AHC: Worst case scenarios for the Late Roman Empire?

[Deleted member 97083]

With a POD between 375 and 500, what are some worst-case scenarios for the Roman Empire in the 5th and 6th centuries? That is, how could it have fallen most spectacularly and into as many pieces as possible, as early as possible?

What are some best-case scenarios for the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Persians, Berbers, Huns, Avars, Slavs, Alemanni, Angles, Jutes et al. in terms of obtaining territory from the Romans?

Could paganism (not necessarily Greco-Roman paganism) make a comeback? Could Arrianism and other non-Chalcedonian "heresies" become permanent?

What about other languages becoming preferred over Latin and Greek?

 

[Salvador79]

Obviously, for a worse fall, you need the East to disintegrate to a greater extent. One way to do this is is explored in Practical Lobster`s excellent White Huns timeline.
Another thing I´m thinking of is: while the Romans got f**ed from virtually every corner overland, they only had to suffer major sea-borne attacks and piracy in the North Sea. With maritime trade still going on, the economic collapse was not quite as total as it could have been. Disrupt maritime trade in the Mediterranean and in the Black Sea to a very significant degree, and you`ll have even faster decentralisation effects, which can only have catastrophic implications for some regions. With such a material collapse, further cultural, religious, and political decline, chaos and desorientation are conceivable.
So maybe strengthen Gothic piracy and seaborne raids after they`ve taken control of Tauris / the Bosporan kingdom to a much worse degree, creating some sort of Gothic Vikings?

 

[LSCatilina]

That is, how could it have fallen most spectacularly and into as many pieces as possible, as early as possible?

As @Salvador79 said, the worst case scenario involves a military collapse against Persia and the loss of eastern provinces such as Syria, Palestine or even Egypt that seem to have done fairly well, demographically and economically, in the Vth relatively to the general situation in Romania.
It would meant a radical collapse of Roman financial capacities including annonae : in short the situation in Europe just become worse than you could imagine, with probable regional revolts and de facto autonomies, and usurpation all the way.

What are some best-case scenarios for the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Persians, Berbers, Huns, Avars, Slavs, Alemanni, Angles, Jutes et al. in terms of obtaining territory from the Romans?

Problem is that Barbarians were extremely dependent on Late imperial structures subsisting to not only advance but maintain themselves as principalties or even as coherent groups : you can see what it lead to in Britain when Barbarians settled up on pretty much disappearing roman structures, aka political mosaic.
The worst-cases scenario for post-imperial Romania would be a collapse in the late IIIrd, when older Roman commonwealth strucrues declined, and the news still on the labors of childbirth. Arguably, a close second would be a total collapse in the early Vth : at this point, it would become a game of "Go away, I need to be there" between the lot of Barbarians and nobiliar Romans powerful enough to benefit of a semi-private militia. Basically late Vth on steroids.

A worst case scenario for Romans would mean a more chaotic, less structured appearance of Romano-Barbarian states, as they couldn't count on the permanance of imperial structures to get legitimed and "supported" (as Burgundians were during Ricimer's principate).

Could paganism (not necessarily Greco-Roman paganism) make a comeback?

Post IIIrd? Probably not : what we call paganism wasn't an organized religion, but a more or less porous set of beliefs and rites that could be institutionalized, but had few inner coherence safe particular cults? It didn't have the inclusive character of most character religions (while it did have more transference towards other non-organised cults), and while I'd suspect that these could ITTL continue to exist much more significantly both in length and in wide than it did IOTL, I don't think there's simply nearly as much chances than making a comeback, except maybe as some form of syncretism.

Could Arianism and other non-Chalcedonian "heresies" become permanent?

It's extremely conjectural : it depends which was the main position at the time of the collapse, pretty much as IOTL. That said, with a particularily chaotic situation, you could end up with more "balkanized" and less Barbarized Homeism (rather than Arianism, see there)

What about other languages becoming preferred over Latin and Greek?

Probably none : these were far too well entrenched by the Late Antiquity (most of Barbarian languages in Romania died out by the VIth at latest, safe for ceremonian and institutional purposes, and that include mostly vocabulary)

 

[Ilúphatar]

...Jutes

Greater Kent!

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Arguably, a close second would be a total collapse in the early Vth : at this point, it would become a game of "Go away, I need to be there" between the lot of Barbarians and nobiliar Romans powerful enough to benefit of a semi-private militia. Basically late Vth on steroids.

What would be the ultimate difference between an early 5th century collapse and a late 5th century collapse? Assuming you refer to the time prior to Attila, what makes the early 400s more bombastic?

A worst case scenario for Romans would mean a more chaotic, less structured appearance of Romano-Barbarian states, as they couldn't count on the permanance of imperial structures to get legitimed and "supported" (as Burgundians were during Ricimer's principate).

Well, Odoacer still had a community of Roman subjects doing Roman things and was recognized as king of a semi-unified area. Though I suppose without East Roman support then it may be harder to establish such a realm.

Post IIIrd? Probably not : what we call paganism wasn't an organized religion, but a more or less porous set of beliefs and rites that could be institutionalized, but had few inner coherence safe particular cults? It didn't have the inclusive character of most character religions (while it did have more transference towards other non-organised cults), and while I'd suspect that these could ITTL continue to exist much more significantly both in length and in wide than it did IOTL, I don't think there's simply nearly as much chances than making a comeback, except maybe as some form of syncretism.

Good points. I don't necessarily mean Greek or Roman cults or philosophies, but any paganism. Perhaps Germanic or Slavic paganism or Tengrism could see some expansion?

Probably none : these were far too well entrenched by the Late Antiquity (most of Barbarian languages in Romania died out by the VIth at latest, safe for ceremonian and institutional purposes, and that include mostly vocabulary)

What about things like Frankish becoming a permanent language south of the Netherlands, or Vandalic becoming the main spoken language of Carthage? An expansion of Persian into Anatolia?

 

[LSCatilina]

What would be the ultimate difference between an early 5th century collapse and a late 5th century collapse? Assuming you refer to the time prior to Attila, what makes the early 400s more bombastic?

More destructuring : IOTL, most of Late Roman militia which is the civil and military administration remained in place, the latter being significantly more "barbarized". While the collapse of Roman state led to a decline of post-imperial structures, it didn't made them collapsing as Romano-Barbarian kingdoms took the imperium over these.
A collapse of both roman state AND institutions, however, would be particularily destructuring for post-imperial Romania. It would get some revivals/declines/revival/declines as IOTL, but from a clearly worst situation, meaning less structured and institutionalized post-imperial States.

Well, Odoacer still had a community of Roman subjects doing Roman things and was recognized as king of a semi-unified area. Though I suppose without East Roman support then it may be harder to establish such a realm.

I'm not sure you're making a good point for what Late and Post Imperial Romania looked like, to be honest : the point is not having Roman acknowledging one as king, which was the norm in the Vth for what mattered roman nobility (see how Roman aristocracy in Gaul dealt with Burgondians and Franks), but having Roman institutions surviving long enough to serve as the backbone of Barbarian foedi and states well until the VIIIth century.

Perhaps Germanic or Slavic paganism or Tengrism could see some expansion?

Again, Germanic, Slavic of Tengrism paganism is an historiographical concept, not an unified group of religions especially as the two first have a pretty noticable transference of beliefs and rites between them.
Not only Barbarians entering Romania were generally more or less deeply romanized (to the point forming Christianized groups since the IIIrd, at the noticable exception of Frankish elite)

What about things like Frankish becoming a permanent language south of the Netherlands

IOTL, Old Frankish seems to have been more or less absorbated by related speeches in these regions (I'm rather cautious calling Old Dutch a scion of Old Frankish, but rather both being sub-branches of a same generalized ensemble).

or Vandalic becoming the main spoken language of Carthage?

Romanized Barbarians have as much chances to settle a germanic linguistic enclaves in one of the most dynamic centers of late Romanity than to pop a second head.
Most of Barbarian languages in Romania ceased to be an everyday device by the VIth, either getting replaced by and extensive AND institutional use of Roman, either in some precise regions being absorbated by related speeches (as in Toxandria or Rhineland, and it took a long duality between countryside and urban centers, as for Trever probably forming a romance isolate for some time).

An expansion of Persian into Anatolia?

As much we had an expension of Persian into Arabia IOTL?
If something, it could likely make Persian Empire more hellenized.

I think, with all respect due, you may have a too much ethnicized vision of cultural realities in Late Antiquity (while as there's a good reason to point ethnics in late antiquity politics).

 

[avernite]

IOTL, Old Frankish seems to have been more or less absorbated by related speeches in these regions (I'm rather cautious calling Old Dutch a scion of Old Frankish, but rather both being sub-branches of a same generalized ensemble).

Somewhat off-topic, but why are you so cautious? It seems pretty weird for all the Franks in the area to have died out, so why would old Dutch necessarily be something else? It probably included several other sub-branches, but since old Dutch isn't really a single language anyhow, it might as well include what remained of low Frankish/Franconian (middle Frankish ending up more German, of course).

 

[LSCatilina]

Somewhat off-topic, but why are you so cautious?

Mostly because we have not much trace of Old Frankish surviving the VIth, would it be toponimic or litterary, and the peripherical nature of Toxandria in the Vth and VIth for what matter Franks : if it's anywhere akin to the situation of German speeches in eastern Francia that are clearly no longer Old Frankish-based by the VIIIth (altough you probably had a strong Old Frankish influence).

I'm cautious because it really goes down to evidence possibly not having been found yet, but meanwhile, I'd be skeptic of identifying Old Frankish as Old Dutch, and rather consider these as two sub-branches of western Germanic, with arguably a strong linguistic transferability.

It seems pretty weird for all the Franks in the area to have died out

Your mistake is to ethnicise language there: Franks massively using Latin and Romance speeches doesn't mean they died out, it means they get acculturated (growingly romanized since the IIIrd at latest for what matter Latin) and it seems they were "re-germanized" in the northern or eastern peripheries of Francia where, incidentally, roman-speaking areas were fairly reduced to urban centers.

, so why would old Dutch necessarily be something else? It probably included several other sub-branches,

but since old Dutch isn't really a single language anyhow, it might as well include what remained of low Frankish/Franconian (middle Frankish ending up more German, of course).

It would be like arguing Old Occitan could be included as Old French because of its inner divisions, and because it's close to the latter. It would have little historicity, tough.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

More destructuring : IOTL, most of Late Roman militia which is the civil and military administration remained in place, the latter being significantly more "barbarized". While the collapse of Roman state led to a decline of post-imperial structures, it didn't made them collapsing as Romano-Barbarian kingdoms took the imperium over these.
A collapse of both roman state AND institutions, however, would be particularily destructuring for post-imperial Romania. It would get some revivals/declines/revival/declines as IOTL, but from a clearly worst situation, meaning less structured and institutionalized post-imperial States.

But why would an early 5th century collapse eliminate Roman institutions any more than a late 5th century collapse?

Wasn't the strength of Roman institutions in more recent memory, than in the late 5th century, where Romanity had been weak through every living person's lifetime? (in the West at least)

I suppose the defeat of Attila in Gaul and his later death may have given Romans higher hopes, and Majorian's and others' reforms established some more legitimacy of Roman institutions in the provinces... but what in your opinion made 470 AD "more Roman" than 415 AD?

I'm not sure you're making a good point for what Late and Post Imperial Romania looked like, to be honest : the point is not having Roman acknowledging one as king, which was the norm in the Vth for what mattered roman nobility (see how Roman aristocracy in Gaul dealt with Burgondians and Franks), but having Roman institutions surviving long enough to serve as the backbone of Barbarian foedi and states well until the VIIIth century.

Why would Roman nobility be less accepting of barbarian rulers when the barbarian rulers are stronger and Roman institutions are weaker? I'm not quite understanding the connection between an earlier collapse, and failure of barbarians to establish control/legitimacy over territory.

If Roman civil institutions are stronger, doesn't that make Roman-style statecraft easier?

If Roman civil institutions are weaker, can't the barbarians just implement their own Germanic laws like the Franks and Saxons did?

Romanized Barbarians have as much chances to settle a germanic linguistic enclaves in one of the most dynamic centers of late Romanity than to pop a second head.
Most of Barbarian languages in Romania ceased to be an everyday device by the VIth, either getting replaced by and extensive AND institutional use of Roman, either in some precise regions being absorbated by related speeches (as in Toxandria or Rhineland, and it took a long duality between countryside and urban centers, as for Trever probably forming a romance isolate for some time).

I suppose Carthage is too strong and populated to be anything other than Latin/Roman.

What about rural Gaul, Spain, or Anatolia though? The Balkans of course were settled IOTL by Slavs.

As much we had an expension of Persian into Arabia IOTL?
If something, it could likely make Persian Empire more hellenized.

Anatolia is much more habitable for sedentary farmers than Arabia and 1/4 the size. For Sassanid Persian settlers, it would be quite easy to continue using their old agriculture, architecture, etc. in Anatolia.

 

[LSCatilina]

But why would an early 5th century collapse eliminate Roman institutions any more than a late 5th century collapse

You asked for a worst case scenario : I gave you a worst case scenario where Roman collapse in the East makes the late emperor unable to maintain as much they could late imperial structures. Don't blame me to answer your request.

Wasn't the strength of Roman institutions in more recent memory, than in the late 5th century, where Romanity had been weak through every living person's lifetime? (in the West at least)

Roman insitutions survived pretty much the collapse of Roman state in the Vth. It's not a matter of memory IOTL, but how it went trough it.

Why would Roman nobility be less accepting of barbarian rulers when the barbarian rulers are stronger and Roman institutions are weaker?

Because the whole point is that with a deeper and earlier collapse of Roman state and more damaged roman institutions, Barbarians WOULDN'T be stronger.
Read my first post : Barbarians were extremely dependent on Late imperial structures subsisting to not only advance but maintain themselves as principalties or even as coherent groups

I'm not quite understanding the connection between an earlier collapse, and failure of barbarians to establish control/legitimacy over territory.

Barbarians mostly get legitimacy but also structuration from relatively divided entities to coherent principalties from their relation to the Roman state : from obtaining titles to subsides necessary to structurate a ruling elite (as well incorporating local roman/romanized elites), the influence of late Roman state into the creation of Barbarian polities was decisive. These could still appear in the IVth and Vth, but in a weakened and less coherent form in the same matter you'd end up with a relatively chaotic roman commonwealth : in a worst case scenario.

If Roman civil institutions are stronger, doesn't that make Roman-style statecraft easier?

You basically described most of Barbarian kingdoms of the Vth/VIth which extensively used roman militia, until it get fused with Barbarian truste from one hand, and with landed elite from aniother.

If Roman civil institutions are weaker, can't the barbarians just implement their own Germanic laws like the Franks and Saxons did?

Barbarians never really implemented "germanic laws" but a barbarized version of late Roman Law (see Burgondian Law as a clear exemple). Admittedly local laws tended to be barbarized on some respect since the IIIrd century and the progressive barbarisation of provincial limes and countryside, but for the most part, we're talking late Roman Law with a barbarized aspect. It tends to slowly change, tough, but it's less a case of "gerrmanisation" than "barbarisation".

For instance, the so-called germanic tradition of dividing up the regnum among Franks owes pretty much everything to the late Roman institutional division of the imperium, being practically unmentioned before the Vth century (as with a lot of barbarian features, such as special weaponry or clothes).

Saxons are a bit of different stuff : in Britain, Romans structures not tended to survive or even goes trough a critical decline, they tended to simply disappear (not being exactly overwelmingly present in Britannia safe for a south-east corner).

What about rural Gaul, Spain, or Anatolia though?

You could have a chance of particularily vulnerable or remote places to have a stronger influence, but generally these places didn't saw much of a Barbarian settlement coherent enough to go trough a linguistical change.
That said, you could see a greater re-germanisation or sarmatisation of eastern Gaul, Raetia and Illyricum. The relief of Anatolia make it more prone to cultural and linguistical conservatism, tough.

Anatolia is much more habitable for sedentary farmers

Conquerors doesn't tend to become sedentary farmers, but rather an elite : Slavs are a bit of an exception, giving it's more of a slow acculturation and migrations of population, rather than coming from a political change.
Again, you're giving too much importance to ethnic or ethnicism in the period : most people were content with what they had as population to rule (not really caring if they weren't of the right ethny) and resorted to settlement or colonial policy generally as a way to secure or sanctuarize borders or territories. But giving the hellenic influence in IOTL Persia, I doubt Sassanians would be as obsessed that you make them with ethnical purity : that's a XIX and XXth stuff for the most part.

The point about Arabia was, while Persian enjoyed a great presence and influence into the region (as well directly provincializing part of it), and while they did had a cultural influence, it never translated into linguistical shift.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

You asked for a worst case scenario : I gave you a worst case scenario where Roman collapse in the East makes the late emperor unable to maintain as much they could late imperial structures. Don't blame me to answer your request.

I'm not disputing your assertion that an early 5th century collapse is worse. That sounds very likely. However, I'm wondering why in particular that is the case. What's different in 415 AD vs 470 AD? How did Roman institutions or other factors change?

Because the whole point is that with a deeper and earlier collapse of Roman state and more damaged roman institutions, Barbarians WOULDN'T be stronger.
Read my first post : Barbarians were extremely dependent on Late imperial structures subsisting to not only advance but maintain themselves as principalties or even as coherent groups

Barbarians mostly get legitimacy but also structuration from relatively divided entities to coherent principalties from their relation to the Roman state : from obtaining titles to subsides necessary to structurate a ruling elite (as well incorporating local roman/romanized elites), the influence of late Roman state into the creation of Barbarian polities was decisive. These could still appear in the IVth and Vth, but in a weakened and less coherent form in the same matter you'd end up with a relatively chaotic roman commonwealth : in a worst case scenario.

Oh, so basically, in the early 5th century the Germanic polities are not solidified enough, not connected enough with Roman institutions, to remain powerful after the collapse of the Roman empire. Do you think they would break up into constituent tribes, or something else?

Barbarians never really implemented "germanic laws" but a barbarized version of late Roman Law (see Burgondian Law as a clear exemple). Admittedly local laws tended to be barbarized on some respect since the IIIrd century and the progressive barbarisation of provincial limes and countryside, but for the most part, we're talking late Roman Law with a barbarized aspect. It tends to slowly change, tough, but it's less a case of "gerrmanisation" than "barbarisation".

For instance, the so-called germanic tradition of dividing up the regnum among Franks owes pretty much everything to the late Roman institutional division of the imperium, being practically unmentioned before the Vth century (as with a lot of barbarian features, such as special weaponry or clothes).

Saxons are a bit of different stuff : in Britain, Romans structures not tended to survive or even goes trough a critical decline, they tended to simply disappear (not being exactly overwelmingly present in Britannia safe for a south-east corner).

By barbarized law do you mean laws that have passages which deal with barbarians and Romans separately, like the Burgundian Law? Or things like the judicial duel/the rule of king as judge being added to Roman law?

Conquerors doesn't tend to become sedentary farmers, but rather an elite : Slavs are a bit of an exception, giving it's more of a slow acculturation and migrations of population, rather than coming from a political change.
Again, you're giving too much importance to ethnic or ethnicism in the period : most people were content with what they had as population to rule (not really caring if they weren't of the right ethny) and resorted to settlement or colonial policy generally as a way to secure or sanctuarize borders or territories. But giving the hellenic influence in IOTL Persia, I doubt Sassanians would be as obsessed that you make them with ethnical purity : that's a XIX and XXth stuff for the most part.

The point about Arabia was, while Persian enjoyed a great presence and influence into the region (as well directly provincializing part of it), and while they did had a cultural influence, it never translated into linguistical shift.

I see. I was thinking since the Sassanians imposed Persian as the sole official language, this would translate into a different treatment of the eastern Mediterranean than the Achaemenids.

 

[LSCatilina]

However, I'm wondering why in particular that is the case.

I was less thinking Vth collapse specifically, tough, than consequences of the collapse reaching up in the late IVth and Vth. Less something that begins in the 410's, that eventually unfolding then.

What's different in 415 AD vs 470 AD? How did Roman institutions or other factors change?

In the early Vth, you still had a if weakened, mostly functioning state in Romania. But it did growingly depended from ERE for more and more administrative related support : with a pauperized and pressured on North and East ERE, the situation of the Vth would become more and more unstable and if something still held up in 410, it would be something even in worse shape than 470's Rome.

As an exemple of things that wouldn't appear, would be the absence of the Theodosian Codex that while set up in the later 430's made it up to western Romania and became the basic legal structure for most of Middle Ages.
A roman state unable to pay up its militia and to provide annonae this early would mean both the incapacity to pay up Barbarians to make them settling somewhere or to attack a more pressing threat, but as well unable to prevent its own administrative and military elites to go after their own interests.
Without even a sylbolical structuring effect, a worst case scenario wouldn't be only an earlier "476" but a 476 on steroids and that would take on ERE as much. Something would probably came out of this, but not after some decades of really weird geopolitical situations, which could make post-imperial Romania looking a bit more like IOTL Post-imperial Britannia : as a particularily divided and unchecked mess.

But again, worst case scenario, where virtually everything goes south. You'd have good chances, even with an ERE collapse, to see a more familiar situation emerging.

Oh, so basically, in the early 5th century the Germanic polities are not solidified enough, not connected enough with Roman institutions, to remain powerful after the collapse of the Roman empire. Do you think they would break up into constituent tribes, or something else?

I don't think so : contrary to Britannia, these would still have to deal with a pretty much deeply romanized situation, themselves being much more influenced by Rome than Angles, Jutes or Saxons. But you'd have room to see the various foedi going on as small states (foedi tended to be unified in the Vth, thanks to Roman subsides and plundering of arsenals) : it could get unified the same way Franks did (trough arson, murder and jaywalking), but you'd end up in a first time with small-sized foedi taking on Barbarian or Roman neighbours, rather than forming provincial or diocesian ensemble, at least in this scenario.

By barbarized law do you mean laws that have passages which deal with barbarians and Romans separately, like the Burgundian Law? Or things like the judicial duel/the rule of king as judge?

Both actually.
The first comes from a necessity to keep with Roman situation where both were distinct, similarly to how Barbarian kings tried to keep religious diversity as much a thing they could in order to emulate what late Emperors did (as demonstrated by Bruno Dumézil), so it's a "barbarized" and politic take on the Roman Law. Needless to say, it didn't worked out, and it's when populations fused in the VIIth century that most of the population benefited from Barbarian treatment (which could be pretty much interesting, prestige matter took aside : we have records of whole towns revolting because "we don't have to pay taxes, we're Franks! - Since when? - WE'RE FRANKS!" - Okay, okay! Jeeze!")

The lawgiving role of the Barbarian king is pretty much tied to the late imperial figure as well, atlough in a new take on the role (especially when the role of judex became more and more blurry). Alaric Law or Burgondic Law isn't much more Barbarian in origin (the latter being written by Sidionus Appolinaris in great parts) than the Theodosial Law (which is a main source of inspiration). But eventually, it's taken with a new principles : namely, Barbarian legal principle is a bit less justice as Romans intended it, than preserving the social order in face of the growing use of faida (vendetta) in post-imperial Romania (especially in Gaul).

The wergeld, or price of blood, generally gives more for the life of a Barbarian than a Roman, less because of ethnicised superiority, than because Romans doesn't know the faida as a legal principle (technically) and then murder doesn't have to pay up the family to settle down things.
For instance, the judicial duel usage could be rather summarized as this :

Okay, you people don't want to settle this matter? You're going to continue murdering each other senselessly whatever I say? You really want to be this dumb?

Okay, let's make a duel, whoever wins is favoured by Heavens or whatever, so if anyone wants to continue faida after this, he's blasphemous and my truste, my bishops and myself will claim his ass. Am I perfectly clear?

How much it did worked up is let to anyone's consideration, but it does points which legal principle it was about.

I see. I was thinking since the Sassanians imposed Persian as the sole official language, this would translate into a different treatment of the eastern Mediterranean than the Achaemenids.

It's not really clear if Sassanian Persian was effectively a sole language tough : while it certainly became a sole institutional language, you can still find Parthian writings in the fourth century, in Parthian-held regions, after the edict. But AFAIU, the imposed use of Old Farsi was mostly held in Persia.

The reign of Narseh (293–302) seems to have been the last period in which the Sasanians used the Parthian language in their official inscriptions. Thereafter they presumably attempted to impose Persian “as the sole official language throughout Iran, and forbade altogether the use of written Parthian.”

Such doesn't seems to have really prevented Greek (among other languages) to hold up as scholarly languages in Sassanian Empire, tough. I'd think it would be particularily uneasy for Persian to rule on formerly eastern Roman provinces and the hugely urbanized hellenic network without accepting at least a local institutional use of Greek as they seem to have more or less done within their empire IOTL (unless I'm grossly mistaken)

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Thanks for the answers, they've been very helpful. Can you recommend any good English-language sources about the development of Roman and post-Roman institutions in the Germanic kingdoms?

Without even a sylbolical structuring effect, a worst case scenario wouldn't be only an earlier "476" but a 476 on steroids and that would take on ERE as much. Something would probably came out of this, but not after some decades of really weird geopolitical situations, which could make post-imperial Romania looking a bit more like IOTL Post-imperial Britannia : as a particularily divided and unchecked mess.

And all that before Attila the Hun!

Hmm. That could be quite the interesting timeline.

Let's say this absolute worst-case happens to the late 4th century and early 5th century Roman Empire... before the Huns sweep up everything, would these chaotic Germanic foederati still be establishing the same kind of barbarized Roman law as in OTL? Only in economically strong Roman centers like Carthage and Constantinople? Or in all areas of the empire?

Perhaps there could be some influence from Persian laws, similar to how Justinian's code influenced the land outside of the Empire's borders?

 

[LSCatilina]

Thanks for the answers, they've been very helpful. Can you recommend any good English-language sources about the development of Roman and post-Roman institutions in the Germanic kingdoms?

I always heard good things about Guy Halsall, but you have as well Patrick J. Geary, Edward James* (especially his Europe's Barbarians, AD 200–600),Ian Wood, Roger Collins, A.H.M Jones, A.C. Murray, or Richard Hoges (altough, come to think of it, he's mostly interested on economics, and especially Altantic and Northern Gaul).

Fanning's Emperors and empire in fifth-century Gaul (an article in Fifth-Century Gaul : A Crisis of Identity); Fouracre's The Nature of Frankish political institutions in the seventh century (in Franks and Alamanni in the Merovingian period) seems interesting articles.

But for obvious reason, an enormous part of the avaible bibliography is in French or German.

A pretty much compelling description is Bruno Dumézil's Servir l'Etat Barbare dans la Gaule Franque (IVè-IXè siècle) but AFAIK, it didn't get translated. It's fairly recent (edited in 2013) so there's always a small hope for a translation. But frankly, you'd gain time learning French, which would be almost advisable : not only he's one of the leading specialists of the question, and giving his young age, there's a bright career ahead, but unfortunatly his other works aren't translated as well AFAIU, as most of the main French scholars on the questions that were published since the 70's.
Admittedlty, you have far more chances to find these in Spanish.

(If we wanted a non-nationalistic reason for shunning "english-dominated polyglottic illetrism", there it is : it seems you have less and less of focus on books that doesn't get immediatly translated in English these days)

Of course, a good part of the bibliography involves german books which involves far too much Z and H in the titles that it would motivate me to learn German.

*Which I always admired for his double scholarship in Late Antiquity AND Science-Fiction. I mean, how cool is that? A lot, that's how cool it is.

And all that before Attila the Hun!

Depending on when it takes places, it could means with Attila the Hun or him being butterflied, but giving that roman tributes and subsides basically feed Hunnic hegemony, there absence will be noted.

before the Huns sweep up everything, would these chaotic Germanic foederati still be establishing the same kind of barbarized Roman law as in OTL?

The same kind? No.
It would be both less "barbarized", and more regionalized as well (which could admittedly let to regional barbarisation, but on a case-by-case rather than directly inspired by roman judicial precedents). You'd be likely see laws arising from the rather "outdated" (compared to later Codex, of course, not that much objectively) Codex Gregorianus and Codex Hermogenanius.

So, not a radical departure from Roman Law at all, but still distinctivly different from IOTL Post-Imperial legal basis (maybe less interpretative?)

Perhaps influence from Persian law, similar to how Justinian's code influenced the land outside of the Empire's borders?

I'd rather go with a mix of aformentioned Codex, post-classical hellenic customs and possibly Persian laws as a superficial (in the strictest sense, not unimportant) layer? I don't really know : IInd to Vth century legal systems aren't really my best part there.