archaeogeek
Banned
So reading up on migrations I get a vague feeling that migrations are a toss-up that's not explored all that much.
I mean... the anglo-saxons could have pushed the franks further south, leading to, say, a Frankish lorraine, larger flemish expansion in Belgica, repercussions would probably have been a more celtic britain, but a much much smaller brittany, probably just what's today the KLT part of Brittany (so Finistère and bits and odds of Cotes d'Armor and Morbihan). Or they might have settled Galicia instead, or nothing lasting and just disappeared except as a memory like in modern Galicia. A Scandinavian minority could well still have influenced Brythonic massively.
Then you get things like the Avars who more or less disappear, or rather probably become parts of the south slavs after the magyar invasions. Eastern magyars could probably lead to a much less southward push of the south-slavs, maybe leading to a much larger Croatia as the historical Serb-Croat divide wouldn't be happening.
The plague led to a situation where albanians settled across all of Epirus, and along the slavs, large swathes of Greece, although the Arvanitiki will today pretend they were always, forever, since the dawn of times, greek (this is nationalist bullshit, most of them came about as part of the hosts of albanian warlords well before the ottoman empire set up shop in the Balkans). But it also led to the early Arbereshe settlements (although they're usually associated with Skanderbeg's defeat, there are hints of the Arbereshe being present in the region much before... half of me sort of wonders how close Messapic would have been to ancient Dardanian, while they would likely not have evolved similarly, the chances of closely related dialects in close contact mingling or replacing one are not necessarily discountable; of course, officially these areas were Italic or Greek because that's what the imperial upper class spoke in Apulia-Calabria)
The conquest of the emirate of Sicily, plus the plague, also led to a demographic remodelling of Sicily: it was heavily greek, with some slight romance and arabic input. But this demographic remodelling also involved siphoning the largest part of the settlers during the crusade. What if the position of the settlers could be inverted and instead of albanians in Achaia and Athens and latins in Sicily, we got an Arbereshe Sicily and a latinate Morea with strong Vlach influence from Epirus and Thessaly. Without Serbs, maybe all of Moesia becomes Latinate, instead of just Moesia inferior (Wallachia-Moldova). Or maybe a Turkic Bulgar wank turkifies the region, or the magyars actually move there and "Romania" is Epirus-Athens-Achaea...
Anatolia is a fun one, because it's such a melting pot - a grecowank, taken far enough in the past, is of course possible (although as noted my greco-wank also happens in a world where Achaea is a mixed griko/"morean" society, which would not be pretty once nationalism strikes). Western and Northern Anatolia, plus Thrace and Macedonia are possible.
At the same time you could have a more turkish Bulgaria if it survives. A larger Azerbaidjan could replace mass migration of turks in Anatolia, maybe instead merely a small state like the Karamanids. Or maybe the Azeris and Turks displaced enough caucasian peoples that Armenia is now in southern Anatolia, and Pontus-Cappadocia remains an Iranian speaking region. Or Georgians and Alans emigrate in one enough to make it the new Georgia, with a larger Ossetian presence.
Instead of Balkanization, today we'd be talking about Anatolization
There's the possibility of a Catalanophone Sardinia.
There's the possibility of a gothic Crimea; or maybe a magyar one.
Okay I'm out of immediate ideas. Thoughts? I've been trying to figure out when the Bactria was settled by turks as well, but I admit I have only a vague idea and I might be wrong to assume they came around the time of the seljuks. Removing the Bani Halal from Ifriqiya might lead to a more powerful berber or neo-punic state in the region?
I mean... the anglo-saxons could have pushed the franks further south, leading to, say, a Frankish lorraine, larger flemish expansion in Belgica, repercussions would probably have been a more celtic britain, but a much much smaller brittany, probably just what's today the KLT part of Brittany (so Finistère and bits and odds of Cotes d'Armor and Morbihan). Or they might have settled Galicia instead, or nothing lasting and just disappeared except as a memory like in modern Galicia. A Scandinavian minority could well still have influenced Brythonic massively.
Then you get things like the Avars who more or less disappear, or rather probably become parts of the south slavs after the magyar invasions. Eastern magyars could probably lead to a much less southward push of the south-slavs, maybe leading to a much larger Croatia as the historical Serb-Croat divide wouldn't be happening.
The plague led to a situation where albanians settled across all of Epirus, and along the slavs, large swathes of Greece, although the Arvanitiki will today pretend they were always, forever, since the dawn of times, greek (this is nationalist bullshit, most of them came about as part of the hosts of albanian warlords well before the ottoman empire set up shop in the Balkans). But it also led to the early Arbereshe settlements (although they're usually associated with Skanderbeg's defeat, there are hints of the Arbereshe being present in the region much before... half of me sort of wonders how close Messapic would have been to ancient Dardanian, while they would likely not have evolved similarly, the chances of closely related dialects in close contact mingling or replacing one are not necessarily discountable; of course, officially these areas were Italic or Greek because that's what the imperial upper class spoke in Apulia-Calabria)
The conquest of the emirate of Sicily, plus the plague, also led to a demographic remodelling of Sicily: it was heavily greek, with some slight romance and arabic input. But this demographic remodelling also involved siphoning the largest part of the settlers during the crusade. What if the position of the settlers could be inverted and instead of albanians in Achaia and Athens and latins in Sicily, we got an Arbereshe Sicily and a latinate Morea with strong Vlach influence from Epirus and Thessaly. Without Serbs, maybe all of Moesia becomes Latinate, instead of just Moesia inferior (Wallachia-Moldova). Or maybe a Turkic Bulgar wank turkifies the region, or the magyars actually move there and "Romania" is Epirus-Athens-Achaea...
Anatolia is a fun one, because it's such a melting pot - a grecowank, taken far enough in the past, is of course possible (although as noted my greco-wank also happens in a world where Achaea is a mixed griko/"morean" society, which would not be pretty once nationalism strikes). Western and Northern Anatolia, plus Thrace and Macedonia are possible.
At the same time you could have a more turkish Bulgaria if it survives. A larger Azerbaidjan could replace mass migration of turks in Anatolia, maybe instead merely a small state like the Karamanids. Or maybe the Azeris and Turks displaced enough caucasian peoples that Armenia is now in southern Anatolia, and Pontus-Cappadocia remains an Iranian speaking region. Or Georgians and Alans emigrate in one enough to make it the new Georgia, with a larger Ossetian presence.
Instead of Balkanization, today we'd be talking about Anatolization
There's the possibility of a Catalanophone Sardinia.
There's the possibility of a gothic Crimea; or maybe a magyar one.
Okay I'm out of immediate ideas. Thoughts? I've been trying to figure out when the Bactria was settled by turks as well, but I admit I have only a vague idea and I might be wrong to assume they came around the time of the seljuks. Removing the Bani Halal from Ifriqiya might lead to a more powerful berber or neo-punic state in the region?
Last edited:
