In the absence of Rome, would there be a Migration Period?

A while back, I asked about the fate of the Hellenistic states in the absence of Rome - ie, Rome met a sudden death (either at the hands of the Celts in in the early 4th century BC or the Carthaginians in the late 3rd century BC). Now, the next major question I'm asking here is wether the Migrations Period would occur in such a scenario in any recognizable form? I'm personally inclined to think "no" would be the answer, primarily because many of the push-pull factors which greatly catalyzed the migrations in OTL are absent, most importantly the absence of Germanic mercenaries in the service of Rome. It's also possible that some or many of the tribal alliances (most importantly, Franks, Saxons, etc.) that emerged in OTL in the 1st through 3rd centuries AD wouldn't come into existence because they're butterflied away.

Therefore, I'm asking, what do you think that could happen instead?
 
Well I am still in the belief that a migration would eventually happen though one that is a lot more limited. In OTL, I was reading that the Germanic tribes to the east of the Rhine were already harassing the Celtic peoples of Gaul and Noricum.
 

Susano

Banned
I would say yes. Even without Rome, the lands across the Rhine are still more rich and vastly better suited for agriculture. A big reason for the Great Migrations was climate changes to the worse. That wont be affected, and hence the Germanic peoples most likely will still be on the move to find better lands...
 
First question is: what's in Europe, if Rome isn't there? If it's a unified Celtic state, the results will be different from if there are a bunch of different decentralized cultures, which will be different from having those cultures develop into a few settled states, which will themselves vary in results based on how well-developed and administered they are.

Anyway, I agree with the previous posts. You still have migrations. The question now becomes how the existing Europeans deal with them.
 
First question is: what's in Europe, if Rome isn't there? If it's a unified Celtic state, the results will be different from if there are a bunch of different decentralized cultures, which will be different from having those cultures develop into a few settled states, which will themselves vary in results based on how well-developed and administered they are.

Anyway, I agree with the previous posts. You still have migrations. The question now becomes how the existing Europeans deal with them.

The Celts of Gaul were certainly developing an advanced society (and uniting) when the Romans came knocking on their door. Either butterfly the Romans or at least screw them to the point that they're just one of the many Italic peoples of Europe.

 
Well I am still in the belief that a migration would eventually happen though one that is a lot more limited. In OTL, I was reading that the Germanic tribes to the east of the Rhine were already harassing the Celtic peoples of Gaul and Noricum.

First question is: what's in Europe, if Rome isn't there? If it's a unified Celtic state, the results will be different from if there are a bunch of different decentralized cultures, which will be different from having those cultures develop into a few settled states, which will themselves vary in results based on how well-developed and administered they are.

Anyway, I agree with the previous posts. You still have migrations. The question now becomes how the existing Europeans deal with them.

In a way, you could argue that a "migration period" already happened before (well, technically, people were always moving), but this wasn't so drastic as the actual later Migrations Period. What I'm refering to is the changes that occured in the 4th through 3rd centuries BC with the Gaulish invasions in northern Italy and on the Balkans. Conversely, the remaining Celts north of the Danube were gradually absorbed by the Germanic peoples in the following centuries. Though, though I would wager that this process was probably greatly exacerbated by the Roman consquests of Gaul, Vindelicia and Noricum.

Regarding Gaul, while the emergence of a unified Celtic state would seem unlikely (if you have ideas for factors that could lead to the emergence of such a state, I'd greatly welcome it ;) ), don't forget that without the Gallic Wars, Gaul will have a considerably larger population that would probably be better able to defend itself.

OTOH, a lot of things that happened in OTL (Anglo-Saxons in England, Vandals in North Africa, Visigoths in Iberia) are unlikely to happen in this scenario in a recognizable form.
 
They will always be Aztecs and Mayas though :rolleyes:

Well, this is simple: my idea is that without the presence of mercenaries in Britain already during the Roman period, I don't think that the Anglo-Saxon conquest would have occured in the first place. Therefore, it's more likely the ATL's "England" would be OTL's "Brittany".
 
There are so many ways this could all turn out. The Migration Period happened about 800 years after a destroyed Rome. I eventually plan on addressing this issue in my TL, but the fact is there are sooo many places the world can go under different circumstances.

If you are of the conviction that Carthage would have replaced Rome as a Mediterranean empire, then Germans and Celts might migrate into Carthaginian lands (Iberia, Italy, maybe even parts of North Africa) or maybe Berbers and Arabs would replace the Germans.

If, like I think, the Mediterranean is would not ever really be fully unified without Rome, and there are several polar nations along the Sea. I don't know exactly what I plan on happening in my TL yet, but I think the Germans would not migrate in such large numbers into the same lands that they did OTL. I think they would head more eastwardly with only some small western expansion.

But then, different circumstances bring about different results
 
There is always going to be the factor of tribes in Germania and Eastern Europe fleeing from steppe horse tribes like the Huns. The Huns pushed tribes in front of them, who pushed other tribes in from of them, who pushed into the Romans, who folded.
 
There is always going to be the factor of tribes in Germania and Eastern Europe fleeing from steppe horse tribes like the Huns. The Huns pushed tribes in front of them, who pushed other tribes in from of them, who pushed into the Romans, who folded.

Well, as mentioned before, one aspect about that which made me wonder is that there were many factors about the Germanic-Roman interaction which were responsible for the Roman Empire folding in the way it did - specifically Germanic mercenaries in the service of the Romans - this was both a key factor in the Battle in the Teutoburg Forest (which wouldn't have been orchestrated without) as well as the Gothic campaigns that brought the Western Roman empire to fall: the Germanic tribes knew the enemy they were dealing with, they knew of it's weaknesses, and they knew of the riches that would await them. Without a Roman Empire, I would imagine that any migration event would be much less cohesive, much less directed.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Í don't think so, it's not like Celtic and Germanic tribes hadn't moved around before, but without the existance of the Roman narrative to tell the tale and the Roman structures for the Germanic tribes to set up states in, the Germanic migrations would be much more like the Slavic or early East Germanic migrations, just another bunch of barbarian replacing each other on the edge of the known world.
 
Í don't think so, it's not like Celtic and Germanic tribes hadn't moved around before, but without the existance of the Roman narrative to tell the tale and the Roman structures for the Germanic tribes to set up states in, the Germanic migrations would be much more like the Slavic or early East Germanic migrations, just another bunch of barbarian replacing each other on the edge of the known world.

Which is precisely my point, actually. There's also the possibility of things taking a wholly different direction (Balkans, for instance, and also Italy).
 
Which is precisely my point, actually. There's also the possibility of things taking a wholly different direction (Balkans, for instance, and also Italy).

Or Anatolia for that matter considering the Galatians are the odd case of a Celtic people settling down in Asia Minor. :p It reminded me of this TL idea I wanted to of a Gallic dynasty ruling Egypt.
 

Susano

Banned
Í don't think so, it's not like Celtic and Germanic tribes hadn't moved around before, but without the existance of the Roman narrative to tell the tale and the Roman structures for the Germanic tribes to set up states in, the Germanic migrations would be much more like the Slavic or early East Germanic migrations, just another bunch of barbarian replacing each other on the edge of the known world.

Oh, thats probably true. Without the Roman Empire the migrations would most likely be way less extensive. But I think they would happen, just most likely not reaching far beyond Gaul and maybe the Pannonian plain.
 

Thande

Donor
Prydain would be a rich underdefended prize any which way, so while the Anglo-Saxons might not be the ones to conquer her, I suspect somebody would. Of course without Rome she might have been drawn into some Gaul-based Celtic empire anyway.
 

Susano

Banned
Im just thinking that wiothout Rome, the Germanic Migrations would look like, well, most migrations in History. IOTL we had relative small populations reaching very, very far and setting up states with themselves as local elite far away from their original lands, where they formed the minority. This was possible because basically all tribes had become Roman foederati had some point or other. Without Rome, I think youd have the more classical juggernaut: Huge populations move, but not very far, instead setting very near their old grounds and possible in sufficient numbers to form a majority. In the Germanics case those near lands would be crossing Danube and especially Rhine, hence Gaul and Pannonia. Though I guess, yes, Britain is a likely candidate, too.
 
Top