Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

440 16. state, lordship and community in the west
successor states were actually created by a mixture of military and diplomatic
aggression on the part of armed groups of outsiders, labelled
Goths, Franks, Burgundians, etc., in our sources. On the other hand, they
all also contained large numbers of indigenous Romans, in many cases
even members of the former Roman landowning élite, who – close to the
Mediterranean, at least – survived imperial collapse in significant numbers.
In traditional historiography, the outsiders were categorized as ‘barbarians’
(using the Romans’ own terms of reference: see below) and seen as
ethnically distinct groups (both from each other, and from Romans) whose
mind-sets were totally inimical to the Roman way of life. More recently, it
has been stressed that most of them had long been in contact with Roman
civilization, even if originating in areas beyond the frontier, and that many
had graduated to independent statehood of their own via a period in the
military service of the empire. The unchanging nature of their identities –
previously largely assumed – has also been questioned. 10 There is much to
be said for these revisionist points, and their overall implication. The
process of state formation involved transformations as much for the
incomers as for the inhabitants of the former Roman empire.
There is a danger, however, of losing sight of the revolution that the
appearance of these successor states represents. They were born in violence,
and while some Romans were ready to accommodate themselves to
the new powers in the land, many others resisted with determination. 11 I
would also argue that the group or ethnic identities of some of the intruders,
even if subject to on-going transformation, were substantial historical
phenomena whose nature shaped that of the states they formed. The
kingdom-forming Visigoths and Ostrogoths, for instance, were new political
units created in the process of migration, but seem to have consisted
largely of groups who were already identified by others and by themselves
as ‘Goths’. They were dominated, indeed, by a numerous – if still minority
– élite caste of freemen, who gave them coherence and became – in the
first instance, at least – the major military and political force of the new
kingdoms. Some of the law codes promulgated in the new kingdoms likewise
assign much higher status, measured in terms of wergild, to full (i.e.
‘free’) members of the intruding force than to surviving Romans. 12 Thus,
in many cases old mind-sets had to be changed and new patterns of allegiance
and political action built up, particularly among élites, if the new
kingdoms were to flourish. The task was made more difficult by a series of
10 The revisionist impulse started in many ways with Wenskus (1961) and continued on the continent
in the work of Herwig Wolfram and the Vienna school around him. A more radical approach from
a different direction can be found in e.g. Goffart (1981), (1989) and Barbarians and Romans esp. ch. 1 and
conclusion. 11 Heather (1995a).
12 Goths: Heather (1996) esp. ch. 10; cf. Heather (1995b). Lex Salica and Ine’s Law both assign surviving
natives wergilds one-half of those of the now dominant intruders.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008