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

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.

Would that Roman imperial model still be extant after a century of Germanic rule. In a TL of mine, I'm planning on a Slavic conquest of a Suebi-ruled Italy, so I wonder if that imperial model would shift to any appreciable degree after over a century of rule/noble struggles etc. I know the language would be Romance, of course
 
Would that Roman imperial model still be extant after a century of Germanic rule.
Let's ask Charlemagne about it. :D

Seriously, it's the whole point. "Germanic" rule there, is essentially an heavily romanized germanic rule that is following the Late Imperial model as closely it can.
It's like asking if the royal model can be still be extant after centuries of monarchic rule. It's playing on the words, but not making that a great deal of sense.


In a TL of mine, I'm planning on a Slavic conquest of a Suebi-ruled Italy, so I wonder if that imperial model would shift to any appreciable degree after over a century of rule/noble struggles etc. I know the language would be Romance, of course
In Italy less than any other place in the West, the roman prestige could be handwaved. The IOTL Ostrogothic situation quite well points that.

And when it comes to struggles, it's not like the Late imperial period was particularly peaceful was well, frankly. If it was enough to put it away, it would have been done historically.
Imagining that the Slaves apparently manage to form as distinct people not only early but probably without Avar or similar hegemony on them (something that was definitely decisive in their ethnogenesis IOTL); and giving they would be as much heterogenous than Suebi (whom ancestry to Ariovist's Suebi can be legitimally debated)...
Frankly, not a chance.

You'd end up with a probably germanic-named Slavic people (at the point I'm not even sure contemporaries ITTL would make a difference with other German peoples, with interesting consequences on this slavic people identity) taking the place of Herulii, Ostrogoths or Lombards IOTL; for the sake that medieval ethnogenesis (and ethnogenesis in general) is defined by the other, in this case the Roman.

I'd suggest strongly "Myth of Nations. Medieval Origins of Europe" by Patrick G. Jeary on the subject. It's a true masterpiece of erudition and pedagogy.
 
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.

The Franks are a bit more differentiated. The Franks did influence the Roman provinces along the Rhine and Meuse. You're described, how they fared when they conquered the rest of Gaul.
Then again the populace of Germania Inferior, Germania Superior and Belgica, either already was (originally) Germanic or mixed Celtic & Germanic.
This doesn't mean that the Franks, like other Germanic tribes bordering the Roman Empire weren't influenced, weren't already under (some) influence of the Roman Empire, before they settled within the Roman Empire.
Linguistically the Germanic Frankish influence within the Roman Empire can be found in Belgium (Flemish Region), the Netherlands, the German Rhineland & Palatinate and Luxembourg (well that's mixed Romance and Germanic). Again parts might already have been Germanic before their arrival.
The Franks, who ended up in the more populated parts of Gaul, did eventually loose their 'linguistic distinction'.
 
The Franks are a bit more differentiated.
If something, Franks were less differenciated. They were the people that went more quickly integrated into Roman population among Barbarians, by the VIth century.

The linguistical changes along Rhine can't be really attributed to Franks, as it concerns other linguistigal groups. The reasons are probably to be searched in the loss of frontier role RHine had during Merovingian era (when we know for sure cities remained longer of romance culture), and its more dynamic demography, more important presence of peoples as Alemani, Thuringii, and of course transrhenan Franks, but "frankisation" of Romania by newcomers seems quite dubious.

Then again the populace of Germania Inferior, Germania Superior and Belgica, either already was (originally) Germanic or mixed Celtic & Germanic.
Thing is, it's what mostly by Caesar accounts. And he's credible when it comes to ethnography only so far, would it be only for the extremly politized statement he mades : Gaul is the country of Gauls that he frees of Germans.

When "Germanic" tribes he mentions have celtic names, and/or their leaders (as Ariovist), you just wonder if they were that distinct (ciritcally when material cultures are quite similar).

It's not impossible at all to have Germanic peoples in Gaul of course, as long we remember the geographical and stereotypical definition Caesar gives of these terms, not that Romans had a clear idea on the cultural identity of these peoples (Dion Cassius, after all, names Vandals "Celts")

Unless pulling an uber-Kossina, and arbitrarily identifying ONE material culture with ONE language and therefore ONE defined people, there's simply no safe way to say if such tribe was entierly Celtic or German (a moot expression when all tribes and peoples were mixed), or at which point they adopted Halstatt traits or celtic (or not) features.

Again parts might already have been Germanic before their arrival.
The only trace of germanic settlement we have before Franks, are...other Franks (or peoples as Saxons in the coast). Laeti and deported people by victorious Romans in Gaul that didn't let a real trace of germanic isolate (quite the contrary).

The Franks, who ended up in the more populated parts of Gaul, did eventually loose their 'linguistic distinction'.
They lost it really quickly. Apart from malbergic gloss in the Salic law, that are more close to Dutch to dialects spoken today in what was Austrasia and Frankish Germany.

I don't say they "forgot" how to speak Frankish, but that it was lost as an everyday language, and became a dead speech (as in non evolving anymore, because no living usage) replaced by either Gallo-Roman, or other competing german speeches (Frisian, Low German dialects, Middle German dialects) probably shared as well by other Franks.
 
Last edited:
Hence I made a distinction between the Franks, who stayed near the Rhine and Meuse, where the Germanic Frankish language evolved further (Dutch, but also (German) Franconian* dialects), and those Franks, which moved 'deeper' into Gaul.

As for Germanic tribes within the Roman Empire, there were the Batavi, Cananefates, Sicambri and Ubii in Germania Inferior.

(*= parts of Franconia (region in Germany), where probably colonized by Franks and initially weren't Frankish)
 
Let's ask Charlemagne about it. :D

Seriously, it's the whole point. "Germanic" rule there, is essentially an heavily romanized germanic rule that is following the Late Imperial model as closely it can.
It's like asking if the royal model can be still be extant after centuries of monarchic rule. It's playing on the words, but not making that a great deal of sense.



In Italy less than any other place in the West, the roman prestige could be handwaved. The IOTL Ostrogothic situation quite well points that.

And when it comes to struggles, it's not like the Late imperial period was particularly peaceful was well, frankly. If it was enough to put it away, it would have been done historically.
Imagining that the Slaves apparently manage to form as distinct people not only early but probably without Avar or similar hegemony on them (something that was definitely decisive in their ethnogenesis IOTL); and giving they would be as much heterogenous than Suebi (whom ancestry to Ariovist's Suebi can be legitimally debated)...
Frankly, not a chance.

You'd end up with a probably germanic-named Slavic people (at the point I'm not even sure contemporaries ITTL would make a difference with other German peoples, with interesting consequences on this slavic people identity) taking the place of Herulii, Ostrogoths or Lombards IOTL; for the sake that medieval ethnogenesis (and ethnogenesis in general) is defined by the other, in this case the Roman.

I'd suggest strongly "Myth of Nations. Medieval Origins of Europe" by Patrick G. Jeary on the subject. It's a true masterpiece of erudition and pedagogy.

Alright, thank you very much for your insights!
 
Hence I made a distinction between the Franks, who stayed near the Rhine and Meuse, where the Germanic Frankish language evolved further (Dutch, but also (German) Franconian* dialects), and those Franks, which moved 'deeper' into Gaul.
The first problem I have there is that Low German and High German are two distinct groups.

Unless considering Franks used two different speeches, it looks that one of these (probably more Franconian dialects than Dutch, that seems to be indeed closer to the few we know on Old Frankish) could be the result of Frankish linguistical acculturation (given that you have the equivalent politically, with the Franco-Saxon dynasty of Salians calling its rule "Teutonic", it would be far from surprising from a conglomerate of romanized germans, romans, and whatever dwelled there.

The other is that Franks were a people integrated in Romania. They weren't a overhelming force settling in Toxandria, and only mixing with Romans once crossing Meuse. The whole history of Salians between IV and Vth century is a story of acculturation while other Frankish people (not only them, but Rhenanian Franks as well, as Arbogast or Ricomer).

What was eventually different in Belgica and along Rhine for the germanisation takeover happening?
And, more importantly, what proof do we have this process happened in the V/VIth centuries, and not in Carolingian era where shifting political borders provoked the appearance to growingly estrangered ensemble?

I stress that I don't have a definitive answer there, mostly pointing out some issues, due to the lack of documentation, critically when it comes to vulgar language evolution in German.

As for Germanic tribes within the Roman Empire, there were the Batavi, Cananefates, Sicambri and Ubii in Germania Inferior.
Integrated as laeti or dedicati in Romania, meaning they were directly under the thumb of the emperor, and eventually totally integrated as auxiliari.

Eventually, they romanized as well than their later counterparts of the Vth century (and probably were factors of this romanisation).

Giving that they were usually put in hinterland, rather than borders, their presence is far from enough to explain the linguistical germanisation of places in Romania. You have a mutual acculturation, but still under the dominance of Gallo-Roman culture they were surrounded by.

(*= parts of Franconia (region in Germany), where probably colonized by Franks and initially weren't Frankish)
Colonized implies a movement of population, that is as hard to point out than in most part of Gaul. Acculturation (again a mutual one there, including linguistically) probably played an important role there.

As for Franconia proper, it's a bit comparable to l'Île de France (Liddle Franke, Little Francia). It's maybe less a sudden increased frankish presence, than the establishment of the new centers of power from one hand, and people being used to call what was a part of Francia (exactly Austrasia) well...Francia, would it be to distinguish from parts formerly comprised as Frankish Germany rather than Francia.
 
Last edited:
Frankish itself is interesting too, Low Frankish (ancestor of Dutch), like Low German didn't undergo the High German Consonant Shift; however High Frankish, like High German, did undergo the High German Consonant Shift.
As for the other linguistic differences within Germanic dialect continuum, it's a gradual chance, including mixed areas. There are a few isogloss lines, Benrath line, Speyer line, Uerdingen line etc.

Many of those linguistic changes started before or while the Frankish tribal confederacy was formed. The Franks, Saxons etc. developed out of smaller Germanic tribes.
That being written, this doesn't exclude Frankish linguistical acculturation, especially by High Frankish dialects to varying degrees.
 
Many of those linguistic changes started before or while the Frankish tribal confederacy was formed. The Franks, Saxons etc. developed out of smaller Germanic tribes.
(It's going to be a bit long, sorry, but I think giving the geopolitical context would help to look at linguistical matters. Just skip it if you want)

At the difference of Saxons, that maintained a huge transrhenan presence in spite of migrations, Frankish presence past Rhine is a matter of conquest on other peoples : Thuringians, Alemans, Bavarians, Saxons, Frisians, Bavarians.

All of the Frankish kingdoms in the Vth century (the political unity of Franks then is gone, in spite of obvious unifying factors that Clovis used) centered in Roman towns : Cambrai, Koln, Tournai? (We have limited knowledge on Chilperic kingdom, outside it was centered on Belgica Secunda), Trier (if we consider Arbogast county), Tongeren/Tongres.

Eventually, even with the structural division of the kingdom, the Seine/Meuse region remained the political and cultural center of the regnum.

That's an important factor there, it means than Frankish Germany wasn't an heartland for Franks, but an extension of their original political center on different peoples, with their own tribal and political identities.
We know, from different sources, that Frankish Germany entities, at the contrary to what existed in Gaul (with the notable exception of Gascony after the VIIth century), enjoyed diverse degrees of autonomy. Duchy of Thuringia, Alemania, Bavaria; and that the maintain of "national" (you'll pardon me the anachronism) laws was almost systematical and be pursued with Saxons, during Charlemagne's reign, in spite of an harsh conquest.

Austrasia itself, often looked more on Gaul than Germany, with part of Gaul (as Provence or Aquitaine) falling under its juridiction.

It's not before the end of Dagobert I's reign, that Austrasia would definitly be distinct politically. And that interestingly in the same time Peppinids raise in power.
Peppinids were a family with huge ties on the eastern part of the regnum, and close to the Church, trough Arnulfings at first, then trough a really consistant policy (that implied a missionnary policy on Germany, therefore a Frankish presence trough Christianism)

Their interests being present mostly on Rhineland, more they took dominance over Austrasia and then on all Frankish kingdoms. Frankish presence, and not only domination, as Fulda or Frankfurt creation aren't really something before the late VIIth century.
Eventually, the political center shifted from Seine/Meuse to Meuse/Rhine, fitting Carolingian hegemony.

When Carolingia will fall in the IXth century, the division of the empire was made along these lines, with language having a symbolical charge. Each king had his own, in spite of being all Franks, using it for its troops.

Of course, we're talking about speeches that aren't yet that defined : gallo-romance from one (maybe with more or less artificialities to be understood by everyone), early althochdeutsch (and not Old Dutch, or language more closely related to what we know of Frankish).

At this point, and while it can't be only explained trough this, and knowing that this period is a period of linguistical differenciation in the region (both from romance languages, partially due to the carolingian policy to renovate classical latin; and germanic speeches as well) one can wonder if the linguistical germanisation of Rhineland isn't due less to a Frankish presence there, than to political and cultural events.
 
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

Vikings did do all these things you'd said, but as for Saxons, I think it's more like Mongolia before Genghis Khan, his tribe's overlordship turned all those Turkish speakers into Mongols.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Vikings did do all these things you'd said, but as for Saxons, I think it's more like Mongolia before Genghis Khan, his tribe's overlordship turned all those Turkish speakers into Mongols.

When it comes to England the Vikings did this comparatively less so than the Saxons did. They tended to raid violently and settle/trade peacefully, especially in York and Scotland. In Varangia it was a different story.
 

Redhand

Banned
I think obviously you see de-urbanization across Britain and to a lesser extent, the Western Roman Empire, but honestly, these trends were well in place as Imperial Bureaucracy and control fell apart, the Germans just expedited the trend. Italy was still pretty advanced until Justinian basically burned it down to bring it back under control, but Spain lost a lot of its wealth when the Visigoths came in and Gaul more or less warped into whatever the Franks found most effective, meaning the coastal cities were depopulated for the most part, but the Seine settlements massively grew and expanded.
 
When it comes to England the Vikings did this comparatively less so than the Saxons did. They tended to raid violently and settle/trade peacefully, especially in York and Scotland. In Varangia it was a different story.

The main difference with Norses is that Saxons settled before or in the same time than raids, sometimes forced on them, sometimes willingly since the Roman Era.
Again, the comparison with continental Saxons (especially in Gaul) is probably the safer war to take a look at their practices, would it be only because we have more written sources.

There, they were mostly settled in the shores and estuaries (Anglo-Norman islands, Angers, Normandy along the Seine) in a similar fashion than Vikings centuries after, eventually absorbated by Franks in the VI/VIIth centuries.

From that, we can argue safely that insular Saxons followed similar patterns : shores, estuaries, access from maritime points that helped to get reinforcement from the continent (as, again, Norses did in the IX/X centuries, reinforcement and exchange of population between Norses communauties being far from rare).
The establishment of Saxons in Britain followed similar patterns (Thames valley, North Sea and Channel shores)

If something, Saxon presence may have been the first reason of economical rise of Northern England, a region that was quite secondary even in pre-Roman times.

I think obviously you see de-urbanization across Britain and to a lesser extent, the Western Roman Empire, but honestly, these trends were well in place as Imperial Bureaucracy and control fell apart, the Germans just expedited the trend.
Outside the plague ravages, I don't think you have a clear trace of de-urbanisation.
Towns remained the core of Romano-German administrative and political power as well in Italy than in Spain or Gaul.

Of course the epidemics took a lot, maybe as importantly than the Black Death in its time, and cities were the first concerned. Comparing, say, 100AD Rome and 700AD Rome, you clearly have a demographical decline.
It's a bit biased comparison, though, as it considers the Roman Empire was always the Classical, Augustean rather than an evoluting entity born out of the crisis.

The smaller scale of Roman towns can be traced right back to the IIIrd centuries, partially thanks to the new walls protecting them. Smaller than the classical town, the late imperial town is demographically reduced, but the smaller scale answer too on a protection matter : the goal of the wall isn't to protect all of the city (Carcassonne in the Late Roman era have the same wall than in medieval era, but even then we know of habitations outside) than protect the population once gathered.

Growing ruralisation (especially in the outskirts) and clericalisation of the cities (that you can find as well in Constantinople in the same time) are more Late Roman trend rather than Germanic changes. Giving that it happened in all Romania, I don't think you had even a particular "acceleration" there.

As for wealth, in spite of a redistribution and the decline of long-range trade in Mediterranean basin, I'm not sure you can call on a generalized impoverishment in the Vth century : elites barely changed, the regional economical system were roughly maintained,

but Spain lost a lot of its wealth when the Visigoths came in and Gaul more or less warped into whatever the Franks found most effective

meaning the coastal cities were depopulated for the most part, but the Seine settlements massively grew and expanded.
Mediterranean cities doesn't seem to have been depopulated for the most part, if something, they remained prosperous and powerful enoug up to the VIIth century to emit their own coinage (as Arles).
Maintained prosperity trough trade (Radhanites along the Rhône; Jewish communauties in Gothic Gaul points out mercantile presence in Mediterranean Gaul) and doesn't seem to have declined since the IIIrd.
Atlantic Gaul, on the other hand, is probably more of a case up to the VIIth century and the reappearance of long-range trade (highlighted not only trough Frisian presence, but as well trough creation of vici sort of late merovingian and carolingian equivalent to North Sea emporioi)

What decline is an urban way of life, and the disappearance of the semi-luxury economics. Basically, maintainace of an elite trade, but disappearance of a clearly distinguished middle-class.
On the other hand, it propelled as cities towns that so far were only secondary relays, especially in Meridional Gaul.
 
Top