AH Challenge: Modern Day Barbarians

Its been about 8 centuries or so since there have been barbarians hordes that overwhelmed civilization. So, how do we get a modern day (19th century or more recent) barbarian horde that can threaten civilization. Requirements for the barbarian horde are that they are a primarily militaristic and nomadic society that is not out to establish a ordered civilized (urban based) nation (though that can happen eventually, but it can't be their intent). The barbarians must provide a large scale viable threat to one or more major centers of civilization (basicly, the US, EU, or China).

The closest thing we've got in OTL is Al Queda (sic), but they don't quite meet the cut.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
One of the more popular, and more difficult, ATL is the rise of a Genghis among the Native Americans of the 19thc. Population is the problem here, as the Amerind culture made recovery from the great plagues very difficult while the European cultures emphasized population increase.

If the numbers had been more even it is doubtful if even the most advanced troops of the 19thc could have prevailed against them. Other barbarians, as in Africa, had already demonstrated the alarming facility of primitive peoples to adapt advanced weaponry to their tactics.
 
"If the numbers had been more even it is doubtful if even the most advanced troops of the 19thc could have prevailed against them. Other barbarians, as in Africa, had already demonstrated the alarming facility of primitive peoples to adapt advanced weaponry to their tactics"

I think the trouble here is not adapting advanced weaponry but having a nomadic, militaristic culture that still posesses the industrial base to maintain and manufacture that advanced weaponry.

Perhaps we could have the trekboers becoming a semi nomadic ranching culture rather than sedentary frontier farmers. We could then have the Germans supply them with weapons ala the Boer war. I still don't see any way to make them a threat to the centres of world civilisation though.
 
Barbarian & savages

There is a famous Quote by some one
"We are only one generation from savagery and two from Barbarianism."

I think about this when ever I turn on the Idiot Box and the News caster talks about the lastest antics of our Urban tribes, [Bloods, Crisps, Angels, ect.]
Remember- Attilla never looted Rome, when the Pope took the Army [police] out of the city to protect the loot used to bribe Attilla not to attack. The Germanic tribes living in the city, Rioted and burned it down [think LA Riot here]. The tribes were living in the Roman cities but still speaking their own language, and following their own Cheiftain three & four generations after moving there [does this sound today Faimiliar]. Socialization requires Force,
Rome lost It's will to use the nessacary force, ?Are we following suit? Will our Barbarians be home grown inside the cities they will destroy.

OTOH to get some kind of Barbarian Wandering like destroyed The Empire or China, You need Russia to melt down for several generations, without outside, interference, The Steppes would then be able to whirl of another wave. I don't see anyplace eles.

central Africa-not north [desert]- South theres nothing there but SAU, and you wouldn't need a horde for that. Mid East- maybe- but they didn't accually get all that far last time. South america Andes vs Pampas--NOT
North america, We already have the Mexican hordes flooding across the Border and we seen to be OK for now.
 
DominusNovus said:
Its been about 8 centuries or so since there have been barbarians hordes that overwhelmed civilization. So, how do we get a modern day (19th century or more recent) barbarian horde that can threaten civilization. Requirements for the barbarian horde are that they are a primarily militaristic and nomadic society that is not out to establish a ordered civilized (urban based) nation (though that can happen eventually, but it can't be their intent). The barbarians must provide a large scale viable threat to one or more major centers of civilization (basicly, the US, EU, or China).

The closest thing we've got in OTL is Al Queda (sic), but they don't quite meet the cut.

The reason is probably technological in nature and it would take ASBs to change. It gets worse and worse for barbarians to try and become a threat to civilized areas. Once real industrialization comes in it is all over. Industrial powers just have way too many advantages over rural, nomadic barbarians to lose to them.
 
Yes. Notice that the last Barbarian Horde was shortly before gunpowder came on the scene. Coincidence?
 
In the future, large-scale refugee movements (armed with weapons looted from failed states) could count as "barbarians." An armed group of Hutu refugees in Zaire established a de facto state and sparked the rebellion that toppled Mobutu and ultimately led to the Congo War in the mid-1990s where 3+ million people died. See "In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu's Congo."

Hmmm...perhaps a new Congo War could spark refugee movements northward, pushing a large # of North Africans (armed with weaponry from collapsed states) into attempting to cross the Mediterranean into Sicily and Italy. Will the "tolerant" EU (that needs lots of new workers to sustain pension plans for the current generation) have the intestinal fortitude or (assuming they can summon the will) even the military strength to stop them?

OR the Islamists get decisively spanked in the wars in post-USSR Central Asia and flee en masse into Pakistan and India. It's just a replay of Tamerlane.

Does either scenario sound workable? I plan on developing the first (and maybe the second) into a novel.

However, if the initial "shock" of their incursion can be beaten back, these groups will probably lose. They lack the industrial base and populace to maintain the weapons they've gotten hold of and to sustain the war. They'd need to win FAST or set off events that would proceed independently (like the Hutus in Zaire).
 
Matt Quinn said:
In the future, large-scale refugee movements (armed with weapons looted from failed states) could count as "barbarians." An armed group of Hutu refugees in Zaire established a de facto state and sparked the rebellion that toppled Mobutu and ultimately led to the Congo War in the mid-1990s where 3+ million people died. See "In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu's Congo."

Hmmm...perhaps a new Congo War could spark refugee movements northward, pushing a large # of North Africans (armed with weaponry from collapsed states) into attempting to cross the Mediterranean into Sicily and Italy. Will the "tolerant" EU (that needs lots of new workers to sustain pension plans for the current generation) have the intestinal fortitude or (assuming they can summon the will) even the military strength to stop them?

OR the Islamists get decisively spanked in the wars in post-USSR Central Asia and flee en masse into Pakistan and India. It's just a replay of Tamerlane.

Does either scenario sound workable? I plan on developing the first (and maybe the second) into a novel.

However, if the initial "shock" of their incursion can be beaten back, these groups will probably lose. They lack the industrial base and populace to maintain the weapons they've gotten hold of and to sustain the war. They'd need to win FAST or set off events that would proceed independently (like the Hutus in Zaire).

Sounds like the best starting point so far. Really, if they create enough chaos (esp. politically), or screw the infrasctructure up enough, they could do some real damage.
 
"Sounds like the best starting point so far."

Thank you. :)

Hmm...

Here's another scenario that could be worked into my "New Age of Migrations" idea. The global repercussions of the North African situation could cause economic chaos and a civil war in Mexico. Mass refugee movement across the border. The US gov't, with a situation that drastic, might act; however, I'd expect "Derechos Humanos" (their logo includes pre-1848 Mexico) and others to try to politically-stymie a reaction. The www.ranchrescue.com types are overrun by sheer #s or by military units among the refugees.

Various "Aztlan" (www.aztlan.net) type states are proclaimed on former US soil. Perhaps the US could employ some Mexican arrivals as "federati" against the later ones.
 
Matt Quinn said:
"Sounds like the best starting point so far."

Thank you. :)

Hmm...

Here's another scenario that could be worked into my "New Age of Migrations" idea. The global repercussions of the North African situation could cause economic chaos and a civil war in Mexico. Mass refugee movement across the border. The US gov't, with a situation that drastic, might act; however, I'd expect "Derechos Humanos" (their logo includes pre-1848 Mexico) and others to try to politically-stymie a reaction. The www.ranchrescue.com types are overrun by sheer #s or by military units among the refugees.

Various "Aztlan" (www.aztlan.net) type states are proclaimed on former US soil. Perhaps the US could employ some Mexican arrivals as "federati" against the later ones.


Long before that happens the US gets serious and sends troops down to the border.
 
If am right barbarians are people of similar nature who have either rejected the concept of an nation state or simply ignores it. The mentality is home is where am at. They won’t come as some mad max reject but as poor devils that use empathy as a weapon.

Modern day barbarism brings to my mind the book Camp of the Saints. it seems that Pakistan, India and Bangladesh either went though a social, economic, or natural occurring disaster. The refugees of this dystopia get their hands on a fleet of super oil tankers and set sail for parts unknown. The author goes into detail of how the stench of the ships stretch for hundreds of miles. Every country turns them away til they get to the coast of France. The tankers are going for broke and dare the French to fire on their ships.

The author as with all authors have an agenda. This one had an racist one but the book does make one think how far an civilization should go to protect itself and remain empathic at the same time.
 
Savages are People with no conection to any social Structure. Barbarians are savages who have Built a Structure of their own.

----------------------------------------------------------------
nine out of ten people like chocolate; the tenth is a liar
 
What about some sorta equivalent of the Somali militiamen in their Technicals as a new barbarian horde about to overrun contemporary (1980s/1990s) civilisation ?
 
Melvin,

The "armed refugee movements" would probably have few tanks, aircraft, etc, but I'd bet they'd have a collosal # of jury-rigged armed vehicles such as the "technicals." If their commanders are very clever, guerrilla-style use of smaller and more-agile vehicles could frustrate a "heavy metal" type military like the US; instead of fighting full-on, they'd run circles around them.

Though a modern-day "barbarian horde" defeating the US w/ "technicals" and suchlike is very unlikely, many of the European countries' militaries are underfunded and underequipped (Germany had to rent transports from Ukraine to send troops to Afghanistan) and have internal issues (in Belgium, I'd read about how a massive % of its army is non-combat stuff like chefs or haircutters and "soldiers unions" are opposing attempts to fix that). Such a military might have trouble with a well-led "barbarian horde."

Stefano can enlighten us about the state of Italy's military for my "North African invasion" scenario.
 
Baby Bust

Europe has another Problem, in the late 60's the Baby Boom Burst, and the fertility rate for Europe & the US/Canada started down. 2.1 = ZPG. In the Early 70's this was reached and the Demographers looked for it to Stabilize. To their Astonishment and Shock, it continued down, The DGs having overlooked the fact that there was no Stabilazation mechimism. By the Late 70's the TFR was hovering around 1.2 [Italy]~ 1.4 [Germany] 1.1 = half size generations.
So After 20~30 Years of this Europe just doen't have the young people needed to Form large Armies, [19-20 cent mass Armies].
 
RatCatcher

Well, men, barbarians do exist now, there are even barbarians states, like Chechnya or Albania in Europe (US is more laky, they do not experience such problems). Also, illigal immigrants in Europe, people who are absolutely out of Europe mentality, are potential barbarians too. That is the problem. One day they will show what they really can do. :mad:
 
RatCatcher said:
Well, men, barbarians do exist now, there are even barbarians states, like Chechnya or Albania in Europe (US is more laky, they do not experience such problems). Also, illigal immigrants in Europe, people who are absolutely out of Europe mentality, are potential barbarians too. That is the problem. One day they will show what they really can do. :mad:
You know, that sounds silly at first, but then I think about what the Romans must have thought of the Goths, Vandals, Franks, etc.
 
DominusNovus said:
You know, that sounds silly at first, but then I think about what the Romans must have thought of the Goths, Vandals, Franks, etc.

Aha, especially Romans in time of imperor Trayan - who could imagine that impire will be destroyed by Germans?
 
How exactly do Chechnya and Albania count as "barbarians"? In the case of Chechnya, they're indigenous to the region and are trying to free themselves from rule by outsiders (Russia).

Albanians are indigenous too, though their presence in Kosovo is actually fairly recent (1600s-1700s). Is your reason for counting the Albanians as "barbarians" their demographic expansionism, not only into Kosovo, but also into Macedonia, Montenegro, and other parts of Serbia?
 
Matt Quinn said:
Melvin,

The "armed refugee movements" would probably have few tanks, aircraft, etc, but I'd bet they'd have a collosal # of jury-rigged armed vehicles such as the "technicals." If their commanders are very clever, guerrilla-style use of smaller and more-agile vehicles could frustrate a "heavy metal" type military like the US; instead of fighting full-on, they'd run circles around them.

Though a modern-day "barbarian horde" defeating the US w/ "technicals" and suchlike is very unlikely, many of the European countries' militaries are underfunded and underequipped (Germany had to rent transports from Ukraine to send troops to Afghanistan) and have internal issues (in Belgium, I'd read about how a massive % of its army is non-combat stuff like chefs or haircutters and "soldiers unions" are opposing attempts to fix that). Such a military might have trouble with a well-led "barbarian horde."

Stefano can enlighten us about the state of Italy's military for my "North African invasion" scenario.

The Italian army is generally laughed at, but I think it's an error. In such a scenario, I believe it could prove a stabilizing and viable force. Don't think the Italians lack ferocity when needed (the long series of atrocious war crimes from The Horn of Africa to the Balkans in WWII, and the tortures to prisoners in Somalia 1992-1994 cry loud we're no "brava gente"/"nice people" in arms after all). Though I personally would leave Sicily and parts of the Spouth to an Arab horde (it would change little, IMHO:D ), I still have a certain trust in our modest military might. We have one of the most sizable arms industries in the world (exp. small arms, destroyers, frigates, fighter-bombers and helicopters), and though having little will to fight as to the whole of the populace, we have plenty of violent people to employ in such a massacre.
 
Top