How did Germanic tribes alter the socio-cultural structure of the lands they seized?

[St. Just]

As it says in the title. How did different tribes affect the social and cultural makeup of the lands they conquered vis-a-vis other tribes. For example, would a more horse-bound culture (the later Ostrogoths) have different social effects from the Vandals or Visigoths?

 

[Delvestius]

As far as I can tell, only in England did Germanic tribes alter the local Romance populace, in this case fully assimilating it. The Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Franks all intermarried within a few generations loosing their linguistic distinction and we're Christianized even before they were sedentary. A few cognates relating to war is about the extent of influence Old Germanic culture had on continental post-Roma.

 

[DanMcCollum]

As far as I can tell, only in England did Germanic tribes alter the local Romance populace, in this case fully assimilating it. The Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Franks all intermarried within a few generations loosing their linguistic distinction and we're Christianized even before they were sedentary. A few cognates relating to war is about the extent of influence Old Germanic culture had on continental post-Roma.

I don't think that using the survival of Romance languages as evidence of a total lack of lasting effects of the Germanic kingdoms on the regions they ruled over is a strong argument. You could also look at the development of Feudalism (which melded Germanic notions of government along with the remnants of the Roman governmental structure) as just one example. Also, its important to remember that, simply because a people lose their linguistic identity, does not mean they lose their group identity(Dublin and Glasgow ate very English cities, right? ) ; the Lombards make have adopted vulgar Latin fairly early on, but they continued to view themselves as Lombards up until the conquest of the Kingdom by the Franks, and later.

 

[Sior]

As far as I can tell, only in England did Germanic tribes alter the local Romance populace, in this case fully assimilating it. The Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Franks all intermarried within a few generations loosing their linguistic distinction and we're Christianized even before they were sedentary. A few cognates relating to war is about the extent of influence Old Germanic culture had on continental post-Roma.

Stole murdered and raped their way to alter Britain. The Mitrocondrial DNA just shows that Celtic Women were bearing children, not that the population was assimulated, killing the Celtic men and boys and raping the women and girls gives the same result and as we know that the Saxons were uncivilised barbarians the former not the latter would seem to be the case.

 

[scholar]

The Vandals weren't all that important and were mostly dealt with fairly quickly leaving behind only a bad memory. The Visigoths in the mean time actively started becoming romanized and carried on all the functions of the roman state within the confines of their borders simply with a different political structure towards the top. If you look at the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths you see a study of Rome dealing with ethnic and martial transition, not one of barbarian conquest and the fall of Rome. At least, not until Justinian and Charlemagne marked two direct stages of transition, from a Roman World to one which was truly Post-Roman.

The Late Antiquity Crisis or Transformation was one in which the Roman Empire's institutions degraded to an openly autocratic military regime (dominate as opposed to principate), and then from those martial emperors to martial germanic immigrate federates who established secondary subordinate kingdoms within the empire. Not a transformation, but a metamorphosis akin to Augustus and the Roman Empire, or Diocletian and Constantine at the end of the Third Century Crisis, or the Herculian transition of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Athaulf I:

"At first I wanted to erase the Roman name and convert all Roman territory into a Gothic empire: I longed for Romania to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what Caesar Augustus had been. But long experience has taught me that the ungoverned wildness of the Goths will never submit to laws, and that without law a state is not a state. Therefore I have more prudently chosen the different glory of reviving the Roman name with Gothic vigour, and I hope to be acknowledged by posterity as the initiator of a Roman restoration, since it is impossible for me to alter the character of this Empire."

On Theodoric and Ostrogothic Italy:

Such developments would seem to suggest that a synthesis is warranted, but this is not the purpose of this dissertation. Indeed, though the present study is informed by the above models and benefits from the advancesdiscussed so far, itspurpose is to take the fields of “Ostrogothic Italy” and “barbarian studies” into an entirely different direction by suggesting a new type of accommodation model. Set within the context of Roman imperial decline and the emergence of “barbarian kingdoms,” this study is unapologetically “Roman” (“Italo-Roman” to be more specific) in its orientation. It is not, therefore, a history of Ostrogothic Italy or the Goths, but instead, as its title implies, a history of the Roman Empire that fully accepts Ostrogothic Italy as a continuation of Roman history, not a break or fundamental alteration. It does not, then, like the models discussed above, look to the medieval future; it looks instead to the Roman past. One of its principal purposes, therefore, is to complicate quite considerably notions of “barbarian” and “Roman” during this period, providing new models for the understanding of both and suggesting in the process how Theoderic and his Goths could find acceptance as “Romans.” Another purpose, in keeping with the first, is to draw attention to the full extent to which the “Ostrogothic” state was perceived, in its own time, to have been the western Roman Empire. “Ostrogothic Italy,” this study claims, is a misnomer, an unfortunate (though convenient) inaccuracy that renders barbarian an Italy that remained proudly Roman in its self-identification. Finally, a third underlying purpose is to demonstrate that Theoderic and his Goths not only fit within these understandings of Romanness and a Roman Empire, but were also essential to it, their unique roles contributing to contemporary beliefs of imperial resurgence, blessedness, and even a golden age. Theoderic’s Italy, then, was not a mistake; norwere the Romans of Italy yearning to be liberated by the only real Roman Empire based out of Constantinople. It was a true Roman Empire that worked and would have continued to work, persisting in its Roman identity, had it not been for the unforeseeable intervention of the east-Roman state

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/60883/jjarnold_1.pdf

 

[DominusNovus]

Stole murdered and raped their way to alter Britain. The Mitrocondrial DNA just shows that Celtic Women were bearing children, not that the population was assimulated, killing the Celtic men and boys and raping the women and girls gives the same result and as we know that the Saxons were uncivilised barbarians the former not the latter would seem to be the case.

The jury is still on on this matter.

 

[Delvestius]

I don't think that using the survival of Romance languages as evidence of a total lack of lasting effects of the Germanic kingdoms on the regions they ruled over is a strong argument. You could also look at the development of Feudalism (which melded Germanic notions of government along with the remnants of the Roman governmental structure) as just one example.

I'll give you certain proto-aspects of feudalism, but for the most part this was a natural process to to decentralization. Got anything else?

Also, its important to remember that, simply because a people lose their linguistic identity, does not mean they lose their group identity(Dublin and Glasgow ate very English cities, right? ) ; the Lombards make have adopted vulgar Latin fairly early on, but they continued to view themselves as Lombards up until the conquest of the Kingdom by the Franks, and later.

By that time though it was more of a social distinction than an ethnic one. There were simply not enough Germanic invaders to truly alter the cultures of their host states in super significant ways.

Stole murdered and raped their way to alter Britain. The Mitrocondrial DNA just shows that Celtic Women were bearing children, not that the population was assimulated, killing the Celtic men and boys and raping the women and girls gives the same result and as we know that the Saxons were uncivilised barbarians the former not the latter would seem to be the case.

Not all the men and boys, a lot were used as slaves.

 

[Mongo]

Stole murdered and raped their way to alter Britain. The Mitrocondrial DNA just shows that Celtic Women were bearing children, not that the population was assimulated, killing the Celtic men and boys and raping the women and girls gives the same result and as we know that the Saxons were uncivilised barbarians the former not the latter would seem to be the case.

I'm afraid that this was par for the course throughout world history. The Corded Wear culture (ancestors of the western IE speakers, including the Celts), appear to have done exactly the same thing to the previous Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in Ukraine, 3000 years earlier. In that case, the archaeological record is intact enough that not only do we see the destruction level where the Corded Wear culture replaces the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, but several of the destroyed cities actually still had abundant skeletal remains from the massacres when the cities were burned. Notably absent from the kill-zones were young females, you get one guess what probably happened to them!

Of course there was always a certain level of violence in prehistory, but it sure looks to me like the proto-Indo-Europeans were remarkably brutal in their expansion. I suspect that this had a lot to do with their success, other cultures were simply unprepared to deal with them -- for example, the cities of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture I had mentioned above were completely unfortified before their destruction.

 

[St. Just]

Gotcha. I hope LSCatilina responds, since it was an old post of his (that the Ostrogoth elite was different than the Visigothic elite) that inspired this inquiry in the first place.

 

[CalBear]

Stole murdered and raped their way to alter Britain. The Mitrocondrial DNA just shows that Celtic Women were bearing children, not that the population was assimulated, killing the Celtic men and boys and raping the women and girls gives the same result and as we know that the Saxons were uncivilised barbarians the former not the latter would seem to be the case.

Ya' know, I just banned somebody for freaking out about Cromwell's men raping and eating Irish babies. To date, stupidest thing I have ever had to ban someone over.

Please don't be the second, over something even more idiotic.

 

[Sior]

Ya' know, I just banned somebody for freaking out about Cromwell's men raping and eating Irish babies. To date, stupidest thing I have ever had to ban someone over.

Please don't be the second, over something even more idiotic.

This is a valid theory of the invasion of Celtic Britain by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes! Assimilation is just a fig leaf to cover the ugly truth of what happened at this time of history!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives_(Arthurian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_paganism

 

[scholar]

This is a valid theory of the invasion of Celtic Britain by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes! Assimilation is just a fig leaf to cover the ugly truth of what happened at this time of history!

Here's the thing: theory in history is not the same thing as theory in science. A valid possibility is not the same thing as pure fact and anyone who doesn't go along with it is an apologist. Further, if you do some serious research into this topic the arrival of the Angles and Saxons show slow steady arrivals, not a massive invasion that raped, pillaged, and enslaved. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween two ends of fairly radical ideas to this transition.

But if it makes you feel better, there are instances where you can use this and scream your head off: greek colonization. A couple hundred or a couple thousand young male greeks set out with the blessing of their city to go forth and conquer a bit of land. The expedition is almost all male because they are expected to move into an area, kill off most of the men, and enslave the women as wives. Same people who gave you Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato gave you this as a proper and just way to expand your own influence, the influence of your state, and do so without causing problems with your neighbors.

But here's the thing. I do not think Calbear has a problem with the theory, just your presentation of it. Screaming your head off probably is not a good idea, and neither is being far too fervent in pressing this idea. Bring forward the ideas, argue them with respect and some amount of distance, and try to convince people.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

This is a valid theory of the invasion of Celtic Britain by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes! Assimilation is just a fig leaf to cover the ugly truth of what happened at this time of history!

That some nationalists radicals try to whitewash history of their peoples is clear and sure.

That some nationalists radicals try to BLACKwash history of the 'ennemy' peoples is clear and sure too.

Beware 'celtic revisionism' as well as 'anglo-saxon' one too.

 

[Admiral Matt]

This is a valid theory of the invasion of Celtic Britain by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes! Assimilation is just a fig leaf to cover the ugly truth of what happened at this time of history!

If you had only said "murdered and raped their way to alter Britain. The Mitrocondrial DNA just shows that Celtic Women were bearing children, not that the population was assimulated, killing the Celtic men and boys and raping the women and girls gives the same result" then you almost certainly wouldn't have gotten a warning.

But you felt that was not enough. You weren't warned for the facts. You were warned for this: "and as we know that the Saxons were uncivilised barbarians the former not the latter would seem to be the case." Adding "stole" probably didn't help your case much either, as it is mostly beside the point for population replacement (although obviously I'd assume it happened, and regularly).

Uncivilized and barbarians are both inflammatory, emotional, pejorative terms. Use them carefully and it is fine. Hurl them as insults against an entire ethnic group, no matter how deserving the target....

As you reap, so shall you sow.

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, it depends what you call "Germanic" there.

German peoples, even before entering in Romania, where romanized to a huge extent (it helped that a good part of them was made of romans by the early Vth).
Not only institutionally, trough military and administrative matters (Sitilicho is the most flamboyant exemple, but it was repeted for basically anyone). But as well culturally, by the use of roman goods or tastes.

Does that means Romano-Germans were deprived of distinct features? Obviously not. But we have to check these carefully.
Francisca or eagle gibular are often described as being typically Frankish or Gothic. Fair enough. But these simply doesn't appear before their entry in Romania.
Nothing, nada, que dalle. Not even a daguerrotype of a IIIrd century Frank holding a francisca.

If it was the only one thing : but it applies as well to clothes, laws (even Salic law is hugely influenced by roman law), historiography (basically a mix of Aeneid, Bible and possibly folk tales), etc.

And still, these formed the bulk of romano-germanic identities. What did happen?

It's a common feature to see identitary features being exacerbated.
Hypenathed-American could be a fitting, if somewhat misleading ("It's like a bubble. Well it's not. But picture a bubble")

Romans were never too much about giving other people the same importance than their. Ethnographycally, it went to denying other peoples an history of their own. Meaning that once they identified (or mis-identified) a group of people, everything going in the same rough region was considered as the same. It's why Vandals by the IIIrd century were considered as Celts (well, admittedly, Germans were in great part influenced by Celtic features, but that's another issue).

So, it went down to this. A Frank, Goth, Saxon, is someone whom king is a/the king of Franks, Goths, Saxons.

While it was acceptable as long the WRE was able to enforce its power, when the imperium passed trough romano-german entities (as, for example, Chilperic considered as a roman general ruling over Belgica Secunda), Barbarian identities became attractive.
Less taxes, prestige of the military elite, clear and legit authority far more close than Constantinople's or Roman usurpers (with possibly a refusal of Roman authority itself, clearly after Bagaudae)...

With romano-german kings being the continuators of the Late Empire, and giving the personnalisation of this one, you had an identitary afflux.
And when it come to distinguish not only romano-germans and newcomers, from the rest...Well, there wasn't much choice but exacerbation if not making up (less conciously than "playing along").

And these features became more or less widespread.

So you had cultural modification, but in the continuity of the Late Empire, and less Germanic than "germanic".
Another example is the language : Gothic or Frankish were basically dead languages by the VI, only used ceremonially in the former case.
(At the point Ostrogithic texts are written in very good latin, with some "germanisms" being randomly put.)

Socially, the difference is weak if not simply unexistant.
Even admitting all the Barbarians entering in Romania took over and replaced roman population (and ignoring sources, as the ones pointing out that many landed Barbarians quickly lost their lot to former owners), we're talking of some thousands people there.

In the countryside, there's simply no trace of a replacement of population, and elites (to not speak of the bulk of population) there probably remained the same than in Roman period (or even pre-Roman period).
It's even more obvious in towns, that remained the main relay of political power after the collapse of WRE, basically up to the Xth century. Bishops, for example, hold the power there and as well in royal administration without being replaced (some tried, as Vandals, and by replacing them with other -just more disciplined- bishops and it failed big time).

Feudalism owes something to these romano-german presence of course, but is certainly not a direct consequence, appearing by the IX/Xth centuries for diverse reasons. (Mostly military changes, political collapse, systematisation of vassality as pre-requisite of power relations).

Gotcha. I hope LSCatilina responds, since it was an old post of his (that the Ostrogoth elite was different than the Visigothic elite) that inspired this inquiry in the first place.

Do you meant this post?
If I wrote it today, I'd correct it a bit. It's not that wrong, but should be clarified.


Now, these kingdoms were quite divided, but this divisions wasn't "ensured" by the familial unity : particularisms (as in the N-E of Visigothic Kingdom), absence of real mix between roman and germanic population (critically in Italy, less true for late Visigothic Kingdom).

Now, these kingdoms could be divised politically, but these divisions weren't due to share of kingship. Regional particularism (Basques or "Septimanians" for exemple) or absence of full merge between romans and Barbarians (critically in Italy where the Roman prestige was too great to make Ostrogothic identity as attractive as Frankish; something that was less of a problem for the late Visigothic Kingdom).

This is a valid theory of the invasion of Celtic Britain by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes! Assimilation is just a fig leaf to cover the ugly truth of what happened at this time of history!

My teacher in Late Antiquity classes used to call this "Conan the Barbarian" theory.
It is as valid than any theory based on a sole, disputed when it comes to interpretation, factor.

First, we don't have any trace of systematical slaughter of men. Neither archeologically, or in texts (unless we take Arthurian mythos as credible sources, but then again).

Second, it's assuming Saxons were complete strangers, appearing only to rape and plunder and hear the lamentations of their women.
We know, from diverse sources, that Saxons settled the region as early than the IVth century, maybe earlier.
The Itus Saxonorum (Saxon straight) was a military circonscription, on both sides of the Channel, inteded to defend against Saxons...with Saxons.
The principle isn't exactly exceptionnal : Franks were used to fight other Rheinish barbarians, Normans settled to fight Normans, etc.

Thinking that a presence there for two centuries can beat assimilation if ludicrous.

Third, remember when I spoke about "both sides" of the itus?
Well, many Saxons settled in Gaul as well (Loire estuary mostly). Why didn't they formed separate entities, or distinct ethnies?
Either they were "Good" Saxons, possibly enlightened by Franks or Visigoths to behave; or as Bretons they formed a same cultural group than their insular counterparts.
What was the difference?

To begin with, Gaul was a helluva more populated (6/8 millions against 1 million guesstimated), more "classically" romanized than Britain : more urban centers, more Christian presence, more roman armies (being understood that these armies were composed in good part of romano-german recruits).
It's not that simple to assimilate to a stereotype of Roman culture (the stereotype we're talking there is that Romanisation=Augustean Rome) was not only not that present, but clearly outdated.

If we agree to consider that *maybe* Saxons didn't acted in a totally different way than all the other peoples in Romania, that Britain had a low population to begin with, that the political confrontation was far more present (While Franks or Goths dealt quickly with what remained of remnants; Saxons and Britons fight during centuries, something that usually doesn't fare well for mutual assimilation)...

Let's say that we have a lot more theories to discuss with, that have the benefit to be based on just more than tired clichés (clichés that are dubiously applied to contemporary issues, such as the so-called replacement of western civilisation by new invaders. Politically loaded use of the period are as old than Kossina).

While the use of DNA evidence has certainly added fresh vigour to the debate over the scale of Anglo-Saxon migration, it cannot be said to have provided any definite answers. Arguments using DNA evidence can support either side of the debate; some in favour of mass-immigration (Weale et al 2002), some for small-scale elite dominance (Thomas et al 2006), while others argue for a middle-road between the two extremes (Capelli et al 2003).

 

[St. Just]

Actually, it was a post detailing that since the Ostrogoths had a horse-riding elite, the way they handled post-Roman society was different from the Visigoths and other groups.

Still, excellent analysis- as always, great insights on the murky era of Rome's political fall and the rise of the Germano-Roman order.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

There may have been indeed some clear differences between the western germanic peoples who had an history of contact with roman(ised peoples) and all this, and eastern ones who where more.. 'secluded' to a point (was there old links with eastern roman side? trade roads, Arian missionaires probably)...

 

[LSCatilina]

Actually, it was a post detailing that since the Ostrogoths had a horse-riding elite, the way they handled post-Roman society was different from the Visigoths and other groups.

I tried to search that on the board, but I simply didn't find. Could you please send me a link?
Now : if I wrote exactly that, I was probably talking out of my mind.

If something, Ostrogoths were the most "imperial" romano-barbarians in the western part. They maintained not only the imperial prestige and decorum, but as well most of the institutions in place and "fit in".
Basically, the romano-germanic kingdom most close of ERE (explaining their prestige in western Europe, and a possible shock on the byzantine intervention)

One of the main differences with Visigoths being, possibly, the more tensed relationship these had with locals. (Eurichaving a policy that if it can't be called anti-roman, didn't tolerated other imperium than his, for exemple)

There may have been indeed some clear differences between the western germanic peoples who had an history of contact with roman(ised peoples) and all this, and eastern ones who where more.. 'secluded' to a point (was there old links with eastern roman side? trade roads, Arian missionaires probably)...

Bof. The difference doesn't seem to be that striking to be honest.
Rome have an as long history of interecting with Danubian peoples than Rheinish ones (Marcoman Wars are an example, but you had intervention there since the Principate).

Of course, political and military interventionism isn't all, trade as exporter of a "way of life" is as well decisive. But there again, the difference between Rhine and Danube doesn't seem to be relevant.

It's not like, eventually, western germanic leagues had a longer existance than eastern germanic peoples. Both owe their very existance to their relationship with Rome : Franks, Alamans, Saxons, etc. are but alliances of diverse peoples; and Trevingii or Greuthingii aren't much different, as well appearing in history, named (and therefore isolated, and "freezed") trough raiding and piracy in Moesia and Black Sea in the IIIrd.

 

[St. Just]

I've tried finding the post and failed, but thank you for your observations.

Do you think if another people had conquered Italy after the Germanic tribes (a Slavic or Turkic group, perchance), they would have altered the makeup of the nobility or military in any way?

 

[LSCatilina]

Do you think if another people had conquered Italy after the Germanic tribes (a Slavic or Turkic group, perchance), they would have altered the makeup of the nobility or military in any way?

Honestly, it's really context-dependent.
It's not like Barbarian peoples were "ethnically" (ethny being a really vague term, of course) homogenous to begin with.
Goths for instance were mix of romanized Germans (whom some, and not necessarily the elite, *may* have distant ancestor from Vistula), Sarmatians, Romans, Dacians, etc.

Any Turkic or Slavic people taking over in the same era, in the same manner would have logically good odds to end likewise to me.

Eventually it's about what's the "imperial model" (imperial in the sense of rule). By the Vth century, the only one avaible in the western world was Rome (Late Empire to be precise). Entering and prospering in Romania meant at more or less long term, playing by these rules (even Saxons had to, both trough inner dynamics, and Frankish-Catholic influence).

If you manage to have a different model, as Islam was (even if it's not about a redecorated "Clash of civilisations" of course, you have a really heavy tendence to cultural mixing and adaptation) , then I'd tend to think it could change greatly.