How the Avars ended Antiquity

Only thing that can make Slavs not move south is a strong enemy that could block their advance. Highly unlikely to happen. If anyone can be strong enough to dominate Pannonia they will just recruit Slavs and hurl them at the enemies further south.
 
So what could prevent the Slavs from spreading South, and instead head northwest or something?

Not a lot. The rich south is always likely to attract invaders from the poor north (bit of an irony considering Europe's current situation) in this period. And the Slavs of the period don't seem to have had organised enough social structures for the Romans to be able to deal with large groupings and set up client kingdoms on their northern frontier.

As for Islam, I'm saying what if the Sassanids and Romans could resist their attacks long enough to make a counteroffensive and perhaps crush them?
We're probably not dealing with "Muslims" in this period- the term "Arab" is probably to be preferred when discussing that people before about the year 700. It's possible, but once the 602-628 war is over, the large Empires are always quite likely to be exhausted. It's not at all implausible that the Arab armies had a numerical advantage over the Romans during the conquest of Palestine and Syria, for example.
 
So what if Justinian was killed in the Nika riots and the Ostrogoths continued to prosper? Wouldn't that leave the Roman Balkans much stronger than OTL population/manpower/culture-wise?
 
So what if Justinian was killed in the Nika riots and the Ostrogoths continued to prosper? Wouldn't that leave the Roman Balkans much stronger than OTL population/manpower/culture-wise?

I'm doing a TL that has this as a POD (as an on/off project). Justinian's life or death doesn't mean a lot to the Roman Balkans. The northern region of the area had contracted already in the later fourth century to a region of hill forts, albeit one with a fairly active Roman population until the reigns of Phocas and Heraclius. No Gothic war won't directly impact upon the Balkans.
 
Also, "have antiquity go to shit" implies some kind of Mongol like destruction of all within the path of the Arabs.

Well, their arrival certainly shifted urbanization patterns very drastically and left ruins where cities used to be.

Of course they started re-urbanising brand new areas immediately after, so this is more like the Yuan than the Ilkhans.

Still, no rapid conquest of that size can be good for the settled civilisation.
 
I'm doing a TL that has this as a POD (as an on/off project). Justinian's life or death doesn't mean a lot to the Roman Balkans. The northern region of the area had contracted already in the later fourth century to a region of hill forts, albeit one with a fairly active Roman population until the reigns of Phocas and Heraclius. No Gothic war won't directly impact upon the Balkans.
Will you show this TL to us?
 
Well, their arrival certainly shifted urbanization patterns very drastically and left ruins where cities used to be.

Of course they started re-urbanising brand new areas immediately after, so this is more like the Yuan than the Ilkhans.

Still, no rapid conquest of that size can be good for the settled civilisation.

I would disagree. At least, I would disagree that it was worse than how say, the Saxons sent "ex-Roman Britain to shit", which didn't see a lot of re-urbanizing and such right away.

Replacing a civilization is not the same thing as destroying civilization in the broader sense than a specific polity and some specific cultural things.
 
Well, their arrival certainly shifted urbanization patterns very drastically and left ruins where cities used to be.

Of course they started re-urbanising brand new areas immediately after, so this is more like the Yuan than the Ilkhans.

Still, no rapid conquest of that size can be good for the settled civilisation.

In which areas were cities left in ruins? Besides Ctesiphon, I can think of none off the top of my head. The cities of Syria, Palestine and Egypt certainly continued to prosper under the Arabs.
 
In which areas were cities left in ruins? Besides Ctesiphon, I can think of none off the top of my head. The cities of Syria, Palestine and Egypt certainly continued to prosper under the Arabs.

Actually, much of Palestine went into really rapid decline following Arab conquest. Same as Tunisia.

On the other hand, they built up new centres relatively close by so the population most likely just shifted over. That said, the old cities really were abandoned, and I can't imagine the experience wasn't disruptive.
 
Actually, much of Palestine went into really rapid decline following Arab conquest. Same as Tunisia.

On the other hand, they built up new centres relatively close by so the population most likely just shifted over. That said, the old cities really were abandoned, and I can't imagine the experience wasn't disruptive.

More disruptive than the Long War?

I know that coastal Palestine cities didn't do so well, but I don't know enough on Palestine to go further.
 
More disruptive than the Long War?

Heh.

Good question. Since the conquest was shorter than the back-and-forth, probably not. Since the changes were more permanent, maybe yes. Depends on how you approach it.

Anyway...I am officially folding up the flag here. It was a passing remark and has nothing to do with Avars.
 
Hey Grouchio;

I think that you would find the story I've been working on at least interesting. And your feedback would be appreciated; it deals with and aspect of what's presented here. It's the one in my signature :cool:
 
Top