Alternate Germanic migrations questions

Delvestius

Banned
1. What other sort of Germanic groups aside from the Angles, Jutes and Saxons could make it to Britain? Perhaps Frisians, Franks or displaced Alemmanians?

2. What is the possibility and implications of a southern Germanic migration towards the Balkans? Yes, I know the westward movement was account of the Huns (were there any other significant Asian groups that contributed to this migrations, like the Scythians or Slavic groups?) I feel that if you had enough groups crossing the Danube (as opposed to one or two attempting) the Byzantines would do no better at holding back the tide in the long run than the Romans. Less likely, they allow them to settle along the Danube as buffer states to more dangerous groups, kind of like what they did with the goths. I feel that with more potential threats on their borders, they may hold more honorably to their agreement.

3. In addition to the areas of continental Europe that remained Germanic (Scandinavia, Germany, Holland, Austria) what is/are the next (few) most likely areas of permanent Germanic settlement?
 
Last edited:
There was a movement of Germanic tribes into the Balkans: the Goths. But they did not stay there. Even the Langobards had moved into the Balkans before they moved to northern Italy.
 

Delvestius

Banned
There was a movement of Germanic tribes into the Balkans: the Goths. But they did not stay there. Even the Langobards had moved into the Balkans before they moved to northern Italy.

Yeh, I mentioned that... As you mentioned, they didn't stay because of poor relations with the Byzantines. I'm looking for not only the Goths but also the Lombards, Vandals, Franks, as many as we can get.
 
Frisians are attested as one of the groups who crossed into Britain [too lazy to find the source right now]- they were just more often under Angle or Saxon leadership that they're not thought of separately.
 
Langobards only grazed the flank of the Balkans while they passed through today's Slovenia to Italy.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Frisians are attested as one of the groups who crossed into Britain [too lazy to find the source right now]- they were just more often under Angle or Saxon leadership that they're not thought of separately.

While it doesn't surprise me, it would imagine it's only a small percentage of the Frisians as a whole.

Langobards only grazed the flank of the Balkans while they passed through today's Slovenia to Italy.

... Yeh?
 
Frisians are attested as one of the groups who crossed into Britain [too lazy to find the source right now]- they were just more often under Angle or Saxon leadership that they're not thought of separately.

I think you mean Procopius of Caesarea who stated that Britain in his day was inhabited by three tribes named Angles, Frisians and Britons.

Then there's also that qoute from Bede's Ecclesiastical History about Ecgbert having visions of God that suggests that a larger number of tribes took part in the invasion of Briton:

''At that time the venerable servant of Christ, and priest, Eghert, whom I cannot name but with the greatest respect, and who, as was said before, lived a stranger in Ireland to obtain hereafter a residence in heaven, proposed to himself to do good to many, by taking upon him the apostolical work, and preaching the word of God to some of those nations that had not yet heard it; many of which nations he knew there were in Germany, from whom the Angles or Saxons, who now inhabit Britain, are known to have derived their origin; for which reason they are still corruptly called Garmans by the neighboring nation of the Britons. Such are the Frisons, the Rugins, the Danes, the Huns, the Ancient Saxons, and the Boructuars.''
 
Bede's not entirely accurate (tribal names were often mixed up, confused with others or outright misapplied; and almost always misspelled) but it's not unlikely some of the Bructeri or similar made it over.

The thing is, all the peoples we know made it over in significant numbers came mostly from the Wadden Sea area, with maybe a few more inland peoples joining in but not having quite a primary role. That's why it was an Anglo-Frisian language (Anglic/Old English) that became dominant and why the Anglo-Saxons were very much Anglic culturally. Sure, plenty of obvious signs show Saxons played a huge role (the names of Wessex, Essex, Sussex etc, as well as Hengest and Horsa) initially, but they still ended up strongly Anglic by the 10th century.

So, you'd need a pretty big change to make a significantly different Germanic Invasion of Britain.

When it comes #3, my perennial favourite regarding this has always been Gothic Crimea. The Goths in the Crimea held out surprisingly long in OTL, if there had been more of them and they'd managed their affairs better they could have stayed around longer and have had more impact on history.
 
Bede's not entirely accurate (tribal names were often mixed up, confused with others or outright misapplied; and almost always misspelled) but it's not unlikely some of the Bructeri or similar made it over.

Oh I completely agree with this; I was merely pointing out that other tribal groupings did take part in the migration to Britain and were, in all likelihood, simply absorbed by the more numerous Angles and Saxons.
 
Top