How is it that foreign tribes managed to subjugate nearly all the native population in Western Europe in what used to be the Roman Empire ?
How could the Franks, Visigoths, langobards etc. even happen ?
Why didn't local nobility take control over these regions ?
I'll self bumb until i get a satisfying answer.
I wanna know
>>1302788
There was a bit of warfare and subjugation but if you want a good look at how the tribes took over those areas look to the Migrant Crisis in Europe. It wasn't a matter of conquest, it was a matter of "this looks good let's settle here"
>>1302793
But, surely the natives and the local elites didn't all volunteered to submit to a foreign overlord.
I heard the masses of invaders were still relatively small compared to the native population ?
So how did the barbarians (i don't mean this in a diminishing way) have the means to submit the locals, and why did the locals accept it ?
The invaders didn't have superior numbers nor technological advantages nor did they know the territory.
It seems like all odds where against them, still almost all of Western Europe ended having new foreign overlords by the 7th century
>>1302810
We weren't nearly as connected back then as we are now. And for the most part they didn't submit, the cultures just blended together over time. Plus the nobility in he wake of the collapse is a bad joke, if anything they were just trying to carve out their own realm
>>1302821
>And for the most part they didn't submit, the cultures just blended together over time
Sure. But why did the foreigners took the role of kings and the locals became the serfs ?
Didn't the locals want to rule ? Were they not compotent enough to seize or mantain power ?
There clearly were attempts by locals to establish their own realms like the Kingdom of Soisson. but in the end they all lost against the invaders. not just in Gaul but also in Iberia, italy, and England. Basicially everywhere where the Western Roman empire was.
Only exception might be Bretagne.
So why did germanic or later slavic tribes fill the power vacuum and not some Roman administration ?
It's a mystery to me.
pls help
1. They moved quickly
2. They filled the void left by an inert central power
3. They were experienced warriors while roman provinces usually had garrisons defending them, and thus didn't fight themselves or weren't able to
>>1302782
These "foreign tribes" were the Roman empire's military. All that changed is they stopped answering to Rome
>>1302832
The nobles did try to fight sometimes, but all form of government and structure collapsed because there was no Roman legions to help enforce rule of law. The franks were a society geared for war so they gradually over time defeated the armies of people who didn't want to submit, marry their children to the children of the ruling elite forming a new aristocracy. And of course other areas just submitted and more of the same happened with Franks marrying previous ruling elite.
This all got enhanced with the churches endorsement of the Franks because they were the only people with an army nearby and they also had some christian converts in their ranks.
Pippen the short and Charlemagne all were endorsed by the Roman catholic church and converted by the sword further tribes like the saxons.
Listened to thor's angels by Dan Carlin?
>>1302782
What?
Franks, Goths and Langobards were European.
>>1302875
These explanations sound reasonable.
I know that a lack of sources from the dark ages make it difficult, but do you know where i can learn more about this time period ? Maybe some documentary, or some article.
>>1302883
Yeah, But they were foreigners to the native on whose land they settled
>>1302885
http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-41-thors-angels/
Buy that. 3 1/2 hours of content and will clarify a lot of things for you. He also links sources on that page and throughout the show
>>1302887
The Franks for one didn't settle in such a way, they are a tribal confederation of tribes living in the area such as the Batavi and Cheruskii and what not. Those tribes moved in during the German migration a couple of hundred years BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples#Origins
>>1302891
Thx. this is what i was searching for
>>1302894
They had lost the ability to fight basically, they all relied on the legions for their security seeming to lack the foresight of what would happen if they went away. The allegiance to ones native tribe was still greater than allegiance to something that wasn't there anymore.
This was their attempt at trying to recreate what Rome was.
>>1302901
It really is a fascinating period though, he has a line in there "if two barbarian tribes fight in the woods and no one records it, did it happen at all" that's a lot of what happened in this time militarily unfortunately.
>>1302909
I wish this time period was better documented and thematised.
I'm sure you could do a pretty good authentic TV-series about characters living during the fall of the Roman empire or during the migration period
>>1302782
centuries and millenia of tribal and clan warfare honed their skills, and they were more nomadic so they moved quickly.
>>1302782
germans are very calculative people
>>1302782
The Invaders wre organizedin military manner with strong family/tribal ties. Difference between elite and tribe memebers weren't big. Simply they have military might and weren't afraid to use it. Also combat were not only way to prove value but also easy way to advance.
The Locals on the other hand were divided society with loose ties. Lower classes have little chance to better themselves and didn't care much, rich didn't want to risk their whealth and position to fight. Not mention than martial spirit of tradition was offsorced for decades to proffesional soldiers, mercenaries, barbarians and auxiliaries.
Band of armed thugs versus unarmed citizens when army and police leaved.
It was simply no risk no gain versus keep it safe.
It was much safer to accept invaders as new overlords than fight them.
They also do't blend but lie separated even having differnt laws for locals and specific laws for tribesmen.
>>1302782
>Why didn't local nobility take control over these regions ?
They did, frequently. That's one of the reasons the Völkerwanderung is overblown: ethnicity and identity are complicated and multilayered, and are exercised and practiced differently under different circumstances.
In 4chan terms, that means as soon as the local nobles realize they can be a king they say "MUH HERITAGE. I'm 1/64th Frank, check out my authentic barbarian cosplay."
>>1302894
People from Italy for instance hadn't been employed in the Roman army for like 400 years by that point mate. The army in 476 was 98% composed of foederati from beyond the frontier to replace the constant losses suffered since the war against Constantine III in 410.
>>1302782
>Why didn't local nobility take control over these regions ?
They did, but Rome's civil wars had drained the manpower of the West so the successor states had nothing to work with. Even so, figures like Aetius and Arthur rallied native forces to stop the invasions for a while, unfortunately the pressure from the steppes just kept building and eventually the good leaders died / were murdered.
Anyone else get sad when they think about how Justinian killed the vandals and Ostrogoth and gave the arabs the ability to take over all of spain? I mean, look at the Franks and Saxons, their kingdoms would conquer the world. Meanwhile Tunisia just became another colony and Spain fell into a civil war and now even the Catalonians want out.
For the same reason immigrant families control the criminal underground of most European cities.
The local people didn't have the stomach to fight, if you read about what Roman nobles were doing in the 5th century, they were just attending parties, races and shit, they were a soft, weak people, ripe for conquest.
Left-wing historians do not like this kind of explanation because it takes from the materialist explanation of history and gives strenght to moral arguments, but really there is no other way to explain it. The prosperity and safety of the Roman Empire bred a weak people, and the German tribes took it's opportunity just like the current prosperity and safety of Europe have bred a weak people, and now the Albanians and Pakistanis street gangs rule their cities and pimp their daughters.
>>1303689
It's not Justinian's fault, he didn't pick a fight with the Persians and it's THAT war that left both Empires feeble at the time of Mohammed (piss be upon him)
>>1303689
Byzantine territories on the Iberian penisula were conquered back by Goths decades before the arrival of Arabs.
>>1303719
Well he still ended the vandals and the Ostrogoths (partially) so it's at least partially him.
>>1303720
I know. I'm saying I think a United dpain under Visigoths would've been better than Reconquista Spain with carlists and nazis. And inquisitions.
>>1303761
The Vandals wee a nation of pirates, literally nothing of value was lost. Ostrogoths were better, but still barbarians AND heretics, and the Langobards who replaced them were much of the same only Catholic, so again nothing of value lot.
>>1303773
But that has nothing to do with Justinian.
>>1303822
Yes it does. Justinian expanded the empire too far and killed of the Vandals, who could've weakened the arabs enough for the Visigoths to win. Maybe even beaten them if they had help from the ostrogoths. Also Justinian did weaken the Visigoths, so its partially his fault.
>>1303786
Ostrogoths had actual power and didn't leave Italy broken and under the french. They were heretics but they could've converted.
>>1302782
>Why didn't local nobility take control over these regions?
They did de facto. Barbarians were not educated to administer the land so that duty remained in the hands of the roman local elites. Most of them probably didn't lose their massive agrarian properties, so they continued to be rich. The barbarians just substituted the roman army, and they were better to protect them (since they were closer) and easier to manipulate.
>>1303719
>he didn't pick a fight with the Persians
Maurice and specially Phocas did though. The ERE had it coming and not even someone extraordinary like Heraclius was able to prevent it at the end of the day.
>>1303786
>heretics
>they are automatically bad because they're faith slightly differs from my own
>>1304055
They didn't even believe Christ to be God, one can understand how chalcedonian christians were so buttdevastated.
>>1304078
Arians did believe Christ was God, even though he was lesser than God the father. besides this is irrelevant. it's retarded to use religious beliefs as a metric for judging how "good" or "bad" people in history were especially when it differs only slightly in doctrine and not at all in practice from the religious group from the time period that you do agree with
>>1304008
Arabs had to fight agaisnt Berbers for decades, that did not weaken them enough, supposing that adding Vandals to the mix would be enough to stop the Arabs is... too much assumptions.
And Byzantine intervention came during a Civil War in Hispania.
Too much assumptions.
None of those states lasted for long, except for one: France.
That's because the Franks didn't "subjugate" the Gallo-Romans, but instead adopted Gallo-Roman religion and culture, shared power with the Gallo-Roman nobility, and intermarried with them to become a single people. That's why the Franks then easily conquered the Alamans, Burgundy, and Visigothic Aquitaine, while Visigothic Spain fell to the Muslims and Ostrogothic Italy to the Byzantines.
>>1302782
Franks (and several other tribes) had lived in the region they'd come to control with Roman permission for generations
>>1304108
Actually Visigothic Hispania merged "Roman" and "Gothic" identities.
>>1304121
That took a while. Originally they lived separate from the local population. It's only in 589 that they converted to Catholicism.
>>1304108
Ostrogoths respected the italo-romans and Belisarius suffered in his own blood how the supposed liberated peoples often sided with the supposed conquerors. Read the primary sources.
Yeah, the official conversion had to wait till Reccared, but that does not mean that the segregation was as complete has some people wanted to believe.
>>1304151
And they still remained separate. It's not just about respect, it's about become one and the same people.
Post underrated barbarian groups
>Suebic kingdom in Portugal
>kingdom of the western Alani under the Vandals
>Rugians in Raetia and Noricum
>independent Jutes of the isle of Wight (Vectis)
>>1302782
So would you say that it was a much more peaceful transition than I envision? Did Rome fall quickly or did it take awhile?
>>1305053
It took ages.
It basically started during the crisis of the 3rd century (235 - 284) when Rome fell into 50 years of civil war, Germanics used the opportunity to invade, and two pieces of the empire split off including the Empire of the Gauls.
After that the empire was reunited and Diocletian's reforms happened, splitting its administration into four parts, but throughout the 4th century everything kept going downhill especially in the West. Cities were being depopulated, infrastructure abandoned, know-how forgotten. The Romans started needing help from barbarians for defence, and allowed the Franks and then others to settle inside the empire.
In the 5th century the West had split off from the East entirely; parts of the empire had been abandoned, and barbarian immigration had seamlessly turned into invasion, with Romans having to ally with some Germanics against others, but granting them effective authority over their lands in exchange. For about 50 years a certain stability was actually restored, and the Roman general Aetius (sometimes called the last Roman, himself a romanised Germanic) brought many victories, although he too had to deal with the reality that there were now full blown Germanic kingdoms of Visigoths, Vandals, Franks etc inside the empire. But then Rome was sacked by the Vandals, and for a few decades the Roman emperors were puppets of the romanised Germanic general Ricimer until his death, when the Germanic soldier Odoacer make himself king of Italy (still officially considering himself a client of Rome), before he himself was defeated by the Ostrogoths. By then the only remaining part of Western Rome was the domain of the Gallo-Roman general Aegidius in Northern Gaul, which fell to the Frank Clovis in 486.
Basically throughout two and a half centuries civilisation slowly decayed and you just progressively went from being ruled by Romans to romanised Germanics to romanophile Germanics to just straight up barbarians.
>>1305214
Good post!
>>1305053
Were you not aware that most of these peoples entered the empire invited by romans?
>>1302894
It's not about motivation. It's about sending unequipped noobs against well equipped veterans. What do you think it's gonna happen?
>inb4 train and equip them
And why would the barbs give you the time to do that? Who's gonna tend the fields while they train and make equipment?
It's really fucking harsh to overthrow a military coup you know.
