Alternate History: Germanic Tribes and Rome

[3278]

What would the world be like if Germanic tribes hadn't overcome the Roman Empire?

My impression is that Rome would have fallen anyway; the Germanic tribes were more symptom than disease. But who, then, steps in to fill that power gap?

[paladin2019]

You first have to ask why the Germans did and why they might not.

You say they were a symptom of bigger problems? Without elaborating on those, does this mean that they took advantage of a Roman weakness? Does this then imply that they fail to overtake the Romans due to the Romans lacking this weakness? And then, why would the Romans fall to anyone?

Of course, Rome survived into the 15th century. "Zee Germanz" didn't completely wipe her out.

[3278]

You say they were a symptom of bigger problems? Without elaborating on those, does this mean that they took advantage of a Roman weakness?

I would say definitely. [Although it's worth noting I'm not, you know, Bonefish or anything; I have a decades-old high school education on the subject, basically.] My impression is that the collapsing tax structure and all the other dozens of contributing factors kept the Legions out of northern Europe, and thus there was an opening the Germanic tribes could exploit.

Does this then imply that they fail to overtake the Romans due to the Romans lacking this weakness? And then, why would the Romans fall to anyone?

That's an excellent question. I think the burden in this case should lie on the Germanic tribes, like, maybe they were busy elsewhere, or decided to grow plum trees instead of raiding their neighbors; Rome is still collapsing, but the Germanic tribes don't take advantage of the weakness.

[3278]

Actually, now I'm stuck on both possibilities: what if Rome weren't weak, and survived? It'd take a lot of changes to keep Rome on top, but if they were made, what would the world have been like if there had been another several centuries of Roman dominance? And then on the other hand, if the Germanic tribes had stayed home, who else would have been available to fill the power vacuum in the north?

[Salvation122]

Rome would have had to look rather a lot different to survive. Its internal politics made feudalism look positively efficient, and by and large its entire economy was built on conquering new lands, settling new gentry there, and taking pretty much the entire indigenous population as slaves. The problem ended up being that eventually the gentry realized they were more or less self-sufficient and could tell Mother Rome to take its taxes and shove 'em (individually, not as a coordinated effort.)

My rough impression is that it would look something along the lines of a colonial-era British Empire that encompassed everything bordering the Mediterranean and Aegean seas, except with swords and horsehair-plumed helmets instead of muskets and tricorner hats, plus holy crap all the slavery and all the attendant rebellions.

[Bonefish]

Aww, is it my birthday? Ok... so, let's look at some major factors for the Romans:

1) Succession Policy. What Succession Policy? From the end of the Republic(Remember, Caeser wasn't the first of his kind, Pompey and Sulla came before him: the republic had already succumbed to the power of tyrants who used naked military force to control the politics of Rome) there was no established means by which a Roman autocrat could hand over his power to a successor. Several "traditions" merged, such as the Senate recognizing the Autocrat(after Big C, we can call'em Emperors), the Army electing him, or his predecessor nominating him. The Early emperors had far more legitimacy because they were able to unify those three claims in most cases, but it was an endemic, fundamental problem with Roman politics, and it was never resolved over the thousand years Roman rule endured.

A successful general was a political rival.

2) Failure to Integrate the Germans in Roman society. The Ligurians became Roman Allies and Auxilaries at an early time i ntheir history, and were present at the battle of Aquae Sextae(Marius, big C's uncled, was the commanderthere), and heard the barritus battle cry of the Germbanes: "AMBRONES! AMBRONES!", and the Lugrians responded with the same Cry, for they hared a common cultural origin in the past. But the Ligurians were effectively integrated into Roman culture along with the Gauls and Iberians, whiel the later Germans were not.

This second point is extremely important, because a large minority of the Roman army was composed of Germans. They served as regular, Romanized legionares, they served in the Auxilia, they also served as Foederati under their own Chiefs, they served as cavalry bodyguards for the generals, and they even became generals. They inundated the military, and hence political apparatus of Rome, beyond it's capability to Romanize them. This, coupled with the Succession problems, led to the Germans tearing the Romans apart, but largely under the Guise(and perhaps the intention) of Imperial authority.

You fix those two problems, and I don't think Rome would have fallen. The Crisis of the Third Century was just a flash point, not a resolution of the problem.

Now, I like Sal, but his economic analysis of Rome is only specific to the Republic and the early empire: after Trajan, Rome largely stop expanding, and it still sat atop one of the greatest trading economy of the ancient world. Roman authority enabled the elimination of Piracy on the Mediterranean, and the state was probably, more or less, stable economically by the 2nd century AD.

[paladin2019]

Are we forgetting Rome survived until 1453, when the Ottomans captured Constantinople?

[Bonefish]

Are we forgetting Rome survived until 1453, when the Ottomans captured Constantinople?

I'm definitely not. I'm mainly focusing on the Western half of the empire for this conversation, but the Sucession policy is an issue that remains relevant for the eastern half.

[Bonefish]

What could have happened? Well, I think an idea that has some merit is that the Germans could have been romanized, much like the Gauls and Iberians, and indeed we have this continuation of power and culture in the Gothic kingdoms, as well as the Lombards and Franks, though on a smaller and more regional scope than previously.

The west fragmented under internal pressures: economic problems caused by increasingly draconian and repressive legal decree, the constant strain of a society split between Paganism and Christianity and the pressures of the German Tribes. Don't look as the German tribes as the destroyers of Roman authority and culture, but the inheritors of a divided and weak culture. Butthey transmitted it, in a flawed and imperfect way to us.

Had the German infusion of blood to Rome been seen more favorably by contemporaries, had some form of effective and legitimate succession policy, had these things occurred in history, where they had not?

Certainly a more technologically advanced world: water power, trip hammers, lathes, large scale and specialized manufacture? These things existed in the Roman world, as did credit. Superior infrastructure as well.

I think some ideas of ours would be gone, or greatly modified, and the West and Eastern empires would have probably come to blows multiple times.

[Bonefish]

Also the German tribes did not have a concept of hereditary rule, and in fact, their Kings could and were frequently deposed by the freemen of the tribe. So their inclusion in the army, particularly as bodyguards and cavalry meant that they were likely to side with their general, over some notion of loyalty to a far away city.

[Bonefish]

If we wanted a divergent timeline, where are you willing to diverge it?