Germanic Urbanisation & Infrastructure Post Augustus

[Tim Hare]

Hi All,

I was recently reading a military Osprey book specifically on the Germanic Warrior from the 3rd to 6th centuries, roughly corresponding with the ‘Migration’ period of ancient history. If my understanding is correct (which it may not be) one thing the book highlighted specifically was the effect such close proximity to the Roman Empire over a protracted period of time had on the various Germanic tribes inhabiting Germania and all the lands east to the Crimea and Black Sea. Essentially where the ‘Barbarian’ tribes had been divided into hundreds of small bickering tribes during the days of Caesar, the founding of the Roman frontiers along the Rhine and the Danube gave these tribes the incentive to unify into tribal confederations and the first ‘proto-kingdoms’ that would later come to dominate medieval Europe. Germanic warfare also changed from small bands of a Chieftain’s retainers carrying out raids and counter raids on neighbouring tribal villages to intimidate villagers and extract tribute into large warband’s for long distance foreign wars fought far from home. Equipment amongst Germanic warriors also seems to have improved between the reign of Augustus and the beginning of the migration period almost 400 years later, as where as swords and mail shirts seemed to have only been carried exclusively by Germanic kings and nobles during Augustus’s day, around the time of the 2nd and 3rd century Germanic kingdoms seemed able to furnish entire warbands with armour, swords and helmets easily the equal of Roman arms factories. The Germanic kingdoms may never had had the population to support the number of professional soldiers the Roman Empire could field via its huge taxable population, but they did seem able to furnish those professional warriors it could raise with armour and equipment the equal of any legionary.

My question therefore is do we know anything about the Germanic economy, infrastructure and degree of urbanisation that may have existed beyond the Roman Empire’s frontiers after Augustus’s reign. I’m aware from conversations I’ve had here that at the very beginning of the 1st century Germania was largely described by Roman authors almost as backwater, with most of the population being confined to small poorly connected villages. Unlike Pre-Roman Gaul there appears to have been little in the way of roads, bridges, de-forested and cultivated farmlands and Celtic towns or fortified Oppida, and for reasons I’ve never been quite sure of the Celtic Oppida’s in area’s Rome never conquered were apparently abandoned around the 1st Century AD. In the roughly 400 years that followed the end of Augustus reign and the beginning of the Migration Period around the end of the 4th century, do we know if Greater Germania and the Scythian lands later occupied by the Goths remained as a collection of poorly interconnected semi backwater villages, or is there any indication that newer urban developments and infrastructure such as roads, towns and large scale land clearance began to take shape beyond the Roman frontier?

The most I’ve been able to find on this topic is that that Germanic and Gothic kings and chieftains had a tendency to build themselves Roman styled villa’s in their own lands, likely with the assistance of Roman engineers and architects. I’ve also heard that Roman jewellery, glassware and other various ceramics and pottery was also popular amongst the Germanic elite, which indicates Roman traders  and merchants likely played a very active role in the German economy. What I’m curious about is whether there is any evidence of the establishment of urbanised Romanesque like towns popping up in the lands of the Germans and the Goths to provide the ‘Romanised Barbarian elite’ with all the manufactured or trade-able goods their Roman counterparts enjoyed inside the Empire.

To me this has always seemed like the logical course of development the increased stability and trade permeant contact with a wealthy continental empire would have provided these coalescing tribal confederations with, however I’m unsure if any of the early proto Germanic kingdoms ever reached this stage of urban development. We know that during the Marcomannic Wars and later Crisis of the 3rd century Gothic and Germanic armies numbering in the tens of thousands of warriors succeeded in both penetrating the Roman frontier and successfully besieging fortified Roman cities, which suggests at least a moderate level of logistical and economic infrastructure must have existed within Germanic territory to at least bring together and provision such a large number of fighting men in the first place.

That would be my assumption at least. Is anyone else able to comment?

[Nathan Ross]

the founding of the Roman frontiers along the Rhine and the Danube gave these tribes the incentive to unify into tribal confederations and the first ‘proto-kingdoms’ that would later come to dominate medieval Europe.

The incentive may have come from the Romans themselves - by paying subsidies to certain tribal leaders they established them as kings (reges, or iudices) who in turn kept wider tracts of lands on the far side of the frontier in relative peace, and in thrall to the Romans.

This didn't always work - those same kings could mobilise more effective forces against Rome too - but it seems the pay-off was worthwhile. These 'allied' kings also provided a ready market for Roman trade goods, of course, and good suppliers of slaves and raw materials. A similar sort of thing happened in West Africa during the period of the European slave trade in the 17th-19th centuries.

Germanic kingdoms seemed able to furnish entire warbands with armour, swords and helmets easily the equal of Roman arms factories.

Not sure about that - it's very hard to distinguish 'Roman' from 'barbarian' arms and equipment, but generally the Germanic peoples seem to have remained fairly poorly equipped. The only evidence we have for the composition and armament of war bands comes from the deposits at Illerup and Nydam, which are a long way from the Roman frontier: plenty of swords (either Roman or copies of Roman originals) and spears, buckles and metalwork, but little to no body armour and no helmets. The only mail shirt is probably ex-Roman and dates (IIRC) to the later 2nd century.

It's possible that tribal groups closer to the frontier were better equipped, but the easy availability of Roman arms may have counted against the development of native manufactures. The so-called 'francisca' axe, for example, supposedly common to the Franks, was apparently developed and produced in Roman territory. The barbarians certainly had nothing like the Roman fabricae systems, with its massives reserves of fuel and metal and manpower.

For all you might want to know about Nydam/Illerup, and Roman trade routes to the north, this book is fantastic if you can find a copy: The Spoils of Victory.

is there any indication that newer urban developments and infrastructure such as roads, towns and large scale land clearance began to take shape beyond the Roman frontier? ... Germanic and Gothic kings and chieftains had a tendency to build themselves Roman styled villa’s in their own lands, likely with the assistance of Roman engineers and architects.

Not really, no. It's possible there was some sort of construction in timber that's left no trace, but otherwise the only 'towns' we know about in barbarian territory are places like Feddersen Wierde, again far from the frontier and very unlike Roman settlements.

Ammianus Marcellinus mentions the Alamanni living in 'Roman style' villas, but this is in the old ex-Roman territory of the Agri Decumates, just east of the Rhine, and it's possible that he was just seeing actual Roman villas that had been repaired and reinhabited.

There are suggestions that some Germanic hillforts were constructed or repaired by Roman engineers, or prisoners of war - the Glauberg east of Mainz is one possibility, and maybe Zähringer Burg a little further south. However, this may be an outdated notion; the native Alamanni may have been perfectly capable of building big walls themselves!

The best book on the frontier peoples of the middle Rhine is Drinkwater's The Alamanni and Rome; again, worth tracking down a copy!

Regarding the 'Romanized Barbarian elite' - it seems most likely that their material culture was still largely Roman, whether from trade or plunder, and they lived in a sort of parasitical relationship with the empire. That's exactly how the Romans wanted it, of course!

[Tim Hare]

The incentive may have come from the Romans themselves - by paying subsidies to certain tribal leaders they established them as kings (reges, or iudices) who in turn kept wider tracts of lands on the far side of the frontier in relative peace, and in thrall to the Romans.

This didn't always work - those same kings could mobilise more effective forces against Rome too - but it seems the pay-off was worthwhile. These 'allied' kings also provided a ready market for Roman trade goods, of course, and good suppliers of slaves and raw materials. A similar sort of thing happened in West Africa during the period of the European slave trade in the 17th-19th centuries.

Thanks for the very informative feedback, I appreciate it.

I know the Romans made use of ‘divide-and-rule’ when conquering tribal people since Caesar’s Gallic wars and before by favouring one tribe over its neighbours with generous subsidies, gifts and trade agreements. Then of course just as quickly switch the friendship ‘tap’ to another tribe when it suited them.

I ways always assumed over time this turned into a bit of a monster they couldn’t control, as subsidies that were being paid to one tribe to keep those around it in line became subsidies to prevent that new coalition of tribes from crossing the border and invading, with the amount of money the Roman paid them year after year always increasing. (Ironically tilting the balance of strength more and more in the ‘Barbarians’ favour until both sides inevitably came to blows)

I’m curious, do you think this remained a viable policy for the Romans right up until the collapse of the west, or do you think at some point it turned from mostly being a beneficial relationship for Rome to being a mostly disastrous relationship for Rome?

It’s also interesting that you mention the economic side of this relationship on Rome, when I’d only really considered the security side. Is there any compelling evidence that the Roman Empire’s internal economy was dependant on stability within the Germanic Kingdoms?

I’d always assumed in comparison to modern economies the economy of the Roman Empire was relatively self sustaining in terms of essential resources (food/building materials/oil/metals etc), and that they only imported ‘luxury’ non-essential products from abroad. (i.e. stuff they could do without in an emergency or time of peril)

Not sure about that - it's very hard to distinguish 'Roman' from 'barbarian' arms and equipment, but generally the Germanic peoples seem to have remained fairly poorly equipped. The only evidence we have for the composition and armament of war bands comes from the deposits at Illerup and Nydam, which are a long way from the Roman frontier: plenty of swords (either Roman or copies of Roman originals) and spears, buckles and metalwork, but little to no body armour and no helmets. The only mail shirt is probably ex-Roman and dates (IIRC) to the later 2nd century.

It's possible that tribal groups closer to the frontier were better equipped, but the easy availability of Roman arms may have counted against the development of native manufactures. The so-called 'francisca' axe, for example, supposedly common to the Franks, was apparently developed and produced in Roman territory. The barbarians certainly had nothing like the Roman fabricae systems, with its massives reserves of fuel and metal and manpower.

For all you might want to know about Nydam/Illerup, and Roman trade routes to the north, this book is fantastic if you can find a copy: The Spoils of Victory.

Thank-you, I’ll be sure to look up that book up.

The specific book that referenced armour being in wide spread use by Germanic Kingdoms was ‘Germanic Warrior AD - 236 - 568’, written by Simon MacDowall. What he states specifically is that while armour fragments are rarely recovered from the graves of Germanic warriors, that doesn’t mean what is recovered is the sum total of what the warrior possessed in life. If they did possess mail armour this likely would have been there single most expensive possession, and on death would have either been passed onto another family member or returned to the tribal chieftain or king who had originally gifted the armour to the warrior in return for his service.

Admittedly I’ve not heard this theory on Germanic burial practices repeated anywhere else so its probably worth me consulting the sources MacDowall quotes in the book. He also expands on this by stating that particularly in the accounts of Ammianus Marcellinus there are often widespread references to armour being used in equal numbers on both sides during Rome’s various battles with the Germans and Goths during the 4th century. I’m aware that most people will point to the Battle of Adrianople and say that most of the Goths armour and weapons were looted from the Romans from past defeats. To be fair MacDowall does state that a warrior’s armour may have come from a Roman state fabricae, or alternatively it may have been taken from fallen enemies on the battlefield or ‘built to order’ from a Germanic Smith on request from a King or warlord for his troops.

Regarding your comments that “Germanic peoples seem to have remained fairly poorly equipped“, there does seem to be a definitive improvement in the German’s ability to ‘take a punch’ after the mid second century. If you look at all the wars waged between Rome and the various Celtic or Germanic states from Caesar and Trajan in Gaul, Germania, Britain and Dacia every pitched battle ends in a decisive and overwhelming Roman victory, presumably because the Roman’s has access to superior quantities of armour and swords. Then look at the Marcomannic Wars, the Gothic and Germanic invasions of Thrace and Gaul in the 3rd century and the later battles of the 4th century and suddenly the Germans seem to win almost as many pitched battles against the Roman’s as they lose. There seems to be a draught of information as to why the the Roman Empire seems to have a much harder time suppressing Barbarian’s during and after the 3rd century, and most historians point to the Late Roman Army being much less capable then its predecessor. However I understand these initial views of the Late Roman Army’s competence as a military dominated by poorly disinclined foreign soldiers is a view that’s been heavily criticised and revised more recently. The other view I’ve heard that explains this paragon shift in Rome’s fortunes is that the common warriors that comprised the Germanic warbands of the mid-late 2nd century onwards were simply better equipped, organised and chiefly comprised of full time professional warriors who wore metal armour, as appose to the ‘poor peasant levy’ soldiers that had comprise the rank and file of Celtic and Germanic armies in the past.

If this is the case, then I’m aware the answer to the question of where this armour came from could be that the Goths and Germans of these era’s took it as the spoils of Roman armies that they defeated, but then this turns it into a chicken and an egg scenario in my opinion. For the Germans to achieve their first victories in pitched battles against the Romans during the Marcomannic Wars and later wars of the 3rd century, they would have had to have had a reliable supplier of armour and weapons in the first place. It’s possible that the Roman’s may have supplied the armour and swords to the Germanic tribes themselves as a way of keeping their fellow tribesmen in line and part of their divide and rule strategy, but that really implies a comedic level of stupidity and incompetence amongst the Romans if they were the sole supplier of such equipment to the ‘Barbarians’ that later united against them into probably single largest threat since Hannibal.

It would be more easy for me to believe that this was a gradual ‘snowball’ effect, in that the Roman’s began paying a very modest sum in to money to keep the tribes divided and at each other’s throats. Then over long periods of time and as less effective Emperors came to power what began as a modest expenditure of money became a large and permeant source of revenue for these newly emerging tribal kingdoms, who could then pull their numbers to demand more from the empire when it suited them with the implicit threat of force. While this was all going on these Germanic Kingdoms ironically used the very wealth Rome furnished them with every year to purchase from Rome what they could not manufacture themselves in large quantities, such as swords and metal armour, which I understand was pretty much the as case during Attila’s reign. Still, the fact the Rome itself may have been the main supplier of everything the ‘Barbarians’ needed to in turn make war on Rome is the pill I’m finding a little difficult to swallow, as that would give the Romans a huge advantage over these ‘Barbarian’ kingdoms of the 2nd - 5th centuries we never really see evidence of them leveraging. If on the other hand the Germans or Goths of this period had the ability to at least partially equip and provision their armies from self sufficient manufacturing facilities within their own territory thanks to the internal stability the permeant threat of the Roman Empire had ‘intimidated’ the Germanic tribes into, the slow decline and fall of the Western Empire at the hands of the Germanic ‘Barbarian’s’ over the 2nd to 5th centuries makes a lot more sense in my opinion.

Not really, no. It's possible there was some sort of construction in timber that's left no trace, but otherwise the only 'towns' we know about in barbarian territory are places like Feddersen Wierde, again far from the frontier and very unlike Roman settlements.

Ammianus Marcellinus mentions the Alamanni living in 'Roman style' villas, but this is in the old ex-Roman territory of the Agri Decumates, just east of the Rhine, and it's possible that he was just seeing actual Roman villas that had been repaired and reinhabited.

There are suggestions that some Germanic hillforts were constructed or repaired by Roman engineers, or prisoners of war - the Glauberg east of Mainz is one possibility, and maybe Zähringer Burg a little further south. However, this may be an outdated notion; the native Alamanni may have been perfectly capable of building big walls themselves!

The best book on the frontier peoples of the middle Rhine is Drinkwater's The Alamanni and Rome; again, worth tracking down a copy!

Regarding the 'Romanized Barbarian elite' - it seems most likely that their material culture was still largely Roman, whether from trade or plunder, and they lived in a sort of parasitical relationship with the empire. That's exactly how the Romans wanted it, of course!

Again thank you for your recommendation. Book is looking a little pricy on Amazon right now but I will keep an eye out for it, looks to be just to subject matter I was looking for.

The Goths repairing existing Roman villa’s in former Roman territory makes sense. It would be interesting if there was any evidence that this ‘trend’ of Roman styled housing amongst those who could afford it extended outside of former Roman territory. The book ‘The Day of The Barbarian’s’ by Alessandro Barbero specifically states that the the German leaders on the far side of the Rhine had learned to construct themselves fortified villas in the style of great villas of the Roman countryside. I still need to check the references Alessandro quotes, however I also seem to remember the same book referencing as well that this was also the practice along the frontier as far away as North Africa, with these tribal chieftain’s extravagant lifestyles presumably funded by Rome in exchange for keeping order on their side of the frontier. If I remember correctly, I believe there is also a reference by Priscus to Attila the Hun constructing a Roman Villa in Hunnish territory for the express purpose of receiving Roman diplomats, though I can’t remember if this was constructed inside or outside former Roman territory and so may have been of Roman origin.

I accept I may be incorrect on a lot of this and may simply be incorrectly interpreting events. The one thing I don’t really understand is why in the roughly 500 years between the the Roman Empire establishing its borders along the Rhine and the Danube, and the eventual collapse of the Western Roman Empire and formal end of the migration period in the 6th century did the geographical region we now think of as eastern europe seemingly not advance economically like Gaul had. Its possible like you said that that the Roman trade provided everything the Germans would have otherwise needed to manufacture themselves in terms of surplus food, weapons and consumable goods, thus out pricing indigenous Germanic trades. I can even accept this is what might have killed off the last Celtic Oppida’s outside Roman territory, but you would think the huge increase in tradable goods flowing across the border would have some kind of impact on Germanic and Gothic transportation infrastructure over a protracted period of time, so that those Roman’s goods could reach anyone who may have money or goods to barter for them.

The exact circumstances surrounding the founding of most Eastern European cities and their relation to pre-migration Germanic people have always confused me a little. Most major inland cities in Western Europe today can trace their founding back to the Roman Empire, either as centre’s of trade or military camps for active or retired soldiers. By comparison most eastern cities seem to have been founded in the Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, so I’ve always wondered if this collapse contributed to permeant and concentrated human settlement in these regions as if not, I don’t understand why these cities would not have been founded in antiquity as the logical successor to the Germanic Oppida’s. Apparently at the eve of the Mongol conquest of modern day European Russia in 1200 AD the Kievan Rus numbered somewhere around 300 urbanised cities with populations in the lower tens of thousands, which would make them comparable to the post Roman western cities of London and Paris at that time. I recognise that I’m taking about events over 700 years after the collapse of the Western Empire, but most of these cities would likely have been founded a few decades or centuries after this collapse. (Kiev, capital and largest city of the Kievan Rus may have been founded in 482 AD, or alternatively some historians put the founding to the late 9th century. Even if the later date is correct, it’s seem odd that the destruction of such a massive potential trading partner and potentially hostile incentive for unification of settled tribes would spur on the urbanisation of these civilisations. I would have thought it would have had the oppressive effect)

[Nathan Ross]

do you think this remained a viable policy for the Romans right up until the collapse of the west, or do you think at some point it turned from mostly being a beneficial relationship for Rome to being a mostly disastrous relationship for Rome?

I'd say it probably remained mostly viable up until the very end. We tend to think of the Roman frontier as being under constant pressure from hordes of barbarian invaders, but actual incursions were fairly infrequent and the really big effective ones rare indeed. Most frontier conflict involved the Romans sending expeditions into barbaricum. The Roman frontier was less a defensive perimeter than a zone of control, from which force could be projected outwards when necessary.

In most cases when big invasions happen, it's people from the distant hinterland who are involved, rather than those living on the frontier itself. In the very late 4th century the Romans appear to have contracted out the defence of the Rhine below Mainz to the Franks (although this is controversial) - It was the Franks who mounted the defence against the invasions of Gaul in AD405. They were unsuccessful, but obviously the Franks felt they had more to lose if the frontier collapsed, while the incoming peoples wanted direct access to Roman plunder.

With regard to your question about economics: it's not something I know much about, but as the barbarian peoples had no coinage they must have traded something else with the Romans - after the end of the wars of expansion a constant supply of slaves could only come from barbaricum, and there was amber from the baltic too. Luxury goods for luxury goods, basically.

particularly in the accounts of Ammianus Marcellinus there are often widespread references to armour being used in equal numbers on both sides during Rome’s various battles with the Germans and Goths during the 4th century... there does seem to be a definitive improvement in the German’s ability to ‘take a punch’ after the mid second century.

In his famous description of Strasbourg Ammianus mentions 'gleaming helms and shields' discarded in the Alamannic rout. But he earlier describes the barbarian king Chnodomar as 'conspicuous above others by the gleam of his armour', which would imply that most of the Alamanni did not wear body armour - an implicaiton supported by the details of Roman troops stabbing them in their exposed bodies 'left bare by their frenzied rage'.

We should remember that barbarian peoples of earlier centuries could and did defeat the Romans too: the Cimbri and Teutons, and later the Germanic alliance under Arminius both defeated Roman armies, the Dacians destroyed a Roman expedition in AD85 and the Sarmatians destroyed a legion in AD91. So we perhaps don't need to assume that effective barbarian armies of later eras were necessarily better equipped on any uniform level. If the barbarian peoples themselves had any sort of intensive armoury industry, it has left no trace.

I believe there is also a reference by Priscus to Attila the Hun constructing a Roman Villa in Hunnish territory

Ah yes, well remembered! I think Attila had a sort of folding flat-pack palace made of wooden boards, but his 2nd-in-command had a Roman stone bathhouse that he'd transported in pieces from Pannonia, reconstructed by a captive Roman engineer. We have no way of knowing how common this sort of thing might have been!

why in the roughly 500 years... did the geographical region we now think of as eastern europe seemingly not advance economically like Gaul had... you would think the huge increase in tradable goods flowing across the border would have some kind of impact on Germanic and Gothic transportation infrastructure...

Gaul was inside the empire, of course, while the other areas were not.

I think we'd have to consider what sort of things the Romans were trading, and what they were not. A lot of the Roman stuff that's turned up in 'barbarian' areas has been quite high status metalwork, pottery and arms. Of course, it would be difficult to trace the origin of a lot of the poorer sorts of material culture, but it does seem that the Romans were eager to keep the barbarian elites dependent on their supplies, which perhaps would stop them developing industries of their own. They certainly don't seem to be have been in a rush to start exporting urban planners, engineers and architects.

There seem to have been certain prohibitions on cross border trade as well. Supposedly it was illegal to trade weapons with the barbarians, although so many Roman weapons have been found in barbarian territory that the ban was either widely ignored or sporadic. This paper by Boris Rankov on 'the supposed ban on the export of weapons' is very interesting - the only specific law against arms dealing dates to AD455, and includes a ban on dealing in raw materials as well. Combined with another law (cited in the paper) against teaching barbarians how to build ships, we can perhaps see a deliberate attempt to stop non-Romans gaining any kind of technological parity or possible advantage. A losing battle, as history shows!

[Tim Hare]

My sincere apologies for not coming back to you sooner, especially after all the effort you’ve put into your replies thus far. Work and a combination of me deleting my initial draft response (twice) tied me up for the past couple of weeks.

With regard to your question about economics: it's not something I know much about, but as the barbarian peoples had no coinage they must have traded something else with the Romans - after the end of the wars of expansion a constant supply of slaves could only come from barbaricum, and there was amber from the baltic too. Luxury goods for luxury goods, basically.

I must apologise as I’m about to slide well of the rails of our topic here but as we’re discussing the topic of slavery, this is a notion I have heard repeated that as soon as Rome’s conquests ended so did its supply of slaves, which some people link to its decline and eventual fall.

My only problem with this notion is that even if they could still import slaves from the apparently very pro-slavery ‘Barbaricum’, doesn’t the rise of slavery in the southern America states and eventual secession of the CSA suggest otherwise. My understanding is that even after the anti-slavery northern states and British Empire cut off the supply of new slaves coming across the Atlantic from East Africa, there were already enough slaves in the South American states to support the demand for new slaves through natural population growth. The only impact the blockade had was to switch the slave trade industry in the southern states from one sustained by foreign imports to one sustained by breeding within the states. Wouldn’t the same be true of the Roman Empire, eliminating the need to import slaves from beyond its borders?

In his famous description of Strasbourg Ammianus mentions 'gleaming helms and shields' discarded in the Alamannic rout. But he earlier describes the barbarian king Chnodomar as 'conspicuous above others by the gleam of his armour', which would imply that most of the Alamanni did not wear body armour - an implicaiton supported by the details of Roman troops stabbing them in their exposed bodies 'left bare by their frenzied rage'.

Does Ammianus ever specifically mention the ‘Barbarian’s’ lacking armour at either Strasbourg or other battles of this period? (I’m just conscious of the age old wisdom lack of proof to the contrary is not proof in and off itself)

Now I’ve never had need to run away from a horde of blood thirsty Romans wielding gladius’s and spatha short swords before (apart from that one time in Rome!), but I wonder how easy it is to remove a mail shirt or hauberk while also running for your life. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t there a reference at the Battle of Milvan bridge to members of Maxentius’s own army drowning in the River Tiber alongside himself exactly because in their haste to retreat they tried to swim across the river in their armour, which would suggest they didn’t have enough time to remove it?

If so, could that be the reason there are no references to discarded armour at Strasbourg because unlike discarding a helmet or shield stopping to strip off a mail shirt and hauberk is too impractical when you’ve got men with swords chasing you? (Especially if your wearing anything over it!)

In regards to your reference regarding King Chnodomar, again Simon MacDowall implies that while the majority of a Germanic warlord or Kings warband were equipped with mail, other types of armour such as iron lamellar influenced by eastern designs were also available to those who could afford it. It may have been something like this that made Chnodomar stand out from his troops, which is what this passage seems to be implying rather then directly only he was equipped with armour. (I’ve also heard references to greaves and vambraces being found in limited numbers in Germanic graves, which as far as I’m aware was more then an average Roman infantrymen received in protection)

We should remember that barbarian peoples of earlier centuries could and did defeat the Romans too: the Cimbri and Teutons, and later the Germanic alliance under Arminius both defeated Roman armies, the Dacians destroyed a Roman expedition in AD85 and the Sarmatians destroyed a legion in AD91. So we perhaps don't need to assume that effective barbarian armies of later eras were necessarily better equipped on any uniform level. If the barbarian peoples themselves had any sort of intensive armoury industry, it has left no trace.

Funnily enough I was thinking about referencing both the Cimbri war and the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in my last post. The reason I didn’t is because most Roman defeats during the Cimbri war occurred while the Roman Army was still under the old manipular formation, where a large portion if not all the army would have been comprised of conscripts, the vast majority of whom possessed armour and equipment inferior to the later state funded legionaries. Unless I’m mistaken most if not all decisive Roman defeats during the Cimbri war occurred before Marius introduced his famous reforms and began to standardise Roman legions into what would become the professional volunteer army that that would go on to serve Caesar, Augustus and Trajan.

As for the battle of Teutoburg Forest, to me this highlight the main difference between the Germans of the 1st century AD and those that would come after, in that before the mid-2nd century they could only defeat the Romans using asymmetrical tactics such as thoroughly planned out ambushes. I may be mistaken but I was under the impression most historians agree that the specific reason Arminius chose to ambush the Romans in Teutoburg Forest over a long protracted engagement on open ground was because he knew his tribal coalition would be completely wiped out if it engaged the Romans head on in a pitched battle.

In my younger years when I didn’t have a very grounded knowledge of the realities of tribal society, ancient logistics or natural boundaries like rivers, one thing I could never really understand about the aftermath of Teutoburg Forest was why the destruction of seemingly half the Roman army stationed along the Rhine was not followed by tens of thousands of pelt wearing horn helmed bloody thirsty barbarians poring into a defenceless Roman Gaul to burn, plunder and pillage everything in their wake. Knowing a little more about the realities of the day, I know didn’t happen because logistically Arminius could not have provisioned the deployment of his army for a long distance campaign far from home, as most of them would have had to disperse back to their villages to support and protect their families and homes, and this would have been the case all throughout Germania on account of its very limited economic development at that time. Now fast forward to 249 AD 240 years later and the Gothic king Cniva was allegedly able to invade, burn and pillage Roman Thrace with an army 70,000 fighting men strong. Unless I’m badly misinterpreting events it seems to clear to me that there must have been a huge difference in the economic infrastructure available to Cniva in the 3rd century and Arminius in the 1st century when you consider Cniva was able not only deploy tens of thousands of Gothic warriors onto Roman soil but defeat a Roman army of 3 legions on the Roman’s own soil in what I’d consider to be the definition of a conventional pitched battle between 2 armies. If you contrast this with Arminius’s eventual defeat at the Battle of Idistaviso which which was waged not on Roman soil but Germanic soil where Arminius should have enjoyed every home field advantage, and it seems to to me there must have been a marked difference in the equipment and general battle-hardiness between the average warriors who comprised Arminius’s army and those who comprised Cniva’s army, each a reflection of the economic system that must have supported them.

Ah yes, well remembered! I think Attila had a sort of folding flat-pack palace made of wooden boards, but his 2nd-in-command had a Roman stone bathhouse that he'd transported in pieces from Pannonia, reconstructed by a captive Roman engineer. We have no way of knowing how common this sort of thing might have been!

Thanks, that’s an interesting tidbit I hadn’t heard off before. Attila shenanigans are really something that could do with a big budget HBO styled adaption.

Gaul was inside the empire, of course, while the other areas were not.

My apologies, I was actually referring to the economic development that occurred within pre-Roman Gaul from around 1000 BC which I understand is roughly when the Celt’s settle into modern day France and begin their Iron Age culture give or take a century or two, to the Caesar’s conquest of Gaul in 50 BC. It’s my understanding from another post I raised on the Celtic Oppida’s that in this roughly 1000 year long period Gaul was transformed from a region sparsely populated by semi-pastoral people just settling into villages and hill forts to a relatively prosperous region of several million people with vast swathes of cleared and cultivated farmlands, interconnected towns and villages in the form of fortified Celtic Oppida’s linked by roads and bridges, whose kings and chieftains minted their own coins. In fact I’ve heard it proposed that one of the main reasons Caesar was able to conquer Gaul in just 8 years was because the Gaul’s ecenomic development had already put in place almost all the roads, bridges and surplus foodstuffs he needed to rapidly move his legions about the countryside, while all the cleared and cultivated former woodlands meant it was easy for the Romans to draw the Gauls into pitched battles where the Romans were at their strongest. Contrast this with Germania at the time which while influenced by Gaul was considered an economic backwater consisting of poorly interconnected and sparsely populated subsistence level villages within heavily forested areas, and its easy to see why the Romans were never able to carry out a swift and lasting conquest of the region like they did with Gaul.

I understand that the period of Germanic-Roman contact from 55 BC to the end of the migration period in the 5th/6th centuries constitutes only about half the time in took for pre-Roman Gaul to develop to the state it was, but you would still expect to see some level of economic development in Germania and Scythia in this 500 year period even if they weren’t building full scale copies of Roman towns and cities. (I’d also expect one long continuous border with the Roman Empire to act as something of a force multiplier for the Germans natural inclination to consolidate and advance economically)

I suppose again as you’ve already suggested I may just be severely underestimating the stranglehold the Roman’s maintained over the Germans economy and by extension economic development. My only issue with this notion is if that was indeed the case and the Romans entirely controlled the Germans access weapons, armour, logistics, and the kind of surplus foodstuffs required for long distance military campaigns, then I don’t understand how events such as the Marcomannic wars and the later Gothic and Germanic invasions of the 3rd and 4th centuries could have occurred. If the average Germanic warriors of the 2nd-5th centuries AD remained 99% comprised of the exact same poorly armed and poorly equipped force of spear armed peasant levies they were at the very beginning of the 1st century and before, then I don’t understand how the Roman didn’t massacre them every time the Germans or Goths crossed the border. I also don’t understand how such a poorly disciplined and provisioned force could force-march themselves from the all the way from Rhine to Aquileia during the Marcomannic Wars, or the Gothic seaborn sack of Athens in 268 AD. (I’m sure there are plenty of other examples of ‘Barbarian’ armies matching long distances and then back again that weren’t part of a greater migrations)

[Nathan Ross]

a notion I have heard repeated that as soon as Rome’s conquests ended so did its supply of slaves, which some people link to its decline and eventual fall.

Yes, I'm not sure how a lack of slaves could lead to 'decline and fall'! I think the usual idea is that slaves were replaced by serf-type labourers, or coloni. But Kyle Harper's Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275–425 shows that there were still plenty of slaves in late antiquity.

Supposedly after the defeat of Radagaisus's invasion in AD406 there were so many captives that they collapsed the market and slaves were selling for one solidus (gold piece) each. This suggests that a high demand for slaves existed, and so a prior supply of them must have done too.

Simon MacDowall implies that while the majority of a Germanic warlord or Kings warband were equipped with mail, other types of armour such as iron lamellar influenced by eastern designs...

This may have been true - the Sarmatians seem to have used some sort of armour, although Roman writers like to say it was made of horses' hooves! I don't think there's any evidence of actual lamellar in the west until later.

The only find of body armour in the west from the entire area of 'barbaricum' in the Roman era remains, I think, the Vimose mail shirt. So while there may have been armour in barbarian armies, we have no evidence for it. And, as I mentioned above, Ammianus at least seems to imply that most Alamannic troops were unarmoured (or that's the way I read it anyway!)

...there must have been a huge difference in the economic infrastructure available to Cniva in the 3rd century... Cniva was able not only deploy tens of thousands of Gothic warriors onto Roman soil but defeat a Roman army of 3 legions...

Yes, this is one of the great mysteries of the third century. Where did all these barbarians come from, and how were they so effective? I think we should take all estimates of army sizes with a big pinch of salt - particularly for 'barbarian' armies. It's extremely unlikely that Cniva was able to muster, command or supply an army of that size. But even with an army of less than half the size given in the sources, Cniva's campaign was impressive. Living off the land would have been easy enough inside the empire, however, especially just after the harvest when the granaries were full and virtually unprotected.

Your point about the Marcomannic wars is quite true as well. It does seem that the various 'barbarian' peoples became either more populous, more organised or simply more determined in the later second century and on into the third. But I don't think we need to assume they were necessarily all that different in technology or social structure to previous peoples of the area. Roman armies, as I've said, were far from unbeatable at the best of times, and battles are sometimes won or lost on something like the throw of the dice (aka 'multiple random factors'!)

The old favourite idea about population movements 'pushing' various groups over the Roman frontier might have some truth behind it - Kyle Harper's recent book about the fall of the Roman west more or less resuscitates the notion, with added details about climate change on the Asiatic steppe. Possibly a shortage of natural resources forced the barbarians to start raiding over the border, and the whole thing snowballed?... Or perhaps a pause either in Roman cross-border punitive expeditions or Roman subsidy payments led to a new sense of determination and aggression in barbaricum? Or perhaps the barbarians just became so addicted to Roman produce - and so conscious of their own comparative poverty - that the lure of the empire's easier pickings became eventually too great?

[CaesarAugustus]

"is there any indication that newer urban developments and infrastructure such as roads, towns and large scale land clearance began to take shape beyond the Roman frontier? ... Germanic and Gothic kings and chieftains had a tendency to build themselves Roman styled villa’s in their own lands, likely with the assistance of Roman engineers and architects."

A similar urban development would have made easy a Roman conquest. A lower but spread density instead was a natural defense for Germanic tribes.

[Robert Vermaat]

"Yes, this is one of the great mysteries of the third century. Where did all these barbarians come from, and how were they so effective?"


Why would it be a mystery? I mean the new 'supertribes' like the Saxons and Franks had to come from somewhere - and all the smaller tribes like the Chatti etc. had to go somewhere.. the old smaller tribes c/would sit back when one of them tried a raid, but now they all chimed in, cutting harder, deeper and with more succes.

[Tim Hare]

Nathan Ross

Theoretical question for you. For the sake of argument, let’s say you invent a time machine, then travel back to 55 BC a few months before crosses Caesar crosses into Germania. You start at the mouth of the Rhine on the northern coast of Germania then walk south east, all the way across the ‘Barbarian’ side of what would become the Roman Empire’s frontier and through all the most prominent lands of ‘Barbaricum’ until 6 months to a year later you round the east coast Black Sea and reach Armenia, for coffee and cake.

Then you do the whole process again accept either a few decades or a century later during the Roman Imperial era, and you repeat the process all the way to the late empire, the migration period and the era of the Hunnic Empire in the 440’s - 450’s AD.

Do you you think you would notice any significant changes social, economic or technological level in the overall Germanic culture’s you’d be passing through generation to generation based on what we know and can theorise today, other then regions changing hands from one Germanic tribe of kingdom to another?

Would the everyday appearance, clothing and level of technological sophistication of the basic Germanic village or royal court and its inhabitants remains exactly the same from 55 BC to 455 AD, with the exception of a few ‘modern’ Roman trinkets here and there.

Initially, I was under the impression that over time traditional Celtic and Germanic style Oppida’s and Hill-Forts may have replaced with fortified Roman styled villa’s with limited industrial capability in the form of armouries, workshops and stables etc, like precursors to the first Medieval Castle’s. At the same time once previously poorly connected villages would be steadily linked together by a more streamlined series of interconnecting roads due to the increased trade tribal unification would enable as a result of close proximity to the Roman Empire’s borders would bring. Maybe also some form of trading posts (not full scale replica Roman towns of course), populated and staffed by either Roman merchants and traders or their ‘Germanic’ middlemen who organised the transport of Roman goods across the border and vice versa. I appreciate as you’ve already commented that there is little to no evidence of large Roman style villas or other urban conglomerates outside of former Roman territories which would indicate the Romans deliberately kept the Barbarians poor and thus underdeveloped, but this contradicts the idea I’ve heard before that the volume of ‘tribute’ (or subsidies, bribes, whatever you want to call it) the Romans paid the Barbarian’s steadily increased as the Empire declined. All this money the Roman were shovelling into the Germans hands year after year must have been spent on something, and while I appreciate the Roman Empire may well have tried to keep skilled Roman engineers and architects out of Barbarian lands I can’t imagine this was always easy to enforce at the best of times, let alone during times of civil war or strife. (Which in the 3rd century was like every Tuesday to Saturday)

If a Germanic or Gothic King made it known he’d pay handsomely for Roman craftsman, then regardless of whatever measures the Romans had in place to prevent the transfer of such skills into Barbarian lands I’m sure those kings would have no shortage of Roman citizens lining up and waiting to take the money and protection. (There is only so much a pre-industrial society can do to secure a few thousand kilometres of border with two seas on either end)

I’m aware that I may simply be overestimating the financial value of tributes and trade dues the Germans and Goths received from the Romans as I haven’t been able to find any specific figures of the incomes of the various kingdoms and how they rose and fell over the lifetime of the Roman Empire. I always just assumed there was a common consensus that what began as a small trickle of gold and silver into the Germans coffers from Augustus to keep the tribes divided and pacified turned into a steady deluge of gold and silver (or equivalent goods like grain, steel etc) until the empire was virtually bankrupted and unable to pay its own bills. If this is true it still raises the question what did the Barbarian’s spend this money on, if it wasn’t improvements to their own infrastructure. The problem I have with the notion that the Germanic Barbarian’s remained the same poorly clothed and equipped rabble lacking in armour, swords or comparable organisation to the Romans is I just don’t see how this rabble could have defeat and conquer the western Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. I’m aware this conquest did not happen overnight, and that in most cases the Germanic Kingdoms often aligned themselves with one side of a Roman civil war in exchange for land to settle, however for the average Germanic warband’s to be considered worth bartering away land for in the first they must already have been equipped to a relatively high standard anyway, otherwise Roman Emperor’s and usurpers both would have had no incentive to recruit them in exchange for land if they could just have raised the same number of troops from the Roman serf population and equipped then from state armouries. If this was the case, the question still remains if the armour and swords the Germans used to equip themselves didn’t come from Roman armouries, where did it come from? (I feel this is a chicken an egg scenario and we may never know the truth for certain)

---

"is there any indication that newer urban developments and infrastructure such as roads, towns and large scale land clearance began to take shape beyond the Roman frontier? ... Germanic and Gothic kings and chieftains had a tendency to build themselves Roman styled villa’s in their own lands, likely with the assistance of Roman engineers and architects."

A similar urban development would have made easy a Roman conquest. A lower but spread density instead was a natural defense for Germanic tribes.

That undoubtably makes sense from a retrospective and omnipresent perspective, but do you really think hundreds of separate tribes and millions of individuals Germans, Goths and Sythian’s over 500+ year time span could adopt such a hive-minded approach to their own unilateral long term defence? (Particularly considering Germanic tribes were famous for warring with each other just as frequently they warred with Rome)

Humans should think in the long term, but going by history 90% of the time we only think in the short term. I don’t see why it would be any different for the Germans over this period when you consider it was a cumulative cascade of bad decisions for short terms gains that ultimately brought down the Western Roman Empire in under a century. (e.g. the reneging of land grants and later slaughter of the families of Gothic soldiers in 408 AD, which led to the sack of Rome in 410 AD etc)

---

"Yes, this is one of the great mysteries of the third century. Where did all these barbarians come from, and how were they so effective?"


Why would it be a mystery? I mean the new 'supertribes' like the Saxons and Franks had to come from somewhere - and all the smaller tribes like the Chatti etc. had to go somewhere.. the old smaller tribes c/would sit back when one of them tried a raid, but now they all chimed in, cutting harder, deeper and with more succes.

I think Nathan was referencing the sudden capacity and willingness of the Germanic people’s ability to defeat Roman armies on Roman soil after the mid 2nd century AD, when for the two centuries previous Germans tribes had seemingly lacked the ability to organise such large scale expeditions into Roman territory and defeat the legions on flat open ground. (i.e. not a wooded forest like Teutoburg)

We know what the symptoms of this change in the strategic and tactical outlook for the Empire are. (Defeated roman armies, dead Generals and later Emperors, cities long though ‘safe’ besieged and in some cases sacked etc)

We just don’t know what the cause of this change in fortunes for the Barbarian’s was. It may been something as simple as certain tribes unifying then expanding their strength, forcing others to flee to Rome’s borders. Or it may have been expanding populations meaning there wasn’t enough fertile land for everyone to support themselves, but in this case what caused the increase in population, or likewise what caused these desperate tribes to unify into so called super tribes? I’ve noticed Scandinavia in particular seems to have an odd tendency to act as a kind of demographic release valve for surplus population into Europe, periodically producing ‘cultures of invaders’ every few generations from the Cimbri to the to the Goths to the Saxons to the Vikings. If I had to guess I’d imagine the Baltic Sea serves as something of an miniature Mediterranean, building up a diversified breadbasket for the indigenous population of fertile farmland, fisheries and the capacity for trade by sea and metal craft. Then every few generations climate change causes a temporary economic and agricultural breakdown and several tens of thousands of the local inhabitants have to either find greener pastures to plough or starve, thus you have a never ending cycle of Barbarian warrior cultures migrating south, or later west after the Roman Empire collapses in the West.

It’s believed now it was the Goths migrating south from Scandinavia to modern day Ukraine around 100 AD that triggered the Marcomannic Wars as other tribes with Germania and Sythia scattered to get out of their way, pushing their own neighbouring tribes into the borders of Roman Empire. To be honest I’m not quite quite sure I believe this as the earlier idea of one population driving another to flight has been discredited, and it’s more likely it would be the the ruling elite (the King, his court, his personnel following of warriors and all their families, servants and hangers on. Maybe say 5-10% of a regions total population, but not an entire people. For the remaining 90-95% percent of the population they’d probably just have a foreigner take over as head of their village who would then take their share of their surplus foodstuffs each harvest, if they weren’t killed or enslaved in the initial invasion. I can see this shaking up the tribal landscape politically as this exiles would probably be accepted into the courts of neighbouring tribes, but I can’t see it starting a war in and off itself until you get the larger tribal confederations arising. Despite Hollywood’s addiction to moustache twirling villains very few people want to rule a pile of ash and corpses.

I agree with Nathan in so far that I think there was something of a parasitical relationship between Rome and the Barbarian’s, and I think it was this along with multiple other contributing factors (including possibly Han China on the other side of the world) that eventually morphed the Barbarians into a much more powerful and capable military threat that eventually consumed the western half of the Roman Empire. In the time of Augustus in the early 1st century AD I think this parasitical relationship certainly favoured Rome more then it did the Barbarians as for an empire that was still consolidating its recent gains over freshly conquered people ‘tribute’ in the form of relatively small volumes of gold or items of equal value was probably an economical alternative to over-stretching themselves military or having to deal with both foreign incursions and internal uprising from newly conquered peoples. I think the problem is over the following centuries both trade and tribute from the much wealthier and economically developed Roman Empire eliminated the incentives for the Germanic tribes to fight each other for plunder and wealth, which led to the first tribal confederation and kingdoms, or ‘super-tribes’ as you’ve referred to them. This unification in the face of a potentially common threat probably also had the unintended consequence of reducing civil strife and increasing opportunities for peaceful trade between tribes, which probably would have marginally raised the standard of living within these regions and thus both increased the population and given the average Germanic chieftain or king access to greater funds to equip equip his retinue, either from the greater number of smiths he may have access to as part of a larger confederation or maybe from armour and weapons imported from Rome. (Probably a combination of both)

The result I think was something of a ticking time bomb for the Romans, with the Barbarians growing ever stronger, better organised and more populous with every passing year as a result of perpetual contact with the Roman Empire, and thus requiring ever more tribute to placate. Off course this just becomes a vicious cycle of extortion and violence. Simon MacDowall’s ‘Germanic Warrior’ book does make a clear case that it was contact with the Roman Empire that caused this as Germanic warfare gradually changed from a ritual of raiding and intimidation of one tribe by another to fighting and killing for financial and material reward. Prior to their contact with Rome the professional warriors of a Germanic tribe were oath bound to a single tribal Chieftain however once young  Germanic nobles started being hostaged to Rome and inducted into the Roman Army before eventually returning years later to their former homelands they start recruiting retunes of warriors across separate tribal lines with the express purpose of waging long distance wars for plunder and wealth.

The thing is there seems to be frustratingly little information on is how long term contact with the Roman Empire impacted everything outside of the Germanic warrior culture over the roughly 500 period these 2 cultures interacted, as it certainly seems to have effect on the former. Gut instinct tells me the Germanic tribes should have undergone a transformation similar to the Celtic tribes in Gaul prior to the Gallic Wars, accept at an accelerated rate of development as it was contact with the Mediterranean world over several hundred years via Italy that spurned the Gauls into developing towns, clearing and cultivating woodlands into farmlands and building roads, bridges etc. (At least that is my understanding of it)

I would have expected to see something similar occur within the lands of Germania and ‘Greater Barbaricum’ in the roughly 500 years of the Roman Empire existence in the West, and I just find it difficult to believe that as the world was ‘moving on’ around them Germania just went into a state of complete economic, technological and urban stagnation for over 500 years. I can accept that close and easy access to mass produced low cost Roman goods may have priced some fledgling Germanic industries out of business like skilled metalworkers and traders, but then something like that would still require vast improvement to things like roads and transportation to ensure Roman goods could easily reach any part of Germania in mass. The only other explanation I can think is that contact with the Roman world benefitted only the privileged elite of the Germanic society, like how foreign investments in 3rd world counties sometimes keep corrupt politicians and their cronies and thugs in power when their own people are living in poverty and squalor. If a Germanic King could just import Roman grain, wine, armour and weapons for his warriors then he has no need to ensure his expanding population has enough access to arable and cultivated farmland to feed their numbers, as if they revolt the Romanized Germanic elite can easily suppress them with Rome’s material support.

The only thing that doesn’t make any sense to me about this particular scenario is how these Germanic Kingdoms could seemingly so frequently trounce Roman armies as the y did in the Marcomannic Wars, and the later invasions and migrations of the 3rd - 5th centuries if the Romans could so easily cut off their supplies off grain, weapons and armour. In fact the success of these invasions and later migrations would indicate exactly the opposite. That these Germanic Kingdoms possessed logistical and manufacturing capacity comparable to Rome. The only problem with this notion is according to Nathan and others I’ve talked to there does not seem to be any signs of such urban infrastructure existing around this time in Germania and Sythia. 

[Nathan Ross]

Would the everyday appearance, clothing and level of technological sophistication of the basic Germanic village or royal court and its inhabitants remains exactly the same from 55 BC to 455 AD...

Surely not - all societies evolve. But the kind of evolution we would see may not be the sort that leaves a lot of archeological traces; these were not urban cultures, prone to building roads and walls and infrastructure. But people, fashions, clothing, pottery, patterns of agriculture and village settlement, complexity of social organisation would certainly have changed and developed over time.

If a Germanic or Gothic King made it known he’d pay handsomely for Roman craftsman, then... I’m sure those kings would have no shortage of Roman citizens lining up...

As I recall, the Dacian king Decebalus made use of Roman 'deserters' in this way. But he had plenty of gold to pay them with, presumably...

I just don’t see how this rabble could have defeat and conquer the western Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

The majority of major barbarian incursions in the 4th century were defeated (Adrianople being a glaring exception). In the 5th century too, when Roman armies took the field they were almost always victorious in the end. The problem was that in the period 405-410 the western empire was in a chaotic death-spiral of incompetence with the army temporarily neutralised by a combination of strategic, command and political factors that left them unable to act effectively against the 'barbarians' (many of whom were ex foederati anyway, and equipped by Rome).

if the armour and swords the Germans used to equip themselves didn’t come from Roman armouries, where did it come from?

That's a good question. We do hear of Roman emperors from the late 3rd century employing large numbers of barbarians from outside the empire, presumably with their own arms and equipment. However, even a man in a tunic with a spear and a shield makes good ballista-fodder... By the time the Romans were using men of barbarian origin as front line elite troops, first as the 'auxilia palatina' and later in the foederati, they were (almost certainly) equipping them too.

I’ve noticed Scandinavia in particular seems to have an odd tendency to act as a kind of demographic release valve for surplus population into Europe... every few generations climate change causes a temporary economic and agricultural breakdown and several tens of thousands of the local inhabitants have to either find greener pastures to plough or starve

This is a very convincing idea, and I would think it highly likely. I know (as you mention below) that any theories of population movement and migration, not to mention population replacement, tend to run into problems, and academic fashions swing back and forth on this, but the overall north-south movement does seem noticeable.

over the following centuries both trade and tribute from the much wealthier and economically developed Roman Empire eliminated the incentives for the Germanic tribes to fight each other for plunder and wealth, which led to the first tribal confederation and kingdoms, or ‘super-tribes’ as you’ve referred to them. 

Again, a very good theory. And when the flow of trade and subsidies are cut off for some reason (civil war, economic difficulties) these tribal leaders have the manpower and organisation to go hunting for it themselves...

I think you're coming up with some very good answers to your own questions in this thread!

[Robert Vermaat]

 I think Nathan was referencing the sudden capacity and willingness of the Germanic people’s ability to defeat Roman armies on Roman soil after the mid 2nd century AD, when for the two centuries previous Germans tribes had seemingly lacked the ability to organise such large scale expeditions into Roman territory and defeat the legions on flat open ground. (i.e. not a wooded forest like Teutoburg)

We know what the symptoms of this change in the strategic and tactical outlook for the Empire are. (Defeated roman armies, dead Generals and later Emperors, cities long though ‘safe’ besieged and in some cases sacked etc). 

I doubt that Nathan was looking it that way, because this was by no means a new thing. Given the numbers, Germanic forces had long since broken through the Roman frontiers, being as capable and willing to attack Roman troops and cities as the later Franks etc. would do. The Marcomannic wars causing Aurelian to build Rome's war happened much earlier that the formation of the Saxon and Frankish tribes - I'm noit even thinking of the Cimbri and Teutones who I believe were Celtic, but it certainly shows this was by no means new. 
Also, it was not very common for any such group to defeat a Roman army in the field, frankly I don't know any such occasion before Adrianople in 378. So I dare say there was no 'new' tactital outlook either. 

It’s believed now it was the Goths migrating south from Scandinavia to modern day Ukraine around 100 AD that triggered the Marcomannic Wars as other tribes with Germania and Sythia scattered to get out of their way, pushing their own neighbouring tribes into the borders of Roman Empire. To be honest I’m not quite quite sure I believe this as the earlier idea of one population driving another to flight has been discredited, and it’s more likely it would be the the ruling elite (the King, his court, his personnel following of warriors and all their families, servants and hangers on. 

I don't believe it either, especially not in this case, as we know the Goths (or later what would later become the Goths) spread from the Baltic to the Black Sea but after 161 they somehow did not cause such widespread confusion throughout Middle Europe or Scythia (not Sythia). 
So if you don't believe it, why mention it?

I agree with Nathan in so far that I think there was something of a parasitical relationship between Rome and the Barbarian’s, and I think it was this along with multiple other contributing factors (including possibly Han China on the other side of the world) that eventually morphed the Barbarians into a much more powerful and capable military threat that eventually consumed the western half of the Roman Empire. 

Yes, I think it is commonly accepted nowadays that the later Germanic 'supertribes' (such as the Goths) thanked their formation history to a large extent to the 'hard' Roman border. Their internal structure changed due to that contact, as well as weaponbry and tactics. 

I think the problem is over the following centuries both trade and tribute from the much wealthier and economically developed Roman Empire eliminated the incentives for the Germanic tribes to fight each other for plunder and wealth, which led to the first tribal confederation and kingdoms, or ‘super-tribes’ as you’ve referred to them. [/font][/size][/color][/font][/size][/size][/color][/font][/size][/size][/size][/color][/font][/size][/color][/size]

No, there we disagree. Germanic tribes (as we know) never lost the incentive to fight each other, not even withing the new confederations. The drive to become larger would have been due to the aforementioned changes due to prolonged contact with the Empire, leading to larger military structures for both offensive as well as defensive purposes - if one group would become, the others would have to follow, and such groups could attack the Romans much better, or defend themselves against a Roman action.
The Romans could still defend themselves by buying off certain leaders, weakening any confederation. And as for instance the war against Atilla clearly shows, such confederations were never solid entities - their fighting each other within the Hun and Roman armies is telling enough. 

Gut instinct tells me the Germanic tribes should have undergone a transformation similar to the Celtic tribes in Gaul prior to the Gallic Wars, accept at an accelerated rate of development as it was contact with the Mediterranean world over several hundred years via Italy that spurned the Gauls into developing towns, clearing and cultivating woodlands into farmlands and building roads, bridges etc. (At least that is my understanding of it)

I think that is not how archaeology sees it. Celt built towns long before any contact with the Romans and in areas far away from the Romans.

The only thing that doesn’t make any sense to me about this particular scenario is how these Germanic Kingdoms could seemingly so frequently trounce Roman armies as the y did in the Marcomannic Wars, and the later invasions and migrations of the 3rd - 5th centuries if the Romans could so easily cut off their supplies off grain, weapons and armour. In fact the success of these invasions and later migrations would indicate exactly the opposite. That these Germanic Kingdoms possessed logistical and manufacturing capacity comparable to Rome. The only problem with this notion is according to Nathan and others I’ve talked to there does not seem to be any signs of such urban infrastructure existing around this time in Germania and Sythia. 

I don't see the occasions in which the Germanic tribes "so frequently trounce[d] Roman armies as the y did in the Marcomannic Wars". Where do you see evidence for the fact that they "possessed logistical and manufacturing capacity comparable to Rome"? Invading a province, stealing the crops from the land or the towns and returning home afterwards does not in any way show that. Indeed, there was no such thing as urbanisation in Germania or Scythia (not Sythia). Only in the former Roman provinces do we see anything developing like that after Germanic kingdoms were established. Any new developments there or outside the former Empire were centuries away.

[Nathan Ross]

I doubt that Nathan was looking it that way, because this was by no means a new thing.

Yes, I was perhaps being a bit facetious with the word 'mystery'!

However, I do think we can see the various 'barbarian' groups being considerably more effective in the third century than they were during even the Marcomannic war, when they only got as far as Aquileia. From Gaul to Greece and into Asia Minor we see widespread plundering and destruction, and the Romans suffered several defeats too - Abrittus in 251, most prominently, but also Aurelian's defeat at Placentia twenty years later. I doubt the Heruli got to sack and burn Athens in 267 without overcoming some opposition along the way either.

As I say, though, most actual battles were Roman victories. And, just as with the fifth century, we can no longer claim that barbarian incursions caused the crisis; rather they took advantage of it, exacerbated it, and prolonged it.

So there's no need, on the face of it, to assume that 'barbarian' armies of the 3rd-4th centuries were necessarily better armed or equipped, or better organised, or that their societies were necessarily more advanced than they had been in the 1st-2nd. They probably were in some respects, but in ways that has left little hard evidence. Only by the 5th century do we see a definite change, and by then the 'barbarians' are operating inside the empire anyway.

On the vexed question of ethnogenesis and 'supertribes': the constant movement of new peoples towards the wealth and stability of the imperial frontier, and their constant feed into the empire by one means or another, may have created quite a dynamic flux of population in the immediate 'barbarian' hinterland, disguised by the names Romans used for various foreign peoples.

In other words, were the people the Romans called the Chamavi in the 4th century necessarily descended from the earlier people of the same name? How about the Frisii, the Chatti, or the Batavi? Our evidence in most cases is too thin to permit any assumption, I think.

[Robert Vermaat]

However, I do think we can see the various 'barbarian' groups being considerably more effective in the third century than they were during even the Marcomannic war, when they only got as far as Aquileia. 

Would that not have been caused by the military crisis of that period? I mean, how often did Germanic invaders penetrate the Western Empire that far during most of the fourth century? Their growing success after Adrianople and during the fifth century would (again) be mostly due to Roman military misery and of course mistakes on the battlefield. 

As I say, though, most actual battles were Roman victories. And, just as with the fifth century, we can no longer claim that barbarian incursions caused the crisis; rather they took advantage of it, exacerbated it, and prolonged it.

Why can we not? The cause of the problem was the concentration of Roman forces on the borders, but that had been the case as well during the first and second centuries, when it was not a problem. If this became a problem only due to the forming of Germanic federate tribes, the question remains why this had not happened earlier - germanic tribes could and did work together earlier yet did not seem to present that much of a problem. In my opinion is was far more due to the weakened Roman border defences because of the crisis (also accompanied by a relative paralysis of the military structure as a result of the crisis). 

This was adjusted by the development of the later 'defence-in'depth' system of the limitanei / comitatenses which also gave the military command to the comites and duces responcible for the endagered sectors, and even that was not enough to prevent deep incursions of the enemy, especially when the military was involved in a form of political crisis. Which would prove my point.

So there's no need, on the face of it, to assume that 'barbarian' armies of the 3rd-4th centuries were necessarily better armed or equipped, or better organised, or that their societies were necessarily more advanced than they had been in the 1st-2nd. They probably were in some respects, but in ways that has left little hard evidence. Only by the 5th century do we see a definite change, and by then the 'barbarians' are operating inside the empire anyway.

Maybe better organised in the sense of mutual cooperation? 

On the vexed question of ethnogenesis and 'supertribes': the constant movement of new peoples towards the wealth and stability of the imperial frontier, and their constant feed into the empire by one means or another, may have created quite a dynamic flux of population in the immediate 'barbarian' hinterland, disguised by the names Romans used for various foreign peoples.
In other words, were the people the Romans called the Chamavi in the 4th century necessarily descended from the earlier people of the same name? How about the Frisii, the Chatti, or the Batavi? Our evidence in most cases is too thin to permit any assumption, I think.

Ethnogenesis is a difficult concept. For instance I think that the Goths originated as a group only when they arrived at the borders of the Empire. The Franks on the other hand probably saw litle to no change during the 3rd to 5th century and only began that change after Clovis' kingdom was formed? The Anglo-Saxons again formed only as a recognisable group during the 7th century, long after they had arrive in Britain. Bulgarians and Bavarians again were a mix of newcomers and present Roman provincials forming a group that had never been there before. 
All different leaves of the same tree. 

I would not refer to a 'supertribe' as a for of ethnogenesis, but rather a new form of accepted organisation and cooperation without a fixed set of rules. 

@Chamavi - nobody knows, because the Romans were notoriously bad at identifying their neighbours. When it came to callingf the Cimbri/Teutones 'Germanic' or calling the Franks 'Celts' or the Goths 'Scythians' (I'm referring to that 'Byzantine' princess of course).

[Nathan Ross]

In my opinion is was far more due to the weakened Roman border defences because of the crisis (also accompanied by a relative paralysis of the military structure as a result of the crisis).

I think we're agreeing here, aren't we?

The Franks on the other hand probably saw litle to no change during the 3rd to 5th century and only began that change after Clovis' kingdom was formed?

Evidence for the pre-Merovingian Franks seems surprisingly scanty. Actually it seems very difficult to distinguish (outside Roman literary sources) any one of the western Germanic peoples from another - Saxons from Franks or Frisii, Franks from Alamanni, Alamanni from Burgundians - before about the 5th or 6th centuries. Some live in mound villages, others in hillforts, but the material culture appears (I think) much the same. This might count against the idea of enhanced social or technological development during this period, which would perhaps have led to more distinctive traces?

[Robert Vermaat]

I think we do agree!

@Franks - I think there were no disctintive feature between these groups, as they seem to have been inclusive of newcomers and very mobile themselves.
We see 'Franks' in Drenthe (Netherlands) during the 2nd and 3rd c., then along the Rhine during the 4th, until they end up in Belgium and N France during the 5th. All the while 'moving' a hundred miles (and leavuing peple behind) but not showing typical houses etc. to indicate a culktural (or ethnical!) homegenous tribe.
The Alamanni were 'older' and are concentrated in SW german hill country, so they seem more homegeneous. 
The Saxons were often coastal dwellers but even the Anglo-Saxons of the 8th century clearly recognised their own original subdivisions of Saxons, Anglians, Jutes, Danes, half-Danes and Frisians - most often only recognisable from a geographical name (Pliny's Frisians were no longer there by that tiome).