Download PDF | J. B. Bury - Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians-W. W. Norton & Company (2003).
141 Pages
PREFATORY NOTE
In 1902 the late Professor J. B. Bury was appointed to succeed Lord Acton as the
holder of the Regius Chair of Modern History in the University of Cambridge. He
interpreted the term "modern" with the same largeness and liberality as had his
friend and master, Professor E. A. Freeman, at Oxford; even if he did not go so far
as to say, with a German authority, the "Modern History begins with the Call of
Abraham".
In other words, he did not feel himself bound to restrict either his
reading or his lecturing to the four Post-Renaissance centuries which are
regarded as "modern" in the narrow sense of the term. On the contrary, he
considered it proper that he should continue to pursue those researches into the
history of the later Roman Empire for which his high technicle equipment---in
particular his remarkable knowledge of Slavonic and other East-European
languages---specially fitted him. Hence, as Professor at Cambridge, he completed
the important investigations, begun at Dublin, which resulted in the publication
of the scholarly notes and appendixes in his illustrated edition of Gibbon's
Decline and Fall (1909); his masterly Constitution of the Later Roman Empire
(1910); his notable article on the "Later Roman Empire" in the eleventh edition of
the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911); his pioneer History of the Roman Empire,
A.D. 802-867 (1912); and his revised and amplified History of the Roman
Empire, A.D. 395-565 (1923).
The main results of his highly specialised research and wide reading he embodied
in various courses of lectures delivered from time to time before the University.
In particular, beginning in the Michaelmas term of his second professorial year,
he treated periodically of "The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians", covering
roughly the two centuries of transition from Roman to Mediaeval Europe, A.D.
375-575. These lectures, of course, contained little or nothing which was not
being incorporated in greater detail and with an elaborate apparatus of notes and
references in the larger works which were being produced simultaneously with
them.
They did, however, as revised from year to year, present in vivid and
memorable form the principal conclusions of much recondite research and
mature thought.
As summaries of Professor Bury's opinions on a number of long-debated
problems they are of great interest and enduring value. What Professor Bury has
to say, for instance, on the relative importance of the battles of Chalons (451) and
Nedao (454) will be fresh to many readers, and full of illumination for all. His
constant insistence, too, on the gradual and imperceptible encroachment of
Barbarism upon Romanism during the two centuries under review is, in the
highest degree, impressive and convincing.
Apart from the correcting of a few typographical errors, the amending of a
grammatical slip here and there, and the adding of an occasional reference, the
work of the editor has consisted mainly in (1) finding an appropriate title for each
of the lectures here presented, and (2) in dividing each lecture into sections, with
sub-headings, so as to give a clearer idea of the contents of the lectures and to
facilitate reference on particular points. In case any reader should consider that
the titles and sub-headings are not happily chosen, it is here explicitly stated that
the sole responsibility for them rests upon the shoulders of
F. J. C. HEARNSHAW
King's College
University of London
15th December 1927
LECTURE 1
THE GERMANS AND THEIR WANDERINGS
EARLY GERMAN HISTORY---
WEST GERMANS AND EAST
GERMANS---POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE GERMANS-EARLY
GOTHIC MIGRATIONS
EARLY GERMAN HISTORY
The present series of lectures is designed to give a broad and general view of the
long sequence of the migratory movements of the northern barbarians which
began in the third and fourth centuries A.D. and cannot be said to have
terminated till the ninth. This long process shaped Europe into its present form,
and it must be grasped in its broad outlines in order to understand the
framework of modern Europe.
There are two ways in which the subject may be treated, two points of view from
which the sequence of changes which broke up the Roman Empire may be
regarded. We may look at the process, in the earliest and most important stage,
from the point of view of the Empire which was being dismembered or from that
of the barbarians who were dismembering it.
We may stand in Rome and watch
the strangers sweeping over her provinces; or we may stand east of the Rhine and
north of the Danube, amid the forests of Germany, and follow the fortunes of the
men who issued thence, winning new habitations and entering on a new life. Both
methods have been followed by modern writers. Gibbon and many others have
told the story from the side of the Roman Empire, but all the principal barbarian
peoples---not only those who founded permanent states, but even those who
formed only transient kingdoms---have had each its special historian. One
naturally falls into the habit of contemplating these events from the Roman side
because the early part of the story has come down to us in records which were
written from the Roman side.
We must, however, try to see things from both
points of view.
The barbarians who dismembered the Empire were mainly Germans. It is not till
the sixth century that people of another race---the Slavs---appear upon the scene.
Those who approach for the first time the study of the beginnings of medieval
history will probably find it difficult to group and locate clearly in their minds the
multitude of Germanic peoples who surge over the scene in distracting confusion.
The apparent confusion vanishes, of course, with familiarity, and the movements
fall into a certain order. But at the very outset the study of the period may be
simplified by drawing a line of division within the Germanic world. This capital
line of division is geographical, but it has its basis in historical facts. It is the
distinction of the West Germans from the East Germans. To understand this
division we must go back for a moment into the early history of the Germans.
WEST GERMANS AND EAST GERMANS
In the second millennium B.C. the homes of the Germanic peoples were in
southern Scandinavia, in Denmark, and in the adjacent lands between the Elbe
and the Oder. East of them beyond the Oder were Baltic or Lettic peoples, who
are now represented by Lithuanians and Letts.
The lands west of the Elbe, to the
Rhine, were occupied by Celts.
After 1000 B.C. a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between
the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary
between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200 B.C. it
had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout
this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100 B.C.
southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul.
This inundation was stemmed by Julius Ceasar. Now all these peoples who
expanded over western Germany from their original seats between the Oder and
Elbe we will class as the West Germans.
The other movement was a migration from Scandinavia to the opposite coasts of
the Baltic, between the Oder and the Vistula, and ultimately beyond the Vistula.
This migration seems to have taken place at a later period than the beginning of
the expansion of the West Germans. It is placed by a recent authority, Kossinna,
in the later bronze period, between 600 and 300 B.C. (1) By the latter date they
seem to have pressed right up to the Vistula to the neighbourhood of the
Carpathians. These comers from Scandinavia formed a group which in dialect
and customs may be distinguished from the West Germans, as well as in their
geographical position; and we designate them as East Germans.
The distinction is
convenient because the historical roles of these two divisions of the German race
were different. There is also a third division, the North Germans of Scandinavia;
but with them we are not concerned.
In the period with which we have to do, the West Germans are comparatively
settled geographically, whereas the East Germans are migratory. Now it is not
difficult to understand why this is so. All the ancient Germans were shepherds
and hunters. They had some agriculture before the time of Julius Ceasar, but not
much. Central Europe till well into the Middle Ages consisted largely of dense
forests and marshlands.
There were, however, districts free from wood, and the
absence of wood was the circumstance which largely determined the early settlements of the Germans. Geographers are able to fix the position of such
tracts of steppe land by means of the remains of steppe plants---plants which
cannot live either in the forest or on cultivated soil---and also by the remains of
animals which are characteristic of the steppe. Cases of such land, for instance,
are the plain of the upper Rhine and the eastern portion of the Harz district.
When a people settled down in such a district they could live, as a rule peaceably
and contentedly, on their flocks and herds, until their numbers began to increase
considerably.
Then their pasture land, limited by the surrounding forests, became
insufficient, and presently the food question grew pressing. There were three
solutions open: they might take to agriculture, which would enable them to
support a far larger population in the same area; they might extend their
pasturage by clearing the forest; or they might reduce their superfluity of
population by emigrating. The third resource was that which they regularly
adopted; the other two were opposed to their nature and instincts. A portion
would emigrate and seize a new habitation elsewhere. This, of course, meant war
and conquest.
This process went on at the expense of the Celts until Central
Europe became entirely Germanised. They would then have naturally advanced
westward or southward, but the Roman power hindered them. Thus the Western
Germans, having no further room for expansion, shut in on the east by their own
kinsfolk who were tightly packed, on the west and south by the Roman Empire,
were forced to find another solution for the food question. Perforce they took to
tilling the land. We have direct evidence for this important change in their habits.
Ceasar describes the Germans as mainly a pastoral people: they did practise
agriculture, but it was little. About one hundred and fifty years later Tacitus
describes them as practising agriculture.
This transformation, then, from a
preeminently pastoral state to an agricultural state came about during the
century after their geographical expansion was arrested by the power of Rome.
That period was a critical stage in their development. Now remember that all this
applies to the West Germans: it is the West Germans to whom the descriptions of
Caesar and Tacitus relate. The East Germans beyond the Elbe were by no means
in the same position. They were not hemmed in in the same way. Their
neighbours to the east and south were barbarians---Slavs and others---who did
not hinder their freedom of movement, and so there was no motive to give up
their pastoral and migratory habits.
You can now understand how in the second century A.D. the East and West
Germans are distinguished not only by geographical position but also by the
different stages of civilisation which they have reached. The West Germans are
agricultural and have attained those relatively settled habits which agriculture
induces.
The East Germans are chiefly pastoral and represent a stage from which
the West Germans began to emerge a couple of centuries before.
I may illustrate this further by referring to a different interpretation of the
evidence which was put forward by Dr. Felix Dahn, who devoted his life and
numerous works to early German history. (2) He starts from the great change
from the unsettled life of the Germans in the time of Caesar, when they depended chiefly on pasture and the chase, to the relatively settled life, in which agriculture
predominated, corresponding to the description of Tacitus. Using this fact as a
minor premise, he lays down as a general rule that when such a change takes
place from an unsettled to a settled life increase in population is a natural
consequence. And from these two premises he argues that Germany increased
largely in population.
Such an increase, he says, would only begin to tell four or
five generations after a people had adopted settled habits; that means 120 or 150
years. If we take about A.D. 20-30 as the middle point of the period of change---
between Caesar and Tacitus---then four or five generations bring us down to the
period A.D. 140-180, just the time in which the East-German migratory
movement began. He concludes that increase of population, due to the change
from pastoral to agricultural habits, was the cause of the migrations and the
expansive movements which began in the second century A.D.
You will readily perceive the fallacy which underlies this interesting arguement.
Dr. Dahn applies to the Germans as a whole, and to the East Germans in
particular, the evidence of Tacitus, which is true only of the West Germans, who
came under Roman observation.
The picture of Tacitus is taken entirely from the
West Germans; of the German peoples beyond the Elbe the Romans knew little
more than the names and geographical positions of some of them. Thus Dr. Dahn
does not take us any further. Increase of population, which means the food
question, was the driving force in the whole process of German expansion from
prehistoric times onward, and it was the main cause, no doubt, of the movement
which began in the second century A.D.; but the new agricultural habits of the
West Germans had nothing to do with it.
Before dealing with this movement, which is a movement of East Germans, I have
a word more to say about the West Germans.
The old names of the West German
peoples between the Rhine and Elbe are preserved by Tacitus and in other
records of early imperial history. But in the later times with which we have to do
now, these names have almost entirely disappeared. We have no longer to do
with the Tencteri, the Cherusci, the Chatti, etc.; we have to do with the Alamanni,
the Franks, the Saxons, the Thuringians. The reason of this change is that from
the end of the second century western Germany had been re-formed by a process
of federation and blending of groups of smaller peoples in large unities. Thus the
Alamanni were a composite nation formed from the Suevian tribes, and others,
on the upper Rhine. In the same way the peoples on the lower Rhine had formed
a loose conglomerate under the name of Franks.
This name Frank or 'free' seems
to have been given as a distinction from the neighbouring peoples who were
subject to Rome in the province of Lower Germany. Between the Weser and Elbe,
and inland to the Harz mountains, another group of peoples was collected under
the name of Saxons. The tribes who gave the name to the whole confederation
had come from beyond the mouth of the Elbe, near the neck of the Cimbric
peninsula; for our purpose they are West Germans. But among the West
Germans they were exceptional in the length of their migrations. The Saxons
were parted from the Franks by the intervening Frisians; and south of the Saxons
were the Thuringians who mainly represented the ancient Hermunduri.
It has been sometimes questioned whether these groups were really confederates,
bound by a definite league. The fact seems proved by a text of Ammianus
Marcellinus who, in speaking of the Alamanni, refers to a pactum vicissitudinis
reddendae. They were bound to render mutual aid. Can we discover any cause for
these approximations, these centripetal movements? Agriculture, in all
probability, proved an insufficient solution of the population question, especially
if in settled conditions the numbers increased more rapidly. It became necessary
therefore for a people to enlarge the area of its habitation by reclaiming the
surrounding forestland. You must picture Germany as consisting of small
territories each of which was surrounded by a dense impenetrable ring of
primeval forest.
They were thus divided from and protected against each other by
the forest-hedge which formed thier hunting-grounds. In the middle of the
territory were the separate agricultural allotments of the freemen, all round this
was the common pasture land, and beyond this again was the common ring of
forest. Now what naturally happened as the population increased? More land was
required for the separate allotments, and it became necessary to encroach upon
the pasture land. But the pasture could not be curtailed with an increasing
population, and so it became necessary to encroach upon the forest. The result
was that the dense rings of forest, which isolated each state from its neighbours
more effectually than the sea severs islands, were reduced to narrow limits with
the expansion of the population, and the states were brought into a close
proximity which facilitated and promoted political unions, whether intimate or
loose. This process of grouping was perhaps favourable to the institution of
royalty.
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE GERMANS
It will not be amiss to say a few words here, at the very outset, about the political
institutions of the Germans---words which apply not merely to the times of
Tacitus and of Caesar, with which we are not now directly concerned, but also to
the whole time of the migrations which form the subject of the next few lectures. I
will not go into any details or discuss vexed questions, but merely emphasise
what seems to be the chief feature. I would say in the first place that the whole
period of German history before the migrations and during the migrations may
be called, from the political point of view, the period of popular freedom.
As soon
as the German people have formed permanent states in the dismembered Roman
Empire a new period of political development begins, a monarchical period. Now
I daresay you may be inclined to make an objection to this statement. You may
say that in early times (e.g. in the time of Tacitus) some of the German states
were ruled by kings; there were kingdoms as well as republics; and during the
actual period of the migrations nearly every people had a king. This is quite true,
and the point on which I wish to insist is that it does not affect my proposition. A
German state might have a king or it might not, but in either case it was virtually
a democracy. All German states, so far as we know, had to all intents and
purposes the same constitution; the political distinction between republic and monarchy has no application to them.
Some of them had kings; any of them
might at any moment elect a king; but the presence or absence of a king might
almost be described as a matter of convenience; it had no decisive constitutional
importance. In every German state, whether there was a king or not, the
assembly of the freemen was sovran; and that is the main thing to remember. The
king not only had no power to legislate or take any political decision without the
consent of the assembly, but he had no power to hinder or check what seemed
good to the assembly. He was the great executive officer of the state and had the
right of summoning the host whenever the assembly had decided on war; also the
right of summoning extraordinary meetings of the assembly. But the people who
had no king required an executive officer of this kind likewise. Well, they had an
officer who was called the graf.
The graf had functions and duties corresponding
to those of the king. The true distinction then between the German states is not
'republican' and 'monarchical' states, but states with a graf and states with a king.
Was the distinction then merely one of name? No, there was one real and
important difference. The graf was elected by the assembly, and the assembly
might elect anyone they liked. The king was likewise elected by the assembly, but
in his case their choice was limited to a particular family, a royal family. In other
words, the kingship was hereditary, and the grafship was not. But this hereditary
character of the kingship was of a limited kind. When a king died, the office did
not devolve on any particular kinsman of his; the sovran people might elect any
member of the family they chose; they might refuse to elect a successor at all.
There was no fixed successor; the eldest son, e.g., had no greater claim than
anyone else. The existence of these kingly families such as the Amals among the
East Goths, the Balthas among the West Goths, the Mervings among the Salian
Franks, is for us an ultimate fact, behind which with our present knowledge we
can hardly penetrate. It is like the existence of the German nobility, the origin of
which we have not material to explain. We only know that the kingly family was
supposed to be the most ancient of all the families of the folk, and that it traced
its origin to a god. And families possessing this right seem to have existed among
all the German folks, among these who had no kings as well as among those who
had.
So that if any kingless folk suddenly resolved that it would be expedient to
have a king, they had a family designate within which their choice would fall. It is
highly important to realise this absolute nature of the theoretical principle of the
ancient German states---namely, the sovranty of the folk, a vital principle which
has undergone many modifications, passed through transient eclipses, but has
never been extinguished in Europe. But I must go on to point out that, thought
the king had no independent power, the kingship had importance by virtue of the
fact that it might become a real power. It was a germ out of which a true royal
power might spring---and did spring. The fact that he belonged to a chosen
family of high prestige would naturally secure that more special consideration
and honour would be shown to the king than to a graf; and a strong man might be
able to exercise enormous influence in the assembly by perfectly constitutional
means.
This was no infringement of freedom, but it might lead ultimately to
infringement of freedom. Now it may be that the growth of these centripetal tendencies, the process of
group formation , of which I have spoken, was favourable to the institution of
royalty. In the time of Tacitus, states, such as the Saxon, which had a king were
exceptional. The motives of this general change of feeling in favour of kingship
were no doubt various, and perhaps we cannot determine them with any
certainty; but I may point out one consideration. If several states formed a
political union and required a head for their common actions, e.g. for a war, a
king may have seemed the easiest solution. They may have found it easier to
agree on giving precedence to the royal family of a particular state than to join
together to elect a president. I may observe that within these federal unions each
civitas had often its own king; this was the case with the Alamanni, and partly
with the Franks.
EARLY GOTHIC MIGRATIONS
The events of the fifth century were decisive for the future of Europe. The general
results of these events was the occupation of the western half of the Roman
Empire, from Britian to North Africa, by German peoples. Now the Germans who
effected this occupation were not, with one or two exceptions, the Germans who
had been known to Rome in the days of Caesar and Tacitus. They were not West
Germans. They were East Germans. The principal of the East German peoples
were the Goths, the Vandals, the Gepids, the Burgundians, and the Lombards.
There were also the Rugians, the Heruls, the Bastarnae, the Sciri. Most of these
peoples believed that they had reached the coast of East Germany from
Scandinavia, and this tradition is confirmed by the evidence of names. The best
students of German antiquity identify the name of the Goths with that of the
Scandinavian Gauts.
The Rugians who settled in Pomerania are explained by
Rogaland in Norway. The Swedish Bornholm is supposed to be Burgundarholm,
the holm of the Burgundians. Of these East German peoples, most were moving
slowly through Europe in a generally southward direction, to the Black Sea and
the Danube, in the third and fourth centuries. These East German barbarians
were still in the stage in which steady habits of work seem repulsive and
dishonourable. They thought that laziness consisted not in shirking honest labour
but, to quote words of Tacitus, in "acquiring by the sweat of your brow that which
might be procured by the shedding of blood".
Though the process is not revealed
in our historical records, it seems very probable that the defensive wars in which
the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, in the third quarter of the second century, was
engaged against the Germans north of the Danube frontier---that these wars were
occasioned by the pressure of East Germans beyond the Elbe driven by the needs
of a growing population to encroach upon their neighbours.
The earliest great recorded migration of an East German people was that of the
Goths, about the end of the second century. They moved from their homes on the
lower Vistula to the shores of the Black Sea, where we find them in A.D. 214 in
the reign of Caracalla .
Before this migration the Goths had formed one people, consisting like all
German peoples, of a number of separate units or gaus. I do not think there can
be much doubt that it was after their settlement there that they broke up into two
great divisions, the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths, and that the motive of the
division was geographical. It is easy to imagine how this could have happened, as
there can be little doubt that they did not migrate all at once but rather in
successive bands.
The earlier comers, we might suppose, settled nearer the
Danubian lands, in the neighbourhood of the Dniester, and they, in consequence
of years of separation, felt themselves in a certain measure distinct when the later
comers arrived; and the result was the formation of two groups, distinguished as
East and West.
After the whole Gothic nation had been reunited on the shores of the Euxine, the
ancient Greek cities of Olbia and Tyras seem to have soon fallen into their hands.
We may infer this from the fact that the coinage of those cities comes to an end in
the reign of Alexander Severus, who died in A.D. 235. Soon afterwards the Gothic
attacks upon the Roman Empire began.
Link
Press Here
