Challenge: Surviving Barbarian Kingdoms

aspie3000

Banned
After the Roman Empire collapsed the Germanic Tribes from Germania Magna invaded Roman territory and set up a bunch of Barbarian German kingdoms. Eventually the map looked like this.

3007.jpg


So basically my challenge is to make these borders last into the present day. Feel free to do whatever you want from keeping Christianity from existing to killing Clovis in his crib. But I wan't the borders of the Germanic kingdoms to last into the present day.

As a bonus, because I'm a proud descendant of Allemanic Germans, make it where only the kingdom of Allamania survives.
 

aspie3000

Banned
You're right. So the borders don't have to be exactly the same, but perhaps the political entities and nations could survive to the present day as China or Egypt has. Also the Germanic Kingdom in North Africa is included.
 
Can't happen. I can name huge numbers of reasons, but here is just a few:

  • The Eastern Roman Empire isn't going to stay quiet forever. If there is any slight realism in the list of leaders you give them, eventually one will be aggressive or seek to restore the old borders. Then Italy, Spain and North Africa are gone.
  • Vikings or something similar will pop up. If they could ruin realms like Anglo-Saxon England and the Frankish Empire, these semi-tribal things won't last.
  • Islam. It pushed over the Visigoths and the Persians. If there isn't a strong power in France, it will push that over as well.
  • The Mongols. Similar situation to above. Castles meant the doom of the Mongols, but semi-tribals don't have enough wealth to mass castles like Hungary or the HRE did.
  • Simple political instability. Doesn't matter what nation you are talking about, eventually an idiot will rise and wreck it. Even modern ones are vulnerable to this.
It may just be possible for the borders of something like the 17th century to hold, but there is absolutely no hope that the 5th can.

- BNC
 
perhaps the political entities and nations could survive to the present day as China or Egypt has

China has had dozens of major political changes, not to mention the Mongols taking it over. Egypt is even less 'surviving', having been conquered by the ERE, Arabs, Ottomans, British etc. The only reason we call it Egypt is because it happens to hold a similar part of the world to the old thing.

Every single one of those entities has been conquered, in most cases 2,3 or more times. After that happens, it usually ceases to be the same thing.

(Sorry for double post)

- BNC
 
After the Roman Empire collapsed the Germanic Tribes from Germania Magna invaded Roman territory and set up a bunch of Barbarian German kingdoms.
It didn't really happened this way, actually : most of the Barbarian kingdoms are issued from peoples present in Romania or at its borders since litteraly centuries (for instance, Franks settlement in Toxandria in the IVth century).

Meaning that they didn't so much invaded Romania, than progressivly replaced the roman imperium with their own : Barbarian institutions were largely a continuation of late Roman institutions on virtually all matters. It was helped by the fact various Barbarians, as peoples, didn't appeared before the IIIrd century trough Roman policies (Goths being, for exemple, a mix of Dacians, Sarmatians, Germans, Celts, Romans, etc.) that formed a distinct people because Rome needed an interlocutor.

By the Vth century, making the difference between a Barbarian and a provincial Roman isn't easy.

Eventually the map looked like this.
Actually, it didn't : this map is essentially issued from late XIXth conception on Barbarian institutions and evolution, and is subject to enormous criticism.
Syagrius' realm is an exemple on how it goes down to a huge speculation from sources without good historical reasons.

That said, you choose a bad period to illustrate the Romano-Barbarian kingdom extend : by the end of the Vth century, borders were still really porous and fluid, and while the WRE institution collapsed, you still had a large part of roman institutions in the west that weren't that tied up with Romano-Barbarian imperium (especially in mediterranean regions).

A slightly better departure point may be the early VIth, when the situation decanted : meaning Franks control most of Gaul, Goths most of Spain, Lombards most of Italy, etc.

Feel free to do whatever you want from keeping Christianity from existing to killing Clovis in his crib.
That wouldn't do any good : even if Clovis doesn't convert, western Europe was at this point hugely rooting for Chalcedonism. In order to strengthen its rule, a Barbarian ruler would have little choice than to abide by Christianism (would it be only because he was the continuation of Roman imperium) and if he's not Homean as Goths were, well it was bound to a Chalcedonian baptism.

If not Clovis, then anyone present in Northern Gaul would do.

But I wan't the borders of the Germanic kingdoms to last into the present day.
That's not possible : no border last for 1500 years untouched.

That said, if we have more reasonable objectives, such as having these borders serving as the basis of modern-day borders rather than medieval ones (for western Europe obviously, because it's definitely not the case elsewhere), you'd need to avoid the institutional and political rupture of the VIIth century.

Because of the Romano-Persian, then Romano-Arab wars, the connection between ERE and the western kingdoms declined, at the point they ceased to form a same post-classical cultural and political ensemble. Before that, well, Romano-Barbarian kingdoms were fairly in the continuation of the late empire and their borders usually followed the old diocesan or provincial limits.

Getting rid of the Arab expension may be a huge help to avoid the decline of dynasties such as Merovingians, or the anti-dynastic Gothia.
You'd still have changes, such as North Sea basin blossoming, but it wouldn't be as radical, while the decline of late Roman institutions in the west was clearly unavoidable. But you may see something replacing it less conflicting as carolingian feudality was.

Geopolitically, it could translate as having late Roman concepts being transformed, and old regional ensemble being seen as a natural political "horizon". Note that for centuries IOTL, up to the XIIIth century in some respects, it was the case. But there, it might have more of a chance.

But again : it would be an historical basis, not something lasting one millenium and half.

As a bonus, because I'm a proud descendant of Allemanic Germans, make it where only the kingdom of Allamania survives.
Actually, you didn't have a Kingdom of Alemania at this point. Not only it's suspected that it goes down to a typo (Clovis fighting Alans instead of Alamans), but Alemani themselves may have been politically closer to what Saxons were later in the continent : a bunch of chiefdoms more or less tied but without a clear overlordship.

Gibuld might have been, as Windukin after him, "merely" a chief managing to get the lead of a loose defensive confederation.

The first clearly definied and institutionalised Alemmania is, ironically, a Frankish construction.
 
Can't happen. I can name huge numbers of reasons, but here is just a few:

  • The Eastern Roman Empire isn't going to stay quiet forever. If there is any slight realism in the list of leaders you give them, eventually one will be aggressive or seek to restore the old borders. Then Italy, Spain and North Africa are gone.
  • Vikings or something similar will pop up. If they could ruin realms like Anglo-Saxon England and the Frankish Empire, these semi-tribal things won't last.
  • Islam. It pushed over the Visigoths and the Persians. If there isn't a strong power in France, it will push that over as well.
  • The Mongols. Similar situation to above. Castles meant the doom of the Mongols, but semi-tribals don't have enough wealth to mass castles like Hungary or the HRE did.
  • Simple political instability. Doesn't matter what nation you are talking about, eventually an idiot will rise and wreck it. Even modern ones are vulnerable to this.
It may just be possible for the borders of something like the 17th century to hold, but there is absolutely no hope that the 5th can.

- BNC

The OP didn't say anything about the kingdoms remaining semi-tribal.
 
I don't feel competent to discuss the situation in continental Europe, but I can talk about England, and that map is a massive oversimplification of that situation. It portrays a simple distinction between Saxon and Angle areas that wasn't at all appropriate (even leaving aside the Jutes/Frisians, the hard distinction between Anglic and Saxon kingdoms is much more a product of Bede's proto-nationalist Anglo-Saxon vision in the 700s, rather than a reflection of how the various groups would have seen themselves). It also ascribes a misleading unity not just to the Angles and Saxons, but also to the Romano-British (who were equally a collection of squabbling rulers), and ignores the fluidity of identities and alliances (e.g. it may or may not be significant that the West Saxons trace their descent from a legendary ancestor with a Celtic name). All of this gets back to the point that our sources are far too limited to paint a political map of Britain during this time, much less carry it forward to today.
 

aspie3000

Banned
Actually, you didn't have a Kingdom of Alemania at this point. Not only it's suspected that it goes down to a typo (Clovis fighting Alans instead of Alamans), but Alemani themselves may have been politically closer to what Saxons were later in the continent : a bunch of chiefdoms more or less tied but without a clear overlordship.

Gibuld might have been, as Windukin after him, "merely" a chief managing to get the lead of a loose defensive confederation.

The first clearly definied and institutionalised Alemmania is, ironically, a Frankish construction.

Alans? Aren't they an Iranian tribe with an Iranian tongue? The area where Allemania encompassed speaks a dialect of German. This is indicative of my ignorance of the situation but explain the whole typo situation, and if the area was under Alans rule, how did they come to speak German?
 
I think it's impossible if all of the entities survived,since the situation was basically a free for all at the time.
 
You're right. So the borders don't have to be exactly the same, but perhaps the political entities and nations could survive to the present day as China or Egypt has. Also the Germanic Kingdom in North Africa is included.

The Vandals will need the Berbers on their side to hold North Africa. And within a century or so, the Arabs (since we're assuming Islam is butterflied, if not, then they're probably screwed). But they're probably good choices to survive, if only because of their isolation (like the Visigoths in Spain, really).

Not that they won't end up speaking Latin in the form of its North African dialects in the end (and in particular, the Carthage dialect of Latin), and if they don't, they'll be speaking Punic.

Alans? Aren't they an Iranian tribe with an Iranian tongue? The area where Allemania encompassed speaks a dialect of German. This is indicative of my ignorance of the situation but explain the whole typo situation, and if the area was under Alans rule, how did they come to speak German?

There couldn't have been more than a few thousand Alans in Europe at the time, so anyone serving under them, especially the peasants growing their food, were not speaking Alan. Aren't the Alans almost always mentioned in the context of other migratory groups anyway? That should tell you of their relative importance.

I think it's impossible if all of the entities survived,since the situation was basically a free for all at the time.

It basically was, as far as I know, and larger realms seem almost inevitable and probably not based on the linguistic affinity of the barbarian group in question--after all, Burgundy and France speak and historically spoke similar enough dialects despite the Burgundians being East Germanic and the Franks being West Germanic.
 
Alans? Aren't they an Iranian tribe with an Iranian tongue?
Very originally, yes. But at this point, the people called Alan in Gaul was a mix of actual Alans, Sarmatians, Germans, Romans, and whatever was lumped with them.

The area where Allemania encompassed speaks a dialect of German.
Ah, I think I as confusing, my bad : I didn't meant to imply that Alans took over the Alemanic region, but that they were present in Gaul : One of their centers may have been the region of Orléans (altough it's very possible they have been present elsewhere)

It's possible that part of regions in Gaul traditionally considered being having briefly conquered or occupied by Alemani were by Alani. Altough it's still likely that Clovis did fought Alemani as well.

This is indicative of my ignorance of the situation
Frankly? Don't sweat it : in the late Vth, the area is a mess. With the collapse of Roman state, the bunch of Romano-Barbarians dwelling in the region have still no clear imperium (except provincial, for some people) and some that had no mandate but were just foedus or simply group of peoples without as much officiality still existed.

For exemple, you have Saxons in Gaul that had settled around the Channel and preserved their political identity up to Carolingian era (admittedly, this is a maximalist exemple).

but explain the whole typo situation
It wouldn't be that surprising to have Alani being misunderstood by a copist unfamiliar with the term, and toght to have leant Alemani, a word that he was much more familiar with as he kept being used until much later.

and if the area was under Alans rule, how did they come to speak German?
Actually, that's the whole point : they probably spoke a lot of languages, being a bundle of various human groups : whatever remained of North Iranic origins, Germans, a lot of Romans and Gallo-Romans...
Labelling such people as "Iranic" or Alemans as "Germanic" as it was an homogenous ethnicity can be misleading, in the same way Franks were quickly made up of local population rather than a German nucleus.

As for Gaul's Alans, I'd suppose they mixed up quickly with the population (helped by the fact they were probably made up partially from the said population) and Franks, because you don't have much mention of an Alan identity in Gaul afterwards (they were probably mixed up with Frankish cavalry, military speaking, for exemple), it's basically what happened with Alans under Vandalic hegemony.

Eventually, Alans in Gaul, Spain or Africa were a different people, much more romanized/sarmatized/germanized than their counterpart in Caucasus.


The Vandals will need the Berbers on their side to hold North Africa.
Actually, Vandals mostly ignored Berber entities in North Africa for a while, before these begen to raid the hell out of their asses

They weren't really in the position to impose their will to Mauri petty kingdoms, and these were in position to do so

despite the Burgundians being East Germanic and the Franks being West Germanic.
It may be more of a case of a name being "borrowed" by a relatively distinct group. A bit like what happened to Volcae or Boii among Celts (which was used to name two or three different peoples), and what happened to Suebi and probably Burgundi (and possibly Gothi)

For all we know, Burgundi of the late Antiquity emerged as a distinct people along the Main, lumping together various German groups, with a good dose of Sarmatians and provincial Romans.

Generally speaking, the migrative model of peoples maintaining a political unity from Baltic to Rhine trough a series of erring moves is seen with a grain of salt, if not outright suspicious.

But, by the Vth century, the Germanic element was certainly closer to Franks or Alamans than whoever remained in the Baltic shore.[/QUOTE]
 
Actually, Vandals mostly ignored Berber entities in North Africa for a while, before these begen to raid the hell out of their asses

They weren't really in the position to impose their will to Mauri petty kingdoms, and these were in position to do so


It may be more of a case of a name being "borrowed" by a relatively distinct group. A bit like what happened to Volcae or Boii among Celts (which was used to name two or three different peoples), and what happened to Suebi and probably Burgundi (and possibly Gothi)

For all we know, Burgundi of the late Antiquity emerged as a distinct people along the Main, lumping together various German groups, with a good dose of Sarmatians and provincial Romans.

Generally speaking, the migrative model of peoples maintaining a political unity from Baltic to Rhine trough a series of erring moves is seen with a grain of salt, if not outright suspicious.

But, by the Vth century, the Germanic element was certainly closer to Franks or Alamans than whoever remained in the Baltic shore.

Yeah, there wasn't a Vandal state from Tingis to Libya, consisting of the WRE's African provinces up to Cyrenaica, considering the existence of the states lumped in as "Romano-Berber". But Vandals being a bit more clever and co-opting the locals would certainly help if they want to make a giant state in North Africa or lay claim to a "Southern Roman Empire", though they'd need an actual Roman and not some barbarian kings.

So the Late Antiquity Burgundians who gave their name to Burgundy in modern France had little to do with the actual East Germanic Burgundians? And likewise the Goths? It seems to make sense. The only political unity would've been the ruling classes.
 
Yeah, there wasn't a Vandal state from Tingis to Libya, consisting of the WRE's African provinces up to Cyrenaica, considering the existence of the states lumped in as "Romano-Berber".
To be honest, the first two decades of the Vandalic state (map) did looked more like this than during the rest of its existence.
It's quite important to get for understanding Late Antiquity Africa that the diverse Mauri communauties did existed in conjunction from Roman, then Romano-Barbarian imperium. : they didn't just appeared in revolt against these, but existed within and outside (Inner Mauri, Outer Mauri) Romania up to the point they formed quite distinct ensemble. Some sort of smaller equivalent to foedus, except native.

Basically Vandals were clever on this, or rather, did pursued the same policy than Romans before them (and that Byzantines didn't, explaining why their rule in Africa was more limited than their predecessors) : it's just that it happened that they were more focused on a maritime and coastal policy (as, interestingly, Carthagian were) and that they knew too much successive crises : optimates' revolt in 442 for exemple (which admittedly, being largely issued from Roman elites, was bound to adopt a lot of their anti-Berber bias)
I don't remember, for instance, that the religious policy of some Vandals rulers was extended to Mauri.

I'd even say that a Mauri takeover of Africa may have better chances to provoke a viable Romano-Barbarian kingdom equivalent in Africa, rather than Vandals.

It seems to make sense. The only political unity would've been the ruling classes.
Maybe not "little to do", but probably (and at least) not a direct legacy, including for the ruling classes.
For all we know, Goths, Burgundians or Franks as people appeared in the IIIrd century at the border of Romania, being the result of several and not always related human groups being lumped together.

Now, you're right, up to the Vth century, Barbarian identity was mostly a political one : you were Barbarian because you followed your Barbarian king, you were Roman because you served the Roman state (as a German-issued Stilicho did). That's essentially theory, and you had more than just than playing (Stilicho was seen at best as a semi-Barbarian, after all).
It does changes with the Vth and the disappearence of the Roman state in the West, tough : it lead Romans to directly serve who had the imperium beggining a quick political mix (being understood that Barbarian peoples were importantly romanized and gathering Roman-issued people in first place).
 
Top