Different Germanic tribes - interchangeable?

I was thinking about four Germanic tribes that have taken over the four main parts of former Western Roman Empire:
Franks-Gaul, Ostrogoths-Italy, Visigoths-Spain, and Vandals-Africa.
What if they ended up in different places, like Vandals in Gaul, Franks in Italy, etc? (because of the different migration routes, different conflicts with the Romans, etc)
Yeah I know about the butterflies, what I want to know was what would be the political and cultural implications that occured because of different Germanic tribes taking over different parts of Roman Empire...
 
They took so much from existing Roman culture... so you'd really have to look at the tribes' pre-settlement cultural differences. I know nothing about that, but I'd imagine that family and inheritance practices might be different. Maybe also political and military organization? Settlement patterns?
 
I think there's one already going on those lines, where Alaric's Visigoths make it across to Africa. That leaves Gaul and Spain to the Franks, Suevi and Vandals - though the Franks are a more sedentary people than the others, and will probably expand thie territory rather than moving it, much as OTL.
 
Rex Romanum

Well one of the ideas why the Franks and Anglo-Saxons were the two most successful settlers was because they were still largely pagan. As such when they converted they did so to the local, Catholic, version. The bulk of the other settlers/invaders were dominated by Arian Christians and this caused them serious problems in dealing with local inhabitants. As such they should have an edge unless the earlier history is changed or some major butterfly largely annihilates one or more groups.

However this could get interesting if say the Franks end up in Italy. This means that while they might convert even earlier their likely to face more invasions, both because of the regions wealth and even more importantly Byzantium wants Rome back. Also, later on, provided no major butterflies affects Islam, they will be in the front line against the Arab invasions. Could be interesting as to whether they establish and maintain a national identity or get fragmented and overwhelmed like the various groups that invaded Italy OTL.

Steve
 
Rex Romanum

Well one of the ideas why the Franks and Anglo-Saxons were the two most successful settlers was because they were still largely pagan. As such when they converted they did so to the local, Catholic, version. The bulk of the other settlers/invaders were dominated by Arian Christians and this caused them serious problems in dealing with local inhabitants. As such they should have an edge unless the earlier history is changed or some major butterfly largely annihilates one or more groups.

However this could get interesting if say the Franks end up in Italy. This means that while they might convert even earlier their likely to face more invasions, both because of the regions wealth and even more importantly Byzantium wants Rome back. Also, later on, provided no major butterflies affects Islam, they will be in the front line against the Arab invasions. Could be interesting as to whether they establish and maintain a national identity or get fragmented and overwhelmed like the various groups that invaded Italy OTL.

Steve

Just like Mike said, one of the reasons for the success of the Franks was that they moved into areas bordering their orginal lands; and besides that these regions (Belgica, Germania Inferior etc.) weren't the most densily populated Roman provinces, which is different in Italy, Spain and Roman Africa....
 
so you'd really have to look at the tribes' pre-settlement cultural differences. I know nothing about that, but I'd imagine that family and inheritance practices might be different. Maybe also political and military organization? Settlement patterns?

That's what I'm asking about...
Does anyone have an idea about that...?
 
That's what I'm asking about...
Does anyone have an idea about that...?

The Goth's language belonged to an entirely different branch of the Germanic family, one that no longer exists - if they have the right circumstances they might be able to preserve their language.
 
The Goth's language belonged to an entirely different branch of the Germanic family, one that no longer exists - if they have the right circumstances they might be able to preserve their language.

Any Germanic tribe that settles in the Roman Empire is going to be assimilated eventually. The only ones that weren't (to the best of my knowledge) were the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, but then again, Britain wasn't as heavily Romanized in the first place.

And Gothic did survive until the 18th century in Crimea. I've read though that it may not be a direct descendant of Old Gothic and that it also has some West Germanic influence. Wikipedia talks about this a bit.

On a related note, how widely was Latin used in Roman Africa? Was it restricted to the larger cities? Augustine said in the 5th century that in some parishes, Punic was still used. Maybe if the Vandal kingdom in Africa had not been conquered, their language could have survived and not been assimilated by Latin?
 
Any Germanic tribe that settles in the Roman Empire is going to be assimilated eventually. The only ones that weren't (to the best of my knowledge) were the Anglo-Saxons in Britain, but then again, Britain wasn't as heavily Romanized in the first place.

And Gothic did survive until the 18th century in Crimea. I've read though that it may not be a direct descendant of Old Gothic and that it also has some West Germanic influence. Wikipedia talks about this a bit.

On a related note, how widely was Latin used in Roman Africa? Was it restricted to the larger cities? Augustine said in the 5th century that in some parishes, Punic was still used. Maybe if the Vandal kingdom in Africa had not been conquered, their language could have survived and not been assimilated by Latin?

Not only the Anglo-Saxons, but the Franks in the North of Belgica, Germania Inferior and Germania Superior also didn't assimilate (but managed to dominate), in fact the Romance-Germanic language border in Belgium (Flanders, Wallonia), Luxemburg, Lorraine, Alsace and Switzerland became quite stable (remember that this also includes the German Rhineland).
 
Not only the Anglo-Saxons, but the Franks in the North of Belgica, Germania Inferior and Germania Superior also didn't assimilate (but managed to dominate), in fact the Romance-Germanic language border in Belgium (Flanders, Wallonia), Luxemburg, Lorraine, Alsace and Switzerland became quite stable (remember that this also includes the German Rhineland).

Not to mention Rhaetia and Noricum - roughly modern Austria and Switzerland, iirc, plus parts of Bavaria. Even before the 5C invasions, Roman borderlands were getting slowly depopulated by the endless border wars, and resettled by Germans.

Interesting thought. Had the Western Empire survived another couple of centuries, and that process gone on longer, would Germany now extend to the Seine and the Po, and maybe even further?
 
Not only the Anglo-Saxons, but the Franks in the North of Belgica, Germania Inferior and Germania Superior also didn't assimilate (but managed to dominate), in fact the Romance-Germanic language border in Belgium (Flanders, Wallonia), Luxemburg, Lorraine, Alsace and Switzerland became quite stable (remember that this also includes the German Rhineland).

Not to mention Rhaetia and Noricum - roughly modern Austria and Switzerland, iirc, plus parts of Bavaria. Even before the 5C invasions, Roman borderlands were getting slowly depopulated by the endless border wars, and resettled by Germans.

I was being slightly hyperbolic. Maybe what I should have said is that Germanic tribes that settle outside of border areas (Britain could probably be included in this definition) will likely be assimilated.
 
About Visigoths and Ostrogoths, I think their kingdoms could be easily butterflied somewhere else, as their OTL location (when they becoming foederati of Roman Empire) was determined only by chance.
So if Visigoths weren't settled in Aquitaine and Ostrogoths weren't settled in Pannonia by the Romans, we could get an entirely new barbaric kingdoms (I think)...
I'm not sure about Franks and Vandals though...
 
About Visigoths and Ostrogoths, I think their kingdoms could be easily butterflied somewhere else, as their OTL location (when they becoming foederati of Roman Empire) was determined only by chance.
So if Visigoths weren't settled in Aquitaine and Ostrogoths weren't settled in Pannonia by the Romans, we could get an entirely new barbaric kingdoms (I think)...
I'm not sure about Franks and Vandals though...


The Goths only settled in Acquitaine after two failed attempts to get to Africa. Let either attempt succeed - -.

Franks were more sedentary than most of the others, so probably stay about where they are, gradually (or not so gradually) encroaching on Gaul. In this situation, they may get Italy too, or the Alemanni may, or perhaps the Lombards get it earlier.

Vandals and Suevi probably divvy up Spain.
 
Top