Editing Migration Period (section)

=== Viewpoints ===
{{Blockquote
|text=''Völkerwanderung'' is a German word, borrowed from German historiography, that refers to the early migrations of the Germanic peoples. In a broader sense it can mean the mass migration of whole tribes or ethnic groups.
|source=Bell-Fialkoff, Andrew. ''The Role of Migration'', p. 15
}}

[[File:East-Hem 100ad.jpg|thumb|270px|Location of [[Xiongnu]] and other steppe nations in 100 AD. Some historians believe that the [[Huns]] originated from the Xiongnu.]]

Rather than "invasion", German and Slavic scholars speak of "migration" (see {{langx|de|Völkerwanderung}}, {{langx|cs|Stěhování národů}}, {{langx|sv|folkvandring}} and {{langx|hu|népvándorlás}}), aspiring to the idea of a dynamic and "wandering [[Indo-European languages|Indo-Germanic]] people".{{sfn|Halsall|2006b|p=236}}

In contrast, the standard terms in French and Italian historiography translate to "barbarian invasions", or even "barbaric invasions" ({{langx|fr|Invasions barbares}}, {{langx|it|Invasioni barbariche}}).

Historians have postulated several explanations for the appearance of "barbarians" on the Roman frontier: climate change, weather and crops, [[population pressure]], a "primeval urge" to push into the Mediterranean, the construction of the [[Great Wall of China]] causing a "domino effect" of tribes being forced westward, leading to the Huns falling upon the Goths who, in turn, pushed other Germanic tribes before them.<ref>Wright, David Curtis (1997). "The Hsiung-Nu-Hun Equation Revisited". ''Eurasian Studies Yearbook''. 69: 77–112.</ref> In general, French and Italian scholars have tended to view this as a catastrophic event, the destruction of a civilization and the beginning of a "Dark Age" that set Europe back a millennium.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=35}} In contrast, German and English historians have tended to see Roman–Barbarian interaction as the replacement of a "tired, effete and decadent Mediterranean civilization" with a "more virile, martial, Nordic one".{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=35}}

[[File:Barbarian invasions from 3rd century.png|thumb|270px|[[Barbarian invasions of the 3rd century|Barbarian invasions against the Roman Empire in the 3rd&nbsp;century]]]]

The scholar [[Guy Halsall]] has seen the barbarian movement as the result of the fall of the Roman Empire, not its cause.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=35}} Archaeological discoveries have confirmed that Germanic and Slavic tribes were settled agriculturalists who were probably merely "drawn into the politics of an empire already falling apart for quite a few other causes".{{sfn|Heather|2006|p=247}} Goffart argues that the process of settlement was connected to ''hospitalitas'', the Roman practice of quartering soldiers among the civilian population. The Romans, by granting land and the right to levy taxes to allied (Germanic) armies, hoped to reduce the financial burdens of the empire.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Henri J. M. Claessen, Jarich Gerlof Oosten |title=Ideology and the Formation of Early States |date=1996 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=9789004104709 |page=222}}</ref> The [[Crisis of the Third Century]] caused significant changes within the Roman Empire in both its western and its eastern portions.<ref>{{harvtxt|Curta|2001|p=120}} "[T]he archaeological evidence of late fourth- and fifth-century barbarian graves between the Rhine and Loire suggests that a process of small-scale cultural and demographic change took place on both sides of the Roman frontier. Can we envisage Roman-Slavic relations in a similar way?"</ref> In particular, economic fragmentation removed many of the political, cultural and economic forces that had held the empire together.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=42}}

The rural population in Roman provinces became distanced from the metropolis, and there was little to differentiate them from other peasants across the Roman frontier. In addition, Rome increasingly used foreign mercenaries to defend itself. That "barbarisation" parallelled changes within [[Barbaricum]]. To this end, noted linguist Dennis Howard Green wrote, "the first centuries of our era witness not merely a progressive Romanisation of barbarian society, but also an undeniable barbarisation of the Roman world."{{sfn|Green|1998|p=143}} 

For example, the Roman Empire played a vital role in building up barbarian groups along its frontier. Propped up with imperial support and gifts, the armies of allied barbarian chieftains served as buffers against other, hostile, barbarian groups. The disintegration of Roman [[economic power]] weakened groups that had come to depend on Roman gifts for the maintenance of their own power. The arrival of the Huns helped prompt many groups to invade the provinces for economic reasons.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=49}}

[[File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png|thumb|270px|[[Barbarian kingdoms]] and peoples after the end of the [[Western Roman Empire]] in 476 AD]]

The nature of the barbarian takeover of former Roman provinces varied from region to region. For example, in [[Aquitaine]], the provincial administration was largely self-reliant. Halsall has argued that local rulers simply "handed over" military rule to the [[Ostrogoths]], acquiring the identity of the newcomers.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=51}} In [[Gaul]], the collapse of imperial rule resulted in anarchy: the Franks and [[Alamanni|Alemanni]] were pulled into the ensuing "power vacuum",{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|p=50}} resulting in conflict. In Hispania, local aristocrats maintained independent rule for some time, raising their own armies against the [[Vandals]]. Meanwhile, the Roman withdrawal from lowland England resulted in conflict between [[Saxons]] and the [[Celtic Britons|Brittonic]] chieftains (whose centres of power retreated westward as a result). The [[Eastern Roman Empire]] attempted to maintain control of the Balkan provinces despite a thinly-spread imperial army relying mainly on local militias and an extensive effort to refortify the Danubian ''[[Limes (Roman Empire)|limes]]''. The ambitious fortification efforts collapsed, worsening the impoverished conditions of the local populace and resulting in colonization by Slavic warriors and their families.<ref>{{harvtxt|Curta|2001|pp=120–180}}</ref>

Halsall and Noble have argued that such changes stemmed from the breakdown in Roman political control, which exposed the weakness of local Roman rule. Instead of large-scale migrations, there were military takeovers by small groups of warriors and their families, who usually numbered only in the tens of thousands. The process involved active, conscious decision-making by Roman provincial populations.

The collapse of centralized control severely weakened the sense of Roman identity in the provinces, which may explain why the provinces then underwent dramatic cultural changes even though few barbarians settled in them.{{sfn|Halsall|2006a|pp=50–52}} Ultimately, the Germanic groups in the [[Western Roman Empire]] were accommodated without "dispossessing or overturning indigenous society", and they maintained a structured and hierarchical (but attenuated) form of Roman administration.{{sfn|Heather|2006|p=251}}

Ironically, they lost their unique identity as a result of such an  accommodation and were absorbed into Latinhood. In contrast, in the east, Slavic tribes maintained a more "spartan and egalitarian"<ref>{{harvtxt|Barford|2001|p=46}}</ref> existence bound to the land "even in times when they took their part in plundering Roman provinces".<ref>{{harvtxt|Pohl1998|p=20}}</ref> Their organizational models were not Roman, and their leaders were not normally dependent on Roman gold for success. Thus they arguably had a greater effect on their region than the Goths, the Franks or the [[Saxons]] had on theirs.<ref>{{harvtxt|Geary|2003|p=146}}</ref>