Empires and Barbarians
Kippfigur
It's very interesting. The author Peter Heather suggests that migration in
medieval Europe wasn't just a gradualist spread of people and cultures, but
in some cases was a deliberate policy based on economic principles - if you
don't have land you don't have wealth. So migration was sometimes closer
organised invasion for the purpose of colonisation.
That's simplifying his thesis quite a bit, but it's broadly accurate.
Heather writes well, too, so I recommend his book.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empires-Barbarians-Migration-Development-
Europe/dp/0333989759/
--
Kippfigur
SolomonW
> Europe/dp/co0333989759/
There was plenty of undeveloped land there but often it was cheaper to
steal it.
Paul J Gans
Whoa. I think that's a very great simplification of Heather's
ideas -- which in any case have changed slightly over the years.
So leaving Heather out of this, what I need to have explained to
me is why "barbarians", say one of the "Germanic" groups, living
fairly well in Germania, a land not at all over populated, needed
to take over someplace else?
What was the economic incentive? And why didn't they stay in place
where they first came over the border?
It seems to me that there is a lot more to this than meets the
eye.
PS: If you like Heather, you'll enjoy his "Roman Empire".
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Weland
> SolomonW <Solo...@nospamlamp.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:12:12 GMT, Kippfigur wrote:
>
>
>>>Just got round to reading this.
>>>
>>>It's very interesting. The author Peter Heather suggests that migration in
>>>medieval Europe wasn't just a gradualist spread of people and cultures, but
>>>in some cases was a deliberate policy based on economic principles - if you
>>>don't have land you don't have wealth. So migration was sometimes closer
>>>organised invasion for the purpose of colonisation.
>>>
>>>That's simplifying his thesis quite a bit, but it's broadly accurate.
>>>
>>>Heather writes well, too, so I recommend his book.
>>>
>>>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empires-Barbarians-Migration-Development-
>>>Europe/dp/co0333989759/
>
>
>>There was plenty of undeveloped land there but often it was cheaper to
>>steal it.
>
>
> Whoa. I think that's a very great simplification of Heather's
> ideas -- which in any case have changed slightly over the years.
>
> So leaving Heather out of this, what I need to have explained to
> me is why "barbarians", say one of the "Germanic" groups, living
> fairly well in Germania, a land not at all over populated, needed
> to take over someplace else?
I suppose it would depend on which Germanic tribes you think were living
fairly well in Germania....many came in because movements of other
peoples were pushing on them and their territory, and things looked
pretty good in the Roman empire where they ate, drank wine.....that too
is an oversimplification, but I suppose we should sort out which tribes
had it good in Germania...
Michael Kuettner
Plus, we should sort out a timeframe.
Plus, we need to define what was a tribe and what was a group of
mercenaries.
Plus, we'd have to look at the Roman view of the "vagina gentis".
Plus, ..... ;-)
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Thomas Zahr
One possible explanation [1] could be that quite a bit of land in the
Roman provinces came pre-cleared without the heavy burden of felling
trees and digging out the roots.
--
Cheers,
Thomas =:-)
[1] apart from the obvious one [2]
[2] the expectation of "easy" spoils
David Read
"Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:h1o41d$jp7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Given that the book seems to take us to circa 1,000 AD, Heather is also
presumably considering the interactions between the peoples of the various
successor kingdoms, e.g. Frankia, Visigothic Spain, Langobardia,
Northumbria and Mercia to name but some of the most obvious. Then there are
the interactions between them and the Arabs and the Byzantines to consider,
let alone the Saxons, Slavs, Avars, Wends, Norse, Irish, Scots, etc.
In other words, the acquisition of land is not just from Roman provinces by
migrating Germanic peoples, by whatever means, but also the aquisition of
land from the rest of the competition throughout the early medieval period,
forming the basis of what are the basis of many recognisably "modern"
European states by circa 1,000 AD.
Maybe Kippfigur could quote a passage...
---
Cheers,
David Read
Michael Kuettner
But the problem covering an era from - say- 300 AD to 1000 AD is
that there are no common parameters.
Panta hrei, as they say - everything is fluid.
The Langobards were in the (nowadays) Austrian country of
Niederoesterreich in the 3rd and 4th century. It seems they got
fed up with proto-Slavs and started of to more peaceful areas
(boy, were they wrong.).
Those could be identified as a tribe. Then we get the Markomanni,
which devastated Noricum and Pannonia. But left no traces, except
destruction ...
It's the same problem as with the Celts. The closer one looks, the
fewer the similarities become.
The question for the early Germanic phase boils down to one question,
IMO :
When did the ethno-genesis (the change from band to tribe) happen
in the various tribes which were still there in the 10th century ?
(I zero in on those because they're the only ones which we
can document a little; many "tribes" simply got lost without
a trace).
When did the meaning of "Franke" (=free man) change to mean
"Franke" = member of the Frankish tribe ?
When did Alamanni (all men) become Alamannen ?
Did an early ethno-genesis mean that the tribe (people) had a
better chance to become dominant ?
Looking at the Franks, I have to confess that I don't know the
answer.
They appear as pirates in the Northern sea in 3rd century sources;
then they reappear in Belgium in the Koehlerwald a few decades later.
Were they a people (tribe) at the time or a loose confederation of
people ?
What about the Alamanni ? Were they a people ? Or were the "reguli"
mentioned in the sources just mercenary leaders ?
One might argue that the Alamanni finished their ethno-genesis earlier
than the Franks (distinctive cultural traits like highly developed
metal - working, eg damascene-like blades "wurmbunte Klingen"
or a distinctive ornamentic can be detected earlier).
Still they were squashed by the Franks.
When did a tribe become a tribe instead of an ever shifting
entity caused by family-bands and feuds ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
And completely worthless. The ground was dead; there were some major
difficulties in the 3rd century. Don't forget that the 3 - field - system
and
the heavy plough came later.
(Gaul was better off, but Italy had lots of problems).
> without the heavy burden of felling
> trees and digging out the roots.
Germanic "agriculture" relied also heavily on wooden land.
Pigs foraged in the woods for the summer; acorns and other
fodder for the winter were harvested there.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Paul J Gans
>Cheers,
I believe that Heather, in "Fall of the Roman Empire" argues
that the typical group was made up of an amalgamation of a
number of different groups. That is, a given group was not
a band of related peoples joined by family times and history.
He agrees that there were elements like this in the various
groupings, but that the groups were more broad.
Indeed, if I recall correctly, and I possibly do not, he
argues that the "Germanic Tribes" were constantly forming
and reforming, depending on the local leaders and the top
leader. Often many in a given group had served in the
Roman army and was quite familiar with Roman ways and customs.
Indeed, again if I recall correctly, he notes that basically
all the "Germanic Tribes" along the border regions with Rome
had inevitably become "Romanized" to a greater or lesser extent.
Why? Because the contact was constant over a great number of
years. And the archaeology proves it.
So, for example, it is quite likely that the group historians
call the "Franks" were partially Romanized and quite familiar
with Roman ways even before they joined the Empire.
In my opinion, before we can understand the period 300-700, we
need to rid ourselves of certain "romantic notions" about the
"barbarians" and what they did.
Michael Siemon
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
...
> In my opinion, before we can understand the period 300-700, we
> need to rid ourselves of certain "romantic notions" about the
> "barbarians" and what they did.
:-)
One of the odder of my cultural collisions in ordinary life is that
every year (for the last half dozen or so...) I've headed up to an
English Country Dance Ball in Petaluma, CA, at the "Hermann Sons' Hall"
there. This dates to the late 19th or early 20th century, and has on
its walls a number of flyers puffing it in the original context. One
poster in German in particular includes the slogan "Rein und Wahr" as
a kind of characterization or desideratum for the German-ness of the
organization. It is almost certainly pre-World War I. And incorporates
one of the then standard romanticizations of the sort you refer to.
(If anyone is unsure here, the "Hermann" appealed to was known to the
Romans as "Arminius".) My guess is that this organization must have
been one (of the many) "voluntary organizations" characterizing the
late 19th and early 20th century immigrant groups to the USA. But
despite a majorly German heritage in the mid-plains of the USA, I had
never seen a trace of this organization before my first ball there,
after the start of the 21st century.
J Antero
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h1petd$22$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Minor climate changes, resulting in significant degradation of living
conditions in the Eur-Asian interior, and resulting in migrations of peoples
to find more livable regions.
Weren't these groups being pushed from the east, versus going on in and out
looting raids into Roman areas? Most of them wanted in to the Roman areas
to get away from being raided and warred on by peoples even more desperate
than they were. They were usually happy to serve as auxillaries in the Roman
forces.
Thomas Zahr
> Thomas Zahr wrote:
>> Am Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:17:54 +0200 schrieb Michael Kuettner:
... what were Germanic tribes looking for in the Roman provinces
>> One possible explanation [1] could be that quite a bit of land in the
>> Roman provinces came pre-cleared
> And completely worthless. The ground was dead; there were some major
> difficulties in the 3rd century. Don't forget that the 3 - field -
> system and the heavy plough came later. (Gaul was better off, but Italy
> had lots of problems).
My understanding was that the failure of the villa system owed more to
the reduction of legions and the increased insecurity ... apart from
that, the Romans already used a system of crop rotation and letting land
lie fallow <spelling?> at least according to: Panis Militaris by Marcus
Junkelmann, 2006
>> without the heavy burden of felling trees and digging out the roots.
> Germanic "agriculture" relied also heavily on wooden land. Pigs foraged
> in the woods for the summer; acorns and other fodder for the winter were
> harvested there.
Well yes, but eg the Rhineland wasn't completely cleared by the Romans,
and that was surely true for Gaul. So there were woods and fields.
Anyway, I was speculating. As a Ubii I know why we crossed the
Rhine ... :-)
Paul J Gans
The climate change argument is often made. It can be evaluated,
but our current understanding of the climate around 300-600 AD is
not as good now as it will be in 50 years.
>Weren't these groups being pushed from the east, versus going on in and out
>looting raids into Roman areas? Most of them wanted in to the Roman areas
>to get away from being raided and warred on by peoples even more desperate
>than they were. They were usually happy to serve as auxillaries in the Roman
>forces.
The "pushed from the east" is a common theory. Often left unsaid
is what was pushing them. As it is, the pushed from the east is
a "just so" story moving the cause of migrations one step eastward.
My answer is "I don't know".
David Read
"Thomas Zahr" <use...@zahr-mail.de> wrote in message
news:7abhruF...@mid.individual.net...
> Am Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:37:40 +0200 schrieb Michael Kuettner:
>
>> Thomas Zahr wrote:
>>> Am Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:17:54 +0200 schrieb Michael Kuettner:
>
> ... what were Germanic tribes looking for in the Roman provinces
>
>>> One possible explanation [1] could be that quite a bit of land in the
>>> Roman provinces came pre-cleared
>
>> And completely worthless. The ground was dead; there were some major
>> difficulties in the 3rd century. Don't forget that the 3 - field -
>> system and the heavy plough came later. (Gaul was better off, but Italy
>> had lots of problems).
>
> My understanding was that the failure of the villa system owed more to
> the reduction of legions and the increased insecurity ... apart from
> that, the Romans already used a system of crop rotation and letting land
> lie fallow <spelling?> at least according to: Panis Militaris by Marcus
> Junkelmann, 2006
Indeed, all sorts of crop rotation methods were employed, and were adapted
to local conditons. The development and spread of heavier and more advanced
ploughs is also clear, and soil improvement was practised. Any decline in
Roman agricultural production had far more to do with political instability
from causes both external and internal. The pressures of a tax system to pay
for increased security etc., became so burdensome as to force farmers off
the land., and this is an other important consideration. This is an Empire
wide phenomenon, with local local conditions prevailing so as to lead to the
_agri deserti_ in various regions at various times.
>>> without the heavy burden of felling trees and digging out the roots.
>
>> Germanic "agriculture" relied also heavily on wooden land. Pigs foraged
>> in the woods for the summer; acorns and other fodder for the winter were
>> harvested there.
>
> Well yes, but eg the Rhineland wasn't completely cleared by the Romans,
> and that was surely true for Gaul. So there were woods and fields.
It is the differences between the levels of management employed in woodland
(where it was so managed), with woods themselves being a hugely important
resource, that determines the nature of any woodland.
>
> Anyway, I was speculating. As a Ubii I know why we crossed the
> Rhine ... :-)
Because travel broadens the mind?
--
Cheers,
David Read
Peter Jason
"David Read" <davi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:_dCdnQCB6I-mptzX...@bt.com...
Yes, yes; but it empties the wallet!
Thomas Zahr
That, and the wine, don't forget the wine :)
David Read
> Am Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:29:38 +0100 schrieb David Read:
<....>
>>
>>> Anyway, I was speculating. As a Ubii I know why we crossed the Rhine
>>> ... :-)
>>
>> Because travel broadens the mind?
>
> That, and the wine, don't forget the wine :)
Hic Haec Hock!
---
Cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
> >news:h1petd$22$1...@reader1.panix.com...> >>>> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael.Kuett...@gmx.at> wrote in message
> >>>>news:h1o41d$jp7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>>> Weland wrote:
> >>>>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
Well, as far as "pushing" those close to the Roman borders, the Huns
are being usual excuse (appeared near Volga around 370 and kept
expanding Westwards: started with subduing the Alans, then kicked
<whatever> out of the Ostrogoths, then did the same to theVisigoths so
everybody was (presumably) running toward the Roman Empire including
the Huns who found Roman service quite profitable (and later
discovered that raiding teh Romans was even better because it involved
a lot of extra fun). An open question is: would approximately the same
things happen without the Huns?
Of course, it is anything but clear how and why did they get to the
Black Sea area (to start with). IIRC, one of the theories was that
they (or rather Xiongnu) had been initially pushed out of their
homeland by the Chinese but this means centuries and thousands miles
of movement. For comparison, it took the Mongols few decades to make
the same trip so "running away" (all this distance) does not sound
plausible and neither does climate theory: even if there was a problem
in the homeland region, surely this did not apply to ALL areas they
passed through. And then, what would be serious degradation of the
living conditions for the nomades? As long as there was some grass
around they were reasonably OK.
J Antero
> >>> In my opinion, before we can understand the period 300-700, we
>>> need to rid ourselves of certain "romantic notions" about the
>>> "barbarians" and what they did.
>
>>Minor climate changes, resulting in significant degradation of living
>>conditions in the Eur-Asian interior, and resulting in migrations of
>>peoples
>>to find more livable regions.
>
> The climate change argument is often made. It can be evaluated,
> but our current understanding of the climate around 300-600 AD is
> not as good now as it will be in 50 years.
>
>>Weren't these groups being pushed from the east, versus going on in and
>>out
>>looting raids into Roman areas? Most of them wanted in to the Roman areas
>>to get away from being raided and warred on by peoples even more
>>desperate
>>than they were. They were usually happy to serve as auxillaries in the
>>Roman
>>forces.
>
> The "pushed from the east" is a common theory. Often left unsaid
> is what was pushing them. As it is, the pushed from the east is
> a "just so" story moving the cause of migrations one step eastward.
>
> My answer is "I don't know".
"Bandwagons" come and go in every field of inquiry, and it's shows some
sense, to avoid jumping on them.
However, the correlation of the rise of agriculture and then civilization,
only in the last ~ 10,000 years, with climate, creates a rather persuasive
initial premise for the role of climate heavily influenicing human events.
Volcanic eruptions temporarily lousing up the atmosphere and crop growing
conditions, followed by unrest and sometimes by overthrow of govenrments, is
another.
If the peoples migrating into the Roman Empire had literature which recorded
what kind of problems they were experiencing, and what was motivating their
movements, it obviously would be a big help. But they didn't - so it will
take time and new methods and technologies to fill out the story. My money
is on climate - but I would agree that it's not a 100 pct certainty.
Mike Stone
"J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:Y-GdnfqcmqkPzt3X...@earthlink.com...
>
> They were usually happy to serve as auxillaries in the Roman
> forces.
>
And given the Roman propensity for civil war, many of them had probably, at
one time or other, been involved in conquering all or part of the Empire
for this or that Roman pretender. Wasn't it entirely predictable that sooner
or later they'd decide to "eliminate the middleman" and just conquer it for
themselves?
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard only to find the vodka bottle empty".
P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless
>
Jack Linthicum
> >>news:h1o41d$jp7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> Weland wrote:
> >>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
That seems to have been a pattern. American Indian tribes conducted
raids, sometimes hundreds of miles from their "home" grounds to
capture women, girls and boys to serve as slaves. Often these
captives would become part of the tribe.
am...@hotmail.com
> "J Antero" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Y-GdnfqcmqkPzt3X...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
> > They were usually happy to serve as auxillaries in the Roman
> > forces.
>
> And given the Roman propensity for civil war, many of them had probably, at
> one time or other, been involved in conquering all or part of the Empire
> for this or that Roman pretender. Wasn't it entirely predictable that sooner
> or later they'd decide to "eliminate the middleman" and just conquer it for
> themselves?
>
>
Huns, could be found, one way or another, on a Roman service and some
of these people reached top positions within the Empire (as Stilicho).
At least some of them attacked Empire from the inside: Alaric, Odoacer
and Theodoric were on the Roman service and at least last two of them
had been acting (or at least pretendeding of doing so) in the name of
the Eastern Roman Emperor. So perhaps it was not even a 'middleman'
issue, just ...er... 'readjusting power structure' (similarly to the
process of power grab within organized crime).
Weland
What? No Westward Ho!?
IIRC, one of the theories was that
> they (or rather Xiongnu) had been initially pushed out of their
> homeland by the Chinese but this means centuries and thousands miles
> of movement.
Yes, but they're nomads in search of good pasture and trade who keep
running into kingdoms and empires where they present a threat. Easier
to do battle, take what is needed and wanted and keep moving.
so "running away" (all this distance) does not sound
> plausible and neither does climate theory: even if there was a problem
> in the homeland region, surely this did not apply to ALL areas they
> passed through.
The Central Asian steppes are thought to have gone through a dry, almost
drought like period for the early centuries CE...which would make fodder
for the cattle and horses scarce...pick a direction...west looks good,
hey there's a road to travel.....
And then, what would be serious degradation of the
> living conditions for the nomades? As long as there was some grass
> around they were reasonably OK.
Exactly the problem....
am...@hotmail.com
You never know with these Eastern Barbarians. :-)
>
> IIRC, one of the theories was that
>
> > they (or rather Xiongnu) had been initially pushed out of their
> > homeland by the Chinese but this means centuries and thousands miles
> > of movement.
>
> Yes, but they're nomads in search of good pasture and trade who keep
> running into kingdoms and empires where they present a threat.
Judging by Huns' later recorded activities, situation that you
described would be a problem for these kingdoms, not the Huns. Not
that there were (AFAIK) too many powerful states on their route from
North of China to 'Westward Ho' staging area. Plus, if they faced such
an unlikely situation, how did they manage to end up on the wrong side
of these states?
> Easier
> to do battle, take what is needed and wanted and keep moving.
Possible but wouldn't it be even easier just to kill (or subdue) all
the unhappy bastards and settle down on one of the good pasture areas?
If they were really coming from China, there were numerous suitable
areas with no powerful oppponents.
Besides, when they reached the Black Sea area, they just conquered the
local (probably unhappy) people and kept operating from there and even
when they moved slightly westward toward Hungary, they preserved the
Volga - Black Sea territories as well. So, when, why and how a nomadic
drifting evolved into a determined conquest?
>
> so "running away" (all this distance) does not sound
>
> > plausible and neither does climate theory: even if there was a problem
> > in the homeland region, surely this did not apply to ALL areas they
> > passed through.
>
> The Central Asian steppes are thought to have gone through a dry, almost
> drought like period for the early centuries CE...which would make fodder
> for the cattle and horses scarce...pick a direction...west looks good,
> hey there's a road to travel.....
>
Gumilev's standard theory on the nomadic migrations more or less boils
down to the following: the rainy periods are followed by the draughts.
During the rainy periods, the nomadic population and their livestock
are growing and then during the draught they don't have an option but
expansion. Very close to what you are saying (and little to do with
the pissed off local bastards on the way :-)).
Of course, the problem is that 'Central Asia' is rather big and
divertisified in its climate conditions (if we assume that the fodder
was scarce ALL the way, probably very few Huns would make it to the
Volga) so chances are that they could hit the right spot somewhere in
Kazakhstan or near Caspian Sea. Was there a substantial difference of
conditions between Volga area and the Black Sea? It looks like by the
time they reached Volga, they were ready for the 'Western Ho!'.
Probably something happened on their way including them changing from
being presumably half-dead from starvation to the unstoppable
conquerors (on very good horses).
Not to mentiuon that it is quite possible that the theory of their
migration all the way from China is incorrect.
> And then, what would be serious degradation of the
>
> > living conditions for the nomades? As long as there was some grass
> > around they were reasonably OK.
>
> Exactly the problem.
Or perhaps seriously different circumstances...
But there is another issue. According to David's post, the time span
under consideration goes all the way to 1,000 AD. IMO, it does not
make sense to consider all this period as something uniform because by
the end of it the ...er... 'migration patterns' mostly changed from
'implosion' to 'explosion'. During the 'Great Resettlement' people had
been moving (roughly speaking) from 'outside' into the areas of the
Roman Empire but by the end of this time span they started moving from
'inside' (of what became Catholic Europe) out. German expansion into
the Slavic lands on Baltics, beginning of the Reconquista, Norman/
French conquest of England, at least cultural expansion into Hungary.
Similar movements can be traced for Kievan Rus (with expansion from
_their_ center).
There were still some nomadic movements but their area of influence
was much more restricted.
Soren Larsen
The arrival of the Huns certainly had an effect, but eg the Marcomannic
wars predates the Huns and were a result of percieved Marcomannic strength
vs Roman weakness, and when the Longobards entered Italy the
Huns having their backsides kicked by the Franks, Goths etc
was a century old memory.
The Langobards even crushed their old enemies the Gepids
before entering Italy, so they were hardly pushed..
--
History is not what it used to be.
David Read
>
>
> Given that the book seems to take us to circa 1,000 AD, Heather is also
> presumably considering the interactions between the peoples of the
> various successor kingdoms, e.g. Frankia, Visigothic Spain, Langobardia,
> Northumbria and Mercia to name but some of the most obvious. Then there
> are the interactions between them and the Arabs and the Byzantines to
> consider, let alone the Saxons, Slavs, Avars, Wends, Norse, Irish, Scots,
> etc.
>
> In other words, the acquisition of land is not just from Roman provinces
> by migrating Germanic peoples, by whatever means, but also the aquisition
> of land from the rest of the competition throughout the early medieval
> period, forming the basis of what are the basis of many recognisably
> "modern" European states by circa 1,000 AD.
>
> Maybe Kippfigur could quote a passage...
>
Or may be he couldn't....
As I was saying...
"Empire and Barbarians" by Peter Heather. Macmillan 2009.
--- Chapter Headings ---
Prologue
1. MIGRANTS AND BARBARIANS.
2. GLOBALIZATION AND THE GERMANI
3. ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME?
4. MIGRATION AND FRONTIER COLLAPSE
5. HUNS ON THE RUN
6. FRANKS AND ANGLO-SAXONS: ELITE TRANSFER OR _V�LKERWANDERUNG_
7. A NEW EUROPE
8. THE CREATION OF SLAVIC EUROPE
9. VIKING DIASPORAS
10. THE FIRST EUROPEAN UNION
11. THE END OF MIGRATION AND THE BIRTH OF EUROPE
Extract from the Prologue:-
"When this story opens at the birth of Christ, the European landscape
was marked by extraordinary contrasts. The circle of the Mediterranean,
newly united under Roman imperial domination, hosted a politically
sophisticated, economically advanced and culturally developed civilization.
This world had philosophy, banking, professional armies, literature,
stunning architecture and rubbish collection. Otherwise, apart from some
bits west of the Rhine and south of the Danube which were already beginning
to march to the tune of a more Mediterranean beat, the rest of Europe was
home to subsistence-level farmers, organized in small-scale political units.
Much of it was dominated by Germanic-speakers, who had some iron tools and
weapons, but who worked generally in wood, had little literacy and never
built in stone. The further east you went, the simpler it all became: fewer
iron tools, less productive agricultures and a lower population density.
This, in fact, the ancient world order in western Eurasia: a dominant
Mediterranean circle lording it over an undeveloped northern hinterland.
Move forward a thousand years, and the world had turned. Not only had
Slavic-speakers replaced Germanic-speakers as the dominant force over much
of barbarian Europe, and some Germanic-speakers replaced Romans and Celts in
some of the rest, but, even more fundamentally, Mediterranean dominance had
been broken. Politically, this was caused by the emergence of larger and
more solid state formations in the old northern hinterland, as exemplified
by the Moravians, but the pattern was not limited to politics. By the year
1000, many of the Mediterranean's cultural patterns - not least
Christianity, literacy and building in stone - were also spreading north and
east. Essentially, patterns of human organization were moving towards much
grater homogeneity right across the European landmass. It was these new
state and cultural structures that broke for ever the ancient world order of
Mediterranean domination. Barbarian Europe was barbarian no longer. The
ancient world order had given way to cultural and political patterns that
were more directly ancestral to those of modern Europe."
--
Cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
> "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:PIydnZtcYOKXMqLX...@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Given that the book seems to take us to circa 1,000 AD, Heather is also
> > presumably considering the interactions between the peoples of the
> > various successor kingdoms, e.g. Frankia, Visigothic Spain, Langobardia,
> > Northumbria and Mercia to name but some of the most obvious. Then there
> > are the interactions between them and the Arabs and the Byzantines to
> > consider, let alone the Saxons, Slavs, Avars, Wends, Norse, Irish, Scots,
> > etc.
>
> > In other words, the acquisition of land is not just from Roman provinces
> > by migrating Germanic peoples, by whatever means, but also the aquisition
> > of land from the rest of the competition throughout the early medieval
> > period, forming the basis of what are the basis of many recognisably
> > "modern" European states by circa 1,000 AD.
>
> > Maybe Kippfigur could quote a passage...
>
> Or may be he couldn't....
>
> As I was saying...
>
> "Empire and Barbarians" by Peter Heather. Macmillan 2009.
>
> --- Chapter Headings ---
>
> Prologue
> 1. MIGRANTS AND BARBARIANS.
> 2. GLOBALIZATION AND THE GERMANI
> 3. ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME?
> 4. MIGRATION AND FRONTIER COLLAPSE
> 5. HUNS ON THE RUN
IMHO, restriction o the picture to the 'European landmass' (and I
suspect that the Eastern part of this landmass is more or less omitted
as well) is purely artificial because it excludes the Arab conquests
and their impact, direct and indirect, on the European affairs,
especially in 'breaking' the Mediterranean world.
Michael Siemon
<c09d29d0-b3ff-46d4...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
am...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 26, 3:35�pm, "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
...
> > � � �Move forward a thousand years, and the world had turned. Not only had
> > Slavic-speakers replaced Germanic-speakers as the dominant force over much
> > of barbarian Europe, and some Germanic-speakers replaced Romans and Celts in
> > some of the rest, but, even more fundamentally, Mediterranean dominance had
> > been broken. Politically, this was caused by the emergence of larger and
> > more solid state formations in the old northern hinterland, as exemplified
> > by the Moravians, but the pattern was not limited to politics. By the year
> > 1000, many of the Mediterranean's cultural patterns - not least
> > Christianity, literacy and building in stone - were also spreading north and
> > east. Essentially, patterns of human organization were moving towards much
> > grater homogeneity right across the European landmass. It was these new
> > state and cultural structures that broke for ever the ancient world order of
> > Mediterranean domination. Barbarian Europe was barbarian no longer. The
> > ancient world order had given way to cultural and political patterns that
> > were more directly ancestral to those of modern Europe."
> >
>
> IMHO, restriction o the picture to the 'European landmass' (and I
> suspect that the Eastern part of this landmass is more or less omitted
> as well) is purely artificial because it excludes the Arab conquests
> and their impact, direct and indirect, on the European affairs,
> especially in 'breaking' the Mediterranean world.
Pirenne's thesis redivivus?
Michael Kuettner
> Michael Kuettner <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
<snip>
> that the typical group was made up of an amalgamation of a
> number of different groups. That is, a given group was not
> a band of related peoples joined by family times and history.
> He agrees that there were elements like this in the various
> groupings, but that the groups were more broad.
>
The groups formed around a nucleus of one or more clans.
That's why you end up with the Merovingians in charge
with the Rudolfingians a close second in the case of the
Franks; or the Arnulfingians in the case of the Boii (Bavarians).
> Indeed, if I recall correctly, and I possibly do not, he
> argues that the "Germanic Tribes" were constantly forming
> and reforming, depending on the local leaders and the top
> leader.
Exactly. A group (family) changed allegiance from one dominant
clan to another.
In the early times that could mean changing the "tribe"; after
the ethnogenesis happened, allegiance only changed _within_
the tribe.
> Often many in a given group had served in the
> Roman army and was quite familiar with Roman ways and customs.
> Indeed, again if I recall correctly, he notes that basically
> all the "Germanic Tribes" along the border regions with Rome
> had inevitably become "Romanized" to a greater or lesser extent.
>
> Why? Because the contact was constant over a great number of
> years. And the archaeology proves it.
>
Exactly. And the contact seems to have been even more intensive
than formerly believed.
> So, for example, it is quite likely that the group historians
> call the "Franks" were partially Romanized and quite familiar
> with Roman ways even before they joined the Empire.
>
Not only quite likely, but a given.
You don't rise so far up so fast without intimate knowledge
of the Roman empire.
> In my opinion, before we can understand the period 300-700, we
> need to rid ourselves of certain "romantic notions" about the
> "barbarians" and what they did.
Oh, that's been done over here a long time ago.
Friedrich Heer or Friedrich Prinz come to mind immediately.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c09d29d0-b3ff-46d4...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
It isn't.
>is purely artificial because it excludes the Arab conquests
>and their impact, direct and indirect, on the European affairs,
>especially in 'breaking' the Mediterranean world.
Peter Heather's new book doesn't exclude the Arab conquests, at least not
their impact. Far from it. However, the history of the Arab conquests
themselves is not really discussed and doesn't need to be in this construct.
I'd have preferred to see more about the Magyars and the Bulgars, for
example, but they still get mentioned.
All history of necessity is artificial to some extent, but it it is probably
a more useful exercise in general to discuss what is included in any given
history, than what is omitted. So long as the historian has made some nods
in the right directions, then the fact that he is aware of the situation
should suffice, unless he is wildly in error. Interpretation is another
matter.
--
Cheers,
David Read
David Read
"Michael Siemon" <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:mlsiemon-F84175...@C-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
Heather's not so hot on recent historiography in "Empires and Barbarians".
Guy Halsall is much better for this, discussing Pirenne and post-Pirenne
scholarship at some length in "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West
376-568", Cambridge, 2007. Actually, this book is far more relevant to what
most people have wanted to talk about in this thread than is Heather's new
book.
--
Cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c09d29d0-b3ff-46d4...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 3:35 pm, "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >IMHO, restriction o the picture to the 'European landmass' (and I
> >suspect that the Eastern part of this landmass is more or less omitted
> >as well)
>
> It isn't.
>
> >is purely artificial because it excludes the Arab conquests
>
> >and their impact, direct and indirect, on the European affairs,
> >especially in 'breaking' the Mediterranean world.
>
> Peter Heather's new book doesn't exclude the Arab conquests, at least not
> their impact. Far from it. However, the history of the Arab conquests
> themselves is not really discussed and doesn't need to be in this construct.
Don't you think that their conquests in Spain and Sicily did not
impact 'european developments'?
> I'd have preferred to see more about the Magyars and the Bulgars, for
> example, but they still get mentioned.
What about other nomads?
>
> All history of necessity is artificial to some extent, but it it is probably
> a more useful exercise in general to discuss what is included in any given
> history, than what is omitted.
Of course. I was just saying that ...er... 'non-european participants'
played important role in what transpired.
>So long as the historian has made some nods
> in the right directions, then the fact that he is aware of the situation
> should suffice, unless he is wildly in error. Interpretation is another
> matter.
>
Indeed.
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99d4e48a-514e-4546...@x17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 4:18 pm, "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c09d29d0-b3ff-46d4...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 3:35 pm, "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >IMHO, restriction o the picture to the 'European landmass' (and I
> >suspect that the Eastern part of this landmass is more or less omitted
> >as well)
>
> It isn't.
>
> >is purely artificial because it excludes the Arab conquests
>
> >and their impact, direct and indirect, on the European affairs,
> >especially in 'breaking' the Mediterranean world.
>
> Peter Heather's new book doesn't exclude the Arab conquests, at least not
> their impact. Far from it. However, the history of the Arab conquests
> themselves is not really discussed and doesn't need to be in this
> construct.
Don't you think that their conquests in Spain and Sicily did not
impact 'european developments'?
---
Yes, they did.
---
> I'd have preferred to see more about the Magyars and the Bulgars, for
> example, but they still get mentioned.
What about other nomads?
---
Ohers are mentioned too.
---
>
> All history of necessity is artificial to some extent, but it it is
> probably
> a more useful exercise in general to discuss what is included in any given
> history, than what is omitted.
Of course. I was just saying that ...er... 'non-european participants'
played important role in what transpired.
---
Yup. But Heather's book is not about them. But I've only just started
reading it.
---
Cheers,
David Read