No Huns, No Sassanids...then what?

Let's say the Huns never went west toward Europe (they move to China, India, or Persia) and the Sassanid dynasty never established.
So in this ATL Germanic tribes stay in Germania and Persia dissolved into some small, independent kingdoms...and then what will happen to Roman Empire...?
Would Germanic tribes gradually evolved into some Germanic kingdoms? How about Slavic tribes? What would be the relationship between those "barbaric" tribes with the Romans?
Was it impossible to prevent any dynasty to take over the whole Persia? Could the Persian kingdoms survived (at least until the arrival of Arabs or Mongols)? If the Huns never invade Europe, what would happen to other steppe tribes? (Avars, Magyars, etc)
And the most important question of all, without the presence of migrating 'barbaric' tribes desperately trying to found places to be settled, and without the threat posed by strong, centralized empire in Persia, would the Roman Empire ever fall...?
And what would happen when the Arabs, Norse, Turks, and Mongols came...?
Did I ask too much? :D
 
Well generally the whole demographic system of Europe and much of Asia would be messed, up without the stimulus for moing westward many of the tribes would still be in the area or at least only move westward after a considerable period of infighting, whereas their arrival in the West they would be much weaker then OTL.

No powerful Persian Kingdom would open up Mesopotamia to complete Romanization and Christianization as well as give the Romans a incredible monopoly on wealth in the area. The only geographic enemy possible in the area would be the Persians or some nomadic tribe moving southward through the Caucasus, if Rome has no serious enemy to exhaust its defenses in the area and doesn't try to conquer Persia around the period the Arabs arrive they hae a much better chance of repelling them.

If the Roman Empire doesn't use Germanic Mercs its hard to say wat their military will be like, weaker or stronger is a question.

Also the Romans themselves did alot to bring about their own destruction.
 
Rex Romanum said:
Would Germanic tribes gradually evolved into some Germanic kingdoms? How about Slavic tribes? What would be the relationship between those "barbaric" tribes with the Romans?

Some Germanic and Slavic tribes will probably evolve into Kingdoms. These kingdoms might be modeled on the Roman Empire as Rome was extremly powerful and respected but also envied for its wealth.

As for the relationship between these "barbaric" tribes and the Romans, it will probably depend on multiple factors. Some tribes might choose to ally the Romans while other will want to stay out of the Roman Sphere of influence.

Rex Romanum said:
If the Huns never invade Europe, what would happen to other steppe tribes? (Avars, Magyars, etc)

If the Huns never migrated to Europe, then the other steppe tribes might never migrate there as their won't be tales about Attila and his mighty empire. However, I'm not sure of this : I do not know a lot of things about great migrations.

Rex Romanum said:
And the most important question of all, without the presence of migrating 'barbaric' tribes desperately trying to found places to be settled, and without the threat posed by strong, centralized empire in Persia, would the Roman Empire ever fall...?

I'm not sure Rome would not fall... The Empire was weakened by the barbarian invasions but also by internal conflicts.
The best examples of the internal conflicts was the Third Century Crisis when you had three separate states forming : the Gallic Empire (composed of Gaul, Hispania and Britannia), the Kingdom of Palmyre (composed of Egypt, Judea and Syria) and the Roman Empire (composed by what was left to the Empire).

What I'm sure though is that the fall will at least be delayed if it is not butterflied away by the absence of the Huns and Sassanids.

Rex Romanum said:
And what would happen when the Arabs, Norse, Turks, and Mongols came...?

Well... I don't think the Arabs, Norse, Turks or Mongols would stop their expansion because they'll have to face the Romans. Besides, the Arabs and Turks already gave us an answer : the both of them attacked Byzantium at one point and the Byzantines were a Roman successor state.

Basically, the Romans will have to fight against each one of them so that their Empire survives. How it will end is another story.
 
Yeah, I'm agree that 'fall' of the Roman Empire was caused by internal conflicts too, but...in this ATL the Romans didn't have to stationed large amount of legions at the borders, because there is no invading Germanic tribes and no centralised Persian Empire...
That extra legions then could be used to guard internal provinces from any rebellions, so I can imagine that in this ATL internal rebellions would less common than OTL...
Moreover, if various Germanic and Persian kingdoms keep paying tributes to Rome...she didn't need to worry about conquest and plundering anymore...
If they rebelled, just throw 2-3 legions at them...
 
Yeah, I'm agree that 'fall' of the Roman Empire was caused by internal conflicts too, but...in this ATL the Romans didn't have to stationed large amount of legions at the borders, because there is no invading Germanic tribes and no centralised Persian Empire...
That extra legions then could be used to guard internal provinces from any rebellions, so I can imagine that in this ATL internal rebellions would less common than OTL...
or would it give someone who always wanted to a rebel more power to do so? Look at the Praetorians.
 
or would it give someone who always wanted to a rebel more power to do so? Look at the Praetorians.

Well, in the other hand, the absence of serious external threats would allow the Emperor to focus on internal problem...
Just look at 1st and 2nd century when there was (relatively) few external pressure, then at 3rd and 4th century when both the West and East always threatened by invaders...
Would any generals tried to rebel if the Emperor keep an eye on them...? (I am NOT saying that there would be no rebellion at all...but in "peace" time generals tend to thinking twice before start a rebellion)
 
Well, in the other hand, the absence of serious external threats would allow the Emperor to focus on internal problem...
Just look at 1st and 2nd century when there was (relatively) few external pressure, then at 3rd and 4th century when both the West and East always threatened by invaders...
Would any generals tried to rebel if the Emperor keep an eye on them...? (I am NOT saying that there would be no rebellion at all...but in "peace" time generals tend to thinking twice before start a rebellion)

Then the Imperial Line Up would be quite different and Rome would be much different.
 
Then the Imperial Line Up would be quite different and Rome would be much different.

Yeah, maybe at least until the end of the Severan dynasty the Imperial line would be same like OTL, but after that the butterflies took over it...
Crisis of Third Century would have been avoided...
 
Here's a POD: The roof collapse that killed Shapur also kills Ardashir I. With him dead, the Sassanid Empire never forms. Let's say that this somehow butterflies into the Huns invading Persia, so in the mid-4th century the Huns invade. If we accept these dates while assuming that the butterflies have not had much effect on the politics of the Roman Empire then Diocletian has already split the Empire into east and west. Christianity is the empire's official religion. We have gone through the tetrarchy and are in the middle of the Constatinian dynasty.

It seems likely that the Germanic tribes would form their own kingdoms on Rome's borders. I can see Rome dominating much of the near east. In this scenario Islam is most likely butterflied away, though something similiar may replace it. Rome does have a lot of internal issues it needs to solve relating to the government and economy.
 
Here's a POD: The roof collapse that killed Shapur also kills Ardashir I. With him dead, the Sassanid Empire never forms. Let's say that this somehow butterflies into the Huns invading Persia, so in the mid-4th century the Huns invade. If we accept these dates while assuming that the butterflies have not had much effect on the politics of the Roman Empire then Diocletian has already split the Empire into east and west. Christianity is the empire's official religion. We have gone through the tetrarchy and are in the middle of the Constatinian dynasty.

It seems likely that the Germanic tribes would form their own kingdoms on Rome's borders. I can see Rome dominating much of the near east. In this scenario Islam is most likely butterflied away, though something similiar may replace it. Rome does have a lot of internal issues it needs to solve relating to the government and economy.

Interesting POD...but I think Diocletian made tetrarchy in response to increased threats in both East and West, which were caused by the Huns and Sassanids in the first place...
So no Huns and Sassanids = no tetrarchy = no Constantinian dynasty...
 
Top