Maximally Successful Hungarian Invasion of Europe

[Mr_Fanboy]

I have always found it interesting that the early Hungarian migrations of the ninth and tenth century have never been the subject of much alternate history discussion aside from speculation as to where they could have ultimately settled aside from Pannonia. After all, they were able to raid much of Europe during this time, striking in lands as far west as Al-Andalus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe

Now, there is obviously a huge difference between successfully raiding an area and successfully conquering an area, but therein lies my question: assuming that they had rolled all sixes in the course of their invasions, how big of an impact could the Hungarians plausibly have had? Could they have done to Europe what the Mongols had done to China? Could a Hungarian conqueror have taken Constantinople or Rome and declared himself the new Roman Emperor? How much territory could they have physically conquered and held at one time, and what would have been the long-term ramifications of that?

 

[alexmilman]

I have always found it interesting that the early Hungarian migrations of the ninth and tenth century have never been the subject of much alternate history discussion aside from speculation as to where they could have ultimately settled aside from Pannonia. After all, they were able to raid much of Europe during this time, striking in lands as far west as Al-Andalus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe

Now, there is obviously a huge difference between successfully raiding an area and successfully conquering an area, but therein lies my question: assuming that they had rolled all sixes in the course of their invasions, how big of an impact could the Hungarians plausibly have had? Could they have done to Europe what the Mongols had done to China? Could a Hungarian conqueror have taken Constantinople or Rome and declared himself the new Roman Emperor? How much territory could they have physically conquered and held at one time, and what would have been the long-term ramifications of that?

The Magyars of that time were not the Mongols of Genghis’ time. They were, IIRC, still more or less a confederation of the tribes and not a centralized state like one created by Genghis. They were light nomadic horse archers, not an extremely well organized cavalry army (*) with both light and armored troops. It took a while but as soon as they were forced to fight a pitched battle against the armored troops they were doomed. Compare this with Liegnitz and Mohi.

In the “optimistic” scenario the Magyars could do more looting than in OTL but they hardly could conquer and hold a noticeable territory outside Hungary even if just because Hungarian Plain is the Western end of the Great Steppe and they were nomads. If they were stronger, they could conquer the steppes territories to the East by beating the nomads who lived there.

(*) Army that was much more “modern” than it’s european opponents in the terms of general organization, discipline, training of the troops, diversity of tactics, logistics, military intelligence and communications (**)

(**) In the last two areas they were well ahead of even Napoleonic armies. Communications between the French units separated by few miles were routinely screwed up and more then once Nappy simply could not reach his corps commanders or had no clue were they are marching. Information about the enemy was quite often on the same level (at Jena Nappy confused the main and auxiliary Prussian armies, after taking Moscow his cavalry could not find the whole Russian army for weeks, etc.). OTOH, during the Western Campaign Subotai was controlling and coordinating the armies on a front hundreds miles wide and got information about the battle of Liegnitz within 3 days. And the earlier campaigns in China, Central Asia and Rus demonstrated that this was a rule rather than exception.

 

[RGB]

In the “optimistic” scenario the Magyars could do more looting than in OTL but they hardly could conquer and hold a noticeable territory outside Hungary even if just because Hungarian Plain is the Western end of the Great Steppe and they were nomads. If they were stronger, they could conquer the steppes territories to the East by beating the nomads who lived there.

This is the most important point and while scenario-killing (and no fun to the OP), it should be restated in the interests of plausibility. If the Magyars were notably stronger than they were, they wouldn't be pushed into Hungary but instead defeat the pressure from the east and north (by the Pechenegs most notably) and stay in Levedia/Etelkoz on wider grassland. On the other hand, seasonal western nomads have a history of being pushed west by people from the east, so that wouldn't be indefinite unless they settled and became a mixed-economy state with the Slavic population earlier.

I guess one way to make the Magyars stronger while still having them in Hungary is to have more recent tribal arrivals join them in confederation (like the Kabars did and the Pechenegs and Cumans did later) but that quickly runs into the problem of not enough pasture and political fragmentation.

 

[alexmilman]

This is the most important point and while scenario-killing (and no fun to the OP), it should be restated in the interests of plausibility. If the Magyars were notably stronger than they were, they wouldn't be pushed into Hungary but instead defeat the pressure from the east and north (by the Pechenegs most notably) and stay in Levedia/Etelkoz on wider grassland. On the other hand, seasonal western nomads have a history of being pushed west by people from the east, so that wouldn't be indefinite unless they settled and became a mixed-economy state with the Slavic population earlier.

I guess one way to make the Magyars stronger while still having them in Hungary is to have more recent tribal arrivals join them in confederation (like the Kabars did and the Pechenegs and Cumans did later) but that quickly runs into the problem of not enough pasture and political fragmentation.

Indeed. The only reasonable way out is for them to start soon after the arrival developing a semi-sedentary culture which would allow them to minimize dependency upon the steppe, to have a heavy cavalry (*) and to switch from the looting raids to expansion which eventually happened in Hungary but too late for a serious expansion westward.

(*) I’m not saying that the nomads in general did not have an armored cavalry, just that the Magyars at the time in question did not.

 

[Tirion]

Otto the Great dieing early would probably result in the HRE not happening. Or not happening the way it did OTL. After all, an early conversion of the Magyars to Catholicism and papal backing could lead to less looting and more conquest oriented Hungary, with less Western pushback.

 

[Marko]

Based from what is discussed in Hungarian historiographic circles their defeat by Otto was in a way a gift that allowed them to slow down and become a proper sedentary population with the ability to absorb incomers rather then the be swept away by either new arrivals from the east or organised "reconquista" by emerging Bohemia, Poland, Croatia or even revitalised Bavaria.

Considering their strength Magyar confederation already took over an area much larger than what their numbers suggest should have been possible which indicates there were some factors in what happened OTL that are still hidden to us both in fields of history and archaeology.

 

[Byzantion]

I have always found it interesting that the early Hungarian migrations of the ninth and tenth century have never been the subject of much alternate history discussion aside from speculation as to where they could have ultimately settled aside from Pannonia. After all, they were able to raid much of Europe during this time, striking in lands as far west as Al-Andalus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_invasions_of_Europe

Now, there is obviously a huge difference between successfully raiding an area and successfully conquering an area, but therein lies my question: assuming that they had rolled all sixes in the course of their invasions, how big of an impact could the Hungarians plausibly have had? Could they have done to Europe what the Mongols had done to China? Could a Hungarian conqueror have taken Constantinople or Rome and declared himself the new Roman Emperor? How much territory could they have physically conquered and held at one time, and what would have been the long-term ramifications of that?

What if the Magyars had come in contact with Islam during their time of raiding?

 

[Tirion]

What if the Magyars had come in contact with Islam during their time of raiding?

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of wine and pálinka fans cried out in terror and were silenced.

Seriously though, they were vassals of Jewish Khazaria within living memory, and Muslim traders made their way all the way to Scandinavia. Pretty sure the Magyars have heard of Islam but it was a religion shared with very distant powers. The choices for a power based in the Carpathian Basin in the 900s were Catholicism, Orthodoxy or barring divine intervention, being Deus Vulted to extinction.

 

[Carp]

The Magyars were usually unable to take walled cities and other fortified places; despite running roughshod over Italy for decades, only rarely was a major city actually taken and sacked (most notably Pavia in 924, in the midst of a civil war). Only very late did the Magyars even attempt siegecraft. Indeed, the Magyar army at the Battle of Lechfeld was unusual in that it was reported to have included a large number of infantry (possibly subject Slavs?) as well as siege weapons, by which the Magyars hoped to pose enough of a threat to Augsburg to force Otto to take the field against them. Such combined arms had not been necessary or desirable before, as plenty of wealth could be gained in the countryside and undoubtedly infantry levies and siege trains would have dangerously slowed the notoriously nimble Magyar cavalry raiders.

Certainly the Magyars could have raided for longer or taken marginally more territory given the right circumstances (most notably a weaker Germany). I can certainly see the border between Hungary and the German marches falling elsewhere. But the conquest of entire settled nations seems to have been beyond them. The Magyar army at Lechfeld may have been capable of taking a walled city by force - we'll never know - but by that time Magyar power was clearly on the wane, and lasting conquest was not in the cards even if Otto had lost and Augsburg had fallen.

What if the Magyars had come in contact with Islam during their time of raiding?

They did. There Muslims in Pannonia in the 10th century (the Böszörmény), mostly traders. They were noted by Al-Masudi (died 956) who also claimed that they had converted some Magyars to Islam. This did not go anywhere, however - mass conversion to Islam would not have been tenable for the Magyars given their geographic and political situation.

 

[Deleted member 114175]

It would be vaguely possible and ironic to have Hungary established in the general area of Vienna with control over eastern Austria, and over time expand into the area of Austria-Hungary.

 

[Marko]

It would be vaguely possible and ironic to have Hungary established in the general area of Vienna with control over eastern Austria, and over time expand into the area of Austria-Hungary.

Early archaeological finds actually do put the majority of early Magyar settlement in the region between Vienna and the Danube bend with more scattered settlement in between Danube and Tizsa, as well as a population concentration in Alfeld.

It would take until 11th century before we see a solid emergence of a new cultural expression in transdanubia and lower pannonia which indicated a higher level of integration of various populations of he carpathian basin which also coincides with the actual emergence of Hungary as a medieval christian kingdom on the world stage.