AHC: Alternate ethnic movements and migrations?

Basically what it says on the tin. Anything from ancient tribal migrations to modern immigration patterns to industrial era immigration.
 
Sort of the reverse of an alternate migration, but the concept of the Turkic migration out of northeast Asia not happening is one that I find interesting (maybe either the Huns just don't become a thing or they conquer central asia but just don't leave behind any real descendants), leaving an Iranian central asia of Scythians, Sogdians, and Bactrians.

Madagascar conquered earlier by an Islamic country and becoming very Arabized

Larger migration and settlement of South America by Polynesians (irl the only signs of any Polynesian settlement are some genetic commonalities in one island off the coast of Chile)

Major Caucasian (as in from the Caucasus) settlement in population centers of the Ottoman Empire (Abkhazians, Circassians, and Georgians living in major communities in Iraq or Syria, for example)

Also, a Coptic speaking Egypt (not too sure about all of north Africa, that seems unlikely) actually wouldn't necessarily require no Islam! While the Arabization campaigns of the later Caliphates and Sultanates definitely lead to a decline of the Coptic language in Africa, the Nile remained majority Egyptian and Christian up until the 1200s-1300s, so it isn't really all that unlikely or difficult to have!
 
To be honest you could have a batch different threads with this premise that would be exclusive to each continent and have each be over ten pages long.

Also, a Coptic speaking Egypt (not too sure about all of north Africa, that seems unlikely) actually wouldn't necessarily require no Islam! While the Arabization campaigns of the later Caliphates and Sultanates definitely lead to a decline of the Coptic language in Africa, the Nile remained majority Egyptian and Christian up until the 1200s-1300s, so it isn't really all that unlikely or difficult to have!
I admit that making people speak Coptic over the Romance languages of North Africa is a little difficult except for maybe Libya. I was thinking more about Bantu East Africa being influenced than the North and West Africa. Major Bantu coast languages would incorporate Coptic vocabulary just like languages in OTL incorporated Arabic vocabulary, like Swahili, and the entire Nile watershed would be filled with dialects of Coptic or Coptic derived languages.
 
To be honest you could have a batch different threads with this premise that would be exclusive to each continent and have each be over ten pages long.


I admit that making people speak Coptic over the Romance languages of North Africa is a little difficult except for maybe Libya. I was thinking more about Bantu East Africa being influenced than the North and West Africa. Major Bantu coast languages would incorporate Coptic vocabulary just like languages in OTL incorporated Arabic vocabulary, like Swahili, and the entire Nile watershed would be filled with dialects of Coptic or Coptic derived languages.

Ain't that the truth hehe, this encompasses a vast array of topics that would all just be so interesting to explore.

Also yeah, while Coptic would definitely be the majority language of a non-Islamic Egypt, I totally agree that languages in East Africa would just get a lot of Coptic influence. I'm not so certain about the Swahili Coast though. I definitely can see it having an immense influence on Nubian languages, Ethiopic languages, and Somalian possibly, but the reason for the Arabic influence on Swahili is due to religious terminology from the Qur'an and the trade influence of Arabic countries on the Swahili Coast. I don't think Christian Egyptians would have nearly the sort of trade domination of Arab merchants during the middle ages, thus leading to a lack of both religious and linguistic influence on Swahili. Northeast Africa would definitely be very Coptic-influenced, however.

If there was no Islamic conquest, I feel like Coptic Christianity would gradually drift more and more toward traditional Roman Christianity, especially with the encouragement of the central government of the Empire. The Islamic Conquest isolated the Coptic Church from the changes and trends of the orthodox churches to their north, letting them keep much of their religious traditions, including theological beliefs and the use of the Coptic language. Without the Islamic conquest it would probably just become an Eastern Orthodox church that uses Coptic but is in communion and concordance with Constantinople. Ironically, the Islamic conquest helped preserve a lot of Coptic culture in ways that I don't think the Roman Christian Emperors of Constantinople would allow.
 
I've tried before suggesting a world where Germanic migrations/invasions eventually lead to a Germanic Southern Europe/Northwest Africa, in the same way that the Arab Islamic conquests led to an Arabic-speaking Levant/Egypt/North Africa (not universally, but still) in the long run.

Getting rid of the Byzantine conquests of the Vandalic and Ostrogothic kingdoms is a necessary, but probably not sufficient factor.
 

xsampa

Banned
The movement of Tamils from the Chola Empire of South India to Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia is possible because the Chola Empire had extensive contact with Southeast Asia and traded with the local peoples. If political disturbances in Chola or invasions from further north, such as an invasion by the Chalukya Empire triggered a mass migration, Tamils would end up in Malaysia and similar regions. Even IOTL, the Cholas left their mark on Southeast Asia through artistic influence and plundering Southern Thailand, Malaysia, southern burma.
 
Balts replace Slavs as the late Migration Era migration wave? Hmm?

Another thread I suggested, to little response: stronger Germanic barbarian kingdoms in central Europe early, more aggressive Slavic migrations into Byzantine territory cause an earlier collapse of that empire and, later on, a Slavic Middle East rather than a (mostly) Arabic Middle East.
 
Here's some of mine that I've currently developing:
  • Mansi speakers to present-day Austria.
  • East Barito speakers to Sri Lanka.
  • Northern France remaining Gallic-speaking.
  • North Germanic Scottish Highlands
  • Wakashan people in Hokkaido.
  • European Russia remained Uralic/Finno-Ugric, particularly Mordvins.
  • Tanguts/Qiang to Xinjiang.
  • Most of the OTL Spanish Basque Country remained Celtic (or at least Indo-European)
 
Anglo Saxon migration to Volga area. Anglo Saxons become the Rus equivalent. Anglo Saxon kingdoms in "Russia".
But why might the Anglo-Saxons go east instead of west?
Perhaps that would be one of the effects of a powerful and lasting North Sea Empire with no 1066? But yeah, it might be useful that if anyone wants to toss out any out-of-there ideas that you give a little context how they could or would happen.
 
But why might the Anglo-Saxons go east instead of west?

Mr_Fanboy said:
But why might the Anglo-Saxons go east instead of west?
Perhaps that would be one of the effects of a powerful and lasting North Sea Empire with no 1066? But yeah, it might be useful that if anyone wants to toss out any out-of-there ideas that you give a little context how they could or would happen.


Maybe Britain is longer under Control of the Romans and more stable. Or the power is transited to Romanized native Britains. Anglo Saxons are never called by Britains as mercenaries in the first place.
 
Last edited:
What about having Luzon to be the destination of the Hindus in Java aside from Bali since the island is a part of the trading route between Majapahit and Japan, the sacking of tondo by Nakhoda ragam might have prevented that.
 
Catholics (the one who would OTL revolt and defeat Netherlands) fleeing to France (for the French speakers) and maybe South Germany or Austria (for Flemish)
 
Anglo Saxon migration to Volga area. Anglo Saxons become the Rus equivalent. Anglo Saxon kingdoms in "Russia".

But why might the Anglo-Saxons go east instead of west?

Maybe Britain is longer under Control of the Romans and more stable. Or the power is transited to Romanized native Britains. Anglo Saxons are never called by Britains as mercearies in the first place.
Very difficult. The Angles went west for the same reason the later Danes did - more accessible and less resistance - where they were successful varied due to politics and military strength. It could be possible though for the eastern Saxons to do a Rus but they're no more likely to leave a linguistic trace than the Rus did OTL.
 
Top