WI no huns

Actually it would be expecting Hitler to be born when the POD is during the 7 years' war.

That said, it will also have great potential to weaken christianity in the west.

Well we can debate exactly when we would put it, but this seems a little silly and a waste of time, to me personally.

How would you say so? The most succesful Germanic tribe of pre-Hunnic Europe, the Goths, had already begun the process of conversion to Christianity before the Huns turned up. I can see a lack of Huns weakening Orthodox Roman Christianity, by removing the reasons for the Germanic succesor states to convert from Arianism, but I think wider Christianity itself will do pretty well, and probably spread across Europe at a relatively similar pace to OTL.
 
Is this particuarly unreasonable? Expecting Mohammed to be born in a world where the POD is in the middle of the fourth century or earlier is like expecting Hitler and WW2 to happen with a POD in the Thirty Years War. No Islam is not particuarly cliched, I don't think.

.

Even if by some chance Mohammad was born - unlikely IMHO, a somewhat stronger and less divided Roman Empire would doubtless react to Islam as just another barbarian invasion. attacks against important parts of the Empire like Syria Magna and Egypt would have drawn a stiff military response, perhaps leaving Islam a local tribal religion of parts of Arabia
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Even if by some chance Mohammad was born - unlikely IMHO, a somewhat stronger and less divided Roman Empire would doubtless react to Islam as just another barbarian invasion. attacks against important parts of the Empire like Syria Magna and Egypt would have drawn a stiff military response, perhaps leaving Islam a local tribal religion of parts of Arabia

Diocletian is gone and his reforms are still around; the huns did not magic into being the crisis that broke the empire apart, it merely hastened it. "No Hun" is most certainy not going to give a rome-wank especially if it means the main source of roman mercenary manpower starts telling Rome to shove it because they're building their own countries, and the rise of christianity, if it goes on, will starve the empire for manpower.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Why would the Goths move at all? ITTL, they're still happily living in the fertile, fast urbanising lands in the Ukraine, trading with the Roman Empire, converting to Christianity, and generally enjoying the fruits of their increasingly maturing society and economy.
Too cold winters for their growing population. Hunns not the only nomadic threat looming in the east.
 
Diocletian is gone and his reforms are still around; the huns did not magic into being the crisis that broke the empire apart, it merely hastened it. "No Hun" is most certainy not going to give a rome-wank especially if it means the main source of roman mercenary manpower starts telling Rome to shove it because they're building their own countries, and the rise of christianity, if it goes on, will starve the empire for manpower.

But the Roman Empire was nowhere close to the point of collapse in the 350s before the Huns came on the scene but after the Diocletian/Constantine reforms had been bedded in: on the contrary, it was experiencing a period of prosperity and agricultural output that was not matched at any time in its history. Without the Huns arriving on the scene, there will be nothing to start the domino process that led to the less prosperous part of the Empire slowing disintegrating.

How does Christianity deplete the pools of Roman manpower? It never stopped the Eastern Romans fielding large native armies for centuries after Constantine's conversion, and in any case, the barbarian born soldiers in the Roman army were generally pretty thoroughly Christianised, fighting, as they were, for an Empire that saw itself as God's instrument in the world.

These peoples will have no incentive to start trying to set up their own breakaway regimes if Roman invincibility is not shattered at Adrianople- they'll be forced to work within the constraints of the Roman system, and take what they're given. None of the leaders of the entire first millenium could really concieve of a world without the Roman Empire at its heart: this is why the Franks so eagerly accepted various titles and trinkets from Constantinople, and then worked so hard to resurrect the WRE. In a world where that state never falls, Germanic leaders won't have any desire to create anything to replace it.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
But the Roman Empire was nowhere close to the point of collapse in the 350s before the Huns came on the scene but after the Diocletian/Constantine reforms had been bedded in: on the contrary, it was experiencing a period of prosperity and agricultural output that was not matched at any time in its history. Without the Huns arriving on the scene, there will be nothing to start the domino process that led to the less prosperous part of the Empire slowing disintegrating.

1. One does not preclude the other. The empire was very much on the verge of a political collapse.
2. The 6th century cold period will solve your problem.
 
1. One does not preclude the other. The empire was very much on the verge of a political collapse.
2. The 6th century cold period will solve your problem.

How was it?

I agree that the sixth century will prove problematic for a surviving Roman Empire- quite apart from anything else, we'll see other Turkic groups moving west and impacting upon Germania. These groups then falling upon an Empire already weakened by plague could be devastating: but I'm discussing the fourth and fifth centuries here, not a hypothetical sixth.
 
Top