SoA Forums

I thought the relevant passage in Ammianus might be helpful here-

'After these affairs had been so successfully concluded, Valentinian, turning over various thoughts in his mind, was oppressed by anxious care, as he thought over many plans and considered by what devices he might break the arrogance of the Alamanni and their king Macrianus, who without limit or measure was confusing the Roman state by his reckless disturbances. For this savage nation, although from its very cradle weakened by a variety of disasters, so often recovers its youthful strength, that people think it has been unassailed for long ages. And the emperor finally decided, after favouring first one plan and then another, to bring about their destruction through the Burgundians, a warlike people, rich in the strength of countless young warriors, and therefore a cause of terror to all their neighbours. Accordingly, he often sent letters to their kings through silent and loyal messengers, urging them to attack the Alamanni at an appointed time, and promising that he too would cross the Rhine with the Roman armies and, if the Alamanni tried to avoid the unexpected weight of armed forces, would intercept them in their panic.

The emperor's letters were gladly received for two reasons: first, because the Burgundians know that they are descendants of the Romans from ancient times; and then, since they frequently quarrelled with the Alamanni about salt-pits and boundaries. They therefore sent their choicest troops, which, before our soldiers were gathered together, advanced as far as the banks of the Rhine; and while the emperor was still occupied with the building of fortifications, they caused the very greatest alarm to our people. And so they halted for a time, but when Valentinian did not appear on the appointed day, as he had agreed, and they saw that none of his promises had been fulfilled, they sent envoys to the emperor's camp, demanding that support be given them for their return to their homes, in order that they might not expose their unprotected rear to the enemy. And when they perceived that by subterfuges and delays their request was practically denied, they went off from there in sorrow and indignation. And their kings, on learning what had happened, furious at being mocked, killed all their prisoners and returned to their native lands.

In their country a king is called by the general name Hendinos, and, according to an ancient custom, lays down his power and is deposed, if under him the fortune of war has wavered, or the earth has denied sufficient crops; just as the Egyptians commonly blame their rulers for such occurrences. On the other hand the chief priest among the Burgundians is called Sinistus, holds his power for life, and is exposed to no such dangers as threaten the kings.'

I think that's an interesting likelihood that  conquering warriors marry women from the area that they settle in, though I wonder if that might not take a coupke of generations and they did bring their own women with them. Sidonius describes being kept awake by Visigothic hags jabbering and when the Ostrogoths migrate there are wagons of dependants some of which are captured.
As to the Burgundians being descended from the Romans , its a question as to what Ammianus means here. The tribal name apparently has a long history outside the Empire and they speak a Germanic language and have German names and had a legend of migration from Scandinavia. What he may be referring to is the Burgundian occupation of the Agri Decumates and whatever deal was struck at that point in terms of legitimising their takeover by perhaps making a formal treaty which recognised them as having  duties to the Empire and it could thus be this relationship which Valentinian calls upon to incite the Burgundians against the Allamanii.  That, if course does not really make them Romans, or that Romanised.

Quote from: aligern on September 30, 2015, 03:38:01 PM
I am not sure how barbarians get to have Roman mothers.

Simple, Dad 'marries' a local girl.

It really depends on what you think the Barbarians were. If you assume that they were tribal migrations where the warriors fetched the entire clan, including the elderly and babes in arms, yes there will be wives aplenty for the young men.
But if you think that a lot of the 'migrations' were young men on the move they'll acquire women and babes in arms but they'll be local girls.

Livy mentions it in Italy where the Carthaginian army acquired 'Italian' wives. I have no doubt that various Germans travelling through the Empire as part of military units passing into and out of Roman service doubtless picked up local 'wives'

Jim

Quote from: http://theburgundian.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/summarizing-burgundians.htmlThe Burgundians of the fifth and sixth centuries were tenuously related to their namesake mentioned in the classic works of such writers as Pliny and Ptolemy. Their own third century belief, according to Ammianus, that they had resulted from a mixture of barbarians and Romans along the limes may be more reliable and historically believable, though that assumption must also be made with reservation. ... The Burgundians who crossed the Rhine in A.D. 406 were not an ethnically homogeneous group of Germans, but rather a group of Germans, some probably with Roman blood, who were united by shared traditions and strong leaders.

This "Burgundians in the Mist" blog is now available in book form, incidentally - http://theburgundian.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/burgundians-in-mist-released.html

I tend to the 'migrating with the full tribe' view of barbarians. Even when lots of others join in from freed slaves, mineworkers etc. they are very likely to be barbarians who have been recently captured and enslaved by war or trade across the imperial frontier. Absorbing large numbers of 'Roman' women
would rapidly dilute the cultural homogeneity of the tribe and this very likely did happen where groups of warriors invaded,nwere captured and were then settled. However, I am convinced that when thousands if barbarians are received, or irrupt into the Empire then they bring their own women.

The group that did tend to marry out, of course, was the aristocracy whereby the new ruling elite could acquire land as Theudis the Ostrogoth who became a Visigoth king did, but even at the top the number of marriages to other barbarian aristos looks to be the most frequent.

There is a question here about what Roman means in this context . Are we talking about the top layer who really belonged to an Imperial society that communicated from Antioch to Cologne or is it a matter of the lower orders who lived very localised lives? The inhabitants of the Agri Decumates will have been German tribesmen as well as Roman military colonists.
Inam also very wary of the modern idea that we can just ignore Tacitus and Strabo in terms of named tribes that thenbre appear somewhere else as tribes have a good record of migrating considerable distance and yet maintaining their cohesion.

I also worry about 'ethnicity' and quite what it means in such a context.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on October 01, 2015, 09:45:12 AM
I tend to the 'migrating with the full tribe' view of barbarians. Even when lots of others join in from freed slaves, mineworkers etc. they are very likely to be barbarians who have been recently captured and enslaved by war or trade across the imperial frontier. Absorbing large numbers of 'Roman' women would rapidly dilute the cultural homogeneity of the tribe and this very likely did happen where groups of warriors invaded, were captured and were then settled. However, I am convinced that when thousands if barbarians are received, or irrupt into the Empire then they bring their own women.

Bringing a group's own women does not preclude acquiring local women as well; I suspect that incoming Germanic warriors were neither strictly monogamous nor necessarily committed to a requirement for informed consent.   

One of the points that Marc Comtois makes on the "Burgundians in the Mist" blog is that the Burgundians were particularly adept at absorbing other groups, even at the cost of diluting their own identity. But that may be characteristic of them, not typical of migrating groups in general. Certainly the "Roman ancestry" story suggests that the Burgundians themselves thought they were more mixed than some other groups, for whatever reason. 

Or that there was an advantage to claiming a Roman ancestry. Maybe it was legal in terms of legitimising land holdings, maybe status which enabled tribal leaders to stand alongside the Roman elite as equals. One rationale behind Jordanes work is to show the Goths as equal to the Romans in lineage and antiquity. When Procopius speaks of Roman soldiers still parading in their gear in Gaul in the 530s he may be referring to Franks who were Romannfoederati and still held their land onnthe basis of turning up to suppirt the Empire. It has been suggested that the Salic Laws are, in fact codifications of the treaty terms that governed the inheritance of federate land and the continued provision of military service from that land. Clovis was sent the insgnia of a consul by the Emperor in 508 after his defeat of Alaric II at Vouille and Constantinople retained the concept that the Germans opin the West were still bound by earlier treaties even whilst operating on a practical basis that treated them as independent states.
Burgundians do seem to have mixed well with their Romans  and to have had an army that combined both Burgundian and pist Roman elements. Being or at least claiming to be half Roman lijely helped in that bonding.
Roy
As to non monogamous barbarians, I would agree that they took and owned slaves, but most tribes that enter the Empire are Christians and that rather precludes bigamy. I have no recollection of seeing any instances of Germans taking multiple wives, though, if they are like Vikings they would take concubines.

Quote from: aligern on October 01, 2015, 08:08:49 PM... and to have had an army that combined both Burgundian and pist Roman elements.

"Pist Roman"? Yes - Burgundy will do that.

As for Christianity and polygamy, the conversion of the Burgundians is unclear. Orosius apparently implies c.417; some modern writers doubt that it was that early, perhaps AD 430; in any case there's a good chance they were been predominantly pagan when they crossed the Rhine and established their first kingdom, and converted later.

Do you know something that you are not telling us about German marriage arrangements Duncan?

This from Tacitus Germania:

'18. The matrimonial bond is, nevertheless, strict and severe among them; nor is there anything in their manners more commendable than this. [106] Almost singly among the barbarians, they content themselves with one wife; a very few of them excepted, who, not through incontinence, but because their alliance is solicited on account of their rank, [107] practise polygamy. The wife does not bring a dowry to her husband, but receives one from him. [108] The parents and relations assemble, and pass their approbation on the presents -- presents not adapted to please a female taste, or decorate the bride; but oxen, a caparisoned steed, a shield, spear, and sword. By virtue of these, the wife is espoused; and she in her turn makes a present of some arms to her husband. This they consider as the firmest bond of union; these, the sacred mysteries, the conjugal deities. That the woman may not think herself excused from exertions of fortitude, or exempt from the casualties of war, she is admonished by the very ceremonial of her marriage, that she comes to her husband as a partner in toils and dangers; to suffer and to dare equally with him, in peace and in war: this is indicated by the yoked oxen, the harnessed steed, the offered arms. Thus she is to live; thus to die. She receives what she is to return inviolate [109] and honored to her children; what her daughters-in-law are to receive, and again transmit to her grandchildren.'

I am well aware that Tacitus can be seen as promoting a view of the Germans as representing the noble savage exemplifying old Roman values, but It would be interesting to see any evidence for polygamy.
Roy

You've already conceded concubinage; that amounts to informal polygamy, so who needs the legal sort?

Quote from: Duncan Head on October 02, 2015, 08:45:55 AM
You've already conceded concubinage; that amounts to informal polygamy, so who needs the legal sort?

I think we have to accept that 'Roman Influence' would enter households.
We also have Theodoric commenting that "A poor Roman plays the Goth, a rich Goth the Roman"

So I think that you'd see a drift in fashion, and the presence of women capable of producing the garments would help the drift

Jim

Depends whether your concubine knits your jumpers. Weaving patterns would most likely be under the control of the formal wife who would not be as open to modifying traditional patterns or styles in either clothing or marital arrangements. Go look at the story of Kjartan.
As to evidence, I am expecting some from your treadure trove of cites, not a mere debating ploy that I conceded a possibility.
There are enough examples where barbarian tribes are identifiable by their hairstyles, jewellery, clothing and weapons to suggest that tradition would be held to . You wouldn't want to be getting a javelin between the shoulder blades just because you had the wrong cut of tunic.

Roy

Dearest Jim, just reread the old saw that you are quoting, if the poor Roman imitates the Goth then those wearing their wife's weaving would be wearing more 'Gothic' clothing.  At the top they did indeed surround themselves with Roman luxury and there seem to have been two schools, one which complained about the Romanisation of Athalaric xand the other that studied philosophy such as Theodahad. That's all at a level in which I doubt their aristocratic wives sewed tunics.

So what are you arguing now, Roy? That Simon's wrong to show the Burgundian comitatus in Romanising tunics, that if they did wear them they weren't woven by their traditionalist wives, or what?

Oh, and as to "That's all at a level in which I doubt their aristocratic wives sewed tunics", I suspect the women of aristocratic households did exactly that, even if the official wife was merely supervising the maids and the daughters. If it was good enough for Attila's wife, as Priskos tells us ...