Were the goths can settle without being assimilated?

I would say areas such as Upper Pannonia would be ideal for the goths to not be assimilated but only if the Huns and Avars decide to just ignore them or the goths fend them off
 
If they swung a bit further east during the steppe migrations, carving a niche in the Caucasus would be plausible.
Why would they move from Danube to Caucasus? Not only the latter was much more a region of emigration (partially due to droughts, partially due to super-chiefdoms pressions), but as Goths formed themselves as a Danubian people, and the wealthy Romania was ltterally next door as a source of wealth, mercenaryship, militiae service, settlement or refuges as laeti, and if not, as raid target.

I would say areas such as Upper Pannonia would be ideal for the goths to not be assimilated but only if the Huns and Avars decide to just ignore them or the goths fend them off
The nature of super-chiefdoms as Huns or Avar confederation was to include as much of what entities surrounded them (see map), essentilly for what matter their relation with Romania, as a way to improve their pressure power to gain tributary wealth.

That said, you did have Gothic settlement in Pannonia IOTL : Valamir's Goths were settled in Pannonia in the middle of the Vth century as federates, but you may have some Gothic laeti or quasi-federate already that remained, for exemple, from Radogast's Goths.
The problem was that Pannonia, but generally Illyricum as a whole, was fairly not that interesting for takeover compared to Italy : Illyricum was the soft underbelly of Late Romania, where basically every Barbarian came in the late IVth/early Vth to raid the neighbouring regions (and Greutingi were no exception to the rule) making the land relatively poor.
Even Constantinople understood this, as they allowed Ostrogoti to move from Pannonia to Moesia (and Thessalonica) in the late Vth century under the leadership of Theodoric, because there was no point guarding Pannonia anymore, while they needed troops in Moesia (along with other Gothic and Hunnic federates)

Either Goths are strong enough to take what they want, and they'll eventually quit Pannonia and Illyricum as they did IOTL; either Romania is in shambles but Constantinople is still strong enough to provide Goths with better geopolitical situation; either there's a strong enough Late Romania both in west and east to force them to stay on Pannonia (as it makes sense ITTL to keep Illyricum relatively safe) and we have the aformentioned issue of Goths managing to pull a strongly distinct indentity (keeping in mind they were already romanized by the IVth century, and were even more as they entered in Romania in the late part of the same century and onwards) with a strong Roman Empire right there.

I stress this : Gothic (but more or less every Barbarian complex chiefdom in the IIIrd/IVth/Vth centuries) ethnogenesis is due to the existence of Roman Empire, and its cultural, military, political and economical influence. The reinforcement of Gothic royal authority is due to the prestige they gained in military service (Germanic kingship ended, with these people, to gain an hypertrophied military function they didn't have originally) and a spectacular reinforcement of redistributive and critically mobilizating devices of their chiefdoms due to Roman gold (as payment or tributes).
Culturally and politically, they were integrated to Romania right from the beggining, and this integration only go deeper as they entered within its limits.
 
I'm not sue what you mean : between the VIth and the IXth century, the whole of Crimea was usually included into the various steppe confederacies and empires such as Bulgars or Khazars. Granted, it was more of a tribal super-chiefdom or confederacy rule than a firm territorial union, but Crimea was part as a same ensemble until the Byzantine reaffirmation of authority in its southern part in the IXth century?


For all we know, they might have done this, only to get absorbated by various people dominating Crimea, Romans (Byzantine) not the less, as most of people calling themselves Goths in Cherson were hellenized.

In fact, the pontic raids of the Goths in the IIIrd century were largely based either on the recently conquered Bosphoran navy, either using monoxyles ships as Slavs used in the VIIth century while raiding Byzantium. There was no real naval tradition among Goths in the IIIrd, and what allowed them to raid freely in the Pont was less their naval skills that several garrisons having been withdrawed.


They kinda did IOTL.
Alright I yield to your better understanding of the matter.
 
Alright I yield to your better understanding of the matter.
This is always kind of embarassing : I'm not really asking people to yield and listen to me, but rather to go for themselves if they're interested and agree because I make fair points that can be sourced.
For instance, I looked on Des (les) Goths aux Huns, le Nord de la Mer Noire au Bas Empire et à l'époque des Grandes Migrations (From Goths to Huns, the North of Black Sea in the Late Empire and Great Migration times.) for several points in the post you mention, which is something more or less anyone could so.

Sorry if I complain a bit : I understand you meant no harm or anything there, at the contrary. But I wanted to mention this for my own comfort on this board.
 
Last edited:
This is always kind of embarassing : I'm not really asking people to yield and listen to me, but rather to go for themselves and possibly to point me wrong.
For instance, I looked on Des (les) Goths aux Huns, le Nord de la Mer Noire au Bas Empire et à l'époque des Grandes Migrations (From Goths to Huns, the North of Black Sea in the Late Empire and Great Migration times.) for several points in the post you mention, which is something more or less anyone could so.

Sorry if I complain a bit : I understand you meant no harm or anything there, at the contrary. But I wanted to mention this for my own comfort on this board.
Alright I yield to your superior manners.

jk jk
Don't worry about it, I'm just the type of guy who prefers to admit to being out of depth rather than just not reply.
 
@LSCatilina well, ok, let's allow them to romanize, but there is any way for them to continue using the goth alphabet, or at the very least continue speaking Goth with the latim alphabet?
 
@LSCatilina well, ok, let's allow them to romanize, but there is any way for them to continue using the goth alphabet, or at the very least continue speaking Goth with the latim alphabet?
Germanic languages of Barbarian peoples settled in Romania tended to disappear really quickly, and mostly surviving in ceremonial (religious or legal) matters. It's at the point that late Ostrogoths scribe may have purposefully made germanic-sounding mistake in their latin texts to bullshit their ways as "oh, we're totally Barbarians, we don't understand much Roman".

Let's remember that Goths were largely made, by the Vth century, of Latin or Romance speaking people (again, it's not allowing them to be romanized, it's about them being romanized as a basic feature of their ethnogenesis); and the ratio never ceased to narrow as the fusion of populations between Romanized Goths and provincial Romans progressed.
Would it be only trough sheer demographical reality, it would disappear.

Visigothic Spain said:
There is no evidence for the use of Gothic in Spain in the 6th or 7th centuries

Gothic language essentially survived its "popular use" death due to its religious ceremonial use (while Frankish outright disappeared* in the VIth safe for ceremonial wording) until the late VIIth but even this was quickly vanishing due to aformentioned reasons, and the association of Gothic bible with homeism.

(There's also no much evidence about texts in Gothic in the VIth and VIIth having actually been spoken, as well, which doesn't help)

The only safe way to keep Gothic language a thing in my opinon, even with Romanized Goths, would be as proposed above : to keep Goths out of Romania and have them form a client ensemble of chiefdoms (eventually forming a cyclical chiefdom or an early state) bordering the Empire.
Or at best, but I'm definitely no confident there, to make them somehow stuck along Danube within Romania : Moesia and Pannonia were arguably relatively depopulated enough to allow it.

*While certainly influencing Germanic speeches at the periphery of Francia which gave Low and Middle German
 
Last edited:
Or at best, but I'm definitely no confident there, to make them somehow stuck along Danube within Romania : Moesia and Pannonia were arguably relatively depopulated enough to allow it.

Ok, done, so the conclusion is that the language could have survived if the Goths had colonized and built their kingdom on Pannonia and Moesia?
 
Ok, done, so the conclusion is that the language could have survived if the Goths had colonized and built their kingdom on Pannonia and Moesia?
I should be more clear, maybe : as I wanted to explain above, Gothic peoples being stuck on Pannonia and Moesia alone would likely imply the permanence of a Roman power in Illyricum and Italy, which would without too much doubt in this case still irradiate its political, institutional and cultural dominance on regions that had still a significant Roman presence. It could last for a time, maybe longer than how it lasted in Spain, but (keeping in mind possible butterflies and the uneasiness to draw conclusions for a PoD allowing survival of the Empire after a short while), eventually, I could see Danubian Goth being largely assimilated not only culturally (and not just integrated) including linguistically.

Now, maybe a super-Gutthiuda ensemble with a series of Gothic federates astride Central and Lower Danube could do the trick (giving Pannonian and Moesian Goths a geo-cultural backbone), without any clue about how much it would be lasting (with such PoD anyway, it's becoming blur very quickly), while I would tend to think it would be longer than in the first case.
At the very least, it asks for a PoD where Huns are still a thing, still manage to create sufficient havoc in immediate Barbaricum, but fail to form a tribal confederacy in the Barbaricum.
 
While Gothia became one of the name for the region, it doesn't say much about its "gothicness" so to speak : for comparison, lower Languedoc kept being called "Gothia" way until the XIIth century, without any survival of gothic language (which more or less died out in Western Europe by the VIth century, remaining essentially as a ceremonial tool) but without any sense of gothic identity.

Or Andalusia (Vandalicia), which was only actually ruled by the Vandals for about twenty years.
 
Im not an expert in the period, but could the Goths have migrated to Great Britain?

But would they have been able to do what the Anglo-Saxons did and not only keep their language, but eventually assimilate most Celtic and Latin-speaking people? That's what I'm not so certain about.
 
Im not an expert in the period, but could the Goths have migrated to Great Britain?
Technically: there's nothing impossible, altough that rather than migrating, you could see a Gothic laeti (sort of deportation of groups of people Roman practiced) in Roman Britain for some reason with a strong Roman Empire.
And leati tended to be absorbated by whoever settled in numbers (as it happened with Alans laeti or small foedi IOTL in Great Britain), so either you have Anglo-Saxons taking the lead (remember that the Saxon Shore is already a thing by the IIIrd century), either it knows the fate of provincial laeti (such as in Gaul) and while influencing culturally the neihgbouring region (which provided to be a great assest for cultural integration, then assimilation of Barbarians in the IVth and Vth centuries) doesn't create a Gothic identity.

That said, it's extremely unlikely. Goths as a people first appeared along the Roman limes in Danube and the shores of western Black Sea in the IIIrd century. Their ethnogenesis, how they appeared as a people from a melting pot of Vistulan Germans, Basternae, Dacians, Sarmatians, Romans under the pervasive influence of the Late Empire, made them right from the start leaning to this region.
Migrating from Danube to Britain would have been a bit weird and, frankly, not making a lot of sense : either a IVth century migration as Huns arrived that would somehow neglectg the obvious way out in eastern Romania would involve migrating whole chiefdoms inside Barbaricum (Sarmatians, Marcomanni, Suevi, Franks, etc.) until reaching the North Sea and pulling a sea transport rivaling with already established Saxoni, Eutii, Angli, etc. would at the very best be hard, especially when Roman policy in Barbaricum was to support whoever promised a bit of stability with money, weapons and good will.

A migration to Britain in the Vth century makes even less sense, as Roman Brittania was clearly a backwater territory that even Romans tought being dispensable as garrisons were gradually removed until the very early Vth : it was not that wealthy, regularily raided over, with several estabishments (Scoti, Saxons, Votodoni, etc.) already there. Compared to settle in litterally any other Roman province, it was the worst choice : while you could argue that Northern Gaul was as well harboring several settlements (Saxons, Eutii, Alans, Alemani, Franci, Brittons, etc.) the territory was far more structured (which allowed an easier regional hegemony,as did Franks as having the legal imperium over Belgica) and more wealthy.

In all fairness, I could arguably see (with significant changes in Late Roman history) a northern Gaul based Gothic branch (in a TL where the Vth century notion of Visigoti or Ostrogoti doesn't exist as such) taking the lead in Northern Gaul, and managing to get a grab at southern Britain. Franks did so partially IOTL (greatly helped by a Frankish presence in southern Britain, and a Jutish presence in Gaul), probably clientelizing and dominating the Justish Kingdom in the VIth. But it was mostly contextual, and even Franks way more favoured a mediterranean and central European policy would it be only to approach better trade roads and the core regions of the Early Medieval era.
To have these Gaulish Goths focusing on Britain instead would ask for a strong power preventing them to do so (I'm thinking of a still existing WRE, for exemple), without any guarantee of result in Britain. But, and that's an important but, you might end with a Gothic identity in southern Britain where some Goths (thanks to the significantly lesser roman influence and presence in the island) could use their language later than they did in Spain IOTL, or even ITTL Gaul.

At this point, I must stress that migration of peoples in the Late Antiquity shouldn't be misunderstood. Maps like these are extremely misleading, if not outright wrong. You didn't have entiere people, as in coherent human groups organized as chiefdom(s) moving from Scandinavia to Spain as the same culturally, politically, institutionally or else.
While you certainly had large groups moving from Vistula to Danube (for what matters Goths) and possibly calling themselves Guts, we must not think of them as Goths in the sense we give to Trevingi, Greutingi, Visigoti, etc. (A bit like New Yorkers aren't the result of a mass migration from Yorkshire, if you will)
While a migration from these Vistulans Germans to the west would be weird (for reasons aformentioned), it could technically happen, and we could see them, rather than being absorbated by western Germanic confederations, forging one.
That said, they would be, for all purpose and intent, a different Gothic people : western Germanic, culturally and structurally closer to Rehinish confederations as Burgundians (which IOTL might be the result of eastern Germans migrating into the west, and foring a new confederation, a western-based one), Franks, Suevi, Saxons, etc.

But would they have been able to do what the Anglo-Saxons did and not only keep their language, but eventually assimilate most Celtic and Latin-speaking people? That's what I'm not so certain about.
Given the backwardness of Britain, the lesser Roman influence and structuration of the island, and the over-reliance on Barbarian foedi, in this hypothetical scenario, I wouldn't see why not.
It doesn't mean Britain wasn't more or less romanized, but we have to remember that romanization is much more of a creolisation, that could take different depths : in Gaul or Spain were pre-existed political and cultural super-structures that Romans could take on, it went the way of a quick and deep romanisation. In Britain, not so much (giving that Romans barely controlled the westerns parts of the province to begin with).

Regardless of the likelyness of Goths settling in Britain (see above), I'd guess they'd go the same way of Angli, Saxoni, Jutii, etc. as creating a whole array of tribal kingdoms only slowly forming cyclical chiefdoms : a cyclical chiefdom, roughly, is what happen when a primitive state manage to takes the lead onto the ensemble of its neighbours and roughly unify them; then crumbles for the lack of structure to support it, repeat ad nauseam until the result of unifications are strong enough to solidify the unity. Now, I really think that ITTL, we'd have western Germanic Goths, making the cultural difference with IOTL Barbarian peoples in Britain meager at best.

Or Andalusia (Vandalicia), which was only actually ruled by the Vandals for about twenty years.
It may be more of a case of medieval folk ethymology there as Vandalicia or Vandalusia being transitional forms we never see appears in contemporary texts between the Vth and the VIIIth (at the contrary of a lot of others, such as Gothia Lunga for Catalonia) : apparently it doesn't make a lot of phonologic sense as well with Andalus.

I'd rather be favouring the hypothesis about (Guthiudda) landahlauts, an hypothetical Gothic name (Gothic lot, implied the land) that would have gaven birth to the (attested) Gothica sors, which while not making reference to southern Sain (it would rather be Betica), was used. If the hypothetical Gothic expression survived relativelt late (while the Gothic language in Spain was most probably extinct, ceremonial use of Gothic words and expressions did existed there and there), it could have been borrowed by Arabo-Berbers.
 
I think even if we did have a group calling themselves Goths in Britain they'd be so Germanised we'd be debating their Gothicness as much as we debate the Jutelanderness of OTL Jutes!
 
Given the backwardness of Britain, the lesser Roman influence and structuration of the island, and the over-reliance on Barbarian foedi, in this hypothetical scenario, I wouldn't see why not.
It doesn't mean Britain wasn't more or less romanized, but we have to remember that romanization is much more of a creolisation, that could take different depths : in Gaul or Spain were pre-existed political and cultural super-structures that Romans could take on, it went the way of a quick and deep romanisation. In Britain, not so much (giving that Romans barely controlled the westerns parts of the province to begin with).

Regardless of the likelyness of Goths settling in Britain (see above), I'd guess they'd go the same way of Angli, Saxoni, Jutii, etc. as creating a whole array of tribal kingdoms only slowly forming cyclical chiefdoms : a cyclical chiefdom, roughly, is what happen when a primitive state manage to takes the lead onto the ensemble of its neighbours and roughly unify them; then crumbles for the lack of structure to support it, repeat ad nauseam until the result of unifications are strong enough to solidify the unity. Now, I really think that ITTL, we'd have western Germanic Goths, making the cultural difference with IOTL Barbarian peoples in Britain meager at best.

So you're proposing Western Germanic Goths doing the same as the Anglo-Saxons did? But are the local Brittonic people that vulnerable to what amounts to their utter destruction?
 
So you're proposing Western Germanic Goths doing the same as the Anglo-Saxons did?
I'm not proposing this : I'm saying that, in the significantly unlikely event where Goths somehow found their way on Britain and establish themselves there, they would probably get mixed with a lot of other Western Germanic peoples, and that if one of the tribal ensemble keep the name of Gothi, they will still be part of what we call Anglo-Saxons IOTL. As in not only doing the same, but being part of the process.

Simply said, these *Goths would probably have their name in common with historical Goths, and that would be more or less all : for all intent and purpose, Goths would be ITTL part of the Western Germanic ensemble in Britain we call Anglo-Saxons.

But are the local Brittonic people that vulnerable to what amounts to their utter destruction?
Brittons weren't as much destroyed than either pushed back, or assimilated within the Anglo-Saxon ensemble (Kings of Wessex, for instance seem to have a partially Celtic origin) and the strength of Wessex from a mix of Britto-Romans, Saxons from Saxon Shore, and Saxons from the East.*

*Which is hardly exceptional : again, behind each Barbarian people, you have a huge melting pot of more or less everything, plus a more or less significant Roman part, even before they settled as distinct kingdoms.


As for the overall vulnerability of Britto-Romans, it more or less comes to the absence of unyfing features : as said above a much lesser structural romanisation than in, say, Northern Gaul; the absence of a Roman army (which barbarized or not remained a large stabilizing feature in immediate post-imperial Romania), and the deep survival of tribal structures in western and northern Britain. It could have been, if more or less difficultly, resolved up to a significant result, but without relevant plot, yes, Britto-Roman and Britton entities (rather than peoples) were really vulnerable.
 
A year ago I made a very constructive post about the influence of the Goths in Spain, and while the goths did leave a strong trace there (you can find visigothic names in Portugal, Spain and Latin america even today), they were mostly assimilated in the latim culture of those areas

So, there is any place on europe or the middle east were the visigoths or the ostrogoths can settle and keep their culture as the main local culture?
The Goths weren't a homogenous ethicity themselves. Samartian peoples were within their conglomerate.
 
I'm not proposing this : I'm saying that, in the significantly unlikely event where Goths somehow found their way on Britain and establish themselves there, they would probably get mixed with a lot of other Western Germanic peoples, and that if one of the tribal ensemble keep the name of Gothi, they will still be part of what we call Anglo-Saxons IOTL. As in not only doing the same, but being part of the process.

Simply said, these *Goths would probably have their name in common with historical Goths, and that would be more or less all : for all intent and purpose, Goths would be ITTL part of the Western Germanic ensemble in Britain we call Anglo-Saxons.


Brittons weren't as much destroyed than either pushed back, or assimilated within the Anglo-Saxon ensemble (Kings of Wessex, for instance seem to have a partially Celtic origin) and the strength of Wessex from a mix of Britto-Romans, Saxons from Saxon Shore, and Saxons from the East.*

*Which is hardly exceptional : again, behind each Barbarian people, you have a huge melting pot of more or less everything, plus a more or less significant Roman part, even before they settled as distinct kingdoms.


As for the overall vulnerability of Britto-Romans, it more or less comes to the absence of unyfing features : as said above a much lesser structural romanisation than in, say, Northern Gaul; the absence of a Roman army (which barbarized or not remained a large stabilizing feature in immediate post-imperial Romania), and the deep survival of tribal structures in western and northern Britain. It could have been, if more or less difficultly, resolved up to a significant result, but without relevant plot, yes, Britto-Roman and Britton entities (rather than peoples) were really vulnerable.

That makes sense. But it would be nice if the Goths could somehow keep their East Germanic language, although I suppose that's as likely as other migratory groups keeping their Iranian language (not very). Kinda interesting the Magyars didn't end up Slavic speaking.

But it is pretty noteworthy that of all places in the former Roman Empire, half of Britain ended up speaking a Germanic language while even a place as remote as Romania ended up speaking a Romance language. But I can't imagine the situation is so hopeless for Romance-speaking British people that just any large migration will end up in their assimilation/extinction.
 
That makes sense. But it would be nice if the Goths could somehow keep their East Germanic language, although I suppose that's as likely as other migratory groups keeping their Iranian language (not very).
Something similar did happened to Burgundians, that were supposed to be an eastern Germanic confederation, but whom the better known offshort (rather than fanciing the whole migrating as one same body) was definitely Western Germanic.
Barbarian people ethnogenesis was extremely pervasive to whichever elements composed them in majority : even assuming that these *Goths (which again, would be really different from their historical counterparts) form a complex chiefdom or confederation, it would be with Western Germanic elements at their side, and composing the main body of Goths which would then not only abandon Eastern Germanic speeches, but would likely NEVER be considered as such as their ethnogenesis would happen as a Western Germanic group as it happened with Burgundians.

Kinda interesting the Magyars didn't end up Slavic speaking.
The core of Pannonian Plain wasn't much slavicized before the Magyar settlement, tough : it's not very clear what exactly was spoken, but in the same time the region seem to have been sort of a puzzle. Remains of Germanic and Romance speeches, whatever language Pannonian Avars spoke, late Alans, and Slavic speeches.
Now, while Slavic speeches probably served as a main language in the Avar ensemble, when the Avar Khaganate was crushed down by the joint efforts of Franks and Bulgarians, the Pannonian Plain remained more or less structureless : some regions even being labelled as "Empty Lands" by Carolingians chroniclers, which while false, acknowledged some reality which led Franks to allow some reinforcement of slavic presence along the Danubian marches.

When Hungarians came, they might have found a roughly similar situation than western Germans in sub-Roman Britain : a relatively underpopulated region (even if several Slavic principalties and cyclical chiefdoms took root at their periphery), but they managed to structure it really quickly as an unitary state, which greatly affirmed their linguistical autonomy.

But it is pretty noteworthy that of all places in the former Roman Empire, half of Britain ended up speaking a Germanic language while even a place as remote as Romania ended up speaking a Romance language.
It seems that the romanisation of Vallachia is less due to the presence of Roman settlers in Dacia than the conjunction of Vallachies (romance enclaves) in Carpathians highlands, and the presence of a Romance population that came from Balkanic highlands, eventually re-romanizing the plains, at least according the admigrating theory (which I found more plausible). The case is hardly exceptional : the Albanisation of the Illyric coastal plain for instance.

If Anglo-Saxons somehow never managed to structure themselves as early states then secondary states, who knows? Maybe Britton speakers would have come down from their highlands and "lingustically" reconquered some parts of IOTL England? Of course, that's an unlikely scenario, but it serves well to illustrate the importance of peripherical regions for these matters.

But I can't imagine the situation is so hopeless for Romance-speaking British people that just any large migration will end up in their assimilation/extinction.
Ah. Romance Brittish. We don't have any exemple of this, for the reason it might have not existed : Latin was spoken, but the really thin linguistical romanisation of Britain (on part with the really thin structural romanisation of the province) probably prevented it to become a popular language.
Celtic Britton (tough with a more or less important Latin influence) was probably the main native language even in the IVth, Vth century.

And again, Anglo-Saxon arrival didn't needed to be a large scale migration : Britain was underpopulated by the Late Antiquity and Early Middle-Ages (I saw some guesstimate for the VIth counting barely one million), and Romano-Britton chiefdoms were quickly pushed back on the West, which was the less structured part of the province. That said, it was also where the highlands were, which allowed the maintain of Vallach/Welsh.
It seems that Brittons weren't as much assimilated in a first time (and not exterminated) than pushed back, but with a gradual integration (probably since the beggining for some, as hinted by the early accounts for Wessex)

As I said above : it doesn't mean Romano-Brittons were doomed as a political ensemble in IOTL England, but historically, they were in a precarious situation they didn't managed. I don't see how having *Goths replacing, say, Eucii as one of the leading groups in Anglo-Saxon tribal confederacies and splits would help. Or harming.
 
Top