Quite an extraordinary breakout thanks to research into ancient DNA: https://www.science.org/content/article/mystery-warriors-made-fastest-migration-ancient-history
- 3
- 1
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Interesting then again the Eurasian plains always expanded into Ukraine and the Pannonian Plain historically was the most west territory for such a lifestyle, as we seen with later nomadic invaders.
- 1
I am a little puzzled at what is the supposed breakthrough.
It has long been argued that the Avars and the Juan-Juan/Rouren of Mongolia were probably one and the same people. Or rather what we call the "Avars" were a sub-group of them.
We know they moved to Hungary in about a decade. The Juan-Juan/Rouren were overthrown in Mongolia by the Gokturk rebellion in 552, and a sub-group (Avars proper) refused to submit to Gokturk rule and moved westwards, pushed along by the expanding Turks, until they arrived in Europe in 561, and moved into Pannonia in 567.
There is a supplementary theory that the fleeing Avars might have merged with dissident groups of Hephthalites ("White Huns") of Central Asia along the way, and picked up some other random peoples as they went.
But the idea that the Avars were probably of Mongol origin and migrated within a decade is generally held. I guess DNA just confirms it?
It has long been argued that the Avars and the Juan-Juan/Rouren of Mongolia were probably one and the same people. Or rather what we call the "Avars" were a sub-group of them.
We know they moved to Hungary in about a decade. The Juan-Juan/Rouren were overthrown in Mongolia by the Gokturk rebellion in 552, and a sub-group (Avars proper) refused to submit to Gokturk rule and moved westwards, pushed along by the expanding Turks, until they arrived in Europe in 561, and moved into Pannonia in 567.
There is a supplementary theory that the fleeing Avars might have merged with dissident groups of Hephthalites ("White Huns") of Central Asia along the way, and picked up some other random peoples as they went.
But the idea that the Avars were probably of Mongol origin and migrated within a decade is generally held. I guess DNA just confirms it?
Last edited:
- 1
Yes, exactly. It was a long-held assumption, but many historians considered too far-fetched that they could have relocated from one extreme to the Eurasian Steppe to another in such a short span of time. This study not only confirms it, but it also seems to hint strongly that the migration was massive. It was not a reduced group of aristocratic warriors, but a real people on the move. And that the “aristocratic core” of the Avars (probably what, given the usual social structures of the Eurasian Steppe, we should consider as the “proper” Avars) did not intermarry with the conquered population until the demise of the empire at the hand of Charlemagne.
The article says nothing about it, but it also raises doubts about the “Turkic” language ethnicity of the Avars. If they moved from central/eastern Mongolia to the Hungarian Plain within a generation, they cannot have become “Turkicized” during their migration. Turkic was not, and still is not, spoken in those parts of Mongolia.
- 1
In the case of the Avars, this was a “bona fide” flight for their survival. According to historical accounts, their former Türk vassals that replaced them as the great empire of the Steppe were hellbent on annihilating them. They literally fled as far away as they were physically able to.
- 1
Avars Turkic? I don't think I've heard that.
I've heard that along the way the Avars briefly imposed themselves on the Turkic Onogurs (Bulgars) and Turkic Sabirs (along with Utrigur Huns, Kutrigur Huns and Antes Slavs) in the Western (Pontic-Caspian) Steppe. But they hung around there for only five or six years at best. I guess it possible they have may have taken some of their Turkic vassals with them to Pannonia, but I don't think I've ever seen it proposed they were Turkic themselves.
Last edited:
I've seen it assumed more than once, when in fact there's practically zero evidence about which language they spoke.
- 1
The largest Soviet researcher, orientalist, author of the Steppe Trilogy, Gumilev, considered the Avars to be residents of Central Asia, the former Soviet Union, that is, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
I remember reading somewhere that the Gokturk were chasing after the Avar? Or rather the correspondance between the Eastern Rome and the Gokturk heavily hinted that. So that may explain the rapid movement to the west as they were literally hunted down by their former servants.
Sort of similarly of what happened to the Pechenegs and those Cumans who refused to submit to Mongol rule later on.
Sort of similarly of what happened to the Pechenegs and those Cumans who refused to submit to Mongol rule later on.
- 1
Acording to the Chinese sources (the Beiji and Zizhi Tongjian), the Türks were originally vassals of the Avars (known as Rouran or Ruan-Ruan in Chinese sources) until the leader of the Türk Ashina clan, Ashina Tumen (a general in the Rouran army, as his title means "commander of ten thousand"), led them in revolt against their overlords and defeated the Rouran ruler Yujiulü Anagui, who killed himself after his defeat. So yes, in a nutshell that's what happened. They ran from their homeland in central and eastern Mongolia to the west as far and fast as they could, and settled in the Great Hungarian Plan twenty years after the events, as confirmed by DNA analysis; it took them a generation or less. And as the article states, they seem to have migrated in large enough numbers that two centuries later (at the time of their defeat at the hands of Charlemagne), its political elite, even though its members only married among them, showed no sign of inbreeding.
It is a recurrent theme in Inner Asian history; the Xiongnu also fled westwards after their defeat at the hands of the Eastern Han and the Xianbei, and in turn the Xianbei also fled to the west to escape the Rouran.
- 1
It's interesting indeed; did any people ever flee EAST along the Steppe? We know the Russians and way before the Indo-Europeans did expand east, but I can't recall any others.
I think it happened occasionally but not as often or to the same distance. The general tendency is definitely east to west migration. That is, as you say, after the initial spread of the Indo-Europeans. Which is to say during all of recorded history (as distinct from archeology and linguistic reconstruction). We have almost no sources dealing with any of the steppe zone peoples before Alexander and the Parthians in the west or the Han in the east. There are some tantalizing hints of a changes in the way of life on the eastern steppe around the time the Han came to power, maybe from semi-nomadic pastoralism to full nomadism and maybe influenced by climate change, but nothing firm.
It raises some interesting questions about the power dynamics: if peoples defeated in the east could gain power in the west, the eastern steppe must have been much richer or more conducive to forming powerful political systems. Why didn't those powerful eastern peoples take over the western steppes before their defeats? There is one prominent example where they did do so, the Mongols. But even they, on succession, devolved their western parts to junior branches. There was probably more to be gained from interactions with China.
- 1
The Gokturks did just that. They're the ones who ended the last indo-europeans nomads and gave their language to much of the modern people living in the eurasian steppes.
Also the western displacement isn't unique to the eastern steppe. It also happened in the western steppes. Agathyrsi displaced by the Scythians, the latter moving west as well after being displaced by the Sarmatians. Sarmatians moving west in turn.
The Pecheneg, The Cumans, The Magyar. There is just too many exemples.
As for why, I believe the main culprit is geography. The Western steppes is way too open, which allow this kind of quick expansion/collapse of empires. While the eastern steppes are cut off from the west by a mountain range, and the less open and harsher condition are less conducive to rapid conquest but on the flip side perhaps promote more stable system of governance. As the eastern Khaganates could last for centuries.
And obviously when fighting in mountains, mountainous people always have the upper hand. In plains, the reverse is not as guaranteed.
Also the western displacement isn't unique to the eastern steppe. It also happened in the western steppes. Agathyrsi displaced by the Scythians, the latter moving west as well after being displaced by the Sarmatians. Sarmatians moving west in turn.
The Pecheneg, The Cumans, The Magyar. There is just too many exemples.
As for why, I believe the main culprit is geography. The Western steppes is way too open, which allow this kind of quick expansion/collapse of empires. While the eastern steppes are cut off from the west by a mountain range, and the less open and harsher condition are less conducive to rapid conquest but on the flip side perhaps promote more stable system of governance. As the eastern Khaganates could last for centuries.
And obviously when fighting in mountains, mountainous people always have the upper hand. In plains, the reverse is not as guaranteed.
- 1
I agree; it doesn’t seem to be a coincidence that the first true Steppe empire (the Xiongnu) appeared immediately after the First Emperor unified China.
I'm a bit confused what "did just that" refers to. The rise of the Gokturks seems to have been an internal revolt against the Rouran, so it's not really a case of a steppe people conquering another one to their east, if that's what you mean. They divided according to the Xiongnu pattern into a primary eastern realm led by the elder brother and a secondary western one under the younger brother.
If you're referring instead to the Mongol conquest pattern, then yes, there is some similarity. At least for a while the Gokturks expanded quickly in the west. It's possible that the success of the western Gokturks was the reason the defeated Rourans moved so far so quickly.
The western realm was definitely more successful at assimilating other steppe peoples. One reason may be that the Turks lived mainly in the western part before they overthrew the Rourans, maybe most of them just didn't move east with the elder brother. (It's actually not entirely clear whether the ruling Ashina clan was itself Turkic.)
Or it may be that the eastern realm got itself into trouble intervening in Chinese civil wars. After about 60 years (in 605) it had lost enough that the empire split. The Tang dynasty comprehensively defeated the eastern part 25 years later and the western part another 25 years after that. So for 85 years the east suffered big losses in China while the west more or less did its own thing in Central Asia; it sent armies to support the eastern part for the first 60 years but I would guess a smaller proportion of its overall fighting strength.
My guess is that China is the key to political geography on the steppe. The mountain ranges in the middle are a barrier whether you try to move east or west. Certainly the eastern steppe also saw a lot of peoples quickly rise and then fall again, not so different from the west. When China was weak they usually moved south, either in triumph or as mercenary peoples after their defeat. When it was strong, it blocked off the southern escape.
The Turks did not wait to be defeated to expand west.
Plus westward migration when peoples get defeated is not unique to the people of the eastern steppes. It also happened plenty of times to tribes who already were settled in the west. Many names that are famous to the Europeans. From Cimmerians to Cumans, were forced to move westward by another warring tribe.
And evidently China was fairly important to the politics of the steppes. It was the bane of many such empires afterall. Xiongnu, Gokturks, Mongols, Oirat and so forth. And yes, the fortune of misfortunes, or fortunes of eastern Khaganate often had consequence westward.
Not exactly correct. Both Mongolia and Uyghurstan are fairly mountainous region. Moving east means expanding in hilly and mountainous areas whereas eastern tribes only had to cross the Altai to find themselves over the open plain. With no real obstacles until you reach the Volga. And no real terrain until the Carpathians.
Moving eastward is quite different from moving westward.
Ah, that was my second option and you are correct. I would only caution that this expansion was led by the lesser of the two kings, the elder brother took the eastern realm.
I didn't say it was unique to anyone, I only said the general pattern was from east to west. Which applies, as you note, to those settled in pretty much any place in both eastern and western steppe. It looks to me that we agree on the driving force often being another people pushing in from the east. Logically that leads to the question why the eastern peoples were usually the ones doing the pushing.
I got confused by your earlier post, my mistake but in my defense the last sentence here shows how that could happen. It isn't the journey you're talking about really, it's the destination.
But you see, there's a problem here if you're right as well. Let's say the eastern steppe is more hilly and mountainous. Wouldn't that make it less suitable for growing those herds of horses and cattle you need to become stronger than your neighbor? Take, for example, the Carpathian Basin, which was well suited to a nomadic lifestyle but too small for any of the nomads there to have expanded out to the east, instead they were usually defeated by the next wave. Until, that is one of them built castles, lost most of its nomadism but survived the next few onslaughts.
It's possible that the answer lies rather in the transition. There are quite a few instances of peoples moving onto the steppe from the forests to the north and adopting a nomadic lifestyle (e.g. Greuthungi Goths). If you're right about the geographic differences between eastern and western steppe it must be something like that, a habitat that's suitable for making such a change as well as less likely to be attacked in the vulnerable stages or perhaps more easily defensible. Such a habitat is unlikely to be richer in steppe resources than the larger steppe zone but there's perhaps a partial answer in explaining how it got more quickly resettled by new (to the steppe) peoples.
After all, I still think China is the major part of the answer. It's not only a power that pushes others out to the west when it's strong. It's also a source of wealth: plunder when it's weak or mercenary funding when it's divided, or both when weakness and division coincide as they tend to do. This is where the eastern steppe peoples got the resources to outmatch their fellow nomads to the west. I think the pattern could be that a power arises on the eastern steppe, feeds itself on Chinese wealth for a while, then gets defeated by a reunited China but still retains some of its wealth when they're pushed to the west.
And I gave my opinion: geography.
It is. And remains so.
The western part of the steppe from the Volga to the Danube is one of the most fertile place on earth. Mongolia and Uyghurstan? Not so much.
And so it is understandable that the movement went from east to west. There were not incentive for the western tribes to move east.
I think your logic is backward. Invader do not need to be richer to be successful. In fact this logic make little sense when we are talking about defeated tribe that are forced to flee their homeland like the Avars or the Xiongnu/Huns. Those tribes are literally fleeing to survive. How wealthy are they really? And why does it even matter?
Are they subjugating the western tribes with their money? No.
Rather think of it like that: Why Scandinavians pushed West/South instead of North (until almost the modern age)? And why Scandinavia was never invaded by Southernling? Because it was richer?
Or tribes in the Sahara/Arabian desert pressuring the arable land.
Why did they pushed at all? And why they were rarely if ever pushed back?
For me the same logic applies to the steppes. The western part is not only far larger and more fertile but also really easy to invade. As a side note it also was the first part to be conquered and colonized by settled people. Coincidence? I think not.
Meanwhile the Eastern steppes are surrounded North and West by mountains. South by the Gobi desert and East by the Pacific Ocean. And the whole land is hilly and arid. No so easy to subjugate.
And while I do believe China did play a role in providing stability to the Eastern Khaganate. It was thanks to the tributes and the silk road rather than plunder. And still it does not explain why western Khaganate such as the Avars, Bolghars, or Pechenegs fell to their eastern neighbors.
In what way where they "less wealthy"? Surely plundering their settled neighbors should have given them the upperhand since their vanquisher did not exactly come from China?
Also the east to west movement largely predates the existence of Imperial China. We have evidence of such migrations since at least the bronze age. And even further beyond if we suscribe to the nomadic origins of indo-euopeans.
Even with the most generous interpretation of their movements, they never seems to have expanded beyond the westernmost edges of the eastern steppes. Seemingly stopped by something. Or someones. Whatever the reason, I do not think the answer was China. No, most likely again geography.
Last edited:
Ok it is understandable that e.g. a Roman general would rather choose the option of a civil war than expanding into the Sahara / Scandinavia if he has to deal with the problems related to overpopulation. And in the case of the defeated Roman general it is also understandable that he did not fled to those regions as they were unable to support his army.
But unless the Eastern Steppes are fundamentally different than the Western ones, the losing side of a Western Steppe civil war could have fled to the East. But it seems to be rarely the case.