Just how destructive were the Germanic invasions?

[Curtis24]

In the popular imagination, the Germanic invasions of the Roman Empire were full of violence, rape, and looting. Now, no one disputes there was indeed a lot of looting, but a general history book I read recently portrayed the Germanic invasions - particularly the Visigothic "sack" of Rome - as being disciplined and orderly. Rather than forceful destruction, these invasions were portrayed as more of being overwhelmed local Roman officials giving up their authority to the Germans, who then simply ruled(more competently) in their place. "Looting" was also organized and administered.

How accurate is this? Of course, I'm willing to bet that some of the tribal invasions were more destructive than others. Afterall, the word "vandal" had to come from somewhere; not to mention I believe St. Augustine's description of the Vandal invasion of North Africa.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

First of all, the invasion of Rome was a revenge for the Romans badwill, neglect and broken promises of the union between the tribes, which consisted of not only Germanics, but also Slavs and other peoples and the Romans. The tribes were pushed west by invading Huns and other nomad warrior peoples, their people starving and not able to defend themselves. The tribes looked for resettlement possibilities and Roman military protection but were left without. So, the sacking of Rome was a "statement" against bad politics. No wonder Roman officials gave up authority to the invaders as they also were fed up by the decandence and incompetence which ravaged the Roman court.

[Libertas]

For a balanced, well documented view (which I agree with) read "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization" (2005) by Bryan Ward-Perkins.

[aherne]

In the popular imagination, the Germanic invasions of the Roman Empire were full of violence, rape, and looting.
^ rape occured rarely. Germanics were not negroes. Their goal was to amass loot and fame.

In Germany's good times, there was a common theme among German historians aiming at exonerating their "brothers" and portray them as brave warriors giving a final blow to a degenerate empire. In parallel, anti-German sources portrayed them as mindless barbarians. In reality, they were never a problem for the Empire except during its long decline (250-450 AD). They had positives (Aryan warrior virtues, also shared by Romans in their glory days), but also negatives (they were utterly disorganized and primitive in all respects).

Romans have produced the basis of our civilization, whereas Germanics almost destroyed it, simply by virtue of their disorganization and lawlessness.

[Peyrol]

In the popular imagination, the Germanic invasions of the Roman Empire were full of violence, rape, and looting. Now, no one disputes there was indeed a lot of looting, but a general history book I read recently portrayed the Germanic invasions - particularly the Visigothic "sack" of Rome - as being disciplined and orderly. Rather than forceful destruction, these invasions were portrayed as more of being overwhelmed local Roman officials giving up their authority to the Germans, who then simply ruled(more competently) in their place. "Looting" was also organized and administered.

How accurate is this? Of course, I'm willing to bet that some of the tribal invasions were more destructive than others. Afterall, the word "vandal" had to come from somewhere; not to mention I believe St. Augustine's description of the Vandal invasion of North Africa.

Roma passed from 1,200,000 inhabitant to 20,000 in less than one century.

....draw your own conclusions...:laugh:

[aherne]

So, the sacking of Rome was a "statement" against bad politics. No wonder Roman officials gave up authority to the invaders as they also were fed up by the decandence and incompetence which ravaged the Roman court.

This is absolutely true. Because Germanics mostly wanted loot and fame, the lives of unarmed civilians were actually less in danger than under Roman rule. In all German-controlled areas, no uprising is recorded. Germanics were also very tolerant of locals' customs: under their rule German common law and Roman law operated in parallel, one for Germanics, the other for their Romance subjects

[Motörhead Remember Me]

This is absolutely true. Because Germanics mostly wanted loot and fame, the lives of unarmed civilians were actually less in danger than under Roman rule. In all German-controlled areas, no uprising is recorded. Germanics were also very tolerant of locals' customs: under their rule German common law and Roman law operated in parallel, one for Germanics, the other for their Romance subjects

Speaking of German common law is a gross exageration. What they had was simple tribal law and inherited customs. The Roman law was more advanced as it sought to control over it's citizens and it's colonies.
That no uprising has been recorded can partly be attributed to the fact that the tribes were mostly moving from one place to another and never stayed longer than what the areas resources could sustain.

And your claim that there were no rapes or taking of women goes against all what is known about a warriors human nature when armed and strong. How the hell do you think that the female haplogroups are so diverse in all populations?

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Roma passed from 1,200,000 inhabitant to 20,000 in less than one century.

....draw your own conclusions...:laugh:

Interesting. Source?

This coincides with the decadence, turmoil and fall of Rome. People tend to leave places that no longer provides them any opportunities. The world history is full of similar rapid declines, think about the Khmer empire and city of Angkor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Empire).

[aherne]

Speaking of German common law is a gross exageration. What they had was simple tribal law and inherited customs.
You are right (I confused common law with unwritten law). What I meant was Germanic customs.


The Roman law was more advanced as it sought to control over it's citizens and it's colonies.
There is simply no comparison between the two. Both came from a single source, but developed in very different directions. Germanic tribal customs, just as Slavic tribal customs, continued Aryan traditions because the lifestyles of peoples involved haven't changed much since the split, whereas Roman law has undertaken massive transformations because of civilization (which requires codified rules) and also because of Romans' innate respect for law and order (once again inherited, but taken much further, absolutely forbidding people to take law into their own hands). Read Mommsen if you want to know more about the early development of Roman law.


That no uprising has been recorded can partly be attributed to the fact that the tribes were mostly moving from one place to another and never stayed longer than what the areas resources could sustain.
Or maybe because the conquerors were pretty benign, as long as you handed them over everything you got. Just think about it: what if NIGGERS would have sacked Rome? Mass rape, mass brainless violence would have followed suite.


And your claim that there were no rapes or taking of women goes against all what is known about a warriors human nature when armed and strong. How the hell do you think that the female haplogroups are so diverse in all populations?
Contemporary sources barely mention rape among the evils caused by Germanic invasions (such as wholesale destruction, systematic looting, total chaos, dissolution of the rule of law). Germanics had a strong family unit and their women were quite respected. People married in early puberty and taking of women only occurred when the warrior wasn't married. Taking women as concubines was very rare (except in very late periods).

[Peyrol]

Interesting. Source?

This coincides with the decadence, turmoil and fall of Rome. People tend to leave places that no longer provides them any opportunities. The world history is full of similar rapid declines, think about the Khmer empire and city of Angkor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Empire).


Ancient times (sorry, i was wrong. 50.000, not 20.000 :laugh:)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/timeline/e86ec456ecd0844263129ac76a88b05a.png

Recent times

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/timeline/0136c139ec3e85444592ab26dc4f0f54.png

[poiuytrewq0987]

Rome recovered its 100 AD population level in 1951 AD! :eek:

[_______]

dstruction breeds creation :love:

[Peyrol]

BTW, Longobards were the only germanic people who built a very advanced kingdom in Italy after Theodorico's defeat (the italian words with germanic origin like guerra, gualdrappa, birra, etc etc...are of Longobard heritage).

[Harkonnen]

dstruction breeds creation :love:

That's my favourite saying, and so true.;)

[Libertas]

BTW, Longobards were the only germanic people who built a very advanced kingdom in Italy after Theodorico's defeat (the italian words with germanic origin like guerra, gualdrappa, birra, etc etc...are of Longobard heritage).

Archaeology suggests that the Byzantine parts of Italy, even Rome, remained richer and more developed than Longobard Italy. See the works of Chris Wickham eg "The Inheritance of Rome" (2009).

Most historians agree that Theodoric's Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy was far richer than anything Longobard.

[Libertas]

That's my favourite saying, and so true.;)

Only true in some cases.:eek:

[Peyrol]

Archaeology suggests that the Byzantine parts of Italy, even Rome, remained richer and more developed than Longobard Italy. See the works of Chris Wickham eg "The Inheritance of Rome" (2009).

Most historians agree that Theodoric's Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy was far richer than anything Longobard.

I know, i know but, after Frankreich, Longobard Kingdom was the most advanced of all the "romano barbarici" kingdoms.

[aherne]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/timeline/e86ec456ecd0844263129ac76a88b05a.png


Are you sure this graph is correct? One million for 400 AD seems very odd: at that time, Rome wasn't even a capital of an empire (Western Empire's capital was Ravenna) and was incredibly declining. A few hundred thousands could have remained, but 1 million for 400 AD (when the western empire was surviving only in name) seems extremely exaggerated.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Contemporary sources barely mention rape among the evils caused by Germanic invasions (such as wholesale destruction, systematic looting, total chaos, dissolution of the rule of law). Germanics had a strong family unit and their women were quite respected. People married in early puberty and taking of women only occurred when the warrior wasn't married. Taking women as concubines was very rare (except in very late periods).

Ever thought that hardly any ancient sources mention rapes? Hardly any historical sources I know of have described rapes. The sources usually say that "women and children suffered". What do you think that means?

It goes without saying that women were always raped, taken as tribute or traded as goods.

[Peyrol]

Are you sure this graph is correct? One million for 400 AD seems very odd: at that time, Rome wasn't even a capital of an empire (Western Empire's capital was Ravenna) and was incredibly declining. A few hundred thousands could have remained, but 1 million for 400 AD (when the western empire was surviving only in name) seems extremely exaggerated.

ISTAT is the official governative/republican association based about on 13.000 researcher from 50 Universities from Italy and other countries of EU.

Yes, is accurated (you have to remember the "Ravage of Rome" in 410 by Vastergoten).

[Svartálfar]

Roma passed from 1,200,000 inhabitant to 20,000 in less than one century.

....draw your own conclusions...:laugh:

Slave labour?

[El Palleter]

dstruction breeds creation :love:If we set the III century as the start of the invasions, it follows that it took approximately 1,200 years for creation to resume after the destruction, taking the XV century as the start of the Renaissance (though only in Tuscany). And I'm still being generous by some 100 years.

Now, if we equated the Germanic & Co. invasions and migrations, to the current phenomenon of migrations and invasion, set their start in the XX century, and we hypothesised 1,200 years for a recovery of the magnitude of that from Roman Civilisation to Renaissance, we should be alright by the XXXII century.

Of course nothing in the XXXII century will be the same as it was in the XX century. Just like nothing in the Renaissance was the same as it was during Roman Civilisation.

Furthermore, since the environment that surrounds us (i.e. rest of the world) is different today, the above scenario of an hypothetical XXXII century could well be seen as extremely optimistic.

But don't get depressed yet...

...not too long after the invasions of III AD, a process of assimilation of those Germanic etc migrants started...

...those who were initially seen by many (not all, as I'll discuss in a moment) as nothing better than filthy animals, like aliens of extreme cruelty and savagery, started to adopt the social customs and practices of their hosts, though previously slightly transformed (first, then heavily) by their own customs and practices, and spread them to their blood brothers who had stayed in the East...

... and that eventually crystalised in a people and social hybridisation that's lasted until to-day.

Surely you can see how this translates into the parallel scenario of the hypothetical XXXII century.

And now you can get depressed.

[El Palleter]

...those who were initially seen by many (not all, as I'll discuss in a moment) as nothing better than filthy animals, like aliens of extreme cruelty and savageryI said 'many' and 'not all' because, during the raids of Gaul and Hispania by the confederated Franks and Alamans during the III century, Roman society far away from its epicenter (Rome) was fragmented.

The extreme levels of destruction are attested by a huge depopulation of the cities and the halting of production in every field, that was never brought back to its previous levels or, often, never resumed at all.

The population had been heavily decimated and many of those who had survived would not return to the cities. There were cities that simply ceased to exist, likely because the few survivors didn't return and, even if they had returned, they would have been too few to rebuild the city and now a rural settlement was their best (and only) option.

However, the historical sources also tell us of a phenomenon which they call Bagaudae, that occurs mostly in southwestern Gaul and in northern and central Hispania.

These Bagaudae are said to have been movements of rural peoples who had rebelled against Roman Administration and who, apparently, didn't see these Frankish and Alamannic raiders as foes. As, also apparently, the raiders didn't see the Bagaudae as their foes. There could have even been conjunct raids, according to some authors.

The most likely explanation is that these Bagaudae were native peoples who had remained little or even nothing romanicised, and still living in societies that maintained their ancient forms of Gentilitas.

It is thus not surprising that the Bagaudae didn't occur in most of Gaul or in southern Hispania (Betica), as these were much more romanicised.

It is tempting to romanticise about the Bagaudae as resilient to romanisation for so long.

But, at the same time, it is easy to draw a parallel in modern times with the so-called anti-system radicals, who also sympathise with the modern migrants.