What prevented the East germanics from permanently settling somewhere in East/central Europe?

i never really understood the east germanics, they supposedly originated in Scandinavia, but kept popping up in different seemingly random regions, Spain, Romania, Italy, North Africa, Crimea , then they just disappear into thin air a few centuries later ? Like what ?

But how ? Did they move tens of thousands of people at a time ? Why didn’t they just have a specific homeland ?
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Spain,Italy,France and North Africa are way too attractive to any settler back then than the Colder Central Europe. That's why. Eastern Europe had a powerful Byzantine Empire which was unshakable then.
Arab Empires found the same land attractive and invaded and conquered them and lucky for the Arabs,Gothic Empires were in turmoil in the 8th century.
 
Those migrations were gradual and I personally don't think they should be considered as a continuous stream, I mean we are speaking of centuries, this is what I dislike about the maps that try to show whole centuries of migrations, they give a false perception.

i never really understood the east germanics, they supposedly originated in Scandinavia, but kept popping up in different seemingly random regions, Spain, Romania, Italy, North Africa, Crimea , then they just disappear into thin air a few centuries later ? Like what ?
The Scandinavian homeland is probably true but the question is how much of it isn't a romantization or mythological in nature, in any case their migration isn't exactly random, as far as I understood they moved through some established trade routes(such as the amber roads/routes) towards Roman territories, from there they pressured towards Dacia and mixed with the local Sarmatians along the Western Black sea coast.
Then with the 3rd century Crisis they filled the void left by the Roman retreat from Dacia(after raiding Greece, Anatolia and the Aegean) until the Huns pushed them one century later into Roman terrritories where they eventually entered a tenuous relation with the Roman state for decades, eventually ending up in South-Western Gaul to help against the Hunnic pressure in Gaul(I think?) and from there they ended up in Iberia. That's for the Visigoths.
The Ostrogoths remained in the Ukrainian coast but eventually also entered the Roman territories also as foederati(AFAIK) not much later than the Visigoths but they remained in Pannonia but later on they were convinced by Byzantium to depose Odoacer in Italy, bringing them there.

But how ? Did they move tens of thousands of people at a time ? Why didn’t they just have a specific homeland ?
I mean they did stay in Dacia and the Black sea coast for a bit more than a century, plus the Goths were a relatively vague grouping of people that was relatively new and as such they can't be pinned down to a specific location, especially if you consider how they integrated Sarmatian populations, Dacians and probably other Eastern Germanic people that joined up along the way.

Edit: Their movement in Rome was probably supported by the fact they were also Roman allies or at least weren't exactly invaders, plus the Roman state had hard time in controlling or confronting them and the infrastructure of Rome wasn't exactly foreign to such movement of people, their migration from Scandinavia most likely along the navigable rivers(although no specific route can be pinned down)
 
Last edited:
i never really understood the east germanics, they supposedly originated in Scandinavia
As constitued peoples, Eastern Germans were products (or rather by-products) of the Roman limes: while they certainly had elements coming from Poland and maybe Scandinavia, the idea that whole peoples migrated as such crossing all Europe before settling in western Romania is less historical than the result of heavy inspiration from best-sellers of the era on "origin stories" as Aeneid or Exodus.
Goths for instance, emerged as a distnct people likely along the limes as a mix of Germans (western and eastern, that took a great importance), Sarmatians, Dacians and even Romans in the IIIrd century.

but kept popping up in different seemingly random regions, Spain, Romania, Italy, North Africa, Crimea
As for Rumania and Crimea, it's basically the regions where such peoples began to emerge both institutionally and structurally.
As for Spain, Italy and North Africa, as @Albert.Nik said, it's where these peoples (augmented by other elements, Barbarians or Romans) finally settled due to political context : Barbarians had a tradition of service in Romania, usually paid by subsides (coinage or supplies) and when this declined, and willing to both survive and maintain this prestigious and fructuous service they first went raiding, then (when the pressure was too big, and raiding less of a systematical option) entered Romania as whole peoples.
It could have stopped relatively early on depending on the situation (meaning foedi being mostly stuck to the limes, as it happened in late IVth to Vth for Franks) but eventually it didn't and we had groups settling in rich provinces eventally forming polities there.

then they just disappear into thin air a few centuries later ? Like what ?
It's essentially because Barbarians that entered Romania were products of Roman civilisation : they appeared from a social-political elaboration fed on Roman trade (mostly wealth, but mettalurgy as well), subsides (supply or gold, which was decisive into creating a social-political mobilisation), and general influence since the Ist century AD.
You simply don't live next to the great political and cultural behemoth of the era without consequences (consersely, it meant provincial Romans, due to this relations and settled Barbarians in Romania since the Ist century (such as in Gaul or even Italy) recieved some Barbarian influences (not even remotely close to the degree of romanisation of Barbarians this being said).
All these peoples emerging on the limes from a lot of various elements (and while in some eastern Germanic elements may have played an important role, it was far from systematical : Burgundians and Lombards for instance, probably spoke a western Germanic speech) were eventually importantly under Roman influence to begin with. Furthermore, still depending on their relation with the Roman state and institutions, they got integrated within its frames and instituions (regardless of the will of the Roman state to do just that or not) as foedi, mercenaries or even (as Romans of Barbarian origin) as playing a major role into the Roman state. All of this, integrating more and more Roman cultures, and Roman groups within them, meant that by the Vth century, the best way to differenciate a Barbarian from a Roman was political : if someone served a Barbarian king and not directly the Roman state,there was a chance he was Barbarian. In term of material culture, the difference is almost inexistant.

Now, by the late Vth and VIth century, there was the problem of what defined a Barbarian now the western Roman state was declining then gone, Barbarians and Romans being more and more difficult to distinguish (especially as Barbarian state inherited the Roman state structures), there was a lot of various identitarians elements that were put forward.
As their languages were largely out of use by the VIth century, it was kept into some ceremonial use (to the point Gothic writers sometimes attempted preposterous mistakes in latin to say "we're totally Goths, we do not take candle...Does it works?"; specific material culture (such as fransiscae, which were definitely absent before the VIth among Franks, but borrowed from peoples living further in Barbaricum, taking as granted they were Barbarians so so they were themselves).
Religion played a role too, Homoeianism being considered as a good marker of what made a Barbarian (Burgundians even switching from Nicean to Homoeian Christianity in the IVth), Law codes such as Alaric's or Salian (which are basically rebranded Roman laws on Barbarans) and even clothes (basically bling).
More important maybe, they elaborated their own history : Romans scholars considered that only real peoples had ones (Greeks, maybe Persians, Egyptians? and with Christianisation Hebrews) and that the others were kinda in a stasis (Romans, and Barbarians eventually, keeping taking Tacitus' account as granted for the Vth century). So, taking inspiration into ethnographic models found in the Bible (specifically Exodus) and Aeneid, Barbarians went to create a fanfiction about themselves in a romanized conceptual world. They mixed possibly with some remembrances on their actual history (Cassiodorus' account of the Scandinavian origin of Goths, which probably match the origin of some elements that formed Goths eventually in the IIIrd century)or pre-Christian beliefs (such as the fantastical elements in the story of Merovee) but generally it's about how they met everyone famous in the past (mythological or not), and erred in the Barbaricum founding totally real Great Empires (they just happen to live in Canada) before settling in a land that waited only them.

As identitarian differenciation goes, it was more efficient in bulding a broad identity rather than to differenciate with Romans : by the VIth/VIIt century, northern Gaul's population overwhelmingly defined itself as Roman, Spain was called "Gothia", and so on.
The prestige and material benefits of integrating a Barbarian identity was simply too obvious, and the deep Romanization of these peoples too great to make them other than Romans playing Barbarians after a while.

Did they move tens of thousands of people at a time ?
Vandals, a major group, were said to have accounted for 80 000 persons crossing to Africa, counting virtually anyone including slaves, women, childs, i'm-no-dead old peoples; on which a bit more than an half were able to fight (hinting at the importantly militarisation of these peoples). It's both significant, and possibly pointing on ammassing a lot of groups along the way.
 
As identitarian differenciation goes, it was more efficient in bulding a broad identity rather than to differenciate with Romans : by the VIth/VIIt century, northern Gaul's population overwhelmingly defined itself as Roman, Spain was called "Gothia", and so on.
The prestige and material benefits of integrating a Barbarian identity was simply too obvious, and the deep Romanization of these peoples too great to make them other than Romans playing Barbarians after a while.
I think you meant to say "Frank" instead of Roman, BTW what was the trend in Italy and Iberia, did Roman identity last much longer?
 
I essentially agree with you, but with two points I'd want to precise.
their migration from Scandinavia most likely along the navigable rivers(although no specific route can be pinned down)
While some groups probably originated from Scandinavia, then went to modern Poland up to Black Sea, they weren't as much Goths than important elements eventually forming Goths.

eventually ending up in South-Western Gaul to help against the Hunnic pressure in Gaul(I think?) and from there they ended up in Iberia.
As for the reasons to settle in some region or another, it was less in the Vth century what Romans wanted them to be there, than important foedi deciding this on their own. Namely for Visigoths, their unability to cross the sea to settle in Africa, and taking on usurpers in Gaul to legitimize their takeover.

I think you meant to say "Frank" instead of Roman, BTW what was the trend in Italy and Iberia, did Roman identity last much longer?
Yes, sorry, my mistake.
As for the difference in Gaul compared to Italy and Spain, I'd say these elements played a major role.

1) Franks weren't newcomers in Gaul by the Vth century : they enjoyed a fairly stable relationship with the empire and the province, several Frankish generals having played a major role in the imperial chain-of-command (Meraubod, Richomer, Abrogast, etc.) whom some might be related to the Merovingian dynasty. Eventually, by the Vth century, Franks entered in a relatively dynamic (if blurry) relationship with Gallo-Romans and Britto-Romans that allowed them to appear as a legitim power in the region; hence when Syagrius went more or less rogue and unable to pressure Goths (which appeared as an aggressive power with Euric's expansionism), Franks appeared as a legal power in Belgica and able to take the lead in Gaul without much issue from Gallo-Roman elites.
On the other hand, Visigoths popped by the Vth in Gaul and Spain (and fought over by Romans), and weren't really subtile about it. Euric's campaigns managed to crush opposition and to take Romans at his service, and it could have worked in the long term, but suffered from inner and outer pressure at this point. After their territorial contraction in Spain, and the establishment of an anti-dynastical kingship that prevented a palatial centralisation of honores (such allowing Roman elites to be integrated into Barbarian truste as easily)plus the maintain of Homoeian credo didn't help.
Still there was a fusion undergoing between Goths and Romans by the Vth century, it's just it took more time.

In Italy? Justinian happened.

2) Gaul was a relatively peripheral province : its elites gave up on the Empire by the Vth due to regional pretentions and opposition to Ravenne's policies (would they be due to Ricimer or Constantinople), and what caracterized late imperial civilization (municipes, games, classical education) very quickly moved to a post-imperial characterisation (monastic education, role of bishops etc.) while the former remained relatively true for a part of Spain and southern Gaul and critically the entierety of Italy.
It's hard for an Italo-Roman elite that previousy pretty much defined itself as the core of the empire, and by its relation to the imperial court (would it be Ravenna or Constantinople) to just switch to a Barbarian identity. It happened, slowly, but Barbarians not only didn't have such prestige on these grounds, but Goths actively tried to preserve as much of the late imperial situation they could. Sort of Stewards of Gondor Italy if you will.

3) Franks were more successful at it because, eventually they were more successful politically and established their regional hegemon (especially with the disappearance of Ostrogoths). Not that the identity switch was complete or systematical : southern Gaul and especially Aquitaine kept a distinct Roman identity (including as when it came to name themselves) and was considered apart from the Frankish realm (in fact, you can observe that Aquitaine is systematically divided among Frankish kings in addition to the Frankish realm and not as a part of it).

Now, in spite of these difference : the process concerned all since the Vth century. Neither in Spain or Italy Gothic language survived past the VIth century (while Frankish did outside Gaul, mixing with various other Germanic speeches), nobility and landowning elites did integrated themselves importantly with Gothic kingship since the same period, etc. It's just that, as you said, it took longer (but not "much" longer, we're talking of a difference of roughly a century).
 
Many East Germanic hosts saw has become aristocracies at various point in time. Once they had reached this position, they were less willing "down grade". This led to a will to fight wars that would take it's toll on the population over time. Being sparsely settled, being a minority and potentially having low or negative population growth the East Germanic population that existed slowly diminished due to assimilation and death.
 
In Italy? Justinian happened.
I wonder though still, how widespread did Lombardic identity become and how quickly at that, especially in light of the remnants of the Byzantine territory, as in Venice, Ravenna, Papal States etc. and the later takeover(compared to all other groups there)
 
I wonder though still, how widespread did Lombardic identity become and how quickly at that, especially in light of the remnants of the Byzantine territory, as in Venice, Ravenna, Papal States etc. and the later takeover(compared to all other groups there)
By the VIIth, Lombard identity was pervasive enough to be found everywhere within their kingdom, particularily its aristocracy but also in other societal layers. In spite of a important ethnic admixture, there's no much evidence for a maintained Roman identity safe in recently conquered territories of Central Italy (and not unlike peripheral areas of Gaul as Aquitaine or Provence which claimed, if not being Roman, a certain romanity).
The fusion might have been even quicker in Italy, all proportions kept, than in Spain or Gaul giving Lombards appeared as a perfectly valid political and identarian alternative giving the poor situation in Italy and the relative Byzantine neglect; and of course the important Lombard pressure (they weren't invaders for nothing).

Interestingly, the Roman population was much loosely tied to an imperial identity, and while still Roman, might have been more regionalized and localized than Lombards.

I'm not too sure when Lombard identity began to shift away (it wasn't a direct consequence of the Carolingian conquest of Italy, AFAIK), but @Carp probably could tell us.
 
Top