Hun ancestors turn south, no Huns in Europe Or no split of the Empire

What if the ancestors of the Huns had decided to turn south into the middle east or India? No Huns in Europe would have meant a stronger Eastern Roman empire and perhaps someone similar to Constantine the great would reunite the divided empire not necessarily through military might but through political maneuvering and such?

I assume that the mass amounts of German refugees would have been handled better and Britain might have been able to hold out longer, maybe even hire German mercenaries and support/transport them to Scotland/Ireland to fight off the barbarians and make it their own land while being allies for Rome?

Probably not but it's interesting to think what could happen if the Huns never came.

Another thing is if the empire was never split in two, would it fall sooner or fall much later? It seems to me sooner at least if you count the Byzantine Empire as the ERE but it would last longer than the WRE. If both scenarios were combined who knows what would happen but it would be nice to discuss this with people, I may even make a TL for it in the near future if I can get enough conversation for it going.
 
If the Huns turn south into the Middle East (and some did IOTL) the the German migrations would probably still happen due to the Huns initial westward movement but there would be changes due to less pressure. Whether the Huns would have the same effect on Persia and the ERE as they did on the WRE I'll leave to those more knowledgeable than myself.
If they turned into India then the butterflies and knock ons are unquantifiable. However how would they get over the Himalayas?
 
The White Huns did just that. While there's plenty of academic debate over whether or not they were the same ethnic group (and personally I lean towards no) they'd be one of many central asian nomadic peoples competing for limited space.

Obviously the Huns wouldn't go through the Himalayas, they'd probably try to force the Khyber like so many other invading peoples in history. They'd run into many other nomadic groups along the way, causing a cascade of said peoples. However, this is near the height of the Gupta Empire - while it would be an appealing target, there's no indication that they'd be able to defeat the Gupta.

Rather it's most likely the Huns and the avalanche of various nomadic groups they've caused would turn west and attack the Sassanids, who depending on the era might well pose an easier target. Mostly likely, it harms both parties.

If you're talking about the Huns crossing through Armenia, they did that OTL to attack the ERE and Sassanids. If they did it to a greater extent, that could be the basis for a very interesting timeline. ;)
 
If the Huns turn south into the Middle East (and some did IOTL) the the German migrations would probably still happen due to the Huns initial westward movement but there would be changes due to less pressure. Whether the Huns would have the same effect on Persia and the ERE as they did on the WRE I'll leave to those more knowledgeable than myself.
If they turned into India then the butterflies and knock ons are unquantifiable. However how would they get over the Himalayas?

Well they could have entered through Armenia, but after seeing these posts I think they would eventually settle around the Aral and Caspian Sea and eventually work their way through Persia the same way they did Rome and maybe even go eastward along the Indian Ocean coast or go south to Arabia or the more plausible notion of them trying to take and settle Mesopotamia and maybe get into fights with Rome from there but with land in their possession would not be too desperate to take it and could accept defeat and still not be homeless.
 
The White Huns did just that. While there's plenty of academic debate over whether or not they were the same ethnic group (and personally I lean towards no) they'd be one of many central asian nomadic peoples competing for limited space.

Obviously the Huns wouldn't go through the Himalayas, they'd probably try to force the Khyber like so many other invading peoples in history. They'd run into many other nomadic groups along the way, causing a cascade of said peoples. However, this is near the height of the Gupta Empire - while it would be an appealing target, there's no indication that they'd be able to defeat the Gupta.

Rather it's most likely the Huns and the avalanche of various nomadic groups they've caused would turn west and attack the Sassanids, who depending on the era might well pose an easier target. Mostly likely, it harms both parties.

If you're talking about the Huns crossing through Armenia, they did that OTL to attack the ERE and Sassanids. If they did it to a greater extent, that could be the basis for a very interesting timeline. ;)

Well if it's like you said where it would cause an avalanche the Gupta would likely end up like Rome with a chunk of it's territory gone and with other nomadic groups coming from many directions they could very well be pushed out of the Northern Indian Subcontinent, although instead of going west would it not be possible they would attempt to go east into the foothills of the Himalayas and southeast Asia? At the time there was a lot less development in that region so not too much Organized resistance it would seem to me, at least along the coastline a Nomadic people like the Huns would Thrive, not too educated on the subject so to people that are this probably sounds stupid but I think it would be plausible to see a "Hunnic Empire" that stretches from Persia to Southeast Asia like a Mongol Empire but further to the south.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
I don't know anything about the Subcontinent in this era, but as for Rome, there would very likely be a great weakening if not collapse in the West with Germanic migrations. Incursions by Saxons and Alamans into Roman territory were increasing in frequency before the Huns showed up, and the Goths might decide to seize upon any perceived weaknesses and hit places in the Balkans. Not to mention climate change basically guaranteed some sort of migration from Northern Germany and Denmark in the 5th century.

The real question to ask is can the Vandals take Africa without the Huns creating a larger distraction. I'd lean no for this. If Aetius and his predecessors didn't have to focus on the Huns or a larger migration of Germans, the Vandals wouldn't have been able to do their sneaky and lucky flight from Spain that took them to Carthage. Another point is the East possibly more troops to hel the West retake Africa if the Huns are instead attacking Persia. If Africa can stay Roman, the Empire will be able to feed Italy and pay its troops- leading to at least a delayed demise.

The reason I lean towards a slightly longer lasting Empire instead going all out for it is butterflies. Namely, Aetius and his career path. Aetius spent quite a bit of time with the Huns and used a band of them to seize power. Not to overdo the great man theory, but Aetius was an incredible leader, great general and definitely gave the Empire another decade at least. Also, different troop movements in Spain leading to a more thorough destruction of the Vandals and Alans (hell, the Alans might not be a factor without the Huns) or the raids into Gaul being less devastating are possibilities to change the situation in a sans-Huns west.
 
There are more rancdom events than people care to admit when discussing the fall of Rome.

For example, the Rhine froze, allowing far more Barbarians to cross over than they could do on boats and the Romans could deal with (besides making them want to go south harder in the first place). Granted, that might happen in any TL because it is a climate thing (well, unless the POD is that it doesn't happen).

The only reason Barbarians took Spain was because the Romans were warring each other and the one that set shop in Arles took the Pyrenean garrisons to defend his capital from rivals in Italy. Different events = Butterflies = People involved = Choices.

Adrianople came to a bad decission by Valens. Had he changed his mind and waited for the Western Roman troops, he might have won. Had the Goths not been pressured south by the Huns, even if they came at a later point, they'd have to deal with a different person (even if it was still Valens, people don't behave the same every single day of their lives).

I'm sure there are many others.
 
No Huns in Europe would have meant a stronger Eastern Roman empire and perhaps someone similar to Constantine the great would reunite the divided empire not necessarily through military might but through political maneuvering and such?
First, Huns didn't formed ONE people in the IVth century : the raids of 375 and the raids of 400 were driven by different groups and different chiefs. You'd need to make all of these groups somehow turn to India, which was far from their core regions, insted of the closer, better known Romania.

You'll argue that you said "ancestors of the Huns". Thing is, Huns are likely the result of a mix of different peoples : Sarmatians, Germans, Proto-Slavs, Turkic. Even by removing of of the components, you still let many "ancestors" : Huns, as a people, are originating from the Ukrainian steppe.
Everything else is not Hunnic by itself, and probably wouldn't change macrohistory by running away.

That said, you could end with different people running away instead of just one.

A wave of migrations is more or less bound to happen, even if details can vary : climatical changes, infighting between borders' peoples, increased raiding, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a pressure onto European steppe peoples (Alans, Greuthungii, Herulii, etc.) except this time not by an Hunnic hegemony, but by different peoples which would make Roman policies less efficient and more costly (especially on tributes)

It could mean a WEAKER Roman Empire, at least in the west : indeed, Romans used Huns as mercenaries since the beggining of the IVth century, being short on troops (that existed, but focused on the Danube) and in need to keep Barbarians at bay (see Aetius policy and strategy at Chalons)

Romans could attempt that with the different peoples replacing Huns, but being less gathered, it would be more costly to adress different peoples to counter-attack more peoples. Strategically, it would be problematic.

I assume that the mass amounts of German refugees would have been handled better
You didn't have "mass ammounts" : if Barbarians represented 5% of the overall population, that would be the max.
The problem wasn't numbers, it was having to deal with militarized peoples all along the borders, moving in groups and in different places while ressources were relatively short.

Eventually, the main problem wasn't much the creation of foedi (that could have lasted with a surviving Roman Empire), but the lack of ressources due to the loss of rich provinces as Africa, that ERE didn't have to deal with.

Another thing is if the empire was never split in two
The Empire already was before the late IVth century : Theodosius' hegemon was extremely short-lived, and Romania knew several periods of more or less agreed splits in two or three.
At this point, Romania is politically and administratively split, with or without Huns.
 
The only reason Barbarians took Spain was because the Romans were warring each other and the one that set shop in Arles took the Pyrenean garrisons to defend his capital from rivals in Italy.
Even without Constantine going in Arles and chasing Chrocus, it's likely they would have been repelled by someone else. It was too important strategically and politically for Rome to keep this part of Narbonensis Barbarian-Free.

Furthermore, remember we were talking of quite moving groups. I doubt they would have remained in Provence long (they merely remained there an handful of months IOTL), and would have switched for other regions : either Spain as IOTL due to its wealth, either Aquitania if a foedus was agreed on.

Adrianople came to a bad decission by Valens.
Actually no. It was outside its decision. As I tried to point there, it was his troops that attacked on their own, while Valens was probably favouring a settlement.
He's partially responsible as he didn't really well organised his army, granted.

Not that Adrianople was that of a decisive, strategically speaking, battle.
gle day of their lives).

I'm sure there are many others.
There's certainly points that would have changed, sure. But you're focusing on these points, and not on the general situation.
Whatever Rhine or Adrianople, these didn't have the importance historiography and history-battle made out of it : in both cases, Romania managed the situation eventually at its profit.

The problem was this kind of situation became more current, and less managable due to the cost involved. Butterfly effect won't cover structural issues just because.
 
Top