REGNA AND GENTES
THE TRANSFORMATION OF
THE ROMAN WORLD
a scientific programme of the european science foundation
Coordinators
JAVIER ARCE . EVANGELOS CHRYSOS . IAN WOOD
Team Leaders
Miquel Barceló
Mark Blackburn
Gianpietro Brogiolo
Alain Dierkens
Richard Hodges
Marco Mostert
Patrick Périn
Walter Pohl
Frans Theuws
Leslie Webster
Steering Committee
Gunilla Åkerström-Hougen
Volker Bierbrauer
Niels Hannestad
Przemyslaw Urbańczyk
Mario Mazza
H.H. van Regteren Altena
Heid Gjöstein Resi
L. Cracco Ruggini
Series Editor
IAN WOOD
VOLUME 13
REGNA AND GENTES
REGNA AND GENTES
The Relationship between Late Antique and Early Medieval
Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World
EDITED BY
HANS-WERNER GOETZ, JÖRG JARNUT
AND
WALTER POHL
WITH THE COLLABORATION OF
SÖREN KASCHKE
BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2003
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Regna and gentes : the relationship between late antique and early medieval peoples and
kingdoms in the transformation of the Roman world / edited by Hans Werner Goetz,
Jörg Jarnut and Walter Pohl ; with the collaboration of Sören Kaschke.
p. cm. (The transformation of the Roman world, ISSN 1386 4165 ; v. 13)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 9004125248
1. Germanic peoples History. 2. Ethnicity Europe History. 3. Ethnicity Holy
Roman Empire History. 4. Europe History 392-814. 5. Europe Politics and
government. I. Goetz, Hans Werner. II. Jarnut, Jörg. III. Pohl, Walter, 1953 IV. Series.
GN549.G4 R44 2002
305.8'00943 dc21
2002034271
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
Regna and gentes : the relationship between late antique and early medieval
peoples and kingdoms in the transformation of the Roman world / ed. by
Hans-Werner Goetz ... With collab. of Sören Kaschke. – Leiden ; Boston :
Brill, 2003
(The transformation of the Roman world ; Vol. 13)
ISBN 90–04–12524–8
ISSN 1386–4165
ISBN 90 04 12524 8
© Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
CONTENTS
List of Contributors ..................................................................
vii
Abbreviations ..............................................................................
xi
Introduction ................................................................................
Hans-Werner Goetz
1
The Empire, the gentes and the regna ......................................
Evangelos Chrysos
13
The Leges Barbarorum: law and ethnicity in the
post-Roman West ..................................................................
Patrick Wormald
21
Gens into regnum: the Vandals ..................................................
J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz
55
Gens and regnum among the Ostrogoths ..................................
Peter Heather
85
The enigmatic fifth century in Hispania: some historical
problems ................................................................................
Javier Arce
135
Pro patriae gentisqve Gothorvm statv ................................................
Isabel Velázquez
161
The transformation of Hispania after 711 ..............................
Ann Christys
219
Gentes, kings and kingdoms—the emergence of states.
The kingdom of the Gibichungs ..........................................
Ian N. Wood
243
vi

The relationship between Frankish gens and regnum:
a proposal based on the archaeological evidence ..............
Michael Schmauder
271
Gens, kings and kingdoms: the Franks ....................................
Hans-Werner Goetz
307
The Britons: from Romans to barbarians ..............................
Alex Woolf
345
Anglo-Saxon gentes and regna ....................................................
Barbara Yorke
381
Gens, rex and regnum of the Lombards ......................................
Jörg Jarnut
409
The Bavarians ............................................................................
Matthias Hardt
429
Avars and Avar archaeology. An introduction ......................
Falko Daim
463
A Non-Roman Empire in Central Europe: the Avars ..........
Walter Pohl
571
Conclusion ..................................................................................
597
Bibliography ..............................................................................
Index of Peoples ........................................................................
Index of Persons ........................................................................
Index of Places ..........................................................................
Index of Subjects ......................................................................
629
691
694
700
705
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
E C is Professor of Byzantine History at the University
of Athens and Director of the Institute for Byzantine Research at
the Hellenic Research Foundation. His research interests include
Byzantium’s international relations in the early Middle Ages.
P W is a Research Lecturer at the Faculty of Modern
History, University of Oxford. He is a specialist in the law and legislation of post-Roman Europe, his publications including The Making
of English Law, King Alfred to the Twelfth-Century, vol. 1: Legislation and
its Limits (Oxford 1999), and Legal Culture in the Early Medieval West
(London 1999).
W L is professor emeritus, and formerly head of the
Department of Classical and Archaeological Studies, at Nottingham
University. His principal interests are Late Antiquity and Roman
religion. His most recent books are Barbarians and Bishops (Oxford
1990), and The Decline and Fall of the Roman City (Oxford 2001).
P H is Fellow in Medieval History at Worcester College,
Oxford. He is a specialist in the history of the Later Roman Empire
and its successor states (c. 250–600 A.D.), with a strong interest in
the issues surrounding the so-called Migration Period. His publications include Goths and Romans 332– 489 (Oxford 1991), The Goths
(Oxford 1996), and Philosophy Propaganda and Empire in the Fourth Century:
Select Speeches of Themistius (Liverpool 2001).
J A is Research Professor in the Higher Council of Scientifical
Research (CSIC), Depart. de Historia Antigua y Arqueología at the
Instituto de Historia in Madrid, Spain. He specialises in Late Roman
History and Archaeology, and his recent books include: Centcelles. El
monumento tardorromano. Iconografia y Arquitectura, ed. J. Arce (Roma
2000), Memoria de los antepasados. Puesta en escena y desarrollo del elogio
fúnebre romano (Madrid 2000), El último siglo de la España romana (284–409
A.D.) (3rd edn., Madrid 1997) and Esperando a los bárbaros en Hispania
(409–507) (forthcoming).
viii
  
I V is professor of the Latin Department in the
Complutense University of Madrid. She is a specialist in Late and
Medieval Latin and Epigraphy. She is Director of the Archivo
Epigráfico de Hispania and the review Hispania Epigraphica of the
Complutense University and Secretary of the Latin Studies Society
of Spain (SELat). Recently she has published Documentos de época visigoda
escritos en pizarra (siglo VI–VIII), 2 vols. (Turnhout 2000).
A C specialises in the historiography of Spain in the early
Islamic period and has recently published Christians in al-Andalus
711–1000 (Richmond, Surrey 2002). She works as an anaesthetist in
Leeds.
I W, Professor of Early Medieval History, University of Leeds,
has published numerous articles on Early Medieval History. His books
include The Merovingian Kingdoms 450–751 (London-New York 1994),
The Missionary Life (Harlow 2001), and, together with Danuta Shanzer,
Avitus of Vienne: Letters and Selected Prose (Liverpool 2002). He was a
coordinator of the ESF programme on the Transformation of the
Roman World.
M S is curator at the Rheinische Landesmuseum in
Bonn and teaches early Christian and early Medieval archaeology
at the Rheinische-Friedrich-Wilhelms-University in Bonn. His research
fields are late Antique, migration period and early medieval archaeology. He wrote several articles on these topics. His book Oberschichtgräber
und Verwahrfunde in Südosteuropa im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Zum Verhältnis
zwischen spätantikem Reich und barbarischer Oberschicht aufgrund der archäologischen Quellen is just out.
H-W G is Professor of Medieval History at the University
of Hamburg and president of the German Mediävistenverband. His
main fields of research are the history of medieval mentality and
attitudes, historiography and social history of the Early and High
Middle Ages. His books include Life in the Middle Ages (London 1993),
Frauen im frühen Mittelalter. Frauenbild und Frauenleben im Frankenreich (Weimar 1995), Moderne Mediävistik. Stand und Perspektiven der Mittelalterforschung
(Darmstadt 1999), Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbewußtsein im hohen
Mittelalter (Berlin 1999) and Handbuch der Geschichte Europas, vol. 2: Das
Frühmittelalter (500–1050) (forthcoming).
  
ix
A W is Lecturer in Early Medieval Scottish History at the
University of St Andrews. He has published a number of articles
relating to kingship and social transformation in early medieval Britain
and Ireland.
B Y is Professor of Early Medieval History at King
Alfred’s College, Winchester. She specialises in Anglo-Saxon History
and recent publications include Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon
England and Wessex in the Early Middle Ages.
J J, born in 1942 in Weimar, Germany, from 1962–1967
study of history and German studies in Bonn (Germany), Caen
(France) and Perugia (Italy). 1970 Dr. phil. Bonn, 1977 habilitation
Bonn, 1980 professor Bonn, since 1983 professor for medieval history in Paderborn.
M H is Coordinator for Medieval History and Archaeology at the Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur
Ostmittel-europas at Leipzig. He specialises in History of Migration
Period, Early Middle Ages and History of settlement structures in
Central Germany and East Central Europe.
F D is Professor at the Institute for Prehistory of the University
Vienna, Austria, and Director of the Vienna Institute of Archaeological
Science. He specialises in Avar studies and the archaeological evidence for cultural exchange between Byzantium and its neighbours.
His recent publications include Das awarische Gräberfeld von Leobersdorf,
Niederösterreich (Wien 1987), Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern 2, ed. F. Daim and H. Friesinger (Wien 1990),
Awarenforschungen, 2 vols., ed. F. Daim (Wien 1992) and Die Awaren
am Rand der byzantinischen Welt. Studien zu Diplomatie, Handel und Technologietransfer im Frühmittelalter, ed. F. Daim (Innsbruck 2000).
W P is Director of the Medieval research unit of the Austrian
Academy of Sciences and teaches medieval history at the University
of Vienna. His books include Die Awaren (München 1988; an English
translation is in preparation), Die Germanen (München 2000), Werkstätte
der Erinnerung —Montecassino und die langobardische Vergangenheit (Wien
2001), and Die Völkerwanderung (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 2002).
This page intentionally left blank
ABBREVIATIONS
CIL
CSEL
MGH
AA
Capit.
Conc.
EE
LL
SS
SSrG
SSrL
SSrM
PL
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
Monumenta Germaniae Historica
Auctores antiquissimi
Capitularia regum Francorum
Concilia
Epistolae
Leges
Scriptores
Scriptores rerum Germanicarum
Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum
Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum
Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina, ed. J.P. Migne,
221 vols. (Paris 1844–1855)
This page intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION
Hans-Werner Goetz
Late Antiquity, no doubt, was a “time of transition or rather transitions”.1 In spite of extensive research on the “Germanic” (or, from
the Roman point of view, “barbarian”) invasions and the successor
states of the Roman Empire, comparatively little attention has been
paid to the “transition of peoples”, or their “developing” into kingdoms. As far as we can see, research on the Later Roman Empire
and the late antique and early medieval kingdoms has focused on
four aspects: first, the “Great Migration”,2 second, the decline of the
Empire (including the role of migration and of the barbarian hordes
in this process),3 third, the ethnogenesis of the “Germanic” peoples,4
and fourth, the rise of (single) kingdoms.5 Meanwhile, we know a lot
1
Thus, for example, I.N. Wood, The Merovingian kingdoms, 450–751 (London-New
York 1994) p. 1.
2
Cf., for example, E. Demougeot, La formation de l’Europe et les invasions barbares,
vol. 1: Des origines germaniques à l’avènement de Dioclétien (Paris 1969); vol. 2: De l’avènement de Dioclétien (284) à l’occupation germanique de l’Empire romain d’Occident (début du VIe
siècle), Collection historique (Paris 1979); W. Goffart, Barbarians and Romans A.D.
418–584. The Techniques of Accomodation (Princeton NJ 1980); J.D. Randers-Pehrson,
Barbarians and Romans. The Birth Struggle of Europe, A.D. 400–700 (London-Canberra
1983); Das Reich und die Barbaren, ed. E. Chrysos and A. Schwarcz (Vienna 1989).
3
Cf. A. Demandt, Die Spätantike. Die Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian,
284–565 n. Chr., Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft III,6 (München 1989); id.,
Der Fall Roms. Die Auflösung des Römischen Reiches im Urteil der Nachwelt (München 1984);
A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284–602. A social, economic and administrative
survey, 3 vols. (Oxford 1964); Der Untergang des Römischen Reiches, ed. K. Christ, Wege
der Forschung 269 (Darmstadt 1970).
4
Cf. n. 7, and, summarizing, W. Pohl, Die Germanen, Enzyklopädie deutscher
Geschichte 57 (München 2000).
5
Cf. D. Claude, Geschichte der Westgoten (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln-Mainz 1970); H. Wolfram, Geschichte der Goten. Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhunderts. Entwurf einer historischen Ethnographie (München 1979; 3rd edn. 1990); T.S. Burns, A
History of the Ostrogoths (Bloomington 1984); P.J. Heather, Goths and Romans 332–489
(Oxford 1991); id., The Goths (Oxford 1996); P. Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489–534, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought (Cambridge
1997); J. Jarnut, Geschichte der Langobarden, Urban 339 (Stuttgart 1982); D. Geuenich,
Geschichte der Alemannen, Urban 575 (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1997); R. Kaiser, Die Franken:
Roms Erben und Wegbereiter Europas?, Historisches Seminar N.F. 10 (Idstein 1997).
2
- 
about the political development of this period, and we may also have
sufficient knowledge concerning the political, social and cultural
(including religious) structures of this epoch. And, of course, there
are splendid surveys of the period, for example, by Herwig Wolfram,6
Herbert Schutz,7 John Moorhead,8 Patrick Geary9 and, most recently,
by Walter Pohl.10 What we lack, however, is a comparative view of
these kingdoms as well as an attempt to combine these four elements within a common perspective. One of the first attempts in
this direction was the Marxist volume “Germans are conquering
Rome” (Germanen erobern Rom) by Rigobert Günther and Alexander
Korsunskij,11 limited, however, to a short presentation of each kingdom. Another, more recent attempt by P.S. Barnwell was restricted
to four kingdoms (Franks, Visigoths, Langobards, and Anglo-Saxons),
each dealt with under three aspects: kings and queens, royal household, and provincial administration.12 In his conclusion, Barnwell
demands a revision of our image of “Germanic” government (which
was less decadent than generally assumed).13 He rightly points out
our complete dependence on evidence which is, actually, totally
different for each kingdom. He lays further emphasis on the importance of “rank” for the Visigoths and Anglo-Saxons, and he discovers a continuation of Roman traditions throughout in legislation,
administration (which was dependent on the extension of the kingdom), minting, royal ceremonies, and Christianity. No doubt these
are important observations, which have been confirmed and refined
by numerous works on individual kingdoms. Nevertheless, we still
6
H. Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen. Zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, Das Reich
und die Deutschen (Berlin 1990) [English transl. The Roman Empire and its Germanic
Peoples (Berkeley 1997)].
7
H. Schutz, The Germanic Realms in Pre-Carolingian Central Europe, 400–750 (New
York 2000).
8
J. Moorhead, The Roman Empire Divided, 400–700 (Harlow-London 2001).
9
P.J. Geary, The Myth of Nations. The Medieval Origins of Europe (Princeton 2001).
10
W. Pohl, Die Völkerwanderung. Eroberung und Integration (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 2002).
11
R. Günther and A.R. Korsunskij, Germanen erobern Rom. Der Untergang des Weströmischen Reiches und die Entstehung germanischer Königreiche bis zur Mitte des 6. Jahrhunderts, Veröffentlichungen des Zentralinstituts für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie
der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR 15 (Berlin/Ost 1986; 2nd edn. 1988).
12
P.S. Barnwell, Kings, Courtiers and Imperium. The Barbarian West, 565–725 (London
1997). A first volume, Emperors, Prefects and Kings. The Roman West, 395–565 (London
1992), covered other peoples within a more strictly Roman context.
13
Ibid., pp. 172 ff.

3
lack an overall comparison of these kingdoms, and the central question, namely of the relation between gentes and regna, has so far only
been slightly touched upon and has never been explicitly and thoroughly discussed in a comparison of the single realms. As Karl
Ferdinand Werner observed, rex, gens and regnum formed a “triad”:
There were gentes which formed a vast kingdom, and there were others which were absorbed by or integrated into these realms.14 However,
it is by no means clear whether existing gentes established kingdoms,
which would mean that the “foundation” of the “Germanic” kingdoms marks a development from gens to regnum, or whether gentes
resulted from the establishment of realms, or—the most probable
assumption—whether there was mutual influence, which in turn
affected both gens and regnum: how this all worked is equally unclear.
An important contribution to this problem has recently been made
by Hans Hubert Anton who, by considering the geographical terminology, asked how the “gentile” communities/federations (or peoples) developed into political and territorial ones. He showed that
extensive geographical terms (such as Hispania, Gallia, Germania, and
Italia) partly lost their political connotation in the new realms and
were overtaken by those of new segmentations (such as Aquitania,
Burgundia, and Francia), but survived (or were revived) as expressions
for the kingdoms in the case of Italy and Spain, and were also used
by “foreign” writers outside the respective kingdom.15 Thus, geographical terms lost and regained their political impact and (again)
superseded ethnic ones. This, however, is of course only one aspect
of a most complicated process.
Ethnicity and ethnogenesis meanwhile have come to be seen as
extremely difficult and complex phenomena. Since Reinhard Wenskus
published his great book on “The Growth of the early medieval
gentes” in 1961,16 it has become more and more clear and may now
be considered a nearly undisputed conviction that the gentes of the
14
K.F. Werner, “Völker und Regna”, Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Reichs- und Nationsbildung in Deutschland und Frankreich, ed. C. Brühl and B. Schneidmüller, Historische
Zeitschrift Beiheft N.F. 24 (München 1997) pp. 15–44, particularly pp. 15–6.
15
H.H. Anton, “Antike Großländer, politisch-kirchliche Traditionen und mittelalterliche Reichsbildung”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische
Abteilung 86 (2000) pp. 33–85.
16
R. Wenskus, Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes
(Köln-Graz 1961).
4
- 
Migration period and the Early Middle Ages were not stable “ethnic” units (in the “biological” sense of an Abstammungsgemeinschaft), but
“historical”, that is, unstable communities that were prone to change.17
If former research identified “peoples” as communities of human
beings who spoke the same language, as members of a cultural group
represented in archaeological findings, as groups presented under a
single name in written sources, as ethnic groups of the same descent,
or as political groups under the leadership of a king or prince, we
have, in the meantime and to an equal degree, not only become
aware that these five elements do not correspond with each other,
but also that each of these elements is contestable.18 The key factors, however, according to Wenskus and his followers, were politics
and tradition. “The ethnogenesis of early medieval peoples, therefore, was not a matter of blood, but of shared traditions and institutions; belief in common origins could give cohesion to rather
heterogeneous communities. The early medieval kingdoms were, for
17
Cf. Wolfram, Geschichte der Goten; id., “Ethnogenesen im frühmittelalterlichen
Donau- und Ostalpenraum (6. bis 10. Jahrhundert)”, Frühmittelalterliche Ethnogenese im
Alpenraum, ed. H. Beumann and W. Schröder, Nationes 5 (Sigmaringen 1985) pp.
97–151; Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern 1, ed. W. Pohl
and H. Wolfram, Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
philosophisch-historische Klasse 201. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung 12 (Wien 1990); Ethnogenese und Überlieferung. Angewandte Methoden der Frühmittelalterforschung, ed. K. Brunner and B. Merta, Veröffentlichungen des
Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 31 (Wien-München 1994). An instructive overview and estimation of this research is given by W. Pohl, “Tradition,
Ethnogenese und literarische Gestaltung: eine Zwischenbilanz”, ibid., pp. 9–26; cf.
id., “Gentilismus”, Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 11 (2nd edn., 1998) pp.
91–101; and, recently, id., “Zur Bedeutung ethnischer Unterscheidungen in der
frühen Karolingerzeit”, Studien zur Sachsenforschung 12, ed. H.-J. Häßler (Oldenburg 1999) pp. 193–298. Cf. also After Empire. Towards an Ethnology of Europe’s Barbarians, ed. G. Ausenda, Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology (Woodbridge 1995);
S. Gasparri, Prima delle nazioni. Popoli, etnie e regni fra Antichità e Medioevo (Rom 1997).
For later periods: Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, ed. S. Forde,
L. Johnson and A.V. Murray, Leeds Texts and Monographs. New Series 14 (Leeds
1995); Peuples du Moyen Âge. Problèmes d’identification. Séminaires Sociétés, Idéologies et Croyances
au Moyen Âge, ed. C. Carozzi and H. Taviani-Carozzi, Publications de l’Université
de Provence (Aix-en-Provence 1996); Medieval Europeans. Studies in ethnic identity and
national perspectives in medieval Europe, ed. A.P. Smyth (Basingstoke 1998). For a general archaeological approach to the question, see S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity
(London 1997).
18
Cf. W. Pohl, “Franken und Sachsen: die Bedeutung ethnischer Prozesse im 7.
und 8. Jahrhundert”, 799—Kunst und Kultur der Karolingerzeit. Karl der Große und Papst
Leo III. in Paderborn. Beiträge zum Katalog der Ausstellung Paderborn 1999, ed. C. Stiegemann
and M. Wemhoff (Mainz 1999) pp. 233–6; id., Die Germanen, pp. 7–10.

5
a time, a successful form of making such ethnic communities the
focus of states on the territory of the empire.”19 Seen from this angle,
modern ethnogenetical research has to investigate the subject in a
different way:
1. If gentes were not static units but prone to change, we are obliged
to investigate these changes in the course of the Early Middle
Ages rather than ask for the origins of peoples.
2. If gentes were political rather than “ethnic” units,20 and, consequently, in many cases tended to establish kingdoms (within the
area of, but also outside the institution of the Roman Empire),
the relation between gens and regnum which is the theme of this
volume becomes not only a central, but also a crucial issue.21
3. If gentes were groups formed by tradition (Traditionsgemeinschaften)
rather than by descent, we have to inquire into their self-perception as a gens.
These are central questions concerning the transformation of the
Roman world and the establishment of the late antique and early
medieval “Germanic” kingdoms. Without doubt, the Roman Empire
was not assassinated by the “Germans”, as André Piganiol, still
influenced by the burden of the Second World War, believed.22 But
we are now much less certain about the role of the “Germanic”
19
Thus W. Pohl, “The Barbarian Successor States”, The Transformation of the Roman
World A.D. 400–900, ed. L. Webster and M. Brown (London 1997) pp. 33–47, here
p. 46.
20
Recently, with reference to Bede, H. Kleinschmidt, “The Geuissae and Bede:
On the Innovations of Bede’s Concept of the Gens”, The Community, the Family and
the Saint. Patterns of Power in Early Medieval Europe. Selected Proceedings of the International
Medieval Congress. University of Leeds, 4–7 July 1994, 10–13 July 1995, ed. J. Hill and
M. Swan, International Medieval Research 4 (Turnhout 1998) pp. 77–102, again,
claimed a conceptual change of the gens in so far as the political concept of a gens
as a group of settlers under the control of one ruler was a secondary, post-migrational one.
21
Cf. C. Brühl, Deutschland—Frankreich. Die Geburt zweier Völker (Köln-Wien 1990;
repr. 1995); M. Becher, Rex, Dux und Gens. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung des sächsischen
Herzogtums im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert, Historische Studien 444 (Husum 1996); K.F.
Werner, “Volk, Nation, Nationalismus, Masse, III–V”, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland 7 (1992) pp. 171–281.
22
A. Piganiol, “Les causes de la ruine de l’empire romain”, id., L’Empire chrétien
(Paris 1947) pp. 411–22 [repr. id., “Die Ursachen des Untergangs des Römischen
Reiches”, Der Untergang des Römischen Reiches, ed. K. Christ, Wege der Forschung 269
(Darmstadt 1970) pp. 270–85].
6
- 
peoples in this process. Orosius’s report that the Visigothic king
Athaulf planned to destroy the Roman Empire, in order to establish a Gothic one,23 seems completely anachronistic for his time. In
the end, however, historical development seemed to have reached a
state which came very close to Athaulf ’s plans, achieved by the very
“Germanic” kingdoms which (without knowing or planning it) had
become the “heirs” of a Roman Empire which in its turn had developed into an alienated figure far away in the East. Therefore, we
are forced to investigate very closely what had happened in the
meantime.
Examining the relation between regnum and gens is an approach
which, in this context, may reveal the (different) phases of political
changes and, even more important, the causes and consequences of
the “establishment” of new kingdoms. Moreover, it helps us to recognize differences and similarities between individual peoples and
realms. There are, however, (at least) six crucial problems inherent
in this question.
• The first problem is already inherent in the terms “peoples” and
“kingdom”, terms that can no longer be defined per se (despite
their necessary interrelation when “peoples”, too, are seen as having a political connotation). Not only is “peoples” an ambivalent
term (and, what is more, the German Volk has become fraught
with ideologically incriminating connotations), but also a “kingdom” does not simply emerge where there is a king, but can or
should be understood as a political order, or a “state” with a
sufficient measure of organization. Since the interest of this volume lies in the relationship between “peoples” and “kingdoms”,
our concern is focussed on those gentes which developed into, and
gave their name to (larger) regna, particularly with regard to the
successor states of the Roman Empire. In practice, however, it
is not at all easy to draw a clear line between “Germanic” communities and “Germanic” kingdoms as successor states of the
Empire.
• A second, and particularly prevalent problem is the term “Germanic” itself. After centuries of a seemingly clear distinction, fol-
23
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII 7,43,3 ff., ed. K. Zangemeister,
CSEL 5 (Vienna 1882; repr. Hildesheim 1967) pp. 559–60.

7
lowed by doubts and restrictions, we have now reached the point
where we are not even sure any more what “Germanic” really
means. The Germani of the Roman sources seem to be a Roman
construction (and, moreover, the term was not used very frequently), and there are no signs of a “Germanic” self-conception
among the “barbarian” peoples which the Romans considered
(or we think) to have been “Germanic”. In other words, the
“Germanic” peoples did not conceive themselves as being “Germanic”, or at least did not attach any importance to this feature.
The term can be defined, of course, in terms of language, but
with regard to the early period we have little knowledge of the
language spoken by those peoples which, according to Reinhard
Wenskus, were conglomerations of different communities anyway.
Moreover, previous (German) research overemphasized many phenomena (such as Herrschaft, Eigenkirche, Sippe, or Gefolgschaft) that
seem specific to the Early Middle Ages rather than being typically “Germanic”. It is important, therefore, to compare so-called
“Germanic” peoples and kingdoms with presumably non-Germanic
ones. As a consequence of these problems, it was suggested that
the term “Germanic” be dropped completely in this volume, but
to substitute it with “barbarian” would only mean adopting another
(Roman) ideology which, in the final analysis, is as inadequate as
“Germanic”. The only neutral alternative, therefore, would be to
simply speak of late antique and early medieval peoples and kingdoms, but, of course, this would merely be evading the problem.
Probably it is more important to remain constantly aware of the
problematic questions that are inherent in our topic. Moreover,
it would also be necessary to have some critical reflection on the
term “Roman”.
• The third problem concerns the difference in development and
structure of “Germanic” kingdom-building. Sometimes the formation of a realm focuses more or less on a single act (such as
Theodoric’s Ostrogothic kingdom), sometimes it resembles a gradual movement (as under both Visigothic kingdoms, the “Tolosan”
as well as the “Toledan” one), sometimes it consists of an accumulation of territories and realms (as with Clovis’s “foundation”
of the Merovingian kingdom of the Franks). Moreover, we should
not forget that we are comparing developments that extended
over a considerable period, from the early fifth to the late eighth
centuries.
8
- 
• The fourth problem is obviously the state of research on the ethnogenesis of the early medieval peoples. After four decades of intensive work on this topic using a “modern” approach we now have
far more knowledge of what a “Germanic” gens was not, than
what it was: that is, we are aware of so many problems that it
seems nearly impossible to provide any straightforward answers.
We do know, however, as already mentioned in the beginning of
this introduction, that the gentes were not stable groups with clear
ethnic origins, but (constantly) changing (an extremely important
point), and that the political factor was at least as decisive for
these developments as the (usually fictional) consciousness of common origins. Ethnogenetical processes, therefore, can no longer
be considered without taking into account the political development, that is, without considering the establishment of kingdoms.
However, the problem which remains is how to define ethnicity.
By which criteria, or by which historical evidence can ethnicity
be comprehended? We have to bear in mind that there are different
approaches to, and definitions of ethnicity, and in consequence
we have to make explicit what we, that is, each contributor respectively, mean by using terms, or rather theoretical constructions,
such as gens or regnum.
• The fifth problem, accordingly, lies in the (newly emerging) kingdoms and their character. It is not so much a matter of the long
(but probably typically German) discussion whether (or when) these
kingdoms may be called “states” (which is a modern expression
anyway)—“state” in this sense may be used as a term for the system of political order which has to be described under contemporary conditions, however it is labelled. Far more important, and
indeed extremely relevant, is the question of which bonds and
institutions (if there were “institutions”) the power of the “Germanic” kings rested in. Were these “Germanic” or Roman elements?
or both? or neither? And was there a “state” (or a kingdom) that
was not exclusively dependent on the ruling of a (certain) king or
dynasty? What were, for example, the differences between the
“realms” of Marbod in the first, Attila in the fifth and Theodoric
in the sixth century?
• A sixth problem is the question of our sources and how to deal
with them. The discrepancy between the evidence we have for
each individual kingdom makes it inevitable that we should consider the quality and range of sources for each contribution respectively, when we aim at comparing the different kingdoms. The

9
real problem, however, goes deeper. It includes not only the wellknown and lamentable fact that at least the early stages of the
“Germanic” peoples and kingdoms are almost exclusively recorded
by Roman sources and seen from a Roman perspective, but, even
more important, the more general question of whether there were
decisive differences between the actual historical process and the
way it was perceived by the contemporary authors of those times,
not to mention the authors’ bias, intentions, narrative structures,
or choice of events. This is not only a question of criticism of
our sources. As they did not (and could not) have our concept
of, and, moreover, our interest in ethnogenesis, that neither means
that they were wrong, nor does it mean that our theories are
inadequate. Although we have to go farther in our explanations
than contemporary writers did, at the same time we have to be
aware of the characteristic features of their perceptions because
it was their view (not ours) that was underlying the thoughts as
well as the deeds of the people of those times. Thus we are obliged
to take into account what they meant when they spoke of a gens
or a regnum and how (and if ) they saw any changes.
Looking at these problems, the relations between gentes and regna (or
between a certain gens and a corresponding regnum) are neither clear,
nor is it at all self-evident that there was an (explorable) development from gens to regnum or how a people changed after the establishment of a kingdom. Neither is it self-evident that these changes
were perceived by our sources or what our sources made of them.
Certainly, however, there were alterations that we are able to observe
and compare, and it is the aim of the present volume to consider
these relations and developments as well as the political and “ethnic” structures in different peoples and regions.
This volume may be regarded as the result of a long process of
discussion that the majority of the contributors were allowed to enjoy
for five years supported by the European Science Foundation and
its project “The Transformation of the Roman World” (TRW). The
Working Group 1 (“Imperium and gentes”) of this project, chaired
by Walter Pohl, after discussions on the early kingdoms, gentile structures and other topics,24 aimed at clarifying the crucial question of
24
Cf. Kingdoms of the Empire. The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity, ed. W. Pohl,
The Transformation of the Roman World 1 (Leiden-New York-Köln 1997); Strategies
10
- 
the relation between gens and regnum to some extent in a comparative approach. A first step was taken during the meeting at Barcelona
(October 30–November 1, 1997) where some members considered
one gens (or regnum) each under common leading questions. This discussion was continued in the working group’s last meeting in Manerba
del Garda (October 22–25, 1998) where the group decided to elaborate its results, to complement them by further articles, which were
to include non-Germanic developments, and to publish them in a
volume of the TRW series. Pre-final drafts of all papers were distributed among the participants and some invited experts and were
discussed at a meeting in Bellagio, sponsored by the Rockefeller
Center, which most of the colleagues involved were able to attend
(December 11–15, 2000). The contributors were given leading questions, previously agreed upon, which were meant to assist and warrant a comparative approach, although these questions naturally had
to be adapted to the special cases respectively. These questions were:
• (main and central question): Was there a development from a
“Germanic” gens of the Migration Period to a “Germanic” kingdom? Or did a gens (or this gens) not exist until after the establishment of a kingdom?
• What sorts of changes and conditions led to, or represented the
development towards, respectively, the establishment of a “Germanic” kingdom?
• What was the role of a gentile identity (Stammesbewußtsein) for the
establishment of a regnum?
• What sorts of changes in the “constitution” (Verfassung) of a people and a kingdom (such as central organs of power, local power
structures, or links between the two) were linked to the establishment of a kingdom? How did socio-economic developments
contribute to this process?
• What was the role of kings in this development?
• What part did the Roman Empire play in this process?
• In all these points, special attention should be paid to change and
development.
of Distinction. The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300–800, ed. W. Pohl with H. Reimitz, The Transformation of the Roman World 2 (Leiden-New York-Köln 1998).

11
In pursuing this enterprise, this volume is deliberately not just confined
to the “Germanic” peoples (Anglo-Saxons, Bavarians, Burgundians,
Franks, Langobards, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Visigoths), but compares
these with the West and East Roman tradition (Byzantium and Late
Antique Spain) and also with non-Germanic peoples (such as Celts,
Huns and Avars), and even with the Islamic kingdoms in early
medieval Spain. It also seemed advisable to include a comparative
survey of the different Germanic laws. The editors are particularly
grateful to those colleagues who willingly agreed to join the “group”
at a later phase. They wish to thank the participants for helpful
comments on the introduction and conclusion, and particularly Ian
Wood for a last revision of those texts that were translated into
English. They would also like to thank Julian Deahl and Marcella
Mulder of Brill Academic Publishers for guiding their work and
preparing the volume for publication. Last but not least, they are
grateful to Sören Kaschke (Hamburg) who has transformed articles
that varied in form and footnotes into a standardized and legible
volume.
By following the leading questions mentioned above and concentrating on the topic of the relationship between gentes and regna, we
hope to contribute to an essential problem and help to fill a crucial
gap, both by presenting concise articles on the single kingdoms dealt
with here and by suggesting a basis for a comparative approach to
this subject which is not only central for the period of the transformation of the Roman world but, in a time of changing national
identities, also bears significant signs of actuality for the present day.