Huns arriving a century earlier

[Collondi]

First of all, I don’t think this counts as ASB. Sure the hunnic migration probably occurred for climate related reasons, but I think there’s enough modern historians who believe the Hunnic migration was caused by the collapse of the Xiongnu Confederation that we can reasonably have the Xiongnu collapse a century earlier as our POD. That has significant effects on the history of Han China, but right now I want to keep the focus on Europe.

With that disclaimer out of the way, what if the Huns arrived in Europe a century earlier? The Huns would arrive in the 270’s, In Roman history that would put them right at the recovery phase of the Crisis of the Third Century. It might take an extra decade or more to consolidate power. I think one of the many things that made the Huns so powerful OTL was that they paid close attention to Roman politics and invaded at a time of heavy political instability. That means they likely won’t simply immediately invade and steamroll the Romans, it’s more likely the various hunnic leaders would trade with and make alliances with Romans, and would wait until a period of civil war and/or weakness to invade.

How would the Roman Empire and Europe as a whole be impacted by the Huns appearing in the third century?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Like iOTL: The Huns still absorb the remnants of the Sarmatians (recently evicted from the Pontic steppe by the Goths) and then kick the Goths' teeth in, securing the Pontic steppe and opening up the rest of "Barbaricum" to Hunnic raids.

Different from OTL: The Romans handily clobbered the Goths in 268/9 and 271. So there will be no Adrianople-tier disaster as the Goths flee west as happened in the 370s. Rather the Goths are likely crushed between the Huns and Aurelian. Rome might even be able to keep Dacia, at least in the short term.

Speculative: To my understanding the going theory on the ethnogenesis of the Huns is that the Xiongnu's East Iranic/Yeniseian ruling class was partially Turkified durring their time in Central Asia between the fall of the Xiongnu and the arrival of the Huns in Europe. Making the journey earlier, when Central Asia was more Iranic, might remove that theoretical element.

 

[Collondi]

Different from OTL: The Romans handily clobbered the Goths in 268/9 and 271. So there will be no Adrianople-tier disaster as the Goths flee west as happened in the 370s. Rather the Goths are likely crushed between the Huns and Aurelian

I think it’s likely Aurelian accepts and settles refugees. Adrianople only got as bad as it did because of Valens’ incompetence, under Aurelian the gothic resettlement would occur as planned like with the Carpi and others. We might see the Roman army being germanized earlier

Rome might even be able to keep Dacia, at least in the short term.

doubt it. Rome was able to hold Dacia, it just stopped being worth it, especially ITTL with more severe Germanic raids

Speculative: To my understanding the going theory on the ethnogenesis of the Huns is that the Xiongnu's East Iranic/Yeniseian ruling class was partially Turkified durring their time in Central Asia between the fall of the Xiongnu and the arrival of the Huns in Europe. Making the journey earlier, when Central Asia was more Iranic, might remove that theoretical element.

So culturally the Huns would be more similar to the Sarmatians, or at least seen that way by contemporaries?

 

[ramones1986]

Where could they settle, in this case?

 

[Collondi]

Where could they settle, in this case?

Probably around Thrace or Moesia

 

[how]

Probably around Thrace or Moesia

What about in the Tisza basin where the Iazyges were?

 

[ramones1986]

Probably around Thrace or Moesia

I'd get for the former.

 

[Collondi]

What about in the Tisza basin where the Iazyges were?

You mean outside of Roman territory? Sure, but at that point it’s less of a resettlement and more helping the Goths in a territorial conquest

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

So culturally the Huns would be more similar to the Sarmatians, or at least seen that way by contemporaries?

I wouldn't be surprised if Roman writers initially interpret the whole thing as just the Sarmatians rebounding.

 

[Silver01]

In otl from what I read it wasn't until the 395 that the Huns became a serious threat assuming it follows the Huns themselves wouldn't seriously raid until the crisis was over, and before any one thinks but what about the crisis well the Roman empire was in two civil wars and the Huns again waited till 395.

Still the impact would likely mean narseh or what ever shah took power in 295 wouldn't attack the Romans in the olt the Huns and other tribes essentially made the 5th century the most peaceful among the Romans and Persians, because well they had to deal with their own issues, what would be really funny is that narseh like the otl invades the empire and the Huns attack so he awkwardly ask for peace .

Either way the Huns would be bad assuming the butterflies are limited the post Diocletian civil war would be prime real estate for the Huns to raid the empire and also be hired as mercenaries but unlike Theodosius II, galerius isn't a push over and he would act a lot more like Marcian In the sense that he would give war the Huns if he wanted to .

The huge butterfly would be if galerius using the Huns as mercenaries/allies actually takes Rome and probably killing maxentius

 

[Gloss]

Like iOTL: The Huns still absorb the remnants of the Sarmatians (recently evicted from the Pontic steppe by the Goths) and then kick the Goths' teeth in, securing the Pontic steppe and opening up the rest of "Barbaricum" to Hunnic raids.

Different from OTL: The Romans handily clobbered the Goths in 268/9 and 271. So there will be no Adrianople-tier disaster as the Goths flee west as happened in the 370s. Rather the Goths are likely crushed between the Huns and Aurelian. Rome might even be able to keep Dacia, at least in the short term.

Speculative: To my understanding the going theory on the ethnogenesis of the Huns is that the Xiongnu's East Iranic/Yeniseian ruling class was partially Turkified durring their time in Central Asia between the fall of the Xiongnu and the arrival of the Huns in Europe. Making the journey earlier, when Central Asia was more Iranic, might remove that theoretical element.

In no world does Rome fare better with Huns arriving in 270, it's very well possible Rome collapses then.

 

[Silver01]

In no world does Rome fare better with Huns arriving in 270, it's very well possible Rome collapses then.

The Huns didn't become an actual threat until 390s and the gothic war could have been avoided a more competent emperor of the crisis could have dealt with the initial migration

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

In no world does Rome fare better with Huns arriving in 270, it's very well possible Rome collapses then.

Nah, despite the hype around Attila the Goths were a much bigger and far more persistent threat to Rome than the Huns ever were.

The Huns pushing the Goths into the woodchipper named Aurelian is a huge win for Rome's long term viability. The Huns themselves might be a bigger threat than they were iOTL, but permanently breaking up the Gothic tribes and repopulating the border provinces is a net win for Rome imo.

 

[Coluber]

What does this do for the Tetrici of the Gallic Empire?

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

In no world does Rome fare better with Huns arriving in 270, it's very well possible Rome collapses then.

lol what? Rome was far better off than when they appeared iotl and became a threat.

 

[Collondi]

The Huns didn't become an actual threat until 390s and the gothic war could have been avoided a more competent emperor of the crisis could have dealt with the initial migration

i don’t think we should underestimate the domino effect caused by Hunnic invasion which would lead to more Germanic invasions. Invasions by armies fleeing the Huns were 20,000 strong while before they averaged 5,000, and unlike before these armies who had been displaced from their homes had no problem staying in Roman territory indefinitely. Recovery might still happen but it’d be slower and Germanic invasions more threatening. Also I suspect (but can’t really prove) the early days of Diocletian’s reign weren’t as stable as chronicles made it seem, given political instability, a horrible economy, and the massive reforms of the time

The Huns pushing the Goths into the woodchipper named Aurelian is a huge win for Rome's long term viability. The Huns themselves might be a bigger threat than they were iOTL, but permanently breaking up the Gothic tribes and repopulating the border provinces is a net win for Rome imo

The Huns didn’t just obliterate the people they conquered, they incorporated them into their hierarchy. Theodoric’s father was a Hunnic general. If anything they Goths become deadlier under the rule of the more organized Huns

 

[Raferty]

Rome in much of the 4th century was actually in a pretty decent position. It's wars were very peripheral, and successful more often than not, it's army was adapted for the task far better than it had been in the 3rd century, and it's politics were if not calm than much better than the Barracks Emperor period, and Romanization was flourishing in much of the empire.

The Huns are better thought of not as steppe nomads coming to pillage but as a rival imperial polity. Their emergence has something to do with climatic shifts in the 3rd century, but their project was fundamentally one of establishing hegemony over subject peoples, control over grazing lands, and a rich periphery to exploit. As a power, however, I think avoiding Attila who after all usurped the dual kingship system to seize total control, with a big focus on the western marches of his empire over the east, would be sufficient to avoid a Rome screw. Tactically speaking, the Huns excelled at long range communication, mounted combat, and coordination of subject peoples. In battle, they could be and were defeated by their foes in a number of engagements and their raiding parties into the Empire often met with heavy losses or compulsion to become foederati - the Germans and Romans both had success with forcing close order engagements, as well as adopting a fortification defense in depth approach.

if they arrive in the mid 300s, they could overrun some limes and cause a mass stampede of entrants into the empire, but the Roman field armies by that point in time were still fairly formidable and the ability to organize migrants into foederati on a piecemeal basis was still viable.

However if they launch something in coordination with the Goths and Alemanni, it could be a far more dangerous moment

Still, I firmly think that Rome was viable as a vibrant power, regardless of political unit organization, so long as it controlled Africa, Egypt, and Illyria (taxes, food, and soldiers).

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Huns didn’t just obliterate the people they conquered, they incorporated them into their hierarchy. Theodoric’s father was a Hunnic general.

True, but the big migration that lead to Adrianople was caused by the Huns conquering the Pontic Steppe (the domino effect you mention in the other part of your comment). The argument I and others have been advancing isn't that the Huns genocide the Goths, but that they set off the dominos 100 years earlier when Rome is better lead and therefore avoids an Adrianople-style defeat and settles the Goths the way Rome usually settled barbarians rather than OTL's compromise where they hung around as basically a heavily armed state within the Roman Empire.

If anything they Goths become deadlier under the rule of the more organized Huns

Unless I'm mistaken the Visigoths were never under Hunnic rule. What empowered them was Foederati status, as they gained access to Roman training and technology, their militaries were dirrectly subsidized by the Roman treasury, and they were able to replace the Roman Army in certain functions.

 

[Gloss]

lol what? Rome was far better off than when they appeared iotl and became a threat.

Better off how? They just came out of a decade long instable period

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Better off how? They just came out of a decade long instable period

Because unstable or not they were also in a far better military position. Their armies were larger and not degraded as they were a century later. By the times the Huns became a threat iotl the western empire had been through a catastrophic war with the eastern empire that left it depleted and had been dealing with invading Germanic tribes picking away at the empire. That’s a hell of a lot worse than the late 200s.