WI: Earlier Migration Period

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

What would be the effects of an earlier migration period, such as, before or during the crisis of the third century, have on the Roman and Sassanid (or Parthian, if early enough) empires at the time?

Would the various tribes be as successful in invading the Roman empire and what effects would come from this? Also should the huns managed to arrive a century or 2 earlier without triggering the Germanic tribes from moving south would they be as much of a threat?
 
if to early (say when Rome are fit), we'd just have a reprise of Cimbrian war ... at least the first couple of times
 
if to early (say when Rome are fit), we'd just have a reprise of Cimbrian war ... at least the first couple of times

The question would then be, could the Romans withstand multiple Cimbrian Wars, or Marcomannic Wars? Both took a serious toll on the Romans.
 
Before 250AD, it's doubtful that the Germanic world has enough wealth to allow for political "sophistication" to develop enough for Germani to be anything more than a very minor irritant in Rome's border zone. This deals with your Hunnic question too, and I'll paraphrase Peter Heather- the arrival of the Sarmatians upon an un-"Romanised" (I use that phrase lightly!) Germanic world had negligible impact.

As for the impact of a migration period happening earlier, somehow- the Roman Empire of the third century was plainly quite ill equipped to deal with serious Germanic incursions and Sasanian aggression at the same time, and promptly collapsed quickly in on itself (this is why I often roll my eyes at people talking about a gloriously strong early Roman Empire when compared to the apparent weakness of the fourth century). This'll happen here too, but if the migrations begin in the early fourth century, it might be different.

Plenty here consider the fall of the Western Empire to be a near-guaranteed event, whereas I think that the collapse was actually pretty unlikely when considered as a whole, and required repeated bad luck on the part of the Romans to bring down a state that, whatever its limitations, was an order of magnitude more wealthy, sophisticated, and militarily powerful than even the most developed of its neighbours.
 
The Suebi, Alans, Vandals, and Visigoths did, but not the Franks

I mean in the 3rd century. I am pretty sure the Franks raided as far as Iberia at that time.

Plenty here consider the fall of the Western Empire to be a near-guaranteed event, whereas I think that the collapse was actually pretty unlikely when considered as a whole, and required repeated bad luck on the part of the Romans to bring down a state that, whatever its limitations, was an order of magnitude more wealthy, sophisticated, and militarily powerful than even the most developed of its neighbours.

I couldn't agree with you more.
 
Top