Alternate Gothic Migrations

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

While researching, I've noticed the Goths moved around quite a lot, from Scandinavia to the Balkans to Crimea to Iberia.

So I'm wondering, are there any other paths these tribes could have gone?

For example, would it be plausible for the Gothic tribes to migrate into Mesopotamia and establish a kingdom there? Or the Caucus? Or Britannia?
 
Probably Britain, maybe the Caucasus, but probably not Mesopotamia.
Britain was less settled, like Scandinavia and, to some degree, Hispania.
 
Regarding totally different roads ...It's a bit hard actually : admitting the Goths are indeed from Scandinavia and not appearing as a distinct group in continental Baltic region (that I found relativly likely), following the Vistula once departing Sweden is quite a natural path, quite open, with the region not being as much...inhabited than Germania proper.

Admittedly, Goths could have followed a western path but would have likely then merged with other peoples in a league and not being eventually that distinguishable.
A more eastern path would have gave very little advantage, so following Vistula/Dniepr is the most likely solution.

From there, it depends from the good fortune of the Goths :

- Following Danube, migrating in Pannonia and eventually North Italy, forming a continuum there.

- Crossing Mediterranea after the sack of Rome and settling in Africa instead of Vandals as Alaric intended (while not managing to do so, in lack of boats)

- Settling in N-W Gaul instead of Aquitainia could be an option, while not as interesting for them as Aquitania.

-Once entered in ERE, a Balkanic settlement of Goths in Greece, and more probably in Moesia (staying more or less within the OTL Foedus+ province) could be interesting regarding results. Of course Gothic Constantinople could be REALLY interesting if we go that way, but I don't think it would lead to a Gothic Anatolia, at least not entierly.

Britannia seems unlikely : not rich enough, need a fleet to cross, too much raids.

Mesopotamia is even more, because ERE, crossing sea, and Sassanids.
 
I would have liked to see a TL with an east germanic people remaining in their possible 'homelands' (or an early one), roughly modern Poland or so, or remainign around, and language surviving at least long enough for serious books and texts collection remaining, if not surviving to modern day. Like a 'gothic prussia'.
 
It was quite rich enough for the Angles,Saxons and Jutes to raid and settle and for Rome to try to hang on to it for 400 years
But they were much closer than the Goths. The Goths need to move to the west instead of the south from their homeland at the Vistula t settle Briatain but Germania proper was, like LSCatilina said, more densly populated and the Goths would likely merge with the Saxons, the Frisisans or maybe the Franks. I don't see them replacing one of these groups but they could give them their name. So you would maybe end up with the Gotho-Saxons instead of the Anglo-Saxons, with a slightly different dialect than in OTL.
But I honestly think a path to the south like OTL is much more likely, there was probably no real Gothic identy to speak of before they came in contact with the Romans and the Huns.
Should the Goths follow their path in to Gaul like IOTL, the would certainly choose Aquitania/Hispania over Britannnia. Britain is just to poor to be interressting in their position.
The Angels and Saxons choose Britain because it was a easier target than for example northern Gaul/Francia.
If you have the Goths in Aquitania and stuff goes worse for the Franks (internal problems, war with the Saxons or Frisians etc.), you have the possebility that the Goths take Gaul all the way to the Rhine. They could later (~800 maybe) invade Englade like the Normans but I think they would be Romaniced by that point.
So you can have a Britain that is in name "Gothic" but I think you will end up with a predominatly Roman or Saxon tone. You wont get the Goths of Alaric onto the isles but a Romaniced or "Germaniced" kingdom could work.
And about the romans holding on Britannia: it was the first they gave up and left alone because it wasn't worth it anymore.

I wonder if maybe the Ostrogoths (or a part of them) could escape the Huns and move sligthly to the south-east. We know the Huns did not enslave all Goths (obviously not what would become the Visigoths) and Gothic communes survided on the Crimea. So I think it is not impossible to see a more widespread Gothic settlement around the the Sea of Asow. Have the Alans do somethig stupid, like attacking the Sassanids and getting their ass kicked (but also weakening Persia) and we have a power vacuum north of the Caucasus. The Goths could fill it and later maybe even conquer something nice (Georgia maybe or Armenia).
 
I didn't say that they would try to keep holding on to it. It was when the Situation over the Rhine got so bad that the Romans abandoned Britannia. They had fought to keep it before when logistically all they really needed was some Naval Bases on the Channel coast.
Plus as hinted in Cato's Cavalry if several idiotic Roman Generals hadn't tried for the purple Britannia could well have held its own even in something approximating OTL.
 
It was quite rich enough for the Angles,Saxons and Jutes to raid and settle and for Rome to try to hang on to it for 400 years

Saxons, Angles and Jutes settled there mostly because they didn't had much choice : they didn't have the possibility to takeover more populated territories or richer.

The Frankish peoples, thanks to a continued alliance with Rome, enjoyed not only a more strong organisation, re-using many roman features even before their entiere conquest of Gaul knowing that Frankish settlers were present in Belgica since the III century).

The difference between Saxony (by Christian charity, let's not talk about continental Angles and Juteland of Migration Period) and other, more important, migrating people in all regards (especially numbers, military power and organisation) is to be understood.

Britain was...an opportunistic choice, let's say : of course Saxons and other western Germans that migrated on its shores was still richer than their homelands while being ravaged at the end of V/VI by plague, low population (2 millions in VII, maybe. To compare with the 7 in Gaul, both being "maximalist" guesstimates).

Now, for Goths, the question is clear : why bother going North, and settle in the roman equivalent of Coventry (yes, Roman Coventry is Coventry. Stay focused) when you can takeover closer, richer provinces as Gaul, Hispania or even Africa?
At the very best, you'll have a Gothic king launching such a campaign and all the others saying "Okay, you do that".

I didn't say that they would try to keep holding on to it. It was when the Situation over the Rhine got so bad that the Romans abandoned Britannia.
It's one of the factors : Britannia was tought of being left quite many times before, not only because it was costly, less interesting to defend than...say anything else in West, too open to invasions, raids and rebellions. It doesn't mean Britain wasn't interesting for raiders, but a withdraw of troops for saving more precious lands makes more sense than investments, in a short-range focus.

They had fought to keep it before when logistically all they really needed was some Naval Bases on the Channel coast.
Britannia was already quite damaged by Saxon and Frankish piracy since the IV century, honestly (without talking of plague) and troops were taken to continent before 407, this date being more symbolical as the very last ones were took. Since the end of IV, really, most of the troops were used elsewere.
The Empire could no longer afford such medium-term strategy : they needed troop, less for reinforce Rhine border, than have a military presence on the hinterland (Was one of the roman weaknesses : once crossed the border, there was few troops able to withstand a raid).

Plus as hinted in Cato's Cavalry if several idiotic Roman Generals hadn't tried for the purple Britannia could well have held its own even in something approximating OTL.
I really think it wouldn't have worked : the situation in Roman Empire made the armies the arbitraries of Empire. Would have generals in Brittania (that probably didn't much felt tied with the province, and far more with theire troops) refusing to take the purple, their troops would have probably chosen another leader that would have.
 
Last edited:
If you have the Goths in Aquitania and stuff goes worse for the Franks (internal problems, war with the Saxons or Frisians etc.), you have the possebility that the Goths take Gaul all the way to the Rhine.
I'm not totally sure of that : first, the big problem of Goths was being Arian. The Gallic clergy, that was a huge political force, didn't like it and represented a serious obstacle to a northern expension.

Then, there wasn't much incitative to do so : OTL, they preferred to benefit from local clients (as Syagrius) to secure the North without really bothering about an actual control. If Spain was took other by more powerful Suebian, or if Vandals didn't cross the sea, maybe it could be different, but I doubt it would change radically, at least for a time.

Let's admit Alaric II helps Syagrius or defeat Franks at Vouillé. He stills have to deal with a well established Frankish population (since the III in some place), favoured by Romans. At best, I can see Goths taking Burgundy eventually, and turning Franks as technical clients, strong enough to launch opportunistic counter-attacks

They could later (~800 maybe) invade Englade like the Normans but I think they would be Romaniced by that point.
One of my teachers said, exaggerating to make a point, "Barbarians" were romanized at the very same time they crossed the Rhine or the Danube (Romanised understood as a creolisation process). Actually, Goths knew a form of romanisation even before that.
 
I'm not totally sure of that : first, the big problem of Goths was being Arian. The Gallic clergy, that was a huge political force, didn't like it and represented a serious obstacle to a northern expension.

Then, there wasn't much incitative to do so : OTL, they preferred to benefit from local clients (as Syagrius) to secure the North without really bothering about an actual control. If Spain was took other by more powerful Suebian, or if Vandals didn't cross the sea, maybe it could be different, but I doubt it would change radically, at least for a time.

Let's admit Alaric II helps Syagrius or defeat Franks at Vouillé. He stills have to deal with a well established Frankish population (since the III in some place), favoured by Romans. At best, I can see Goths taking Burgundy eventually, and turning Franks as technical clients, strong enough to launch opportunistic counter-attacks


One of my teachers said, exaggerating to make a point, "Barbarians" were romanized at the very same time they crossed the Rhine or the Danube (Romanised understood as a creolisation process). Actually, Goths knew a form of romanisation even before that.

I was myself a bit exaggerating about them spreading their rule to the Rhine. My point was that they need a base in northern Gaul if they are supposed to take Britain later, OTL Bretagne or Normandy would do it. But by the point they are able to start some transmaritime adventures they will most likely have "lost" their language and religion in favor of (Vulgar) Latin And Trintarism. It is necessery for them to adopt the Romans religion and language to gain internal stability.
 
IIRC, the only reason they stayed in Iberia and didn't cross over to Africa was because their king, Alaraic, who had planned to settle in Africa died, and marriages entrenched them in Aquitaine. Perhaps if Alaric didn't die the Visigoths could have taken the place of the Vandals, if only geographically.
 
I was myself a bit exaggerating about them spreading their rule to the Rhine. My point was that they need a base in northern Gaul if they are supposed to take Britain later, OTL Bretagne or Normandy would do it.
It's not even really necessary if we go that way : tradeways and exchange existed since Antiquity between Aquitain coast and Brittany, being one of the most used ways in MA.

The issue is the absence of a worth of mention fleet in Atlantic in the Early Middle Ages, the absence of long-range navigation up to VII century, and the lack of interest such move would represent.
If Goths are to build a fleet as OTL, they're likely to do so in Mediterranea as it's richer, and most of actual maritime threats come from there.

But by the point they are able to start some transmaritime adventures they will most likely have "lost" their language and religion in favor of (Vulgar) Latin And Trintarism. It is necessery for them to adopt the Romans religion and language to gain internal stability.
It's something I ran into quite regularly : having the Goths just turning Catholics and being total Romans because they decide so.

I'm afraid that it would be hard to do in a first place :

First, homeist arianism was a fudamental of Gothic identity, at least when entering in Romania, maybe more than language.

You had OTL civil wars before Goths finally adopt Catholicism, and even after that local rebellions that probably used Arianism as one of banners.
Critically if they crush Franks (or if Franks are butterflied), there would be little incitative and precedent for germano-romans kings to convert to roman christianism, as they wanted to keep separate german and roman elites as much they could (while it didn't prevented local and personnal conversion to orthodoxy).

Unless Goths turn Catholic, being preached by a Nicean missionary instead of Wulfila, something that would eventually lead to weaken their cohesion, their distinction against Romans since the beggining (as religion was used as well for spiritual needs than for define more or less cohesive groups).
 
IIRC, the only reason they stayed in Iberia and didn't cross over to Africa was because their king, Alaraic, who had planned to settle in Africa died, and marriages entrenched them in Aquitaine. Perhaps if Alaric didn't die the Visigoths could have taken the place of the Vandals, if only geographically.

The real problem was they didn't have a fleet.
 
The real problem was they didn't have a fleet.

Taking over boats, as Vandals did OTL, rather than building a fleet is the most likely possibility honestly. Of course, it's deliciously random.

Furthermore, while crossing Alberracin Sea is easily doable with little boats, crossing the sea from Italy to Africa would require making "short hop", using Sicily as jump base. Of course, it makes the process harder.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
fascinating question

So I'm wondering, are there any other paths these tribes could have gone?

For example, would it be plausible for the Gothic tribes to migrate into Mesopotamia and establish a kingdom there? Or the Caucus? Or Britannia?

Ultimately, any of the above may be possible, but, as others have suggested, their identity could be greatly modified along the way, and they have a low chance at a long-term existence, especially in Mesopotamia


Mesopotamia is even more {implausible}, because ERE, crossing sea, and Sassanids.

I could see Goths taking down and running wild in the eastern Roman Empire, presuming they can grab boats, however, it does seem to be asking alot for them to even conquer Mesopotamia from the Sassanids (whose capital is there in Ctesiphon) much less hold it for any lengths of time. The Persians would need to be getting dogpiled from other directions simultaneously (Alans, Huns, Turks from the north) for this to happen.

However, if the Goths can get the boats to cross into Asia in force at the right time(s), they could set up a kingdom or kingdoms in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, or even go further into Egypt or Carthage. Any of those destinations would be easier for them to seize than Mesopotamia.

However, their biggest challenge in Asia would be holding on to a state for more than a generation. All the Asian provinces of the Roman Empire (and Egypt) would be exposed to Persian and or Bedouin attack. One outcome of a Gothic rampage in Asia might be simply to set the stage for the recreation of the Persian Empire on the scale of Darius and Cyrus. Of the territories in Asia, the Goths can most plausibly have a lasting influence in Asia Minor, west of the Taurus mountains.




I wonder if maybe the Ostrogoths (or a part of them) could escape the Huns and move sligthly to the south-east. We know the Huns did not enslave all Goths (obviously not what would become the Visigoths) and Gothic communes survided on the Crimea. So I think it is not impossible to see a more widespread Gothic settlement around the the Sea of Asow. Have the Alans do somethig stupid, like attacking the Sassanids and getting their ass kicked (but also weakening Persia) and we have a power vacuum north of the Caucasus. The Goths could fill it and later maybe even conquer something nice (Georgia maybe or Armenia).


This would be an interesting possibility, and the best opportunity for the Goths to keep a distinctive culture and polity over the long haul. However, there is always the risk in getting territory that is *too* nice, like Georgia or Armenia, because the risk of being absorbed by local currents is so high. In Armenia in particular, they'd be vulnerable to Persian counterattack.
 
Top