How does a Europe without Rome Fair Against Steppe Invasions?

What it says on the tin, how does a Europe without a sprawling land empire fair against Steppe Hordes/Empires. That doesn't mean Rome is destroyed, just limited to Italy at the most.
 
Depends on when and who. Like...say its the Huns and Rome got aborted and its a decaying rump Barca Carthaginian state in the Mediterranean, and Celts and still pagan Germans and a Diadochi Greek successor state in the Balkans...probably maybe even worse....but with multiple powers it would take longer and be harder to completely take over. Probably like OTL the Celts and Germans would join up mostly being not far from nomads themselves, though their sophistication was more than is given credit for. But maybe whatever Greek deal is there can buy and fight them off like the Byzantines.


Later...well, lets say the Huns made a big kingdom mixed with Germans and Celts and Norse Vikings as naval mercenaries in Central Europe...Mongols show up a few centuries later. Its essentially nomad state versus nomad state, though by that point the Hunnic empire would have gone native and lost its edge a bit.

Or, its a Greek or Zoroastrian Persianized state...then they might not hold it together well.
 
Depends on when and who. Like...say its the Huns and Rome got aborted and its a decaying rump Barca Carthaginian state in the Mediterranean, and Celts and still pagan Germans and a Diadochi Greek successor state in the Balkans...probably maybe even worse....but with multiple powers it would take longer and be harder to completely take over. Probably like OTL the Celts and Germans would join up mostly being not far from nomads themselves, though their sophistication was more than is given credit for. But maybe whatever Greek deal is there can buy and fight them off like the Byzantines.


Later...well, lets say the Huns made a big kingdom mixed with Germans and Celts and Norse Vikings as naval mercenaries in Central Europe...Mongols show up a few centuries later. Its essentially nomad state versus nomad state, though by that point the Hunnic empire would have gone native and lost its edge a bit.

Or, its a Greek or Zoroastrian Persianized state...then they might not hold it together well.

Not to mention all the invading so called "Scythian" nomad peoples before the huns.
Massilia could have been an relevant trading Empire too, a Hellenic-Celtic powerhouse in babarian Western Europe. A rival to Carthage maybe ?
 
Without Rome, Celts and Germans would form states and kingdoms at some point. They would probably be able to mount a good defence, with circumstantial alliances between them against the common enemy, and resist better than a decaying OTL Rome.

Later...well, lets say the Huns made a big kingdom mixed with Germans and Celts and Norse Vikings as naval mercenaries in Central Europe...Mongols show up a few centuries later. Its essentially nomad state versus nomad state, though by that point the Hunnic empire would have gone native and lost its edge a bit.

Except western Europe is not ideal for steppe nomad lifestyle because, well, it's not a steppe. The Huns may settle at some place for a while, but they would either be absorbed or be driven off. They won't be an empire, the Hunnic horde quickly dissolved after Attila's death, divided between his various heirs and lieutenants.
 
It changes everything. Different development of the Celtic polities in Gaul, different development in Germany...the urbanization of Germany was in large part due to their proximity to Rome.
 
Proximity from Italy not counting?

He meant Roman Gaul.

I myself have often wondered about this subject. Over time there have been several mass migrations from the steppes pouring into Europe.

Scythians, Sarmatians, Iazyges, Roxalani, Alans, Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Cumans, Kipchaks, Gokturks, Khazars, Pechenegs, and eventually the Mongols.

It's like a revolving door of badasses on horses, each as powerful and penetrating as the next.

So, here's the question. Without Rome, what does the Balkans look like. Well, you've got Dacia. Perhaps it is unified, perhaps it isn't. Depends on a lot of factors. Either way, the Dacians seemed pretty adept at keeping the horse nomads out of their territory and therefore out of the Balkans until the Romans came along and destroyed them. However, even before that, you had Sarmatians and other Iranic tribes sort of going around the Dacians and migrating up the upper Danube into Pannonia. Now, it seems to me that the Dacians were like a kind of cork keeping the flow of nomads from pouring into Europe. But that just seems to damn simple, and inevitably some tribe is going to break them. Will the Dacians assimilate, or continue on as a culture? I can't say.

Insofar as I'm aware, the transition from Iranian steppe tribes to Turkish steppe tribes is a period that presents something of a mystery to archaeologists and historians.
 
I wonder how would steppe armies fair against a Macedonian army mostly phalanx invading Macedonia or Athens.
 
I wonder how would steppe armies fair against a Macedonian army mostly phalanx invading Macedonia or Athens.

A steppe army would get absolutely shredded if it was tied down in the mountains of the Balkans. Any steppe force invading Greece moreover would be stopped at the passes relatively easily. Lacking a navy, they wouldn't have much ability to actually get past.

Before anyone mentions Attila, I should point out a large part of Attila's army was not mounted Huns, but local subjects.
 
What it says on the tin, how does a Europe without a sprawling land empire fair against Steppe Hordes/Empires. That doesn't mean Rome is destroyed, just limited to Italy at the most.

Europe with or without huge Empire is quite irrelevant here for the period mentioned.
The steppe was never existential threat for Europe.

The only exception to the rule is Attila the Hun. Meaning that he was able to create such a big Empire.
But it was definitely destined to fall apart after his death or a bit later. If some successor Hunnish state had stayed in Europe that would have made Europe even more resistant to the new waves of nomad invasions. As this Hunnish successor state would have become Europeanized but with useful elements of steppe warfare.
 
Europe with or without huge Empire is quite irrelevant here for the period mentioned.
The steppe was never existential threat for Europe.

The only exception to the rule is Attila the Hun. Meaning that he was able to create such a big Empire.
But it was definitely destined to fall apart after his death or a bit later. If some successor Hunnish state had stayed in Europe that would have made Europe even more resistant to the new waves of nomad invasions. As this Hunnish successor state would have become Europeanized but with useful elements of steppe warfare.

This is rather true. Attila DID take (kinda) the Roman concept of auxiliary forces (though in his case it was more like conscripts) and create an army capable of penetrating any sort of area. An earlier analogue of Hungary (maybe even same name) in a slightly different area may well appear an be able to serve as a buffer zone against further incursions.
 
I dont know I mean the avars made it as far as germany and the bolgar beat up Byzantium and also they conquered most of greece and Macedonia by Symeons time. Not to mention the rus wreaked havoc and the magyars too. In terms of phalanx the byzzies developed a much better military model in that period but krum cut to pieces their armies. Pechenegs too and cumans deserbe honorableentoons as well. Mongols are also a given and I believe on rhis board the consensus was that mongols had they wanted too and were aerious couldve conquered most of europe.

on Avars they were unstoppable till Charlemagne stepped in. Bulgars too.
 
Top