No Huns in Europe; Effects?

The Xiongnu are purported to be the core of the Huns that left the steppes north of China and absorbed fellow nomads on there trek to Europe Indo-Irania.

But what if never happen? Say the Han fall and the Turkic and Mongolian tribes fall upon China rather then the rest of Eurasia.

How does this effect the rest of the world, notalby the Roman and Persian Empires?
 
I beleive that at the time the Huns arrived at the Dneipr that the Goths were building there own kingdom in Dacia and the western Ukraine.

With no volkerwanderung might we see the Germanic and Gothic tribes begin settling down as they Romanize?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I beleive that at the time the Huns arrived at the Dneipr that the Goths were building there own kingdom in Dacia and the western Ukraine.

With no volkerwanderung might we see the Germanic and Gothic tribes begin settling down as they Romanize?

I doubt they would truely "Romanize", they would just creat more centralised states and conquer their weaker neighbour, it wouldn't surprise me if the Ostrogoth began to expand west a little later than the Hun did, which could result in migration period a few decades or a century later.
 

Thande

Donor
I've always thought this might be an interesting POD if you wanted to do a Turtledove-type analogous history, with China balkanising into many competing states and Europe staying united under one big decadent Roman Empire, basically the opposite of OTL.

Obviously, you'd need quite a lot of handwavium to get there, but...
 

Deleted member 1487

I think a situation where both Balkanize to a degree is more interesting, as it leads to the possibility of Europe having greater competition later on when the Chinese develop along a different path than historical. What happens to Japan then? Asia's Holland or England?
 
Couple of Thoughts on this

1) If there are no Huns to defeat Airmanreik (Eormanric), the the Goths aren't pushed against the Empire and the Romans never commit attrocities against the Goth refugees, there is therefore - No Battle of Adrianople. However, Valens doesn't die and continues his atrocities against the Goths in the Empire unchecked, eventually alienating the Goths and the Romans.

2) With no defeat at the Battle of Adrianople, Roman military doctrine continues to focus on infantry for another 50 - 75 years. In aother words, the legions remain infantry longer than OTL.

3) With no Huns, the Gothic Kingdom of 'Aum' will grow in strength, while the rulers will be more Romanized, it is likely that most of the peoples will not be, so the kingdoms will stay 'approximately Gothic'.

4) The strong Gothic lands will serve as a model for their still close West Germanic tribal cousins. In addition, without the Huns, the Gotterdamerung myths are not so central to the cultural mythos of the Germans, Christianity makes slower inroads into the North.

5) Vandalic Kingdom founded in Dacia, Visigoth Kingdom in parts of Bulgaria and Romania. The Visigoths never move against the empire in any number and remain in Eastern Europe. I am undecided whether the Langobards continue south into Italy, East into the kingdoms of the Goths, or west into Gaul or North Italy.

6) Since the Goths were Arian Christians, there would be increasing number of religious disputes between Romans and Goths. Dispite this, since the Roman mentality still doesn't see beyongd the empire, there would be no big wars.

7) Even without the Huns, the Western and Eastern Roman Empires continue to fall apart (Remember, the split predates the arrival of Huns).

8) the Western Empire, would stand longer, but Franks and other German tribes had already moved into Gaul, so there would have been a gradual germanization of the area.

9) Hispania is never invaded by the Visigoths and it gradually becomes more predominate in the affairs of the Western Empire, particularly if North Gaul is Germanized and Italy becomes the battle ground between the Eastern and Western Empire.

10) There would probably be a series of wars between the East and the West (picture Julian and Constantius for 100 years. These wars would be fought out primarily in the Balkans and along the Adriatic Coast, although it is possible that Italy itself might be invaded.

11) The Roman dynastic disputes would proably be fought out in a broad area between North Italy and Greece. These wars would eventually cause one emperor or another withdraw the legions from Britain, there would be some additional movement of German tribes into the area.

12) Without the huge death toll on the goths caused by the Huns, there would be many more of them, and their numbers would probably force many of the slavic tribes either into the West, or toward the East where they would be met by the Turkish tribes coming West.
 

Jomazi

Banned
Could this cause a "Russia" speaking a Germanic language, or was the Germanic peoples there too few?
 
Could this cause a "Russia" speaking a Germanic language, or was the Germanic peoples there too few?

I think both Russia and Poland would be still be Slavic. But with more powerful Germanic tribes to the West and South, I wonder how the Turks would be impacted, particularly if the Southern Slavic tribes are pushed along the Gothic border to the East.
 
Its a fine balance - without the Huns there isn't the mass migration of peoples out of North Black/Caspian area into central Europe... but you also don't have the Hunnic mercenaries that helped Aetius to defeat the Burgundians, Lombards, Goths, etc who did make it into Gaul.

My opinion would fall onto the slow-romanization (read: civilization) of the germanic tribes in place, in north Central and North Eastern Europe. Perhaps not out-right citizenship and annexation, but conversion to urban living and greater mercantile trade, established governance the norm. Without the pressure of large groups pushing at the borders during the periodic dynastic struggles of the Western Empire (10 years of no central government while tribes are roaming the country-side did no good in the 420's) the bouts of internal strife mixed with calm could continue much longer in the West.
 
Its a fine balance - without the Huns there isn't the mass migration of peoples out of North Black/Caspian area into central Europe... but you also don't have the Hunnic mercenaries that helped Aetius to defeat the Burgundians, Lombards, Goths, etc who did make it into Gaul.

My opinion would fall onto the slow-romanization (read: civilization) of the germanic tribes in place, in north Central and North Eastern Europe. Perhaps not out-right citizenship and annexation, but conversion to urban living and greater mercantile trade, established governance the norm. Without the pressure of large groups pushing at the borders during the periodic dynastic struggles of the Western Empire (10 years of no central government while tribes are roaming the country-side did no good in the 420's) the bouts of internal strife mixed with calm could continue much longer in the West.

Could be, but consider that the Persians were pressing Rome pretty hard during this time period and Rome was already abandoning provinces to the Barbarians.

I think you also have to take into account that there is some thought that Rome fell apart more because of its own internal issues than because of anything the Goths or Huns did to it.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Will the lack of Germanic invasion change the fact that most late West Roman armies was made up of Germanic mercenaries? I personally don't think so it quite likely that Germanic tribes are going to be settled as confederaties in Pannovia, the Po Valley, The Alps and Northen Gaul (like the Franks in Fladern).
 
Top