A compromise option could be Rhōmania.
It's definitely tied up to Byzantium, giving how it's written, while Romania is definitely more tied to the late Roman Empire, and it have a more strict political meaning than the former AFAIK (for instance, while being importantly "byzantinized", Bulgaria can't be considered as part of Rhomania or Byzantine Empire, while Francia could).
 
We don't know even this for sure for this period. There's zero textual evidence and all we have are names, which considering the easiness they were borrowed from a dynasty/people to another isn't exactly safe evidence.
Accounts of kinship should be taken with caution : Burgondians and Lombards are supposed to share origins, but for all we can say were part of a western germanic group at their entry in Romania. And Gepids had a lot of time in the Vth and VIth to integrate several Germanic (or non-Germanic) peoples from the collapse of Hunnic Hegemony at this point, enough to raise caution in this matter, IMO.
Good point.
It's quite unlikely IMO : not only they didn't IOTL, but practically no other groups did it in this regions which was considered desolated by contemporary accounts.
It has happened around the world though. Early American settlers from Britain often had large families, and therfore population growth driving the expansion of American settlements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States#Historical_population
I'd be tempted to say, eventually, not being in a similar position than Gepids were, but I'd want to take the question seriously.
Being other than a broad hegemony over various peoples, and having some centuries before them, however, I'm not sure.
Sheer passiveness in religious matters wouldn't help too much either Pagan or Homean, it's unlikely that they'll resist the broader religious policies of their neighbors eventually.
What about a active religious tradition?
To form solid, lasting and strong institutions they kinda do. Hungarians are roughly the only ones that managed to pull it in this region, precisely because they affirmed themselves regionally not only inside their hegemony but on their neighbors as well.
You'd argue that Valachs managed to pull it too, but it looks like the discussed Albanian case : the survivance of distinct communities that while drown in an ocean of Slavic chiefdoms managed to isolate themselves long enough to preserve cultural traits then coming back in the scene.
How did the Hungarians manage to pull this off?

Hoe did the Vlachs pull this off?

How did the Albanians pull this off?
As I tried to point, it's more easy for Gothic people settled from the begginin in southern Illyricum (or pretty much any mountainous region) than for people settling in the Danubian highway.
Perhaps they could settle inside the Ostro-Gothic kingdom? There the Gepids populaion numbers could increase as to increase the chance of their language(East Germanic) surviving. Assuming that the reported Gepids of this time actually were East Germanic speakers.

If not perhaps some mountains in Transylvania could provide a safe haven or safer haven? This could be a scenario where Gepids are not under direct Ostro-Gothic or Roman rule.
Depend what would be considered "still Gepid" institutions : giving that what we call Gothic institutions is generally rebranded Roman institutions evolving from new grounds...
The origin of different institution might be adapted from Roman institutions. Allthough these institutions if operated, used by Gepids become Gepid. Human have always learned from others, always adapted habits, language, knowledge, etc of others.

Perhaps some new Gepid institutions could be the result of internal conflict or internal disagreement? What about a Gepid reaction to Slavic, Roman, etc presence resulting in new Gepid Institutions or being part of why these institutions form?
Again, I think the comparison with Thuringians and Bavarians hold something there : making Gepids part of a Italian sphere (would it be Gothic or Patrician) could allow them to differenciate themselves while still getting broadly organized along these lines.
How would or could they have organised themselfes?
 
It has happened around the world though. Early American settlers from Britain often had large families, and therfore population growth driving the expansion of American settlements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States#Historical_population
Having the relative support of a leading state and economy somehow differs from scattered settlements dominated by another people.
What about a active religious tradition?
That's not really the point, again : it's probable that IOTL they had a distinct religious practice, but being scattered in small settlements in a relatively desolated region does.

How did the Hungarians manage to pull this off?
Managing to mobilise enough wealth trough raids (a mobilisation that eventually reinforced the chiefdom structure) , moving from pastoral to agricultural subsistance successfully when raids declined, structural Christianisationand being the last wave of large settlement (which is related to the reinforcement of Eastern European states, with Poland, Rus', etc and the regrowth of Byzantium's power)

Hoe did the Vlachs pull this off?
How did the Albanians pull this off?
We discussed this in another threads, IIRC : eventually, it was the capacity of both to form relatively isolated communities in highlands, relatively far from the political/economic centers (as it happened for Pannonian Slavs, eventually) then survived among other reasons thanks to regional stabilisation (Hungary, Byzantium, etc. which helped transhumance and self-subsistance).
Then it's a matter, IMO, of historical contingence : some peoples were able to form broader entities and expand culturally trough "state sponsoring" (such as Albanians in New Epirus and beyond; or Vlachs in Thessalia), filling a political void as Transdanubian Vallachia. Some other communities simply disappeared, and some other (most of Aromanian communities for instance) didn't outright disappeared before the XXth but never managed to form strong enough political identities.

Gepids being settled in the Pannonian basin, which was basically an highway, and in relatively few numbers on the other hand...Again, there's a reason why peoples in this place were essentially never heard of after a while would they be Romans, Germanic, Avars, etc.

Perhaps they could settle inside the Ostro-Gothic kingdom?
That's possible, even if I don't see the reason for this settlement myself : Ostrogoths were fine enough with the permanence of Gepids in Pannonia, would it be only as buffer march, and Gepids seemed concious enough of their relative weakness not to try attempting funny like invading Italy.
Now we could consider something along a large numbers of Gepids settling in Italy, regardless of the reasons (I mean, there's probably a reason we could find that would be both plausible and workable enough), but that would mean at short or middle term cultural and identity integration among Goths, and extremely likely the loss of a Gepid identity and of course language : Gaul Saxons and Burgundians were eventually "Frankishified" (meaning Romanized), Suevi were 'Gothicized" (meaning Romanized), etc. (you know where I'm going with) and we're talking of people with a significant presence : some thousands of Gepids have no chance to escape this in Italy of all places.
Heck, it might have actually happened, with Gepid settlement being mentioned by Paul the Deacon in Lombardic Italy.

If not perhaps some mountains in Transylvania could provide a safe haven or safer haven?
It's likely that's what part of them did IOTL, there's some tombs and necropolis in Transylvania that were attributed to Gepids. That some of these were apparently profaned and robbed recently after burials could be interpreted variously, but IMO highlights a certain pauperty of everyday-life, especially giving the militarized way-of-life of Gepids : either they maintained their way-of-life and integrated with whoever "was at the top of the foodchain" (which is probably what many Pannonian Gepids did), or they accepted to decline into pesant communities (which was a choice neither Vlachs or Albanians really had to do).

This could be a scenario where Gepids are not under direct Ostro-Gothic or Roman rule.
I agree that this kind of scenario is perfectly workable (and probably the most plausible) but for their survival they need a reinforced presence of whoever rules in Italy and Byzantium, for stability sake, which is politically and strategically not that easy to balance with Gepids' "interests".I tried to work this this above.

EDIT : Arguably, you could have a Gepid survivance, the same way you had Thuringian survivance and Bavarian build-up in Central Europe without necessity of a "both-banks" approach, but at the latest you need to deal with Avars, and have a strong change of strategical priorities in Constantinople either allowing the survival of Gothic italy and its overlordship on Gepids; at least giving up on Illyricum (which was a strategic focus of ERE).
Re-EDIT : Maybe even having somehow the permanence of a Patrician Italy, while ERE is too busy on its eastern borders?
 
Having the relative support of a leading state and economy somehow differs from scattered settlements dominated by another people.
Is this a more relevant example then? Jews in Eastern Europe experienced occasional pogroms. The Eastern European Jewry was also dominated by state structures representing mainly other groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_European_Jewry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_Poland
Jewish vs total pop growth.JPG

That's not really the point, again : it's probable that IOTL they had a distinct religious practice, but being scattered in small settlements in a relatively desolated region does.
Then they would need a way to keep contact. Some adherence to common code would be helpfull aswell.
We discussed this in another threads, IIRC : eventually, it was the capacity of both to form relatively isolated communities in highlands, relatively far from the political/economic centers (as it happened for Pannonian Slavs, eventually) then survived among other reasons thanks to regional stabilisation (Hungary, Byzantium, etc. which helped transhumance and self-subsistance).
Then it's a matter, IMO, of historical contingence : some peoples were able to form broader entities and expand culturally trough "state sponsoring" (such as Albanians in New Epirus and beyond; or Vlachs in Thessalia), filling a political void as Transdanubian Vallachia. Some other communities simply disappeared, and some other (most of Aromanian communities for instance) didn't outright disappeared before the XXth but never managed to form strong enough political identities.

Gepids being settled in the Pannonian basin, which was basically an highway, and in relatively few numbers on the other hand...Again, there's a reason why peoples in this place were essentially never heard of after a while would they be Romans, Germanic, Avars, etc.
The Gepids could leave the Pannonian basin if push pull factors advised it. You mentioned the possibility of settlement in the Dinaric Alps.
That's possible, even if I don't see the reason for this settlement myself : Ostrogoths were fine enough with the permanence of Gepids in Pannonia, would it be only as buffer march, and Gepids seemed concious enough of their relative weakness not to try attempting funny like invading Italy.
Now we could consider something along a large numbers of Gepids settling in Italy, regardless of the reasons (I mean, there's probably a reason we could find that would be both plausible and workable enough), but that would mean at short or middle term cultural and identity integration among Goths, and extremely likely the loss of a Gepid identity and of course language : Gaul Saxons and Burgundians were eventually "Frankishified" (meaning Romanized), Suevi were 'Gothicized" (meaning Romanized), etc. (you know where I'm going with) and we're talking of people with a significant presence : some thousands of Gepids have no chance to escape this in Italy of all places.
It is not easy to swim against the current. Easier to just go with the flow.
Heck, it might have actually happened, with Gepid settlement being mentioned by Paul the Deacon in Lombardic Italy.
I know.
It's likely that's what part of them did IOTL, there's some tombs and necropolis in Transylvania that were attributed to Gepids. That some of these were apparently profaned and robbed recently after burials could be interpreted variously, but IMO highlights a certain pauperty of everyday-life, especially giving the militarized way-of-life of Gepids : either they maintained their way-of-life and integrated with whoever "was at the top of the foodchain" (which is probably what many Pannonian Gepids did), or they accepted to decline into pesant communities (which was a choice neither Vlachs or Albanians really had to do).
If the Gepids had a stubborn adherence to tradition, maybe they then could hold onto their identity in spite of their environment.
I agree that this kind of scenario is perfectly workable (and probably the most plausible) but for their survival they need a reinforced presence of whoever rules in Italy and Byzantium, for stability sake, which is politically and strategically not that easy to balance with Gepids' "interests".I tried to work this this above.

EDIT : Arguably, you could have a Gepid survivance, the same way you had Thuringian survivance and Bavarian build-up in Central Europe without necessity of a "both-banks" approach, but at the latest you need to deal with Avars, and have a strong change of strategical priorities in Constantinople either allowing the survival of Gothic italy and its overlordship on Gepids; at least giving up on Illyricum (which was a strategic focus of ERE).
Re-EDIT : Maybe even having somehow the permanence of a Patrician Italy, while ERE is too busy on its eastern borders?
Perhaps the Gepids could rule over some area as a vassal? Maybe the Dinaric Alps and the Dalmatian Coast? What area would be most capable of hosting a independant Gepid structure?
 
Is this a more relevant example then? Jews in Eastern Europe experienced occasional pogroms. The Eastern European Jewry was also dominated by state structures representing mainly other groups.
You're not seriously comparing societies of Late Antiquity living in a complex chiefdom, and minorities living in the age of nationalism in modern states?

The Gepids could leave the Pannonian basin if push pull factors advised it. You mentioned the possibility of settlement in the Dinaric Alps.
I mentioned it as being established as a foedus there : the problem at some point is that populations in this age at least were much more concerned about preserving their way of life than their, arguably shifty in first place, ethnic identity : Gepids were used being a roughly militarized elite, and that was important to them. Asking whole population to undergo social degradation for the kicks of it...

It is not easy to swim against the current. Easier to just go with the flow.
Thing is, they weren't going against the current and having really distinct identities and way of life to begin with : Barbarian ethnic identities were at best blurry, which was both a result of their emergence and the necessity to integrate whole population (Romans or Barbarian alikeà to them.
If the Gepids had a stubborn adherence to tradition, maybe they then could hold onto their identity in spite of their environment.
Adherence to tradition is generally coming out of understood self-interest, or from a certain cultural autonomy coming from strong social structures : Gepids had neither at this point, this is as simple as that.

Perhaps the Gepids could rule over some area as a vassal?
If we make a comparison with which relations Thuringians and Bavarians had with Franks, it's possible to see a half-vassal/half-client relationship emerging between Italy and Gepids; or even a client relationship between Romania and Gepids. It depends a lot of Byzantine political strategy, namely accepting the loss of a good chunck of Illyricum which was only the case when having lost most of Balkans IOTL. Still, it's more plausible than excpecting Gepids to form a distinct identity after their political end.

Maybe the Dinaric Alps and the Dalmatian Coast?
That would ask an earlier PoD in the Vth, having Roman power establishing a Gepid foedus there and it's probably asking for butterflying away the Hunnic hegemony. Then, as I tried to put it up in the first page of this thread.
A foedus settled in Illyricum, stuck between a strong Italy and Byzantium (maybe an Italy that is part of Byzantium since the Vth century, and in drastic need of someone settling in the middle of Illyricum), which is not swallowed up by Romania in the VIth, is able to withdraw into Dinaric mountains (probably in order to secure coastal area) until it eventually re-emerges out of chiefdoms surrounded by Slavs in the medieval area as an autonomous polity and as a manpower poll to coastal and neighbouring regions that are relatively peripheral to the realm(s) cores.
Note that it doesn't necessarily implies a surviving Eastern Germanic Gepidia, while it's likely it does in a late IVth/early Vth century PoD: and probably influenced a lot by a western Germanic and Slavic adstratum; and a Roman substratum linguistically. It's still one of the best possibilities IMO.

What area would be most capable of hosting a independant Gepid structure?
It's less a problem of area in itself, than relationship with Mediterranean post-imperial (or late imperial) centers in Italy and Byzantium I think.
 
If I may offer an ignorant opinion, language isolates have and do survive into the 21st century, why not these? History demands it?
More seriously, language isolates tends to be either fairly recent, or can build themselves on social/geographical isolation. There, we're talking of societies that not only generally offers neither, but were from the start the result of a cultural and linguistic mix-up.
It doesn't helps that the eastern Germanic language expansion was limited, including among people considered as at least partly Eastern Germans (such as Burgundians or Lombards, which most likely spoke a western Germanic speech); and that the sheer cultural weight of Romania made litterally every Germanic speach practiced by Barbarians virtually disappearing after mere generations.

Now, there's only so much plausible possibilities and windows of opportunities, but it's not impossible of course to bend it a bit and several courses were mentioned, by comparison with historical happenstances :
- Permanence of Eastern Germanic speeches beyond Romania/on both banks of Danube as languages of state build-up from the network of Gothic (in the broad sense) chiefdoms
- Resilience of some form of eastern Germanic (some form because it's likely that it would undergo several influences between western Germanic, Romance, Slavic, etc.), from foedi in Illyricum or Balkans, and regrowth out of isolation Albanian/Vlach style
- Permanence of some form of peripheral eastern Germanic in Pannonia

Basically you have to avoid two things : a presence too rooted in Romania because that would mean a very quick abandon of Germanic speech, and not too peripheral or ex-centered to avoid being drown in the later population movements of the Danubian basin.
 
Last edited:
More seriously, language isolates tends to be either fairly recent, or can build themselves on social/geographical isolation. There, we're talking of societies that not only generally offers neither, but were from the start the result of a cultural and linguistic mix-up.
That, or they end up being a prestige language despite being an isolate, as Sumerian or (apparently) Elamite, and so attract speakers that way. Sumerian in particular stuck around a looooong time as a purely literary language akin to Latin in the medieval and early modern eras, for more or less similar reasons.
 

zhropkick

Banned
The earliest safe way to keep Eastern Germanic (and especially Gothic language) would be as proposed above : to keep Goths out of Romania and have them form a strongly romanized but peripheral client ensemble of chiefdoms (eventually forming a cyclical chiefdom or an early state) bordering the Empire.

Depending on the situation in the late IVth/early Vth century, you could see Gothic managing to hold on on the Danubian basin (on either side) which were relatively poorly inhabited. A foedus being maintainable and maintained in Moesia, with a significant Gothic population would be as heavily romanized than IOTL, but could keep Gothic language alive for a long period of time in the region.
A good PoD would be Constantinople swallowing up Italy early on (it would require an earlier collapse of WRE, tough by years rather than decades) and making Ostrogotic foedus in Pannonia or with a closer resettlement than IOTL more strategically relevant for the Roman Empire, in a region that was significantly underpopulated.
In both case, while sustained Eastern Germanic language is possible, it would be in a way close to Old English with more linguistical bastardization with Romance and Greek.
Replace Goths with Herules, Gepids, Rugii in similar regions.

Apart from that, maybe Vandals could take the places of Alemani in former Upper Rhine/Danube limes, with the same caveat.
Anything too deep in Romania would end up as IOTL, meaning a quick disappearance of Eastern Germanic speeches use.
How would you get the Goths to stay put more than they did in OTL though? They were much better horsemen than speakers of West Germanic were, if you have a migration period it seems likely many of them are going to go walkabout in Eastern/Southern Europe.
 
How would you get the Goths to stay put more than they did in OTL though? They were much better horsemen than speakers of West Germanic were, if you have a migration period it seems likely many of them are going to go walkabout in Eastern/Southern Europe.
No Adrianople?
 
They were much better horsemen than speakers of West Germanic were
That's quite a debatable affirmation : truth is, Goths as most Barbarians probably were essentially footmen before the IVth century. While they had good horsemen (possibly out of Sarmatic and/or Alanic influence and integration within Gothic numbers; probably similar in equipment and tactics to Roman cavalry) it never comprised the main part of their forces, which remained infatry-based during the Late Empire or post-Imperial Barbarian kingdoms.

if you have a migration period it seems likely many of them are going to go walkabout in Eastern/Southern Europe.
It's very likely that Gothic migrations would follow the same pattern as virtually any migrating groups in the period, meaning westwards/southwards towards Romania because it was simply richer, more attratible, and with good prospects of mercenariate with an established tradition of service in Roman armies and/or dependence on Roman subsides since two or three centuries at this point.
Going eastwards make little sense in face of climatic change, and the declining exchanges with Rome (which provided for a good part of subsite and basic supplies trough trade), and of course waves of Sarmatians or Saramatized people migrating such as Huns.

No Adrianople?
No Adrianople or a Gothic defeat at Adrianople may change a lot of things, but not their presence within Romania, and their integration within Roman institutional and military frames. The general idea at this point was to maintain them in Moesia and along the Danubian basin, which could have been fairly successful at least partially, into preventing the emergence of a prestigious relatively unified Gothic ensemble and making Goths a bit more like Alamans on this regard (aka divided in several rulers)but the lack in skilled military force and the tendence of Barbarians to take their chance at the first opportunity means that mass moves within Romania remain likely if probably not the same than IOTL.
 
Top