Italia, the Mediterranean coast of Gaul (principally the province Gallia Narbonensis and parts of Auvergne), the Western Mediterranean islands and southern Spain (the province of Baetica and southern Carthaginiensis).
Any thoughts on the new order? Will this new order last? Who will be the major players? All suggestions?
The Franks
The infamous ATL Roman chronicler Placius of Syracuse describes the accession of the Franks in the 5th century: “having grown tired of idleness, the Franks raised Adalmun on a shield and proclaimed him king; leader and followers both resolving rather to seek new kingdoms by their own work, than to slumber in peaceful subjection to the rule of others."
Now in our OTL, the Franks were initially invaders into Gaul, defeating the last Roman commander in northern Gaul (Syagrius the ill-termed ‘king of the Romans’), and establishing a kingdom centred on the Roman enclave of Soissons. However in the ATL, the Western Roman Empire is not as feeble or as powerless as her OTL counterpart and it would be difficult for the Franks to follow a similar path. This is does mean that the Franks will not make their bid for Gallic land and wealth but rather that it will be done in accordance with the wishes of the Roman imperium. Northern Gaul at this moment is effectively beyond the control of the Western Empire. She is stretched in too many places and given the fragmentation running wild in the 5th century it is unlikely that a usurper will not emerge in northern Gaul or that the area will not fall prey to barbarian invaders. The Franks are already foederati in service of the Empire, and it would be simple transition to allow this Germanic tribe to settle northern Gaul in exchange for promises of defending the Empire against Rhineland invaders (and maybe the Bretons) as well as usurpers.
The career of Adalmun of Tournai is very much the story of the Franks rose to power. Adalmun won Roman titles and ‘federate’ land after helping the Romans defeat the Visigoth Aoric in 493. With the Visigoths in retreat, Adalmun of Tournai laid claim to land in Gallia Lugdunensis and Belgica (effectively making him a major player in Gaul). From these bases, he expands his power over all of northern Gaul and even into Armorica (although that may become an independent kingdom –any thoughts?).
Now while Adalmun of Tournai is a loyal foederati king of the Empire (even adopting Christianity in his dying years), his successors allow greed to lead them towards sedition as they cast their eyes southward in the hope of carving up more land for themselves. Now the last thing a Western Roman Empire wants to see in Europe would be strong unified ‘Germanic’ states. All of Gaul united under a single ‘barbarian’ king would be a definite problem for the Western Empire. Unimpressed that their imperial masters have veoted any attack on their southern barbarian neighbours (and fellow foederati) in Burgundy (Gallia Alpina and parts of southeastern Germania Superior) and Aquitania (run by the Visigoths), the Frankish kings rebel.
The Gallic War (510-513) that follows sets the political boundaries of Gaul for the next century and in a certain way mirrors what happened when the Huns invaded Gaul OTL. Roman diplomacy stitches together a loose coalition of barbarian groups to fight the Franks. Near Burdigala, the Franks are confronted by the combined armies of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians and Romans (as well as others), and are routed. Their ambitions to seize control of Gaul shattered, a kind of status quo settles over Gaul. The Franks maintain their lands in northern Gaul (northern France, the Netherlands and northwest Germany), the Visigoths retain Aquitania (eastern France), the Burgundians control the Rhône Valley and the Romans control the coastal Mediterranean lowlands.
Now how is the history of Western Europe affected by a more divided Gaul? How will the Franks be affected if they don’t realise their OTL territorial ambitions? Prevented from southward expansion, would we see a larger Frankish drive eastward? In OTL the Thuringii (532), Burgundes (534), and Saxons and Frisians (560) were incorporated into the Frankish kingdom. The outlying trans-Rhenish tribes were loosely attached to Frankish sovereignty, and though they could be forced to contribute to Frankish military efforts, in times of weak kings they were uncontrollable and liable to attempt independence. Maybe we could see more centralised and institutionalised Frankish rule in these eastern Germanic lands, any thoughts? Could we see a Francia maintain a strong authority as far as the Elbe River?
And would the Franks even survive? The OTL Merovingians were a hereditary monarchy and the Frankish kings adhered to the practice of partible inheritance: dividing their lands among their sons. Even when multiple Merovingian kings ruled, the kingdom (not unlike the late Roman Empire) was conceived of as a single realm ruled collectively by several kings and the turn of events could result in the reunification of the whole realm under a single king. But these fraternal kings, however, showed only intermittent signs of friendship and were often in rivalry. OTL, on the early death of Chlodomer, his brother had his young sons murdered in order to take a share of his kingdom, which was, in accordance with custom, divided between the surviving brothers. Warfare between Frankish kings was commonplace and this often tragically weakened the unity of the OTL Merovingian kingdom. Perhaps in ATL the Franks create a kingdom in northern Gaul but it is short-lived as southern rivals attack Francia when she is at her most divided. The result could be a collaspe of Frankish power? Any thoughts on what would happen if the Franks are removed from history?
On the other hand, we could see a more progress trend towards centralisation in Francia. Innovation is the mother of necessity and the Franks may change their political and economic practices to defend themselves from their southern enemies. Perhaps we see an early abandonment of partible inheritance, and the adoption of more Roman methods of administration and militarisation. We also need to remember that with a surviving Roman Empire, Romanisation will be a stronger force than OTL. It seems probable that our Gaul will be more Romanised than OTL and we may see more economic growth and the greater preservation and production of literature and learning. Any thoughts?
The infamous ATL Roman chronicler Placius of Syracuse describes the accession of the Franks in the 5th century: “having grown tired of idleness, the Franks raised Adalmun on a shield and proclaimed him king; leader and followers both resolving rather to seek new kingdoms by their own work, than to slumber in peaceful subjection to the rule of others."
Now in our OTL, the Franks were initially invaders into Gaul, defeating the last Roman commander in northern Gaul (Syagrius the ill-termed ‘king of the Romans’), and establishing a kingdom centred on the Roman enclave of Soissons. However in the ATL, the Western Roman Empire is not as feeble or as powerless as her OTL counterpart and it would be difficult for the Franks to follow a similar path. This is does mean that the Franks will not make their bid for Gallic land and wealth but rather that it will be done in accordance with the wishes of the Roman imperium. Northern Gaul at this moment is effectively beyond the control of the Western Empire. She is stretched in too many places and given the fragmentation running wild in the 5th century it is unlikely that a usurper will not emerge in northern Gaul or that the area will not fall prey to barbarian invaders. The Franks are already foederati in service of the Empire, and it would be simple transition to allow this Germanic tribe to settle northern Gaul in exchange for promises of defending the Empire against Rhineland invaders (and maybe the Bretons) as well as usurpers.
The career of Adalmun of Tournai is very much the story of the Franks rose to power. Adalmun won Roman titles and ‘federate’ land after helping the Romans defeat the Visigoth Aoric in 493. With the Visigoths in retreat, Adalmun of Tournai laid claim to land in Gallia Lugdunensis and Belgica (effectively making him a major player in Gaul). From these bases, he expands his power over all of northern Gaul and even into Armorica (although that may become an independent kingdom –any thoughts?).
Now while Adalmun of Tournai is a loyal foederati king of the Empire (even adopting Christianity in his dying years), his successors allow greed to lead them towards sedition as they cast their eyes southward in the hope of carving up more land for themselves. Now the last thing a Western Roman Empire wants to see in Europe would be strong unified ‘Germanic’ states. All of Gaul united under a single ‘barbarian’ king would be a definite problem for the Western Empire. Unimpressed that their imperial masters have veoted any attack on their southern barbarian neighbours (and fellow foederati) in Burgundy (Gallia Alpina and parts of southeastern Germania Superior) and Aquitania (run by the Visigoths), the Frankish kings rebel.
The Gallic War (510-513) that follows sets the political boundaries of Gaul for the next century and in a certain way mirrors what happened when the Huns invaded Gaul OTL. Roman diplomacy stitches together a loose coalition of barbarian groups to fight the Franks. Near Burdigala, the Franks are confronted by the combined armies of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians and Romans (as well as others), and are routed. Their ambitions to seize control of Gaul shattered, a kind of status quo settles over Gaul. The Franks maintain their lands in northern Gaul (northern France, the Netherlands and northwest Germany), the Visigoths retain Aquitania (eastern France), the Burgundians control the Rhône Valley and the Romans control the coastal Mediterranean lowlands.
Now how is the history of Western Europe affected by a more divided Gaul? How will the Franks be affected if they don’t realise their OTL territorial ambitions? Prevented from southward expansion, would we see a larger Frankish drive eastward? In OTL the Thuringii (532), Burgundes (534), and Saxons and Frisians (560) were incorporated into the Frankish kingdom. The outlying trans-Rhenish tribes were loosely attached to Frankish sovereignty, and though they could be forced to contribute to Frankish military efforts, in times of weak kings they were uncontrollable and liable to attempt independence. Maybe we could see more centralised and institutionalised Frankish rule in these eastern Germanic lands, any thoughts? Could we see a Francia maintain a strong authority as far as the Elbe River?
And would the Franks even survive? The OTL Merovingians were a hereditary monarchy and the Frankish kings adhered to the practice of partible inheritance: dividing their lands among their sons. Even when multiple Merovingian kings ruled, the kingdom (not unlike the late Roman Empire) was conceived of as a single realm ruled collectively by several kings and the turn of events could result in the reunification of the whole realm under a single king. But these fraternal kings, however, showed only intermittent signs of friendship and were often in rivalry. OTL, on the early death of Chlodomer, his brother had his young sons murdered in order to take a share of his kingdom, which was, in accordance with custom, divided between the surviving brothers. Warfare between Frankish kings was commonplace and this often tragically weakened the unity of the OTL Merovingian kingdom. Perhaps in ATL the Franks create a kingdom in northern Gaul but it is short-lived as southern rivals attack Francia when she is at her most divided. The result could be a collaspe of Frankish power? Any thoughts on what would happen if the Franks are removed from history?
On the other hand, we could see a more progress trend towards centralisation in Francia. Innovation is the mother of necessity and the Franks may change their political and economic practices to defend themselves from their southern enemies. Perhaps we see an early abandonment of partible inheritance, and the adoption of more Roman methods of administration and militarisation. We also need to remember that with a surviving Roman Empire, Romanisation will be a stronger force than OTL. It seems probable that our Gaul will be more Romanised than OTL and we may see more economic growth and the greater preservation and production of literature and learning. Any thoughts?
Valdemar II
Banned
No I thought that the Ostrogoths would keep Pannovia with them having less territorium in Italy, and as such keep new nomadic intelopers out of the plains. It would also give the Ostrogoths a strong recruitment base for their armies.
Valdemar II
Banned
I think that it almost impossible to get rid of the Franks at this point in time, they had both west and east of the Rhine large territories populated by Franks, which gave them a strong base to recruit warriors from and made them hard to get rid of, you couldn't just deport them to the other end of the Empire there was simply to many of them. (the Franks was likely the only Völkerwanderung germanic tribe with over a million ethnic members).
I think less Romanisation is likely, the continue warfare will depopulate Northen Gaul, so the Frank will likely resettle it with Frankish settlers (mostly because they the only ones willing to live in such risky place), many urban and rich Roman Gauls will likely move to the stable and rich Italy and Africa to get away from the continued warfare, the erratic rule of the Franks and to get a chance for greater wealth. But centralisation is likely to fight the other tribes. Mostly I think the Frankish Empire will be more rural and more hostile to Roman (including Catholic) influence than in OTL, that could mean that if thy adopt Christianiy, it will come the British Isles instead of from Rome. Pluseven in OTL the Franks seem to be one of the few tribes which lacked any wish of becoming Roman (the Langobards, Saxon, Angles and Jutes seemed to share that), the Goth, Vandals and Ostrogoth wanted at some level to become Roman, wanted to adopt Roman lifestyle for themselves.
Last edited:
Constantinople
Banned
Maybe with less land available to them, the Germanic tribes will be able to keep their ethnicity and language. Germanic Northern France?
With the Franks blocked from taking more of Gaul I believe it is likely they will expand eastward moreso than OTL but retain the partible inheritance with its OTL results.
Linguistically speaking the Franks are still in a minority in Northern Gaul compared to the GalloRomans though likely larger than OTL. So in the short term (depending on regional politics) you will still Vulgar Latin leading to some sort of Old French but a French more influenced by Germanic. Perhaps something like OTL Norman dialect with its use of [w] etc. cf Willaume and Guillaume
.
Of course the future migrations of the scandinavians and slavics may affect TTL Frankish Kingdom(s).
Linguistically speaking the Franks are still in a minority in Northern Gaul compared to the GalloRomans though likely larger than OTL. So in the short term (depending on regional politics) you will still Vulgar Latin leading to some sort of Old French but a French more influenced by Germanic. Perhaps something like OTL Norman dialect with its use of [w] etc. cf Willaume and Guillaume
.Of course the future migrations of the scandinavians and slavics may affect TTL Frankish Kingdom(s).
Like the 500 AD map except
How did the empire lose south Mauritania [Atlantic Morocco] and Munidia [south Tunisia] from the 485 map.
At this time the ERE controlled the Crimea peninsula.
If the Franks reach all the way from Brittany to Frisia, They block the Saxons from getting to Brittania. ?So how are the angle-Celts doing?
500 AD --?Isn't the Völkerwanderung almost over? If the WRE can hold on another couple generations, the Goths will start becoming Romanizied.
How did the empire lose south Mauritania [Atlantic Morocco] and Munidia [south Tunisia] from the 485 map.
At this time the ERE controlled the Crimea peninsula.
If the Franks reach all the way from Brittany to Frisia, They block the Saxons from getting to Brittania. ?So how are the angle-Celts doing?
500 AD --?Isn't the Völkerwanderung almost over? If the WRE can hold on another couple generations, the Goths will start becoming Romanizied.
Thanks for the feedback about the maps. Unfortunately while I like maps I am not that good at making them. In terms of why the Empire lost south Mauritania [Atlantic Morocco] and Munidia [south Tunisia], the answer is the Moors (or the Berber Tribes if you prefer). These desert 'barbarians' became increasingly powerful during the 5th century, and while they aren’t as powerful as OTL, they have still expanded their influence causing Roman Africa to contract. In terms of the Ostrogoths, I think Valdemar is right. I think they would keep Pannovia (taking over the responsibility of frontier defense). Any more map-related thoughts? Maybe I should have another go at this whole map thing, what do you guys think?
OK, let us flesh out of ATL Frankish nation a bit more: despite the efforts of Adalmun of Tournai basically we have a nation that has failed to reach the heights of its southern neighbours. Its cities are small and insignificant, its trade network weak and localised, its Gallo-Roman population (especially the nobility) devastated and fleeing southward. In the wake of this destruction, the Church begins to loose its influence as the Franks would reject the Church because it is strongly associated with the government in Rome (and justifiably so). Therefore the Franks are not “Christianised” and remaining pagan. The Frankish principal of partible inheritance continues and there are a series of rather vicious intra-Frank wars but on the whole the Franks (as a nation) expand pushing eastward rather than westward. This eastward push may encourage more ‘barbarian” migration into Britannia, which could be seen as a haven for anti-Frankish Saxons and others displaced by the Frankish expansion. Any thoughts on this migratory trend? And now the question of religion: are the Franks likely to embrace some form of Irish Christianity in the 6th century or would our ATL Franks remain pagan? Any thoughts? Any more thoughts about the ATL Franks? All suggestions welcome.
I think that the contest barrier between the Visigoths and the Franks will be the Loire with the cities like Tours and Orleans almost destroyed in the on-and-off warfare between the Goths and the Franks. This would make Paris and Reims the main Frankish capitals. I believe that the Frankish “threat” to the north will keep the Visigoths and Burgundi pro-Roman. The energy of these two Germanic nations will be focused on defending their respective territories from Frankish (and Alamanni) raids. In fact I was hoping for a deep “Romanization” of the Burgundians, the Visi- and Ostro- Goths. Any thoughts?
This seems probable to me.
And regarding Frankish religion, retaining paganism seems unlikely to me. I think its more likely that they'll adopt a rival form of Christianity in order to annoy Rome- so Irish is likely, and Arianism could also be a contender. Or maybe the Franks will come up with something completely new. Who knows.
I don't think so.
Up till the Yellow Plague of 535~540 ish the Celts of Britannia still considered themselves part of the Empire, and it was the plague that weakened them enuff to allow the Saxon takeover.
While most of their trade OTL was with the ERE, ITTL with the WRE still a going concern, there will be a lot more trade and contact. this will strengthen the Celto/Romans.
Not sure how you plan to handle the plague, the Volcano will still erupt, causing the -Year the Sun Went Out-,
And the Indian Traders will still carry the plague from Axum north into the Med. ITTL With more trade running around it will be carried into the WRE faster than OTL
Maybe one of the Trade ships from India, drops off a couple monks who convert the Franks to Hinduism.
A question in terms of Britannia: Given the historical currents of the ATL, what is happening in Britannia? In a big way, the Britons-Romans are still cut from what’s left of the Western Roman Empire and in my opinion would have a difficult time in holding their own in the chaos of 5th century. Thus I think that the Saxon invasions are likely and that the old Roman provinces in Britannia would still crumble into a series of petty kingdoms. But maybe I am wrong, any thoughts?
Hindustani Franks? Ah what an ATL that would make! But unfortunately there are limits to my modest imagination and it would take a greater man than me to imagine such an ATL.
Last edited: