Evolution of the Fourth-century diplomatic paradigm between the Roman Empire and the Barbaricum

Hi, i'm writing a dissertation for my graduation, and i'm stuck on a subject.

Expanding the title, i want to know how the diplomatic relations between Rome and the germanic kingdoms on its borders (Franks, Goths, Alamanni etc) could evolve without the arrival of the Huns.

I've recently read Peter Heather's "Foedera and Foederati of the Fourth Century", in which he argues that the treaty between Athanaric and Valens saw an important change in the relations of power: the tribute (read: interference) sent by the romans was canceled, the Goths wouldn't provide military service to the Romans anymore, and the frontier was closed and was to be fortified.

Now, bearing in mind that the germanic political entities were constantly evolving in economy, politics and overall power, what signifiance could the treaty have had, in practice?

Were the Goths beginning to evolve in an independent kingdom? I mean, they already were, mostly, but engaged within roman politics. Could they have attained a more prominent role in roman affairs similar to the one they played during the V century, but from outside the roman empire instead of within?

Thanks in advance for any reply.
 
I'm of the opinion that many of the Germanic 'barbarians', especially the Goths, would have developed independent kingdoms north of the Roman frontier that would consolidate. Where it really gets interesting is whether the Germanics would be able to withstand or integrate the coming Slavic migrations, although I'd probably say they could, as the early Slavs expanded out of the Pripet Marshes, and were thus relatively poor in material development and lack the advantage of steppe tactics that allowed the Huns to smash the Goths.

I still think that there would definitely be Germanic incursions into the Roman Empire, but these will likely be less severe without the Goths. The Romans still are much richer and more developed than the Teutons, which is an attractive prospect, whether for raiding or migration. There is archaeological evidence that areas of Germania not under Roman control were experiencing development and integration into the trading system, but many of these would probably get raided by more isolated, remote groups, which could even provoke them seeking refuge in Roman territory. Nevertheless, I think that after a period of adjustment, some kind of balance could be achieved.

Christianity would still spread north, but I imagine Arianism would be popular in most kingdoms outside of Roman territory, except perhaps when a particular ruler really wants to ingratiate himself with the Romans.
 
I'm of the opinion that many of the Germanic 'barbarians', especially the Goths, would have developed independent kingdoms north of the Roman frontier that would consolidate. Where it really gets interesting is whether the Germanics would be able to withstand or integrate the coming Slavic migrations, although I'd probably say they could, as the early Slavs expanded out of the Pripet Marshes, and were thus relatively poor in material development and lack the advantage of steppe tactics that allowed the Huns to smash the Goths.

I still think that there would definitely be Germanic incursions into the Roman Empire, but these will likely be less severe without the Goths. The Romans still are much richer and more developed than the Teutons, which is an attractive prospect, whether for raiding or migration. There is archaeological evidence that areas of Germania not under Roman control were experiencing development and integration into the trading system, but many of these would probably get raided by more isolated, remote groups, which could even provoke them seeking refuge in Roman territory. Nevertheless, I think that after a period of adjustment, some kind of balance could be achieved.

Christianity would still spread north, but I imagine Arianism would be popular in most kingdoms outside of Roman territory, except perhaps when a particular ruler really wants to ingratiate himself with the Romans.

Yeah i thought about that too. But how much time do you think it would take for the evolving germanic client kingdoms to develop something like a fiscal system and adopt writing? To become some kind of sub-roman kingdoms, but staying independent and perhaps expanding in the frontiers zones of Rome without reaching the mediterranean? I'm thinking about the Loire for the Franks, the Alps for the Alamanni, the Danube for the Goths etc.
 
Yeah i thought about that too. But how much time do you think it would take for the evolving germanic client kingdoms to develop something like a fiscal system and adopt writing?

I would think that writing would happen fairly quickly as missionaries from Rome went north to both spread Christianity and 'civilize' the barbarians a la Cyril and Methodius with the Slavs. Certainly I would assume that the Romans would promote a more settled lifestyle for the barbarians in the hope of stopping their raids.

One could look at the relationship of Han China with the Xiongnu (XN) as a contemporary analogy to the Rome-Gothic situation (of course there are clear differences between the two):

1) The early practice of heqin (princess-marriage) and acceptance of XN-Han parity in order to promote more 'settled' habits,
2) Attempts at a decisive conquest during Emperor Wu's reign (141-87BC) only to slowly retrench as the Western Han weakened,
3) Exploitation of the split of the XN Confederation in 50AD, with the Eastern Han supporting Southern XN claims as a means of perpetuating inter-XN schisms,
4) Han attempts to settle with Northern XN in the 70s hampered by a Southern XN concerned that Han was 'selling them down the river' (an example of the vassal controlling the policy of the patron)
5) A final Han push to eliminate the Northern XN in favor of the Southern XN in 88-92AD (due to court politics) paradoxically causing less security for Han, as the Southern XN proved unable to hold on to Han's conquests and lost them to the incoming Xianbei.
 
I would think that writing would happen fairly quickly as missionaries from Rome went north to both spread Christianity and 'civilize' the barbarians a la Cyril and Methodius with the Slavs. Certainly I would assume that the Romans would promote a more settled lifestyle for the barbarians in the hope of stopping their raids.

One could look at the relationship of Han China with the Xiongnu (XN) as a contemporary analogy to the Rome-Gothic situation (of course there are clear differences between the two):

1) The early practice of heqin (princess-marriage) and acceptance of XN-Han parity in order to promote more 'settled' habits,
2) Attempts at a decisive conquest during Emperor Wu's reign (141-87BC) only to slowly retrench as the Western Han weakened,
3) Exploitation of the split of the XN Confederation in 50AD, with the Eastern Han supporting Southern XN claims as a means of perpetuating inter-XN schisms,
4) Han attempts to settle with Northern XN in the 70s hampered by a Southern XN concerned that Han was 'selling them down the river' (an example of the vassal controlling the policy of the patron)
5) A final Han push to eliminate the Northern XN in favor of the Southern XN in 88-92AD (due to court politics) paradoxically causing less security for Han, as the Southern XN proved unable to hold on to Han's conquests and lost them to the incoming Xianbei.

I should really look into ancient chinese history. Do you have any books to recommend to get a general view?

Anyway, from what you wrote it seems that, in a "chinese Rome" scenario, Christianization could play a major role in romanizing the germanic client kingdoms.

I think that the more they become similar to Rome, the easier it would be for the latter to conquer them (assuming they don't develop a stronger distinct identity)
 
For a general view on Han-Xiongnu relations, I recommend the following:
- Ancient China and its Enemies
- The Early Chinese Empires (chapter 'Nomadism and the Xiongnu')
- Military Culture in Imperial China (specifically the chapter 'Military Culture in Later Han')

As for romanization, there will always be a debate within the 'barbarians' between acculturation and 'the old ways'. Every Germanic kingdom/faction will have their own view on Romanization and what its limits should be - whether this erupts into open fissures that Rome could exploit would depend on the nature of the Gothic/Germanic polity.
 

scholar

Banned
There's also Later Han and Three Kingdoms specialist Rafe de Crespigny's work. He only deals loosely with the Xiongnu, but they are placed within the context of the downfall of the Han State and the emergence of chaos. Those works of his still in print are outrageously pricey, but a lot of his articles and out of print stuff are hosted here.

Directly related to your request, the Northern Frontier of the Later Han Dynasty and the Division and Destruction of the Xiongnu Confederacy are hosted.

Back to your main question, the treaties with the Goths were personal arrangements between rulers, and require consistent and continual renewal in order to be maintained. The Goths coming into Roman Territory were a direct result of outside pressures. While a stable Gothic Kingdom that acts as an ally of Rome on the frontier was always possible, the character of the Roman Empire was always to attack regardless. Their overwhelming sense of cultural superiority often led to bad faith, and unless the Goths fell under a patron from the Roman court, it is unlikely that they would evolve into stable partners. Indeed, the maturation of the Gothic kingdoms were a direct result of Roman cultural gravity. One possible way to get around this may be to have the Goths inhabit Dacia shortly after the Roman military withdrawal, and have the resulting settlement be one of quasi-Roman status. Dacia was urbanized and wealthy enough to provide a basis for a powerful kingdom, and so long as the Dominate did not take it upon themselves to destroy them, you might get an interesting situation emerge.
 
I would argue that the adoption of Christianity, even Arianism, would not be so inevitable if the Migration Period was butterflied away, as much early Christianization of the Franks and to a lesser extent the Goths was driven by their own acquired Romanophillia owing to foederati status and desire to integrate into the Roman society that they had conquered through intermarriage. The subsequent spreading of a more "Germanic" Christianity to the Alemannic, Bavarian, Thuringian and low-country Germans through royal marriage and aggressive missionary work (as well as a desire by various kings and chieftains to replicate Frankish/Gothic success) further played a part, especially once the Anglo-Saxons entered the picture.

Indeed, while the Goths themselves had been heavily Christianized by even the 4th century thanks to Ulfilas, the tribes still existed in a sort of "culture war" between the Romanophile Christians, and the staunch pagans who believed Christianity to be "un-Gothic and treasonous," as Athanaric put it. The Saxon resistance to Frankish/Anglo-Saxon attempts at the establishment of Christianity within Old Saxony emphasizes a rather extreme example of such xenophobic attitudes.

It will probably still happen regardless due to the sheer determination of Christian missionaries during the late antiquity, but it would be much slower than our timeline. And events, especially Roman military aggression, could cause severe cultural blow-back if not handled delicately.

But in terms of ethnolinguistic differences, if the Slavs are unable to fully penetrate into the East Germanic regions they migrated into in OTL, you may still see a large amount of linguistic creolization occurring regardless. Maybe the language(s) end up sounding something like Nemrus/Deutschrussisch, or a much more extreme form of the German influence seen in the Sorbian languages?
 
Top