What if the goths settled in the Roman empire peacefully

Then they would have betrayed the Romans (or been betrayed by the Romans) later on, like most of the Germanic tribes that settled in the Roman Empire.
 
Last edited:
If a proper attempt had been made to settle them,then they should be broken up and sent to different parts of the empire.They would make good,loyal auxiliaries.Theodosius the Little never rises to power,and the western Roman army might not be broken by the eastern one in a civil war.
 

scholar

Banned
While reading this thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=385668 it got me wondering what if the gothic war and the battle of adrianople never happened. What if cooler heads prevailed and the goths were allowed to the settle the empire peacefully. How does this affect the Roman Empire and the goths?

If the Goths remain a unified force inside of the Roman Empire under their own autonomous political structure, clashes will be bound to happen in the future. If the Goths divide amongst themselves and the Romans are able to play off different factions within the Gothic peoples, then they will more or less be assimilated into Rome like many countless other peoples. The problems with the Goths and the Germans were that they were essentially undefeated separate political identities that moved into a weakened Rome, and these peoples simultaneously weakened Rome dramatically and worked as a force to continue its existence. Without Adrianople the Roman Military would be in much better shape and dependence upon the Germans could be delayed making the fragmentation of Rome a farther point down the line than it originally was, though that assumes a similar or worse disaster does not happen soon thereafter.
 
If a proper attempt had been made to settle them,then they should be broken up and sent to different parts of the empire.They would make good,loyal auxiliaries.Theodosius the Little never rises to power,and the western Roman army might not be broken by the eastern one in a civil war.

Hm makes sense
 
Then they would have betrayed the Romans (or been betrayed by the Romans) later on, like most of the Germanic tribes that settled in the Roman Empire.

DarthFanta has it right. The Goths were the first tribe that the Romans failed to settle peacefully. Thats why they're famous.
 
If the Goths remain a unified force inside of the Roman Empire under their own autonomous political structure, clashes will be bound to happen in the future. If the Goths divide amongst themselves and the Romans are able to play off different factions within the Gothic peoples, then they will more or less be assimilated into Rome like many countless other peoples. The problems with the Goths and the Germans were that they were essentially undefeated separate political identities that moved into a weakened Rome, and these peoples simultaneously weakened Rome dramatically and worked as a force to continue its existence. Without Adrianople the Roman Military would be in much better shape and dependence upon the Germans could be delayed making the fragmentation of Rome a farther point down the line than it originally was, though that assumes a similar or worse disaster does not happen soon thereafter.
What possible disaster could happen that could be simmlar or worse then adrianople?
 
Could the Germans be integrated into the Empire before the big German Federations formed?

Not really, I mean you could have Germania up to the Elbe (and Marcomannia) conquered in the 1st century, but then different confederations would merely form beyond the Elbe in much the same way. Trade and interactions with the empire would almost guarantee it.


But in any case, a successful Gothic settlement would look something like breaking up their independent tribal leadership and settling them as Roman subjects probably in Thrace and other areas of the Balkans that were depleted of men. There'd probably be requirements for military service, though under Roman commanders rather than as independent foederati under their own leaders. This is how Rome had settled all groups before, with the partial exception of the Franks whom Julian "settled" along the Rhine as a semi-independent entity in order to help with guarding the frontier (and it should be noted, it was an incredibly successful move, the Franks would notably fight the Germans that tried to cross in the winter of 406-407, losing narrowly).

The Goths would resist this, as they did OTL. Though with better management and more forces available on the scene, it would be much easier to prevent things from getting out of hand and containing it (and perhaps dividing the Gothic leadership). The best way to do that is not have this whole thing occur while Valens is tied up with most of Rome's field armies managing affairs in the east, and so is there in Constantinople at the time to deal with the situation directly.
 
The Goths DID settle in Pannonia Peacefully. The Romans decided to go back on their word and kick them out, THAT'S why the Gothic War Happened. . .
 
The Goths DID settle in Pannonia Peacefully. The Romans decided to go back on their word and kick them out, THAT'S why the Gothic War Happened. . .

It's not nearly that simple. The Romans were caught at a bad time (most of their forces were away in the east) and could not handle the influx of Gothic refugees adequately. This was likely intentional. The fact that the Huns would not arrive on the Hungarian Plain in force for another decade is evidence at least that the Goths did not face any immediate pressing threat forcing them across-so they probably chose a time when Valens was away with most of the forces deliberately, so they would be able to receive a more favorable settlement. The Romans settled them on pretty poor land-this of course was the first problem, as the Goths were not all too happy about that. Then there was the problem of procuring food to feed the Goths as they were settled, and the problem of not having the forces to successfully break them up and settle them as full ROman subjects, rather than as semi-autonomous groups under their own leader.s It spiraled out of control from there.


The Goths are hardly blameless in all this.
 
Not really, I mean you could have Germania up to the Elbe (and Marcomannia) conquered in the 1st century, but then different confederations would merely form beyond the Elbe in much the same way. Trade and interactions with the empire would almost guarantee it.


But in any case, a successful Gothic settlement would look something like breaking up their independent tribal leadership and settling them as Roman subjects probably in Thrace and other areas of the Balkans that were depleted of men. There'd probably be requirements for military service, though under Roman commanders rather than as independent foederati under their own leaders. This is how Rome had settled all groups before, with the partial exception of the Franks whom Julian "settled" along the Rhine as a semi-independent entity in order to help with guarding the frontier (and it should be noted, it was an incredibly successful move, the Franks would notably fight the Germans that tried to cross in the winter of 406-407, losing narrowly).

The Goths would resist this, as they did OTL. Though with better management and more forces available on the scene, it would be much easier to prevent things from getting out of hand and containing it (and perhaps dividing the Gothic leadership). The best way to do that is not have this whole thing occur while Valens is tied up with most of Rome's field armies managing affairs in the east, and so is there in Constantinople at the time to deal with the situation directly.

So if the Balkans were fully staffed the crises might not have happened?
 
Top