What do you think?
Rate this book
Das Reich und die Germanen: Zwischen Antike und Mittelalter
pp. 477, text in German, ep maps, b/w illustrations and sketch maps.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1997
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 11, 2014
The author surveys the origins of the tribes, their interactions with the romans, the migratory movements and the eventual establishment of 'federate' kingdoms on roman soil. Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, each one gets a chapter, their kings and policies are discussed and also their relationship with the eastern Roman Empire and the other germanic kingdoms.
June 1, 2008
Can I get away with rating a book I didn't read all the way through? I wouldn't have thought it possible to make invading barbarian hordes seem dry and stuffy.
March 5, 2021
So well-researched // so poorly written. If you’re looking for dry info this book is worth your effort. If you’re looking for even a vaguely enjoyable read then run far far away from this author😂☠️
June 22, 2026
The single most important book to understand how Romanised Germanic princes took over the mantle of Roman civilisation, in the process, neither restoring nor destroying it but making themselves a home within it, ‘just as the Spaniards, Gauls, and Illyrians had done before them.'
The Roman-Germanic kingdoms still thought themselves part of a larger whole, firstly, a less convincing example might be when, according to the description of Gallo-Roman historian Gregory of Tours, after many victories Clovis triumphantly entered the city of Tours in 508, where he didn't just gain the recognition of his rule in Constantinople through envoys sent to him but was named both patricius and honorary consul after holding what was essentially a triumph reminiscent of imperial commanders operating in the provinces, donning a purple tunic and chlamys, a vestment that was part of the usual uniform of imperial officials. Though I suppose its easy to just dismiss this as a mere recognition by Constantinople of their loss of direct imperial control over Gaul. The more convincing argument, one of world historical importance but nearly completely misunderstood due to Enlightenment historians, would be this: after abolishing the Western emperorship in 476, Odocavar's (a magister militum of Romano-Scirian descent) ‘Italian kingdom’ was a federate kingdom on Roman soil held in the name of the deposed Western emperor Nepos, and after Odocavar's death, under the rule of Theoderic the Great and his Pannonian Goths, de jure under Constantinople under Zeno. Odoacer's deposition was, in reality, a very prudent move, considering the situation of the empire by 480 AD, which was such that you often had one ruthless usurper after another in constant never-ending succession. The deposition of the ‘last’ Western Roman emperor, himself illegitimately installed by the previous generalissimo Orestes, brought stability to the state, an end to civil wars and usurpations. Every Roman institution, from the tax system, bureaucracy, consular offices and the Senate, was still intact in 500 AD. The true cost was the West giving up universalism and deliberately subordinating itself to the East.
The way to make true sense of over a thousand years of Byzantine and Holy Roman history is to understand what the deposition really entailed. Medieval historian Herwig Wolfram's epilogue to his book The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples: I'm going to quote here: ‘The Germanic peoples neither destroyed the Roman world nor initially restored it; instead, they made a home for themselves within it, just as the Spaniards, Gauls, and Illyrians had done before them.' In contrast to their predecessors, however, they temporarily gave up the Western Empire and the universality of its social order and way of life: the one emperor in Constantinople was “enough” for them—that was the gist of Odovacar’s message to Zeno. And the royal heirs of the western empire honoured the Byzantine emperor as their lord and father in the same way that they accepted the primacy of the model of Byzantium unquestioningly for many centuries. Only the success of Charlemagne— king of the Franks (a people “orthodox since time immemorial”) and the Longobards (a people long since “very Catholic”) and Patricius Romanorum recognised by the emperor and the pope— made possible the reestablishment of the western Roman Empire as an imperium that now took its place as equal to— though not of the same rank as— the basileus of the Romaioi. Thus the imperial coronation on Christmas Day in the year 800 established, via the Frankish kingdom of the Merovingians and Carolingians, the link between the Imperium Romanum and “its” Germanic peoples and the high medieval Holy Roman Empire of the Germans.’
In a sense, Europeans today face the same conundrum that once confronted Odoacer - a dilemma that Charlemagne ultimately resolved. Complacently we subordinated ourselves, but worse yet, we have given up universalism and our ambition to govern the world. That's essentially the gist of European politicians, who seem to be happy to merely be a cog under the US sphere of economic, political and socio-cultural influence as we slowly seem to head to our own destruction until Europe decides to retake the reins and forge its own destiny again.
The Roman-Germanic kingdoms still thought themselves part of a larger whole, firstly, a less convincing example might be when, according to the description of Gallo-Roman historian Gregory of Tours, after many victories Clovis triumphantly entered the city of Tours in 508, where he didn't just gain the recognition of his rule in Constantinople through envoys sent to him but was named both patricius and honorary consul after holding what was essentially a triumph reminiscent of imperial commanders operating in the provinces, donning a purple tunic and chlamys, a vestment that was part of the usual uniform of imperial officials. Though I suppose its easy to just dismiss this as a mere recognition by Constantinople of their loss of direct imperial control over Gaul. The more convincing argument, one of world historical importance but nearly completely misunderstood due to Enlightenment historians, would be this: after abolishing the Western emperorship in 476, Odocavar's (a magister militum of Romano-Scirian descent) ‘Italian kingdom’ was a federate kingdom on Roman soil held in the name of the deposed Western emperor Nepos, and after Odocavar's death, under the rule of Theoderic the Great and his Pannonian Goths, de jure under Constantinople under Zeno. Odoacer's deposition was, in reality, a very prudent move, considering the situation of the empire by 480 AD, which was such that you often had one ruthless usurper after another in constant never-ending succession. The deposition of the ‘last’ Western Roman emperor, himself illegitimately installed by the previous generalissimo Orestes, brought stability to the state, an end to civil wars and usurpations. Every Roman institution, from the tax system, bureaucracy, consular offices and the Senate, was still intact in 500 AD. The true cost was the West giving up universalism and deliberately subordinating itself to the East.
The way to make true sense of over a thousand years of Byzantine and Holy Roman history is to understand what the deposition really entailed. Medieval historian Herwig Wolfram's epilogue to his book The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples: I'm going to quote here: ‘The Germanic peoples neither destroyed the Roman world nor initially restored it; instead, they made a home for themselves within it, just as the Spaniards, Gauls, and Illyrians had done before them.' In contrast to their predecessors, however, they temporarily gave up the Western Empire and the universality of its social order and way of life: the one emperor in Constantinople was “enough” for them—that was the gist of Odovacar’s message to Zeno. And the royal heirs of the western empire honoured the Byzantine emperor as their lord and father in the same way that they accepted the primacy of the model of Byzantium unquestioningly for many centuries. Only the success of Charlemagne— king of the Franks (a people “orthodox since time immemorial”) and the Longobards (a people long since “very Catholic”) and Patricius Romanorum recognised by the emperor and the pope— made possible the reestablishment of the western Roman Empire as an imperium that now took its place as equal to— though not of the same rank as— the basileus of the Romaioi. Thus the imperial coronation on Christmas Day in the year 800 established, via the Frankish kingdom of the Merovingians and Carolingians, the link between the Imperium Romanum and “its” Germanic peoples and the high medieval Holy Roman Empire of the Germans.’
In a sense, Europeans today face the same conundrum that once confronted Odoacer - a dilemma that Charlemagne ultimately resolved. Complacently we subordinated ourselves, but worse yet, we have given up universalism and our ambition to govern the world. That's essentially the gist of European politicians, who seem to be happy to merely be a cog under the US sphere of economic, political and socio-cultural influence as we slowly seem to head to our own destruction until Europe decides to retake the reins and forge its own destiny again.
June 3, 2026
Interessant zu sehen, wie wenig aus dem Geschichtsunterricht hängen geblieben ist. Oder hat man die Völkerwanderung einfach übersprungen und mit Karl Weihnachten 800 weitergemacht? Unterhaltsam geschrieben ist es, vielleicht etwas chaotisch mit den vielen Zeitsprüngen, aber das lässt sich wohl nicht vermeiden. Jedenfalls ist es schön, so viel Neues zu lernen, obwohl ich freilich das meiste schon wieder vegessen habe.
September 1, 2025
An excellent read, but not for the feint of heart (that is, if you struggle with reading foreign words and names, this may not be a good starting point for you). Wolfram is thorough in his research, clear in his articulation, and sound in his reasoning from all that I am able to tell. Definitely a worthwhile read if you're interested in Rome, the Germanic peoples, and ancient history.
June 21, 2020
A long slow detailed read, but with many insights I've never seen anywhere else. I write historical fiction set in the Roman/German migration period and this will be a valuable reference.
September 29, 2011
I took a long time with this book. It is not the type of book that you can't wait to curl up with. The subject matter is vast and complexly intertwined. So many names, so few visuals. It is immensley important in it's field and a valuable and informative read, but I took it best in pieces so that my brain didn't go numb.
December 2, 2010
great for understanding border psychology and life on the Rhine in the 4th century.
Very relevant for today in the wealth of disparities.
Very relevant for today in the wealth of disparities.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews