-
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.
The Mongols would probably never have gone for most of Germany, if they were to continue invading. Hungary was perfect for them, because it is a wide open plain. They took over the Polish plain and would have done the same with the north german one. Italy would have been the next logical step for the mongols as their are no giant forests there.
I read somewhere that Hungarians originated from Asia (Mongolia, north China region). Perhaps the mongols had a hand in this?
Well all the major migrations during the last 3.000 years in Europe were due to pressure from people in Asia. In a simplistic maner, we could say that turmoil in Mongolia would lead some people to migrate West (as the East is the Pacific), and thus make the people living right to the West of them move in turn.
And each time the give who lives on the border of "Europe" invades whatever power there is in that région: Scyths, Huns, Avars, Hungarians... The Germanic tribes originate from at least as far east as the Don.
EDIT: spelling
Last edited:
The Germanic tribes (along with the Celts) actually seem to be the odds one out. iirc they start from modern - day Scandinavia/north Germany and migrate southward and eastward - they're greatest extent being the mid-4th century AD when they stretch from the Don to the Rhine. And then the Huns come along and force them westward.
edit: know you said simplistic, but I though this was a rather important difference
edit2: iirc one reason for the migrations starting usually is the 'mongols' getting defeated by the chinese. I think that started off the huns anyway.
edit: know you said simplistic, but I though this was a rather important difference
edit2: iirc one reason for the migrations starting usually is the 'mongols' getting defeated by the chinese. I think that started off the huns anyway.
Last edited:
Well actually the first evidence of Proto-Celtic Culture was found on the Danube in what would nowadays be Hungary and Austria (Civilisation of Hallstadt, circa 800BC-500BC). Around the 5th/6th century BC, the Celts started migrating West into what would become France, Italy, the UK, Eire, Spain, Benelux, Switzerland and Western Germany (Civilisation of La Tène.)
As for the Germans, one would have to be careful not to mix up "early germans" (for example: Cimbres, Teutons such as those defeated by Marius circa 112/107 BC in the Provincia) and those that later came from what would now be Russia (For Example: Goths). The early germans were extremely close culturaly and politically to the Celts, and the distinction between both would not be really done before Ceasar's campaing against "Ariovist" and the account he gives of it in his Bellum Gallicum. The Goths on the other hand, were far more distinct as they orginaly came from what would now be the Ukraine. It's is after they'd be under pressure from the Huns that they broke into the Wisigoths and the Ostrogoths.
Last edited:
Precisely what I meant Eochaid - the Goths migrated eastward into the Ukraine, rather than westward. After Marcus Aurelius' defeat of the Sarmatians and as part of the great dislocation that took place in the 3rd century throughout the European world.
Now without a doubt the Goths were more of a conquering power ruling over subject peoples, and from what I recall this is borne out by fairly scant evidence.
Also it seems fair enough to comment that the Goths were germanic - at least in origin. The contemporary chroniclers seem happy enough to link them with the other germanic tribes - or leastways the translations I have read gave that impression, and granted that Roman chroniclers tended to lump all barbarians together.
Incidentally the reason why I think this is because of a historical atlas I have lying around somewhere that definitely shows the Goths moving eastward into the Ukraine - and then of course later being booted out by the Huns.
Now without a doubt the Goths were more of a conquering power ruling over subject peoples, and from what I recall this is borne out by fairly scant evidence.
Also it seems fair enough to comment that the Goths were germanic - at least in origin. The contemporary chroniclers seem happy enough to link them with the other germanic tribes - or leastways the translations I have read gave that impression, and granted that Roman chroniclers tended to lump all barbarians together.
Incidentally the reason why I think this is because of a historical atlas I have lying around somewhere that definitely shows the Goths moving eastward into the Ukraine - and then of course later being booted out by the Huns.
We're just setting the stage for the Mongol push westward by showing how oter peoples did likewise beforehand.
Yup, the Goths started out (it's believed anyway) at the baltic coast in modern day Poland, they then migrated southeast to Ukraine and Crimea where they later had a clash with the Huns. The part of the Goths that fled from the Huns became the Visigoths while those that stayed and became subjugated turned into the Ostrogoths more or less to keep things simple.
A very good book on the subject is Cataclysm. Sorry can't remember the author's name.
It is a good account of how plague in the far east forced western migration starting the domino effect of one clan invading the lands of another and so on until "barbarians" finally sacked Rome.
I know that at first appearances this is a little off topic given the Mongolian invasions where driven by other reasons but it sets the stage for the fragmented remnants of the the Roman empire we see in CK.
