Huns or some other people from the Asian steppes arrive in Europe in the 3.century AD

So the scenario is this: The Huns (or possibly another similar group of people from the Asian steppes) arrive in Europe in the 3.century AD. This was a time when the Roman Empire was unstable. What would be the worst time for the Roman Empire to see them coming. I would assume that similar to OTL also in this scenario they would push other people in front of them. How would the Roman Empire handle this? Of course the answer to the last question depends on exactly when they arrived. So here the question of what would be the worst time, is relevant.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by a similar people on the steppe exactly, though? There were steppe nomads like the Alans and Sarmatians in the area long before the Huns, who'd have to be migrating a hundred years earlier or at least a lot quicker to fit the requirement here. In any case, the Goths that moved out onto the steppes out east apparently did push against Rome during the Third Century Crisis and hurt them pretty bad, what with killing an emperor and sacking a lot of places and all that jazz.
 
What do you mean by a similar people on the steppe exactly, though? There were steppe nomads like the Alans and Sarmatians in the area long before the Huns, who'd have to be migrating a hundred years earlier or at least a lot quicker to fit the requirement here. In any case, the Goths that moved out onto the steppes out east apparently did push against Rome during the Third Century Crisis and hurt them pretty bad, what with killing an emperor and sacking a lot of places and all that jazz.

That is why I mentioned the Asian steppe. The Sarmatians would probably be among the people that would be pushed in front of the invaders. As far as I understand, the Huns are probably the same people that were called Xiongnu, or at maybe a subgroup among them, and the Xiongnu had been around since BC. So the invaders might be the Huns, or some similar group. The invaders might affect the Roman Empire both indirectly, by pushing other groups in front of them, and ecentually, by themselves pushing against the Roman borders. So the main question is how Rome would cope with this in comparison with OTL? It is some time since I read the details of 3. century Roman Empire, so maybe someone could help me suggest what would be the worst time during this century for Rome to face such a threat?
 
The Huns (or possibly another similar group of people from the Asian steppes) arrive in Europe in the 3.century AD.
Huns probably weren't formed as a people in the IIIrd century.

As far as I understand, the Huns are probably the same people that were called Xiongnu
Not exactly : they might be issued from Xiongnu, but their ethnogenesis as a distinct people went after mixing up with Iranic, Turkic and Proto-Slavic elements.

A bit like XXIth century Americans aren't XVIIth century English, but you can still point a continuity.

Note that Sarmatians were coming from Western Asian steppe as well than Eastern Europeans : Ural never was a border for anyone then. Making the distinction is a bit...well, moot.
Now, giving that Hunnic migrations may have been blostered partially by climatic changes (droughts, apparently), and that you can just make these happening randomly, you'd need geopolitical changes.

Maybe Xanbei forming a khaganate, with weaker Chinese states, propelling Tiele and therefore Proto-Huns (that lived among Sarmatians at this point*, so apparently it won't fit with your OP, but admittedly there's few odds it would be avoided by the IIIrd century).

Basically a stronger Sarmatian-German pressure on the Danube, which may not be that world-shattering, to be honest. Rome managed to deal with that, and giving the situation, I doubt that whichever people would be in charge, if they even change (although you may always bet on Proto-Huns, peoples issued from Tiele, etc.), could really modify widely the geopolitical situation.

It may even proove being a stabilizing factor, as Huns were in their time as making more immediatly agressive peoples entering in their clientele (while it may backfire, while a stronger Romania after the Crisis would be harder to deal with than during the Vth century).

*Even Late Antiquity Huns were pretty much Sarmatized, at the contrary of the Mongol-like depiction you still have from time to time
 
Didn't the Goths who settled the eastern steppes and drove back the Sarmatians manage to kill an emperor during the Crisis? If there were an even more powerful, and more driven, confederation in their place I think they could make themselves even more of a hindrance, to say the least.
 
Didn't the Goths who settled the eastern steppes and drove back the Sarmatians

Goths didn't exactly driven back Sarmatians, but emerged as a people out of Sarmatian continuity. If something, at this point, they were pretty much sarmatized, with the inclusion of Sarmatians (as well Dacian and Romans) elements.

manage to kill an emperor during the Crisis?
But not to existentially threaten Romania : their raids were a real problem, but never went the way to break the empire by themselves. Be careful to not confuse IIIrd Goths, that were just appearing as a distinct people, and Vth century Goths, much more structured and "forged" by two centuries of militarisation and romanisation.

If there were an even more powerful, and more driven, confederation in their place I think they could make themselves even more of a hindrance, to say the least.
Why would it be "on their place"? Goths were before integrated within Sarmatian continuities, and if they get distinct out of it, they can still be part of a tribal hegemony as it happened to them with Huns.

Whatever historical peoples or newcomers, they would come in really limited numbers : their strength would be on their ability to form domination out of what already existed.
Assuming newcomers don't get assimilated to what existed IOTL, trough defeat or sheer clientelisation, they won't be significantly more powerful than their historical counterparts.

They even, as Huns did in the early Vth century, be a stabilizing factor among bordering peoples, if they manage to form a new tribal confederation.
 
By the way, could anyone suggest a good book on the Goths? I am particularly interested in the formation of the Goths.
 
By the way, could anyone suggest a good book on the Goths? I am particularly interested in the formation of the Goths.

Peter Heather have a good reputation, usually. (His article in Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of the Ethnic Communities is quite good at least).
I'd suppose that Goths and Romans, 332-489 would be a good english-speaking source (I didn't read it myself, though. I know it essentially trough the author's reputation and being present in bibliographies) or Goths in the Fourth Century

I doubt Dumézil and Karanski are translated, but if they are, or if you read French...

(This is a good first introduction on the subject)
 
Last edited:
Top