Eastern Europe without the Slavs?

I understand that it's impossible to tell what Eastern Europe would look like without the Slavs, since they shaped it so much and history would be almost unrecogonizable without them - but that's not what I'm asking. What I am asking, is what ethnic groups would be present in Eastern Europe if the Slavic tribes hadn't shown up during the Migration period, and where they would most likely be?

I would assume that the Baltics might maintain a larger native area, as well as probably the Uralic peoples in general and the Finno-Ugric peoples in particular. Otherwise I could possibly see more Germanic/Gothic peoples, more Bulgars, Magyars, Tartars... generally I would imagine that the other ethnic groups present in the region would be more prolific than in OTL.

I wonder which would be the largest?
 
Last edited:
Before the Slavic migrations, the primary ethnic group in Eastern Europe (by that, I mean the Eastern Eastern Europe, think: East European Plain) were the Balts.

If the Slavs never branch off from the Baltic group (that is, if one believes in Toporov's theory on Slavic origin), then most of the Baltic States, Belarus, Russia up to Moscow, northern Ukraine and maybe even most of Poland would most likely be Baltic. Finno-Ugric tribes would obviously hold much more territory across northern Europe, but I can't say much about Central Europe and how it would be shaped, unless Balts pull a Slavic migration and colonize those lands as well (not very likely, but I made a thread about it here)
 
I guarantee that at least one of the so-called "Paleo-Balkan" languages aside from Albanian might well survive into the modern age. But overall, the Balkans will be much more Romance and Greek speaking.

Most of the rest of Eastern Europe I'd assume would end up divided up between Germanic, Baltic, and Uralic speaking realms. But who's going to migrate into the void left by the Germanic-speaking peoples along the Vistula? The Balts? People migrating back?
 
For this, do we consider South Slavs as being Slavic? Linguistically at least. As for there being no Slavs in Eastern Europe... I would say there will still be many simila tries, though perhaps a bit less unity.
 
I don't understand the point ot this thread.

Slavs originated from eastern Europe. Their supposed area of origin is the area between the Pripiet and the Dniepr.

So what would make sense is : what if the slavs did not migrate to central Europe and south-eastern Europe ?

Well, germanic colonization of central Europe might have been a bit faster and gone a bit further. And you would have a more important area remaining illyrian in what once was Yougoslavia, the albanese being kind of heirs of the illyrians.
 
theory on Slavic origin
That's the weakest point of all speculations of that sort. There's no consensus on Slavic origin.
And there is no certainty that we have correlation between archaeological cultures and their languages. Which makes it even more difficult.
 

Vuru

Banned
Depends on what theory of Slavic origin you accept

Either the mainstream one of Slavs mysteriously appearing in the Belarus/Poland/Ukraine area, possibly splitting off from Sarmatians, or the less known and popular abroad but fairly known here, that Slavs originated from the Balkans instead
 
Top