WI No Avars?

Simple question really: What if the Avars don't migrate west? A possible POD could be that the Gokturks never rebel against the Rouran, although I don't think it is known for sure if the Rouran were the ancestors of the Avars. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyways, if there are no Avars, what happens? The Byzantines will certainly have an easier time, since the Slavs will probably stay north of the Danube ITL with no Avars to force them west. What do the Lombards do? What happens to the rest of Europe?
 
No Bulgars in Bulgaria? Or was it the Bulgars that displaced the Avars?

The Avar Khaganate was basically destroyed by the Franks, I think. The Bulgar migration probably would be affected by butterflies though, so maybe they could settle somewhere else?

Another obvious effect that I missed in the first post is that ITL there would (probably) be no south Slavs...
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
Simple question really: What if the Avars don't migrate west? A possible POD could be that the Gokturks never rebel against the Rouran, although I don't think it is known for sure if the Rouran were the ancestors of the Avars. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyways, if there are no Avars, what happens? The Byzantines will certainly have an easier time, since the Slavs will probably stay north of the Danube ITL with no Avars to force them west. What do the Lombards do? What happens to the rest of Europe?

Interesting idea. The effect on Europe is enourmous the Slavs stay north of the Carpatians, creating a more stable Byzantine Balkan, The Hungarian plains stay the battleground and homeland of several different Germanic tribes, the Gepids may still be crush by the Lombards/Langobards but it's not a sure thing (likely a Gepid statelet survive in the later Magyar Transsylvania). The Langobards will stay in Pannovia and is quite likely to unify or crush the other Germanic tribes (including the Gepids), especially with the influx of Ostrogothic refugees from Italy into their nation. Likely the Langobard dominated Germanic confederation will be overrun by Magyars late on, but three centuries extra gives the Germanics time to fill the territorium up, something the Slavs didn't get, which mean that the Magyars may end up assimilated into Germanic culture as it ended up for Bulgars in Thrace.
As for the Bulgars with the lack of a Slavic population in alog the Lower Donau they may end up being assimilated into the Vlach (which would likely live on both side of river) instead.
Italy is going to be interesting without the Lombards, but I imagine that the Bavari may replace them through with a smaller population they may end up only with the Po valley. Making the rest of Italy Byzantine.
 
Wasn’t it the Huns who triggered the domino effect in Europe? Avars would come centuries later, in the time when most of migrations had become history. Avars may have benefited from the confusion but they appeared much later and played only limited role in the shaping of Europe, limited in comparison to Huns. They were a nuisance for both Bulgars and Franks who joined forces to repel them, to curb their influence. It surprises me that a tribe like Avars gained so much control over such a large territory. It makes more sense that Avars, together with their allies, whoever their allies were, held a large chunk of Europe in limbo, harassing, plundering, but I don’t see them wanting to control these lands, to establish a political command that would last.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Wasn’t it the Huns who triggered the domino effect in Europe? Avars would come centuries later, in the time when most of migrations had become history. Avars may have benefited from the confusion but they appeared much later and played only limited role in the shaping of Europe, limited in comparison to Huns. They were a nuisance for both Bulgars and Franks who joined forces to repel them, to curb their influence. It surprises me that a tribe like Avars gained so much control over such a large territory. It makes more sense that Avars, together with their allies, whoever their allies were, held a large chunk of Europe in limbo, harassing, plundering, but I don’t see them wanting to control these lands, to establish a political command that would last.

The Avars created their own domino effect, where they pushed the Langobards into Italy, and opened up the Balkans and Hungarian plains for the Slavs, which seemed to have served the Avars as vassals, much as the Germanics did for the Huns.
 
[FONT=&quot]It could be so, but the Avars weren’t as influential as the Huns had been before them. There is a theory that they were an elite composed of Turkic nomads who used Slavs to conquer Eastern Europe. One of many that can be attributed to them. They certainly weren’t Slavs themselves because for the Slavs, the Avars were a foreign ethnicity. However, there is a problem with the theory you set sail to, which also happens to be the common assumption. They, the Avars, appear to have been looters. What would they need the Slavs for in their plundering ventures? The Slavs were more like farmers, not looters. The Avars had a kingdom in Hungary, but that was as far as they would go as a Khanate. They were based in Hungary because it is the only place in Central Europe where there is some steppe, necessary to keep their way of life, where animal husbandry can be supported. They were not powerful enough to change the face of even Eastern Europe the way you imply it happened. They may have employed locals to fight for them, but their conquering schemes were modest. Call up a party, plunder, take the loot, return, and call it a day. The Huns behavior was similar, but the effect of their appearance was huge in comparison. There is a good chance that they had never left Europe, the Hungarian plains to be precise. The pause separating them from the Avars is short. the Avars might have been a relic of the Hunnic Empire.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
[FONT=&quot]It could be so, but the Avars weren’t as influential as the Huns had been before them. There is a theory that they were an elite composed of Turkic nomads who used Slavs to conquer Eastern Europe. One of many that can be attributed to them. They certainly weren’t Slavs themselves because for the Slavs, the Avars were a foreign ethnicity. However, there is a problem with the theory you set sail to, which also happens to be the common assumption. They, the Avars, appear to have been looters. What would they need the Slavs for in their plundering ventures? The Slavs were more like farmers, not looters. The Avars had a kingdom in Hungary, but that was as far as they would go as a Khanate. They were based in Hungary because it is the only place in Central Europe where there is some steppe, necessary to keep their way of life, where animal husbandry can be supported. They were not powerful enough to change the face of even Eastern Europe the way you imply it happened. They may have employed locals to fight for them, but their conquering schemes were modest. Call up a party, plunder, take the loot, return, and call it a day. The Huns behavior was similar, but the effect of their appearance was huge in comparison. There is a good chance that they had never left Europe, the Hungarian plains to be precise. The pause separating them from the Avars is short. the Avars might have been a relic of the Hunnic Empire.[/FONT]


Yes while the Avars was likely a Turkish people, the Slavs simply follow with them, and was likely put in the position of tribute payers, beside that their looting of the Balkans opened it up for Slavic settlement, simply much of it was depopulated especially because it happen close to Justinian Plague, making a look of Balkan Romans moving to more safe areas which lacked population.
 
The Langobards will stay in Pannovia and is quite likely to unify or crush the other Germanic tribes (including the Gepids), especially with the influx of Ostrogothic refugees from Italy into their nation.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's true that the Lombard migration was caused ultimately by the Avars, but it's also true that Alboin and other lombard dukes had fought as mercenaries for the byzantine during the last stage of the greco-gothic war. They knew that italian defenses were weak and that the country could be taken with a minimal effort. I think that the Lombards would try to get Italy anyway even without the Avars pushing after them.
 
Yes while the Avars was likely a Turkish people, the Slavs simply follow with them, and was likely put in the position of tribute payers, beside that their looting of the Balkans opened it up for Slavic settlement, simply much of it was depopulated especially because it happen close to Justinian Plague, making a look of Balkan Romans moving to more safe areas which lacked population.

Yes, but the Slavs took not only the Balkan Peninsula. It would have been a feat for a small band of warriors to populate half of Europe in such a small period of time with a foreign to them ethnicity. The Avars had no business in setting up the land for Slavs. Nor were they feudal warlords. Mostly slave dealers. The plaque may be the answer to many questions. There is no single answer to what brought it about and where it came from.
 
Last edited:
Top