Talk:Migration Period

Requested move 29 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. There is no clear consensus in !vote terms, and the "oppose" comments make the seemingly valid argument that "Migration Period" is at least as common a name in the literature as "Barbarian Invasions". Therefore there can be no consensus seen to go ahead with the move. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Migration Period → Barbarian InvasionsBarbarian Invasions – I dont know how to change the name of an Article but i think that Barbarian Invasions should be the name of this article because it is more academic and more used. I totally agree with Deguef (talk), Politis (talk), Frog Splash and other Users. The name should be changed. Yogurto (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Barbarian invasion is to my knowledge no longer the academic standard term; in part because these tribes were less barbaric (uncivilised) than often thought. The Goths and Franks thought they could help the continuation of the empire; and established treaties with Rome allowing them to migrate in exchange for military support. So I am not in favour of this move. Arnoutf (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• ??? The page WP:RM shows Migration Period → Migration periodMigration period, that is, a case change; but this page is something different. What is the proposal that we should consider? 2620:0:1000:157D:79A2:22D7:9E57:2A32 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Fwiw I oppose "period" also. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It isn't "more academic and more used". Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. "The Barbarian Invasions" by Hans Delbrück is the classic work on this subject. (It's volume II of History of the Art of War.) "Barbarian invasions" is a section title in Britannica`s "ancient Rome" article. See also this ngram. Update: The relevant chapter in The New Cambridge Medieval History (2005) is titled "The Barbarian Invasions." Sourcing doesn't get any more academic than that. NotUnusual (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Delbrucks book is not about the "migration period" it is about the conflict between Germans and the Roman empire, which is only a small part of the migration period and its consequences.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, right. Delbruck's book was published in German in 1902, entitled The Germans ("Die Germanen"). Not sure where that takes us. The Migration Period is a period, obviously, while the Barbarian invasions are a set of events. There is Migration Period art, but no "Barbarian Invasions art". Barbarian invasions is also too centred on the Roman world; at least half of the migrations/invasions affected only "barbarians", but to use that term implies a civilized other. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a vast literature using the term migration period. There is a tiny part of that literature that uses the term "barbarian invasion" to refer to specific parts of the migration period. The two topics are not the same and the sources in no way supports this move.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The author (Guy Halsall)of the brief section in the Cambridge book (see full draft here ) is not that outspoken. He introduces the term as "so-called 'barbarian invasions'" (with the use of the phrases so-called and the apostrophes how much more doubt should be on the term being the only relevant one), and in the text itself claims that invasions is used predominantly by French and Italian historians while "German and English historians simply refer to ‘migrations’". How much more academic evidence that migrations is the relevant term do we need than that indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Halsall's article is 20 pages long (pp. 35-55). So there is a lot more to it than the two-page PDF. He may complain about the term "Barbarian Invasions," but it's the one he uses. As for Delbrück, I think its significant that the main current translation uses "Barbarian Invasions." After all, we want to follow English usage and not German. Even while Britannica's "ancient Rome" article uses "Barbarian Invasions," their "Germany" article uses "Migration Period." So it's primarily a question of whether you're viewing events through the Roman or German end of the telescope. NotUnusual (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

•I cannot speak english very well but i have a Question: So, why are we seeing events through the German end of the telescope?

P.S. Someone has deleted the term Barbarian Invasions at the beginning of this article. Right now on this page The term "Barbarian Invasions" is not even mentioned but i am pretty sure a lot of people think it is related to the Migration period. And BTW Barbarian invasions redirects here (dont change this too XD). And i still think that "Barbarian invasions" is more academic and more used. I know that there are a lot of sources for both sides but just think about the fall of the Roman empire. Of course I agree that Barbarians were Migrants (and that this term is a better scientific term or something) but most people usually say that Rome fell because of Barbarians, not because of immigrants. All the books about the fall of Rome are probably the most academic sources about this subject.Yogurto Talk

• Most of the interest in this period is based on the idea that the barbarians either were, or weren't, responsible for the fall of Rome. A title that focuses on Germans traveling around makes sense only from a narrowly German perspective. NotUnusual (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, that is the case only from the perspective of Roman history. From the perspective of Germanic or North European history the interest in this period is about understanding how the Germanic and Celtic peoples arrived in their present and historical locations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

They did it by murdering and pillaging and destroying whole cities, destroying a whole advanced civilization and setting Europe in a Dark Age. Not making tourism. 37.14.47.182 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment In sum it appears something can be said for both names; although there may be subtle differences in scope depending on having a central Roman empire perspective or not. In any case the support for both names makes it unlikely that we will reach consensus for renaming. The issue may be solved by adding a section in the article on usage of the different names. Arnoutf (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Barbarian invasions is a common enough term and such an obvious search term that we need to do something about this. Currently there is not even a mention of Barbarian Invasions or barbarian invasions in the lead, despite both terms redirecting to this article. Despite many references (good), there is a distinct smell of original research over the current article, particularly over the question of which term to use. Lots to do! It's a bit of a battleground IMO, and this proposed move would be a good start to sorting it all out. Andrewa (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per all of above (I noticed did not give my preference yet). Both terms are used; so there is no reason to change the name. Support to mention the use of the term barbarian invasion in the article and probably even in the lede. Arnoutf (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

This is based on a google scholar search for the terms ("migration period" history) and ("barbarian invasions" history)

Academic sources using "migration period" in the title

• Hines, J. (Ed.). (1997). The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: an ethnographic perspective (Vol. 2). Boydell Press.
• Zolitschka, B., Behre, K. E., & Schneider, J. (2003). Human and climatic impact on the environment as derived from colluvial, fluvial and lacustrine archives—examples from the Bronze Age to the Migration period, Germany. Quaternary Science Reviews, 22(1), 81-100.
• Hedeager, L. (2000). Migration period Europe: the formation of a political mentality. Rituals of Power: from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, Leiden-Boston-Colonia, 15-16.
• Stenberger, M., & Klindt-Jensen, O. (Eds.). (1955). Vallhagar: a Migration period settlement on Gotland, Sweden (Vol. 2). E. Munksgaard.
• Clarke, M. G. (2013). Sidelights on Teutonic History during the Migration Period. Cambridge University Press.
• Barnish, S. J., & Marazzi, F. (Eds.). (2007). The Ostrogoths from the migration period to the sixth century: an ethnographic perspective (Vol. 7). Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
• Hines, J. (1989, January). Ritual Hoarding in Migration-Period Scandinavia: A Review of Recent Interpretations. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (Vol. 55, pp. 193-206). Cambridge University Press.
• Heather, P. (Ed.). (1999). The Visigoths from the migration period to the seventh century: an ethnographic perspective (Vol. 4). Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
• Dreßler, M., Selig, U., Dörfler, W., Adler, S., Schubert, H., & Hübener, T. (2006). Environmental changes and the Migration Period in northern Germany as reflected in the sediments of Lake Dudinghausen. Quaternary Research, 66(1), 25-37.
• Bakka, E. (1978). Two Aurar of Gold. Contributions to the weight history of the Migration Period. The Antiquaries Journal, 58(02), 279-298.
• Green, D. H., & Siegmund, F. (Eds.). (2003). The Continental Saxons from the Migration Period to the Tenth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective (Vol. 6). Boydell Press.
• PJ Heather - 2008. Ethnicity, group identity, and social status in the Migration Period- Brepols Publishers

Academic sources using "barbarian invasions" in the title

• Trevelyan, J. P., Smith, D. M., & Trevelyan, G. M. (1956). A Short History of the Italian People: From the Barbarian Invasions to the Present Day. Allen & Unwin.
• Moss, H. S. L. B. (1937). VI. THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS. The Economic History Review, 7(2), 209-216.
• Delbrück, H., & Renfroe, W. J. (1990). The Barbarian Invasions: History of the Art of War. Vol. II, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press (first pub. 1921).
• Goffart, W. (1988). The Map of the Barbarian Invasions: A Preliminary Report. Nottingham Medieval Studies, 32(1), 49-64.
• Frend, W. H. C. (1994). Augustine's Reactions to the Barbarian Invasions of the West, 407-417: Some Comparations with his Western Contemporaries.

Analysis

The titles that have "barbarian invasions" are much fewer than those that have "migration period". They also have a narrower scope most of them focusing on the migrations from the perspective of their impact on the Roman empire. They are two different topics one having the other within its scope. It would be possible to write a separate article about the "barbarian invasions of Southern Europe during the migration period". Consequently the term cannot be User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This list is hardly comprehensive. What about:

• "Monks and civilization: from the barbarian invasions to the reign of Charlemagne" (1964) by J Decarreaux
• "Stilicho and the barbarian invasions" (1922) by NH Baynes
• "The Barbarian Invasions of the Roman Empire" (2003) by T Hodgkin
• "The barbarian invasions: catalyst of a new order" (1977) by Katherine Fischer Drew
• "The Barbarian Invasions of Italy" (2013, reprint of classic) by Pasquale Villari
• "The barbarian invasions and first settlements" (1998) IN Wood
• "The Theme of «The Barbarian Invasions» in Late Antique and Modern Historiography" (1989) by W Goffart. NotUnusual (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Those clearly prove my point as they are all specifically about the Roman perspective.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

View of Halsall

Halsall explicitly states the fact that the term "barbarian invasion" is partial to the Latin perspective whereas German, Scandinavian and English historians use "Migration period" and that the term implies a negative POV. "Most western national consciousness can thus be traced back to notions, however confused, of barbarian invasions or migrations. They are held to have swept away the ancient ‘classical’ world, the world of Rome, and to have introduced the Dark Ages. This was not always seen as a disaster; far from it, German and English historians in particular have been fond of picturing the barbarians as sweeping away a tired, effete and decadent Mediterranean civilization and replacing it with a more virile, martial, Nordic one. Even writers who modified the extreme versions of this view still often presented the Empire as weak and in decline. French and Italian historians, on the other hand, have tended to see the barbarians as a ‘bad thing’, destroying a living civilization, introducing a barbaric Dark Age. Whereas those historians refer to the barbarian invasions in pejorative terms (les invasions barbares) German and English historians simply refer to ‘migrations’, wanderings of peoples, Volkerwanderungen."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

---

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date Range?

Currently the article lists at least 3 seperate date ranges the migration period happened in. It'd be great if someone could iron those out into one comprehensive date so the article agrees with itself. (For reference, the two dates in the beginning paragraph and the date in the image at the top right of the article don't agree. Someone would have to edit the image with photoshop or something like that.) Wanderlust15 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting. I suppose it's a matter of definition. The German article has 375-568; the Collins definition, the first one cited in our article, has 2nd to 11th centuries. I just reverted an IP's change which, in hindsight, wasn't so bad and I'm going to restore it--but Wanderlust15, we do need to get this straightened out, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There was a sizable-enough contingent of Germanic tribes present in Roman Empire territory during Cymbrian War (respective page details it poorly but non wikipedia pages touches theissue slightly more, such as https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=war-dir&f=wars_romangerman ). Whether or not that is one of *the* migrations (those more involving the reason why Roman Empire collapsed) as it seems these did not attack Roman Empire, like many future would, is an unknown to me. It may be that is why it's not listed here, I still mention it in-case. Oh, and this IP is public, ban' it, oh. --theh5 (bannished user, "not here to edit my ass") as 81.92.27.129 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Bias

The title of this article is ridiculous and is a very good reason why Wikipedia will never be treated with anything but contempt by academics. It is well known throughout history as the 'Barbarian Invasions' but it seems a small clique of German nationalists on here have sought to erase and rewrite history. As a result marauding tribes that mercilessly butchered and pillaged their way through Europe are now politely described as "Wandering Peoples".

Germans might make up the largest net contributors to Wikipedia but that shouldn't mean they have the right to alter history just because they have the weight of numbers and admins to do so. Lets remove the nonsense and get back to writing real history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.143.47 (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The view about the marauding tribes you present above is a rather outdated Romanocentric biased view. The Vandal, Goth and Frank kingdoms of the fifth century not only pillaged a lot of Roman cities (like the Romans did themselves a few centuries earlier with e.g. Jerusalem) but they also built impressive new cities that contained advanced art and technology.

Of course if you can back up the claim you make above (known as barbarian invasion throughout history) backed by sources that rely on contemporary sources for each moment in history we can discuss further. I will even grant you that you can limit "throughout history" by excluding the period 1000BC-400AD (historic period predating migration period, although this period is obviously covered under you grandiose claim (throughout history) it is probably unreasonable to expect pre-Roman scholars to predict the fall of the Roman empire). Arnoutf (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Much of the problem is due to shifting views on the period in question, often further confused by overt or unintentional bias from various national, political and cultural agendas. The original sources, such as Tacitus, Ptolemy and later Jordanes and others were certainly biased toward viewing non-Roman cultures as barbarians, no matter how sophisticated. This usage continued with the more scientific archaeological and historical studies begun in earnest in the later 19th century. This period also added another layer of nationalist and political bias leading scholars to propose migrations of entire peoples from one location to another, displacing or even destroying existing peoples at the destination. Sadly, this view was taken to an extreme in the 20th century and used to justify the horrors committed during the territorial expansion of the Third Reich. After the war, the pendulum shifted almost entirely away from a view of entire peoples on the move to one of elite transfers with the existing populations remaining in place and only the leadership changing and a general aversion to anything which resembled the mass displacements used as arguments before and during the war. This culminated in the 1960's with the scholarly consensus rejecting the invasion hypothesis altogether. Only in the last several decades has a more balanced approach been used, accepting that the Barbarian Invasions/Migration Period were a mix of many different types of movements, from mass migrations like that of the Goths to formation of confederations out of existing tribes like that of the Alemanni to mixes of entirely separate cultures and polities moving together like the Vandals, Suebi and Alans across the Rhine, some being only military movements and some being actual migrations. The entire issue of scholarly bias on this subject from pre-WWII to post-war to current consensus is discussed thoroughly by Peter Heather in his work, Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe, Oxford University Press(2010) 24.162.143.157 (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

LOL, "rather outdaded". It's current view that the Germans were BARBARIANS. What' will be next, deny the Holocaust?

139.47.116.162 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

> What' will be next, deny the Holocaust?

Writing from 2026: no, for the time being, aid and abet another one. That's a sort of implicit denial, I guess. Not to mention reversing the roles of attacker and defender in relation to the USSR. ~2026-11820-03 (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Migration Period

Shouldn't the title be Migration period with lower case p? --Hordaland (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't think so Hordaland, because the lower-case title would indicate an article about any & all periods of much migration anywhere in the world, whereas this one is about a particular period in parts of Europe: Noyster (talk), 11:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, good I didn't change it then. --Hordaland (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The title should be Barbarian invasions, in any case. But nord european nationalism has changed to something innocuous, so as the article is already crap, it doesn't matter if it's with lower or higher case.

--93.176.131.106 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Please help with one sentence

I've just made many smallish corrections to (mostly) recent edits, including turning non-sentences into sentences. However, I don't know what to do with the last "sentence" in this paragraph; can you fix it?

The migrants comprised war bands or tribes of 10,000 to 20,000 people,[3] but in the course of 100 years, they numbered not more than 750,000 in total, compared to an average 39.9 million population of the Roman Empire at that time. Although immigration was common throughout the time of the Roman Empire,[4] the period in question was, in the 19th century, often defined as running from about the 5th to 8th centuries AD.[5][6] That during the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, marked by profound changes both within the Roman Empire and beyond.

(My bolding) --Hordaland (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't make any sense. I've removed it.--Tataryn (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tataryn. But I hadn't thought to check how that sentence looked prior to the recent rash of (sometimes strange) edits. Just did, and maybe it makes sense?

This period was that of the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, marked by profound changes both within the Roman Empire and beyond.

(Whether it belongs or is necessary is another matter.)

--Hordaland (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Aspect not touched upon exactly

Some interesting details which the article seems to skirt around. It mentions that the Goth conquests in the West resulted in assimilation into Roman culture whereas the Slavic conquests in the East resulted in the Roman culture being superseded by Slavic culture. A little misleading or at least incomplete. In the West the Roman army came to be composed almost entirely of Gothic mercenaries but the Romans did not extend citizenship for the most part to the Goths nor were they treated very well (read this interesting summary if you are not familiar). The result was that the Goths learned Latin (poorly; their language was a creole of Latin and Gothic, hence the Romance languages) and were at least partially assimilated into Roman culture. The fall of the Western Empire was largely an internal coup by the Roman army. These Gothic rulers were already assimilated into Roman culture to a great degree and as they gradually became more civilized they simply lost their Gothic culture. The Slavs by contrast, though heavily influenced by the Eastern Romans were never to any great degree incorporated into the Empire and so assimilation did not occur, even in Roman areas they conquered (which was never to the same degree as the Goths anyway). Even the Arabs and Turks later did not assimilate Greek the way the Goths assimilated Latin because they were never part of the Roman Empire in the first place. Again they were influenced heavily by Roman/Greek culture but not so much so that they abandoned their languages.

Seems like this aspect should be brought out more in the article.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of this is reasonable, but it's too simplistic. No historian would talk in terms of Gothic leaders becoming 'more civilised'. Please see Halsall, 'Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West', Chapter 2 'Defining Identities' for a much more academic discussion of how ethnicity may have functioned in this period (as with all theories on this period, Halsall isn't universally accepted, but his theory makes a lot of sense to a lot of people).

Wagrid (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Final paragraph of the 'Barbarian Identity' section

The 'traditionskern' theory is presented there as a current, valid thesis, but it very much isn't - it has been discarded for the simple reason that there isn't actually any evidence for it. Unfortunately, the best citation I have for this is a draft of a paper from an old professor, who retired before publication, so I'm not really comfortable sticking it in the notes. So I want to flag this for anybody looking to clean up the page. If I stumble across a usable reference, I'll do it myself.

The reason this page is such a mess is that there is no real historical consensus about who the groups our literary sources define as 'Goth' or 'Vandal' really were, other than that those labels are reductive. It is difficult to say where they came from, what the nature of these groups were, or how they identified. There are a lot of theories, many of them good but the kind of approach to writing history articles wikipedia relies in, i.e. collaboratively working towards something that represents historical consensus is not going to work here.

Wagrid (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification regarding edit

Hello. I accidentally submitted my edit early while typing my reasoning for my most recent edit. I don't think this is that big of a deal, but just in case, I'll clarify here. I removed the statement "The Migration Period was followed by the Viking Age" from the lead section. Firstly, it was an awkward, one-sentence paragraph that disrupted the flow of the lead. Secondly, it was literally contradicted by the first paragraph, which states that the Migration Period ended in 568. Given that the Viking Age did not start until 793, over two centuries later, it seems incorrect to state that the Viking Age "followed" the Migration Period. Silver181 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed bit

Apologies to Flobbadob. I can see you were trying to improve this bit, but I am proposing we remove it entirely from the lead. I don't think modern debates are really about whether the Barbarians were nice or not. There was indeed much brutality on all sides. I think the debate is about how much brutality was intrinsic to the Roman approach that was not working well, and how much was "exogenous" and new.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

In the modern period, the characterisation of the migration period as a time of barbarian invasions has come to be seen as presenting early tribal peoples in a negative light, when their arrival might more justly be regarded as a filling of the political vacuum left by the fall of the Western Roman Empire, with the so-called Barbarian kingdoms arising in the 5th and 6th centuries laying the foundations for the European Early Middle Ages.