"New-Comers Make the State" - Is This True?

[Romano-Dacis]

I just noticed that there is a correlation in the Dark Ages between the date of settlement and who formed the aristocracy in a state. It seems to me like the new-comers, the "barbarian invaders", almost always founded the new kingdom where they settled after the collapse of the Roman Empire. You see this in a variety of locations:
1) France - Franks
2) Spain - Visigoths, later Moors
3) Italy - Lombards, Normans, Arabs
4) England - Final foundation by Normans
5) Russia - Rhos vikings, Cumans, Tatars
6) Hungary - Magyars
7) Central Europe: Slavs or Franks
8) Balkan space: Bulgars or Slavs.
9) Middle East: Arabs
Is this a lot less profound than it seems? On the one hand: it makes sense that newcomers create the next state, since their settlement was supposedly facilitated by the withdrawal of the former power, leaving a political vacuum. It makes sense that the conquerors make the new state and form the new nobility, even though the natives never abandoned these lands but rather lived under a foreign elite. The elite would then be indigenized.

However, it does strike me as being a bit odd that no new long-lasting kingdom on the former territory of the Roman Empire was founded by the natives. You did not have a Gallo-Roman revolt producing a Gallic Kingdom. There was no great Iberian revolt that produced a kingdom. This is almost ironic since they would have had a head-start over the barbarian invaders in that they already had a state apparatus to work with, while barbarians often started from scratch. It would theoretically take only one usurper with his own army (like Aetius, or Regalianus) to create create a break-away kingdoom.

The question is: why did it not happen? Why is it that the natives did not make their own states?

[Koelkastmagneet]

However, it does strike me as being a bit odd that no new long-lasting kingdom on the former territory of the Roman Empire was founded by the natives. You did not have a Gallo-Roman revolt producing a Gallic Kingdom.

Well, there was the Gallic Empire during the 3rd century, but that was lead by a Roman of Batavian origin.

And there were occasional revolts and such but these failed and national identity (if one really existed) dissipated over time within the indigenous population.

[hellheaven1987]

Barbarian started everything from scrath - I love this silly theory.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Most likely, because the natives were weak while the conquerors were strong. A simple but powerful explanation: you underestimate the capabilities of small but resolute bands of warriors versus a mass of people who don't feel united by nothing except by some abstract cultural bound of little validity. The fact is that during the dissolution of the Roman Empire, very few people at the bottom of the ladder felt themselves as "Romans", "Iberians" or "Gauls" of any sort. They were just a mass of completely indifferent populations, thus they could not band together "as a people" as much as they could only do so for whatever petty ties they held with closely aligned tribes, families or cities.

[konny]

However, it does strike me as being a bit odd that no new long-lasting kingdom on the former territory of the Roman Empire was founded by the natives.

If the huge Roman Empire with all its ressources wasn't able to survive against the barbarians, how could a fraction of this empire be expected to do so?

On the other hand:

Barbarian started everything from scrath - I love this silly theory

Indeed. Despite the conquerors de factio destroying the old Empire and forming new states it was not the case that the Romans disappeared overnight and were suddenly replaced by an equal number of, say, Franks, nor that the developement of something new always was intended.

In many occasions, for example in Gaul, the old provincial ruling class remained in power in many aspects with only the head of the state and the command of the army changed from Imperial officals to Frankish or Gothic kings and their retinues.

[hellheaven1987]

In many occasions, for example in Gaul, the old provincial ruling class remained in power in many aspects with only the head of the state and the command of the army changed from Imperial officals to Frankish or Gothic kings and their retinues.

Indeed, and both Merovingian and Carolingian used same system Roman used at 4th Century, including military system.

The rather problem is that most people stop learning Roman history after Trajan, and rarely even care about Merovingian and Carolingian except occasional study of piecemeal about Battle of Tours and Charelmagne; after that, they quickly jump into Viking and assume Holy Roman Empire was just a corrupted region that was nothing good.

[Romano-Dacis]

If the huge Roman Empire with all its ressources wasn't able to survive against the barbarians, how could a fraction of this empire be expected to do so?

I can't say "with ease" but reality is not as simple as you make it out to be. A smaller state can consolidate and centralize its defenses. It is easier to manage and could have put up more effective resistance. Alexander's Empire would have been unlikely to survive, and yet it produced successor states which were directly continuous with it.

A tiny state that is well organized and has a mobilized populace can offer much firmer resistance than a huge empire which is a bureaucratic mess and has porous borders. By using your logic, one must conclude the Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire had far smaller chances of survival than the massive, monolithic Roman Empire. This is just not true.

Indeed. Despite the conquerors de factio destroying the old Empire and forming new states it was not the case that the Romans disappeared overnight and were suddenly replaced by an equal number of, say, Franks, nor that the developement of something new always was intended.

I never implied this. In fact, if this were implied, it would invalidate the whole topic.
The question is: why did the Franks make the new state and not the Gallo-Romans?

Indeed, and both Merovingian and Carolingian used same system Roman used at 4th Century, including military system.

I don't think this is true, or if it is, I want a source.

[hellheaven1987]

I don't think this is true, or if it is, I want a source.

Early Carolingian Warfare by Bernard S. Bachrach; finish that then come back to the discussion.

[konny]

Alexander's Empire would have been unlikely to survive, and yet it produced successor states which were directly continuous with it.

Why shouldn't Alexander's Empire have survived? Only because it was large? The Seleucids "inherited" the largest portion with only Egypt, Greece and parts of Asia not being under they control. Why should their kingdom have collapsed earlyer if they also had ruled the above named lands?

A tiny state that is well organized and has a mobilized populace can offer much firmer resistance than a huge empire which is a bureaucratic mess and has porous borders.

False logic: obviously a small but healthy man has more chance to survive a fight than a tall but sickly man. But this does not follow that a small man always is better off in a fight than a tall man.

You are assuming that smaller portions of the Roman Empire would have been better organized than the empire they had steamed from. Why?

By using your logic, one must conclude the Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire had far smaller chances of survival than the massive, monolithic Roman Empire. This is just not true.

It is exactly true! The Western Empire collapsed because her provinces were overrun one after one. Without them, and limited to a devasted Italy, the WRE was simply lacking the resources to survive. Different to that, the ERE mostly remained intact during the migration periode, and did not collapse before the same process of shrinking happened to her.

The partation of the Roman Empire was not done because it turned out impossible to keep an empire of that size running (in fact it prospered as an united empire for more than 300 years), but because it turned out necessary to split military command into "East" and "West" to prevent from constant ursupation and civil wars.

You realy should give up the idea of the late WRE as a rotten and outlived giant that collapsed for good. It was the best organized state in western Europe so far and would have been for centuries, in many aspects better organized than the early Empire. The ERE survived with the same structures for another 1000 years, and the victorious Germanic kingdoms adopted as much structures as they could from the dead WRE. The difference was that they too were simply lacking the resources of a united West but were basing their rule on small fractions of the Empire. And these pieces also were devasted and threatened by other invadors.

Just a few examples how far reaching the Romanization of the conquerors had been: "French" is a Latin language, even though it is named the language of the Frankish. In fact, for example in Germany, Latin remained the dominant language for legal affairs until the 18th(!) Century.

Most of the Roman administrative borders survived as borders of Christian dioceses. Medieval administrative borders were indeed based on that, and some of them even have survived as borders until today.

Another thing would have been the so called Carolingian Renaissance, a revitalization of the Roman heritage of which the Carolingians saw themselves in a tradition. Of course, the Renovatio Imperii also was a politcal program, showing that the barbarian rulers, even after more than 300 years, considered themselves the descendants and heirs of the Roman Empire.

The question is: why did the Franks make the new state and not the Gallo-Romans?

You missed it: The Franks were, or became, the leaders of the Gallo-Romans. The same as the Visigoths became the leaders of the Ibero-Romans, and the Ostrogoths that of the Italians.

Most, save for the Saxons and Vandals, were ruling over their lands by Imperial approvement, and many of the barbarian kings even were Imperial officials, so no reason for the provincials to question the situation, because that would have been open rebellion.

I don't think this is true, or if it is, I want a source.

Pick any recent works on the Migration Periode and its immediate afternath.

[CiviC]

There was no nationalism back then. The Romanic population was not worried about losing its "national identity", people were differenciated mostly by social class, I don't deny there were ethnic differenciations, by belonging to a social class was more important. The "Barbarians" also had no sense of nationalism, of course they were aware they belonged to a different ethnicity, but they had no problem to adopt the culture and language of populations they conquered. Being a Frank or a Visigoth was not an ethnicity as much as belonging to a social class, the class of conquerors, but it was not a cast, a closed social class, so with the time the conquerors were assimilated in the great mass of the conquered.

[Lysimachos11]

There was no nationalism back then. The Romanic population was not worried about losing its "national identity", people were differenciated mostly by social class, I don't deny there were ethnic differenciations, by belonging to a social class was more important. The "Barbarians" also had no sense of nationalism, of course they were aware they belonged to a different ethnicity, but they had no problem to adopt the culture and language of populations they conquered. Being a Frank or a Visigoth was not an ethnicity as much as belonging to a social class, the class of conquerors, but it was not a cast, a closed social class, so with the time the conquerors were assimilated in the great mass of the conquered.

While there was no nationalism, there had been an ongoing development of regionalization. Gallo-Romans did see themselves as a distinct people. The Germanic conquerors also admired Roman culture and adopted it, but for example in Italy, they remained distinct from the native population. In the Italian Longobard Kingdom, there were seperate laws for the Romans and Longobards for a long time, so the degree of assimilation should not be exaggerated. The conquerors in a way felt superior to the natives, and at least initially a kind of two-layered society existed. You might not disagree with that though.

[CiviC]

While there was no nationalism, there had been an ongoing development of regionalization. Gallo-Romans did see themselves as a distinct people. The Germanic conquerors also admired Roman culture and adopted it, but for example in Italy, they remained distinct from the native population. In the Italian Longobard Kingdom, there were seperate laws for the Romans and Longobards for a long time, so the degree of assimilation should not be exaggerated. The conquerors in a way felt superior to the natives, and at least initially a kind of two-layered society existed. You might not disagree with that though.

I agree that assimilation was not immediate and it took some time, like few centuries. Indeed at first the Barbarians and Romanics were separated and had different laws, but I mantain that this made them more like distinct social classes. The conquerors felt superior to the natives from a social point of view, they being the rulers and the one to hold power, politically and militarily, but in terms of culture and administration they felt inferior so they adopted very quickly the Romanic model, culture and language, loosing their ethnic identity.

The question is: why did the Franks make the new state and not the Gallo-Romans?

There was the episode of Syagrius who formed for a short time a state between Loire and Seine, but he was defeated. I guess it's all a matter of military force, Franks were superior in military power and Gallo-Romans were mere civilians not used to warfare as Barbarians were. Gallo-Romans when being Roman citizens payed the taxes and the Roman state took care of the defense of the state. When the Roman state disapeared, Gallo-Romans had no/little expertise to organise a proper defense against Franks.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Sticking to a strictly 5th, 6th century time frame we have exclude the lombards, before them were the Ostrogoths and a roman kingdom under Odaocer.
The ruling class were barbarians but romanized. You see this in all the Visigothic, Ostrogothic, Frank, Burgundian, Vandal kingdoms. Theodoric, Childeric, ect. They were "Barbarian", but the infrastructure was Roman, or at the very least native. Natives ran the government, but in most respects lacked a strong enough leader to lead them against the barbarians who were more united. The natives would be more focused on food and surviving and when the new ruling class doesnt do too much to upset this way of life than what reason do u have to rebel?

Odoacer was a Usurper and tried to rule, failed, and theodoric took over. Julius Nepos short rule of Illyria post 475. Syragius and his father aegidius rules a roman breakaway state in Northern France. Lasted from 460 to 481. There was also a roman breakaway state in north africa that resisted every invasion by the vandals. It lasted the longest and joined Belisarius and ERE before it too was conquered by the berbers.

[Babur]

9) Middle East: Arabs

The Arabs were hardly newcomers to the Middle East though,the Banu Lakhm had existed in what is now Jordan and Syria before the Arab Invasions and were based in Bosra and were vassals of the Eastern Roman Empire.The same applies for the Banu Ghassan who lived in Hira in Iraq and were vassals of the Sassanids.

The Arabs had kingdoms in the region going as far back as the Nabateans.

[Orko]

The Arabs were hardly newcomers to the Middle East though,the Banu Lakhm had existed in what is now Jordan and Syria before the Arab Invasions and were based in Bosra and were vassals of the Eastern Roman Empire.The same applies for the Banu Ghassan who lived in Hira in Iraq and were vassals of the Sassanids.

The Arabs had kingdoms in the region going as far back as the Nabateans.

Yes, but they were concentrated in the Arabian penisulla(mostly). I think he means Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt... etc.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

The reason why the natives did not revolt against the new-commers is one and simple: incapacity in military matters.
The imperial Roman world had reached such a high degree of complexity and sophistication, that its function ended up being based on a perfectly interconnected cohesion of millions of people of different professions. This means that even though the 4rth century Roman army was composed many thousands of very experienced, efficiently equiped and well-drilled troops, it represented only a minuscule fraction of the Roman society as a whole and the rest of the population were highly unfamiliar with the issues of war. So when large chunks of land slipped away of Imperial control in the early 5th century and thus the tax base dwindled dramatically and thus the army could no longer be sustained, there was no force left to stand up to the invaders, who may not have been as effective as the professional Roman army, but were much more battle-hardened and warlike than the Roman society as a whole.
And two other issues, apart from the military inexperience of the native masses, akin to the social and financial complexity of the Roman Empire, were the constitutionally imposed demilitarisation of the citizenry, which as a law was withdrawn as late as the 450s if memory serves, and the geographical dispersion of the fabricae which constructed arms and military equipment: wool clothes in Mediolanum and Aquilia, linen in Ravena, shields in Kremona and Verona, cuirasses in Mandua, bows in Pavia, arrows in Konkordia etc.
I imagine the combination of these two factors would have made it impossible for the locals to arm themselves and march to battle, even if they had managed to overcome the fear of confrontation with forces much more militarily competent than themselves. Hence they submitted; after all the propsect of peace finally encompassing the war-torn for almost a century lands of the Western Roman Empire must have been seen as immensely preferable to unending war, since stability is a prerequisite of economical development and propserity even for the second rate citizens of a state.

[FliegerAD]

The reason why the natives did not revolt against the new-commers is one and simple: incapacity in military matters.

That holds true only in part for the demilitarization had its strongest effect on the lower strata, the land lords were quite warlike still.
Gallo-Roman magnates fought with outstanding valor side by side with the Visigothic warriors, among them Claminius, a friend of Sidonius Appolinarius, and even Sidonius’ own son, while Gothic navies were often under the command of Roman admirals. Gregory of Tours noted the civitas Avernorum being a major factor in Alaric’s military (Historia Francorum 2,37).
Conversely, we can also find Gallo-Romans fighting for Clovis, who actively strived for the conservation and implementation of Roman military remnants in his own army.
Bachrach has really written a lot about this (The Imperial Roots of Merovingian Military Organization, in: Clausen/ Jorgensen (Ed.): Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective, Copenhagen 1997 e.g.)

And of course for the magnates it was merely a question of benefit when aligning with Goths or Franks, in any case it was better than Imperial rule. The ‘barbarians’ needed the incredible rich lords in civil administration, and the Roman character of which they wanted to keep, in turn the lords kept their privileges and trade income. The latter even increased in many cases as there were no Imperial fiscal restrictions anymore. While their military involvement was rather short-lived, their involvement in civil administration was not. Without this Roman background the successor states were unthinkable, although the degree to which they were romanized varied. Moreover, another career opened up – the clerical career.

The ‘barbarians’ meanwhile were more or less thoroughly romanized and – as konny pointed out – usually had Imperial legitimacy and held Imperial offices.

So who is left? The lower strata of Roman society? They did not care if they paid their taxes to Emperor directly or a King ruling in his name, or if they used coins with the image of the Emperor or coins with the Emperor and a King. Last but not least, they probably never even saw a ‘barbarian’ considering the extremely low numbers of the immigrants.

A very good overview is offered by Patrick Geary: Before France and Germany. The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World, Oxford 1988

[conon394]

Some good point Timoleon

I imagine the combination of these two factors would have made it impossible for the locals to arm themselves and march to battle, even if they had managed to overcome the fear of confrontation with forces much more militarily competent than themselves. Hence they submitted; after all the propsect of peace finally encompassing the war-torn for almost a century lands of the Western Roman Empire must have been seen as immensely preferable to unending war, since stability is a prerequisite of economical development and propserity even for the second rate citizens of a state.

On might also say to some extent Rome had lost its ability to 'sell' a compelling story to its people -particularity in the west. It could not provide absolute security (at least against external foes) and the prospect of privileged Roman citizenship was lost so to the economic benefits of the first 2 centuries AD.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

The newcomers make the state simply because they aim for the structures of government, and usually leave the lower strata alone. This is, for instance, the case with the barbarian invasions, in which a small, highly militarized portion of the population basically assumed the more important stations of government, sharing them with the pre-extant Roman local élites.

This élite could either remain relatively attached to its own laws, and therefore distant from the population; for instance, in the early Barbarian kingdoms, subjects could be judged either according to Roman or Germanic law, according to their origin, the barbarians generally extrapolated their own forms of government to the state level (elective monarchy). This élite was often parallel to the previous élite, such as the pre-extant Roman aristocratic families.

Ultimately, these were mostly assimilated into the larger local stratum, leaving more or less of an imprint on the resulting culture.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

That holds true only in part for the demilitarization had its strongest effect on the lower strata, the land lords were quite warlike still.

Or rather they were forced to become as they progressively realised the failure of the Imperial government to protect the provinces, but then again no immediate results could be acheived, actually no results were guaranteed at all, since they would have to create an effective fighting force out of peasantry and middle-class first.
There are indeed several examples of provincial nobility taking up arms to take the situation in their own hands, such as rich land owners in Spain arming a force of slaves from their estates to support Emperor Honorius in 407/408, Gallic aristocrats (like Sidonius Appolinarius you mentioned) leading the local resistance of Clermont against Visigothic besiegers in the 470s or even gaining independence for Suason (sp?) in 480s, but the fact is that the remilitarisation of society came too late to turn the tide of events, whenever it came at all.

And of course for the magnates it was merely a question of benefit when aligning with Goths or Franks, in any case it was better than Imperial rule. The ‘barbarians’ needed the incredible rich lords in civil administration, and the Roman character of which they wanted to keep, in turn the lords kept their privileges and trade income. The latter even increased in many cases as there were no Imperial fiscal restrictions anymore. While their military involvement was rather short-lived, their involvement in civil administration was not. Without this Roman background the successor states were unthinkable, although the degree to which they were romanized varied. Moreover, another career opened up – the clerical career.

I don't see why you restrict your view in Gaul, but at any rate I disagree wholeheartedly.
The first thing big and small land owners alike would suffer would be devastion of their lands because of the raids. Highly indicative is the destruction which Italy had suffered in the 1st decade of the 5th century: Not only were in 413AD the taxes restricted to 1/5 of the normal ones through the Theodosian Code in order to allow for the recovery of the tax body, but this exemption had to be renewed in 418AD despite no invasion having happened in the meantime and despite funds to raise/sustain the army were more needed than ever at that crucial moment.
The second thing they would suffer would be partial confiscation of their lands because of the settlement of the invaders. Again the situation in Italy serves as an example: In 476AD 1/3 of the entire peninsula was distributed to Odoacer's Ostrogothic troops, which means that these lands were extracted from their pervious Roman owners. I find it very hard to imagine that the new-commers elsewhere did not carve lands for themselves out of the previous holders' estates, since this was a fundamental motive for their quest, nor that they did not take advantage of their power and authority to exploit their subjects such as Theudatos (Procopius "History of the Wars" V 3.2), Cunigastos (Boethius "Philosophiae Consolatio" 1.4) and Tankas (Cassiodorus "Variae" VIII.28) did in Italy. The only thing in favour of the natives was that the numbers of their conquerors were not large.
The third major misfortune is that as the complex fincanial system of the Western Roman Empire collapsed, trade diminshed and in some cases disappeared, the use of coins gradually fell almost completely out of use and the standards of living dropped rapidly. In short the levels of wealth and prosperity of the Roman era disappeared and despite the fact that this change affected much more severely the middle and lower class, the rich ones were hit as well: they would have to kiss their villas, their extravagant lifestyle, their exotic ornaments, their high quality everyday objects etc goodbuy.
And finally, after the conquests all Romans became second rate citizens, which is testified by the surviving codes and laws on "blood price" from the Franks, the Saxons and others. The general rule is that a native was worth half the value of a member of equal social stature belonging to the conqueror caste. So even though a Roman administrative officer would be valued more than say an ordinary Frank, a Frank aristocrat in service of the king would worth twice as much; and of course the ordinary Romans were at the bottom level. Not to mention that jurisdictional authority was held exclusively by the new-commers. Who would willingly submit himself to such a regime?
So no, I strongly believe the Roman (in the sense of citizenship) magnates had absolutely no interest in the change of the status quo of the Imperial era, on the contrary they had much to lose both in short-term and in the long run, which can not be overshadowed by the fact that they tried to make the best out of the new order that emerged.

So who is left? The lower strata of Roman society? They did not care if they paid their taxes to Emperor directly or a King ruling in his name, or if they used coins with the image of the Emperor or coins with the Emperor and a King. Last but not least, they probably never even saw a ‘barbarian’ considering the extremely low numbers of the immigrants.

You mean apart from those they met during the raids, pillaging, rapes, abductions, religious oppresion of the initial stages of the invasions? Despite their exaggerations most chronicles draw a very dull picture about the impact of the invasions: Gildas on Britain, Ydatius on Spain, Procopius on Africa, Zosimus on Bakans etc. Also, wether the peasants cared about allegiance to the Emperor or not they ought to have, because they were were the ones to be hit most sensibly by the dramatic decline in the standards of living that followed the collapse of the empire. Of course we have the privilegde of hindsight today, it's questionable if they could have realised this back then.

Anyway, a great book on the (unpleasant for the natives) consequenses of the fall of the WRE and their actual impact on life is Bryan Ward-Perkins' "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation" by Oxford University Publications. It's a brilliant read, not a dogmatic libel by some aloof neo-pagan freak as the title seems to imply, and it features some interesting charts drawn from archeological findings, which I have no means of scanning, to acutely display the effect of the changes.