Ethnography of Eastern Europe Without Slavs [Alternate History]

Dominant ethno-linguistic group of Eastern Europe in this scenario?:

  • Norse/Scandinavian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Eastern Celtic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Albanian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hellenic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Eastern Romance

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Turkic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Caucasic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Venetic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Irminonic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • some (which?) combination of the above

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
#1
Until about the year 500 Proto-Slavic population was squeezed within the Pripyat River Valley until BOOM!, they suddenly and rapidly expanded all over Europe by ca. 600 AD:


One of the most impressive expansions in the history of humanity. It is still a mystery how they managed to accomplish that, becoming the dominant ethnicity of East Europe.

But what if in the 300s or 400s a devastating plague wiped out most of the Proto-Slavs and they could never recover from it. In this scenario the Proto-Slavs are gone before they can expand and capitalize on the power vacuum left by the invasions of the Huns, and migrate across much of Central Europe and Eastern Europe. But the Huns are still there.

In this scenario who would have most likely taken their place over the long-term as the dominant ethno-linguistic group in Eastern, East-Central and South-Eastern Europe?
 
Last edited:
#2
By the way - a similar discussion can also be created about Western Europe, but with a "no Rome" scenario, instead of "no Slavs".

For example, without Rome it is doubtful whether Germanic tribes would have ever managed to conquer so much of Celtic territories.

Celts were so weak mainly because they had been devastated by Rome (and those conquered by Rome, e.g. Britons, forgot how to fight).

Check this ethnographic map of Western Europe before the Roman expansion as a basis for possible alternate history discussion:

https://i.redd.it/y3akpsjso6gz.jpg

 
#5
Somewhere on that vid is mentioned the marshy region were from (supposedly) the Slavs came? Where is that Region?
It is on the border between Eastern Poland / Northern Ukraine / Southern Belarus / Western Russia:

Polesia - Wikipedia

It stretches roughly from Biała Podlaska in Eastern Poland all the way to Bryansk in Western Russia:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Polesia_map_-_topography.jpg



https://wczasypolskie.pl/zdjecia/mapa-polesia.jpg





^^^ How the region looks like:

 
Likes: Futurist

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,690
#8
I voted Baltic, since it makes the most sense due to the location of the people.

I strongly disagree with "East Germanic" - which is winning - because the East Germanic Kingdoms were generally the most westerly of the Germanic Kingdoms after the invasion of the Huns; around 2-300 years BEFORE the Slavic expansion. Had the East Germanic people survived the Byzantines and Franks, they would generally be focused in Italy, France, and Iberia.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,039
SoCal
#9
I voted Baltic, since it makes the most sense due to the location of the people.

I strongly disagree with "East Germanic" - which is winning - because the East Germanic Kingdoms were generally the most westerly of the Germanic Kingdoms after the invasion of the Huns; around 2-300 years BEFORE the Slavic expansion. Had the East Germanic people survived the Byzantines and Franks, they would generally be focused in Italy, France, and Iberia.
Are there going to become much more Balts in this scenario due to much higher reproduction on their part in comparison to real life?
 
Likes: Theodoric

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,690
#10
Possibly not; educated conjecture on my end. It's actually very difficult to say what culture would have emerged due to the lack of written records. The rise of the Slavic language group is also still largely hypothetical; that they simply decided on using the language as that of trade. Two hypotheses lend themselves to the possible rise of Baltic: I summarize them in the first sentence of each point, and then describe how Baltic might emerge dominant.

1. Indo-European > Proto-Balto-Slavic > Balto-Slavic > Baltic and Slavic. This is the simpler of the two theories, and it leaves the opportunity for the other half of Balto-Slavic to fill the void left by lack of the Slavic language. Simply put, people would speak Baltic instead of Slavic by convenience.

2. Baltic and Slavic are similar due to intense contact between the two. With the lack of Slavic, the intense contact with Baltic and other people has the potential to rise to the dominant position of dominance in the regions where Slavic had dominated.

So two kind of similar outcomes for the two different hypotheses. Again, this is purely conjecture, there's no guarantee history would follow the same direction. It might be that some completely unexpected language becomes the language of trade in the region during the expansion. It's also possible that NO single language group ever comes to dominate the region the way Slavic did.
 

Similar History Discussions