How did the "barbarian" European tribes become "civilized" medieval kingdoms?

[Architect of Doom]

We all learned about Rome and Greece in schools, but no one has ever explained me how the primitive European tribes (Germanics, Dacians, Slavs etc) eventually civilized themselves and developed the more sophisticated medieval kingdoms? I am not 100% sure if it happened thanks to Roman influences or if they evolved on their own. And if was by Roman influence, then how did it spread so far as into Scandinavia and Russia?

[Aru]

Yes, Rome is to blame. The eastern Rome (Byzantines) and western "Rome" (Franks of Karl the Great). Through conquest and missionary work the Europe was split between them and territories under their influence (either directly governed or under cultural and religious influence) were organized in their image.

[SLN445]

At least from what Ive read and heard, the other European people where a lot less "Primitive" then a lot of people paint them as.

[Ecthelion]

The Roman Catholic Church kept the tradition of law alive and the Renaissance and Reformation did the rest.
It's fairly straight forward

[KEA]

At least from what Ive read and heard, the other European people where a lot less "Primitive" then a lot of people paint them as.

That's indeed one point. Those people did develop, also under centuries of Roman influence. The Germans of the 4th Century were a much more advanced people than those Caesar encountered. For example, a lot of Goth's already were Christians before setting foot on Roman soil.

Another important factor is that the Germanic invaders at no point had the intention of destroying the Roman civilization. They wanted to become a part of it (a leading part of course). So they were trying to preserve what had survived of Roman culture, institutions and way of living. They adopted what they could and what could be maintained on much more fragmented base and by people not having the education required to keep it up. And they transformed what they found to the needs of their own political systems. The result were the Frankish, Goths, etc, kingdoms. These kingdoms indeed had a lot of late Roman elements. They evolved further over the centuries and became Medieval Europe.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Following Rome's example was obviously part of it; many of the tribals actually served as mercenaries under both western and eastern Rome, and so would have been quite familiar with civilization. Having some measure of literacy and law available through the church certainly didn't hurt either; we might think of missionaries as bothersome today, but back then, they were a useful resource for teaching how to read and write that didn't involve importing scholars (which usually had to be taken by force; scholars don't like immigrating to tribal societies).
Enterprising merchants from civilized lands looking for opportunities in the frontier were also a big factor in sparsely settled regions. Much of the existence of nations like Russia and Norway owes more then a little to the lumber and fur trade. We see the same sort of thing happen in large swaths of North America many centuries later.

Other then that, its really just a matter of getting the various tribes to stop squabbling among themselves and unite under one banner in a more permanent fashion. Uniting against a common enemy is usually a good first step, though in truth its enough for one of the tribes to completely dominate the others and realize that undermining the tribal framework is the best bet they have to maintain their dominance, like the Franks did.
Its a process that can happen extremely quickly too, given the right circumstances (mostly leadership). Genghis Khan managed to completely transform the tribes of the eastern steppe from squabbling cattle raiders into a proper nation in a matter of years, and that's before he had access to Chinese scholars.

[Claudius Gothicus]

• They weren't as basic and rudimentary as the tribes of early antiquity, by the mid imperial period most tribes north of the Danube and east of the Rhin were organized in confederations with ruling systems very much similar to the later western kingdoms.
• The first pillars of the economic feudal system were established by Diocletian and by the time the barbarians arrived they only extended it to cope with the declining urban life of late antiquity.
• Christianity and the educational infrastructure that the catholic church sheltered from the collapse of centralized government at monasteries was crucial in assisting later kingdoms to refine their political mechanisms, specially administrative ones.
• By the time the roman western authority imploded many "barbarian" tribes had been living within the empire's borders for more than 2 generations: intermarriage with local romanized families or the establishment of parallel social structures for both native celtic romans and migrant germanics worked adequately, with the obvious exception of the British Isles, to keep the peace at a local level, which was a must during the turbulence of the V, VI and VII centuries.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Pretty much what has been mentioned above.

In Roman assimilation, Foederati were naturally mixed in with the local administration and served in the Roman military, with the intent of Rmanizing (that is, replacing their cultural/ethnic identity with a Roman one). The Romans made a few glaring errors in the 5th century that led to this being unsucessful: for one, they failed to control the migrants early on, which led to the establishment of unfavorable Foedera, and in turn resulted in the Barbarians completely replacing the Roman aristocracy in many cases, more or less giving them full administrative control of the area in which they were settled.

In the late 450's they figured out that Rome no longer controlled them, and they began to control Rome instead, and changed their goals from wanting to be part of the Roman system, to one of controlling the Roman system, and eventually outright replaced it. But they used the Roman laws, administration, and military for the basis of their governments.

Hence why this period is seen more as a transition than a collapse (the only real collapses were in trade and Roman military collapse) by modern historians of late antiquity.

[Caesar Germanico]

(the only real collapses were in trade

Trade is a major issue though.

There was indeed a collapse.I recommend Bryan Ward-Perkins' work.

[Conrad82]

Related question: where does the feudal system and the nobility titles come from?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

They come from the Late Roman Empire.

Duke comes from the Limitanei commander called a Dux, Noble comes from Latin Nobilis, meaning Noble, and count comes from Latin Comes, meaning comrade and the commander of a central field army.

Knight comes from Germanic Chnite, which was a warrior who owned land and could afford to fight on horseback. Chivalry/Cavalier both come from Latin Cavallarius, which was one of several terms for a cavalryman.

[Påsan]

Well you could argue with the Medieval Kingdoms being particularly civilized. Meaning more culturally advanced than the Romans at their height or the Byzantines at any time. After all "Civilized" would mean that they were the on par with the best of humanity, and I think the benchmark set by the Romans was beyond the capabilities of 10-13th century France. The quintessential medieval kingdom

However to answer your question, the medieval feudal structure was as Magister said, a mix of the "manor culture" of the Romans and the warchief culture of the Germanic peoples, they merged and gave us the Feudal society. Which was kinda a terrible and inefficient system in a lot of ways, but in its horrible unwieldiness it kept power decentralized in Europe, so real civilization could grow in the cracks, sponsored by a competitive middle class which was not snuffed out by some authoritarian pan-European despot as happened elsewhere.

Really the Renaissance in northern Italy was what brought Civilization back to Western Europe. Then when conditions in Italy turned unfavorable the process moved to Netherlands and England through that wonderful European competition and grew until the Industrial Revolution and eventually the Enlightenment, which was pretty much the zenith of civilization. ("We did it guys, we finally surpassed the Greeks and Romans!")


Thinking about it, the power hungry and meddling Catholic Church turned out to be a massive boon for Europe in the end.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Really the Renaissance in northern Italy was what brought Civilization back to Western Europe.

Which was caused by Romans fleeing Morea from 1453-1460

[Caligula's_Horse]

Well you could argue with the Medieval Kingdoms being particularly civilized. Meaning more culturally advanced than the Romans at their height or the Byzantines at any time. After all "Civilized" would mean that they were the on par with the best of humanity, and I think the benchmark set by the Romans was beyond the capabilities of 10-13th century France. The quintessential medieval kingdom

However to answer your question, the medieval feudal structure was as Magister said, a mix of the "manor culture" of the Romans and the warchief culture of the Germanic peoples, they merged and gave us the Feudal society. Which was kinda a terrible and inefficient system in a lot of ways, but in its horrible unwieldiness it kept power decentralized in Europe, so real civilization could grow in the cracks, sponsored by a competitive middle class which was not snuffed out by some authoritarian pan-European despot as happened elsewhere.

Really the Renaissance in northern Italy was what brought Civilization back to Western Europe. Then when conditions in Italy turned unfavorable the process moved to Netherlands and England through that wonderful European competition and grew until the Industrial Revolution and eventually the Enlightenment, which was pretty much the zenith of civilization. ("We did it guys, we finally surpassed the Greeks and Romans!")

Thinking about it, the power hungry and meddling Catholic Church turned out to be a massive boon for Europe in the end.

Pray tell, what makes one culture more advanced then the next? I can understand technological gaps, but claiming a culture is more or less advanced then another seems absurd.

I'll also contest the claim that civilization only truly came back during the renaissance. Some of the better organized medieval kingdoms were more or less as advanced as the Roman Empire; they weren't as large or as dominant, but then, the competition of the day was also more fierce. Most of the territories captured by Rome belonged to tribal groups and city states, whereas by medieval times, there were no more tribals left in Europe whose land can be swallowed up, only equals to fight.
Probably also worth mention that outside Europe, various nations from North Africa to China rivaled Rome or the Hellenic world's sophistication and scale at many points in time.

Feudalism also isn't unique to Europe. Similar systems developed in places like Japan and China, which clearly had little European influence. I always saw feudalism as something of a natural development wherever there's a dominant professional warrior class combined with an economy based on subsistence farming (as opposed to say, herding or commerce) alongside a power vacuum. Not necessarily a positive development, but a natural one none the less.
It also suppresses the middle class better then most despots, due to the hand to mouth nature of things which discourages specialists like artisans or scholars. The middle class was throughout most of history much better developed and more dominant in places like the Islamic world or China then in Europe; in fact the European middle class only started truly emerging once the feudal system began to be replaced, largely due to warfare shifting more towards organized units of infantry as opposed to noble cavalry.

Though in Europe's case, feudalism can also be traced back partially to the economy of the latter day Roman Empire, where several ill-thought out economic reforms created a situation where farmers (the vast majority of the population in most pre-industrial societies) could afford to live off their produce, but couldn't afford to actually own the land they worked. Hence, a great many of them ended up living and working on some rich man's land, which when the invaders came, turned into some warlord's land. Then the collapse of trade dried up the supply of slaves, and the fields had to be tilled somehow, resulting in what came to be called serfdom.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Probably also worth mention that outside Europe, various nations from North Africa to China rivaled Rome or the Hellenic world's sophistication and scale at many points in time.

China and Rome were about equals in terms of technology and sophistication. The Chinese probably copied the Blast Furnace from the Romans, for example, and we know they adopted Chainmail as it spread west from Europe, while the Romans copied some things that spread east from China, like Silk and Chromium even seems to have arrived in Rome at one point.

Though in Europe's case, feudalism can also be traced back partially to the economy of the latter day Roman Empire, where several ill-thought out economic reforms created a situation where farmers (the vast majority of the population in most pre-industrial societies) could afford to live off their produce, but couldn't afford to actually own the land they worked. Hence, a great many of them ended up living and working on some rich man's land, which when the invaders came, turned into some warlord's land. Then the collapse of trade dried up the supply of slaves, and the fields had to be tilled somehow, resulting in what came to be called serfdom.

Well, this, and under Roman law the indebted were bound to their debtor so the Possessores (landowners) turned the citizens into serfs long before the supply of slaves dried up. This also had a significant impact on the ability of the Romans to recruit volunteers and draft conscripts into the army.

[Claudius Gothicus]

It's relevant to point out that European societies weren't able to adequately deal with demographic transitions until the industrial revolution. More specifically: roman society had been generating a population surplus around the rural areas (freemen, most of them citizens) for a while when the civil wars exploded during the late republican era. These "archaic proletarians" fled the ever growing latifundia that slave based agriculture and strong aristocratic support for the practice generated. They simply couldn't compete and, as an alternative, went to the urban centers. The artisan like foundations of industry however didn't allow for a fast enough absorption of such workforce, they languished around cities and worked as an available ally for populist leaders like Caesar or Antonius, the roots of later mob politics; the imperial solution to such upheavals was not very efficient either, it was something of a political subsidy that kept the destitute regulated and turned into political patronage for their leaders. To work their way around economical stagnation and resource distribution the Romans expanded to find more arable land, Pannonia being a great example of a "farmer" system with a strong veteran composition.

When the political order of the late empire declined the trade routes started to deteriorate, the previously subsided individuals of these massive population centers dispersed around the fields, a poor and harsh livelihood was far more rewarding and safe than expecting an attack at impoverished cities. These were long processes that lasted for a couple of centuries and so, the already feudal agriculture of the Roman interior, saw it's workforce augmented by the declining urban areas.

[Ecthelion]

China and Rome were about equals in terms of technology and sophistication. The Chinese probably copied the Blast Furnace from the Romans, for example, and we know they adopted Chainmail as it spread west from Europe, while the Romans copied some things that spread east from China, like Silk and Chromium even seems to have arrived in Rome at one point.

Not to hijack the thread, but I will say that comparing the Roman Empire and Han Dynasty China is risky proposition at best. The two empires were great, but for vastly different reasons. For one thing, the Han Dynasty had a more or less functional succession system and an indisputable moral/religious mandate for the imperial house that Rome would have benefited greatly from (many fewer Emperors stabbed).

The Han were also able to achieve what Diocletian tried but was at best partially successful in: an impersonal, merit based national bureaucracy completely loyal the to Imperial Court. The best that Diocletian and his successors were able to come up with was a few thousand equestrians and freedmen who did the day to day clerical work, and allowed the Empire to partially recover from the Crisis years economically.

Scientifically the Romans probably were ahead in terms of architecture, engineering, specifically military engineering.

[ArmoredCore]

I think the traditional narrative is that the Western Europeans emerged after the fall of Rome in the West and exposure to early Islamic learning.
From the Muslims they were inspired to travel, trade and learn which reintroduced the works of the Greeks and Romans to the elite of the West and then the masses. In Spain and France this started with the Carolingian renaissance where Arabic, Roman and Greek works began to be translated into Latin, from exposure to the Islamic culture of Spain. This confluence had its biggest impact in Italy, where various combinations of Islamic cultural influences and wealth from trade driving the growth of a commercial class of traders. These traders were not religious they cared about money more than religion but like Machiavelli were shrewd in the use of money and wealth to influence politics and religion. From this combination of trade, wealth and a rising commercial, banking and trade elite, came the first renaissance in Europe, which then became the template for the rest of Western Europe. The thinkers, artists, and craftsmen largely were funded by the wealth of patrons of the arts that emerged and was enabled by the trade and commerce of the elite merchants. The material prosperity of Italy in this era also had to do with the development of textile arts from trade with the east and the plethora of cultures and styles from around the Levant, Mediterranean and Central Asia that was fused into the development of Medieval fashion by Western workshops imitating then surpassing eastern originals. A lot of the very realistic artwork produced during this period actually documents this process and the various cultural influences from the Eastern and Mediterranean world at the time. And from then on the growth of Europe was primarily driven by expanding trade routes, conquests to increase lands open to trade and commerce and ultimately leading to sailing to the Western Hemisphere, which also was based on Islamic learning and sponsored by the Catholic Church. Of course what took place in Italy was truly a rebirth as it was based on older Roman foundations which were indigenous and supplanted with Greek knowledge and the influx of Byzantine Greek scholars from the fall of Constantinople. For the rest of Europe it was primarily a new birth so to speak.

Ironically enough, Greece itself had a renaissance as well under the Byzantines a few hundred years prior to this, which led to the Byzantine empire being dominated by Greeks in later eras. Unfortunately that ended with the Ottoman occupation, but a large number of these Byzantine Greek scholars were influential in the later Italian Renaissance bringing with them the accumulation of much Eastern culture and tradition as well.

The growth of Europe unlike most cultures, was primarily driven by the desire to grow wealth by controlling trade and resources in other lands, which led to conquests, colonies and ultimately globalization. Most other civilizations were home grown with influences from surrounding cultures but primarily the product of indigenous developments in organizational sophistication, cosmology, math, writing and architecture. Trade and commerce was a byproduct of such developments and interaction with others, but none to my knowledge grew explicitly because of the desire to control trade and resources as did Europe. One other thing that made this possible is that the 'feudal' or 'feuding' nature of competitive princes fighting over territory for 400 years led to a large number of folks willing to go war for land an money. And from this combination of a large surplus of bloodthirsty professional killers plus a greedy, diabolical and treacherous elite class of merchants and traders comes the development of Western Europe as we know it today.

In fact, there are many layers of symbolism in the works of the renaissance that speaks on many levels.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Enlightenment based on the divine word, thought and the opening of the conscious mind...

Costume based on earlier Islamic/Eastern/North African patterns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaiss...e_12th_century

[Anna_Gein]

Something to keep in mind is that most barbarian leaders held Roman offices at one point or the other. As such they became active part of the roman administration and created linked with the local aristocracy as such.

On feudalism, personal ties did not became the single political organization until the implosion of the Carolingian power. Until then personal ties were not enough for the aristocracy to assume power, it needed to be part of the administration controlled by the ruler. It was indeed a smaller administration, particularly during the first half of Merovingian rule but it was style animated by a state spirit based on the roman militia completely alien to feudalism.

[KEA]

I think the traditional narrative is that the Western Europeans emerged after the fall of Rome in the West and exposure to early Islamic learning.

That's a very popular point of view but it doesn't stand a closer look: The western European kingdoms were in constant contact with Byzantium throughout the Middle Ages which in return had an unbroken tradition of Ancient scholarship. Secondly was most of Ancient knowledge well preserved in the West as well. The Carolingian Renaissance was based on it long before we can speak of any closer contacts between "Muslim scholars and Christian students".

Ancient works were copied and read from the Carolingian Renaissance throughout the entire Middle Ages; such as Vegetius and Caesar still being the military standard works. When the "Great Bookhunt" begun in the 15th Century most of those Ancient works were to be found in European monasteries were there had been preserved over the Centuries. The idea that the European Middle Ages were a somewhat primitive period of intellectual standstill which needed to be overcome by eastern, Muslim, influence (ex oriente lux) is a typical 19th Century POV. In fact scholars of the Middle Ages were not ignorant to Ancient science, they made more technological innovations than the Romans, created their own art and literature and so on.

If you like, it rather was the Renaissance which was backward with its fanatical devotion to Ancient art and literature. But not by chance, it started in Italy after the fall of Byzantium, and not in Spain after the Muslim conquest.

The Han were also able to achieve what Diocletian tried but was at best partially successful in: an impersonal, merit based national bureaucracy completely loyal the to Imperial Court. The best that Diocletian and his successors were able to come up with was a few thousand equestrians and freedmen who did the day to day clerical work, and allowed the Empire to partially recover from the Crisis years economically.

The Roman Empire lasted for another 200 year after the Han Empire had collapsed, and Diocletian certainly not marked the climax of Roman administrative organization.