It should be pointed, first, that Franks weren't as much a Germanic "tribe" (I think you meant people there, giving that tribe would probably more fit to describe the groups on which these peoples were formed), than an ensemble of Roman and romanized Barbarians mostly united by the Vth century by a political-civic identity (mixing up the late Roman conception of a Barbarian being whoever serves the Barbarian king, and the late Roman citizenship)As in the title, what would happen if another Germanic tribe(Bavarians, Saxons, Frisians, Alemmans etc.) conquered Merovingian France in the 2 centuries after the death of Clovis?
Why can´t the Germans that "remained" in Germania do it?more or less out of question, you had no real possibility for Goths to pull something like this, and Germania's peoples even less. The only real (if not that likely) candidates would be Franko-Romans (and mostly in Aquitaine and Burgondy) but it would rather be, IMO, in the case of a Merovingian extinction in the VIth century than causing it : and what happened in the VIIth century does point that loosing control of southern Gaul doesn't that weaken Frankish capacities.
You'd probably need a PoD in the Vth, preventing Frankish takeover of most of Gaul, to really have the possibility of someone trumping Franks stuck in Belgica.
It wasn't as much a balkanisation, than a shared kingship of a same political/fiscal entity, as were the shared imperium in Late Romania with two or three different emperors.The kingdom tended to balkanize when rulers die, wouldn´t that help with a Germanic takeover?
For most of the VIth century, Visigoths were the ones under pressure, from Franks in the north, and Romans in the south.For example if the Visigoths simultaneously pressured in the south
You mean like the IOTL plague that affected Francia, Europe and Mediterranean world in the VIth/VIIth centuries, in the same way than the Black Death? It didn't seems to have that favoured rivals, historically, or even significantly prevented Frankish dominance on Germania.or some sort of strong plague affected the region.
Because of the really important gap demographically, logistically, organisationally and politically wise, which allowed Franks to dominate them rather than the contrary.Why can´t the Germans that "remained" in Germania do it?
Then safe the aformentioned (and unlikely) equivalent to Gothic Wars in the VIth or VIIth century...I seek at least something that reach the Loire in Britanny.
With the caveat that holding to labelling everything as "tribe" might not be accurate if at all, it's more concievable while a first takeover would probably avoid or bypass Belgica in a first time, rather going trough Upper Rhine crossings.If one moves the POD back to the second half of the 5th century, can a Germanic tribes take over Belgica and later on over Northern Gaul(at least the Seine and Normandy in this case)?
Sigh, it seems we roll back a generation every time, frankly(lol) I seriously doubt the conquest was signed by that time, don´t you think you have a too rigid view of this era? At least in terms of alternate history?Still, you'd need to deal with Childeric, which was one of the main rulers in late Roman Gaul : he accumulated enough prestige and ressources, and a build-up of Salians to really allow his son to takeover most of the provinces. An untimely death in the late 470's, during his campaigns against Alemans would be interesting, making the devolution of Belgica Secunda to Franks less certain to be inherited in one piece.
That´s interesting, I guess they are the only possible group, given the Saxons would have to cross the Rhine border at its biggest.Eventually, with enough luck and infighting against Franks (keeping in mind that it never really prevented them to expand and assert their power), and more success in Belgica Prima and Germania Prima against Burgondians, you could see an Alemanic ensemble being successful in eastern Gaul and establishing its dominance over several Frankish entities (foedi as Ripuarii, or Franko-Romans counts as Arbgoast in Trier).
Would Britain really matter at this point with the A-Saxon invasions?It's not really clear to me if this Alemanic-Frankish kingdom would be really able to project itself up beyond Seine, at least in a first time, as Gallo-Britto-Roman ensemble would be stronger (and probably beneficing of the Saxon settlements in modern Normandy); and this TL requires several PoDs but here we go.
How not? You essentially have less Romanized group taking over a Roman territory, that must mean something.Culturally, nothing really changes,
In which ways? Linguistically? Religiously? Politically?altough the distinction between southern and northern Gaul may be more stressed;
Why not? As far as I know Alemans weren´t foederati in large parts, that means their take over would entail a different approach to local populations and institutions.[/QUOTE]but the Alemano-Frankish ensemble wouldn't really differ from what existed with Merovingian Gaul,
Well, you asked a PoD in the Vth century, I provided a PoD in a Vth century.Sigh, it seems we roll back a generation every time, frankly(lol)
I first tought to answer "Don't you think you have a too opinionated view of this era", but not only it would have been rude, but I think you're genuinly welcome to point anything that would be incorrect, incomplete or wrong in what I said above, or that would seem off, or anything you could source about why the Frankish presence in Gaul since the IVth and their working relationship with Romans in the same time didn't made them major players in Gaul. The period is complex, and I could have easily missed somethin.I seriously doubt the conquest was signed by that time, don´t you think you have a too rigid view of this era? At least in terms of alternate history?
The presence of Saxons in Gaul isn't really the issue, they settled Channel coast in the IVth and Vth century and remained an important, if secondary, ensemble in the North-Western part of Gaul.That´s interesting, I guess they are the only possible group, given the Saxons would have to cross the Rhine border at its biggest.
Burgundians, for all the potential they could get, simply doesn't have the same strategical possibilities than IOTL Franks : they were significantly weakened in the Vth in their wars against Huns, and while they tied strong links with Gallo-Romans, they didn't have the same military assets than, for exemple, Clovis did. It doesn't help Burgondians were stuck between Spain and Italy, and relatively wary of these neighbours (more than Franks, at least in a first time).But what about the Burgundians? Why can´t they themselves take over the area?
Brittons, as the Brittons that settled what we call now Brittany in Gaul, where they formed a part of the northern Gallic ensemble up to the late Vth, if not VIth century. ITTL, it might be still the case, with a Britto-Gallo-Roman ensemble distinguished (for how long,tough?) from the aformentioned Alemanic-Frankish ensemble.Would Britain really matter at this point with the A-Saxon invasions?
How exactly are Alamans significantly less romanized? Why d you think they wouldn't, even if they were, be integrated in Late Roman institutional and cultural structures along Franks?How not? You essentially have less Romanized group taking over a Roman territory, that must mean something.
Linguistically, perhaps with an earlier distinction between northern and southern gallo-romance, but I expected something more political in a first time, a bit like it happened in the VIth/VIIth centuries.In which ways? Linguistically? Religiously? Politically?
Most of smaller foedi weren't really recorded in the long time, and while Alemanni presence in eastern Gaul was relatively recent (relatively, as their settlement in Agri Decumati was made along post-imperial lines), it would still be made in accordance over already present foedi (Frankish mostly, as hinted by the repeted use of Alemani-Frankish ensemble), but as well provincial instituions that were devoided to Franks IOTL, possibly Alemano-Franks ITTL. As all Barbarians, they would be integrated within the structures of post-imperial Romania, and function as such, with no sign that they would behave differently.Why not? As far as I know Alemans weren´t foederati in large parts
Nope : even later waves of Barbarians as Lombards mostly adopted the same approach than their predecessors.that means their take over would entail a different approach to local populations and institutions.
What kind of bias do I have? lolI first tought to answer "Don't you think you have a too opinionated view of this era", but then I think you're welcome to point anything that would be incorrect, incomplete or wrong in what I said above, or that would seem off, or anything you could source about why the Frankish presence in Gaul since the IVth and their working relationship with Romans in the same time didn't made them major players in Gaul.
It's not because the period is less popularily known, including in this board, that it means that any random event could take place, tough.
I´m just drawing a line between being a federati group inside the Empire and "merely" having economic ties through the limes or the imperial border. It seems weird to me to say that any degree of romanization means no such thing as a foreign group existed.How exactly are Alamans significantly less romanized? Why d you think they wouldn't, even if they were, be integrated in Late Roman institutional and cultural structures along Franks?
This may be a good exemple why percieving "inner" Barbarians as "tribes" is a mistake, as you seem to think they formed wholly separated bodies with distinctive cultural identities.
If any Germanic group was going to act the same what´s the special status of the Franks inside the Empire? I mean you brought that up many times for this topic, but if at the end it didn´t matter given even a mostly non-federati group would act the same like the Franks.Most of smaller foedi weren't really recorded in the long time, and while Alemanni presence in eastern Gaul was relatively recent (relatively, as their settlement in Agri Decumati was made along post-imperial lines), it would still be made in accordance over already present foedi (Frankish mostly, as hinted by the repeted use of Alemani-Frankish ensemble), but as well provincial instituions that were devoided to Franks IOTL, possibly Alemano-Franks ITTL. As all Barbarians, they would be integrated within the structures of post-imperial Romania, and function as such : unless arguing that Alemanni were, somehow, special enough to act differently to litterally every other people in the period.
Wouldn´t that be because of the status of Italy as opposed to a general rule?Nope : even later waves of Barbarians as Lombards mostly adopted the same approach than their predecessors.
With all due respect I've for you (and because of it), I'll answer honestly.What kind of bias do I have? lol
I'm not sure where you took the "merely economic ties" comes from : the status of Barbarians in the Vth century is before all things political, the cultural and economical differenciation of Barbarians compared to Romans being limited at best.I´m just drawing a line between being a federati group inside the Empire and "merely" having economic ties through the limes or the imperial border
Again, you're putting stuff I never wrote in my posts. I'd rather prefer you'd stop this now, would it be out of basic civility.It seems weird to me to say that any degree of romanization means no such thing as a foreign group existed.
It comes from mostly two things : a relatively stable and loyal service from Frankish federates compared to many of their equivalent, which allowed them to tie a stronger network with Gallo-Roman elites even outside their foedus, and being for what matter Northern Gaul the only institutional and legal political and military power after the collapse of the Roman state.If any Germanic group was going to act the same what´s the special status of the Franks inside the Empire?
I think you should read more carefully posts you disagree with : there's a reason why I systematically said Alemanic-Frankish ensemble ITTL, rather than just Alemanic. As I said several times, I don't think Alamans with a PoD in the Vth would have been able to do so on their own, and would at the very least need to base themselves on Franko-Roman networks.I mean you brought that up many times for this topic, but if at the end it didn´t matter given even a mostly non-federati group would act the same like the Franks.
No, simply said : while a legalist approach isn't uninteresting, it can't explain the situation alone : institutional and social structures in Italy as in Gaul were resilient enough to serve as the basis of political entities such as Franks, Lombards or, in this case, ATL Alamans that where not only "submerged" by them, but more or less importantly created trough these.Wouldn´t that be because of the status of Italy as opposed to a general rule?
Well there is a reason for that, you can hardly win a war with "luck" in the modern world but you can easily twist events to lead an entire pre-modern army too failure even with numerical superiority, thus you can tinker around the later more than with the former. But that's another topic and it would be too big to discuss here.I think the only reason it get a pass is because it's a poorly known era by most here and in IRL, while in the midst of the cohort of American Civil War or World War II threads, a simple "I think you're wrong because history = luck" would be ignored for what it might be : "you may know something about it, but all you know isn't enough for my unsourced opinion".
By the term Barbarians, you mean only the ones who entered the Roman territories(so Franks, Visigoths etc.) or the general population of Germania? Because I have trouble understanding if effectively there was any group that could be considered not romanized.I'm not sure where you took the "merely economic ties" comes from : the status of Barbarians in the Vth century is before all things political, the cultural and economical differenciation of Barbarians compared to Romans being limited at best.
If I misinterpret something, is probably because I missed the meaning of it, not because I want to twist the meaning to make an argument.Again, you're putting stuff I never wrote in my posts. I'd rather prefer you'd stop this now, would it be out of basic civility.
This is a continuation of the question above, would the Saxons in England be considered the same kind of Barbarians as the Franks or Visigoths? Because at least for these Saxons, to me it seems weird to say they were that romanized as well.Barbarian identity in the Vth was essentially, altough not only, a matter of civic-political alliegence : before the fall of the Roman state, a Barbarian (would it be Frank, Goths, etc) was someone following directly or more or indirectly a Barbarian king or petty king. The replacement of the Roman imperium by the Barbarian imperium slowly made this, again rough, definition more and more obsolete up to the fusion of identities at the benefit of the Frankish one.
Foreigness, was rather than anything really cultural, a matter of first political, then religious and display.
What would be the actual best canditates without any of my regional restriction? (this is just for curiosity, no need to go in detail)Alamans, contrary to Franks, didn't beneficied from an early, coherent and stable entity, and formed a peripherical and divided ensemble. Maintained as such by Franks, they still kept (altough with an evident Frankish influence) legal customs inherited from the Roman law on Barbarians : that romanisation in the Alaman ensemble was structural lesser development is a thing, but arguing that even with the control over Roman regions and cities (Ratisbon, Worms, etc.) to begin with, and with controlling a fair chunk of Gaul, they would somehow end up as less romanized than Franks IOTL is a nonsense.
They might not be the best candidate for an alternate Barbarian takeover of Northern Gaul (and it's why, in the context of the aformentioned PoDs, I think they'd have trouble going much more west than Normandy and Berry) : they're probably the worst. But giving the limits of your OP, requesting for a people in Germania taking over, there are the only ones able to pull it without ASB.
Is that primary because of a lack of native intelligentsia(so administrator, tax collectors etc.) or lack of numbers between their ranks?I think you should read more carefully posts you disagree with : there's a reason why I systematically said Alemanic-Frankish ensemble ITTL, rather than just Alemanic. As I said several times, I don't think Alamans with a PoD in the Vth would have been able to do so on their own, and would at the very least need to base themselves on Franko-Roman networks.
In fact, they might even need a better restructuration in the early Vth, but that's another matter.
Even so, like you said, this would mean eventually mean little in most fields though long term. Interestingly enough I guess what is the OTL French name for Germany would be IATL the name for France itself.Now, at the price of the PoDs described above, Alamans could possibly reverse these fortunes and use a weakened Frankish ensemble at their benefit. It would ask for timely victories, political sense and, yes, luck to happen.
To make a comparison with a relative similar "barbarian" takeover, the Arabs, who also used the Greek and Persian bureaucravy for the first decades and century, but eventually ended up supplanting, or at least integrate, their language and their structures with their own.Eventually, you're (consciously or not, that I can't say) confusing two things there : the compared capacity of Vth century Franks and Alamans to take the lead in nothern Gaul, which clearly disfavour the latters; and the pretty much obvious fact that Barbarian peoples eventually used the post-imperial Roman structures wherever they settled, which would lead Alemano-Franks to have a really similar structure than Franks did IOTL, unless tou argue that Alamans were, for some reason, going to act differently than litterally every other Barbarian group.
Well I wasn't really dissatisfied with your answer, at least not in its entirety. It was a mix of being frustrated at the historical reality and a bit at your skepticism(that you of course have all the right to have and express), but I guess I shouldn't have mixed the 2 in my earlier posts and make such hostile responses. Sorry for that.I eventually don't really understand what you search there. When I point the particularily important geopolitical position of Franks, it's no good because it's too rigid.
When I propose you something to fill your OP, even if it's not evidently plausible, it's not good because it's not rigid enough
If, regardless of what I can do, I'm wrong because something something luck something something rigid, I don't think I can (or want, truth to be said) contribute to anything there.
I don't intend it as a bellitlement, as this is a particular knowledge we're talking about : but you do ignore several basic aspects of the situation (nowhere I said, tough, you literally knew nothing), as for exemple your puzzlement about the role of Brittons in northern Gaul in the 460's.Anyhow, I might not be as knowledgable as you, but it's a bit too much to say I literally know nothing about the era.
Barbarians were peoples from the Barbaricum (so not just Germany, but as well Scythia, Dacia, etc.), but in this context I mostly mean Barbarians that appeared on the limes and (for most) entered in Romania. If a distinction is needed to distinguish these from groups that lived along the Elbe for exemple, we might say Inner or Outer Barbarians (sampling the terms from Outer and Inner Mauri in Roman Africa).By the term Barbarians, you mean only the ones who entered the Roman territories(so Franks, Visigoths etc.) or the general population of Germania? Because I have trouble understanding if effectively there was any group that could be considered not romanized.
(crossposting from Roman Britain thread)This is a continuation of the question above, would the Saxons in England be considered the same kind of Barbarians as the Franks or Visigoths? Because at least for these Saxons, to me it seems weird to say they were that romanized as well.
- Goths are probably the obvious answer (altough I don't think it would take the form of a territorial takeover, rather as a sphere of influence more or less firmly held in northern Gaul)What would be the actual best canditates without any of my regional restriction? (this is just for curiosity, no need to go in detail)
More like an issue of political and institutional coherence : by the Vth century, Alamans lacked three important features, that were more or less interwebed.Is that primary because of a lack of native intelligentsia(so administrator, tax collectors etc.) or lack of numbers between their ranks?
Partly so, yes, but there is more to this, and probably more than I list there.Why did such a different outcome happen? Because the Arabs were more united, because they had their own religion?
I think that's the problem, that different processes are all name "romanization", this kinda confuses me and makes many statements using that word ambiguous.As for romanization, it wasn't a simple process : in several places it took the form of an assimilation, of a "institutionalisation" so to speak (mostly in eastern Romania), or a creolization (as in Roman Britain). We know that Roman influence went deep into the Barbaricum, even in the Late Empire : even beyond peoples whom ethnogenesis is directly a product of the border as Franks or Goths, the diplomatical, political and/or commercial exchange could be significant (the collapse of the Roman state in the west indirectly led to a crisis in Scandinavian societies, fragmenting these in smaller and warlike entities, for exemple).
So, we might rather think of romanizations, being a question of degree and how much it could replace native and traditional frames : you didn't have a clear cut "X is romanized, Y is not" in the vicinity of the empire.
What decided, maybe, more than farness strictly speaking might have been the depth of political and institutional integration to what remained of post-imperial structures.
This is an interesting bit, so what I understood is:It doesn't mean that continental Saxons underwent the same romanisation than Franks, of course, and the former certainly didn't participated to the post-imperial Roman civilisation : but the fate of Saxons in Gaul and Britain might eventually owes more to which societies they encountered and merged with, than their initial situation (altough, without a doubt, the long history of dynamic relationship with limes Barbarians, as stated above, certainly favoured peoples as Franks, Goths, Burgondians, etc.)
As such, the prestige of Arab as a sacred language was pretty much obvious to replace Greek as a chancery language.
Then, while Barbarian peoples were litterally made of romanized and Roman peoples since the IIIrd century, a product of the border to paraphrase Guy Halsall; you hard Arab peoples and cultures that while related to the Hellenic and Persian world, had their own centers : you had a whole history of cultural distinctiveness and sophistication you simply didn't have with Goths or Franks whom almost all cultural referents were either strongly romanized when they wern't made up out of Tacitus, Virgil, Exodus or by borrowing on peoples remained in Barbaricum, because they tried really hard to pass as bona fide Germans.
I think I'm missing something, wouldm't that incentivize a continuous use of the local or old adminstrative languages in the new Arab controlled territories?Another, that if often mentioned may be less important, is the greater need and dependency of Arabs of fiscal revenues : while Barbarian states were poor states, whom fiscal revenues were shortened compared to what existed in the IVth and eastern Romania; in these regions not only fiscal capacities were intact, but prospered in the Vth, and in spite of the Romano-Persian wars, remained largely in place while Muslims didn't payed most of them until the VIIIth century, hence the small incitative for Arab rulers to convert populations or to consider them fully muslims even when it was the case (in the case of Berbers, at least) which was another issue at population mixing.
So the isolation of the Arabs "helped" them as opposed to the economic and military integration of Germania within the Roman Empire?Then, while Barbarian peoples were litterally made of romanized and Roman peoples since the IIIrd century, a product of the border to paraphrase Guy Halsall; you hard Arab peoples and cultures that while related to the Hellenic and Persian world, had their own centers : you had a whole history of cultural distinctiveness and sophistication you simply didn't have with Goths or Franks whom almost all cultural referents were either strongly romanized when they wern't made up out of Tacitus, Virgil, Exodus or by borrowing on peoples remained in Barbaricum, because they tried really hard to pass as bona fide Germans.
So theoretically, a continuous existence of a Western Roman country(as opposed to Barbarian lead Roman territory) would in a way dissuade any would be conqueror from the continuous use of Latin institutions in the long term?Eventually, the resistence of the Roman state in Greece and Anatolia, certainly prevented Arabs to maintain the influence they recieved from late Roman civilisation as much they recieved from Persian civilization : there's only so much you can try to look like someone you assert is your foe. While in western Romania, the fall of the Roman state allowed a devolution of its institutions to Barbarians, its survival in Near East didn't.
It's not as much different processes, while it was a complex one : it's to be compared with the concept of westernisation in the XIXth : it does have multiple faces, but is based on the same bases, and contextuality is generally enough.I think that's the problem, that different processes are all name "romanization", this kinda confuses me and makes many statements using that word ambiguous.
That sums it well yes, altough it's in several case less a simple conquest than a regional devolution made at the point of the spear.Ultimately the relations between Rome and some of the Barbarians groups helped the later in conquering those regions after the collapse, but at the end if the Roman institutions and/or languages remained were dependent on the degree and the resilience of the roman influence on the region.
The linguistical change was quite gradual and didn't stabilized before the classical Middle-Ages, not as an immediate consequence of the collapse of the roman state, as we discussed in another thread.But if that's not the case for Roman Gaul and Italy, why did the linguistic border change at all with the fall of Rome?
These regions were, indeed, settled by Barbarians since centuries (not just as foederati, but as dedicitii, laetii, refugees, volontary settlers, etc.), which certainly maintain a linguistical influence.I find hard to reconcile how utterly romanized those groups were and how at the end they still ended up supplanting Latin speeches in a fairly large amount of area[...] I can understand that in part the situation was because of the federati, but did the Barbarian takeover play any major role as well?
It probably did among dhimmi, whom elites were as responsible of the fical harvest as they're before. But once the distinctivness of Arabo-Islamic culture, and its religious and socially based superiority institutionalized for reasons aformentioned, it wasn't really going to be more than this.I think I'm missing something, wouldm't that incentivize a continuous use of the local or old adminstrative languages in the new Arab controlled territories?
Very roughly : they weren't isolated or not integrated (altough less so than Franks or Goths), but their cultural and isntitutional frames weren't a by-product of the Roman Empire.So the isolation of the Arabs "helped" them as opposed to the economic and military integration of Germania within the Roman Empire?
I don't think so : again, Barbarian ethnogenesis is almost entierly due to their relations with Romania (trough trade, diplomacy or sheer cultural weight), the integration of Barbarians within Roman state was definitely made along late imperial lines, and the probable absence of a strong unyfing identitarian feature such as Islam became in the VIIth century, wouldn't really help.So theoretically, a continuous existence of a Western Roman country(as opposed to Barbarian lead Roman territory) would in a way dissuade any would be conqueror from the continuous use of Latin institutions in the long term?
With the term "westernization", I actually finally understand what you meant.It's not as much different processes, while it was a complex one : it's to be compared with the concept of westernisation in the XIXth : it does have multiple faces, but is based on the same bases, and contextuality is generally enough.
So when the Germanic part started having its own native institutions in their local language they could "compete" with the Latin speeches and of course none of the Barbarians had that,It's less the takeover itself, tough, that might have decided of the linguistical fate of these peripherical regions : the Rhine border, not only having a more Germanic presence, owed its strong Roman presence to the military build-up of the region (there's not an important city of the limes that didn't began as a military colony) : as the limes more or less lost its raison d'être and with the fall of the roman State that sustained it...
Still, romance speeches didn't disappeared from the region, and it might be the appearance of germanic cultural centers in HRE from one hand, and romance in France in the other hand that really parachieved the linguistical border.
I imagine that is because they had more urban centers and/or because their populated area like Yemen were far from the Levant and Mesopotamia as opposed to Germania demographical structure?Very roughly : they weren't isolated or not integrated (altough less so than Franks or Goths), but their cultural and isntitutional frames weren't a by-product of the Roman Empire.
Was the ethnogenesis for the Inner Barbaricum(the ones not in the Limes if I got the term right) also based mostly on Rome?I don't think so : again, Barbarian ethnogenesis is almost entierly due to their relations with Romania (trough trade, diplomacy or sheer cultural weight), the integration of Barbarians within Roman state was definitely made along late imperial lines, and the probable absence of a strong unyfing identitarian feature such as Islam became in the VIIth century, wouldn't really help.
In the case of Christianity being the religion of both parties, wouldn't the Christian aspect of it supplant the Romanness or would it overlap or even mean the same(Christian=Roman, but that's not different from OTL at least in the early centuries as I understood)?On the other hand, the survival of a western Roman state would probably maintain the distinctivness of Roman and Barbarian identities, less on a cultural than the usual political-civic frames of both, altough Roman could eventually lead to mean as in the eastern Roman state IOTL, a dominant political identity over regional/cultural identities (such as Anna Kommenos considering herself as a Roman of hellenic culture). We might then see later equivalents to the famous francus ego cives, romanus miles in armis
Not entierly so : the German-speaking populations in the limes certainly competed, at least in the countryside, with Romance (and Celtic, as we know part of the Rhineland population, if greatly reduced, still used Celt until the Vth century) speaks. It really went over with the new social-institutional frame of the region, where the end of a strong roman institution such as the Army (even when Barbarized) disappeared as such from a limes that became an inner border whithin Francia; and even less so after the VIIth century and the change of centers (trade, and political) of Francia from Neustria to Austrasia, and the subsequent development of places as Frankfurt (and the general devellopment and direct control of Frankish Germania)So when the Germanic part started having its own native institutions in their local language they could "compete" with the Latin speeches and of course none of the Barbarians had that,
Partly, but even Beduin peoples were relatively untouched, less because of their supposed isolation, than because they already formed their identity and their political frames independently of Rome.I imagine that is because they had more urban centers and/or because their populated area like Yemen were far from the Levant and Mesopotamia as opposed to Germania demographical structure?
I'd rather say, "Outer", compared to Romania.Was the ethnogenesis for the Inner Barbaricum(the ones not in the Limes if I got the term right) also based mostly on Rome?
Rather, the Christianity would become an aspect of Romanity, as it became with the Eastern Roman Empire, altough in a relatively shattered form until the VIIth due to the peripherical heterodox denominations. We could see, IATL where the western Roman state survives, a longer maintain of Homeism (altough its long maintain IOTL partially comes from this necessity to distinguish a Barbarian identity), or even paganism among Barbarians.In the case of Christianity being the religion of both parties, wouldn't the Christian aspect of it supplant the Romanness