Period in Europe with mass population movements, 4th - 6th century AD
This article is about the period of widespread migrations in Europe during the first millennium AD. For prehistoric migrations, seeHistory of human migration. For seasonal periods of human migrations, seeSeasonal human migration. For seasonal periods of animal migrations, seeAnimal migration.
"Barbarian invasion" and "Barbarian invasions" redirect here. For the 2003 Canadian film, seeThe Barbarian Invasions.
You can helpexpand this article with text translated fromthe corresponding article in German. (September 2024)Click [show] for important translation instructions.
Machine translation, likeDeepL orGoogle Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
Youmust providecopyright attribution in theedit summary accompanying your translation by providing aninterlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary isContent in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Völkerwanderung]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template{{Translated|de|Völkerwanderung}} to thetalk page.
The term refers to the important role played by the migration, invasion, and settlement of various tribes, notably theBurgundians,Vandals,Goths,Alemanni,Alans,Huns,early Slavs,Pannonian Avars,Bulgars andMagyars within or into the territories of Europe as a whole and of theWestern Roman Empire in particular. Historiography traditionally takes the period as beginning in AD 375 (possibly as early as 300) and ending in 568.[3] Various factors contributed to this phenomenon of migration and invasion, and their role and significance are still widely discussed.
Historians differ as to the dates for the beginning and ending of the Migration Period. The beginning of the period is widely regarded as the invasion of Europe by the Huns from Asia in about 375, and the ending with the Lombards' conquest of Italy in 568,[4] but a more loosely set period extends from as early as 300 to as late as 800.[5] For example, in the 4th century the Empire settled a very large group of Goths asfoederati within the RomanBalkans, and theFranks were settled south of theRhine in RomanGaul. In 406 a particularly large and unexpectedcrossing of the Rhine was made by a group ofVandals, Alans andSuebi. As central power broke down in the Western Roman Empire, the Roman military became more important but was dominated by men ofbarbarian origin.
There are contradictory opinions as to whether the fall of the Western Roman Empire was a result of an increase in migrations, or if both the breakdown of central power and the increased importance of non-Romans created additional internal factors. Migrations, and the use of non-Romans in the military, were known in the periods before and after, and theEastern Roman Empire adapted and continued to exist until thefall of Constantinople to theOttomans in 1453. The "fall" of the Western Roman Empire, although it involved the establishment of competing barbarian kingdoms, was to some extent managed by the Eastern emperors.
The migrants comprised war bands or tribes of 10,000 to 20,000 people.[6] Immigration was common throughout the period of the Roman Empire.[7] Over the course of 100 years,[when?] the migrants numbered not more than 750,000 in total,[citation needed] compared to an average 40 million population of the Roman Empire at that time. The first migrations of peoples (German:Völkerwanderungen) were made byGermanic tribes such as the Goths (including theVisigoths and theOstrogoths), the Vandals, theAnglo-Saxons, the Lombards, the Suebi, theFrisii, theJutes, theBurgundians, the Alemanni, theSciri and the Franks; some of these groups were later pushed westward by the Huns, the Avars, the Slavs and the Bulgars.[8] Later invasions — such as those carried out by theVikings, theNormans, theVarangians, theHungarians, theArabs, theTurks, and theMongols — also had significant effects on Roman and ex-Roman territory (especially inNorth Africa, theIberian Peninsula,Anatolia andCentral andEastern Europe).
Germanic peoples moved out of southernScandinavia and northern Germany[9][10] to the adjacent lands between theElbe andOder after 1000 BC. The first wave moved westward and southward (pushing the residentCelts west to theRhine around 200 BC), moving intosouthern Germany up to the Roman provinces ofGaul andCisalpine Gaul by 100 BC, where they were stopped byGaius Marius and later byJulius Caesar. It is this western group which was described by the Roman historianTacitus (AD 56–117) and Julius Caesar (100–44 BC). A later wave of Germanic tribes migrated eastward and southward from Scandinavia, between 600 and 300 BC, to the opposite coast of theBaltic Sea, moving up theVistula near theCarpathian Mountains. DuringTacitus' era they included lesser-known tribes such as theTencteri,Cherusci,Hermunduri andChatti; however, a period of federation and intermarriage resulted in the familiar groups known as theAlemanni,Franks,Saxons,Frisians andThuringians.[11]
A Migration Period Germanic goldbracteate depicting a bird, horse, and stylized human head with aSuebian knot
The first wave of invasions, between AD 300 and 500, is partly documented by Greek and Latin historians but is difficult to verify archaeologically. It puts Germanic peoples in control of most areas of what was then theWestern Roman Empire.[12]
TheTervingi crossed theDanube into Roman territory in 376, in a migration fleeing the invadingHuns. Some time later inMarcianopolis, the escort to their leaderFritigern was killed while meeting with Roman commanderLupicinus.[13] The Tervingi rebelled, and the Visigoths, a group derived either from the Tervingi or from a fusion of mainlyGothic groups, eventually invaded Italy andsacked Rome in 410 before settling in Gaul. Around 460, they founded theVisigothic Kingdom in Iberia. They were followed into Roman territory first by a confederation ofHerulian,Rugian, andScirian warriors underOdoacer, that deposedRomulus Augustulus in 476, and later by theOstrogoths, led byTheodoric the Great, who settled in Italy.
InGaul, the Franks (a fusion of westernGermanic tribes whose leaders had been aligned with Rome since the 3rd century) entered Roman lands gradually during the 5th century, and after consolidating power underChilderic and his sonClovis's decisive victory overSyagrius in 486, established themselves as rulers of northern Roman Gaul. Fending off challenges from the Alemanni, Burgundians, and Visigoths, theFrankish kingdom became the nucleus of what would later become France and Germany.
Migration ofearly Slavs in Europe in the 6th–7th centuriesMigration and settlement of theBulgars during the 6th–7th centuries ADSlavicfibula brooch made ofcopper dating back to the Migration Period,c. 600–650 AD
Between AD 500 and 700, Slavic tribes settled more areas of central Europe and pushed farther into southern and eastern Europe, gradually making the eastern half of Europe predominantly Slavic-speaking.[15]Additionally,Turkic tribes such as the Avars and - later -Ugric-speaking Magyars became involved in this second wave. In AD 567, the Avars and theLombards destroyed much of theGepid Kingdom. The Lombards, a Germanic people, settled in Italy with their Herulian, Suebian, Gepid, Thuringian, Bulgar,Sarmatian andSaxon allies in the 6th century.[16][17] They were later followed by theBavarians and the Franks, who conquered and ruled most of the Italian peninsula.
The Bulgars, originally a nomadic group probably fromCentral Asia, occupied thePontic steppe north ofCaucasus from the 2nd century. Later, pushed by theKhazars, the majority of them migrated west and dominatedByzantine territories along thelower Danube in the 7th century. From that time the demographic picture of theBalkans changed permanently, becoming predominantly Slavic-speaking, while pockets of native people survived in the mountains of the Balkans.[18][19]
Croats settled in modern Croatia and Western Bosnia and Herzegovina while the Serbs settled in Southwestern Serbia, Eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of modern Montenegro.[20][21][22] By the mid seventh century, Serb tribes were invading northern Albania.[21] By the ninth century, the central Balkans and the area of southern and central Albania became invaded and settled by Bulgars.[21]
Analysis of barbarianidentity and how it was created and expressed during the Barbarian Invasions has elicited discussion among scholars.Herwig Wolfram, a historian of the Goths,[23] in discussing the equation ofmigratio gentium withVölkerwanderung, observes thatMichael Schmidt [de] introduced the equation in his 1778 history of the Germans. Wolfram observed that the significance ofgens as a biological community was shifting, even during theearly Middle Ages and that "to complicate matters, we have no way of devising a terminology that is not derived from the concept ofnationhood created during theFrench Revolution".
The "primordialistic"[24] paradigm prevailed during the 19th century. Scholars, such as German linguistJohann Gottfried Herder, viewed tribes as coherent biological (racial) entities, using the term to refer to discrete ethnic groups.[25] He also believed that theVolk were an organic whole, with a core identity and spirit evident in art, literature and language. These characteristics were seen as intrinsic, unaffected by external influences, even conquest.[26] Language, in particular, was seen as the most important expression of ethnicity. They argued that groups sharing the same (or similar) language possessed a common identity and ancestry.[27] This was theRomantic ideal that there once had been a single German, Celtic or Slavic people who originated from a common homeland and spoke acommon tongue, helping to provide aconceptual framework forpolitical movements of the 18th and 19th centuries such asPan-Germanism andPan-Slavism.[26]
From the 1960s, a reinterpretation of archaeological and historical evidence prompted scholars, such as Goffart and Todd, to propose new models for explaining the construction of barbarian identity. They maintained that no sense of shared identity was perceived by theGermani;[28][29][25] a similar theory having been proposed for Celtic and Slavic groups.[30]
A theory states that the primordialist mode of thinking was encouraged by aprima facie interpretation ofGraeco-Roman sources, which grouped together many tribes under such labels asGermanoi,Keltoi orSclavenoi, thus encouraging their perception as distinct peoples. Modernists argue that the uniqueness perceived by specific groups was based on common political andeconomic interests rather than biological or racial distinctions. Indeed, on this basis, some schools of thought in recent scholarship urge that the concept ofGermanic peoples be jettisoned altogether.[31][32]
The role of language in constructing and maintaining group identity can be ephemeral since large-scale language shifts occur commonly in history.[33] Modernists propose the idea of "imagined communities"; the barbarian polities in late antiquity were social constructs rather than unchanging lines of blood kinship.[34] The process of forming tribal units was called "ethnogenesis", a term coined bySoviet scholarYulian Bromley.[35] TheAustrian school (led byReinhard Wenskus) popularized this idea, which influenced medievalists such as Herwig Wolfram,Walter Pohl andPatrick J. Geary.[28] It argues that the stimulus for forming tribal polities was perpetuated by a small nucleus of people, known as theTraditionskern ("kernel of tradition"), who were a military or aristocratic elite. This core group formed a standard for larger units, gathering adherents by employing amalgamative metaphors such as kinship and aboriginal commonality and claiming that they perpetuated an ancient, divinely-sanctioned lineage.[36]
The common, track-filled map of theVölkerwanderung may illustrate such [a] course of events, but it misleads. Unfolded over long periods of time, the changes of position that took place were necessarily irregular ... (with) periods of emphatic discontinuity. For decades and possibly centuries, the tradition bearers idled, and the tradition itself hibernated. There was ample time for forgetfulness to do its work.[37]
Völkerwanderung is a German word, borrowed from German historiography, that refers to the early migrations of the Germanic peoples. In a broader sense it can mean the mass migration of whole tribes or ethnic groups.
— Bell-Fialkoff, Andrew.The Role of Migration, p. 15
Location ofXiongnu and other steppe nations in 100 AD. Some historians believe that theHuns originated from the Xiongnu.
Rather than "invasion", German and Slavic scholars speak of "migration" (seeGerman:Völkerwanderung,Czech:Stěhování národů,Swedish:folkvandring andHungarian:népvándorlás), aspiring to the idea of a dynamic and "wanderingIndo-Germanic people".[38]
In contrast, the standard terms in French and Italian historiography translate to "barbarian invasions", or even "barbaric invasions" (French:Invasions barbares,Italian:Invasioni barbariche).
Historians have postulated several explanations for the appearance of "barbarians" on the Roman frontier: climate change, weather and crops,population pressure, a "primeval urge" to push into the Mediterranean, the construction of theGreat Wall of China causing a "domino effect" of tribes being forced westward, leading to the Huns falling upon the Goths who, in turn, pushed other Germanic tribes before them.[39] In general, French and Italian scholars have tended to view this as a catastrophic event, the destruction of a civilization and the beginning of a "Dark Age" that set Europe back a millennium.[40] In contrast, German and English historians have tended to see Roman–Barbarian interaction as the replacement of a "tired, effete and decadent Mediterranean civilization" with a "more virile, martial, Nordic one".[40]
The scholarGuy Halsall has seen the barbarian movement as the result of the fall of the Roman Empire, not its cause.[40] Archaeological discoveries have confirmed that Germanic and Slavic tribes were settled agriculturalists who were probably merely "drawn into the politics of an empire already falling apart for quite a few other causes".[41] Goffart argues that the process of settlement was connected tohospitalitas, the Roman practice of quartering soldiers among the civilian population. The Romans, by granting land and the right to levy taxes to allied (Germanic) armies, hoped to reduce the financial burdens of the empire.[42] TheCrisis of the Third Century caused significant changes within the Roman Empire in both its western and its eastern portions.[43] In particular, economic fragmentation removed many of the political, cultural and economic forces that had held the empire together.[44]
The rural population in Roman provinces became distanced from the metropolis, and there was little to differentiate them from other peasants across the Roman frontier. In addition, Rome increasingly used foreign mercenaries to defend itself. That "barbarisation" parallelled changes withinBarbaricum. To this end, noted linguist Dennis Howard Green wrote, "the first centuries of our era witness not merely a progressive Romanisation of barbarian society, but also an undeniable barbarisation of the Roman world."[45]
For example, the Roman Empire played a vital role in building up barbarian groups along its frontier. Propped up with imperial support and gifts, the armies of allied barbarian chieftains served as buffers against other, hostile, barbarian groups. The disintegration of Romaneconomic power weakened groups that had come to depend on Roman gifts for the maintenance of their own power. The arrival of the Huns helped prompt many groups to invade the provinces for economic reasons.[46]
The nature of the barbarian takeover of former Roman provinces varied from region to region. For example, inAquitaine, the provincial administration was largely self-reliant. Halsall has argued that local rulers simply "handed over" military rule to theOstrogoths, acquiring the identity of the newcomers.[12] InGaul, the collapse of imperial rule resulted in anarchy: the Franks andAlemanni were pulled into the ensuing "power vacuum",[47] resulting in conflict. In Hispania, local aristocrats maintained independent rule for some time, raising their own armies against theVandals. Meanwhile, the Roman withdrawal from lowland England resulted in conflict betweenSaxons and theBrittonic chieftains (whose centres of power retreated westward as a result). TheEastern Roman Empire attempted to maintain control of the Balkan provinces despite a thinly-spread imperial army relying mainly on local militias and an extensive effort to refortify the Danubianlimes. The ambitious fortification efforts collapsed, worsening the impoverished conditions of the local populace and resulting in colonization by Slavic warriors and their families.[48]
Halsall and Noble have argued that such changes stemmed from the breakdown in Roman political control, which exposed the weakness of local Roman rule. Instead of large-scale migrations, there were military takeovers by small groups of warriors and their families, who usually numbered only in the tens of thousands. The process involved active, conscious decision-making by Roman provincial populations.
The collapse of centralized control severely weakened the sense of Roman identity in the provinces, which may explain why the provinces then underwent dramatic cultural changes even though few barbarians settled in them.[49] Ultimately, the Germanic groups in theWestern Roman Empire were accommodated without "dispossessing or overturning indigenous society", and they maintained a structured and hierarchical (but attenuated) form of Roman administration.[50]
Ironically, they lost their unique identity as a result of such an accommodation and were absorbed into Latinhood. In contrast, in the east, Slavic tribes maintained a more "spartan and egalitarian"[51] existence bound to the land "even in times when they took their part in plundering Roman provinces".[52] Their organizational models were not Roman, and their leaders were not normally dependent on Roman gold for success. Thus they arguably had a greater effect on their region than the Goths, the Franks or theSaxons had on theirs.[53]
Based on the belief that particular types of artifacts, elements of personal adornment generally found in a funerary context, are thought to indicate theethnicity of the person buried, the "Culture-History" school of archaeology assumed that archaeological cultures represent theUrheimat (homeland) of tribal polities named in historical sources.[54] As a consequence, the shifting extensions of material cultures were interpreted as the expansion of peoples.[55]
Influenced byconstructionism, process-driven archaeologists rejected theculture-historical doctrine[55] and marginalized the discussion of ethnicity altogether and focused on the intragroup dynamics that generated such material remains. Moreover, they argued that adoption of new cultures could occur through trade or internal political developments rather than only military takeovers.
^Allgemein: Springer (Springer, Matthias (28 July 2006). "Völkerwanderung".Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (in German). Vol. 32 (2 ed.). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 509–517.ISBN3-11-018387-0.),der auch auf alternative Definitionen außerhalb dercommunis opinio hinweist. Alle Epochengrenzen sind letztlich nur ein Konstrukt und vor allem durch Konvention begründet. Vgl. auch Stefan Krautschick:Zur Entstehung eines Datums. 375 – Beginn der Völkerwanderung. In:Klio 82, 2000, S. 217–222 sowie Stefan Krautschick:Hunnensturm und Germanenflut: 375 – Beginn der Völkerwanderung? In:Byzantinische Zeitschrift 92, 1999, S. 10–67.
^Wolfram Euler, Konrad Badenheuer; "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Abriss des Protogermanischen vor der Ersten Lautverschiebung"; 2009;ISBN3-9812110-1-4,978-3-9812110-1-6
^Wolfram, Thomas J. Dunlap, tr.History of the Goths (1979) 1988:5
^Anthony D. Smith,The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, 1966) pp. 6ff., coined the term to separate these thinkers from those who view ethnicity as a situational construct, the product of history, rather than a cause, influenced by a variety of political, economic and cultural factors.
^That was influenced by the 'family tree' model (Stammbaun) of linguistics in that relationships between related languages were seen to be the result of derivation from acommon ancestor. The model still is very influential in linguistics
^Archaeology and Language: Correlating Archaeological and Linguistic Hypotheses. "The Eurasian Spread Zone and the Indo-European Dispersal."Johanna Nichols. p. 224
^Henri J. M. Claessen, Jarich Gerlof Oosten (1996).Ideology and the Formation of Early States. BRILL. p. 222.ISBN9789004104709.
^Curta (2001, p. 120) "[T]he archaeological evidence of late fourth- and fifth-century barbarian graves between the Rhine and Loire suggests that a process of small-scale cultural and demographic change took place on both sides of the Roman frontier. Can we envisage Roman-Slavic relations in a similar way?"
Barford, Paul M. (2001).The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe. Cornell University Press.ISBN0-8014-3977-9.
Bell-Fialkoff, Andrew, ed. (2000).The Role of Migration in the History of the Eurasian Steppe: Sedentary Civilization vs. 'Barbarian' and Nomad (Role Migrant History Eurasian Step). Basingstoke: Macmillan.ISBN978-1-349-61839-2.
Börm, Henning (2013).Westrom. Von Honorius bis Justinian (in German). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag.ISBN978-3-17-023276-1.
Dumville, David (1990).Histories and pseudo-histories of the insular Middle Ages. Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum.
Friedrich, Matthias; Harland, James M., eds. (2020).Interrogating the 'Germanic': a category and its use in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Boston: De Gruyter.ISBN978-3-11-069976-0.
——— (2006). "The crisis of European identity". In Thomas F. X. Noble (ed.).From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms. New York and London: Routledge.ISBN0-415-32742-3.
Halsall, Guy (2006a). "The Barbarian invasions". In Fouracre, Paul (ed.).The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1: c. 500 – c. 700. Cambridge University Press.ISBN0-521-36291-1.
——— (2006b). "Movers and shakers: the barbarians and the fall of Rome". In Noble, Thomas F. X. (ed.).From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms. New York and London: Routledge.ISBN0-415-32742-3.
——— (2008).Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-43491-1.
——— (2006). "Foedera and foederati of the fourth century". In Noble, Thomas F. X. (ed.).From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms. New York and London: Routledge.ISBN0-415-32742-3.
Kleineberg, Andreas; Marx, Christian; Knobloch, Eberhard; Lelgemann, Dieter; Ptolemaeus, Claudius (2010).Germania und die Insel Thule: die Entschlüsselung von Ptolemaios' "Atlas der Oikumene" (in German). Darmstadt: WBG.ISBN978-3-534-23757-9.
Kulikowski, Michael (2007).Rome's Gothic Wars: From the Third Century to Alaric. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-84633-2.
Noble, Thomas F. X., ed. (2006).From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms. Routledge.ISBN0-415-32742-3.
Todd, Malcolm (1996).The Early Germans. Blackwell.ISBN0-631-19904-7.
Wolfram, Herwig (2001).Die Goten. Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts (in German). Munich: C. H. Beck.
Wood, Ian (2006). "Defining the Franks: Frankish origins in early medieval historiography". In Noble, Thomas F. X. (ed.).From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms. New York and London: Routledge.ISBN0-415-32742-3.
.jpg)
