Talk:Migration Period

Germans, Slavs, Huns were not peaceful migrants

Germans, Slavs and other barbarian peoples were not peaceful migrants like today migrants to Western Europe or US nor tourists as the article contends. In fact they were armed conquerors willing to replace the Roman Empire rule. In fact they were not so much different from Cortez and Pizarro looking for gold. The Spanish conquerors however had a much better technology than the South and Central American empires, the barbarians, instead, had a very primitive technology compared with Greek and Roman level.--Deguef (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. Some English and Germans historians were influenced and inspired (consciously or unconsciously) by Nazi racial theory. And some have employed "migration," a term certainly less pejorative than "invasion". The savage hordes of Lombards in Italy were not peaceful migrants. In Africa, the Vandals (peaceful occupants ?) lived as proprietors on the confiscated estates of the Roman families. In Britain, Anglo-Saxons were not peaceful migrants, etc.--Sirius2044 (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Asserting that usage of "invasion" rather than "migration" is due to Nazi influence is just patented sensationalistic nonsense. A little more research in this area before putting hand to keyboard could have informed you that much of the migration that occurred during this invasion did not equate to invasion as much as large-scale movement, therefore the more appropriate usage of "migration" (of which invasion may be the result or cause of). :bloodofox: (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bloodofox, the facts and the timeline ,have been somewhat mangled! It was the English historians of the 19th century that tended to play up the German heritage of the English, to try and come up with some sort of racial identity.[1][2] However there have been some modern British historians who are apologists for the holocaust, but they have been vilified by press and public alike and are very much on the fringe. [3] There are three main hypotheses, either the Anglo-Saxons were a warrior elite, few in numbers but dominant by force of arms; or they were farmers mostly interested in finding good agricultural land; or they were refugees fleeing unsettled conditions in their homelands. Or they might have been any combination of these. [4] Do you think that the article gives equal weight to each of these hypotheses? Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

See 3.2 "Invasion" versus "migration" :

"In contrast, German and English historians saw it as the replacement of a "tired, effete and decadent Mediterranean civilization" with a more virile, martial, Nordic one[31]." It's a racial and stupid theory, an outdated theory. Hitler's theory also claimed that the Aryan race is a master race. The myth of the Aryan race, strong and vigorous... German and English historians are not objective on account of their origins (Germanic or Anglo-Saxon i.e. "Barbarian"). The barbarians, unsophisticated and illiterate, destroyed the Graeco-Roman civilization in Western Europe and North Africa. The barbarian invasions had their good and mostly bad effects but the "Dark Ages" was really a period of stagnation in Europe. I'm objective and I'm German. Sirius2044 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that you give the Halsall citation, as he was analysing what 19th century historians view of history was eg: he said that 19th century historians were deployed to write narrative political history and the history of institutions. In an an atmosphere of rising nationalism, history often became a search for the origins of particular nations and was concerned with identifying their contributions to the political institutions of the day, he also said that they included or precluded facts to further their nationalist agenda. I think that he is pretty much saying what you are saying.

I am not sure of the value of quoting ideas from the 19th century in this article. I don't think that British historians have those sort of views anymore, we should be concentrating on the modern view of the current three main hypotheses I itemised above, and drop outdated rhetoric. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Migration Period vs Barbarian Invasions... two very distinct names on the same event... Before wikipedia never heard of the so-called "Migration Period"... anyway, the article should have a NPOV without judging anyone, just present the facts, or opinions of contemporaries, their descendants are in the country to where they migrated or invaded... probably both terms are correct. the word Barbarian was used by contemporaries of the events, and used up to... today... I'm afraid... --Pedro (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you not ever check other countrie's version of the same history. Also See the latest finds from the British Isles DNA project and compare to Czech Republic's and Germans Dna. The mass mirgration never happened. Also I must point out that Germany, in the past included Lusatia and Margraviate of Brandenburg both Slavic speakers (Sorbs).One recent Dna test in America showed that the Czechs they tested only had 1.3% avar/euro-asian dna lineage?. So please answer that one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.252.181 (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

germans are vendals, alans and lugii, all are scytho-sarmatian or slavs. and angles, saxons and lombards did not exist B.C. this article is full of "old, clean, european" shovinistic crap.89.205.2.29 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The great thing about Wikipedia when it comes to history is that if you don't like one aspect of history, maybe it annoys you or it makes a mockery of your ancestors then you can just hold a vote and with enough numbers rewrite history. This article is a perfect example. Invading barbarians can become peaceful immigrants. Wunderbar! OldBolshevik (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

German barbarians were ruthless, violent invaders, not "migrants".

--91.106.16.142 (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, everyone knows them to be "barbarian invasions" okay. That's what they are known as, and how they were always described. Wikipedia is fast going downhill. It's just not accurate anymore. It was an invasion, plain and simple. And it's happening again. Just look at the border of Poland and Belarus today. That is no migration. They are armed, and they are planning to invade. And they're not going about it the legal route either. How do you expect people (modern civilisation) to learn by its mistakes if you are literally changing history as you go along to suit yourselves????? Massively disappointed. Quintessentquirk (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, as Barbarian Invasions is too simplistic to cover the various forms of ingression by various tribal cultures north and east of the borders of the Roman empire. Some of them could indeed be accurately termed as invasions, like the Lombards for example, and some of what the Franks, Goths, and Vandals did, not to mention the Huns. But at the same time, it is complex because many of these tribes were actually invited into the empire and purposely settled there as "foederati" to serve as mercenaries of sorts for the overstretched Roman military. It's not just like they simply stormed in from outside and conquered. Many of them, like the Goths, were fleeing the Huns, which set in motion a chain of events. There was mistrust and discrimination by the Romans of these Germanic peoples, and that led to increased internal hostilities as the tribes were moved around. It is true at times they had to sack Roman cities to get concessions, and eventually made their way to Western Europe, carving out territories for themselves as Roman administration was gradually collapsing. But you have to keep in mind in the last century or so of the Western Empire, a very large portion of the military was Germanic, and they also held other positions of influence and leadership (the Alans too). Even Huns occasionally served under the Roman army. So it's complicated. Various peoples were assimilated to some extent. Remember that Rome finally fell in 476 as a result of internal issues and Odoacer seizing defacto power from *within* (something Germanic generals have had in some way for years already, like Ricimer). I don't know if you could accurately term this an "invasion" (even the Anglo-Saxons were originally invited and used to fight against other raiders and pirates in Britain until they took over). Many of these Germanic kingdoms became at least semi-romanized, like the Visigoths in Spain and Ostrogoths in Italy, and to an extent the Franks in Gaul. And as for Slavs in Eastern Europe, it was definitely a gradual migration toward the south in Central Europe and the Balkans, along with raiding of the Eastern Roman Empire. Also, the Visigoths and Ostrogoths became rather Romanized, and the kingdom of Theodoric was basically a continuation of business as usual from when the actual "Romans" were still in charge, with the same institutions basically being maintained, and this was actually an era of prosperity in Italy. It actually wasn't until the later 6th century after the wars of reconquest by Justinian that Italy really began to suffer and decline in population. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Compelling response. This is my takeaway from my read of the history. Multiple things can be true at once. An undeniably complex period of barbarian migration, owed to numerous factors, punctuated by instances of undeniably hostile invasions in specific regions by specific tribes/peoples. Crisis3rd (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Squabbling over the page has destroyed it

Sorry all, but this page is truly awful. You all know how competiting interests squabbling over the Roman inheritance destroyed what was left of it, and between you you've done the same to this page. Maybe you'll see the irony of that.

Wikipedia is not a self-publishing house for your own mini-theses, but that's what this page has become. Some if it is written in idiotically minute detail, while other, far more significant facts are missed out altogether. There is no flow to the story. The writing in some places is so turgid that no reader who is not an expert will understand even a quarter of it.

The map is misleading and the chronological diagram defies understanding.

A sensitive editor could do something about it, but I'm not sure you'd let him. Patrick Neylan (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The article is pretty bad, especially given its importance. The text is more or less coherent (though, as you point out, there's stuff missing) until the "Modern Discourse" section at which point it goes way down hill. At that point, it basically reads like somebody's annotated bibliography for a high school paper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is surely that the top sections are so short & stubby. Undergraduate paper, surely? Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be possible to rescue some content from the Modern Discourse section, but this section as written is a personal essay by an enthusiast and says nothing about the subject and a lot about the writer's ego. The question is, whether to delete it in its entirety or turn it into three or four relevant sentences. Patrick Neylan (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed ... things seem to go missing on Wiki far too easily in my opinion. Perhaps the powers that be could make previous versions accessible (as well as these spawning redirects and merges here) LookingGlass (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Normally everything is available via the history tab - that goes for your map below (or you might try categories here or on commons for that). Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Maps and strategic clean-up

I was searching for a map I found on Wiki that described Mass Migrations ... has it been edited? It looked ALMOST identical to the ones here. I remember it showed also both Goth migrations South into Germany, and South-West into Denmark. But those lines are not on the maps here. The "modern" one seems to be a rendering of the one of German origin, so now seems to me rudundant. Can anyone shed any light?? LookingGlass (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Depictions in Media

I've removed the reference to the Jack Palance 1960 film "The Barbarians", as according to the relevant article, Revak the Rebel, this was about Romans and Carthaginians; nothing to do with the Barbarian migrations of this article. Rojomoke (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Origins of the Germanic Tribes

"The Germanic peoples came out of southern Scandinavia, Denmark and the adjacent lands between the Elbe and Oder rivers, some time after 1000 BCE. The first wave moved westward and southward, pushing the resident Celts west to the Rhine River by about 200 BCE, and moving into southern Germany and against the Roman province of Gaul by 100 BCE, where they were stopped first by Gaius Marius and then Julius Caesar."

Someone pointed this out to me. Assuming the editor of this knew when Julius Caesar lived, these two sentences cover a millennium, which is highly unencyclopaedic. However, the section is titled ORIGINS of the Germanic tribes, not their movements, which would presumably be the rest of the article. So in fact the ORIGINS are covered by one unreferenced and highly dubious sentence.

Lets consider this logically. in the The Europeans: A Geography of People, Culture, and Environment, Robert C. Ostergren and Mathias Le Bossé say (p.80) that by 400 BCE the population in Europe reached 20 million. Over the next 200 years the population in Greece declined from 3 to 2 million while population in what is now modern Italy rose from 4 to 7 million. Does this mean that the other significant group in Europe, the Celts, constituted 13 million c.400BCE? And what of the Greeks and Etruscans? They had no inkling of the massive population supposedly residing in Scandinavia? The Scandinavians never before ventured south in the millennium since the Greeks themselves arrived in the Balkans? Are there any archaeological insights into these questions that can be gleaned from sources? 220.238.41.130 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Barbarian Invasions, not Migration Period

The prevalent term was / is Barbarian Invasions. It covers the invasions by much less advanced peoples into Europe during the end of the Roman Empire and during the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. The translation of the German 'Völkerwanderung' into English does not change anything. I see this argument has been going for a while. Time to change the title? Politis (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree! Wiki must be more "academic". --Frog Splash 23:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a valid source for this suggestion: "The prevalent term was / is Barbarian Invasions."? Prevalent, where exactly? I beg to differ: AFAIK, Migration Period is the only term used in the historical community, and hence the proper one. I might agree to an "also known as" if you can find a source for your suggestion, but the expression "better known as" is to the best of my knowledge totally misleading. Otherwise I think the term you suggest is both derogative, emotionally laden, and possibly self-invented (not necessarily by you). IMHO, that term you suggest should be avoided altogether, if you cannot cite a source for it (given your wording "prevalent" I think you should point to more than two independent sources, otherwise that prevalence is highly theoretical). To at least recognize the theoretical possibility of a "prevalence, somewhere" I have not deleted the term.

I still think the "Barbarian" term should be deleted and avoided altogether. clsc (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

ADDED: Above was not intended as to be rude, only factual. Helpful links:

*Loaded_language

*Wikipedia:Be_neutral_in_form#Articles_named_after_loaded_terminology,

*Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

*Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples.

clsc (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

ADDED 2 The term Barbarian (in History, Ethnography, Geography etc.) may eg. be used in the context of Berbers, and/or the region of Barbara. Apart from that the word has a multitude of different meanings, and so has Barbar. The page Barbarian lists both the derogatory meanings of the word (topmost, as use as insult is the most common contemporary use), as well as a multitude of different things also called that. It is not a neutral word. It is an umbrella term, not a specific one, and hence not suitable in a specific context (even if it was not derogative, which it is).clsc (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

clsc Much of this has been discussed below in the move request from late 2014. The outcome was a clear consensus in favour of migration over barbarian. Perhaps you might want to read some of that discussion below. Arnoutf (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You can whitewash this as much as you want, you germanics will always be BARBARIANS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.252.136.82 (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Arnoutf, and sorry for being both ignorant and impatient. I striked the above. clsc (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

War technology and such

It seems that in this period, and at least up to Genghis Khan's Mongol conquests, the advantage in battle was more to the primitive people and less to the civilized than typically in history. Perhaps agricultural methods (to breed large healthy armies), steal making and forging, and such were already widely distributed and new advantages of civilization such as strong and large fortifications and new weapons had not yet come. David R. Ingham (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft translation from German article

Moved from a 2008 section above: Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC) :

I am going to begin translating from the German article. Some disclaimers and notes: 1) I will only be attempting to translate into good English text; I do not claim that the posts will be ready-made to copy+paste into the article; 2) I am competent in German, but I am not a native speaker. I will absolutely do my best to translate attentively and accurately, but the possibility of error always remains; 3) What do others think would be the most useful way for me to do this? Right now my strategy is just to translate the whole article from top to bottom and let others decide what is valuable and what is not. I will say that the German article is pretty reliably cited. Wdacooper (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I have so far: In historical research, the Migration Period is understood, in a narrow sense, as the movement of primarily German groups in the time period from the invasion of the Huns into east central Europe around the year 376 A.D., which lead to the migration of other peoples in the area, until the incursion of the Lombards into Italy in 568.[1] The Migration Period falls into the Late Antiquity and forms a bridge between Classical Antiquity and the beginning of the European Early Middle Ages. Nonetheless, the Migration Period was neither a unified nor a self-contained process. Rather, many different factors played a role in the migratory movement of heterogeneous groups. Many details of the Migration Period have been assessed very differently in new historical and archaeological research.

After the death of the Roman emperor Theodosius I, the Roman empire was divided into two parts, although two emperors still nominally ruled and possessed equal legal authority over both parts. Between 382 and 418, contractual rule was established between the Roman Imperial Government and the West Goths, which eventually resulted in the settlement of Goths in Roman territory. The Franks were also settled on Roman soil and took over the duty of border protection in northeastern Gall as Foederati. After the crossing of the Rhine in 406 A.D. and the incursion of the Vandals and the Suebi, the slow but growing breakdown of the West Roman legal order emerged. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire occurred in this context in 476-480. The Eastern Empire remained intact through the migration period. In contrast, in the 5th and 6th centuries, mixed German-Roman rule emerged in the territory of the Western Roman Empire, which decisively shaped the culture of medieval Europe.[2]

Naming

The term “Völkerwanderung” first appeared in German at the end of the 18th century. The German Dictionary (Deutsche Wörterbuch) records The History of The Germans by Michael Ignaz Schmidt from the year 1778, wherein he refers to the “so-called migration of the peoples,” as the origin of the term.[3] The term spread when Friedrich Schiller used it in 1790-1792 to refer to a fixed period of time in his work On The Migration of the Peoples, The Crusades, and The Middle Ages.[4][5] Outside of German-language regions, the violence of the period is highlighted with terms such as “barbarian invasions.”[6]

The term has been treated critically in modern research, since newer assessments have shown that the old image of “migrating peoples” is not really tenable (See “Ethnogenesis.”)[7] Indeed, in this time there were many migrations for many different reasons of variously sized and heterogeneous groups.[8] Hence, we can not really refer to a unified process of “migrations” of whole peoples. In the same way, there is no compelling reason to view the migration period simply as a radical break with the past, since the end of Antiquity was in reality a much more multifaceted, gradual, and complex process.[9] The migrations were one aspect of this process, especially given that elements of the antique culture (sometimes in altered forms) persisted after the 6th century.

Ethnogenesis

In the mainstream research of today, the German “tribes” (peoples, nations) of the Migration Period do not represent any unity or common descent, even if primary sources from the period suggest otherwise. For example, groups of Goths were connected to the Rugii or Heruli; some individuals or whole groups could repeatedly change their “ethnicity.” Modern research has shown that similarities in language, clothing, or weapons alone were sufficient to create “ethnicity.”[10] In this context, Ethnogenesis is an imporant but especially difficult topic in modern research. As such, the emergence of ethnic identities in the Late Antiquity is today no longer understood as a biological category, but rather as a historical process. As such, different groups could join together, loyalty usually being a sufficient bond.[11]

In modern research, the description “Migration of Peoples” is considered misleading, since it was often not “whole peoples” that “migrated,” but rather variously-sized parts of tribes which, ethnically, were mostly heterogeneous to begin with. The old image of an ethnically unified group supposedly emigrating from their “homeland” and then settling in a new area while remaining homogeneous along the way is problematic, at the least. Modern research has shown, rather, that the identity of a people was typically different at the end from what it was at the beginning of the process.[12] A tribe was more an association based on laws, with starkly varying size and ethnicity, than a community based on common ancestry. A “core tradition” could be a unifying element, which could be represented, for example, by the leaders of a group. Social cohesion further contributed to the continuity of, for example, legends of origin, which often based the origin of the people upon a mythical founder and a supposedly Scandinavian homeland. Modern research treats these legends with great skepticism, in contrast with earlier research.[13]

The Fall of Rome

The question of what role the developments of the Migration Period may have played in the decline of the Roman Empire (an often discussed question in modern research) is not straightforward to answer. It is certain that Rome in the late 4th and early 5th century was no longer able to defend itself against invasions as effectively as it had before, while it was at the same time able to integrate some barbarian groups into the empire, if only for a time. The structure of the German Kingdom in the 5th and 6th centuries in the Western Roman Empire is not as easy to explain as previous researchers had assumed, and was often a process of gradual change.[14]

André Piganiol's verdict, published after the Second World War in his work L'Empire chrétien (published 1947), that Roman civilization was simply destroyed by the German Kingdoms, is no longer viewed as credible by modern researchers. In older research, especially in the first half of the 20th century, many historians from the former Roman world, as well as anglo-saxons, proposed such theories in some large measure because of the influence of military conflict with the modern German state. In the same way, many German historians, especially during The Third Reich, invoked the so-called "German Heritage" of the Migration Period to justify military action.[15]

Since the 1970s, new researchers have emphasized that the Late Antiquity was a period of cultural transformation, in which the "barbarians" played an important role. Nonetheless, this transformation was accompanied by violence and significant material decline, which was highlighted in earlier scholarship. [16]

In the view of many historians, the decline of The Western Roman Empire occurred in tangent with the invasion of the Huns.[17] Largely thanks to the nearly impregnable walls of Constantinople, neither the Huns nor the Goths ever succeeded in occupying the Eastern Roman Empire, which had been their primary target. However, East Rome was under too much pressure to allow it to provide useful assistance to West Rome. The quantity of material available to the Western Roman empire would become clear in the 5th and 6th centuries, particularly as it transformed into a German-Roman symbiosis.[18] The Roman policy, in the conflicts of the 5th and 6th centuries, of using Germans to fight against Germans (such as the West Goths in Hispania against the the Vandals, or later the Ostrogoths in Italy against Odoaucer) met with only partial success: the erstwhile victors only found themselves in a better position to fight the Roman Empire. The barbarians in the regular Roman army played a less decisive role in the decline of the Western Roman Empire than did the German Foederati: With the loss of central control of several provinces, particularly in North Africa, Rome lost the financial ability to support many troops, which led to further decline and increased recruitment and reliance on German Foederati. The Roman emperors gradually lost control of the Foederati as they came to replace the West Roman army, and they eventually achieved independence.

Nonetheless, they accepted the formal rule of the East Roman emperors at least until the 6th century, which provided the latter with further legitimacy. The heavy losses of the of Gothic War (which grew out of the West Roman emperor Justinian's attempt to reclaim territory in Italy) between the Ostrogoths and the Eastern Roman Empire once again made clear that in 550, Imperial intervention in the West was still to be reckoned with, and at the same time clearly showed the limits of East Roman military resources.

German-Roman Kingdoms

Perhaps the most important sign of Roman rule was the emergence of the so-called Kingdoms on imperial territory: Goths in Italy (where the Lombards would later invade) and Hispania, Vandals in North Africa, and Franks and Burgundians in Gall. The "small kingdom" of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain was a somewhat exceptional example. These kingdoms contributed considerably to the change of Europe in the Middle Ages. Without the example of the Roman rule of late antiquity, the existence of these kingdoms (which in many ways were closely related to the Empire) would have been unthinkable. In any case, the Germans of the migration period strove to take part in Roman culture, to serve in its achievements, and not to destroy it, as the example of the West Goths in Spain and of the Ostrogoths in Italy shows (see below.) The Medievalist Patrick J. Geary writes:

"The Germanic world was perhaps the greatest and most enduring creation of Roman political and military genius" -Patrick Geary: Before France and Germany: The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World Oxford University Press. New York: 1988. pg. 6

On the other hand, the integration of the Germans was often complicated by different denominations of Christianity - the Germans who entered the Empire quickly converted to Christianity, but often in the form of Arianism.

Numerically, the migrating Germans were clearly inferior to the Romans. Although for the most part it is only possible to make rough estimations, owing to the tendency of authors of the Antique and Middle Ages to exaggerate, there were no more than 20-30,000 warriors in a group, and often far fewer.[19] The Germans were a tiny minority of the population in the Roman provinces, which often led them to cooperate with the Romans. Thus, it seems appropriate to refer to this as German-Roman rule.[20] Out of these kingdoms, only the Franks, the Lombards, the Anglo-Saxons, and the West Goths endured for a significant period of time.

Paths of German Migration before the Invasion of The Huns

Even before the Migration Period began, there were paths of migration outside of the Roman empire. There was both military conflict and peaceful contact. Trade took place on the Rhine border established by Tiberius, and Germans frequently served in the Roman army.[21] However, what we know about migratory paths on the Roman frontier comes only from written records of earlier oral reports, which often included mythical explanations. The most famous of these myths of origins is that of the Goths of the Jordanes from the 6th century. The legend reports that the Goths came from Scandinavia, but we now know that they migrated from an area on the Vistula near the Black Sea.[22] This movement led to the first great migration and forced the Vandals and Marcomanni towards the south, and the Burgundians towards the west. This was one of the causes of the Marcomannic Wars, in which the Romans won only with great difficulty.[23] As Rome dealt with the problems of the Crisis of The Third Century, Gothic groups continually advanced into Roman territory.[24]

Around 290, the Goths split into Terwingians/Visigoths and Greuthungians/Ostrogoths.[25] The Greuthungians/Ostrogoths settled near the Black sea in what is today Ukraine. The Terwingians/West Goths settled first on the Balk peninsuala North of the Danube in present-day Transylvania. This brought the Terwingians into direct contact with Rome, including some indecisive military encounters. In 332, the Danube Goths achieved the status of Foederati, and became contractually obliged to provide armed assistance to Rome. This movement of the Goths is of great importance because it had lasting consequences: The invasion of the Huns in 375 not only forced them out of their new home, but also set in motion the process of Gothic movement towards Rome, which eventually forced Rome to fight for its survival.

Around the same time, the Lombards migrated from the lower Elbe towards Moravia and Pannonia. Minor invasions of Roman territory in this period were either pushed back or ended with minor border adjustments. Further to the west, the tribal confederation of the Alamanni broke through the Roman limes in the 3rd century, and settled in the so-called agri decumates. Many tribes were also sought as allies, settled upon the border, and formed a buffer to other, hostile tribes (see "Foederati").

Rome learned from the 3rd century, and in the early 4th century took on comprehensive military reforms. An important part of this process was the need to deal with the increasing threat of the newly-founded Sassanid empire over multiple borders. The severe fighting with the Persians tied up Roman strength and was a primary factor in making the German invasions of the 3rd century possible. In order to deal with this strategic dilemma, the military efficiency of the Empire had to be improved. The emperors Diocletian and Constantine, the latter of whom priviliged Christianity in the Empire, therefore developed the mobile infantry (comitatenses), reclaimed the old border in the North along the Rhine and the Danube, had several forts built, and thereby resecured the border in the north and east. Later, in the year 357, the emperor Julian was able to annihilate the probably numerically superior army of the Alemannian contingent. In spite of the difficulties which Rome faced in the 3rd century with the increasingly large tribal groups of the Franks and the Alamanni and the simultaneous war with Persia, it was able to continually meet the challenges.[26] Before 378, the military initiative mostly belonged to Rome. With the invasion of the Huns, the situation changed almost immediately; Rome had reached the limits of its military capability, and could no longer react flexibly. This military crisis, along with the changing quality and size of the wandering peoples, are the two most important features of the Migration Period proper, and distinguish it from the vaguer periods of migration which preceded it.[27]

The Invasion of The Huns and Its Consequences

"The Huns, little mentioned in ancient reports, in those days lived by the sea of Azof, beyond the frozen ocean, and were completely wild. This warring, unruly race of men burned with greed for robbery and pillage; they invade their neighbors, plundering and murdering, and invaded even the Alans, who before had been the Massagetae" -Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, 31, 2, 1; 31, 2, 12[28]

The report of the Roman historian and author Ammianus Marcellinus is the only complete account of the invasion of the Huns. Ammianus, an otherwise reliable reporter, had only second hand information about the events occurring in 375 (an uncertain date for the invasion of the Huns, as is the chronology of this entire period[29]) outside of Roman view in present day Ukraine. Ammianus in any case describes the Huns more as animals than as human. He goes on to describe how the Huns overthrew the Alani and destroyed the gothic Greuthungian Kingdom of Ermanaric in present day Ukraine, after which the Alans completely surrendered to the Huns.[30] Who exactly the Huns were or where they came from is a question which remains unanswered to this day. The old view that they emerged from the Xiongnu people mentioned Chinese sources is today rejected, or at least viewed with great skepticism by modern scholars, since there is an enormous gap in time between the appearance of the two groups.[31] In the same way, the causes of the Hunnish migration can only be speculated upon. In antique sources, the brutality and uncivilized nature of the Huns is emphasized, which subsequently led to the term "Huns" being used by Western authors to describe invaders from the Central Asian Steppes (much like the earlier term "Scythian.") Some Christians even viewed the invasion of the Huns, who acted with great speed and brutality, and who used the never before seen composite bow, as a punishment from God.[32]

It is certain that the Huns, who did not operate entirely under unified leadership, drove waves of German and Sarmatian tribes towards southern and western Europe in the course of their own movement towards the west. The Greuthungi for the most part fell under their rule, although some individual groups were able to escape (and others continuously attempted to do so.) Hunnish pressure also led to flight of the majority of the Terwingian Goths to the Danube. Under their new leader Fritigern, they asked the Roman emperor Valens, who ruled the eastern Empire, for permission to enter Roman territory. Valens finally accepted this request, and so in the year 376, thousands of Terwingians and other immigrants flocked over the Danube into the Roman empire.[33] In any case, it appears that the Romans drastically understimated the number of migrants, and so failed to disarm them. Subsequent Roman failures and incompetence interfered with food supplies to the Goths, who were further mistreated. In the beginning of 377, they moved against the Romans.[34]

The following events did not really seem threatening at first. Valens, however, broke off his planned campaign against the Sassanids and moved troops in order to meet the Goths in Thrace. During the operation in the summer of 377 the Romans had to recognize that the Goths were quite difficult to repel. In early 378 Valens himself went to Thrace and had several of his officers replaced. Valens' nephew and emperor in the west, Gratian, had promised direct assistance, but was tied up fighting an invasion of the Alamanni. Gratian's subsequent advance over the Rhein would be the last by a Roman emperor. The Battle of Hadrianopolis between the Goths and the Roman Army occurred on August 9th 378 in Thrace, in the European portion of present-day Turkey. Valens confidently set out onto the open field with 30,000 men, the best units of the Eastern army.[35]

The Terwingians had, however, gained support in the form of the so-called "Three-Tribe Confederation" which was comprised of Greuthungi, Alans, and even fleeing Huns who had escaped the grasp of the main body of Huns.[36] Roman scouts had also underestimated the strength of the opposing army, which amounted to 20,000 men. The Romans were tired from the march through the summer heat and undersupplied, and they faced great difficulty dealing with the highly maneuverable enemy cavalry and Gothic footmen. At the end of the battle, only about a third of the Roman army remained, and Emperor Valens himself was killed. What was worse, some of the best units in the East Roman army and many of its most experienced officers (including two generals) were lost with him.[37] Ammianus's work (written in 391/394) ends with this battle and, by comparison, begins with the Battle of Cannae, which famously resulted in a Roman victory.[38]

From Hadrianopolis to the Sack of Rome in 410: The Goths in the Roman Empire

The Contract of the Goths of 382

The loss at Hadrianopolis was a great blow to the empire, but was by no means a death blow. Thrace became open to the Goths, but they were unable to exploit the victory.[39] Gratian then hurried out from the West, and found himself forced to find a replacement for Valens. He chose Flavius Theodosius, a Roman of Spanish descent, whose father was then a highly successful general.[40] Theodosius, who was to elevate Christianty to the status of state religion, proved to be a more effective Emperor than Valens. In 379, he moved to the Thessalonian district and initiated many operations against the Goths. However, the offensive suffered from a shortage of soldiers and experienced officers, and so Theodosius found himself forced to look to the "barbarians" for support. Gratian, who in 380 had been able to settle parts of the Three-Tribe Confederation in Illyria, sent qualified officers to the east, including Bauto and Arbogast the Elder, to seek help. It was, however, the Roman general Flavius Saturninus who was able, in October 382, to reach an agreement with the Goths.

The contract with the Goths guaranteed their right to settle in the Roman empire on the lower Danube. They became dependents of the Empire and were free from taxes. They were however, denied the right to marry Roman citizens (conubium.) The land they settled remained Roman territory, although it held autonomous status. In return for the right to settle on Roman territory, the Goths had to serve for the Romans (under their own gothic leaders) in times of war. The high command was, however, comprised of Roman officers.[41] In the past, the contract of the Goths was often seen as the beginning of the end of the Roman empire, since the Barbarians had never before been entitled by the Romans to a semi-autonomous settlement, and certainly not one on or near Roman territory. However, some more recent scholars argue that the contract was not fundamentally different from earlier recruitments of Foederati:[42] Rome asserted its claim to leadership and benefited from the newly available troops, which was very important for Theodosius, as it was becoming more and more difficult to find enough troops to defend the Empire. The disadvantages of this policy became apparent later as it became quite costly. The contract can, however, be interpreted as the beginning of the German regna on Roman territory, as it was in older research.[43]

The Goths as Foederati and as Enemies of Rome

The Gothic Foederati likely played an important role in the military strategy of Emperor Theodosius I. The number of Goths who died during his campaigns is evidence that Theodosius pursued practical military objectives, and was not simply a "friend of the Gothic people" as Jordanes reports.[44] In the end, the emperor's attempts at integrating the Goths failed: although some such as Fravitta remained loyal to Rome, others were dissatisfied with the agreement. In 391, there was an uprising among some of the Goths, which was only put down after considerable effort by the Roman general Stilicho. In 392, the agreement of 382 was renewed. A descendent of Baltic nobility and the eventual leader of the then-forming West Goths, Alarich, is first mentioned in ancient sources in conjunction with this renewal.[45] The Goths again suffered great losses in the war against the usurper Eugenius. It is possible that Theodosius knowingly exploited the Goths in this war in order to weaken them as a potential enemy. The Goths gained permission to return to the East when Theodosius died in Milan in early 395. However, they found the lands which they had formerly settled in had been devastated by the Huns. Embittered, Alarich moved against Constantinople hoping to force them to agree to a new contract.[46] The following two years saw the development of a see-sawing conflict, in which Flavius Stilicho (a high-ranking general and then the most powerful man in the Western Roman Empire[new - not in German article]) became the opponent of the West Goths and Alarich was caught up in the escalating conflict between the Western and the Eastern Roman Empire, which worsened after the division of the Empire in 395.

In 397 the Goths were settled in Epirus, but in 401 they moved again, perhaps due to anti-Goth sentiment in the eastern empire. They went plundering through the Balkans and Greece and eventually ended up in Italy, suffering a serious defeat at Verona in 402. As he had done a few years before, Stilicho, the new strongman in the West who held de facto leadership over all imperial matters, attempted to make use of the Goths for his own purposes.[47] Stilicho even planned an allied invasion of East Rome, and in 405/6 the Goth Radagaisus unexpectedly invaded Italy with a violent army and retinue which had escaped from the clutches of the Huns. Stilicho had to hastily assemble troops. With Hunnish support, he succeeded in halting and repulsing Radagaisus and his multi-ethnic tribe, and he lost interest in Alarich.[48] Alarich responded to this by moving his own troops to the Italian border and demanding a huge sum of money from the west Roman government in Ravenna.[49] Stilicho gave in, especially since general Constantine had begun an uprising in Britannia in 407 and moved into Gall, where the Rhinish border had been compromised (see below): Alarich was promised the office of general of the army, through which he hoped to improve his position vis-a-vis the Roman government. Most importantly, the material wishes of the Goths were to be fulfilled. Stilicho, on the other hand, fell victim to a plot. He was executed at the end of August 408, and most of his family and followers were killed.[50]

The Conquest and Sack of Rome in 410

The murder of Stilicho in Ravenna at the hands of the ambitious yet disloyal generals appears to have been a miscalculation on their part: whole tribes of barbarian troops which had served under Stilicho moved to the Goths, including the 12,000 fighters whom Stilicho had recruited into the Imperial army from Radagaius’s army. The weak West Roman emperor refused to negotiate, and so Alarich acted, moving against Rome three times in an attempt to have his demands met. Rome had not been the capitol of the empire for years, but it neveretheless retained its symbolic significance. Rome, wracked in 408 with thirst and hunger, was still worth an enormous ransom. [51] Neither the Roman senators nor the Bishop of Rome could move the Emperor to the safety of Ravenna to negotiate with the Goths. So Alarich appeared once more before Rome and even appointed an opposing emperor – the senator Priscus Attalus, who was however unable to fulfill Alarichs’s hope and was deposed in 410, just as hopes of being able to move into North Africa were dashed. The Goths did at least succeed in defeating the roman general Sarus, at the time a competitor with Alarich for the leadership of the Goths. [52] In the end, Alarich, bereft of other options, had to find a way out. On October 24th 410, the Goths invaded the old metropolis on the Tiber and plundered it completely. Alarich, then a Chrstian like most of the Goths, supposedly ordered only that the church be spared. [53] The sack of Rome, the first since the Gallic invasion of 387 B.C., could be traced back to the rigid behavior of Honorius. He clearly failed to recognize the gravity of the situation, and this time there was no Stilicho to appease the Goths. The drawn out negotiations showed, however, that Alarich had acquired securely conquered lands for himself and his people and would be recognized by Rome as a partner. [54] The Romans’s German policy had failed. However, eight years later there was a possibility, in the settling of the Goths, to settle the empire (see below.) However, Alarich, who was faced with a dilemma and saw no way out (to the extent that the sack of Rome is seen not a solution but rather an act of desperation) died soon after, and the leadership of the Goths was taken over by his brother-in-law, Athaulf.

The sack of Rome in connection with its conquest was a shock for the entire Roman world and brought forth great anxiety about apocalypse amongst Christians, while pagans saw it as just punishment for Rome turning its back on the old cults. The great church scholar Augustine of Hippo felt compelled to compose his work The City of God (De Civitate Dei) to provide a possible explanation. Orosius tried repeatedly to prove in his work Historiae adversum paganos that pagan Rome had suffered much worse catastrophes. It remains to be determined that the the Sack of Rome had fewer physical consquences than historical ideological ones, and continues to be influential today. [55]

The Crossing of the Rhine in 406/7 and Its Consequences: The Goths in Aqutania and and the Vandals in North Africa The Breaking of the Rhine Border: Invasions and Usurpations

On December 31st 406, a great number of barbarian tribes crossed over the Rhine near Mogontiacum (Mainz), perhaps fleeing from the Huns or due to food shortages. The three largest groups represented were the Vandals, the Suebi, and the Alans. The Vandals were themselves divided into two subtribes, the Hasdings and the Silings, and had some 400 homes in what is today southern Poland and the Czech Republic, although some were settled by emperor Constantine the Great in Pannonia. [57] In Winter 401/02, they overran the Roman provice of Raetia, and parts joined Radagaius’s above-described movement. The identity of the Suebis is more problematice, since the term was used in older sources but then disappeared around the year 150 A.D. before reappearing again later. Like the Vandals, they lived west of the Carpathians and are widely identified with the Quadi. [58] The Iranian Alans were driven out of their ancient homeland by the Huns. Parts of them went with Radagaius and merged with Vandal groups after Radagaisus fell. The Suebis also broke through and invaded inner Gall. The Frankish foederati, who had been settled in the area since the middle of the 4th century, tried unsuccessfully to oppose the attackers. The source materials do not allow us to gain a complete picture of the invasion in all of its details. The invaders apparently moved through west and north Gall before turning towards the south and southwest. [59] The devastation of this movement and the inability of the West Roman forces stationed on Rhine to mount any serious defense. It was, however, restored a few years later. The Main Military district (Dukat) was also re-established wherever possible after the events of 406-7.

The crossing of the Rhine in 406-7, which came like the breaking of a dam, was completely forseeable. Thus in 400 A.D., the seat of the Gallish prefecture, the second highest administrative authority of the West Roman empire behind only the Italian prefecture, was moved from Trier to Arles. The success of the invaders was aided by the above-described struggle amongst Stilicho, Radagaisus, and the Goths, which resulted in Gall being largely stripped of troops. The invasion also explains Stilicho’s attempt to win over Alarich’s Goths and to restore order with their help. However, these plans failed with the death of the general in August 408. The usurper Constantine III, the last in a long line of usurpers from Britain (see Marcus and Gratian) set off towards Gall in 407 with the rest of the British army and thus temporarily secured a zone of control. [60] Picts and Irish tribes afflicted the Britainnia, which soon crumbled in isolation. The Saxons were called to help in 440, which resulted however in a german land grab, although Roman-British fiefdoms in present-day Wales and southwestern England were able to last longer. [61]

Constantine’s usurpation was directly related with the collapse of the Rhein border, which had also caused concern about unrest in Brittainia. Constantine had some notable successes: he made contracts with some barbarian tribes, which at least calmed the situation in Gall and gave him some additional troops. Constantin, who resided primarily in Arles in Southern Gall, was however attacked and driven back by the new general and later co-emperor Constantius. In 413, the rebellion was definitively put down. Gall became even more chaotic after the Gallish nobleman Jovinus made a claim to the throne with the aid of Alanish troops under Goar and Burgunds under Gundahar who were also invading the Rhein, and would soon found their own kingdom. [62]

Emperor Honorius seems to have completely lost control of Gall. In the end the usurper Maximus rose up in Hispania, but he was not able to stay in power for long either. Jovinus began to woo the Goths under Athaulf, Alarichs’s successor, who had left Italy after the sack of Rome. However this alliance was shortlived, as Attalus’s had been; Athaulf soon let Jovinus fall again. [63] In Narbonne in 414, Athaulf married Honorius’s sister, Galla Pacidia, who had previoulsy been in the hands of the Goths after the sack of Rome. She was, however, murdered only a year later. This episode is interesting however, because Athaulf, under whom the “sufferings” of the West Goths abated [64], supposedly claimed that he originally wanted to replace Romania with Gothia, but had realized that the barbarity of the Goths made this impossible. [65] Whether or not these words are authentic, it is clear that the Goths longed for a land in which to settle, which they saw in Rome. Thus Athaulf desired to marry into the Theodosian dynasty. He could not of course expect recognition as a Goth and an Arianist.

[1]Springer (2006) also brings up alternative definitions outside of the mainstream. All historical boundaries are, in the end, only constructs and founded primarily on convention. Compare with Stefan Krautschick: On the Origins of a Date (Zur Entstehung eines Datums.) 375 – Beginning of the Migrations. In: Klio 82, 2000, pg. 217-222, as well as Stefan Krautschick: The Storm of the Huns and the Flood of the Germans: 375 – The beginning of the Migration? In: Byzantine Journal 92, 1999, pg. 10-67

[2]See for example Meier, 2007

[3]26th edition, page [Sp.?] 514

[4]Springer (2006), pg. 509f. It is problematic that the term “migration of the peoples” is sometimes a time period and sometimes certain developments occurring within this time period. At its heart, the origin of the term goes back to the Humanist Wolfgang Lazius, who published is work De gentium aliquot migrationibus in 1557.

[5]http://www.lexikus.de/Ueber-Voelkerwanderung-Kreuzzuege-und-Mittelalter

[6]For a summary, see Rosen (2003), Pg 28

[7]Compare, for example, with Rummel/Fehr (2011) Pg. 9

[8]Halsall, for example, views the migratory groups more in terms of geographic space. Halsall (2007)

[9]Compare also with Rummel/Fehr (2011) pg. 7

[10]Walter Pohl: Telling the Difference: Signs of ethnic Identity. In: Walter Pohl, Helmut Reimitz ed.: Strategies of Distinction: The construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. Leiden et al. 1998, Pg. 17

[11]The work of Reinhard Wenskus is foundational in this area: The Formation and Constitution of the Tribes: The Emergence of the People of the Early Middle Ages. [Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes] 2nd edition, Cologne/Vienna 1977. Wenskus’s efforts were then further developed by Herwig Wolfram and his student Walter Pohl. A good summary and with new research: Pohl (2005), pg. 13. Overall, Wolfram and Pohl’s “Vienna School” approach is considered a central part of modern criticism.

[12]Springer (2006), Pg 511, which refers briefly refers to a fundamental problem of research.

[13]For example, Alheydis Plassman: Origo Gentis: The Foundations of Identity and Legitimacy in Popular Stories of Origin in the Early and High Middle Ages. Berlin, 2006. Compare with diverse works of Herwig Woolfram and Walter Pohl. It should be noted that Wolfram’s theses have not remained uncontroversial. For example, Walter Goffart has expressed skepticism about Wolfram’s conclusions, which are based partly on later written records of an earlier oral tradition: the written accounts we possess today may be less an accurate transcription of the older tribal legends than later constructions which were heavily influenced by the ethnography of the Antique period. 120.136.45.85 (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

[14]Goetz, Jamut, Pohl (2003); Pohl (2007)

[15]For a treatment of the many politically motivated treatments of the Migration Period, see Rosen (2003) Pgs. 109-121

[16]Heather (2006) and especially Ward-Perkins (2005) recently highlighted the destructive aspect of this period. In contrast, compare with Goffart (1980) and Goffart (2006) as well as the diverse work of Peter Brown. For an overview, see the comprehensive book series Transformation of the Roman World (currently in 14th edition)

[17] Peter J. Heather: The Huns and the end of the roman Empire in Western Europe.. In: English Hisotircal Review 110, 1995, Pgs. 4-41, and Heather(2005). See also Halsall (2007)

[18] Springer (2006) pg. 514 Wdacooper (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[19] Pohl (2005), Pg. 31; Rosen (2003) pgs. 99-101

[20] See Springer (2006)

[21] For a brief sumary, see Rosen (2003), pg. 22. About the Germans, see Germanen, Germania, Germanische Altertumskunde. Heinrich Beck, ed. et al. (Special edition from Folume 11 of the RGA.) Berlin 1998; Walter Pohl: Die Germanen. 2nd edition, Munster, 2004

[22] See Arne Søby Christensen's critical analysis: Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Studies in a migration Myth. Kopenhagen 2002; See also Herwig Wolfram: Einige Überlegungen zur gotischen Origo gentis [Some thoughts about the Gothic Legend of Origin]. In: Henrik Birnbaum u.a. (Hrsg.): Festschrift Alexander Issatschenko. Wolfram (1979) and (2001) are both foundational with respect to the Goths. See also Volker Bierbrauer: Archäologie und Geschichte der Goten vom 1.–7. Jahrhundert. [Archaeology and History of the Goths from the 1st to the 7th century.] In: Fruhmittelalterliche Studien [Studies of the Early Middle Ages] Issue 28 (1994) pgs 51-171; Heather (1991)

[23] See for examle Karl Christ: Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit. 4th edition. Munster, 2002, pg. 336. For a summary, see Rosen (2003), Pgs. 43-45

[24] Wolfram (1979), pg. 41

[25] The division of both groups would later be interpreted as a simple geographical separation, the first becoming the West Goths, and the second becoming the Ostrogoths. This representation is a gross oversimplification, since in reality, since both Greuthungi and members of other ethnic groups formed part of the ethnogenesis of the West Goths. In the same way, the Ostrogoths, who emerged primarily from the Greuthungi, were not ethnically homogeneous. See the article Goten, in "Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (RGA) volume 12 (1998) pgs. 402-443, especially Pg. 428; About Gothic names, see Arne Søby Christensen: Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Copenhagen 2002, pg 197, and Heather (1991) pg. 331-333 Wdacooper (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[26] Heather, 2005

[27] Martin (2001) pg. 166

[28] The original citation here was for the translator from Latin into German; someone should find an "official" translation into English, which would be better than me playing telephone.

[29] Stefan Krautschick: Hunnenstrum und Germanenflut: 375 - Beginn der Völkerwanderung? pg. 10-12 In: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 92, 1999, Pgs. 10-67

[30] Ammian 31, 3. Also Maenchen-Helfen (1978), who is foundational with regard to research on the Huns, pg. 16. See also the article Die Hunnen. In: RGA 15 (2000) pgs. 246-261; Attila und die Hunnen. Edited by the Historical Musuem of the Palatinate. Stuttgart, 2007; Stickler (2007). Many questions about Ermarich's Gothic Kingdom are disputed. See for example Arne Søby Christensen: Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Kopenhagen 2002, Pg. 158.; Heather (1991), pg. 87; Wolfram (1979) pg. 98-102. The death of Ermanarich itself was the subject of many epics in the Middle Ages.

[31] For a summary, Peter J. Heather: The Huns and the end of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. In: English Historical Review 110, 1995, pg 4-41, and Heather (2005) Pg. 146. See also the article Hunnen. In: RGA 15 (2000) pg. 247

[32] Orosius, Historiae adversum paganos, 7

[33] The best source for the subsequent events until 378 is once again Ammianus and his report in the 31st and last book of his histories. Compare with Heather (1991) pg. 122 and Wolfram (1979) pg. 137.

[34]Ammian 31, 5. For the date, see Heather (1991), pg 142

[35]Valens perhaps feared that his nephew, who was in the process of proving himself in battle, would gain too great a reputation if he were seen assissting his uncle in the defeat of the Goths. For the subsequent events, see Ammian 31, 12. Compare with Burns (1994) pg 28,and Heather (1991) pg 142

[36] See Heather (1991), pg. 84

[37] The results became obvious quite quickly: Burns (1994) pg. 33

[38] Ammian 31, 12, 19.

[39] Wolfram (1979), pg. 150

[40] About Theodosius, later called "The Great," see Hartmut Leppin: Theodosius der Grosse. Darmstadt 2003. About further developments following Adrianopel, see the same, pg 35. Compare also to Burns (1994), pg 43; Heather (1991) Pg. 147

[41] See also Heather (1991) pg 157; Wolfram (1979), pg. 153. Compare also with Halsall (2007), pg. 180, who explicitely contradicts the mainstream opinion.

[42] See, however, Martin (2001), Pg. 166

[43] See Leppin: Theodosius der Große. 2003, pg. 45 onwards, especially page 50; Burns (1994) Pg. 73. Compare also with Halsall (2007) Pg. 184

[44] Getica, 29, 146.

[45] For a summary with quotations from the original sources: Heather (1991) pg. 193, and Wolfram (1979)

[46] For the following, see Burns (1994) pg. 183; Heather (1991) pg. 199 (with excellent maps); Wolfram (1979)

[new - not in German article] Stephen Mitchell. A History of the Later Roman Empire AD 284-641. (Singapore: Blackwell Publishing, 2007) pg. 89. [translator's note: I chose to add this citation because I had never heard of Stilicho and the article itself doesn't explain who he is. The citation is from the English language wikipedia entry on Stilicho.]

[47] Stilicho was not the first general who had taken charge over imperial business. The long line of weak emperors in the 5th century helped drive this process. See the detailed account by Alexander Demandt: Magister militum. in Pauly-Wissowa. RE Supplement, vol. 13, especially pg. 553

[48] For information about Radagaius, see Heather (2005) pg. 194, and Wolfram (1979) pg. 202-4, which deals with meaning that this event had in relation to ethnogenesis of the West Goths.

[49] Supposedly 4000 gold pounds (Zosimos, 5, 29, who based this number on an account from Olympiodorus of Thebes.)

[50] For developments following the death of Stilicho: Burns (1994), pg. 224; Heather (2005) pg 220; Wolfram (1979) Pg. 184. One of the reasons for the killing of Stilicho was that, following the Goth Gainas's unsuccessful attempt to seize power in the Eastern Empire, there was a strong anti-German sentiment in the imperial court at Ravenna.

[51] Zosimos 5, 39-41

[52] Wolfram (1979) Pg. 187

[53] Wolfram (1979), Pg. 188

[54] Compare with the informative biographic sketch from Mischa Meier: Alarich und die Eroberung Roms im Jahr 410. Der Beginn der “Voelkerwanderung”. In: Meier (2007), Pg. 45-62, particularly pg 52 and following.

[55] For information about Rome in 410 and the accompanying reception, see Mischa Meier, Steffen Patzold: August 410 – Ein Kampf um Rom. Stuttgart 2010; compare also witih Hans Armin: Der Fall Roms. Literarische Verarbeitung bei Heiden un Christen. In: Johannes Oort, Dietmar Wyrwa (ed.): Heiden und Christen im 5. Jahrhundert. Leuven 1998, Pg. 160

[57] About the Vandals, see Castritius (2007) esp. pg. 46 and following. (Parts are very critical of the source materials) as well as Merills/Miles (2010). This is complemented by the article in RGA: Wandalen. In: RGA 33 (2006), pg. 168 and following

[58] Sweben. In RGA 30 (2005), pg. 184 and following. See page 192 and following. (For more about the idea of the Suebis

[59] Heather (2005) pg 206-209, with maps and detailed analysis of source material

[60] Heather (2005), pg. 209 and following, and pg 236 and following; Stein (1928) pg. 282 and following; C. E. Stevens: Marcus, Gratian, Constantine. In Athenaeium 35 (1957), Pgs 316-347.

[61] Pohl (2005), pg. 86 and following. However, many details and questions are highly disputed, not least because of deficiencies of the source texts

[62] For information about Constantine III’s and Jovinus’s usurpations, see John F. Drinkwater: The Usurpers Constantine III (407-411) and Jovinus (411-413). In: Britannia 29 (1998), pgs. 269-298; Kay Ehling: Zur Geschichte Constantins III. In: Francia 23 (1996), pgs. 1-11; Ralf Scharf: Iovinus – Kaiser in Gallien. In: Francia 20 (1993), pg. 1-13. About the Burgunds: Kaiser (2004), and about interventions for Jovinus and the foundation of the kingdom, see ibid., pg. 26 and following.

[63] Wolfram (1979) pg. 192

[64] Wolfram (1979), Pg. 196-202

[65] Orosius, Historiae adversum paganos, 7, 43 Wdacooper (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that if we are going to re-use citations from the German-language article, someone should check what they say. I have imported one or two articles from the German Wikipedia myself, but my approach is generally to leave out material from sources I can't see and to look for ones I can. Quite often, of course, the English language sources are more accessible than the German ones. Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Czech Republic point of view

http://geolib.geology.cz/cgi-bin/gw?ST=03&SID=0039F9ACDA&L=02&KDE=037&RET=Raman+spectroscopic+provenance+determination+of+garnets+from+the+scramasaxe+scabbard+%28The+treasure+of+Barbarian+Prince+from+C%C3%A9zavy%2DBlu%C4%8Dina%2C+Czech+Republic%2C+late+5th+century%29%2E+%5C%5CRIV%2F00023272%3A%5F%5F%5F%5F%5F%2F09%3A%230000893%5C

http://templ.net/english/texts-sword_from_blucina.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial Good day, my written English is not the best. So can someone please update the so called Migration Period. This is the only artifact known that dates from Atilla the Hun, and the AVAR period 5th to 8th Century (Blucina Sword note German man). It is located 8kn from Brno Moravia. No aritfacts have ever been found on Bohemian soil to my knowledge. But maybe someone should read history more carefully. Because I am far from an expert. But didn't Atilla the Hun and the later Avar's first entered Europe through the Silk road to raid the Roman Empire. Documents at the time were written in Latin and Greek and many citie's and rivers named. None of these are on todays Czech Republic's Lands. http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html , http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048 . The rivers named are the Volga, Rhina, Danube. Also the "Chronicle of Fredegar" "slavic" "Befulci" can mean many things page 149 here: http://www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/fredegar_paul.pdf :https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m1955&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF or even google:define:Benfulci. If anyone can help in updating I will be greatful. Casurgis from Sydney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.0.254 (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What was the main food supply?

Turnip

Cultivated emmer wheat

Napus or beets are much older crops in the Nordic countries than rye, and turnip (lanttu) is a modern mutation (Ahokas 2004). The people of Ultima Thule grew root vegetables (napus), writes Pytheas ca. 330 BC. When Tacitus describes "agrestia poma" (field fruits) to the Germans, it is napus (Tacitus 23), and this also applies to "fruges" that must be stored in underground caverns to avoid freezing (Tacitus 16). Many of the napus variants are found as weeds up in northern Scandinavia, and they are old, hardy, and good food crops. They were common when the rye came into use, and they were often planted together with rye (Hyltén-Cavallius 1942 102-108). Rye did not grow wild like weeds in the Nordic countries. It probably came to North East Europe as impurities in emmerwheat (farro) and partly in einkorn and outs, and are processed and domesticated through the years here in the north (Ahokas 2009 19).

--Svedjebruk (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Chinese area - their migration probelm

Should the issue with ancient China have their section here? They had migration/invasion of their own during the ~300CE period. The Five Hu = Xiong Nu, Xianbei, Di, Qiang, and Jie. Same issues similar to what Roman Empire faced. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

They too must have had 'peaceful' immigrants come to settle in their lands and culturally enrich them like with what happened to the Romans.

OldBolshevik (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Saxons are from Saxony. Why don't you go to a german webiste and find your Germanic tribes http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm MYTHICAL

Also fix your mythical Migration Period. Please fix Germania, Germaina Magna it's clearly shown that many Czech towns where part of Germania Magna and please look at the mountain ranges on the maps, Swiss alps, tatra mountains, Sudetes. Even Olomouc over in the North east of the Czech Republic had two different latin names (Iuliomontium,Roman fort (Mons Iulii). Also its a fact the the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno and from a germanic king. Czech cities located in Germanina Magna taken from Ptolemy's maps 2nd century AD located in present day Czech Republic. Furgisatis u České Budějovice, Meliodunum in the sand, Strevinta for Hříměždic to the West of Sedlčany, Casurgis is Prague, Redintuinum u Loun, Nomisterium in Litoměřice, Hegetmatia in Mladá Boleslav, Budorgis in Cologne, Coridorgis in Jihlava, Eburum u Hrádku is Znojmo, Parienna in Breclav, Eburodunum is Brno, Setuia at Komořan near Vyškov, Felicia is Vyškova, Asanca is Kojetína, Carredunum is Rýmařov I have supplyed many links below to verify.

• http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-ptolemy-s-geography-fotostrecke-59994-2.html
• http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048
• http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatei%3APtolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg
• http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3APtolemaios_1467_Scandinavia.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu%C4%8Dina_burial
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorstengraf_(Blu%C4%8Dina) Also the same type of swords found at two different cities in present day Germany.
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleidelsheim
• http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villingendorf.

Atilla the Hun never went through Czech lands. Do your own research he went up the Danube ( Germany, Austria) and the Rhine West Germany, France) and he was killed in France(Gaul) in 454AD. Also its a fact that the Blucina Sword from 5th century was found near Brno(Latin:Eburodunum) and was from a Germanic king. Two gold Germanic swords of the same type have been found in present day central Germany located in Pleidelsheim and Villingendorf. Look at the links above and make your own opinion. And then decide if an Americian writer(Note: Americia was and will always be a former British and English colony)who wrote a 20th century book about European history when he or she has never ever been to Europe. Note Americia did not exist in the middle ages only native Indians lived there before 15th century. Casurgis from Australia is watching 12.07.2014 And yes I am part English. The Mythicial Saxons are from here:http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm and:http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/lang/english/history-politics/history/ . You still believe that there was a mass migration??. All your old documents from 5th century in Britannia where in Latin and you where mostly Christians. Germania Magna where Pagans as even your Danish vikings were:http://denmark.dk/en/society/history/ to the late 10th century. Remember your King Alfred from the 8th century went to Rome to be crowned king. Forgive me i was not taught this at school but at least I am capable to still learn and educate myself. Thou knows nothing!. Casurgis out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.240.50 (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. There is no clear consensus in !vote terms, and the "oppose" comments make the seemingly valid argument that "Migration Period" is at least as common a name in the literature as "Barbarian Invasions". Therefore there can be no consensus seen to go ahead with the move. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Migration Period → Barbarian Invasions – I dont know how to change the name of an Article but i think that Barbarian Invasions should be the name of this article because it is more academic and more used. I totally agree with Deguef (talk), Politis (talk), Frog Splash and other Users. The name should be changed. Yogurto (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Barbarian invasion is to my knowledge no longer the academic standard term; in part because these tribes were less barbaric (uncivilised) than often thought. The Goths and Franks thought they could help the continuation of the empire; and established treaties with Rome allowing them to migrate in exchange for military support. So I am not in favour of this move. Arnoutf (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• ??? The page WP:RM shows Migration Period → Migration period, that is, a case change; but this page is something different. What is the proposal that we should consider? 2620:0:1000:157D:79A2:22D7:9E57:2A32 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Fwiw I oppose "period" also. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It isn't "more academic and more used". Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. "The Barbarian Invasions" by Hans Delbrück is the classic work on this subject. (It's volume II of History of the Art of War.) "Barbarian invasions" is a section title in Britannica`s "ancient Rome" article. See also this ngram. Update: The relevant chapter in The New Cambridge Medieval History (2005) is titled "The Barbarian Invasions." Sourcing doesn't get any more academic than that. NotUnusual (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Delbrucks book is not about the "migration period" it is about the conflict between Germans and the Roman empire, which is only a small part of the migration period and its consequences.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, right. Delbruck's book was published in German in 1902, entitled The Germans ("Die Germanen"). Not sure where that takes us. The Migration Period is a period, obviously, while the Barbarian invasions are a set of events. There is Migration Period art, but no "Barbarian Invasions art". Barbarian invasions is also too centred on the Roman world; at least half of the migrations/invasions affected only "barbarians", but to use that term implies a civilized other. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a vast literature using the term migration period. There is a tiny part of that literature that uses the term "barbarian invasion" to refer to specific parts of the migration period. The two topics are not the same and the sources in no way supports this move.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The author (Guy Halsall)of the brief section in the Cambridge book (see full draft here [5]) is not that outspoken. He introduces the term as "so-called 'barbarian invasions'" (with the use of the phrases so-called and the apostrophes how much more doubt should be on the term being the only relevant one), and in the text itself claims that invasions is used predominantly by French and Italian historians while "German and English historians simply refer to ‘migrations’". How much more academic evidence that migrations is the relevant term do we need than that indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Halsall's article is 20 pages long (pp. 35-55). So there is a lot more to it than the two-page PDF. He may complain about the term "Barbarian Invasions," but it's the one he uses. As for Delbrück, I think its significant that the main current translation uses "Barbarian Invasions." After all, we want to follow English usage and not German. Even while Britannica's "ancient Rome" article uses "Barbarian Invasions," their "Germany" article uses "Migration Period." So it's primarily a question of whether you're viewing events through the Roman or German end of the telescope. NotUnusual (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

•I cannot speak english very well but i have a Question: So, why are we seeing events through the German end of the telescope?

P.S. Someone has deleted the term Barbarian Invasions at the beginning of this article. Right now on this page The term "Barbarian Invasions" is not even mentioned but i am pretty sure a lot of people think it is related to the Migration period. And BTW Barbarian invasions redirects here (dont change this too XD). And i still think that "Barbarian invasions" is more academic and more used. I know that there are a lot of sources for both sides but just think about the fall of the Roman empire. Of course I agree that Barbarians were Migrants (and that this term is a better scientific term or something) but most people usually say that Rome fell because of Barbarians, not because of immigrants. All the books about the fall of Rome are probably the most academic sources about this subject.Yogurto Talk

• Most of the interest in this period is based on the idea that the barbarians either were, or weren't, responsible for the fall of Rome. A title that focuses on Germans traveling around makes sense only from a narrowly German perspective. NotUnusual (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, that is the case only from the perspective of Roman history. From the perspective of Germanic or North European history the interest in this period is about understanding how the Germanic and Celtic peoples arrived in their present and historical locations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

They did it by murdering and pillaging and destroying whole cities, destroying a whole advanced civilization and setting Europe in a Dark Age. Not making tourism. 37.14.47.182 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment In sum it appears something can be said for both names; although there may be subtle differences in scope depending on having a central Roman empire perspective or not. In any case the support for both names makes it unlikely that we will reach consensus for renaming. The issue may be solved by adding a section in the article on usage of the different names. Arnoutf (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Barbarian invasions is a common enough term and such an obvious search term that we need to do something about this. Currently [6] there is not even a mention of Barbarian Invasions or barbarian invasions in the lead, despite both terms redirecting to this article. Despite many references (good), there is a distinct smell of original research over the current article, particularly over the question of which term to use. Lots to do! It's a bit of a battleground IMO, and this proposed move would be a good start to sorting it all out. Andrewa (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per all of above (I noticed did not give my preference yet). Both terms are used; so there is no reason to change the name. Support to mention the use of the term barbarian invasion in the article and probably even in the lede. Arnoutf (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

This is based on a google scholar search for the terms ("migration period" history) and ("barbarian invasions" history)

Academic sources using "migration period" in the title

• Hines, J. (Ed.). (1997). The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: an ethnographic perspective (Vol. 2). Boydell Press.
• Zolitschka, B., Behre, K. E., & Schneider, J. (2003). Human and climatic impact on the environment as derived from colluvial, fluvial and lacustrine archives—examples from the Bronze Age to the Migration period, Germany. Quaternary Science Reviews, 22(1), 81-100.
• Hedeager, L. (2000). Migration period Europe: the formation of a political mentality. Rituals of Power: from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, Leiden-Boston-Colonia, 15-16.
• Stenberger, M., & Klindt-Jensen, O. (Eds.). (1955). Vallhagar: a Migration period settlement on Gotland, Sweden (Vol. 2). E. Munksgaard.
• Clarke, M. G. (2013). Sidelights on Teutonic History during the Migration Period. Cambridge University Press.
• Barnish, S. J., & Marazzi, F. (Eds.). (2007). The Ostrogoths from the migration period to the sixth century: an ethnographic perspective (Vol. 7). Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
• Hines, J. (1989, January). Ritual Hoarding in Migration-Period Scandinavia: A Review of Recent Interpretations. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (Vol. 55, pp. 193-206). Cambridge University Press.
• Heather, P. (Ed.). (1999). The Visigoths from the migration period to the seventh century: an ethnographic perspective (Vol. 4). Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
• Dreßler, M., Selig, U., Dörfler, W., Adler, S., Schubert, H., & Hübener, T. (2006). Environmental changes and the Migration Period in northern Germany as reflected in the sediments of Lake Dudinghausen. Quaternary Research, 66(1), 25-37.
• Bakka, E. (1978). Two Aurar of Gold. Contributions to the weight history of the Migration Period. The Antiquaries Journal, 58(02), 279-298.
• Green, D. H., & Siegmund, F. (Eds.). (2003). The Continental Saxons from the Migration Period to the Tenth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective (Vol. 6). Boydell Press.
• PJ Heather - 2008. Ethnicity, group identity, and social status in the Migration Period- Brepols Publishers

Academic sources using "barbarian invasions" in the title

• Trevelyan, J. P., Smith, D. M., & Trevelyan, G. M. (1956). A Short History of the Italian People: From the Barbarian Invasions to the Present Day. Allen & Unwin.
• Moss, H. S. L. B. (1937). VI. THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS. The Economic History Review, 7(2), 209-216.
• Delbrück, H., & Renfroe, W. J. (1990). The Barbarian Invasions: History of the Art of War. Vol. II, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press (first pub. 1921).
• Goffart, W. (1988). The Map of the Barbarian Invasions: A Preliminary Report. Nottingham Medieval Studies, 32(1), 49-64.
• Frend, W. H. C. (1994). Augustine's Reactions to the Barbarian Invasions of the West, 407-417: Some Comparations with his Western Contemporaries.

Analysis

The titles that have "barbarian invasions" are much fewer than those that have "migration period". They also have a narrower scope most of them focusing on the migrations from the perspective of their impact on the Roman empire. They are two different topics one having the other within its scope. It would be possible to write a separate article about the "barbarian invasions of Southern Europe during the migration period". Consequently the term cannot be User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This list is hardly comprehensive. What about:

• "Monks and civilization: from the barbarian invasions to the reign of Charlemagne" (1964) by J Decarreaux
• "Stilicho and the barbarian invasions" (1922) by NH Baynes
• "The Barbarian Invasions of the Roman Empire" (2003) by T Hodgkin
• "The barbarian invasions: catalyst of a new order" (1977) by Katherine Fischer Drew
• "The Barbarian Invasions of Italy" (2013, reprint of classic) by Pasquale Villari
• "The barbarian invasions and first settlements" (1998) IN Wood
• "The Theme of «The Barbarian Invasions» in Late Antique and Modern Historiography" (1989) by W Goffart. NotUnusual (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Those clearly prove my point as they are all specifically about the Roman perspective.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

View of Halsall

Halsall explicitly states the fact that the term "barbarian invasion" is partial to the Latin perspective whereas German, Scandinavian and English historians use "Migration period" and that the term implies a negative POV. "Most western national consciousness can thus be traced back to notions, however confused, of barbarian invasions or migrations. They are held to have swept away the ancient ‘classical’ world, the world of Rome, and to have introduced the Dark Ages. This was not always seen as a disaster; far from it, German and English historians in particular have been fond of picturing the barbarians as sweeping away a tired, effete and decadent Mediterranean civilization and replacing it with a more virile, martial, Nordic one. Even writers who modified the extreme versions of this view still often presented the Empire as weak and in decline. French and Italian historians, on the other hand, have tended to see the barbarians as a ‘bad thing’, destroying a living civilization, introducing a barbaric Dark Age. Whereas those historians refer to the barbarian invasions in pejorative terms (les invasions barbares) German and English historians simply refer to ‘migrations’, wanderings of peoples, Volkerwanderungen."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

---

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date Range?

Currently the article lists at least 3 seperate date ranges the migration period happened in. It'd be great if someone could iron those out into one comprehensive date so the article agrees with itself. (For reference, the two dates in the beginning paragraph and the date in the image at the top right of the article don't agree. Someone would have to edit the image with photoshop or something like that.) Wanderlust15 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting. I suppose it's a matter of definition. The German article has 375-568; the Collins definition, the first one cited in our article, has 2nd to 11th centuries. I just reverted an IP's change which, in hindsight, wasn't so bad and I'm going to restore it--but Wanderlust15, we do need to get this straightened out, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There was a sizable-enough contingent of Germanic tribes present in Roman Empire territory during Cymbrian War (respective page details it poorly but non wikipedia pages touches theissue slightly more, such as https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=war-dir&f=wars_romangerman ). Whether or not that is one of *the* migrations (those more involving the reason why Roman Empire collapsed) as it seems these did not attack Roman Empire, like many future would, is an unknown to me. It may be that is why it's not listed here, I still mention it in-case. Oh, and this IP is public, ban' it, oh. --theh5 (bannished user, "not here to edit my ass") as 81.92.27.129 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Bias

The title of this article is ridiculous and is a very good reason why Wikipedia will never be treated with anything but contempt by academics. It is well known throughout history as the 'Barbarian Invasions' but it seems a small clique of German nationalists on here have sought to erase and rewrite history. As a result marauding tribes that mercilessly butchered and pillaged their way through Europe are now politely described as "Wandering Peoples".

Germans might make up the largest net contributors to Wikipedia but that shouldn't mean they have the right to alter history just because they have the weight of numbers and admins to do so. Lets remove the nonsense and get back to writing real history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.143.47 (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The view about the marauding tribes you present above is a rather outdated Romanocentric biased view. The Vandal, Goth and Frank kingdoms of the fifth century not only pillaged a lot of Roman cities (like the Romans did themselves a few centuries earlier with e.g. Jerusalem) but they also built impressive new cities that contained advanced art and technology.

Of course if you can back up the claim you make above (known as barbarian invasion throughout history) backed by sources that rely on contemporary sources for each moment in history we can discuss further. I will even grant you that you can limit "throughout history" by excluding the period 1000BC-400AD (historic period predating migration period, although this period is obviously covered under you grandiose claim (throughout history) it is probably unreasonable to expect pre-Roman scholars to predict the fall of the Roman empire). Arnoutf (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Much of the problem is due to shifting views on the period in question, often further confused by overt or unintentional bias from various national, political and cultural agendas. The original sources, such as Tacitus, Ptolemy and later Jordanes and others were certainly biased toward viewing non-Roman cultures as barbarians, no matter how sophisticated. This usage continued with the more scientific archaeological and historical studies begun in earnest in the later 19th century. This period also added another layer of nationalist and political bias leading scholars to propose migrations of entire peoples from one location to another, displacing or even destroying existing peoples at the destination. Sadly, this view was taken to an extreme in the 20th century and used to justify the horrors committed during the territorial expansion of the Third Reich. After the war, the pendulum shifted almost entirely away from a view of entire peoples on the move to one of elite transfers with the existing populations remaining in place and only the leadership changing and a general aversion to anything which resembled the mass displacements used as arguments before and during the war. This culminated in the 1960's with the scholarly consensus rejecting the invasion hypothesis altogether. Only in the last several decades has a more balanced approach been used, accepting that the Barbarian Invasions/Migration Period were a mix of many different types of movements, from mass migrations like that of the Goths to formation of confederations out of existing tribes like that of the Alemanni to mixes of entirely separate cultures and polities moving together like the Vandals, Suebi and Alans across the Rhine, some being only military movements and some being actual migrations. The entire issue of scholarly bias on this subject from pre-WWII to post-war to current consensus is discussed thoroughly by Peter Heather in his work, Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe, Oxford University Press(2010) 24.162.143.157 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

LOL, "rather outdaded". It's current view that the Germans were BARBARIANS. What' will be next, deny the Holocaust?

139.47.116.162 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Migration Period

Shouldn't the title be Migration period with lower case p? --Hordaland (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't think so Hordaland, because the lower-case title would indicate an article about any & all periods of much migration anywhere in the world, whereas this one is about a particular period in parts of Europe: Noyster (talk), 11:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, good I didn't change it then. --Hordaland (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The title should be Barbarian invasions, in any case. But nord european nationalism has changed to something innocuous, so as the article is already crap, it doesn't matter if it's with lower or higher case.

--93.176.131.106 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please help with one sentence

I've just made many smallish corrections to (mostly) recent edits, including turning non-sentences into sentences. However, I don't know what to do with the last "sentence" in this paragraph; can you fix it?

The migrants comprised war bands or tribes of 10,000 to 20,000 people,[3] but in the course of 100 years, they numbered not more than 750,000 in total, compared to an average 39.9 million population of the Roman Empire at that time. Although immigration was common throughout the time of the Roman Empire,[4] the period in question was, in the 19th century, often defined as running from about the 5th to 8th centuries AD.[5][6] That during the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, marked by profound changes both within the Roman Empire and beyond.

(My bolding) --Hordaland (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't make any sense. I've removed it.--Tataryn (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tataryn. But I hadn't thought to check how that sentence looked prior to the recent rash of (sometimes strange) edits. Just did, and maybe it makes sense?

This period was that of the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, marked by profound changes both within the Roman Empire and beyond.

(Whether it belongs or is necessary is another matter.)

--Hordaland (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Aspect not touched upon exactly

Some interesting details which the article seems to skirt around. It mentions that the Goth conquests in the West resulted in assimilation into Roman culture whereas the Slavic conquests in the East resulted in the Roman culture being superseded by Slavic culture. A little misleading or at least incomplete. In the West the Roman army came to be composed almost entirely of Gothic mercenaries but the Romans did not extend citizenship for the most part to the Goths nor were they treated very well (read this interesting summary if you are not familiar). The result was that the Goths learned Latin (poorly; their language was a creole of Latin and Gothic, hence the Romance languages) and were at least partially assimilated into Roman culture. The fall of the Western Empire was largely an internal coup by the Roman army. These Gothic rulers were already assimilated into Roman culture to a great degree and as they gradually became more civilized they simply lost their Gothic culture. The Slavs by contrast, though heavily influenced by the Eastern Romans were never to any great degree incorporated into the Empire and so assimilation did not occur, even in Roman areas they conquered (which was never to the same degree as the Goths anyway). Even the Arabs and Turks later did not assimilate Greek the way the Goths assimilated Latin because they were never part of the Roman Empire in the first place. Again they were influenced heavily by Roman/Greek culture but not so much so that they abandoned their languages.

Seems like this aspect should be brought out more in the article.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of this is reasonable, but it's too simplistic. No historian would talk in terms of Gothic leaders becoming 'more civilised'. Please see Halsall, 'Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West', Chapter 2 'Defining Identities' for a much more academic discussion of how ethnicity may have functioned in this period (as with all theories on this period, Halsall isn't universally accepted, but his theory makes a lot of sense to a lot of people).

Wagrid (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Final paragraph of the 'Barbarian Identity' section

The 'traditionskern' theory is presented there as a current, valid thesis, but it very much isn't - it has been discarded for the simple reason that there isn't actually any evidence for it. Unfortunately, the best citation I have for this is a draft of a paper from an old professor, who retired before publication, so I'm not really comfortable sticking it in the notes. So I want to flag this for anybody looking to clean up the page. If I stumble across a usable reference, I'll do it myself.

The reason this page is such a mess is that there is no real historical consensus about who the groups our literary sources define as 'Goth' or 'Vandal' really were, other than that those labels are reductive. It is difficult to say where they came from, what the nature of these groups were, or how they identified. There are a lot of theories, many of them good but the kind of approach to writing history articles wikipedia relies in, i.e. collaboratively working towards something that represents historical consensus is not going to work here.

Wagrid (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification regarding edit

Hello. I accidentally submitted my edit early while typing my reasoning for my most recent edit. I don't think this is that big of a deal, but just in case, I'll clarify here. I removed the statement "The Migration Period was followed by the Viking Age" from the lead section. Firstly, it was an awkward, one-sentence paragraph that disrupted the flow of the lead. Secondly, it was literally contradicted by the first paragraph, which states that the Migration Period ended in 568. Given that the Viking Age did not start until 793, over two centuries later, it seems incorrect to state that the Viking Age "followed" the Migration Period. Silver181 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed bit

Apologies to Flobbadob. I can see you were trying to improve this bit, but I am proposing we remove it entirely from the lead. I don't think modern debates are really about whether the Barbarians were nice or not. There was indeed much brutality on all sides. I think the debate is about how much brutality was intrinsic to the Roman approach that was not working well, and how much was "exogenous" and new.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

In the modern period, the characterisation of the migration period as a time of barbarian invasions has come to be seen as presenting early tribal peoples in a negative light, when their arrival might more justly be regarded as a filling of the political vacuum left by the fall of the Western Roman Empire, with the so-called Barbarian kingdoms arising in the 5th and 6th centuries laying the foundations for the European Early Middle Ages.