Did germanic tribes after defeat of West make mass murder of empire population?

[ilicgzns]

Hi, I have few questions about ``after fall of the west``

1)What happen with peoples who lives into western part of roman empire after if fall?

2) Did germanic tribes make mass murder of peoples who live in towns and vilages in Italy, Gaul and Hispanic provinces? What happen with all of them?

3)How many germans settle in former roman provinces?

In time of Constantine and Theodoius in wester part lived cca 22 milion. peoples.

Is there any acount about these questions?

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

1. For peasants? Life didn't change much. For landowners? A bit different. The Roman landowning class was favored in every law and statute of the Roman Empire, all of which was based on strong Roman central authority. When the empire began to decay and lose power, the landowning class had to make bargains with the new barbarian powers to achieve the same kind of balance as before, or face loss of land and ultimate disappearance.

2. Absolutely not. They were merely assimilated; Theoderic's Italy is a great example of this. The post-Roman kingdoms adopted Roman culture to the point where Italian citizens weren't sure whether the Empire had fallen or not (Goths ruled as viceroys in the name of the eastern emperor)

3. Probably no more than 150,000 at most (I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong). These immigrants formed a new elite and melded with the old Roman landowning class.

[swabian]

2. Absolutely not. They were merely assimilated; Theoderic's Italy is a great example of this. The post-Roman kingdoms adopted Roman culture to the point where Italian citizens weren't sure whether the Empire had fallen or not (Goths ruled as viceroys in the name of the eastern emperor)

It depends. If they took over a region and settled there, like the Goths in Italy, then yes. But there were also raiding parties of the Alamanni and Franks during the 4th century which returned to their homelands with loot and slaves. In such cases, massacres and pillaging was often involved, but probably nothing that could reach the scale of genocide. As for Theoderics Goths, it is not certain to whitch degree they adopted Roman customs, but they certainly remained a Germanic ethnicity until the end of the Gothic kingdoms (except in Spain, where they abondoned their language earlier), maybe you confuse the Goths with the Langobards here.
Theoderic actually prohibited marriage between Goths and Italians because the Gothic warriordom depended on Gothic identity. Goths also weren't allowed to learn to read and to write or to take over administrative offices. In a sense, they were artificially kept Germanic warriors. Leovigild in Toledo actually practiced a similar policy, but that wasn't sucessful.

Btw the reign of Theoderic was probably much more peaceful than previously thought. Italian landowners probably didn't have to fear for their posessions. However, there is no general pattern regarding the rule of Germanic conquerers, this cant be generalised anyway.

[Sanskrit_Bandit]

well the legacy of the linguistic make up of western europe today is a pretty good answer to your question. spain, france, portugal, italy all speak a romance language. the germans that invaded weren't invading to cause complete destruction and wipe the previous civilization off the face of the earth. in all examples, except britain, the germanic invaders settled and became romanized, they adopted the latin language and culture and began mixing with the natives. the amount of germanic invaders woud have been much too small to absorb the previous population. they were only able to establish themselves as the local elites. one interesting thing i read was the settling germans would marry with local woman, meaning their children would have been raised by latin mothers, and therefore have latin as their first language. through this process the languages of the goths, franks, lombards etc died out.
and i dont think they committed mass murder. obviously theres death with pillage, but often they germans wanted to take the splendour of roman civilization and preserve it for themselves.
hope that answers your question.

[Draco Borealis]

Aside from Danube and Rhine border provinces or Britiania there was no mass murder and even in this lands it was more common expulsion of Roman elites and enslavement of poor which lead to germanification than extermination holocaust style. The bulk of population survived this tempest and even today all those Bavarians and Austrians Hitler and Himler included don't look very Nordic afterall.

[ilicgzns]

Thanks for answers.
But i still have few q.

1)After fall of west emp. and forming of new germanic kingdoms if tribes didnt exterminate empire citizens why dark ages started?

2)If they absorbe landoning class why cultural progres was stop?

Just thinking: before fall it was normal for young aristocrat to learn to write and read *for example* from childhood. When germanic tribes come at the gates of some city in gaul after empire was dead if they want to absorbe local population and to acept empire (roman) customs (at some point of course) we wouldnt have dark ages BUT if they come at the gates to pillage and exterminate citizens then there wont be young aristocrat how know to read and write and to pass old knowlage to new generations. In time of empire ``lot`` of ariistocrats and scolars know to write that is why we have classic writings,art, medicine,math, arhitecture and philosofy. But it is obvius that those tribes cancel civilased way of life (well romans use slaves and were brutal but..)..any way i am not expert in history expecly not for late antiqity but in that time lifes of many empire citizens must been hell and tramatic (just it was to dacians, gauls, iberians and others when they get new masters).

This afternoon i found this statistic:

POPULATION ESTIMATES, 400-1500 A.D

Population (reckoned in millions of people)Region

400 650 1000

British Isles 1 0.5 2
France & Lowlands 5 3.5 6
Germany & Scandinavia 3.5 2 4
Iberian Peninsula 4 3.5 7
Italy 6 2.5 5

Greece & Balkans 5 3 5
Asia Minor 12 7 8

Syria & Levant 5 3 2
Egypt 6 3 1.5
North Africa 2.5 ---- 1

Just look at Italy and France betwean 400 and 650!!!

(statistic is taken from http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/h...Population.htm )

[Valentinian Victor]

Thanks for answers.
But i still have few q.

1)After fall of west emp. and forming of new germanic kingdoms if tribes didnt exterminate empire citizens why dark ages started?

The term 'Dark Ages' is a bit of a misnomer. It relates to the lack of surviving post 476AD written material rather than the west languising in some waste land. Things actually improved in some respects for the inhabitants of the western half of the Empire once the 'barbarians' took over. There were fewer taxes and less restrictive laws. Basically things went on as before, but were not written about as there were less literate people to do so. And we must not forget that most of the tribes did not have a written language to be able to put down what was happening.

2)If they absorbe landoning class why cultural progres was stop?

Because it did not stop! Many so-called 'barbarians' actively sought to emulate the Roman way of life and many aspects of Roman life-styles continued for many, many years i.e. armour, clothing, use of Latin as a universal language. However, as time progressed the tribes began to evolve into new identities and the 'Roman Way' became less important.

Just thinking: before fall it was normal for young aristocrat to learn to write and read *for example* from childhood. When germanic tribes come at the gates of some city in gaul after empire was dead if they want to absorbe local population and to acept empire (roman) customs (at some point of course) we wouldnt have dark ages BUT if they come at the gates to pillage and exterminate citizens then there wont be young aristocrat how know to read and write and to pass old knowlage to new generations. In time of empire ``lot`` of ariistocrats and scolars know to write that is why we have classic writings,art, medicine,math, arhitecture and philosofy. But it is obvius that those tribes cancel civilased way of life (well romans use slaves and were brutal but..)..any way i am not expert in history expecly not for late antiqity but in that time lifes of many empire citizens must been hell and tramatic (just it was to dacians, gauls, iberians and others when they get new masters).

It was not helpful to kill the very people who may well inspire the rest to revolt! It was better to assimilate the population, reduce the laws and taxation and let them carry on as before rather than kill them off, forcing your own tribesmen to do the tilling of the land, herding of flocks, cultivating of vines and olive groves. There are a number of new books out now that look at the social and economic impacts of the 'barbarian invasions' that are well worth seeking out if your interested in this subject.

This afternoon i found this statistic:

POPULATION ESTIMATES, 400-1500 A.D

Population (reckoned in millions of people)Region

400 650 1000

British Isles 1 0.5 2
France & Lowlands 5 3.5 6
Germany & Scandinavia 3.5 2 4
Iberian Peninsula 4 3.5 7
Italy 6 2.5 5

Greece & Balkans 5 3 5
Asia Minor 12 7 8

Syria & Levant 5 3 2
Egypt 6 3 1.5
North Africa 2.5 ---- 1

Just look at Italy and France betwean 400 and 650!!!

(statistic is taken from http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/h...Population.htm )

[Fritigern]

There were fundamentally two types of settlement - Agrarian settlement and, essentially, change of leadership. The areas that now speak German or Germanic are a consequence of the former, the Latin-based language speaking areas a consequence of the latter.

The tribal bands crossing the Rhine, into England settled into areas partially deserted due to raids, banditry, etc. Over the following decades and centuries their far higher birth rates (and capacity for work) caused them to replace and, to a degree, absorb the local populations. An example of this is the top end of the Rhone valley in Switzerland (Canton Wallis). A cluster of a few villages with names ending in 'ingen' indicate that these were 'settler villages. Over the subsequent centuries these villages fed a constant stream of settlers further down the valley and the upper rhone valley was germanised in the process.

Other tribes, Goths, Vandals, etc. moved into an area and became the warrior ruling caste - lounging around all day and doing the occasional bit of fighting is a much more attractive lifestyle than pushing a plough (and doing a bit of fighting as well)! In part this 'overlordship' was facilitated by a reasonably strong central leadership (i.e. kings) by these tribes. The Franks, Saxons, Suevi, Bavarians, etc. had nothing of the sort and the settlement was done by small bands, or groups of bands, generally in an unco-ordinate way.

Contrary to popular belief the latinisation of the Western Roman empire was driven by the catholic church and not by the early/mid-Roman empire. This is why the Welsh speak Welsh and the French speak French. If your territory was christianised by catholic (and not irish) missionaries then you ended up speaking a latin language. Another example of this is when the West Goths rounded up a celtic tribe to (re)build Toulouse. Bringing these people down from the hills resulted in their being latinised.

[ilicgzns]

grrr... staistic table is so bad...sorry for that i cant make table in post so go to the link from where i took those statistic

[Sanskrit_Bandit]

i think in answer to this, although i'm not 100% sure, was just the disrupting factor the invasions had. even though they kept the old civilization in place many things deteriorated and were left to rot, like aqueducts,, roads, or city walls. the educated elites like said before were replaced, and the last people holding higher knowledge like monks retreated to iscolated monasteries. this is a simple explenation to your question and there were probably many other factors that contributed to such massive population drop. but i think the most obvious that regardless of the slaughter done by invading germans, a massive invasion that toppled an empire would have devastating consequences noetheless. progress would have been shattered to an extent regardless of whether the germans wanted to keep roman civilization alive.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Justinian was the main factor in the Dark Ages. He destabilized every civilized, post-Roman regime in the Mediterranean and then was unable to keep control himself.

[Draco Borealis]

Disruption of trade and Roman industries coused by constant rebelions/invasions and later on by Arabs and Vikings. Having a great number of small sucesor states each with their own customs and tolls and not very efective in preserving roads, Bridges, chanels etc... and road security hampered international exchange. The new small agrararian comunities coud support limited number of people; It was post-globalist and post capitalist feudal world something to think about for all modern haters of PAX AMERICANA. How many people coud live off the ecolo... primitive farming today in New York or Paris regions? The French speak French (which is still 50%-55% Latin) becouse IV-V century Romano-Galic landowners from south of Loire spoke Latin not Galic in contrast with Romano-British elites who were bilangual. Franks replaced elites in conquered northern DoS but not in Visigothic and Burgundian controled south that's why French is most Germanic of all Romance languages.

[Constantius]

The short answer is there was no centralised beurocracy maintaining the roads and aqueducts etc as for language pure Ciceronian latin was only really spoken by the elite and was taught in a few towns by grammarians the unwashed masses spoke "vulgar latin "which rapidly changed into romance languages with all the outside influnces real latin was kept alive by the church. The Roman elites that where in place at the "fall " just paided their taxes to a new ruler in return for protection of their life styles ,pretty much how it had been .The power of the western Emperor had been in the hands of generalissimos like Aetius ,Ricimer and Stilicho for the best part of the century so when Odoacer and later Thederic took the reins nothing had really changed had at least in Italty .Pretty much the same thing applies to Gaul and Spain some land was taken from the elites and given to the new kings followers but not all ! religion was tolerated .Thedoric was considered almost catholic and was even asked to sort out question of the succession of the pope .Only in Vandal Cathage is there anything like persecution .

[Valentinian Victor]

The short answer is there was no centralised beurocracy maintaining the roads and aqueducts etc as for language pure Ciceronian latin was only really spoken by the elite and was taught in a few towns by grammarians the unwashed masses spoke "vulgar latin "which rapidly changed into romance languages with all the outside influnces real latin was kept alive by the church. The Roman elites that where in place at the "fall " just paided their taxes to a new ruler in return for protection of their life styles ,pretty much how it had been .The power of the western Emperor had been in the hands of generalissimos like Aetius ,Ricimer and Stilicho for the best part of the century so when Odoacer and later Thederic took the reins nothing had really changed had at least in Italty .Pretty much the same thing applies to Gaul and Spain some land was taken from the elites and given to the new kings followers but not all ! religion was tolerated .Thedoric was considered almost catholic and was even asked to sort out question of the succession of the pope .Only in Vandal Cathage is there anything like persecution .

Actually, practically all the Roman 'Elite' spoke and wrote in greek by this stage, Latin writers became as rare as hen's teeth as they say.

[Constantius]

Actually, practically all the Roman 'Elite' spoke and wrote in greek by this stage, Latin writers became as rare as hen's teeth as they say.

Where did you get that idea ? Greek was certainly widely spoken amongst the elite particulary in the EAST ,but any self respecting Roman aristocrat in the (LATIN) WEST would have spoken "latin" even in the east Latin was still the official language of government and law (army included ) until Hericlius decreed Greek the official language of the empire in the 7th century

[Valentinian Victor]

Where did you get that idea ? Greek was certainly widely spoken amongst the elite particulary in the EAST ,but any self respecting Roman aristocrat in the (LATIN) WEST would have spoken "latin" even in the east Latin was still the official language of government and law (army included ) until Hericlius decreed Greek the official language of the empire in the 7th century

Unfortunately the evidence suggests that Greek was the preferred language of the noble classes in both the East and West. This would be evidenced by the fact that very few surviving works were written in Latin, most were written in Greek. Strangly though, even during the Byzantine period the officers in the army all spoke Greek, but the commands given to the troops tended to be in Latin!

[Constantius]

Unfortunately the evidence suggests that Greek was the preferred language of the noble classes in both the East and West. This would be evidenced by the fact that very few surviving works were written in Latin, most were written in Greek. Strangly though, even during the Byzantine period the officers in the army all spoke Greek, but the commands given to the troops tended to be in Latin!

I Disagree the evidence does not show a "favoritism "to greek in the west at all ,the masses spoke vulgar latin ,as did the goths ,both ostro and visi and eventually the franks ,hence the reason they speak romance languages today ;and as for a lack of works in latin alot survives if not in its original then copies made by the church.The elite certainly spoke greek as well as latin and alot of writers wrote in greek but that does not take away the fact that people in the west spoke latin first and foremost.The army in the east as you rightly say must of been a little strange at times they spoke greek but officially received and gave orders in latin .Do you think they actually did or just on paper ??


. Latin Writers of the Fifth Century. By Eleanor Shipley Duckett. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1969. xix + 271 pp. $9.00.. Church History, 39 , pp 394-395
doi:10.2307/3163478
Also theres
Aetheria (fl. 385)
Jerome (c. 347-420)
Augustine (354-430)

[Constantius]

On the contary there is little or no evidence to say that Theoderics (goths) did not speak latin these people had lived all their lives inside the Roman empire Theoderic himself at the court of Konstantiople ,their language would of been crass and frontier ,but certainly vulgar latin

[swabian]

The Gothic nobility including Theoderic certainly spoke crappy latin as a secondary language. As a matter of fact Gothic was not abandoned under Theoderics reign, no matter what idea you try to summon when you use the phrase "little or no evidence" (as if you would have an idea).

[Joar]

On the contary there is little or no evidence to say that Theoderics (goths) did not speak latin these people had lived all their lives inside the Roman empire Theoderic himself at the court of Konstantiople ,their language would of been crass and frontier ,but certainly vulgar latin

Surely, the very existence of the Codex Argenteus suggests that Gothic was very much spoken by the Gothic nobility ( who in all likelyhood would be the first to adopt Latin ) in the 5th/6th century? Why else comission the translation and creation of such a costly work if the language in which it is written was all but extinct?