The Problem of Barbarians

[Theige]

That's only true if you believe that the Merovingian state was built by "Germanic tribes".

Who then built the Merovingian state, in your opinion?

Do you take issue with "germanic," with "tribes," or with both

 

[LightSpectra]

That's only true if you believe that the Merovingian state was built by "Germanic tribes".

I'm aware that "Germanic tribe" is a loaded term, but that's not the point. You can replace that with as vague as a term as you'd like; an "external force" filled the vacuum of lost Roman influence over Gaul. So when one asks "why did the Roman Empire collapse?", one could reply it was the loss of Roman influence, or one could say it was the external force filling the vacuum; both are right answers, it's just the perspective.

 

[Dachs]

I'm aware that "Germanic tribe" is a loaded term, but that's not the point. You can replace that with as vague as a term as you'd like; an "external force" filled the vacuum of lost Roman influence over Gaul. So when one asks "why did the Roman Empire collapse?", one could reply it was the loss of Roman influence, or one could say it was the external force filling the vacuum; both are right answers, it's just the perspective.

I'm pretty sure that even the arguments claiming that the Merovingians were a "Germanic tribe" don't make the claim that they were an external force: either they were a "Germanic tribe" serving as foederati that hijacked the army on the Loire and turned it into a state (the whole thing with Syagrius simply being an element of that power struggle within the army, according to that interpretation between the "Romans" and the "Franks", which ought to be prima facie ridiculous), or they were the army on the Loire that took on the identity of the Franks and turned it into a state. Neither one of those leaves a whole lot of room for external action.

 

[LightSpectra]

Now you're just quibbling about what an external force is. Unless you're supposing the Franks and others were the Roman Empire, then somebody took over Gaul that wasn't Rome.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Ergo the political angle is overblown.



If you mean there are other reasons for its longevity, those are covered in the article. If you mean the real reasons for its longevity are unrelated to politics, something which you infer from the circumstantial evidence you have provided, then you haven't shown that you have a case.

I mean there are reasons for longevity that have nothing to do with politics. I'm not saying that none of them have to do with politics, I'm saying that not all do. That it is, indeed, overblown. As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a very convincing argument to show the reason for the longevity is politics. I'm just expressing my doubt.

Do some hold this view because of the political message and how it relates to today? I'm sure they do. I won't say otherwise. But I wouldn't call that the main reason this theory exists.

 

[Dachs]

Now you're just quibbling about what an external force is. Unless you're supposing the Franks and others were the Roman Empire, then somebody took over Gaul that wasn't Rome.

The "Franks", even if they were a "Germanic tribe" (and since most of them didn't speak a Germanic language by the time the Merovingian state was created, and since they were not organized on tribal lines, I can't see why you'd refer to them that way; it's like calling the residents of fifth-century Gaul "Celtic tribes" because a bunch of their ancestors spoke a Celtic language and a bunch of their ancestors were organized tribally), were certainly part of the Roman Empire. I don't understand where the argument comes from. These "Franks" had been part of the Roman military for decades; they had lived within the Roman Empire's borders for decades; they consciously aligned themselves with the interests of landowners in Gaul itself, and like the Visigoths, their policy can be best understood in that light. The only "external" part was the fact that a bunch of their ancestors were immigrants. Next we'll be saying that the election of Barack Obama is an "external" [African tribal] force seizing control of the American government.

 

[LightSpectra]

They were Romans in the same way that Confederates were Americans: identical cultural identity but with a separate military-political force.

 

[aelf]

I mean there are reasons for longevity that have nothing to do with politics. I'm not saying that none of them have to do with politics, I'm saying that not all do. That it is, indeed, overblown. As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a very convincing argument to show the reason for the longevity is politics. I'm just expressing my doubt.

Do some hold this view because of the political message and how it relates to today? I'm sure they do. I won't say otherwise. But I wouldn't call that the main reason this theory exists.

Right now you have as much evidence that supports your rebuttal as Halsall has for his argument. Actually, he has a tad more because he actually gave some concrete examples of things that were actually said. So essentially, the debate boils down Halsall saying "This" and you saying "Not this". How enlightening. At least the former actually constructs a coherent narrative that may (or may not) jive with the totality of one's related experiences with the subject, rather than simply appealing to some vague anecdotal evidence. He's offering something of interest; you aren't.

Also, the fact that not all reasons for the notion's longevity has to do with politics certainly does not mean that the political angle is overblown, especially when the article has acknowledged such a fact. There's a big gaping hole in the reasoning there, which the yet-to-be-specified evidence has to fill.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because I know people who don't use it for reasons that are political.

I think that it is possible to maintain a theory for reasons that are ideological without being explicitly political. In that sense, the idea may be exaggerated, but only because Halsall is trying to stress its contemporary relevance, not because he's making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[aelf]

I'd also note that doubt that is justified purely on the basis of insufficient evidence or on the unconvincingness of the doubted hypothesis is necessarily indicative of uncertainty. It does not extend to believing something other than the hypothesis, which would actually require compelling reasons.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Right now you have as much evidence that supports your rebuttal as Halsall has for his argument. Actually, he has a tad more because he actually gave some concrete examples of things that were actually said. So essentially, the debate boils down Halsall saying "This" and you saying "Not this". How enlightening. At least the former actually constructs a coherent narrative that may (or may not) jive with the totality of one's related experiences with the subject, rather than simply appealing to some vague anecdotal evidence. He's offering something of interest; you aren't.

Also, the fact that not all reasons for the notion's longevity has to do with politics certainly does not mean that the political angle is overblown, especially when the article has acknowledged such a fact. There's a big gaping hole in the reasoning there, which the yet-to-be-specified evidence has to fill.

Really all I'm saying is I'm unconvinced. Now you've spent several posts explaining that my expression of not being convinced isn't convincing you not to be convinced (oh, and that it isn't something of interest). It's my attempt to address the thrust of his argument. He's got a few British anecdotes and that's it. I didn't find them particularly persuasive as far as American historical thought goes. I did give an example, which I felt was pretty illustrative of my doubt. It's almost certain the history channel's reasons for perpetuating this old theory has nothing to do with politics. It's also not very likely for the majority who hold this theory over here, simply because it's not an analogy people use very often. I hear people use Native Americans as an example more often (as ironic as that is).

 

[Dachs]

LightSpectra: So you agree with me, then?

Really all I'm saying is I'm unconvinced. Now you've spent several posts explaining that my expression of not being convinced isn't convincing you not to be convinced (oh, and that it isn't something of interest). It's my attempt to address the thrust of his argument. He's got a few British anecdotes and that's it. I didn't find them particularly persuasive as far as American historical thought goes. I did give an example, which I felt was pretty illustrative of my doubt. It's almost certain the history channel's reasons for perpetuating this old theory has nothing to do with politics. It's also not very likely for the majority who hold this theory over here, simply because it's not an analogy people use very often. I hear people use Native Americans as an example more often (as ironic as that is).

Remember his audience. The man isn't attempting to prove a whole lot, there; he's bringing up key well-known examples in front of an audience that's already inordinately familiar with those examples (the IMC) in the context of a British academic association that is - well, I dunno if "reeling" is the right word, considering the decidedly tame response - from the whole AHRC/Big Society mess where it's been demonstrated that the Tory government is making state funds for humanities and history programs dependent on conducting "research" into what is effectively an empty Tory political slogan. (*takes a breath*) In the States, where not a whole lot of people are publishing [anything good] on late antiquity anyway, this whole political question of the barbarians and such is basically irrelevant. You look at the overwhelming majority of stuff published on the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century outside of secondary literature over the last twenty-odd years and it's come out of the UK. So he's an academic, focusing on modern academic discourse (which rather ought to be resolved to a degree if there's any hope of getting a decent interpretation out to the public), most of which happens to be coming out of British institutions.

He goes into somewhat more detail in another post on his blog that he made immediately before putting the paper up; since I decided that was Entirely Too Much Text for one sitting I didn't add it to the OP, but it's easily found via the link.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Fair point. I took it pretty much that way. I think from a British perspective, it resonates. But from an American perspective, not so much. I think it's more an effect of the perpetuated theory rather than a cause of it, though.

 

[aelf]

Really all I'm saying is I'm unconvinced. Now you've spent several posts explaining that my expression of not being convinced isn't convincing you not to be convinced (oh, and that it isn't something of interest). It's my attempt to address the thrust of his argument. He's got a few British anecdotes and that's it. I didn't find them particularly persuasive as far as American historical thought goes. I did give an example, which I felt was pretty illustrative of my doubt. It's almost certain the history channel's reasons for perpetuating this old theory has nothing to do with politics. It's also not very likely for the majority who hold this theory over here, simply because it's not an analogy people use very often. I hear people use Native Americans as an example more often (as ironic as that is).

Oh, so you actually meant to say that it would be overblown in the American context. I guess the one reference to the context was buried amidst all the uncontextualised statements in your posts, including the main assertion.

 

[innonimatu]

Just wondering: could the origin of the barbarian conquest idea be in the fact that the Roman Empire, eastern portion, was in fact conquered by barbarians (after many civil wars, granted)? When did the narrative of the "fall of the roman empire" came about?

 

[Ajidica]

What barbarians conquered the ERE? Arabs? Seljuks? Bulgars?

 

[Lone Wolf]

What barbarians conquered the ERE? Arabs? Seljuks? Bulgars?

Turks, I presume. These high-string Byzantines considered everyone barbarians, after all.

 

[LightSpectra]

So it's been a few months on this board and this subject has really died out a bit (for now). I haven't had a chance to buy or read Halsall's book yet, so I was wondering if somebody knowledgeable on the subject would care to simply explain (partially because I'm curious, and partially so it can be a post that we can reference back to when the subject of barbarians come up again on this forum). A lot of the posts in this thread and other related threads deal with refuting misunderstandings of the 'barbarians', so now I will ask for a short explanatory summary of the subject.

The older narratives, that seem to have been partially invented by Jordanes, says the Germanic barbarians were massive hordes of people from Scandinavia and northern Germany that migrated to the borders of the Roman Empire en masse, and eventually swarmed in and conquered the empire for various reasons (to resettle their populations, to escape the Huns, or simple conquest). This is clearly inaccurate.

So, what exactly were the Goths, Alemanni, Franks, Vandals, et al.; where did they come from? If these aren't designations that refer to their genetic origin "as a people", then what are they? How did they interact with the Roman Empire? Why ca(n't?) it be said that the Vandals "conquered" north Africa or the Franks "conquered" Gaul?

 

[Flying Pig]

I was getting all excited about another Dachs article and now, see, you've dashed my hopes. I've been vaguely thinking about getting another one in for a while now, but unfortunately it's rapidly getting to that time of year where I work a 24-hour day again... will have to see. However, I was thinking of moving to Classical history, which may cheer or appall some of you.

 

[Yui108]

Coming back to this after a while and having read halsall's book, one thing that kind of bothers me is the allusion to the shift in male identity. That from "civic leader" to "religious orthodoxy" inspired by the spread of Christianity. Perhaps I am misreading him and this has nothing to do with the eventual fall of the WRE, but if it does doesn't this at least partially vindicate Gibbons?