Would they unite to make their own country?

[Klezmer Gryphon]

While I was working on my fantasy world, Dirnoviil, I came to a bit of a roadblock; to have a race form their own state, or to have their traditional homeland ruled by foreigners?

The group in question is a race of forest-dwelling deer-people called the Damhnait, who occupy a large forested area running between two mountain ranges. They are a tribal society, separated into various clans and tribes, with no real central government or authority, save the council of shamans that try and keep the peace between the tribes. While they do form alliances from time to time to fend off various threats (I.e. Invasions by outlanders), the various tribes of the Damhnait are largely independent.

With an expanding, power hungry neighbor knocking at their door from the south, would that be enough to bring them together and untie them as one country, would they more likely be conquered like the Gauls by the Romans?

 

[ThinkerX]

As is, they'd be overrun in very short order.

Given the setup you describe, they might try a more permanent confederation, as per the American Indians of the east coast during colonial times...but with a land hungry neighbor, even that would dicey.

About the best realistic shot they'd have would be to cut a deal: they retain autonomy, but offer tribute to the empire, along with a set number of scouts or whatnot for the imperial military each year. Probably the local tribal bosses would answer to an imperial governor, who would leave them alone as long as imperial demands were meant.

 

[skip.knox]

Well, they can certainly resist long enough for your story, if that's what you want. Rather than the American Indians, look to the Slavic tribes of medieval Europe. The Abodrites, Lusitii, Pomeranii, Prussi, Letts, and many others resisted Chrstianization for centuries without ever uniting into a single state. There are plenty of other examples to be found as well.

Moreover, it's unlikely your power-hungry neighbor is all that much better organized. Also, the Gauls resisted the Romans very effectively for quite a long time.

 

[Devor]

You can always try a different tact and think more about how deer behave, instead of people. Deer live in small groups, they travel and hide, they only meet other deer at watering holes. There's an African deer that hides in pools with only its nose sticking out to avoid predators, and another that hides in bushes, then rushes intruders with its antlers.

If you give them enough space, they might not unite, or be ruled. They might simply adjust their lifestyles to live, hide, move, survive in small bands in the open lands surrounding their opponents, meeting every once in a while at a different watering hole to share information.

They don't need to attack. They just need to have enough skill and bite to make themselves not worth hunting.

 

[Ravana]

Forget the Gauls: consider how long the Germanic tribes resisted Roman conquest, with nothing even vaguely resembling unity.

For anyone who doesn't know: after crossing it a couple times, the Romans decided the Rhine made a fine border. And made a similar decision regarding the upper Danube. And in the absence of other ways to link those two, the Alps were regarded as an acceptable compromise.

The Romans never did conquer the Germanic homelands. They gave up.

Why? Several reasons, most if not all of which were necessary in combination–no single one of them would have stopped the Romans. First, distance: it may look short on a map, but once you have to go around the Alps, the areas became a lot more remote. Second, proximity to "core" regions: these were lands which lay beyond what were already hinterlands for the Empire–Gaul in the west, Noricum and Pannonia in the east (the first entirely, the latter heavily Celtic: the Celts weren't only in Western Europe). Third, economic value: there wasn't any, as far as the Romans knew; what little the Germans had that might have interested the Romans could easily be obtained in trade at well-protected border towns. Fourth, weather… at least according to Tacitus, and, yeah, if you'd grown up in Italy, you'd consider it too "horrid" to be worth settling there.

Fifth, terrain–and here's where you start to find a close parallel to the situation you're writing: the Germanic lands bordering Gaul were heavily forested. Many have managed to remain heavily forested to this day–in spite of being in one of the most heavily industrialized areas on the entire planet–which may give some notion of how mind-bogglingly intimidating they were back then. The Schwarzwald, Ardennes and Hürtgen Forest, to name just three, are pale relics of what in Roman days was the Hercynian Forest, an unbroken stretch of old-growth wood ranging from modern-day Belgium to the Carpathian Mountains. One of those forests swallowed three entire legions one day in 9 CE… the event which put the nail in the coffin to Roman ambitions of further expansion in that direction. (See Battle of Teutoburg Forest.) Basically, there was nothing the Romans could "conquer": no capital, large towns or core areas whose control would ensure control of the surrounding lands or peoples, no settled plains conducive to centralization, no roads or trade routes to facilitate the famous Roman mobility which allowed them to dominate large regions with comparatively small armies. When the Germanic tribes did mass in numbers to battle the Romans, the Romans usually won–Teutoburg was a notable exception, not only in Germania but in the history of the Empire as a whole; but as long as the Germans remained decentralized, they were ghosts who could simply sidestep Roman attempts to bring them under control, strike at will at lines of supply and communication, vanish again when large forces were brought up, and reoccupy any place those forces didn't happen to be at that moment. Everything the Romans could have dominated using their accustomed methods lay on the far side of a hundred miles of indomitable wilderness.

So that might be your answer: it doesn't matter how "power-hungry" their neighbor might be, if the neighbor is unable to project its power effectively. Small tribes might well resist more, not less, effectively than a centralized state. A centralized state can be conquered by capturing its core areas or center of administration, or by capturing or killing its leaders. Smaller tribes, particularly if they are not permanently settled to begin with, can simply get out of the way of would-be conquerors and move back in once they'd passed. Maintaining a guerrilla campaign all the while, if you like. It's not hard to cripple a large army if it can't feed itself off the land it's trying to occupy.

As Devor says, it's sufficient if they can make themselves not worth the trouble.

 

[Klezmer Gryphon]

Forget the Gauls: consider how long the Germanic tribes resisted Roman conquest, with nothing even vaguely resembling unity.

For anyone who doesn't know: after crossing it a couple times, the Romans decided the Rhine made a fine border. And made a similar decision regarding the upper Danube. And in the absence of other ways to link those two, the Alps were regarded as an acceptable compromise.

The Romans never did conquer the Germanic homelands. They gave up.

Why? Several reasons, most if not all of which were necessary in combination—no single one of them would have stopped the Romans. First, distance: it may look short on a map, but once you have to go around the Alps, the areas became a lot more remote. Second, proximity to "core" regions: these were lands which lay beyond what were already hinterlands for the Empire—Gaul in the west, Noricum and Pannonia in the east (the first entirely, the latter heavily Celtic: the Celts weren't only in Western Europe). Third, economic value: there wasn't any, as far as the Romans knew; what little the Germans had that might have interested the Romans could easily be obtained in trade at well-protected border towns. Fourth, weather… at least according to Tacitus, and, yeah, if you'd grown up in Italy, you'd consider it too "horrid" to be worth settling there.

Fifth, terrain—and here's where you start to find a close parallel to the situation you're writing: the Germanic lands bordering Gaul were heavily forested. Many have managed to remain heavily forested to this day—in spite of being in one of the most heavily industrialized areas on the entire planet—which may give some notion of how mind-bogglingly intimidating they were back then. The Schwarzwald, Ardennes and Hürtgen Forest, to name just three, are pale relics of what in Roman days was the Hercynian Forest, an unbroken stretch of old-growth wood ranging from modern-day Belgium to the Carpathian Mountains. One of those forests swallowed three entire legions one day in 9 CE… the event which put the nail in the coffin to Roman ambitions of further expansion in that direction. (See Battle of Teutoburg Forest.) Basically, there was nothing the Romans could "conquer": no capital, large towns or core areas whose control would ensure control of the surrounding lands or peoples, no settled plains conducive to centralization, no roads or trade routes to facilitate the famous Roman mobility which allowed them to dominate large regions with comparatively small armies. When the Germanic tribes did mass in numbers to battle the Romans, the Romans usually won—Teutoburg was a notable exception, not only in Germania but in the history of the Empire as a whole; but as long as the Germans remained decentralized, they were ghosts who could simply sidestep Roman attempts to bring them under control, strike at will at lines of supply and communication, vanish again when large forces were brought up, and reoccupy any place those forces didn't happen to be at that moment. Everything the Romans could have dominated using their accustomed methods lay on the far side of a hundred miles of indomitable wilderness.

So that might be your answer: it doesn't matter how "power-hungry" their neighbor might be, if the neighbor is unable to project its power effectively. Small tribes might well resist more, not less, effectively than a centralized state. A centralized state can be conquered by capturing its core areas or center of administration, or by capturing or killing its leaders. Smaller tribes, particularly if they are not permanently settled to begin with, can simply get out of the way of would-be conquerors and move back in once they'd passed. Maintaining a guerrilla campaign all the while, if you like. It's not hard to cripple a large army if it can't feed itself off the land it's trying to occupy.

As Devor says, it's sufficient if they can make themselves not worth the trouble.

Ok, I see what you're getting at. While a centralized government would certainly have benefits (effective administration, universal legal codes, established military, etc.), it is easily conquered and put under imperial rule. With a decentralized group of tribes, some which would probably be nomadic, an army would have a hard time conquering all of them. While this would certainly be a setback for the invading army, the Damhnait's traditional lands have economic value in the form of iron and copper deposits, so there is a bit of an incentive for conquest found in that, I think. As far as terrain goes, I agree with everything above; not only are forests intimidating, they allow for a decentralized foe to easily strike, and then disappear, as well as acting as a buffer for anything else worth conquering. This also made me think on another aspect: that the Damhnait would have "home-field advantage". They would be familiar with the terrain, and more than likely would know more than a few ways to hide from, or ambush an unsuspecting army.

 

[Ravana]

Yep, all essentially correct. Including the part about where the incentive for the invaders might override other factors working against them. As I said, no one of the factors I listed would have stopped the Romans all by itself. If they truly felt it necessary to conquer Germania, they'd've found a way: they were like that. They could have carved out roads, taken over the best locations for establishing large, agriculturally self-sufficient settlements, and waged a decades-long war of annihilation against any local populations who chose to resist. Eventually, all the locals would have either accepted Roman rule or migrated beyond wherever the new hinterlands ended.

It didn't seem worth it to the Romans. So they stopped trying.

If there hadn't been considerable distances and formidable natural barriers, coupled with large areas of non-Roman client populations forming buffer zones within the empire–say, if Germania began right across the Rhône–the Romans would have brought the lands under control eventually, simply because they'd've been too near the core to be left alone. I'm not sure if iron and copper would have been sufficient incentive for the Romans to have engaged in a conquest… your local power may have less of these within the lands it already controls, and feel the greater need. Certainly, the Romans conquered more than one land to get their hands on local resources. Had they been aware of what lay beneath the Erzegebirge, I highly doubt they would have stopped at the Danube after all. In spite of the weather… heh.

Home field advantage with a vengeance, yep. How do you find your way through a forest you're unfamiliar with? Answer: hire a guide. Ideally, hire one who doesn't hate your guts, understand your methods of warfare, and have the charisma to temporarily unite the feuding tribes in the region to set an effective ambush. This… is a great recipe for having three legions of the best troops in the world completely annihilated. It would be another two and a half centuries before Rome suffered a comparable defeat.

They did not allow Teutoburg to go unavenged, by the way: retaliatory campaigns over the next seven years resulted in the devastation of the tribes nearest the Rhine. But, honor restored, the Romans decided it was not worth the expense of maintaining armies beyond the Rhine and pulled back for good. There was nothing special about the Germans per se; as long as the Romans didn't screw up, they were still effectively invincible. So there's no reason to believe they couldn't have subjugated Germania, given sufficient investment of time and resources.

I'm guessing your would-be conquerors would have difficulty finding honest guides amongst tribes of an entirely different species, unless they had something really good to offer. Which means that as soon as they were out of sight of some impossible-to-miss landmark, such as a major waterway, they'd be lost. The locals could hide, go around them, strike their supply lines, set ambushes… whatever worked best in any given situation.