Dumb Idea I thought of while messing with EU4

The idea is that Most of Europe stays Germanic after the fall of West Rome,
-Essentially the Arabs fail to move west of Tunisia, keeping that region vandal-germanic,
-The visigoths prevent the rise of Iberian culture,
-Anglo saxon culture dominates the British isles without becoming English and Scottish,
-Goths of the East manage to prevent Hunnic, Bulgar, Avar, and even Cuman migrations west of modern day Ukraine.
-Viking Invasions do not decline Anglo-Saxon power, idk with this point even.
-Anything that hurt the germans in the 1100's-1200's right before mongol invasions?
Just a reminder I made this idea by screwing around with extended timeline and console commands on Eu4 lol.
 
How does post-Imperial Romania stays Germanic when it never was in first place,tough?
Don't get me wrong, it looks fun, but giving the core basics of your idea, maybe it would be better to discuss it as ASB?

Now keeping in line with the first idea, western Europe would probably like a lot more like Vth century Britain, a mess of chiefdoms unable to unify quickly and forming tribal kingdoms trough germanisation of mixed-up communities.
For Africa, it would probably mean 5 or 6 kingdoms in modern Tunisia for a while. Now you could have your fun with Germanized Berbers.
 
-Essentially the Arabs fail to move west of Tunisia, keeping that region vandal-germanic,

How Arabs are going to fail conquest of OTL Algeria and Morocco? And Vandals were already extinct on this point.

-The visigoths prevent the rise of Iberian culture,

Visigoths were already towards latinisation in this point. And their kingdom was already fracturing and even without Muslim conquest it would had collapsed in few decades.

-Anglo saxon culture dominates the British isles without becoming English and Scottish,

Just avoid William the Conqueror. But Scotland was already exist.
 
-Well it was the Byzantine that ousted the Vandals.
-Well as far as I know the Asturian at times stressed their Visigothic heritage, despite their region being one of the most peripherical ones. It did never reach the point where it could have overtaken Iberian culture and language though.
-What's wrong with English and Scots? They are both relatively Germanic, in any case just don't have the Normans?
-How can the Goths maintain control over the region if they are also moving in the Roman empire? Maybe no Avars and Slavic migration? Not sure how you achieve that and how resilient the local east Germanic communities are.
-I don't think the Viking invasion were that destructive for the Anglo-Saxons ultimately, it kinda paved the way for a unified England with a distinct identity.
-What do you mean by that?
Now keeping in line with the first idea, western Europe would probably like a lot more like Vth century Britain, a mess of chiefdoms unable to unify quickly and forming tribal kingdoms trough germanisation of mixed-up communities.
For Africa, it would probably mean 5 or 6 kingdoms in modern Tunisia for a while. Now you could have your fun with Germanized Berbers.
Could an alternate 3rd century to 5th century period lead to possible Germanic take over that is more organized? Does the romanization required for a cohesive Germanic state to form prevent any kind of linguistic or even cultural assimilation? I'm speaking of regions like Northern France and Northern Italy, Iberia and Peninsular Italy are obviously off-limits.
 
Last edited:
The idea is that Most of Europe stays Germanic after the fall of West Rome,
-Essentially the Arabs fail to move west of Tunisia, keeping that region vandal-germanic,
-The visigoths prevent the rise of Iberian culture,
-Anglo saxon culture dominates the British isles without becoming English and Scottish,
-Goths of the East manage to prevent Hunnic, Bulgar, Avar, and even Cuman migrations west of modern day Ukraine.
-Viking Invasions do not decline Anglo-Saxon power, idk with this point even.
-Anything that hurt the germans in the 1100's-1200's right before mongol invasions?
Just a reminder I made this idea by screwing around with extended timeline and console commands on Eu4 lol.

There's a few things preventing this from being non-ASB

-I don't see how Visigoths could "prevent the rise of Iberian culture" when the Iberians were already deeply romanized and spoke their own versions of vulgar Latin for the most part. The rise of Iberian culture was after the collapse of the Empire and emerged as an intermingling with the Visigothic nobility. The Visigoths were never a majority in Iberia IIRC, simply the ruling class, much like what happened in Francia.

-What becomes of the Welsh, Scots-Gaels, Irish, Manx, etc.? By dominate I suppose you mean politically, but culturally they could never feasibly become a majority throughout the entire isles unless it involves mass ethnic cleansing. Also, Scottish (I assume you mean Scots and not Scots-Gaelic) came about from lowland Anglo-Saxons mingling with the Scots-Gaels but were pretty closely linked to their southern neighbors so I don't know how much change keeping them together is.

-If the Goths can prevent the migratory invasions of the Huns, then pretty much every other PoD you listed here is moot because you're fundamentally changing the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Huns were a primary reason to push the Germanic tribes westward, without their threat you're changing everyhing.

-Not sure what you mean by the last one, are these PoD's all meant for one timeline or is it a grab bag of PoD's that aren't necessarily all for one timeline.

On another note, I'm all for some of these ideas (love me some Anglo-Saxons), but as LSCatilina said, it might be better to discuss this as ASB rather than plausible.
 
-Well it was the Byzantine that ousted the Vandals.
Not exactly : Berbers really did a number on Vandals, threatening to swallow most of Roman Africa at their benefit, which frightened Africano-Romans who called Constantinople to help : Byzzies crushed Vandals but (due to poor geostrategical planning) were stuck in a "low-intensity warfare" with Berbers for decades, ending up with a smaller coastal territory than Vandals ever had.

-Well as far as I know the Asturian at times stressed their Visigothic heritage, despite their region being one of the most peripherical ones. It did never reach the point where it could have overtaken Iberian culture and language though.
Gothic, since the VIIth century is essentially the same than what Frankish meant for northern Gaul at the same time : a political identity over a Romance culture.

Could an alternate 3rd century to 5th century period lead to possible Germanic take over that is more organized?
If anything it would make them probably less organised : the ethnogenesis process that led to the creation of "border peoples" as Goths, Franks, Alamans,etc. was in effect, but these peoples barely began to exist as such. All the structurating proess came from (bilateral or forced) exchanges with Rome on an economical and political level, which is really blossoming (at lest for Barbarians) from the IIIrd century onwards. At this point, while "Gothic" or "Frankish" labels did existed, they were still based on various tribal entities (at least 4 or 5 distinct tribes).
Now, I do think it would make them even more easily swallowed up by Romania, culturally and institutionally, but I'm trying to answer the OP not on realistic or more or less realistic grounds, but following his general idea even when definitely implausible there.

Does the romanization required for a cohesive Germanic state to form prevent any kind of linguistic or even cultural assimilation? I'm speaking of regions like Northern France and Northern Italy, Iberia and Peninsular Italy are obviously off-limits.
Think of romanisation as a multi-faceted (not just cultural, but institutional and material), creolie-ising process. Britto-Romans were romanised,in spite of a limited latinisation : latinisation itself wasn't a decisive marker of romanisation as it was made in Eastern Romania on an hellenistic background. A continental superpower as Rome, compared to tribal and post-tribal chiefdoms IS bound to influe on them importantly, even with a limited acculturation.
Note that northern Gaul and Italy were very importantly romanised on most of these regards (if anything, Rhineland might have been more latinized than, say, Brittany, because of the importance of the population and the army), and it really required an absence of post-imperial features (generally outside Gaul itself) and the srength of Germanic-speaking centers (always outside Gaul) in late early Middle-Ages to undergo a linguistical germanisation.
Similarily, the germanisation of small parts of Northern Italy is something you can't really trace bacl to early medieval period (not because you didn't have isolates, but the linguistical border can't really be traced, we're talking of probably much more mixed geolinguistical situation) and stabilisation of linguistical geography really happens in the Xth to XIth centuries.
 
Similarily, the germanisation of small parts of Northern Italy is something you can't really trace bacl to early medieval period (not because you didn't have isolates, but the linguistical border can't really be traced, we're talking of probably much more mixed geolinguistical situation) and stabilisation of linguistical geography really happens in the Xth to XIth centuries.
You mean South Tyrol and parts of Trentino? I was always curious why parts of it became German speaking, why did the switch happene in the 10th and 11th century? Was it connected to any migration? Otherwise it seems weird to me that assimilation would happen over such rugged geography.

Note that northern Gaul and Italy were very importantly romanised on most of these regards
I was more speaking about the geographical layout, it would seem weird to me that Germanic elements and up becoming in smaller exclaves like Britanny.

Now, I do think it would make them even more easily swallowed up by Romania, culturally and institutionally, but I'm trying to answer the OP not on realistic or more or less realistic grounds, but following his general idea even when definitely implausible there.
What happened to the old Roman territory taken over by the Alemanni during the 3rd century?
 
Top