Altaic/turkic country in central europe

Many turkic peoples invaded europe in the past, the avars, the huns, the cumanians, etc. Could any of them succesfully settle somewhere in central europe and became the majority of the population in the area?
 
No, they would be genetically assimilated ina matter of a few generations, becoming virtually undistinguishable from other germans/slavs. Today there would be only history to remember the fact that the people that inhabit this specific central european territorry have a turkic descent.

Which is exactly what happened to the people living in the region we call today Hungary.
 
Actually, I think 75% of Hungary's genetic material comes from the Mygar group, so they are only culturally assimilated not genetically assimilated. Although, I'm not sure how the molecular DNA works that way, I mean sure if a person has 7 great grand-parents from the same group he's 7/8 of that group, but how do you do that analysis on a whole population? For the OP's request, just have the Ottomans win at Vienna, have the Reformation stronger but less unnited(so even MORE Protastant vs Protastant and catholic vs Protastant fighting) and once the turks are in charge, a few forced conversions (to prevent future religious disunity) and the differential of birthrates of the Turks and Europeans make Gukpard's world a reality.
 
No, they would be genetically assimilated ina matter of a few generations, becoming virtually undistinguishable from other germans/slavs. Today there would be only history to remember the fact that the people that inhabit this specific central european territorry have a turkic descent.

Which is exactly what happened to the people living in the region we call today Hungary.

It's not genetics that matter, it's the language and culture.

What we need is Turkmen moving into Pannonia instead of the Magyars. And have them convert to Christianity.

In the meanwhile, the Magyars move back east, and then move south, and we have the Arpadi Sultanate, and eventually Majaristan in Anatolia. :p
 
Many turkic peoples invaded europe in the past, the avars, the huns, the cumanians, etc. Could any of them succesfully settle somewhere in central europe and became the majority of the population in the area?
Maybe larger numbers of Awars are Magyar style pacified and convert to Christianity. They settle in the East of the Empire Francorum and leave in some places traces. Villages are named after them, new nobility traces themselves to Christian Awar warriors.
 
So sort of like the Kalmyks but in Central Europe? For starters, try having these Turks or whoever settle in an area where the geography will shield their language and culture from being displaced or assimilated, which means mountainous or highland regions. Are the Carpathians in Central Europe? Try settling your Altaic invaders there or any other suitable land.
 
So sort of like the Kalmyks but in Central Europe? For starters, try having these Turks or whoever settle in an area where the geography will shield their language and culture from being displaced or assimilated, which means mountainous or highland regions. Are the Carpathians in Central Europe? Try settling your Altaic invaders there or any other suitable land.

Kalmyk Khanate in Balkan area would be interesting. Or Kalmyks enclaves in Eastern Europe and Balticum like OTL Muslim Tatar minorities with Bhuddism as their religion.
 
No, they would be genetically assimilated ina matter of a few generations, becoming virtually undistinguishable from other germans/slavs. Today there would be only history to remember the fact that the people that inhabit this specific central european territorry have a turkic descent.

Which is exactly what happened to the people living in the region we call today Hungary.
Wouldn't the Bulgars be a better example, as they actually were a Turkic group that got assimilated into another culture (Slavic, in this case)? The Magyars are Finno-Ugric, not Turkic, and probably not related to the Huns.
 
Change around on the Bulgars and Magyars end destination. In that case we would likely have a Slavic Magyaria bordering Turkey and a "Turkish" (not mutual intelligible with Anatolian Turkish) speaking Hungary.
 
Change around on the Bulgars and Magyars end destination. In that case we would likely have a Slavic Magyaria bordering Turkey and a "Turkish" (not mutual intelligible with Anatolian Turkish) speaking Hungary.
The Gagauz people in Moldavia are majority Christian European Turks.
 
Wouldn't the Bulgars be a better example, as they actually were a Turkic group that got assimilated into another culture (Slavic, in this case)? The Magyars are Finno-Ugric, not Turkic, and probably not related to the Huns.

Aren't Magyars central asians?
 
More of a Cuman migration and some Mongol devastation of Romania could allow for a decent sized Cuman population in Europe, and they could've gained independence at some point.

Kalmyks definitely could have done it at some point.

Mongols destroying Hungary more thoroughly might've resulted in a Tatar Hungary.
 
Many turkic peoples invaded europe in the past, the avars, the huns, the cumanians, etc.
It's highly debatable that Huns or Avars being Turkic people in first place, especially for Avars. Now, a part of Hunnic elite, at least, probably spoke a Turkic or Turkic-related speech, but they were importantly sarmatized and germanised by the Vth century, that you'd have something along what happen to Bulgaria and ending with iranized-germanized-romanized Hunnic ensemble.
Something quite similar happened to Avars, their confederation being more and more slavicized with time.

For what matter the Early Middle-Ages, the idea of Turkic empires in Central Europe is more a Turanist fantasy than anything else : we're talking (super-)complex chiefdoms with a limited "ethic" elite which was particularily culturally pervasive to their subordinated peoples.

Could any of them succesfully settle somewhere in central europe and became the majority of the population in the area?
The problem is that Turko-Mongol way-of-life did required the existence of large grazing and pastoral grounds : while Pannonian Plain isn't adverse at all to this, its geographical and climatic features prevent this to be systematized on a large scale. For all it's worth, it was not as adapted as it's commonly tought to a steppe way-of-life.

I do think that a mongolized Cumanic-Hungarian culture could arise from a deeper Mongol advance in Europe in the 1240's,
but I don't think we'd end up with some western Tatarstan easily : rather, I'd see a multi-ethnic puzzle in the Pannonian plains (or rather, foothills, due to conservative features) of more or less mongolized/tatarised population, as you had in the Caucasian foothills.
 
Change around on the Bulgars and Magyars end destination. In that case we would likely have a Slavic Magyaria bordering Turkey and a "Turkish" (not mutual intelligible with Anatolian Turkish) speaking Hungary.
The slavicization of Bulgars isn't really that tied to their destination (altough the underpopulated Pannonian Plain certainly favoured Maygar linguistical survival, then Magyarisation of surrounding lands in late Middle-Ages), than the nature of steppe confederacies : Bulgar power came from the subordination of slavic or slavicized peoples that went to form the bulk of their power even before they left Pontic steppes (arguably, it only went deeper when going for Danubian region).

Magyars, on the other hand, were less treating with slavic or slavicized elements, and more with Turkic and Finnic peoples before entering in Pannonian Plain.

It should be remembered, eventually, that Bulgars differenciated themselves earlier than Magyars, and went to form their confederacy earlier than Magyars entered Europe as such. It's not as much "changing end destinations" as it was a set plan, but at best preventing Bulgarian autonomisation out of Gokturks. Of course, that would mean slavicized Maygar, less because of their destination (altough it would have been relevant) but from their emancipation in first place.

Aren't Magyars central asians?
They appeared as a people in the Pontic steppe and Uralian foothills : not that there was any kind ofstrong differenciation with Central Asia, but the presence of slavicized, finnized, etc. peoples was, for obvious reasons, more of a thing west of Caspian Sea.

And, as said above, Bulgars being a Turkic people originally doesn't mean they appeared as such in Central Asia, but rather from emancipating themselves out of Gokturk ensemble, forming an ensemble including Turks, Finns, Slavs, whatever remained of Iranic and Caucasian peoples in the region.
 

Deleted member 97083

Actually, I think 75% of Hungary's genetic material comes from the Mygar group, so they are only culturally assimilated not genetically assimilated. Although, I'm not sure how the molecular DNA works that way, I mean sure if a person has 7 great grand-parents from the same group he's 7/8 of that group, but how do you do that analysis on a whole population? For the OP's request, just have the Ottomans win at Vienna, have the Reformation stronger but less unnited(so even MORE Protastant vs Protastant and catholic vs Protastant fighting) and once the turks are in charge, a few forced conversions (to prevent future religious disunity) and the differential of birthrates of the Turks and Europeans make Gukpard's world a reality.
Hungarians have a 4.4% admixture of genetic legacy from migrations of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE.
 
Top