WI: no Germanic migration

Hello!
I want to know your opinions on a scenario, in which eastern Germanic (Gothics, Vandals, Burgundians, etc.) did not migrate through the half of Europe during the late antiquity (Maybe because of Huns didn't make their appeareance in Europe) or on a very low level.
What would the consequences of such a scenario? Would Rome survive? Would Islam overrun Europe? Would the east germanics be part of a (however) Germany or would they make their own states/sphere?
And what would the world look like?

Please try to be as much plausible as you can...especially when you do a TL with this. :D

Thank you and sorry for my bad English.
 
I take it you're a newbie to alternate history?

Well we have these things called butterflies that you should know about, No migrations of Germanic peoples would probably prevent Islam from ever forming. Same with anything else that happens after the point of divergence.
 
I take it you're a newbie to alternate history?

Well we have these things called butterflies that you should know about, No migrations of Germanic peoples would probably prevent Islam from ever forming. Same with anything else that happens after the point of divergence.

Really, the only follow up question he asked that would have fallen into the 'butterfly' category would be the part about Islam.

As for the rest; I'm assuming the OP is referencing the Eastern Germans staying in Eastern Europe and not pushing West. That should be fairly easy to to achieve by short circuiting the Huns. So, the Goth's Empire under Ermaneric (and his successors) holds together.

Now, would Rome still fall? That's hard to say, since the Hunnish invasions did a lot to destabilize the West. My suspicion is that it still would, but the manner in which is crumbled would be different. You are still probably going to see Germanic tribes moving into the West simply because its vulnerable and rich.

Islam? Islam is unlikely to develop in this timeline since Muhammad's birth takes place so longer after the point of divergence. With no Muhammad, you can get Islam, and with no Islam there is not threat of the new faith overrunning Europe. Now, you could still see a new faith spring up, but it wouldn't be the same Islam from OTL (out time line)

Would the Eastern tribes ever form a part of what ever German nation develops? I would guess not. First, it will be centuries until *Germany forms and it will do so under very different circumstances from OTL (maybe the Saxons end up uniting Germany in the early Middle Ages, or the Burgundians ... or Bavaria). However, the Goths are going to be running around in Eastern Europe for centuries, which means they will have had their own government and identity for a long while. They will likely see themselves as Germanic, but not as Germans (think about how the Scandinavian nations know they share a common heritage with the Germans, the English and so forth, but are still very distinctly their own peoples). And, of course, that's assuming that the Goths don't end up being swept away when/if the Slavs begin migrating into the region.

Hope that helped and welcome to the group!
 
Welcome to the group.

To expand on the concept of "butterflies": It is related to the claim that the way a butterfly flaps its wings in South Amarica can result in a storm forming (or not) in Asia.
Or, applied to alternate history: It is common practice to identify one single "point of divergence" (POD, an abbreviation you'll see a lot). The one change to the course of history you want to explore. Having multiple unrelated PODs in a timeline (TL, also a very common abbreviation) , along with ; and ATL = "alternate timeline") is generally frowned on.
Regarding the treatment of butterfly changes: Some people are hardcore adherents of the idea that everything that can change after the POD might or will change. That does not mean that with the survival of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE the Chinese will spontaneously start speaking Nahuatl by 100 CE.
But it means that Caesar, simply by living longer, leading legions somewhere they did not go OTL (OTL = "original time line" or "our time line" meaning "real history") and perhaps having some would-be assassins killed before they died OTL, will mix up the love life of many people. Different sperms meet different eggs, children will be born or not be born, will have a different gender or a different character.
As you can imagine, like a avalanche, this multiplies over time. In 1 CE, many people will be the same, as they were born before the POD. In 100 CE no individual should exist identical to OTL.
(Some writers assume a slow ripple outward from the place the POD occured: While Rome is affected immediately, events in China, Australia or Mexico develop mostly as in OTL.)

So, assume that as a PoD, around 370 CE something stops the Huns from turning against the Ostrogoths. An epidemic plague would probably spread to the Goths as well, and that does not fit. But maybe for some reason they start at the Lower Volga and do not turn to the West, but to the South east of the Caspian Sea and try to plunder Persia. Old Iran is well known as target for nomadic people from Central Asia.
So the Goths stay where they are and do not seek refuge in the Roman Empire. But if Persia seems weakened, a later emperor might try to conquer parts of the Persian domains, thereby overstretching.
But it is certain that these events in the 4th century will have conseqences that build up to big changes by 570, so it is very unlikely the Muhammad wil ever be born. Nor will be Theoderic, or Justinian, or Clovis, or Charlemagne.
On the other hand, nations and ethnic groups will not stop to exist. The peoples of Arabia obviously had a great potential for expansionism, and it is not likely that the non-birth of Muhammad will remove that completely. So maybe they follow a radical, anti-orthodox branch of Christianity, or some type of Manichaeism. Perhaps their leader is influenced by the Jewish faith and sees himself as the Messias, or he follows the urban deities of Old Mecca. Or he is just very charismatic and a strategic genius and not religious at all.
In such a case, if people want a shorthand for "the driving force behind ahypothetical Arab expansion in this TL", they might write alt-Islam, without spelling out its theological background.
 
Nor will be Theoderic, or Justinian, or Clovis, or Charlemagne.

Even if Theoderic is born, his history would be fully different. No battle of Adrianople with loosing the best soldiers and officers, no need to reactivate Theoderic, who was in Spain doing private business. No Theoderic, perhaps no Battle of Frigidus, and the WRE keeps its best army. Now WRE does not need to use the Gallic army against the Goths to defend Italy. The Rhine is still secured. No Vandals moving to Africa. No loss of Africa, no fall of the WRE.

And without Adrianople and Frigidus, the need for foederati and therefor non-roman officers up to the magistri would be less urgent. So barbarization would not happen on such a scale as it did IRL.

But just if we believe in Peter Heathers schock-theory, who understates the structural issues of the WRE greatly. I still can see a further division of the WRE, e.g. Gallia, Britannia. Usurpation was more common in the late empire than during the principate until Severus Alexander. This gives german tribes room to attack and perhaps expand. There is still greed and the climate change. Looking to Germany, I see multiple tribes having the potential to form a stable state: Franks, Alemanns and others. But they compete. So we will see most probably multiple states.

And of course the Gothic states in the Northeast, which wait for the Avars and Bulgars to come. On the other hand, without a german migration, there is less space for the slavic tribes to expand and grow to an extent, that they become that powerful and dangerous as in IRL.

I also see a german emperor sooner or later. We had spaniards, africans and syrians. In the 5th century a german emperor is long overdue.

In the east it is all about the eternal war between the Sassanids and the Romans. History might go fully different. Without this desastrous 40 year war around 600 the Arabs would have had no chance to beat these two empires. But with such an event the Arabs would have had a chance to expand. Well, without this new religion, I doubt they would become united and go that far and succesful, as they did. But what, if Allah picks his guy no matter what? ;)
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the group.

To expand on the concept of "butterflies": It is related to the claim that the way a butterfly flaps its wings in South Amarica can result in a storm forming (or not) in Asia.
Or, applied to alternate history: It is common practice to identify one single "point of divergence" (POD, an abbreviation you'll see a lot). The one change to the course of history you want to explore. Having multiple unrelated PODs in a timeline (TL, also a very common abbreviation) , along with ; and ATL = "alternate timeline") is generally frowned on.
Regarding the treatment of butterfly changes: Some people are hardcore adherents of the idea that everything that can change after the POD might or will change. That does not mean that with the survival of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE the Chinese will spontaneously start speaking Nahuatl by 100 CE.
But it means that Caesar, simply by living longer, leading legions somewhere they did not go OTL (OTL = "original time line" or "our time line" meaning "real history") and perhaps having some would-be assassins killed before they died OTL, will mix up the love life of many people. Different sperms meet different eggs, children will be born or not be born, will have a different gender or a different character.
As you can imagine, like a avalanche, this multiplies over time. In 1 CE, many people will be the same, as they were born before the POD. In 100 CE no individual should exist identical to OTL.
(Some writers assume a slow ripple outward from the place the POD occured: While Rome is affected immediately, events in China, Australia or Mexico develop mostly as in OTL.)

So, assume that as a PoD, around 370 CE something stops the Huns from turning against the Ostrogoths. An epidemic plague would probably spread to the Goths as well, and that does not fit. But maybe for some reason they start at the Lower Volga and do not turn to the West, but to the South east of the Caspian Sea and try to plunder Persia. Old Iran is well known as target for nomadic people from Central Asia.
So the Goths stay where they are and do not seek refuge in the Roman Empire. But if Persia seems weakened, a later emperor might try to conquer parts of the Persian domains, thereby overstretching.
But it is certain that these events in the 4th century will have conseqences that build up to big changes by 570, so it is very unlikely the Muhammad wil ever be born. Nor will be Theoderic, or Justinian, or Clovis, or Charlemagne.
On the other hand, nations and ethnic groups will not stop to exist. The peoples of Arabia obviously had a great potential for expansionism, and it is not likely that the non-birth of Muhammad will remove that completely. So maybe they follow a radical, anti-orthodox branch of Christianity, or some type of Manichaeism. Perhaps their leader is influenced by the Jewish faith and sees himself as the Messias, or he follows the urban deities of Old Mecca. Or he is just very charismatic and a strategic genius and not religious at all.
In such a case, if people want a shorthand for "the driving force behind ahypothetical Arab expansion in this TL", they might write alt-Islam, without spelling out its theological background.

A lot of this stuff is somewhat similar to the approach that I personally take in my Wolves of the Steppe TL, which is still far from complete, but which has as it's main premise that instead of invading the Ostrogoths, the Huns turn south and cross the Caucasus mountains to conquer Armenia. This leads to the eventual development of a separate Gothic kingdom occupying much of what is OTL Ukraine and Romania.

I have, however, taken a different position regarding butterflies. Whilst butterflies exist, I tend to like to connect them to their causes, rather than be completely random. Also, I have kept quite a few historical personalities around that wouldn't exist if I strictly applied the principal, largely for narrative reasons.
 
... , the Huns turn south and cross the Caucasus mountains to conquer Armenia.

Actually they did IIRC, but they were beaten finally.

I have, however, taken a different position regarding butterflies. Whilst butterflies exist, I tend to like to connect them to their causes, rather than be completely random.

Fully correct. Butterflies do exist, but structures are working against them. That's why we do not have hurricanes all over the world on a daily basis.
 
Actually they did IIRC, but they were beaten finally.

They did yes, but in my TL they do so earlier, and settle there (as much as the Huns can be considered to settle, basically in the sense they settled in Pannonia IOTL), rather than ravaging it.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Actually they did IIRC, but they were beaten finally.



Fully correct. Butterflies do exist, but structures are working against them. That's why we do not have hurricanes all over the world on a daily basis.

Yes, but there is a limit to what you can predict. It's just a much safer bet that anything that happened after the PoD won't happen the way it did OTL.

Besides, a PoD where the Germanic tribes don't migrate west, it's unlikely to see Barack Obama become President of the United States of America in 2008 AD.
 
Yes, but there is a limit to what you can predict. It's just a much safer bet that anything that happened after the PoD won't happen the way it did OTL.

This is why most historians refuse to discuss counterfactual history. However some prestigious scientists wrote counterfactual articles, e.g. Alexander Demandt.

But they made very clear, that every counterfactual analysis can just be very rough and just about a few years after the event. The scientific value of such a discussion is, that you may understand the real history and its persistent structures better. Everything beyond that is just nice novel-writing.

Often the very valuable question is: why would this event change nothing. For about 200 years almost all historians were convinced, that Montesquieue was right, who said already in the 18th century: "If not Caesar and Pompeius, two other guys would have ruined the roman republic". That means, that the structural deficit of the roman republic was that strong, that it has to end in a monarchy no matter what. Though not neccesarily the principate type.

Or another strucutral theory: Carthago had no chance from the very beginning. The population of Italy was just too superior in the long run. Therefore Hannibal tried to divide the roman allies. His one and only small chance.

Nevertheless, there are times, when history is less determinded by structures but by events. Peter Heather claims, that the Fall of the West was a chain of unlucky events (shock-theory). Well, if you now avoid just one of these events (e.g. Adrianople) and break this chain, you change everything. The question is of course, if Heather is really right. Goldsworthy and others disagreed lately and follow a more structural approach. And according to this theory the WRE was doomed to Fall anyways.

Same with islam. As mentioned above, Mohammed was born in a certain environment. If this environment is changed, he will perhaps not be enlighted and unite the Arabs. Or if Jesus is not crucified, he ends as just another unsuccesful messiah of many. However, what you can't stop is the rise of the doctrine of salvation. Because this is based on structures, not on single persons. If not christianity or islam some other religion of this type would develop and change the world.

So discussing on this rough level makes sense from a scientific point of view, because it helps to understand the structures. Of course I also like good novels diving deeper. But it is just a novel.
 
Last edited:
This is why most historians refuse to discuss counterfactual history. However some prestigious scientists wrote counterfactual articles, e.g. Alexander Demandt.

But they made very clear, that every counterfactual analysis can just be very rough and just about a few years after the event. The scientific value of such a discussion is, that you may understand the real history and its persistent structures better. Everything beyond that is just nice novel-writing.

Often the very valuable question is: why would this event change nothing. For about 200 years almost all historians were convinced, that Montesquieue was right, who said already in the 18th century: "If not Caesar and Pompeius, two other guys would have ruined the roman republic". That means, that the structural deficit of the roman republic was that strong, that it has to end in a monarchy no matter what. Though not neccesarily the principate type.

Or another strucutral theory: Carthago had no chance from the very beginning. The population of Italy was just too superior in the long run. Therefore Hannibal tried to divide the roman allies. His one and only small chance.

Nevertheless, there are times, when history is less determinded by structures but by events. Peter Heather claims, that the Fall of the West was a chain of unlucky events (shock-theory). Well, if you now avoid just one of these events (e.g. Adrianople) and break this chain, you change everything. The question is of course, if Heather is really right. Goldsworthy and others disagreed lately and follow a more structural approach. And according to this theory the WRE was doomed to Fall anyways.

I agree fully. I might have shown already my irritation with AH questions that posit a change in the Seven Years' War and then ask about the consequences for Hitler's strategy.
"1839: Belgium keeps all of Limburg ->1914: The German armies progress on a broader front and conquer Paris" is just a tad less worse than "Queen Victoria and President Lincoln marry, the British Empire and the United States merge."

Same with islam. As mentioned above, Mohammed was born in a certain environment. If this environment is changed, he will perhaps not be enlighted and unite the Arabs. Or if Jesus is not crucified, he ends as just another unsuccesful messiah of many. However, what you can't stop is the rise of the doctrine of salvation. Because this is based on structures, not on single persons. If not christianity or islam some other religion of this type would develop and change the world.

But while the idea of a divine soter was common in hellenism, the concrete shape might have widely diverged. It was certainly not guaranteed that the emerging religion would have a Jewish base. It might have been more Greek in tradition, or Iranian or Egyptian. A widespread religion based on, say, the worship of Isis Soteria is far from impossible, but would be very different.
 
It was certainly not guaranteed that the emerging religion would have a Jewish base. It might have been more Greek in tradition, or Iranian or Egyptian. A widespread religion based on, say, the worship of Isis Soteria is far from impossible, but would be very different.

Yes, Isis was very popular. Also Mithras / Sol Invictus. But afaik both offered a better salvation than just the Elysium for a few and the Hades for the masses. I doubt Aurelianus suddenly became religious in Palmyra and therefore promoted Sol Invictus. It was perhaps rather a political decision in order to counter christianity and others and an attempt to steer the situation. Like Constantin used christianity as a tool. Well, he underestimated this box of pandora badly, when he opened it.

Even the greek-roman paganism evolved. I lately read a bit about neo-platonism. That is not that far from monotheistic ideas, at least henotheism. And there is a better chance for salvation than in the classic paganism. However it is a very complex philosophical approach and hard to understand. Not really suitable for the masses without further simplification. Nevertheless, even the classic paganism had a chance to evolve and strike back.
 
Last edited:
Top