AH Challenge: “Reverse Gypsies”

With a POD no earlier than 1 AD, create a mass migration of people from Europe to the Indian Subcontinent that results in the formation of one or more new ethnic groups similar to the Romani and Sinti. Based in Pakistan or India, they should speak a European-derived language (Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Uralic, Greek, etc) and practice some elements of their original culture, which they maintain to the modern day by nature of their nomadic, transient culture and self-isolation. Bonus points if the rest of history remains as familiar as possible to OTL. When is this most likely to happen, and from which part of Europe?
 
Sarmatians or Alan peoples are probably your best chance there, giving their mobility. One can safely imagine a relocation as foederati as IOTL, except more importantly in the eastern parts of Romania and especially in Syria.

From there, with a more unstable Persia in Late Antiquity, you could see migrations happening on the trade roads and something akin to White Huns arising except from the West, importantly romanised/hellenized.
 
Sarmatians or Alan peoples are probably your best chance there, giving their mobility. One can safely imagine a relocation as foederati as IOTL, except more importantly in the eastern parts of Romania and especially in Syria.

From there, with a more unstable Persia in Late Antiquity, you could see migrations happening on the trade roads and something akin to White Huns arising except from the West, importantly romanised/hellenized.

The Sarmatians and Alans I see being a problem as far as staying separate because as their Iranian languages are going to be so close to those of India, especially north-western India where the gradations between Iranian and Indian flow into each other, especially even more 2,000 years ago. At best they'd just be considered Persians and might assimilate into or be considered by outside Hindi sources as one of the Parsi communities.
 
How about followers of the Mithraic mystery cult in the Roman Empire? A large number of followers, displaced by the rise of Christianity, decide to flee to the east, believing they'll be better off in Zoroastrian Persia. They maintain a Latin-based language (much like Aromanian communities of the Balkans). The rise of Islam further pushes them into India, where their original belief system mixes with Hindu ideas. They become nomadic by virtue of their constantly being pushed around by monotheistic societies, and their secretive cult makes them a very inward-looking culture just as the Romani are.
 
How about followers of the Mithraic mystery cult in the Roman Empire?

The main obstacle to that is the Mithraic cults were men only, it's very difficult to maintain a distinct, nomadic element in a larger society without natural reproduction.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It's a stretch, but what about true European nomads?

With a POD no earlier than 1 AD, create a mass migration of people from Europe to the Indian Subcontinent that results in the formation of one or more new ethnic groups similar to the Romani and Sinti. Based in Pakistan or India, they should speak a European-derived language (Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Uralic, Greek, etc) and practice some elements of their original culture, which they maintain to the modern day by nature of their nomadic, transient culture and self-isolation. Bonus points if the rest of history remains as familiar as possible to OTL. When is this most likely to happen, and from which part of Europe?

It's a stretch, but what about true European nomads? Can you get the Sámi/Lapps/Komsa/etc. driven out of northern Europe to the south at some point? They look like pretty good candidates for "nomadic" Europeans in Eurasia/South Asia.

1024px-Saami_Family_1900.jpg


Best,
 
It's a stretch, but what about true European nomads? Can you get the Sámi/Lapps/Komsa/etc. driven out of northern Europe to the south at some point? They look like pretty good candidates for "nomadic" Europeans in Eurasia/South Asia.

1024px-Saami_Family_1900.jpg


Best,

How would that end up as anything different than the other Ural-Altaic nomads that have invaded and been assimilated in India? While European no doubt, those mentioned are not stereotypical Europeans as in Indo-European language and culture. You're basically taking Asians who are in Europe and then taking them back to Asia. I think the spirit of what the OP is talking about requires Indo-Europeans. But that's just my reading of it.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Depends on the departure date, presumably;

How would that end up as anything different than the other Ural-Altaic nomads that have invaded and been assimilated in India? While European no doubt, those mentioned are not stereotypical Europeans as in Indo-European language and culture. You're basically taking Asians who are in Europe and then taking them back to Asia. I think the spirit of what the OP is talking about requires Indo-Europeans. But that's just my reading of it.

Depends on the departure date, presumably; the OP did include Uralic languages among the possibilities, and I'd see an existing nomadic people was being one more likely to remain such as a formerly sedentary people becoming such ... the Parsi seem an instructive example in that they left urban areas in Iran and moved to urban areas in India.

The Sami were evangelized as early as the 1300s; depending on the departure date, they might be Christians, traditional/shamanistic, or some blend whenever it is they hit the road, so to speak.

Best,
 
The Sami were evangelized as early as the 1300s; depending on the departure date, they might be Christians, traditional/shamanistic, or some blend whenever it is they hit the road, so to speak.

sure, the first attempts of Sami evangelization, was as early as 1300s, but the significant majority was still mainly Shamanistic up to somewhere in the late 1700s, early 1800s, and if they went to church it was because it was excepted (and to differing extents enforced, depending on who was in charge in their roaming area) and not because they sincerely believed
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The thing is, even if the religious mix is something closer to

sure, the first attempts of Sami evangelization, was as early as 1300s, but the significant majority was still mainly Shamanistic up to somewhere in the late 1700s, early 1800s, and if they went to church it was because it was excepted (and to differing extents enforced, depending on who was in charge in their roaming area) and not because they sincerely believed

The thing is, even if the religious mix of these putative "Lapps gone south" is something closer to "traditional" than Christian, it's not like that's exactly the norm in South Asia in the 1700s or afterwards.

They'd certainly be seen as the "other" compared to the Hindu/Moslem majority (or the Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, etc, for that matter), and would probably not even be lumped in with the Christians, Jews, and Parsis, either, given their general "urban" orientation in South Asia.

Best,
 
Keep in mind that the communities don't need to be nomadic at the outset... To my knowledge, the ancestors of the Romani didn't start out that way, nor did the Irish Travellers or the Cossacks.
 
The Sarmatians and Alans I see being a problem as far as staying separate because as their Iranian languages are going to be so close to those of India, especially north-western India where the gradations between Iranian and Indian flow into each other, especially even more 2,000 years ago. At best they'd just be considered Persians and might assimilate into or be considered by outside Hindi sources as one of the Parsi communities.

I think you exagerrate the proximity between the two branches of Iranic languages.
In spite of their common origin, they evolved distinctivly since centuries in the Ist century : not only trough evolution, of course, but as well influences and particular history. Look at Ossetian and Farsi, you'd see what I'm meaning; and then compare the first with Hindi.

No, the difference is going to be clear linguistically and even more so culturally : again, we're talking of peoples that would be not only issued from a divergent devellopment within Iranic families, but (following my post) importantly romanized and adopting Greco-Roman features compared to their situation at the beggining of this particular TL. And this would not only concern language, but other cultural features as customs, referents, etc.
 
There already was, the Indo-European migration. :rolleyes:

But honestly, it might be a stretch, but could the ancestors of the Magyars go south to India instead of west to Europe?
 
Galatian refugees (Asia Minor based Celts) from the Roman conquest move East. Militarily outmatched they make the transition into nomadic traders. Seeing as they started near the headwaters of the Danube, speak a Greek influenced Celtic language, I think they'd qualify as distinct enough to hold themselves separate over the long term.
 
Just FYI, most Roma are not itinerant. While there are a lot of Roma Travellers, and due to frequent violence and displacement Roma have often moved around more than most, the majority of Roma, particularly in the "heartland" of Hungary and the Balkans, are sedentary.

I think displaced Jews are a potential option.
 
Top