AHC/WI: Another Germanic tribes conquers Merovingian France

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?

How could such a thing happen and what would it mean from a religious and cultural perspective?
 
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?
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 such, Frankish takeover of Gaul was more the assertion of the imperium they inherited with the collapse of Roman state in Gaul, on local society and on their Barbarian counterparts, making Frankish Gaul a continuation (but not a maintain) of late Roman Gaul.
Meaning that, the Barbarian state wasn't just a matter of which random "tribe" would conquer it, but a relatively gradual build-up since the IVth century, making Francia if not a strong state, at least a powerful polity in western Europe : it's why Franks eventually tended to dominate western Germania and its peoples (Alemans, Bavarians, Saxons from time to time), which never really threatened it more than regular raids (for what matter Saxons essentially).

You'd need some devastating event comparable to the Gothic Wars in Italy, that weakened the post-imperial structures to a dramatic point, to really have a possibility of a peripherical take-over, as Lombards did in Italy : it should be, of course, remembered these weren't as much of a tribe anthropologically speaking, but a peripherical early state in Illyricum as Ostrogoths and Heruli were in their time.
Assuming that Clovis's reign unfolds as IOTL, I don't really see which kind of events could have this effect in Gaul : a Justinian expedition is 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.
 
The kingdom tended to balkanize when rulers die, wouldn´t that help with a Germanic takeover?

For example if the Visigoths simultaneously pressured in the south or some sort of strong plague affected the region.

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.
Why can´t the Germans that "remained" in Germania do it?

The Franko-Romans is not what I seek, neither is Saxon overrunning only Belgica. I seek at least something that reach the Loire in Britanny.
 
The kingdom tended to balkanize when rulers die, wouldn´t that help with a Germanic takeover?
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.
It can be argued that the division of Francia with each king having a set of cities, fiscal income and a border to defend, not only didn't ultimately weakened Francia, but helped it to grow as two centuries after Clovis, Francia doubled it territorial size and kept peripherical peoples under its suzerainty or tributaries.

For example if the Visigoths simultaneously pressured in the south
For most of the VIth century, Visigoths were the ones under pressure, from Franks in the north, and Romans in the south.
Now, if Balthi dynasty survives the VIth, you might avoid most of the adverse effects of the anti-dynastic kingship that Gothic Spain became, and so the relative political instability it created, but even at its apogee, the Visigothic Kingdom was really unable to project its power outside its immediate neighbouring, so while you might end with a lesser Frankish pressure on Spain, I don't think you'd reverse the tendency and then put it up to eleven against Franks.

or some sort of strong plague affected the region.
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.

Why can´t the Germans that "remained" in Germania do it?
Because of the really important gap demographically, logistically, organisationally and politically wise, which allowed Franks to dominate them rather than the contrary.

I seek at least something that reach the Loire in Britanny.
Then safe the aformentioned (and unlikely) equivalent to Gothic Wars in the VIth or VIIth century...
 
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)?
 
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)?
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.

It wouldn't ask much for Burgondians to take the lead in southern Gaul (the alliance de-facto between Gallo-Romans nobility and Burgondians makes it less about if an absorption takes places than how and where), for exemple if Goths are defeated at Déols, which may have the consequence to strengthen the Franko-Roman presence in northern Gaul (continuing the historical alliances) that wouldn't be the same than a federate take-over, and would be as vulnerable to inner tensions and the temptation of a Burgondian alliance than it was with Goths.

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.
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).

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.

Culturally, nothing really changes, altough the distinction between southern and northern Gaul may be more stressed; but the Alemano-Frankish ensemble wouldn't really differ from what existed with Merovingian Gaul, altough we might admittedly end with a more peripherical sense than IOTL (due to the lack of Aquitain pool) making Northern-Eastern Gaul a bit more akin to Illyricum, if you don't end up with a conquest of Armorica (in its largest sense).
Religiously, it wouldn't have world-shattering consequences but maybe a quicker evolution than IOTL : Alemano-Franks would still probably end up to convert to Nicean Christianity, and it's possible that Burgundians would re-switch to Nicean Christianity due to their new geopolitical position, and the important part of Burgonds that remained niceans after the 430's.
 
Last edited:
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.
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?

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).
That´s interesting, I guess they are the only possible group, given the Saxons would have to cross the Rhine border at its biggest.

But what about the Burgundians? Why can´t they themselves take over the area?

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.
Would Britain really matter at this point with the A-Saxon invasions?

Culturally, nothing really changes,
How not? You essentially have less Romanized group taking over a Roman territory, that must mean something.

altough the distinction between southern and northern Gaul may be more stressed;
In which ways? Linguistically? Religiously? Politically?

but the Alemano-Frankish ensemble wouldn't really differ from what existed with Merovingian Gaul,
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]
 
Sigh, it seems we roll back a generation every time, frankly(lol)
Well, you asked a PoD in the Vth century, I provided a PoD in a Vth century.

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?
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.

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.

That´s interesting, I guess they are the only possible group, given the Saxons would have to cross the Rhine border at its biggest.
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.
The issue is that late Roman Gaul was still too strong to be taken over by outer Barbarians, that contrary to Franks, Goths or other foedi, didn't benefited from an already affirmed presence and authority over its institutions (mostly military, but as Count Arbogast in Trier points, not only).

But what about the Burgundians? Why can´t they themselves take over the area?
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).
It doesn't mean that they wouldn't be able to assert their dominance over southern Gaul, partially thanks to a working relationship with families as Syagrii, but going in a jolly campaign on Rhine...

Would Britain really matter at this point with the A-Saxon invasions?
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.

How not? You essentially have less Romanized group taking over a Roman territory, that must mean something.
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.

In which ways? Linguistically? Religiously? Politically?
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.

Why not? As far as I know Alemans weren´t foederati in large parts
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.

Note that we know there were Alemanni (or associated peoples such as Suevi, laeti and dedicatii settlements in Gaul,

that means their take over would entail a different approach to local populations and institutions.
Nope : even later waves of Barbarians as Lombards mostly adopted the same approach than their predecessors.
 
Last edited:
I 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.
What kind of bias do I have? lol


More than the crude facts, I dispute the rigidness of the political situation, after all "luck" is IMO a big factor in history more often than not.

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.
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.

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.
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.

Nope : even later waves of Barbarians as Lombards mostly adopted the same approach than their predecessors.
Wouldn´t that be because of the status of Italy as opposed to a general rule?
 
Last edited:
What kind of bias do I have? lol
With all due respect I've for you (and because of it), I'll answer honestly.

It's, for me, a bias coming out of ignorance of the historical situation, and thinking that filling it with randomness and general opinion is enough.
It happens that it's an era and place I've a particular knowledge (altough nowhere complete or indisputable, of course), and having an answer (that I try to base on what I remember and checking the sources I've at hand to be sure giving the best I can) by "but deep down, I feel otherwise" is a bit annoying, and certainly much more so than a sourced or reasonable disagreement, and especially when I try to find realistic ways to fill your OP.

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".

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
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.
Alamans have a long history of service as auxiliaries within the Roman army in the late IVth century, altough not in the same frame than Franks (see below) and while it's true that being at the periphery of western Romania, they didn't had access to strong Roman structures (but the same could be said for Lombards in the VIth century)

Similarily, the distinction between foedi, laeti and dedicitii was more or less blur, as they tended to be confused since the late IVth century : the legal technicalities ended to be just this, technicalities, and the difference of a noteworthy Barbarian entity and a not-so-noteworthy was eventually the capacity of the first to absorbate the seconds (as it happened with the Alamans or Armorican Saxons under Frankish dominance).
We know that Allemani were settled in Gaul since the IIIrd century, as Franks did (outside their foedi, of course), such as place names of Allemagne-en-Provence. It's of course not nearly enough to say you'd get military and support in Gaul before the conquest, but rather that you'd have the bases for a regional transmission.

It seems weird to me to say that any degree of romanization means no such thing as a foreign group existed.
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.

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.

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.

If any Germanic group was going to act the same what´s the special status of the Franks inside the Empire?
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.
Similarily, their relative loyalty during the IVth century avoided them the fate of Alemanic sub-groups (and there, we might call these Lentienses or Iuntunghi tribes), whom defeats against Romans broke the possibility of a smooth constitution as Franks had : it didn't doomed them to irrelevance, as Burgondian's fate point, but it certainly weakened them compared to Franks (and in a way, it's the role Frankish rulers and officers obtained from Rome against Alamans that ensured their dominance).

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.
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.

The problems with Alamans was that they didn't formed as Franks did a stable foedus within Romania, and that their ties with Gallo-Roman or Italo-Roman elites were much more limited, it led the Alamanorum Patria to be rather similar to what existed in Pannonia with the kingdoms of Rugi and Heruli, or in Dacia with the kingdom of Gepids; that is border kingdoms in the dependene of primary ensembles.

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.

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.

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.

Wouldn´t that be because of the status of Italy as opposed to a general rule?
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.
 
(Stuff I don't respond to is something I either agree with or that changed my opinion and I have nothing to add, so take my relative short response in a positive light)

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".
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
What would be the actual best canditates without any of my regional restriction? (this is just for curiosity, no need to go in detail)

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.
Is that primary because of a lack of native intelligentsia(so administrator, tax collectors etc.) or lack of numbers between their ranks?

And, ignoring for a moment the second, is the first "fixable"? Because so far it seems the only way to resolve such a problem would be by being more romanized and that would effectively change nothing ultimately.

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.
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.

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.
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.

Why did such a different outcome happen? Because the Arabs were more united, because they had their own religion?

I mean even the Arabs had their "federati", both for the Persians and Greeks, so it feels like I'm missing a piece. So far I thought that the relation between Franks and Gallo-Romans was both affected by the romanized and mixed status of the Franks and their numerical inferiority. So I thought that by removing the first something would change, even if not drastically.


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.
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.
 
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.
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.

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.
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).

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 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.
(crossposting from Roman Britain thread)
Saxons certainly fit in what remained of post-Imperial roman structures. Thing is, these were particularily weakened in the VIth century.

They were quite probably less present to begin with, compared to other western provinces and regions (altough not that unique, we could consider Illyricum or northern Spain) with the attested survival of pre-Roman tribal identities at its rough periphery (Votodinii, Dumonii, Silures, etc.) that even with the best will in the world, I can't spot in Gaul.
Does that means that sub-Roman Britain wasn't romanized? No, but it was rather more of a creolization that what happened in the aformentioned regions, with relatively less develloped ensemble that suffered from the gradual but quick withdrawal of the Roman army that ammounted to an earlier collapse of Roman state for the island, compared to the mainland.

That alone wouldn't have been as problematic, if the roman state didn't collapsed in western Romania, with the effects in the former Empire but as well in the Barbaricum up to Scandinavia as mentioned above : iwhich eventually pushed more North Sea peoples South and West, making it a destructuring lagniappe for Britain.
Barbarian takeover took place in a situation where roman institutions and structures of a divided Britain were either collapsing or significantly more weakened than in the mainland, so Saxons of the VIth didn't as much ignored post-Imperial frames (as their kingdoms generally mirrored what existed before) than they probably didn't encountered much of these at the contrary of Saxons from the southern shores, on which were settled since the IIIrd century, and that might have joined up with local Brittons, such as for the emergence of Wessex.

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.)

What would be the actual best canditates without any of my regional restriction? (this is just for curiosity, no need to go in detail)
- 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)
Euric slowly swallowed up central Gaul in the late Vth century, and it seems that a significant part of Northern Gaul was more or less inside Gothic sphere of influence, not just Syagrius and Loire basin (possibly due to the strong familial connections in a southern Gaul dominated by Goths), but as well among Franks (the Homean and Gothic connections with Clovis, as hinted by the choice of Theuderic to name his first son).
Of course, Goths had issues of their own, maintaining their transpyrenean realm under a Chalcedonian population, but as Theodoric recieved (or at the very least interpreted as such) a status of primus inter pares among the other Barbarian kingdoms, you won't need much than an early death of Childéric to reinforce a Gothic system in Gaul as much as in Italy and Spain, IMO.

- While more of a regional takeover than the entierty of Gaul, Armorican Saxons getting a bigger share of Northern Gaul isn't implausible, if Franks and Romans are unable (or willing to do so in the case of Franks) to really intervene (in the case of a no-Majorian TL, for instance) : we might see something a long a Rouen/Angers line.

- Eventually, Gallo-Romans themselves could maintain their rule. Not the semi-legendary kingdom of Syagrius, probably stuck in a Noyon/Soissons/Senlis territory, but the aformentioned Britto-Gallo-Roman ensemble, able to maintain a strong presence against Goths (especially if with the death of Euric, its kingdom devolve into civil war) and Franks (especially with the aformentioned early death of Childéric). Its main vulnerability would be the absence of legitimized rulership, that plagued Gallo-Romans (and provincial Romans up to the end, truth to be told), but maybe you'd end up with an actual Roman remnant ruler as a consequence of a victorious Déols, would it be Riothamus (whom identification as Ambrosius Aurelianus is convincing) which would lead to an actual King Arthur's equivalent, only more based in northern Gaul than southern Britain. How long would it hold in one piece is quite the big problem, as you won't have much chances to avoid it to split away.

Is that primary because of a lack of native intelligentsia(so administrator, tax collectors etc.) or lack of numbers between their ranks?
More like an issue of political and institutional coherence : by the Vth century, Alamans lacked three important features, that were more or less interwebed.
- Settlement on a peripherical region, which while still part of the Roman geopolitical sphere, was less integrated to the Empire.
- Isolation from late imperial and post-imperial diplomatic and institutional networking, either with provincial Romans, or with Barbarians.
- Absence of a political unity, would it be dynastic or military.

Why did such a different outcome happen? Because the Arabs were more united, because they had their own religion?
Partly so, yes, but there is more to this, and probably more than I list there.

See, Arabs were, religiously wise, not that well defined from the populations they conquered : a good part of the early distinctivness of Islam comes from the need to distinguish from provincial Christians whom beliefs were sometimes close to what early Muslims believed. As such, the prestige of Arab as a sacred language was pretty much obvious to replace Greek as a chancery language.
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.

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.
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.
 
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.
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.

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.)
This is an interesting bit, so what I understood is:

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.




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.

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? 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(half of Belgica, the West bank of the Rhine, Switzerland, Austria and subsequently half of the Alps).

I can understand that in part the situation was because of the federati, but did the Barbarian takeover play any major role as well?

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.
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?

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 the isolation of the Arabs "helped" them as opposed to the economic and military integration of Germania within the Roman Empire?

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.
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?
 
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.
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.


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.
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.

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?
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.
There's no doubt Germanic speeches were present far in Romania due to Germanic settlement, forming short-lived enclaves, apart from when they were acolled to the former limes), but we know that Vulgar Latin and Romance speeches were present on the old limes until at least the Xth and XIth centuries such as Mosellan Romance.
You probably ended up with germanic speaking enclaves within Romania, but these were short-lived apart from the ones bordering Germania.

It doesn't help, admittedly, that the idea of a clear linguistical border is more of a modern idea based on the national exclusive.
The situation for what matter the Rhine was more to definitely germanize what was a blurry zone (sort of linguistical march, if you will) between Gaul and Germany. The establishment of powerful German states, whom cultural, economical and political cores were firmly rooted into Germanic ensemble was probably a good factor.

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?
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.

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 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?
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.

So the isolation of the Arabs "helped" them as opposed to the economic and military integration of Germania within the Roman Empire?
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 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?
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.
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
 
Thanks for your responses so far, I think I got the "mechanism" ingrained in my brain now, at least in its simplified form.


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.
With the term "westernization", I actually finally understand what you meant.

At least until now, I confused the lines between ethnic-linguistic assimilation(like the modern version of "germanization","polonization" etc.) and the "modernization" process from outside influence.

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.
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,

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.
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 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.
Was the ethnogenesis for the Inner Barbaricum(the ones not in the Limes if I got the term right) also based mostly on Rome?

Becase when I compare it to Arabia we see that the the Ghassanids and Lakhmids also in a way mirror the Limes Barbarians(and ofc they are themselves "Limes Barbarians" considering the Limes Arabicus) but I imagine the key difference is in Hejaz and Yemen compared to the Inner Barbaricum.

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
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)?
 
Last edited:
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,
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)

Eventually, the systematical use of High and Low German in medieval charts happened significantly later, in the XIIIth century. Up to this period, Latin is predominant. It doesn't mean that the "courtly" or "princely" speeches didn't played a role : the Oaths of Strabsourg, and the Theodisc used there, does points to an important use of Germanic language within Carolingia, altough it's largely associated with Louis' armies which were issued from easternmost regions of Francia (Bavaria, Thuringia, etc.)

Basically, it's probably more of a multi-causal change, less coming from the fall of the Roman state (altough it did played an important role) alone, than the evolution of the new geopolitical order in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries in a first time, and the settlement of this in the Xth century.

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?
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.
The relative farness of Arabia Felix (Romans did have a presence this far) was probably less a thing than the really important Persian influence : I don't know this much about Arabs and Persian relationship (Arabs did formed an important part of Sassanian southern-western military and border systems, as Lakhmids and Tayyi), but you'd notice the quick Arabization of Lower Mesopotamia compared to Upper Mesopotamia and Syria.

Eventually, the mixed influence of two strong primary states (Roman and Sassanian), the resilience of the former, and an already culturally distinctive identity additioned to the religious unifying facto, might have played.

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'd rather say, "Outer", compared to Romania.
And yes, altough differently and maybe not "mostly" : we know that Rome had long-range relation with Barbarians outside limes proper, would it be direct or indirect : altough I'm wary of painting it as systematical (would it be because some of what follow wasn't used for fight), we know they gave coinage, supply and sometimes weapon to Barbarian deep into the Barbaricum as a display of power and possibly to curb down destabilizing efforts (such as full-fledged conquests).

As said above, Scandinavian chiefdoms suffered a crisis in the Vth century with the collapse of the western Roman state, which obviously hints at a dependent relationship, and the same can be inferred from the rest of the Barbaricum, altough much less clearly than in the limes whom ethnogenesis, political frames and demographical composition was directly coming from their relations with Romans.
At the contrary of Germans, tough, Arabian kingdoms and entities in southern Arabia pre-existed to Rome, and their structuration didn't came from their relation with it, or Persian, tough their geopolitical horizon did.

In the case of Christianity being the religion of both parties, wouldn't the Christian aspect of it supplant the Romanness
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.
 
Ok, I think we can bring this thread to its conclusion, thanks for your patience and responses so far.

A bit weird no one else felt the need to say something in this long discussion.
 
Top