alternatehistory.com

So, a bit of a complex question, really. As we know, when the Roman Empire was whole (i.e. a cohesive single polity), the peripheral peoples were tribal, nomadic, and anarchic. The collapse of the Roman Empire allowed many of these tribal peoples to adopt Romanesque models of rule and control, which then allowed for the establishment of cohesive nation-states in Western Europe first and Eastern Europe next.

My question is this; if Rome did not collapse, or if a successor to Rome, such as Francia, succeeded in conquering Roman territory once more, would be the fate of the peripheral tribes? On the one hand, Roman influence might indeed lead to them forming more 'modern' nation-states, as it did in OTL when Rome collapsed, but on the other hand united, strong nation-states on the outside of Rome might be seen as a threat and in need of being broken.

It's easier to manage the barbarians at the border when you have six tribes on your side and four against you, for example.

What is the opinion of the forumn on this? Would a surviving and lasting polity covering the Mediterranean and most of Western Europe at a time when the Germanics et al were still tribal prevent those peoples from forming nation-states, or would it make it easier?
Top