AHC Germanisation of Gallia/Francia

Why though? The British isles were easier to invade and to take over Gaul they would have to fight the stronger Franks.
If Britain was harder to take then a lot of the Angle and Saxon tribes would likely join the Franks in taking Gaul (likely settling the northern coast as they occasionally did OTL anyway hence why the Channel coasts were the Saxon Shores) and probably be part of the same "confederation". There is good reason to suspect the Jutes as being Saxons formerly under Frankish overlordship. Bear in mind also that the tribal confederations weren't exactly monolingual during the migration period.
 
@Gloss yeah I don't agree with a thing you said. First off, even if there was an implied limit to the scenario (which I disagree with) the OP hasn't shot it down yet so it must not be too objectionable an idea. Second, if that's your definition of cheating then my follow up is "who cares/so what" (take your pick), it's an arbitrary label for said tactic at best IMO, and unless it hurts the intent of the OP (again correct me if I'm wrong @Hvalrossen ) I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Finally, the notion I posted would've seen a different ethnogenesis between the Angles, the Salian Franks, and the Frankish-influenced Saxon "Jutes". In other words, not even OTL's Anglo-Saxons. As far as points brought up by @The Professor then we're likely talking a split between North and South Gaul which wouldn't need that early a PoD, and a stronger Briton defence could help things along in that regard too.
 
@Gloss yeah I don't agree with a thing you said. First off, even if there was an implied limit to the scenario (which I disagree with) the OP hasn't shot it down yet so it must not be too objectionable an idea. Second, if that's your definition of cheating then my follow up is "who cares/so what" (take your pick), it's an arbitrary label for said tactic at best IMO, and unless it hurts the intent of the OP (again correct me if I'm wrong @Hvalrossen ) I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Finally, the notion I posted would've seen a different ethnogenesis between the Angles, the Salian Franks, and the Frankish-influenced Saxon "Jutes". In other words, not even OTL's Anglo-Saxons. As far as points brought up by @The Professor then we're likely talking a split between North and South Gaul which wouldn't need that early a PoD, and a stronger Briton defence could help things along in that regard too.
I don't know why you are so bothered by it, I just said my opinion, I wasn't trying to refute or reject your suggestion or shut you down.

I'm not sure why you thought people were talking about your suggestion when referring to diverted Anglo-Saxon migration, we are talking about IOTL 5th century it seems.
 
Why though? The British isles were easier to invade and to take over Gaul they would have to fight the stronger Franks

The isles weren't exactly a pushover you know. The britons did fight them for a long time OTL, even being divided as they were.

So its not hard to imagine that a Britain thats a harder nut to crack, especially if its at the expense of the Gallic coast. Or maybe they're able to deal with the scoti and pictish raids effectively enough that they don't need to hire germanic mercs. Well, not any more mercs, given that there seems to have been some already present before the time of the A-S migration/invasion/thing.
 
While i set the scenario in the migration era, there can still be changes before the migration era. I am not bothered by having scenarios before the migration era. Perhaps a different prelude to the migration era might lead to a larger migration? Maybe a higher germanic population density? Maybe less germanic infighting and more focus on the"other"? I have seen thread discussing the possibility of a Germanic Mohammed to lead the Germanic world to greater heights than it had been in the past and would be in the future OTL. Live and let live. This thread is only meant to be fun and interesting.
 
I have seen thread discussing the possibility of a Germanic Mohammed to lead the Germanic world to greater heights than it had been in the past and would be in the future OTL

A cool idea to be sure, though i don't think the 5-6th centuries are the correct time for that kind of religious development in the various germanic pre-christian beliefs. 7th century at the earliest I'd give for an Odinist* Mohammed-esque figure.

*Wođanaz seems to have been a growing favorite, displacing other gods in the pantheon (as much as one could call it such) like *Tīwaz, so he's the best bet for this sort of thing, though you could certainly do it to others.
 
While i set the scenario in the migration era, there can still be changes before the migration era. I am not bothered by having scenarios before the migration era. Perhaps a different prelude to the migration era might lead to a larger migration? Maybe a higher germanic population density? Maybe less germanic infighting and more focus on the"other"? I have seen thread discussing the possibility of a Germanic Mohammed to lead the Germanic world to greater heights than it had been in the past and would be in the future OTL. Live and let live. This thread is only meant to be fun and interesting.
I find hard to have the Germans expand beyond the Rhine without a complete Roman collapse, I think whatever more territory they take would limited to maybe the Danube border and at worst the Northern Rhine border, but on that front you already had the Franks as foederati.

A cool idea to be sure, though i don't think the 5-6th centuries are the correct time for that kind of religious development in the various germanic pre-christian beliefs. 7th century at the earliest I'd give for an Odinist* Mohammed-esque figure.

*Wođanaz seems to have been a growing favorite, displacing other gods in the pantheon (as much as one could call it such) like *Tīwaz, so he's the best bet for this sort of thing, though you could certainly do it to others.
What about, instead of an "heretic" Church, you have some sort of schismatic like church in Germanic areas, kinda following the way the Bulgarian church developed?
 
A cool idea to be sure, though i don't think the 5-6th centuries are the correct time for that kind of religious development in the various germanic pre-christian beliefs. 7th century at the earliest I'd give for an Odinist* Mohammed-esque figure.

*Wođanaz seems to have been a growing favorite, displacing other gods in the pantheon (as much as one could call it such) like *Tīwaz, so he's the best bet for this sort of thing, though you could certainly do it to others.
Well, one aspect that could support an early alternate monotheism in "Magna Germania" would be the presence of the non-trinitarian Arian Christianity.

By the time the Germanic realms are more developed, Arian Christianity has become largely irrelevant, so a different sect of Christianity or Judaism has to be brought in to influence the creation of a "North Abrahamic Faith". Granted, the Byzantines were oppressing plenty of different religious groups so some of them could just migrate north.
 
What about, instead of an "heretic" Church, you have some sort of schismatic like church in Germanic areas, kinda following the way the Bulgarian church developed?
The Arian church could maybe play such a role. I read somewhere that during the Vandal conquest of Roman Africa, that some local Arians joined their fellow Arian Christians in oppostion to hte nicean state. Religion can unite and it can divide.
 
I don't know why you are so bothered by it, I just said my opinion, I wasn't trying to refute or reject your suggestion or shut you down.

I'm not sure why you thought people were talking about your suggestion when referring to diverted Anglo-Saxon migration, we are talking about IOTL 5th century it seems.

And you're entitled to that opinion; where I take umbrage (in general, not with you specifically) with that argument is I've seen asides like that shut down otherwise productive discussions in-progress, which I find frustrating to no end. And regarding the "cheating" comment, I'm not offended so much as confused since alternate history (well, history in general really) isn't really a rule-bound genre in nature IMO. If that wasn't your intent, then mea culpa.

As for your point about needing a Roman collapse to facilitate a Germanic settled Gaul, that was what I was alluding to originally by specifying a stunted Republic or butterflied Imperial period. An Arian-esque Christianity or monotheistic evolution of Teutonic religion would be an interesting development depending on whether Judaism or an off-shoot thereof gained enough traction that far afield, which may or may not need a particular state's backing.
 
The Arian church could maybe play such a role. I read somewhere that during the Vandal conquest of Roman Africa, that some local Arians joined their fellow Arian Christians in oppostion to hte nicean state. Religion can unite and it can divide.
The problem of the Arian church is that its doctrine is in direct contradiction with the Nicean church, I was thinking about a Bulgarian scenario, in which the church, still in full communion with Chalchedon, has its own liturgical language and controls itself.
 
Top