AHC: 'Barbarians' cause near-fall of civilization

How could nomadic, semi-nomadic, and/or migrating peoples literally pillage so many areas in western Eurasia that civilization retreats to the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia, or less?

Or how could a similar situation happen in India or China?

If not possible anywhere in the Old World, could raiders from the north destroy the civilizations of Mesoamerica?
 
Last edited:
How could nomadic, semi-nomadic, and/or migrating peoples literally pillage so many areas in western Eurasia that civilization retreats to the Mediterranean and Mesopotamia?

Or how could a similar situation happen in India or China?

If not possible anywhere in the Old World, could raiders from the north destroy the civilizations of Mesoamerica?

The Mongols kind of did, for a given definition of "destroy", in Mesopotamia.

But in general, why would any invaders do that? Assuming OTL doesn't count (depending on your definition of civilization, it did retreat to that sphere until the "barbarian" kingdoms got their act together).
 
The Mongols kind of did, for a given definition of "destroy", in Mesopotamia.

But in general, why would any invaders do that? Assuming OTL doesn't count (depending on your definition of civilization, it did retreat to that sphere until the "barbarian" kingdoms got their act together).
OTL does partially count, with Mesopotamia having become dominated by nomadic empires for centuries afterward.

And why wouldn't they? The Vikings and Mongols didn't stop raiding because they felt it was enough, they stopped because they tried raiding an area and failed.
 
OTL does partially count, with Mesopotamia having become dominated by nomadic empires for centuries afterward.

And why wouldn't they? The Vikings and Mongols didn't stop raiding because they felt it was enough, they stopped because they tried raiding an area and failed.

Yes, but there's no incentive to raid a place to the point there's nothing worth taking left.

And the Vikings spent more time pillaging monasteries than farms for similar pirate logic - monasteries have phat lewt, destroyed farms benefit no one, not even raiders.
 
Yes, but there's no incentive to raid a place to the point there's nothing worth taking left.
Yes there is, by definition there's still stuff to take.

Of course, once there is nothing worth taking left, then there's no more incentive.

And the Vikings spent more time pillaging monasteries than farms for similar pirate logic - monasteries have phat lewt, destroyed farms benefit no one, not even raiders.
Destroyed farms benefit the raiders by weakening nearby settlements that can be taken--and the Vikings raided thousands of non-monastery settlements.

And the farms themselves provide food for military campaigns.
 
Yes there is, by definition there's still stuff to take.

Of course, once there is nothing worth taking left, then there's no more incentive.

The point is, raiders are going to picky juicy targets, not deliberately milk a given target to the point it's not worthwhile any more.

Destroyed farms benefit the raiders by weakening nearby settlements that can be taken--and the Vikings raided thousands of non-monastery settlements.

And the farms themselves provide food for military campaigns.

Yes, but as a raider, taking settlements isn't the goal, plunder or tribute is. So . . .

I'm not saying "barbarians" will leave farms and such untouched, but they're not going go out of their way to destroy "civilization".
 
The point is, raiders are going to picky juicy targets, not deliberately milk a given target to the point it's not worthwhile any more.

Yes, but as a raider, taking settlements isn't the goal, plunder or tribute is. So . . .

I'm not saying "barbarians" will leave farms and such untouched, but they're not going go out of their way to destroy "civilization".
Of course they'll attack wealthy areas. Once these wealthy cities are sacked though, they have to move onto other cities, which are then ruined. And so on, until few swathes of land are left that don't have pastoral/nomadic/piratical overlords.
 
Of course they'll attack wealthy areas. Once these wealthy cities are sacked though, they have to move onto other cities, which are then ruined. And so on, until few swathes of land are left that don't have pastoral/nomadic/piratical overlords.

Okay, let's take the OTL Vikings.

OTL, the Vikings tried this. And the Norse even took over England for a while. But they weren't more piratical at that point than the Anglo-Saxons.

And this is an area where "barbarian raiders" did well.
 
one problem is that 'barbarians' aren't stupid, and want the good things in life too. The ones who plagued Rome at the end wanted to establish themselves on the land as overseers and tax collectors. The Vikings ended up living in sunny France as settlers. And the infamous Mongols conquered China, but ended up being seduced by the comforts there and eventually absorbed into it. Not many barbarians really wanted to reduce the whole world to their level...
 
Top