WI Huns never moved West??

Enough of this modern History!! What about the real thing (more than a thousand years), what if the huns never moved west from China? Would the Goths and the rest of the germans have come down on the Western Empire the same way?

For example, we know that the the goths were in the process of beng 'consolifdated' by Ermanarich (not to be confused with Herman the German of 300 years earlier) in A.D. 370, but that he was defeated by the Huns in 375. If the Huns didn't attack, two things might have happened. First, he would have more fully gathered the reins of power, and second, there would have been more Huns.

Additionally (for those of us that are interested in Armenian history) it seems that in OTL the Huns attacked Armenia in and around 400 A.D.. If they hadn't moved West, this wouldn't have happened.

Finally, consider what happens in Mongolia and China. The Huns, like the later Mongols, countered the power of the more civilized Chinese of the period. If they had remained in Eastern China how would the history of the area been different?
 
Norman said:
Enough of this modern History!! What about the real thing (more than a thousand years), what if the huns never moved west from China? Would the Goths and the rest of the germans have come down on the Western Empire the same way?
Norman said:

For example, we know that the the goths were in the process of beng 'consolifdated' by Ermanarich (not to be confused with Herman the German of 300 years earlier) in A.D. 370, but that he was defeated by the Huns in 375. If the Huns didn't attack, two things might have happened. First, he would have more fully gathered the reins of power, and second, there would have been more Huns.

Additionally (for those of us that are interested in Armenian history) it seems that in OTL the Huns attacked Armenia in and around 400 A.D.. If they hadn't moved West, this wouldn't have happened.

Finally, consider what happens in Mongolia and China. The Huns, like the later Mongols, countered the power of the more civilized Chinese of the period. If they had remained in Eastern China how would the history of the area been different?


About the german peoples, they would indeed move west into the Roman Empire, but not as massive as OTL, and especially not the Goth. But then on the other hand, an ever expanding Goth empire might just do the trick and speed up movements for some time pushing the Franks, Burgundians, Alemani, Svebi et al westwards. This happening perhaps 50 years later then OTL.

Frankly I know very little of Armenian history, in spite of having been to the place.

China? well you caugth me off balance - as you imply things might look quite different. As far as I know the huns were pushed off by the chinese. If the chinese didn't have the strength at that time, wouldn't the huns have sacked China?
 
The Goths might've stayed in the Ukraine. Maybe they gradually get civilization (by trade with Rome) and build up an empire there. With the good soil (after they develop ploughs strong enough, though), their population could grow very fast. And all the iron and coal there could come handy later. (Sounds a bit like a wet dream from a nazi...)
 

HelloLegend

Banned
Enough of this modern History!! What about the real thing (more than a thousand years), what if the huns never moved west from China? Would the Goths and the rest of the germans have come down on the Western Empire the same way?

For example, we know that the the goths were in the process of beng 'consolifdated' by Ermanarich (not to be confused with Herman the German of 300 years earlier) in A.D. 370, but that he was defeated by the Huns in 375. If the Huns didn't attack, two things might have happened. First, he would have more fully gathered the reins of power, and second, there would have been more Huns.

Additionally (for those of us that are interested in Armenian history) it seems that in OTL the Huns attacked Armenia in and around 400 A.D.. If they hadn't moved West, this wouldn't have happened.

Finally, consider what happens in Mongolia and China. The Huns, like the later Mongols, countered the power of the more civilized Chinese of the period. If they had remained in Eastern China how would the history of the area been different?

China could have fended off Attila,
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Now this is strange, I've never been able to get it exactly.

The Huns were the Hsiung-nu, or the Huns were pushed west by the Hsiung-nu, who in turn were being pushed West by the Chinese, yes??. (the Chinese must have been bloody mean at this time, but then why did the Han fall in about 400CE and a dark age ensue?)

I saw a map which showed the progress of the Huns across Asia as beginning in 100CE and only getting to the Ukraine by about 452 and then taking all of Europe in a few years. Is this right??

I also have heard, (here mainly) that the Huns were actually a confederation rather than a unitary tribe, this is why they disappeared so totally from history when they did.

Hungary is not descended from them, though that's where they had their base, (I think) and even though some Hungarian folklorists claim they are. The present Turks and Turkomens peoples also claim some descent from them, and have a better case, though not conclusive.

I find it all very confusing.:confused: Could someone direct me to a site or resourece that would clear it all up? (Correctly, of course)
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
If the Huns, (whoever they were) had never come I think Rome would survive. The Romans had met the challenge of rising Barbarians before, and the Goths only were able to make their inroads after the Empire had been weakened by the Huns.

It would, in the West, be a much more barbarian Empire, but it would be Roman, not Frankish or Vandal or Goth.
 

HelloLegend

Banned
Break the Northern Asians down to these categories...

Turks: Turks in Turkey, Xiong Nu, Huns, Western Mongols, Genghis Khan tribe of Mongols who were not "Mongolian" in the modern sense.
Khazakstan, Uighurs, Uizbekis, etc. etc. etc.

Altaics: Eastern Khalka Mongols (who now live in Mongolia), Korean, Japanese

Tungis: Eskimos, siberians, Manchu/Jurchens, Khitans, Liao.


Chinese: Self explanatory.
 

Keenir

Banned
Break the Northern Asians down to these categories...

Turks: Turks in Turkey, Xiong Nu, Huns, Western Mongols, Genghis Khan tribe of Mongols who were not "Mongolian" in the modern sense.
Khazakstan, Uighurs, Uizbekis, etc. etc. etc.

Altaics: Eastern Khalka Mongols (who now live in Mongolia), Korean, Japanese

Tungis: Eskimos, siberians, Manchu/Jurchens, Khitans, Liao.


Chinese: Self explanatory.

Where do peoples like the Na fit? *curious*
 
China could have fended off Attila

What makes you say that? There is zero evidence supporting it- in fact, all the facts would suggest Attila would do quite well against China at the time. The Huns had already sacked Luoyang (Chinese capitol at the time) a hundred years earlier, and China had only gotten weaker. If Attila attacks China instead of Europe and Persia, he would be hitting China when it was at a historically low point. Attila would not be facing the typical unified, super-populated, well-organized China. His attacks would coincide with the 16 Kingdoms period- a time when there was no single large Chinese state, and the population had been decimated by constant infighting among the different states. The Jin dynasty had fled to the South. On the contrary, I would say Attila could basically walk into at the very least Northern China, without very much difficulty, and given a little bit of luck, could take Southern China as well.
 
Now this is strange, I've never been able to get it exactly.

The Huns were the Hsiung-nu, or the Huns were pushed west by the Hsiung-nu, who in turn were being pushed West by the Chinese, yes??. (the Chinese must have been bloody mean at this time, but then why did the Han fall in about 400CE and a dark age ensue?)

I saw a map which showed the progress of the Huns across Asia as beginning in 100CE and only getting to the Ukraine by about 452 and then taking all of Europe in a few years. Is this right??

I also have heard, (here mainly) that the Huns were actually a confederation rather than a unitary tribe, this is why they disappeared so totally from history when they did.

Hungary is not descended from them, though that's where they had their base, (I think) and even though some Hungarian folklorists claim they are. The present Turks and Turkomens peoples also claim some descent from them, and have a better case, though not conclusive.

I find it all very confusing.:confused: Could someone direct me to a site or resourece that would clear it all up? (Correctly, of course)

I don't have a directions for a site or resource in english that would help you, but the Huns seems to have been a group of Turkish speaking peoples/clans that moved west from Central Asia. These groups would be know as Huns, Huna, Heftalites, White Huns, etc.
In 375 the Huns, having subjugated the Alans, move into the Goth kingdom in Southern Russia, destroying it and pushing the Vese or West Goths into the Roman Empire and subjugating parts of the Ostro or East Goths. They seem to have gone rampaging all over non-Roman Europe and then in 451 attack Western Europe, where Aetius manages to gather part of the Alans and West Goths along the remnants of the Romans and stopped Attila at Chalons-Sur-Marne. Attila then turned on Italy in 452, but were talked or bought off by pope Leo 1. He dies 453 on his wedding night, killed by his new bride. Attila did have his residence in Pannonia/Hungary.
The Hungarians only moved into Pannonia around 890 after the Avars had been crushed by Charlemagne's son Pippin IV and Markgraf Erik of Friuli in around 795.
To make matters even more complicated the Romans used all kinds of Germanic tribes and Huns as mercenaries.
 

HelloLegend

Banned
What makes you say that? There is zero evidence supporting it- in fact, all the facts would suggest Attila would do quite well against China at the time. The Huns had already sacked Luoyang (Chinese capitol at the time) a hundred years earlier, and China had only gotten weaker. If Attila attacks China instead of Europe and Persia, he would be hitting China when it was at a historically low point. Attila would not be facing the typical unified, super-populated, well-organized China. His attacks would coincide with the 16 Kingdoms period- a time when there was no single large Chinese state, and the population had been decimated by constant infighting among the different states. The Jin dynasty had fled to the South. On the contrary, I would say Attila could basically walk into at the very least Northern China, without very much difficulty, and given a little bit of luck, could take Southern China as well.

Chinese pride does not permit me to allow alternate invasions of
my country.
 
Now this is strange, I've never been able to get it exactly.

The Huns were the Hsiung-nu, or the Huns were pushed west by the Hsiung-nu, who in turn were being pushed West by the Chinese, yes??. (the Chinese must have been bloody mean at this time, but then why did the Han fall in about 400CE and a dark age ensue?)

I saw a map which showed the progress of the Huns across Asia as beginning in 100CE and only getting to the Ukraine by about 452 and then taking all of Europe in a few years. Is this right??

I also have heard, (here mainly) that the Huns were actually a confederation rather than a unitary tribe, this is why they disappeared so totally from history when they did.

Hungary is not descended from them, though that's where they had their base, (I think) and even though some Hungarian folklorists claim they are. The present Turks and Turkomens peoples also claim some descent from them, and have a better case, though not conclusive.

I find it all very confusing.:confused: Could someone direct me to a site or resourece that would clear it all up? (Correctly, of course)

http://gumilevica.kulichki.net
But this is in Russian.
Gumilevich had written that Huns got some dinastic troubles which were exploited by China and China was involved in very active foreign politics seeking to overplay Huns.
I don't have a directions for a site or resource in english that would help you, but the Huns seems to have been a group of Turkish speaking peoples/clans that moved west from Central Asia. These groups would be know as Huns, Huna, Heftalites, White Huns, etc.
This is not very clear. There are other hypothesies also and White Huns were not related.
 
Now this is strange, I've never been able to get it exactly.

The Huns were the Hsiung-nu, or the Huns were pushed west by the Hsiung-nu, who in turn were being pushed West by the Chinese, yes??. (the Chinese must have been bloody mean at this time, but then why did the Han fall in about 400CE and a dark age ensue?)

I saw a map which showed the progress of the Huns across Asia as beginning in 100CE and only getting to the Ukraine by about 452 and then taking all of Europe in a few years. Is this right??

I also have heard, (here mainly) that the Huns were actually a confederation rather than a unitary tribe, this is why they disappeared so totally from history when they did.

Hungary is not descended from them, though that's where they had their base, (I think) and even though some Hungarian folklorists claim they are. The present Turks and Turkomens peoples also claim some descent from them, and have a better case, though not conclusive.

I find it all very confusing.:confused: Could someone direct me to a site or resourece that would clear it all up? (Correctly, of course)


Napoleon

The Huns are linked with the Hsiung-nu who were pushed west from China but as some people say the connection is not certain. They destroy the Gothic state in what is now the Ukraine in about 360-370. It was Goths fleeing from this and alienated by the treatment they received from the Romans that defeated the empire in 378AD at Ardianople. Gothic mercenaries and factions played a major part in internal politics and fighting in the empire until the final collapse of the west.

During this period the Huns were a major power and extracted tribune from the eastern empire for several decades. I think I also read that Rome and Sassanid Persia had an agreement for the joint protection of their provinces in the Caucasus region against Hunnic attacks. The Huns reached their height under Attila who built up a powerful empire which by some reported reached from the Rhine to the Urals. As someone else said, after various manoeuvring and taking tribune from the west for a while, the Huns attacked into Gaul in 451. They were checked by Aetius at Chalon, with a combination of Visigoth and other German nations - forgetting who else - along with some Romans then the following year invaded Italy. Attlia died in 453 and his empire seems to have broken up almost immediately. However Hunnic forces continued to be used as mercenaries for a while afterwards. [Think there were some in Beliserius's armies when he reconquered Italy.] During Attlia's time at least their main centre was in the Pannovian plain, giving their name to the kingdom the Magyars later founded there.

Hope the above helps.

Steve
 
Top