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...

[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...

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.

[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.

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



Recent times