Romans vs. Vikings

[Kage2020]

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

I'm using mostly modern geography (in terms of where cities and towns are at least) because google maps is too useful not to use.

I second that but... I wonder if you're aware of David Rumsey's online map collection (http://www.davidrumsey.com)? You probably know this already, or it's been mentioned somewhere else in the thread, but there's also a David Rumsey map layer in Google Earth that might be inspirational. Most of the maps on Google Earth are 17-19th century so obviously a bit out of the range that you're after but, well, if you didn't know about them it's just too cool to play with that layer. On the other hand, the site contains numerous maps of the Roman Empire that you might find useful.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

What is a 'French king'?

Conceivably a Romanised Germanic/Belgae/Celtic client king ruling some of what would have become* the dominions of the Kings and sometimes the Dukes of Burgundy, specifically the Burgundian Netherlands, i.e. coastal areas north of the Roman Germania Inferior and Gallia Belgica provinces. His lands would thus be a buffer zone between the Romans and the Angles, Saxons and then the even more Nordic 'Vikings'.

Of course, if the Vikings and the Romans coexist in the setting, some decision about where that leaves the Saxons, Angles and Jutes is necessary. Those were, for all intents and purposes, proto-Vikings who fought Rome in the area and in Britain, but lacked the navigation and sailing technology to become true world powers.

Add more advanced ships to them and you have instant Vikings. Have Rome or any other regional neighbours adopt advanced ships, sailing techniques and navigation methods as soon as they are invented, and you'll never have anything resembling Viking kingdoms, as the North Germanic people will never be in a position to create them.

In a world where they are not regional leaders in naval technology, the Vikings are Saxons by another name.

*Alternate history does strange things to grammar.

[Dangerious P. Cats]

Originally Posted by Kage2020

I second that but... I wonder if you're aware of David Rumsey's online map collection (http://www.davidrumsey.com)? You probably know this already, or it's been mentioned somewhere else in the thread, but there's also a David Rumsey map layer in Google Earth that might be inspirational. Most of the maps on Google Earth are 17-19th century so obviously a bit out of the range that you're after but, well, if you didn't know about them it's just too cool to play with that layer. On the other hand, the site contains numerous maps of the Roman Empire that you might find useful.

I didn't know about David Rumsey's online map collection, thanks for a fantastic resource.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Hamburg is about 400km north west of Xanten, where the Romans had Castra Vetera on the frontier of the province of Germania Inferior.

That seems a bit far for remote operations on land, so you may wish to posit either a somewhat expanded province or envision a joint naval/land operation.

I'm assuming that the Romans have built a network of fortresses and roads into Germany as a means of pacifying it. This network also allows for them to move troops and supplies North. That said I like your idea of it requiring resupply by sea. It adds a lovely level of complication to holding the fortress and gives the players something they can exploit should the need arise.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Conceivably a Romanised Germanic/Belgae/Celtic client king ruling some of what would have become* the dominions of the Kings and sometimes the Dukes of Burgundy, specifically the Burgundian Netherlands, i.e. coastal areas north of the Roman Germania Inferior and Gallia Belgica provinces. His lands would thus be a buffer zone between the Romans and the Angles, Saxons and then the even more Nordic 'Vikings'.

Of course, if the Vikings and the Romans coexist in the setting, some decision about where that leaves the Saxons, Angles and Jutes is necessary. Those were, for all intents and purposes, proto-Vikings who fought Rome in the area and in Britain, but lacked the navigation and sailing technology to become true world powers.

Add more advanced ships to them and you have instant Vikings. Have Rome or any other regional neighbours adopt advanced ships, sailing techniques and navigation methods as soon as they are invented, and you'll never have anything resembling Viking kingdoms, as the North Germanic people will never be in a position to create them.

In a world where they are not regional leaders in naval technology, the Vikings are Saxons by another name.

*Alternate history does strange things to grammar.

That all seems quite sensible, but it still leaves the etymological oddity of the name "Yvette".

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

That all seems quite sensible, but it still leaves the etymological oddity of the name "Yvette".

Why is that odd? There are still Gaulish linguistic roots being affected by Roman and Germanic influences, which means that it is not impossible to postulate a language that we would consider 'French', even if the specifics are quite different.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Dangerious P. Cats

I'm assuming that the Romans have built a network of fortresses and roads into Germany as a means of pacifying it. This network also allows for them to move troops and supplies North.

I think they even attempted something like that briefly in the RW. How far do you see it reaching? Have you worked out tribal politics along the frontier?

Is Germania still wild and wooly like in RW Roman times, or has it advanced like your norse regions?

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Why is that odd? There are still Gaulish linguistic roots being affected by Roman and Germanic influences, which means that it is not impossible to postulate a language that we would consider 'French', even if the specifics are quite different.

You posited a Germanic kingdom on the rim of a vibrant Roman empire. Linguistic interchange would indeed certainly occur on a certain level. But French evolved over hundreds of years within the thoroughly latinized territory of a collapsed Roman empire.

I would say those are substantially different things.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

You posited a Germanic kingdom on the rim of a vibrant Roman empire. Linguistic interchange would indeed certainly occur on a certain level. But French evolved over hundreds of years within the thoroughly latinized territory of a collapsed Roman empire.

I would say those are substantially different things.

Germano-Belgic-Celtic, but nevermind.

In any event, the Viking kingdoms did evolve hundreds of years later. The GM will have to decide where in their history other polities are.

[Fionn The Otaku]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

You posited a Germanic kingdom on the rim of a vibrant Roman empire. Linguistic interchange would indeed certainly occur on a certain level. But French evolved over hundreds of years within the thoroughly latinized territory of a collapsed Roman empire.

I would say those are substantially different things.

While nothing very close to the French language could have evolved individual names and words nearly identicle to French ones could have.

[Dangerious P. Cats]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I think they even attempted something like that briefly in the RW. How far do you see it reaching? Have you worked out tribal politics along the frontier?

Is Germania still wild and wooly like in RW Roman times, or has it advanced like your norse regions?

I haven't worked out much about the Germanics since they're not the focus of the campaign. They are going to be wooly and wild like they were in the Roman period, or close to it. I'll work something out if it comes up in the campaign but currently I'm focussing on the interaction between the Romans and Vikings.