This page intentionally left blank

ABBREVIATIONS

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica
AA Auctores antiquissimi
Capit. Capitularia regum Francorum
Conc. Concilia
EE Epistolae
LL Leges
SS Scriptores
SSrG Scriptores rerum Germanicarum
SSrL Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum
SSrM Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum
PL Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina, ed. J.P. Migne,
221 vols. (Paris 1844–1855)
This page intentionally left blank
 INTRODUCTION

Hans-Werner Goetz

Late Antiquity, no doubt, was a “time of transition or rather transi-

tions”.1 In spite of extensive research on the “Germanic” (or, from
the Roman point of view, “barbarian”) invasions and the successor
states of the Roman Empire, comparatively little attention has been
paid to the “transition of peoples”, or their “developing” into king-
doms. As far as we can see, research on the Later Roman Empire
and the late antique and early medieval kingdoms has focused on
four aspects: first, the “Great Migration”,2 second, the decline of the
Empire (including the role of migration and of the barbarian hordes
in this process),3 third, the ethnogenesis of the “Germanic” peoples,4
and fourth, the rise of (single) kingdoms.5 Meanwhile, we know a lot

1
Thus, for example, I.N. Wood, The Merovingian kingdoms, 450–751 (London-New
York 1994) p. 1.
2
Cf., for example, E. Demougeot, La formation de l’Europe et les invasions barbares,
vol. 1: Des origines germaniques à l’avènement de Dioclétien (Paris 1969); vol. 2: De l’avène-
ment de Dioclétien (284) à l’occupation germanique de l’Empire romain d’Occident (début du VIe
siècle), Collection historique (Paris 1979); W. Goffart, Barbarians and Romans A.D.
418–584. The Techniques of Accomodation (Princeton NJ 1980); J.D. Randers-Pehrson,
Barbarians and Romans. The Birth Struggle of Europe, A.D. 400–700 (London-Canberra
1983); Das Reich und die Barbaren, ed. E. Chrysos and A. Schwarcz (Vienna 1989).
3
Cf. A. Demandt, Die Spätantike. Die Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian,
284–565 n. Chr., Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft III,6 (München 1989); id.,
Der Fall Roms. Die Auflösung des Römischen Reiches im Urteil der Nachwelt (München 1984);
A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284–602. A social, economic and administrative
survey, 3 vols. (Oxford 1964); Der Untergang des Römischen Reiches, ed. K. Christ, Wege
der Forschung 269 (Darmstadt 1970).
4
Cf. n. 7, and, summarizing, W. Pohl, Die Germanen, Enzyklopädie deutscher
Geschichte 57 (München 2000).
5
Cf. D. Claude, Geschichte der Westgoten (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln-Mainz 1970); H. Wol-
fram, Geschichte der Goten. Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts. Ent-
wurf einer historischen Ethnographie (München 1979; 3rd edn. 1990); T.S. Burns, A
History of the Ostrogoths (Bloomington 1984); P.J. Heather, Goths and Romans 332–489
(Oxford 1991); id., The Goths (Oxford 1996); P. Amory, People and Identity in Ostro-
gothic Italy, 489–534, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought (Cambridge
1997); J. Jarnut, Geschichte der Langobarden, Urban 339 (Stuttgart 1982); D. Geuenich,
Geschichte der Alemannen, Urban 575 (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1997); R. Kaiser, Die Franken:
Roms Erben und Wegbereiter Europas?, Historisches Seminar N.F. 10 (Idstein 1997).
2 - 

about the political development of this period, and we may also have
sufficient knowledge concerning the political, social and cultural
(including religious) structures of this epoch. And, of course, there
are splendid surveys of the period, for example, by Herwig Wolfram,6
Herbert Schutz,7 John Moorhead,8 Patrick Geary9 and, most recently,
by Walter Pohl.10 What we lack, however, is a comparative view of
these kingdoms as well as an attempt to combine these four ele-
ments within a common perspective. One of the first attempts in
this direction was the Marxist volume “Germans are conquering
Rome” (Germanen erobern Rom) by Rigobert Günther and Alexander
Korsunskij,11 limited, however, to a short presentation of each king-
dom. Another, more recent attempt by P.S. Barnwell was restricted
to four kingdoms (Franks, Visigoths, Langobards, and Anglo-Saxons),
each dealt with under three aspects: kings and queens, royal house-
hold, and provincial administration.12 In his conclusion, Barnwell
demands a revision of our image of “Germanic” government (which
was less decadent than generally assumed).13 He rightly points out
our complete dependence on evidence which is, actually, totally
different for each kingdom. He lays further emphasis on the impor-
tance of “rank” for the Visigoths and Anglo-Saxons, and he dis-
covers a continuation of Roman traditions throughout in legislation,
administration (which was dependent on the extension of the king-
dom), minting, royal ceremonies, and Christianity. No doubt these
are important observations, which have been confirmed and refined
by numerous works on individual kingdoms. Nevertheless, we still

6
H. Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen. Zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, Das Reich
und die Deutschen (Berlin 1990) [English transl. The Roman Empire and its Germanic
Peoples (Berkeley 1997)].
7
H. Schutz, The Germanic Realms in Pre-Carolingian Central Europe, 400–750 (New
York 2000).
8
J. Moorhead, The Roman Empire Divided, 400–700 (Harlow-London 2001).
9
P.J. Geary, The Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton 2001).
10
W. Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung. Eroberung und Integration (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 2002).
11
R. Günther and A.R. Korsunskij, Germanen erobern Rom. Der Untergang des West-
römischen Reiches und die Entstehung germanischer Königreiche bis zur Mitte des 6. Jahrhun-
derts, Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie
der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR 15 (Berlin/Ost 1986; 2nd edn. 1988).
12
P.S. Barnwell, Kings, Courtiers and Imperium. The Barbarian West, 565–725 (London
1997). A first volume, Emperors, Prefects and Kings. The Roman West, 395–565 (London
1992), covered other peoples within a more strictly Roman context.
13
Ibid., pp. 172 ff.
  3

lack an overall comparison of these kingdoms, and the central ques-

tion, namely of the relation between gentes and regna, has so far only
been slightly touched upon and has never been explicitly and tho-
roughly discussed in a comparison of the single realms. As Karl
Ferdinand Werner observed, rex, gens and regnum formed a “triad”:
There were gentes which formed a vast kingdom, and there were oth-
ers which were absorbed by or integrated into these realms.14 However,
it is by no means clear whether existing gentes established kingdoms,
which would mean that the “foundation” of the “Germanic” king-
doms marks a development from gens to regnum, or whether gentes
resulted from the establishment of realms, or—the most probable
assumption—whether there was mutual influence, which in turn
affected both gens and regnum: how this all worked is equally unclear.
An important contribution to this problem has recently been made
by Hans Hubert Anton who, by considering the geographical ter-
minology, asked how the “gentile” communities/federations (or peo-
ples) developed into political and territorial ones. He showed that
extensive geographical terms (such as Hispania, Gallia, Germania, and
Italia) partly lost their political connotation in the new realms and
were overtaken by those of new segmentations (such as Aquitania,
Burgundia, and Francia), but survived (or were revived) as expressions
for the kingdoms in the case of Italy and Spain, and were also used
by “foreign” writers outside the respective kingdom.15 Thus, geo-
graphical terms lost and regained their political impact and (again)
superseded ethnic ones. This, however, is of course only one aspect
of a most complicated process.
Ethnicity and ethnogenesis meanwhile have come to be seen as
extremely difficult and complex phenomena. Since Reinhard Wenskus
published his great book on “The Growth of the early medieval
gentes” in 1961,16 it has become more and more clear and may now
be considered a nearly undisputed conviction that the gentes of the

14
K.F. Werner, “Völker und Regna”, Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Reichs- und Nations-
bildung in Deutschland und Frankreich, ed. C. Brühl and B. Schneidmüller, Historische
Zeitschrift Beiheft N.F. 24 (München 1997) pp. 15–44, particularly pp. 15–6.
15
H.H. Anton, “Antike Großländer, politisch-kirchliche Traditionen und mittel-
alterliche Reichsbildung”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische
Abteilung 86 (2000) pp. 33–85.
16
R. Wenskus, Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes
(Köln-Graz 1961).
4 - 

Migration period and the Early Middle Ages were not stable “eth-
nic” units (in the “biological” sense of an Abstammungsgemeinschaft), but
“historical”, that is, unstable communities that were prone to change.17
If former research identified “peoples” as communities of human
beings who spoke the same language, as members of a cultural group
represented in archaeological findings, as groups presented under a
single name in written sources, as ethnic groups of the same descent,
or as political groups under the leadership of a king or prince, we
have, in the meantime and to an equal degree, not only become
aware that these five elements do not correspond with each other,
but also that each of these elements is contestable.18 The key fac-
tors, however, according to Wenskus and his followers, were politics
and tradition. “The ethnogenesis of early medieval peoples, there-
fore, was not a matter of blood, but of shared traditions and insti-
tutions; belief in common origins could give cohesion to rather
heterogeneous communities. The early medieval kingdoms were, for

17
Cf. Wolfram, Geschichte der Goten; id., “Ethnogenesen im frühmittelalterlichen
Donau- und Ostalpenraum (6. bis 10. Jahrhundert)”, Frühmittelalterliche Ethnogenese im
Alpenraum, ed. H. Beumann and W. Schröder, Nationes 5 (Sigmaringen 1985) pp.
97–151; Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern 1, ed. W. Pohl
and H. Wolfram, Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
philosophisch-historische Klasse 201. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Früh-
mittelalterforschung 12 (Wien 1990); Ethnogenese und Überlieferung. Angewandte Metho-
den der Frühmittelalterforschung, ed. K. Brunner and B. Merta, Veröffentlichungen des
Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 31 (Wien-München 1994). An in-
structive overview and estimation of this research is given by W. Pohl, “Tradition,
Ethnogenese und literarische Gestaltung: eine Zwischenbilanz”, ibid., pp. 9–26; cf.
id., “Gentilismus”, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 11 (2nd edn., 1998) pp.
91–101; and, recently, id., “Zur Bedeutung ethnischer Unterscheidungen in der
frühen Karolingerzeit”, Studien zur Sachsenforschung 12, ed. H.-J. Häßler (Olden-
burg 1999) pp. 193–298. Cf. also After Empire. Towards an Ethnology of Europe’s Bar-
barians, ed. G. Ausenda, Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology (Woodbridge 1995);
S. Gasparri, Prima delle nazioni. Popoli, etnie e regni fra Antichità e Medioevo (Rom 1997).
For later periods: Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. S. Forde,
L. Johnson and A.V. Murray, Leeds Texts and Monographs. New Series 14 (Leeds
1995); Peuples du Moyen Âge. Problèmes d’identification. Séminaires Sociétés, Idéologies et Croyances
au Moyen Âge, ed. C. Carozzi and H. Taviani-Carozzi, Publications de l’Université
de Provence (Aix-en-Provence 1996); Medieval Europeans. Studies in ethnic identity and
national perspectives in medieval Europe, ed. A.P. Smyth (Basingstoke 1998). For a gen-
eral archaeological approach to the question, see S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity
(London 1997).
18
Cf. W. Pohl, “Franken und Sachsen: die Bedeutung ethnischer Prozesse im 7.
und 8. Jahrhundert”, 799—Kunst und Kultur der Karolingerzeit. Karl der Große und Papst
Leo III. in Paderborn. Beiträge zum Katalog der Ausstellung Paderborn 1999, ed. C. Stiegemann
and M. Wemhoff (Mainz 1999) pp. 233–6; id., Die Germanen, pp. 7–10.
  5

a time, a successful form of making such ethnic communities the

focus of states on the territory of the empire.”19 Seen from this angle,
modern ethnogenetical research has to investigate the subject in a
different way:

1. If gentes were not static units but prone to change, we are obliged
to investigate these changes in the course of the Early Middle
Ages rather than ask for the origins of peoples.
2. If gentes were political rather than “ethnic” units,20 and, conse-
quently, in many cases tended to establish kingdoms (within the
area of, but also outside the institution of the Roman Empire),
the relation between gens and regnum which is the theme of this
volume becomes not only a central, but also a crucial issue.21
3. If gentes were groups formed by tradition (Traditionsgemeinschaften)
rather than by descent, we have to inquire into their self-per-
ception as a gens.

These are central questions concerning the transformation of the

Roman world and the establishment of the late antique and early
medieval “Germanic” kingdoms. Without doubt, the Roman Empire
was not assassinated by the “Germans”, as André Piganiol, still
influenced by the burden of the Second World War, believed.22 But
we are now much less certain about the role of the “Germanic”

19
Thus W. Pohl, “The Barbarian Successor States”, The Transformation of the Roman
World A.D. 400–900, ed. L. Webster and M. Brown (London 1997) pp. 33–47, here
p. 46.
20
Recently, with reference to Bede, H. Kleinschmidt, “The Geuissae and Bede:
On the Innovations of Bede’s Concept of the Gens”, The Community, the Family and
the Saint. Patterns of Power in Early Medieval Europe. Selected Proceedings of the International
Medieval Congress. University of Leeds, 4–7 July 1994, 10–13 July 1995, ed. J. Hill and
M. Swan, International Medieval Research 4 (Turnhout 1998) pp. 77–102, again,
claimed a conceptual change of the gens in so far as the political concept of a gens
as a group of settlers under the control of one ruler was a secondary, post-migra-
tional one.
21
Cf. C. Brühl, Deutschland—Frankreich. Die Geburt zweier Völker (Köln-Wien 1990;
repr. 1995); M. Becher, Rex, Dux und Gens. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung des sächsischen
Herzogtums im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert, Historische Studien 444 (Husum 1996); K.F.
Werner, “Volk, Nation, Nationalismus, Masse, III–V”, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Histo-
risches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland 7 (1992) pp. 171–281.
22
A. Piganiol, “Les causes de la ruine de l’empire romain”, id., L’Empire chrétien
(Paris 1947) pp. 411–22 [repr. id., “Die Ursachen des Untergangs des Römischen
Reiches”, Der Untergang des Römischen Reiches, ed. K. Christ, Wege der Forschung 269
(Darmstadt 1970) pp. 270–85].
6 - 

peoples in this process. Orosius’s report that the Visigothic king

Athaulf planned to destroy the Roman Empire, in order to estab-
lish a Gothic one,23 seems completely anachronistic for his time. In
the end, however, historical development seemed to have reached a
state which came very close to Athaulf ’s plans, achieved by the very
“Germanic” kingdoms which (without knowing or planning it) had
become the “heirs” of a Roman Empire which in its turn had devel-
oped into an alienated figure far away in the East. Therefore, we
are forced to investigate very closely what had happened in the
meantime.
Examining the relation between regnum and gens is an approach
which, in this context, may reveal the (different) phases of political
changes and, even more important, the causes and consequences of
the “establishment” of new kingdoms. Moreover, it helps us to rec-
ognize differences and similarities between individual peoples and
realms. There are, however, (at least) six crucial problems inherent
in this question.

• The first problem is already inherent in the terms “peoples” and

“kingdom”, terms that can no longer be defined per se (despite
their necessary interrelation when “peoples”, too, are seen as hav-
ing a political connotation). Not only is “peoples” an ambivalent
term (and, what is more, the German Volk has become fraught
with ideologically incriminating connotations), but also a “king-
dom” does not simply emerge where there is a king, but can or
should be understood as a political order, or a “state” with a
sufficient measure of organization. Since the interest of this vol-
ume lies in the relationship between “peoples” and “kingdoms”,
our concern is focussed on those gentes which developed into, and
gave their name to (larger) regna, particularly with regard to the
successor states of the Roman Empire. In practice, however, it
is not at all easy to draw a clear line between “Germanic” com-
munities and “Germanic” kingdoms as successor states of the
Empire.
• A second, and particularly prevalent problem is the term “Ger-
manic” itself. After centuries of a seemingly clear distinction, fol-

23
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII 7,43,3 ff., ed. K. Zangemeister,
CSEL 5 (Vienna 1882; repr. Hildesheim 1967) pp. 559–60.
  7

lowed by doubts and restrictions, we have now reached the point

where we are not even sure any more what “Germanic” really
means. The Germani of the Roman sources seem to be a Roman
construction (and, moreover, the term was not used very fre-
quently), and there are no signs of a “Germanic” self-conception
among the “barbarian” peoples which the Romans considered
(or we think) to have been “Germanic”. In other words, the
“Germanic” peoples did not conceive themselves as being “Germa-
nic”, or at least did not attach any importance to this feature.
The term can be defined, of course, in terms of language, but
with regard to the early period we have little knowledge of the
language spoken by those peoples which, according to Reinhard
Wenskus, were conglomerations of different communities anyway.
Moreover, previous (German) research overemphasized many phe-
nomena (such as Herrschaft, Eigenkirche, Sippe, or Gefolgschaft) that
seem specific to the Early Middle Ages rather than being typi-
cally “Germanic”. It is important, therefore, to compare so-called
“Germanic” peoples and kingdoms with presumably non-Germanic
ones. As a consequence of these problems, it was suggested that
the term “Germanic” be dropped completely in this volume, but
to substitute it with “barbarian” would only mean adopting another
(Roman) ideology which, in the final analysis, is as inadequate as
“Germanic”. The only neutral alternative, therefore, would be to
simply speak of late antique and early medieval peoples and king-
doms, but, of course, this would merely be evading the problem.
Probably it is more important to remain constantly aware of the
problematic questions that are inherent in our topic. Moreover,
it would also be necessary to have some critical reflection on the
term “Roman”.
• The third problem concerns the difference in development and
structure of “Germanic” kingdom-building. Sometimes the for-
mation of a realm focuses more or less on a single act (such as
Theodoric’s Ostrogothic kingdom), sometimes it resembles a grad-
ual movement (as under both Visigothic kingdoms, the “Tolosan”
as well as the “Toledan” one), sometimes it consists of an accu-
mulation of territories and realms (as with Clovis’s “foundation”
of the Merovingian kingdom of the Franks). Moreover, we should
not forget that we are comparing developments that extended
over a considerable period, from the early fifth to the late eighth
centuries.