598 

this term), and on the other hand, there are subtle nuances in the
terminological differentiations between Stamm (tribe), Volk (people)
and Völkerschaften (an untranslatable expression). At least it it no longer
common practice to speak of “tribes” with regard to the early medieval
peoples because this would imply an “archaic” state, but also that
“tribes” are still considered as part of an entire “people”. Another
aspect of this problem is the relationship between “peoples” and
“nation”. Whereas previous research has presupposed that peoples
were the original communities and, consequently, that a “nation”
was the (inevitable) product of the existence of a people, one of the
results of a (predominantly German) project on the so-called “birth”
of the European nations has been the recognition that it may well
have been the other way round, that is, (new) peoples originating
from the existence of (political) nations.
The other question (“what is a kingdom?”) is not as unreasonable
as it may at first appear, and becomes more apparent if we con-
sider the “date” of the origin of a kingdom (since there was no
official proclamation, as there was, for example, in the establishment
of a modern German Empire in 1871): from what time on, then,
are we allowed to speak of a (“Germanic”) kingdom, or: when did
a community begin to be a kingdom? With regard to the Franks,
for example, this raises the question whether it was not until Clovis
that the first kingdom emerged, or whether there were Frankish king-
doms before his reign (since we know that Roman authors refer to
Frankish kings previous to Clovis)? It will probably be impossible to
find common definitions for “people” and “kingdom” that all schol-
ars agree upon. For simplicity’s sake we may just call the (somehow)
“ethnic” and political bodies of the early medieval communities “peo-
ples” and “kingdoms”, whilst constantly bearing in mind the ambi-
guity of these terms. This coincides with the equally ambivalent and
wide-ranging meanings of Latin terms (such as gens or natio, or even
regnum), and, of course, there is a vast gap or shift of meaning between
early medieval and modern terminology. In considering “peoples”
and “kingdoms” in the transformation of the Roman world, we have
to consider both: early medieval and contemporary terms (and the
way they relate to each other).
A second, closely related problem is the use and meaning of the
terms “ethnicity” and “ethnogenesis” which are seen nowadays to denote
a process, developing on a political and ideological level and sub-
  599

ject to constant changes.3 Reinhard Wenskus’s theories have mean-

while been met with almost general consent, though it has to be
acknowledged that they are still embedded in a certain German tra-
dition which exaggerates the “Germanic” character of those peo-
ples.4 However, it has been accepted meanwhile that (ethnic) origin
is just one element of ethnicity among others, such as language, cul-
ture, political cohesion, name, and identification, and that political
factors should not be underestimated. The terms for most gentes
(Franks, Goths, Vandals, Alamans, or Saxons) were “collective terms”
for a “multiethnic” conglomeration. Another concept that had once
been widely accepted, but is now being disputed again, is that a gens
was built around some “kernel” (which Wenskus called a “nucleus
of tradition”, Traditionskern), whereas it is very difficult indeed to dis-
cern what this “nucleus of tradition” actually was. It should by no
means be understood as a stable, unchanging myth, but has to be
determined by looking into each the respective situation. Our prob-
lem is that we do not know anything substantial about possible “pre-
ethnographic, non-Roman traditions” (W. Pohl).5 Maybe, though, as
Wolf Liebeschuetz warns, we have moved too far from the aspect
of ethnicity as common descent (or at least the common belief in
it), a factor that no doubt had been overemphasized for a long time,
particularly, but by no means exclusively, in Germany, and perhaps
there is a tendency nowadays to minimize the relevance of ethnic
continuity and of distinguishing between the various gentes. At least
we should not forget that the early medieval authors believed in the
common descent of their peoples. The problem, however, remains
in finding methods or indicators on which a concept of ethnicity
could be based. It is difficult, for example, to investigate the “psy-
chological” depth of “ethnicity”, the consciousness of (a certain) sol-
idarity which no doubt played an important part. Meanwhile, we
are also reluctant to assume that language was a reliable indicator;

3
Cf. the introduction, p. 8 above.
4
Wenskus’ theory of ethnogenesis is, in fact, a general one and not one specific
to “Germanic” ethnogenesis, as is illustrated by the contributions to non-Germanic
peoples in this volume.
5
For the problem, see Walter Pohl, “Ethnicity, theory and tradition: a response”
(forthcoming), who meanwhile rejects the theory of a “nucleus of tradition” com-
pletely. This position solves the inherent ideological problem, but it does not solve
the problem of how to explain the coherence of these new expanding peoples.
600 

when (new) “peoples” were formed from parts of other peoples, there
must have been, at least for a while, a transitional period during
which several languages were spoken. Finally, it seems almost impos-
sible (and is sometimes ruled out altogether) to determine ethnicity
from archaeological findings6 which mainly comprise grave goods
and reflect only a small fragment of a past reality. Archaeology can
only define “cultural groups”, and it has become questionable today
(though it is still disputed) whether cultural groups may (if only very
cautiously) be identified with peoples (an identification that, in the
tradition of Gustav Kosinna, had been presupposed by former research).
The distinguishing of gentes by archaeological means will only become
possible if we define ethnicity according to archaeological criteria
(though this would not facilitate a comparison of archaeological results
with those of linguistic and historical studies). Moreover, “culture”,
as recognizable in archaeological findings, was not a constant value,
but a dynamic process (M. Schmauder). Changes in the material
culture of the Avars, for example, cannot simply be explained by
the migration of new groups (F. Daim). On the whole, the difficulty
seems to lie in the fact that we are presupposing the existence of
gentes when at the same time we are investigating their formation
and their ethnogenetic background.
A third problem is the use and meaning of “Germanic” in this period.7
The more we have reflected upon this problem, the more our uncer-

6
Cf. G. Halsall, “Social identities and social relationships in early Merovingian
Gaul”, Franks and Alamanni in the Merovingian Period. An Ethnographic Perspective, ed. I.N.
Wood, Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology 3 (San Marino 1998) pp. 141–65;
S. Brather, “Ethnische Identitäten als Konstrukte der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie”,
Germania 78 (2000) pp. 139–77; S. Lucy, The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death (Stroud 2000).
Distribution maps of individual goods do not in themselves prove ethnic distinc-
tion, as is still often assumed and as M. Schmauder rightly observes.
7
There has been a long discussion in our group whether we should still con-
tinue to speak of “Germanic” peoples and kingdoms while being fully aware of the
problems this poses: first, the misuse of so-called Germanic values in former German
historiography, second, the result of modern research on ethnogenesis teaching us
that the so-called Germanic peoples (as others) were mixed populations, third, con-
sequently, the insight that nobody is able any more to define what “Germanic”
really means, and fourth, and most convincingly, that in this volume we are not
dealing exclusively with “Germanic” kingdoms. Naturally, these cannot be included
under this term. Personally, however, I (H.-W. Goetz) reject the alternative term,
“barbarian”, because it would just replace one ideology with another one. I also
am reluctant to follow the modern trend of abandoning words once they have
become problematic in one way or another. To replace them by other terms is no
solution. I would rather advocate that we become aware of the problems inherent
  601

tainty as to the actual meaning of the term “Germanic” has increased.

Walter Pohl, therefore, begins his latest survey on this subject with
the sentence: “A people that called itself Germanic possibly never
existed.”8 This term may be applied, of course, to the language, and
certainly the members of those peoples spoke their own vernacular
language which may have given them a certain sense of unity, but,
unfortunately, we have very little evidence of the language(s) used
in the kingdoms considered here. It is impossible to say, therefore,
which role the Germanic language played in the creation of the
regna. And whereas former research (again mainly in Germany) has
emphasized the “Germanic” character and mentality of the “bar-
barian” kingdoms and their constitution, recent studies have become
wary of such an assumption: most elements that have been classified
as being “Germanic” (for example the Eigenkirchenwesen, the Gefolg-
schaft and fidelity, or the “sib”, or “sept”) have turned out to be
widespread among the early medieval societies—regardless of diffe-
rent ethnic origin, and many developments that were typical of the
“Germanic” early Middle Ages had in fact already started in the
Late Antique Roman Empire. A comparison between “Germanic”
and other (“barbarian”) kingdoms, as, to a certain degree, has been
intended here (namely with regard to the Avars, Celts, and Islamic
Spain), seems to verify such an opinion. However, even in this respect
it is important to remain aware of certain differences: the Avar world,
as far as our questions are concerned, reveals significant similarities
to the “Germanic” kingdoms, though it had a completely different
political structure that followed central-Asian models (W. Pohl). In
the case of the sub-Roman Britons, however, there were even con-
siderable differences between the lowlands (with no kings at all, or
at least none which are recorded as surviving into the seventh cen-
tury) and the highlands, including Cornwall, Wales, the Pennines,
Rheged and Strathclyde with sizeable kingdoms that lasted into the
seventh century or even longer (A. Woolf ). Moreover, we acknowl-
edge anew the role and function of the Roman tradition—and of

in (all of ) these terms. Thus, in so far as these peoples might be considered as

being “Germanic” by their language and tradition, and also by a long historio-
graphical custom, I prefer to maintain the traditional terminology using quotation
marks to indicate the problems that are discussed in this passage.
8
W. Pohl, Die Germanen, Enzyklopädie deutscher Geschichte 57 (München 2000)
p. 1. For the ideological use and development of the term “Germanic”, cf. ibid.,
pp. 1–7 and 45–65.
602 

Christian ideology—in establishing and stabilizing the early medieval

kingdoms, an aspect to be reverted to in a later passage. Apart from
an older German “germanophile” tradition, there are also ideological
“barriers” elsewhere which have to be refuted as being unhistorical.
One example is the tendency of Spanish scholars to consider the Visi-
gothic kingdom as the beginning of a Spanish “nation” (I. Velázquez),
which has strong parallels to the older German conviction of having
developed from entirely “Germanic” origins.
A fourth (and probably not the last) problem lies in our sources.
We have to accept the fact that while comparing the different peo-
ples and kingdoms, first, we are relying on completely different evi-
dence for each, second, the sources do not lead us to a “past reality”,
but are reflections of the personal and subjective perception of their
authors, and third, until the end of the fifth century, our informa-
tion is based almost exclusively on Roman sources which provide us
with Roman perspectives, but lack any insight into how those peo-
ples may have perceived themselves. Sources deriving directly from
these peoples were written considerably later and do not provide
contemporary insights; they are retrospective accounts dating from
a period when the kingdoms were firmly established, such as Gregory
of Tours’ chronicles about the Franks, written about 590, or, as an
extreme case, Paul the Deacon’s reports about the Langobards, writ-
ten probably shortly before 796 (and even these early medieval writ-
ers continued to use the same terminology, although not necessarily
with exactly the same meaning). And, of course, in each case we
have to bear in mind the intent behind each script (causa scribendi )
and the “horizon of knowledge” of each chronicler or author. A
comparable problem is inherent in the archaeological evidence which
consists mainly of grave goods, whereas there is comparatively little
evidence which could throw a light on the settlements themselves.
Grave goods, however, are as much a reflection of the concept of
“the other world” as they are a mirror of earthly society. Moreover,
archaeological evidence, rather than giving an impression of stabil-
ity, is equally suggestive of dynamic changes (M. Schmauder).
Resulting from all these problems, the central question of this vol-
ume cannot be answered directly but has to be tackled from different
angles and by different approaches. From an academic perspective,
it can be seen from the historian’s, the archaeologist’s and the lin-
guist’s point of view. Most of the contributors to this volume are
historians, some are archaeologists (and some both), two are linguists,
  603

and it is a great help that at least some regna (Franks, Avars) have
been dealt with by both historians and archaeologists. The problem
of language and also place-names has been a central point in at least
two papers (I. Velázquez, A. Woolf ), but has been omitted or only
marginally touched on in the others. With regard to the subject-
matter, there are several “levels” which lend themselves to dealing
with the problem: first, the political level of the historic develop-
ment; second, the level of peoples and ethnogenesis; third, the level
of terminology and contemporary perceptions of the authors of our
sources; and fourth, the level of modern theory (of ethnogenesis).
Although these levels cannot be separated completely in the process
of research, it is advisable to remember which level we are talking
(or writing) about at any moment. Finally, a “conclusion” naturally
and necessarily tends to generalize. But we should not forget that
regnum had a history of its own, or, as Ian Wood writes, “each state
was created in different circumstances [. . .] and [. . .] ended in
different circumstances”.

2. The relationship between gentes and regna I:

Were there peoples before kingdoms?

Judging by the names of peoples used in the Roman sources, we

might get the impression that some of the “Germanic” peoples dealt
with here, such as the Vandals, the Langobards and the Goths, go
back a very long way (having already been mentioned by Tacitus
and his contemporaries). In these cases, however, we know that far-
ranging migrations took place between the first reference in the first
or second century and the establishment of kingdoms in the early
fifth (Goths and Vandals) or even sixth century (Langobards). It has
been believed—both in the Middle Ages and in modern times—that
(the) Goths had wandered possibly from Scandinavia to the Black
Sea and later on to southern Gaul and Spain (Visigoths) or to Italy
(Ostrogoths) respectively; (the) Vandals migrated from Silesia to Spain
and, after a brief period of 20 years, further to Africa, (the) Langobards
moved from the lower Elbe to the Danube and, soon afterwards, to
Italy, and there were no doubt migrations from the Continent to
England. In all these cases, we may assume that it was not whole
communities, but only parts of these that migrated, and that the
migrations were not one great systematic movement but consisted of
604 

many small wanderings, and, in some cases, there is even reason to

doubt the historicity of these migrations at all. We can, however, be
relatively certain that these later “peoples”, who had retained their
original name, meanwhile had changed their (ethnic) character and
structure completely during the Migration period. The Ostrogoths
who conquered Italy, for example, had been a comparatively recent
formation that was not united until the reign of Valamer (P. Heather).
The Burgundians of the fourth century lived in very different cir-
cumstances from the surviving Burgundians of the fifth century set-
tled around Sapaudia (I. Wood) whilst the Angles, Saxons and Jutes
in Britain who were still bearing these names turned out to be newly
defined peoples (B. Yorke). The same name does not necessarily mean
a continuity of the same people, but there must have been at least
some bond (or collective memory) that still allowed them to use the
same denomination. The prehistory of these peoples, therefore, may
be obscure, but it is not insignificant.9 The fact that a new name
does not necessarily imply the emergence of completely new peoples
has to be taken into consideration; it can equally lead to the con-
clusion that decisive changes took place. Most of these peoples seem
to have been a conglomeration of smaller peoples or tribes, such as
the Alamans, the Franks, or the Saxons, expressions that emerge in
the course of the third century. The changing of names should be
regarded as an important issue even though we do not know if these
terms were innovative expressions or if, previous to this period, they
had signified just one (name-giving) part of the later people.10 Such
a conclusion might be true for the Bavarians who were to form a
(new) people in parts of the formerly Roman provinces of Raetia
and Noricum at a time that cannot be fixed precisely, but was clearly
not before the second half of the sixth century (M. Hardt). (The
endless discussion about the origin of the Bavarians becomes less
significant once we acknowledge that they, too, consisted of various
communities.) It remains difficult to recognize what it was that held
these peoples together or to what extent they regarded themselves

9
This argument is emphasized by Wolf Liebeschuetz.
10
For a theory of these collective terms cf. Karl Strobel, Die Galater. Geschichte
und Eigenart der keltischen Staatsbildung auf dem Balkan des hellenistischen Kleinasien 1 (Berlin
1996) pp. 131 ff., who compares the ancient peoples with the Germanic peoples.
Strobel believes that these peoples’ names were their own before they were adopted
by others.
  605

as (ethnic) units and developed an ethnic identity. Although we may

assume that they shared some kind of solidarity and cohesion,11 it
remains uncertain on what elements these were based or if such ele-
ments were of greater import than the interests of the individual
(W. Liebeschuetz). In most cases, we lack clear indications either
of a common religious cult or of a common political leadership.
Nevertheless it has to be borne in mind that the Roman (and later
on also other) sources perceived all these communities as being peo-
ples ( gentes) that could be comprehended under one collective name,
without making great differences as to their age and origin. From
the Roman perspective, there were no great differences between
“Germanic” and other non-Roman peoples who were all considered
to be “barbarian”. If differences were made at all they were not
considered of great relevance (and the term Germani was in fact used
extremely rarely by the authors).12 Equally, in the (later) early medieval
tradition, there were also gentes before there were kings, as in the
case of the Franks or the Langobards who instituted a king ( J. Jarnut).
Similarly, at a later period, Spanish Christian chronicles, such as the
“Chronicle of 754”, perceived the Arabs who had conquered Spain
as a gens which was usually distinguished from the “Moors” in North
Africa. They not only described the new realm with the same words,
regnum and gens, and with expressions typical of Christian kingdoms
(as if regarding the influx merely as another migration), they even
failed to comment on any signs of distinctions between the inhabi-
tants and the newcomers; in fact, they did not even mention the
difference in religion in connection with the conquest of Spain,
although they knew, for example, that the Saracens who had defeated
the Emperor Heracleus had a new religion (A. Christys). Moreover,
it seems that the groups which were serving in the Roman army

11
This is emphasized by Wolf Liebeschuetz.
12
Wolf Liebeschuetz commented on this passage that there was little doubt that
all the “Germanic” tribes had common characteristics, besides their language, but
that there seemed to be little evidence that they themselves were conscious of this,
although it must have made communication between different “Germanic” peoples
much easier. This view, however, is not shared by everybody, and certainly many
features that were characterized as specifically “Germanic” by former research have
to be regarded either as “barbarian” or even as “late antique”, although, as
Liebeschuetz argues, Romans that had lived among or campaigned against these
peoples noticed that they were different, for example, from the Gauls, but that they
shared certain cultural characteristics among themselves.
606 

experienced a stronger solidarity with the Romans than with their

own peoples, even to the extent of facing them in battle (which fre-
quently occurred).
Evidently then “peoples” existed on Roman soil before the estab-
lishment of large kingdoms that were named after them, however
tenuous and prone to change these communities may have been,13
and it also seems obvious, at least in many cases, that they were not
united by a common leadership before that time. On the contrary,
the reports on these peoples suggest that they did not act as a sin-
gle unit, but that the political and military actions that have been
alluded to in various sources were carried out by smaller groups (for
example, by Franks but not by “the” Franks). Nevertheless there
were kings even in the earlier history of these peoples, and in most
cases we have a far clearer concept of these kings than we have of
the peoples themselves: The Langobards, contrary to the statements
of a later tradition, were probably ruled by kings from the begin-
ning of their historical existence and possibly united even in these
early times ( J. Jarnut). This may have been an exception to the rule,
but going by the Roman sources at least there were other peoples
who had their own “kings”: before Clovis, the Franks were ruled by
several kings who governed smaller territories (H.-W. Goetz), other
marauding groups, such as the Visigoths and also the Vandals, were
more or less united under military kings (Heerkönige), and also the
Avars were associated from their historical beginnings with a kha-
ganate (W. Pohl). There were even indications, though not in all
peoples, of a dynastic hereditary kingship (such as, above all, the
Merovingians of Tournai, the Vandals under Geiseric’s clan, but also
the so-called Ostrogothic “Amals”, the Visigothic “Balths”, or the
Burgundian “Gibichungs”). Such dynasties could, however, take on
different forms: e.g. as the solidarity of sons (or relatives) but often
enough the succession was contested by the sons or brothers of the
last king.14 Some of these kings had a double function, serving as
magistri militum in the Roman army besides being leaders of their

13
This is not a contradiction to the fact that barbarian troops could be a great
threat to the Roman Empire, but Alamans who threatened Rome, or Goths who
marauded through the Empire, simply were not “the” Alamans or Goths but sin-
gle groups under individual leaders.
14
Wolf Liebeschuetz argues that the fact that a people lacked a dynasty was a
stronger indication of tribal cohesion than their having one because in this case
they depended on their own sense of oneness to unite under a single new ruler,
  607

peoples (or part of their peoples). In some cases, as with Theoderic,

the Roman military function seems to have been closely linked with
the establishment of a “Germanic” kingdom (even if, as Wolf Liebe-
schuetz argues with regard to Theoderic, he was given a function
by the Emperor only in order to be rid of him). Moreover, there was
a certain degree of Romanization in these leaders as well as their
soldiers and perhaps also in the population of these “barbarian” peo-
ples (for example, the Franks in Gaul, the Ostrogoths in Italy, the
Vandals, Alans and Sueves in Spain, the Visigoths in Spain, or the
Burgundians); a Romanization that derived from military service in
the Roman army, proximity to the Roman Empire, settlement on
Roman soil, and cultural influence. Thus, many of the immigrants
were not strangers, but already Romanized when migrating into the
Empire, a process that was continued in the “barbarian” kingdoms.
(It is striking that, later on, we have a similar situation when it was
no longer the Romans, but the Franks who were the “model” for
new peoples: In Bavaria, for example, the role played by the duke
with regard to the Frankish king is comparable with the role of the
magistri militum towards the Roman Emperor.) The new barbarian
peoples that had now become “civilized” and orthodox might even
have considered themselves as the representatives of an ancient Roman
Romanitas, like the Visigoths in Spain according to Isidore’s Historia
Gothorum (I. Velázquez).
Thus we know that there were peoples before the establishment
of greater realms and that in many cases they were already led by
kings; nevertheless, there are difficulties in “defining” them distinctly.
Little can be discerned about the early peoples by way of archaeo-
logical evidence (from grave goods, costumes or weapons), and the
same applies to their customs and habits which do not reveal clear
ethnic distinctions, resulting in a degree of uncertainty regarding their
ethnogenesis. The Franks, for example, are not discernible as an
archaeological (or cultural) unit, that is, they are not distinguishable
as Franks, but at least there seems to be sufficient evidence of an
(increasing) non-Roman settlement in northern Gaul (which probably
was mainly Frankish). And yet even in this respect it is not easy to
discern “non-Roman” settlement archaeologically since most objects

whereas the dynasties of the Goths were in fact short-lived, but given invented ret-
rospective pedigrees.