Is the "Billiard-Ball" Theory of Barbarian Migrations Essentially Correct?

Is the "Billiard-Ball" theory of the barbarian migrations of Antiquity essentially correct? This rather simplistically states that movements of barbarian tribes westwards along the Eurasian Steppe were primarily caused by other barbarian groups caroming into them, billiard-ball like, from the east. Can this be extended to its logical conclusion that, if the Xiongnu had defeated the Han in the late first and early second centuries and poured into China, the migrating barbarian tribes of the 3rd-5th centuries, such as the Goths and Huns, would not have reached the Mediterranean?
 
I think it's not the only cause of barbarian migrations, but there are many definite cases of it: the Goths in the 4th century, the Lombards in the 6th century. I believe there are some known cases among American Indians: the Sioux were originally eastern woodland Indians driven out to the Great Plains by IIRC the Iroquois.
 
As Anarch has pointed out, the billiard ball theory describes some events well and others not, there is certainly not just one factor, but such avalanches of migration do indeed sometimes happen.

It is also unclear whether the Xiongnu really were at the beginning of the avalanche which reached the Danube in the 370s. Maybe it was the Sassanid Empire`s attempt to bring Transoxania under their control which destabilised the power balance? Maybe it was climatic change in Central Asia? Maybe it was all the aftermath of dislocations caused by the Tokharians / Kushana?

Also, one explanation is that there wasn`t really much of an avalanche in the late 4th century and it was all just different groups in the Pontic space all being attracted by the wealth and weakness of the Roman Empire. YOu know, when the Goths arrived in the 3rd century, they replaced Dacian groups like the Carpi as the Roman border nusiance no. 1. The Goths formed quite a large realm based on what they could get off of their "relations" with the Romans. Around 370, the Huns and Alans were already living in the Eastern Pontic space, and they were directly concerned by expanding Gothic influence. Maybe it all began as an anti-Gothic revolt? Or as an attempt by Hunnic groups to imitate what the Goths had done?
 
I'm personally more a fan of the magnet theory than the billard ball. Specifically that wealth and opportunity tended to radiate out from the civilsed regions bordering the Eurasian Steppe which attracted steppe groups in the inner Eurasian Steppe to attempt migrations which sometimes worked and sometimes didn't.
 

jahenders

Banned
I'm personally more a fan of the magnet theory than the billard ball. Specifically that wealth and opportunity tended to radiate out from the civilsed regions bordering the Eurasian Steppe which attracted steppe groups in the inner Eurasian Steppe to attempt migrations which sometimes worked and sometimes didn't.

I tend to agree -- there's a push-pull effect there. In some cases barbarian migrations might have been prompted by other migrations pushing against them. However, in a lot of cases, it was that they sensed weakness (and wealth) in the areas they migrated TO.

Imagine you're barbarian tribe X. You're being pushed by barbarian tribes Y and Z to your East, but you have strong established nations to your West and South. You're not likely to decide, "Hey, Y and Z are causing us trouble, so let's take on the powerhouse to our South." Instead, you'll probably say, "We'll either push North or just do our best to hold here."

However, if the nation to your South has been weak and irresolute, and is showing some signs of chaos, you're going to decide to push South.

So, it's kind of a path of least resistance kind of thing.
 
the Sioux were originally eastern woodland Indians driven out to the Great Plains by IIRC the Iroquois.

The Ojibwa, actually, not the Iroquois. It was a nasty war, and the Ojibwa reached as far as northern North Dakota before stopping (the Turtle Mountain reservation is, I believe, the most westernly Ojibwa reservation in Canada and the United States). Fascinating conflict; the Anishinaabe are a really interesting, but largely overlooked, tribal confederation.
 
I think it's not the only cause of barbarian migrations, but there are many definite cases of it: the Goths in the 4th century, the Lombards in the 6th century. I believe there are some known cases among American Indians: the Sioux were originally eastern woodland Indians driven out to the Great Plains by IIRC the Iroquois.

When did that happen? I had the Sioux/Dakota/Lakota/Nakota settled in the usual place in my Chaos TL, which has a PoD in 1200 (though it takes some time until the changes spread to the Americas), so I would've made a big mistake.
 
When did that happen? I had the Sioux/Dakota/Lakota/Nakota settled in the usual place in my Chaos TL, which has a PoD in 1200 (though it takes some time until the changes spread to the Americas), so I would've made a big mistake.

In the 1600s, I believe. The Anishinaabe were pushing into the region had better relations (and weapons) from the French .
 
Using the American Indian example as mentioned above, you can definitely see cases where that happened OTL, although the "barbarian" groups of Europe were of course very different culturally, technologically, etc. So I wouldn't see any reason to doubt that the "billiard-ball" theory exists to some extent or another.

When did that happen? I had the Sioux/Dakota/Lakota/Nakota settled in the usual place in my Chaos TL, which has a PoD in 1200 (though it takes some time until the changes spread to the Americas), so I would've made a big mistake.

Yeah, it's really best to check the tribal history of each individual group to see where they might be in an ATL, because odds are, they aren't where you think they should be, if they even exist.
 
Top