AHC No geographic hole in Slavdom

Your challange is to make what is now Hungary and Romania Slavic.

Also how would this affect the culture, trade and geopolitics of the region?
 

Attachments

  • 220px-Slavic_tribes_in_the_7th_to_9th_century.jpg
    220px-Slavic_tribes_in_the_7th_to_9th_century.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 3,039
It's a difficult request. The Magyars moved in because the Pannonian basin is such wide, fertile, productive land, and naturally they pushed the Slavs out. With the Magyars defeated the Slavs still don't have the numbers or political organization to defeat some other enemy, it these centuries mainly the Franks, Bulgars, or Byzantines. If they had a century or two of relative peace to let their population grow in that fertile land they'd have a chance, but this can only be achieved by weakening the Franks and Byzantines, I think. Bulgars would rather move south into Greece and Thrace than back over the mountains to Pannonia, I think.
 
Hmm, the Avar Khaganate had gone pretty Slavic so perhaps reduce the success of Charlemagne so they remain strong enough to hold off / assimilate the Magyars.
 
It's a difficult request. The Magyars moved in because the Pannonian basin is such wide, fertile, productive land, and naturally they pushed the Slavs out.

Not quite doomed. In OTL, the Normans conquered England. William the Bastard (he really should have been William the really Fat) spent 75% of the rest of his life at Rouen. He did come up to England three time stop suppress a revolt. The rest of his time? Court in London, going to Rome, visiting the Norman countryside. Makes me wonder why he wanted to be King so badly. The next King William Rufus was annoyed that his brother Robert got Normandy, a third the size of England. this William grumbled and conceded that his older brother had to have gotten the "better" piece of their inheritance even though he and not Robert was the favorite. The two made a pact to be each other heirs. Henry I considered himself a Norman who just happened to have a piggy bank in London (yeah, Richard the Lionhearted did that too). None of them could speak English. Fast forward to Edward Longshanks and we have a King who speaks English.
 
The Mongols wreck the Hungarians so hard that they and their language eventually die out and are replaced by Slovaks, Croats, Serbs, etc.

For the Romanians they do not really need to die out so much as be absorbed by some Slavic states. They already shared a lot of the criteria that necessitated assimilation. Same religion. Same alphabet. No access to the sea. Without a national awakening they will still be around but will be about as important to Europe as the Kurds are to the Middle East.

Don't know if that meets your criteria but it's what I wrote out.
 
Last edited:
Actually in hungary's case the bigger question is why they didnt end up slavic. The number of the magyars who arrived in the carpathian basin was at most around 200.000 and likely less. If we assume that the local population is mostly slavic the magyars should have ended up as the bolgars. For some reason they didnt.
 
Last edited:
Actually in hungary's case the bigger question is why they didnt end up slavic. The number of the magyars who arrived in the carpathian basin was at most around 200.000 and likely less. If we assume that the local population is mostly slavic the magyars should have ended up as the bolgars. For some reason they didnt.
The slavs of hungary probably assimilated into a dominant minority similar to the turks of anatolia, azerbajian and Balkan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkification
 
Not quite doomed. In OTL, the Normans conquered England. William the Bastard (he really should have been William the really Fat) spent 75% of the rest of his life at Rouen. He did come up to England three time stop suppress a revolt. The rest of his time? Court in London, going to Rome, visiting the Norman countryside. Makes me wonder why he wanted to be King so badly.

Because (a) he would be a KING, and (b) because MONEY!
 
Actually in hungary's case the bigger question is why they didnt end up slavic. The number of the magyars who arrived in the carpathian basin was at most around 200.000 and likely less. If we assume that the local population is mostly slavic the magyars should have ended up as the bolgars. For some reason they didnt.
200k would be a significant % of the population already present in the Pannonian Basin though, possibly 15-25% or even more.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What are the odds or prospects of the East Franks ending up predominant in one or more chunks of traditional Hungary? Would Germans filling up to the bend of the Danube (old Roman Pannonia) or to the Carpathians and Transylvanian Alps, be any more likely than say, taking over all Poland.
 
What are the odds or prospects of the East Franks ending up predominant in one or more chunks of traditional Hungary? Would Germans filling up to the bend of the Danube (old Roman Pannonia) or to the Carpathians and Transylvanian Alps, be any more likely than say, taking over all Poland.
It is certainly possible, but the process would take many years, maybe a century to finish. Also it depends on other places where germans might migrate to.
 
Actually in hungary's case the bigger question is why they didnt end up slavic. The number of the magyars who arrived in the carpathian basin was at most around 200.000 and likely less. If we assume that the local population is mostly slavic the magyars should have ended up as the bolgars. For some reason they didnt.

This assumes that the Slavs were the predominant population, when it's actually more likely that they, too, were a small group of conquerers over a long-established agrarian population in the southeastern Europe - Thracians, Illyrians, or Dacians, perhaps.

The Slavs were hardly given any mention at all in Roman sources aside from being a distant people far beyond the reach of Rome, known only by a Germanic exonym (Venedi, from Germanic "Wend"). It's hard to imagine that the ancient farming populations of the Balkans were just wiped out and replaced completely by small migratory steppe tribes, no matter whether they be Slavic, Uralic, or Turkic speaking.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
This assumes that the Slavs were the predominant population, when it's actually more likely that they, too, were a small group of conquerers over a long-established agrarian population in the southeastern Europe - Thracians, Illyrians, or Dacians, perhaps.

The Slavs were hardly given any mention at all in Roman sources aside from being a distant people far beyond the reach of Rome, known only by a Germanic exonym (Venedi, from Germanic "Wend"). It's hard to imagine that the ancient farming populations of the Balkans were just wiped out and replaced completely by small migratory steppe tribes, no matter whether they be Slavic, Uralic, or Turkic speaking.

of course, why is language replaced with some conquests but not others?
 
Top