More Catholic Germanic Tribes: Good or Bad for Rome?

Do Catholic tribes shorten or prolong the Roman Empire’s life?

  • Shorten

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Prolong

    Votes: 7 53.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Total voters
    13
This will necessarily be a little on the high concept side of things, because of the nature of many of the Germanic tribes’ conversion to Christianity: those that embraced the Arian Creed were generally converted by the Romans when Arians were governing the Empire. So, for the tribes to adapt the Nicene Creed, we’d have to change a lot of small details that could add up quickly.

So, lets not worry about that... which is the AH equivalent of saying ‘don’t think about elephants.’ Anyway, if we assume the broad strokes are the same, how might this play out as Goths and Vandals and others settle across the Empire? In particular, what might this mean for the longevity of the Empire?

On the one hand, you have the school of thought that the new blood could reinvigorate the Empire and would now be far more likely to be accepted among the population. They’d be looking to the same Church leaders for guidance, and within a few generations could be knitted into the fabric seamlessly. There would be little notion of seperate identities for Romans and Goths.

On the other hand, the tribes could still maintain their distinctive identity, but now, without a religious divide between them and the population living in their new lands, there’s even less reason to prefer Imperial rule to Germanic rule. Sure, they might look to the Pope for spiritual guidance, but all it takes is one Pope that prefers the protection of a pious Gothic king to an overbearing Roman Emperor, and that common ground can help tear things apart.

Or perhaps something in the middle? Something more loosely knit, like the Holy Roman Empire of later centuries? Just throwing a bone to anyone that doesn’t like the first two options.
 
There would be little notion of seperate identities for Romans and Goths.
"Ni fraþja Rumonrazda," Said the Goth to the Roman

There was still plenty for the Romans and Goths to bicker about and war over, simply being of the same faith is not a heavy enough of a unifying factor. In fact, the Goths were already well on their way to being Christianized into the 4th century, with Bishop Wulfila and his biblical translation starting to gain traction from Spain to Crimea. The Goths being Christian did little to change their mindset when it came to Rome, and it didn't make them feel any more Roman, and I feel as if a step to Nicene would be able to do much there.

I mean Hell, by this point they even were using their own alphabet separate from both runes and Latin script.

Example Text from the Gothic Edition of Wikipedia: Link

All this is to say, I think that the Goths are rather set into their ways by the 4th century, which was also the period that the migrations kicked in. You need to change a fair bit about the migration era itself to get the Christanization process to change, or just have dear old Bishop Wulfila get axed by an upstart pagan somewhere in Kovel.
 
Last edited:
"Ni fraþja Rumonrazda," Said the Goth to the Roman

There was still plenty for the Romans and Goths to bicker about and war over, simply being of the same faith is not a heavy enough of a unifying factor. In fact, the Goths were already well on their way to being Christianized into the 4th century, with Bishop Wulfila and his biblical translation starting to gain traction from Spain to Crimea. The Goths being Christian did little to change their mindset when it came to Rome, and it didn't make them feel any more Roman, and I feel as if a step to Nicene would be able to do much there.

I mean Hell, by this point they even were using their own alphabet separate from both runes and Latin script.

Example Text from the Gothic Edition of Wikipedia: Link

All this is to say, I think that the Goths are rather set into their ways by the 4th century, which was also the period that the migrations kicked in. You need to change a fair bit about the migration era itself to get the Christanization process to change, or just have dear old Bishop Wulfila get axed by an upstart pagan somewhere in Kovel.

I disagree entirely. The doctrinal disputes were a powerful wedge between various populations within the Empire. Just take any Christological dispute and you’ll see diverging identities forming. Being Arian was a large part of what made Goths Goths, and their alphabet was inextricably tied with that.

Consider how relatively little trouble the Catholic Franks had in melding with the old Gallo-Roman populations, compared to their Arian Gothic neighbors.

I don’t mean to say that its most likely that the Goths would lose their distinctive identity, but I do think that, whatever happens, it would be more likely that they would be much less seperate for the people around them. How much population gives way is an open question.
 
@DominusNovus
The problem of differentiation is a bit more complex than different institutions : truth to be told, you can't really materially distinguish a Barbarian and a Roman at first glance, as they all participate to the same late Roman culture and civilization.
Not that you didn't have real particularities, such as religion but as well ceremonial use of Germanic languages (especially in names) and their legal status as non-citizens.

But before the fall of the roman state, the core of the distinction between a Barbarian and a Roman was political. You were a Frank, a Goth, a Suevi, an Alaman, etc. because you followed and ultimately obeyed to a Barbarian dux or regulus; you were Roman because you ultimately obeyed to the Roman state; both regardless of your cultural ubringing (at least technically : Stilicho is a good exemple on how one could be a citizen and still considered as Barbarian nevertheless)). It's with the Vth century that this was no longer enough, because Barbarians invested provincial imperium : and truth to be told, not only these Barbarians were already importantly romanized from the beggining, but they were joined up by provincial populations (both elites and lower classes) in significant numbers.
It's then that identitarian features took a renewed importance : made-up ethnographies ripping on Aeneid and Exodus, totally Barbarian clothes made on the spot, "specific" weapons such as fransiscae never used before, Barbarian Laws that were eventually roman laws on Barbarians, etc.

And you're right : religion played an important role there. Burgundians themselves, while originally converted to a Nicean credo, switched to Homeism (long story short, what Barbarians converted wasn't as much Arianism than Homeism, a soft variant of the first that wasn't really dogmatically settled and kept this way for practical purposes). Eventually due two two factors, sheer politica weight of Niceanism, lesser drive to focus on identitarian features when acculturation was general, it wasn't this important since the VIIth century.

Eventually, it's not about how peoples (rather than tribe, roughly Goths are a people, Trevingi a tribe) created these identities out of political/institutional differenciation, rather than how they maintained their identities after entering in Romania.
it really depends how much a specific roman state does survives :
- The empire survives in West and one strong body and eventually, Barbarians will switch to whatever is in favour at the court, giving the need of identitarian features isn't nearly as strong due to a maintained institutional differenciation (which likely wouldn't turn to a "Barbarisation" of the provinces)
- The empires survives in West, but is essentially stuck to Italy/Africa/Illyricum. Differenciation, at least in provinces, remain less of a problem than IOTL, due to Provincial-Roman nobility likely keeeping important and maintained ties with Ravenna. But you'd likely see lower classes still Barbarising up to a degree. Eventually clerical administration would be still pretty much tied to Ravennan's beliefs, but Barbarians elites may insist on their semi-orthodoxy to point a political independence.
- The empires collapse both in West and in East : there's likely a lesser pressure on Homeism, and much less of an institutional support for Chalcedonism (IOTL, Constantinople and especially Maurice's reign represented a large boost for pro-Chalcedonian shifts in Latin Romania). I'd expect a largely royal-managed church (as IOTL) turning little by little (thanks to dogmatical amorphism of Homeism) as something akin to Islamic schools in Arabo-Islamic world, namely a set of practices, beliefs and religious "jurisprudence "(less of an actual jurisprudence than in Arabo-Islamic world, of course) forming a coherent but diverse ensemble.

Thoese are but exemplesto highlight the centrality of the institutional/cultural differenciation of identities in post-Imperial Romania. Religion does plays a role, but not a causal one ultimately IMO.
 
Top