THE TRANSFORMATION OF

THE ROMAN WORLD

a scientific programme of the european science foundation
Coordinators
JAVIER ARCE . EVANGELOS CHRYSOS . IAN WOOD
Team Leaders
Miquel Barcel
Mark Blackburn
Gianpietro Brogiolo
Alain Dierkens
Richard Hodges
Marco Mostert
Patrick Prin
Walter Pohl
Frans Theuws
Leslie Webster

Steering Committee
Gunilla kerstrm-Hougen
Volker Bierbrauer
Niels Hannestad
Przemyslaw Urbanczyk

Mario Mazza
H.H. van Regteren Altena
Heid Gjstein Resi
L. Cracco Ruggini

Series Editor
IAN WOOD
VOLUME 12

THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITIES

IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES

THE CONSTRUCTION OF
COMMUNITIES IN THE EARLY
MIDDLE AGES
Texts, Resources and Artefacts
EDITED BY

RICHARD CORRADINI
MAX DIESENBERGER
HELMUT REIMITZ

BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON
2003

GENS. TERMINOLOGY AND PERCEPTION OF THE

GERMANIC PEOPLES FROM LATE ANTIQUITY
TO THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES
Hans-Werner Goetz
The relationship between the Empire, on the one hand, and the
peoples and realms of the Great Migration (Vlkerwanderung) on the
other as well as the political supersession of the Empire by the socalled Germanic kingdoms obviously are a central aspect in the discussion of The Transformation of the Roman World. It is no less
obvious that the process of ethnogenesis (or the process by which a
people evolved into a political unit) and terms such as tribe (Stamm),
people or nation when used in connection with the development
of the Germanic peoples, are seen in a much more differentiated
manner nowadays than a few decades ago. Since Reinhard Wenskus
wrote his great book Stammesbildung und Verfassung in 1961, our perception of the Germanic peoples has changed: they are no longer
regarded as homogeneous ethnic units, but as constantly changing
institutions focussed in a kernel of tradition (Traditionskern) and held
together by political leadership and the consciousness of a common
origin and tradition.1 Thus, their names are no more than collective terms for various groups of different origin.
A variety of questions await being unravelled. Thus, it seems to
me, first, that in our research we often do not distinguish clearly
enough between Germanic peoples and Germanic kingdoms.2 This
1
R. Wenskus, Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frhmittelalterlichen gentes 2nd
edn. (Kln, Wien and Graz 1977). Cf. P.J. Geary, Ethnic Identity as a situational
construct in the early Middle Ages, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien
113 (1983) pp. 1526; Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Bayern, ed.
H. Wolfram and W. Pohl (Wien 1990); Ethnogenese und berlieferung. Angewandte Methoden
der Frhmittelalterforschung, ed. K. Brunner and B. Merta, Verffentlichungen des Instituts
fr sterreichische Geschichtsforschung 31 (Wien and Mnchen 1994). Cf. the useful
summary of the state of research given by W. Pohl, Tradition, Ethnogenese und
literarische Gestaltung: eine Zwischenbilanz, ibid., pp. 926, and, lately, id., Die
Germanen, Enzyklopdie deutscher Geschichte 57 (Mnchen 2000) particularly pp. 710.
2
The relationship between gentes and regna has now become the subject of another comparative volume of our team: Gentes et regna. The Relationship between Late
Antique and Early Medieval Peoples and Kingdoms in the Transformation of the Roman World,
ed. H.-W. Goetz, J. Jarnut and W. Pohl (forthcoming).

40

may be justified by the discovery that in their historical reality tribes

and peoples more or less were political institutions rather than ethnic
units. Second, the early medieval Stmme of the Frankish kingdom
such as Bavarians or Saxons, which for a long time had been considered as unchanging units derived from the Germanic peoples3 and
linked to the myth of the so-called Stammesherzogtmer (tribal duchies),4
also have to be seen differently in the light of Wenskus theories,
namely as changing or even as new institutions, because the process
of ethnogenesis did not come to an end with the end of the migration.5 Therefore, the question of a transformation of the gentes gains
an increasing relevance. Third, to my knowledge, research on the
subject up to now has barely, and only in passing, examined the
contemporary perception of peoples (and kingdoms) of that period,6
3
For the traditional view cf. E. Rosenstock-Huessy, Knigshaus und Stmme in
Deutschland zwischen 911 und 1250 (Leipzig 1914); W. Merk, Die deutschen Stmme
in der Rechtsgeschichte, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte Germanistische
Abteilung 58 (1938) pp. 141; K.S. Bader, Volk, Stamm, Territorium, Historische Zeitschrift 176 (1953) pp. 449477 (repr. Herrschaft und Staat im Mittelalter, ed. H. Kmpf,
Wege der Forschung 2 [Darmstadt 1956] pp. 243283); K.G. Hugelmann, Stmme,
Nation und Nationalstaat im Deutschen Mittelalter (Wrzburg 1955). Only recently, J. Fried,
Der Weg in die Geschichte, Propylen Geschichte Deutschlands 1 (Berlin 1994) pp. 703f.,
has spoken of a rebirth of the tribes which actually were old peoples. A different
view is given by R. Wenskus, Die deutschen Stmme im Reiche Karls des Groen,
Karl der Groe. Lebenswerk und Nachleben 1, ed. W. Braunfels (Dsseldorf 1965) pp. 178
219, particularly pp. 190ff.
4
Against this myth, cf. K.F. Werner, La gense des duchs en France et en
Allemagne (1981), id., Vom Frankenreich zur Entfaltung Deutschlands und Frankreichs.
UrsprngeStrukturenBeziehungen. Ausgewhlte Beitrge (Sigmaringen 1984) pp. 278310;
id., Les duchs nationaux dAllemagne au IXe et au Xe sicle (1979), ibid., pp.
311328; H.-W. Goetz, Dux und Ducatus. Begriffs- und verfassungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Entstehung des sogenannten jngeren Stammesherzogtums an der Wende vom neunten zum zehnten Jahrhundert (Bochum 1977); C. Brhl, DeutschlandFrankreich. Die Geburt
zweier Vlker (Kln and Wien 1990) pp. 303ff.; M. Becher, Rex, Dux und Gens. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung des schsischen Herzogtums im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert, Historische
Studien 444 (Husum 1996).
5
Thus Becher, Rex, p. 21: Der Proze der Stammesbildung ist mit dem Ende
der Vlkerwanderungszeit nicht abgebrochen worden.
6
The only modern study on this subject so far was J. Fried, Gens und regnum.
Wahrnehmungs- und Deutungskategorien politischen Wandels im frheren Mittelalter. Bemerkungen zur doppelten Theoriebindung des Historikers, Sozialer Wandel
im Mittelalter. Wahrnehmungsformen, Erklrungsmuster, Regelungsmechanismen, ed. J. Miethke
and K. Schreiner (Sigmaringen 1994) pp. 73104, who recognized that gentes were
a central theme of ninth-century authors; all gentes were perceived according to the
same interpretative structure and seen as being static, without development. However, Fried seems to be misled by criticizing that the Franks did perceive the Normans
as a gens which, according to him, they were not. For the perception of certain elements of ethnic distinction, namely language, arms, costume and hairstyle, cf. now
W. Pohl, Telling the difference: signs of ethnic identity, Strategies of Distinction. The
Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300 800, ed. W. Pohl with H. Reimitz, The

41

which to me seems to be an enormously important concern. In asking this question, the contrast between our modern conceptions and
those of earlier cultures is brought to light, and we learn to understand better the actions of the past by seeing them through the mental paradigms of the time. We may, of course, neither presume that
the understanding of gentes by the people living in late Antiquity and
in the early Middle Ages was similar to ours nor that they regarded
this problem as relevant for the explanation of their world. Since
ethnogenesis is a historical problem, it has to be investigated not
only for each period respectively, but also with regard to its contemporary perceptions. Consequently, I am not going to delve into
the difficult questions of who or what the Germanic peoples were
or how they became what they were,7 but it is my intention to investigate into the perception of gentes in contemporary sources of the
(very) late Antiquity and early Middle Ages: the 5th to 9th centuries.
For late Antiquity this means how they were seen by the Greeks
and Romans, since we lack sources revealing their self-perception.
To place this question in the context of our general theme: Are
there any indications given concerning a transformation of the Roman
World (and mind) through analysis of the peoples perception of
gentes?8 Sure, with Walter Pohl we have to ask critically which reality is generally described by the literary terms.9 The perception of
ones own world is, of course, not identical with historical reality,
but it reflects an intellectual norm. Therefore, I am neither going
to analyze the relevance of contemporary terminology for the past,
nor the day-to-day reality of the Germanic peoples, but rather I
Transformation of the Roman World 2 (Leiden, Boston and Kln 1998) pp. 1669;
for the early medieval concept and usage of gens, cf. now H.-W. Goetz, Gentes.
Zur zeitgenssischen Terminologie und Wahrnehmung ostfrnkischer Ethnogenese
im 9. Jahrhundert, Mitteilungen des Instituts fr sterreichische Geschichtsforschung 108
(2000) pp. 85116. A different, linguistic approach is chosen by J. duQuesnay Adams,
The political grammar of early Hispano-Gothic historians, Medieval Iberia. Essays
on the History and Literature of Medieval Spain, ed. D.J. Kagay and J.T. Snow, Ibrica
25 (New York, Washington, Baltimore, Bern, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Wien and
Paris 1997) pp. 125, who analyzes the quantitative usage of the terms populus, gens,
natio, patria, regnum, and imperium in Isidore and three minor authors according to
grammar and semantic unity. The study, however, only aims at a methodical model
and does not offer definite historical results.
7
Cf. H. Wolfram, Die Germanen, Becksche Reihe 2004 (Mnchen 1995); Pohl,
Germanen.
8
I regarded this question as my (specific) contribution to team 1 of the ESFproject. This contribution is based on a paper given in the teams meeting in Los
Angeles, January 1011, 1997.
9
Pohl, Tradition, particularly p. 9.

42

intend to emphasize that the subjective perception by contemporaries

gives an impression of the intellectual world of those times which
is also part of historical reality. Such a view is also indispensable
to avoid adopting exclusively modern concepts in explaining historical processes. It certainly has its value and can complete the traditional approaches, but, nevertheless, it cannot claim to supersede
questions of the actual reality of ethnogenesis.
To begin with, terminology must be analyzed in detail. Obviously,
gens is the most common term, beside natio (which has a different
etymology, but nearly the same meaning as gens) or even regnum,
whereas populus (at least in its singular form) refers to the political
impact of people within a realm rather than to ethnic units though
sometimes it may also acquire this meaning. There are a few studies on the contemporary use of gens by classical Roman authors10
or on the multiple and interchangeable significance of gens and natio
in the early Middle Ages,11 but we still lack a thorough investiga-

10
Cf. C. Redlich, Germanische Gemeinschaftsformen in der berlieferung des
Tacitus, Studien aus Alteuropa. Festschrift Kurt Tackenberg 2, ed. R. von Uslar, Beihefte
der Bonner Jahrbcher 10/II (Kln and Graz 1965) pp. 186194; K. Kraft, Die
Entstehung des Namens Germania, Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft
an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitt Frankfurt a.M. 9, 2 (Frankfurt am Main 1970)
pp. 2762 (id., Kleine Schriften. Gesammelte Aufstze zur antiken Geschichte und Militrgeschichte
1 [Darmstadt 1973] pp. 96131); G. Perl, Die gesellschaftliche Terminologie in
Tacitus Germania, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Gesellschaftswissenschaften 15 G (Berlin 1982) pp. 5666; A.A. Lund, Neue Studien zum Verstndnis der Namenstze in der Germania des Tacitus (2, 2 und 2, 3), Gymnasium
89 (1982) pp. 296327. Whereas Redlich interprets gens as a political, civitas as a
cultural and legal and natio as an ethnical term in Tacitus, Kraft thinks that gens
refers to descent, while natio refers to the native country. These contradictions show
that it seems impossible to gain a clear interpretation of these terms. Cf. also
F. Gschnitzer, Volk, Nation, Nationalismus, Masse (Altertum), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe 7 (1992) pp. 151171; ibid. 169: gens occurs much more frequently than natio
and is the normal expression for a people; ibid. pp. 168ff. for the relationship and
the meaning of gens and natio.
11
Cf. B. Zientara, PopulusGensNatio. Einige Probleme aus dem Bereich
der ethnischen Terminologie des frhen Mittelalters, Nationalismus in vorindustrieller
Zeit, ed. O. Dann (Mnchen 1986) pp. 1120; F. Loek, Ethnische und politische
Terminologie bei Iordanes und Einhard, Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer
Bercksichtigung der Bayern 1, ed. H. Wolfram and W. Pohl, Denkschriften der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 201 (Wien
1990) pp. 147152. On natio cf. H.-D. Kahl, Einige Beobachtungen zum Sprachgebrauch von natio im mittelalterlichen Latein mit Ausblicken auf das neuhochdeutsche
Fremdwort Nation, Aspekte der Nationenbildung im Mittelalter, ed. H. Beumann and
W. Schrder, Nationes 1 (Sigmaringen 1978) pp. 63108; Brhl, Deutschland, pp.
243ff.; K.F. Werner, Volk, Nation, Nationalismus, Masse (Mittelalter), Geschichtliche
Grundbegriffe 7 (1992) pp. 186ff.

43

tion of this subject. Our questions, therefore, are: What did authors
of the late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages mean when they
used terms like gens, how did they perceive the gentes (particularly the
Germanic peoples) of their own time, is there a development or
transformation in these perceptions from the 5th- to the 9th-centuries,
and how do their perceptions differ from ours?
Clearly, I am only able to make some preliminary remarks based
on exemplary observations from a few selected sources: Orosius
Historia adversum paganos (particularly its seventh book), written about
417/8,12 in a close comparison with his main source, the Breviarium
of Eutropius, written after 364,13 allowing us to compare (and contrast) not only authors, both Roman (in the political sense of the
word), of the fourth and the early fifth century, but also pagan and
christian perceptions. For the Merovingian period, the so-called
Fredegar chronicle,14 written about 658/660, which will be examined in a close comparison with his source, the Histories of Gregory
of Tours,15 written at the end of the sixth century, which enables us
12
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII, ed. C. Zangemeister, CSEL 5
(Wien 1882), and M.P. Arnaud-Lindet, Orose. Histoire contre les paens, Collections des
universits de France. Publications de lInstitut dtudes mdivales 18 (Paris 1990/91).
For him cf. the commentary by A. Lippold: Paulus Orosius, Historiae adversum paganos.
Die deutsche Weltgeschichte in christlicher Sicht, ed. A. Lippold, 2 vols. (Zrich 1985/86);
B. Lacroix, Orose et ses ides (Montral and Paris 1965); F. Fabbrini, Paolo Orosio.
Uno storico (Roma 1979); H.-W. Goetz, Die Geschichtstheologie des Orosius, Impulse der
Forschung 32 (Darmstadt 1980); D. Koch-Peters, Ansichten des Orosius zur Geschichte
seiner Zeit, Studien zur klassischen Philologie 9 (Frankfurt, Bern and New York 1984);
C. Torres Rodriguez, Paulo Orosio. Su vida y sus obras (Madrid 1985).
13
Eutropius, Breviarium ab urbe condita, ed. C. Santini, Bibliotheca Teubneriana
(Leipzig 1979). Cf. H.W. Bird, Eutropius: his life and career, Echos du monde classique 32 (1988) pp. 5160.
14
Fredegar, Chronicae, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SS rerum Merovingicarum 2 (Hannover
1888) pp. 1168. For the author, cf. R. Collins, Fredegar, Authors of the Middle
Ages. Historical and Religious Writers of the Latin West 4, fasc. 1213 (Aldershot
1996) pp. 73138.
15
Gregory of Tours, Historiae, ed. B. Krusch and W. Levison, MGH SS rerum
Merovingicarum 1, 1 (Hannover 1951). Cf. M. Heinzelmann, Gregor von Tours
(538594). Zehn Bcher Geschichte. Historiographie und Gesellschaftskonzept im 6. Jahrhundert
(Darmstadt 1994); A.H.B. Breukelaar, Historiography and Episcopal Authority in Sixthcentury Gaul. The Histories of Gregory of Tours Interpreted in Their Historical Context,
Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 57 (Gttingen 1994); I. Wood,
Gregory of Tours (Bangor-Gwynedd 1994); Ch. Lelong, Grgoire de Tours. Sa vie et son
oeuvre (Chambray-les-Tours 1995); Grgoire de Tours et lespace gaulois. Actes du congrs
international, Tours 35 novembre 1994, ed. N. Gauthier and H. Galini, 13e supplment la Revue Archologique du Centre de la France (Tours 1997); The World
of Gregory of Tours, ed. K. Mitchell and I. Wood, Cultures, beliefs and traditions.
Medieval and early modern peoples (Leiden 2002). Cf. also the contribution by
H. Reimitz in this volume.

44

to compare Gallo-Roman and Frankish views. Finally, for the Carolingian period, the Annales regni Francorum,16 the Annales Fuldenses17 and
the chronicle of Regino of Prm18 will be looked at, allowing a comparison between the perception of the Germanic peoples and those
gentes which later constituted the German (or East Frankish) kingdom.19
In a first step, I shall consider the perception of gentes, in a second,
the usage of corresponding terms. We should be aware (contrary to
our understanding) that the Latin gens at the same time meant family (or lineage), tribe and people (or race): Obviously, the authors
did not make our distinction between these categories, particularly
between the German terms Stamm and Volk.
I
Due to its significance and influence, it may be useful to start with
the explanations given by Isidore of Seville who, in his Etymologiae,
dealt with this subject in two chapters on the law of nations (ius
gentium) and on languages (De linguis gentium).20 Isidore does not define
what a gens is, but takes a common understanding for granted (which
gives his remarks an even wider validity in our discussion). He names
four criteria by which gentes can be distinguished: law,21 language,
origin and customs. Language was related to the gentes, though it was
not a distinctive element. The different languages originated from
the Tower of Babylon.22 Originally, each gens had its own language,
16
Annales regni Francorum, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SS rerum Germanicarum in usum
scholarum [6] (Hannover 1895). Cf. R. McKitterick, Constructing the past in the
early Middle Ages: the case of the Royal Frankish Annals, Transactions of the Royal
Historical Society VI, 7 (1997) pp. 101129; W. Eggert, Zu Inhalt, Form und politischer Terminologie der Frnkischen Reichsannalen, Karl der Groe und das Erbe
der Kulturen. Akten des 8. Symposiums des Medivistenverbandes, Leipzig 15.18. Mrz 1999,
ed. F.-R. Erkens (Berlin 2001) pp. 122134.
17
Annales Fuldenses, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SS rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum [7] (Hannover 1891).
18
Regino of Prm, Chronicon, ed. F. Kurze, MGH SS rerum Germanicarum in
usum scholarum [50] (Hannover 1890).
19
This last section is based on a paper given at the Deutscher Historikertag in
Munich. Cf. Goetz, Gentes.
20
Isidore of Sevilla, Etymologiae sive Origines 5, 6 and 9, 1f., ed. W.M. Lindsay
(Oxford 1911).
21
Isidore of Sevilla, Etymologiae 5, 6: Et inde ius gentium, quia eo iure omnes fere gentes
utuntur.
22
Cf. A. Borst, Der Turmbau zu Babel. Geschichte der Meinungen ber Ursprung und
Vielfalt der Sprachen und Vlker, 5 vols. (Stuttgart 19571965, repr. Mnchen 1995),
for Isidore: II/1, 1958, pp. 438ff., particularly pp. 447ff.

45

but later on, they split up more and more so that consequently many
gentes spoke the same language;23 within one gens, however, there was
only one language.24 The language, therefore, was the primary element.25 The common origin (the third element) was one way to distinguish a gens or natio from others, beside being based on a kind of
union or association: Gens is a multitude (a crowd of people) descending from the same origin or distinct from other nations (peoples)
according to its proper gathering (or collection).26 Common customs
(the fourth criterion) were mentioned only in passing when Isidore
described the Germanic peoples which were distinct in their weapons,
their habits (or behaviour) and, again, their languages.27
Two centuries earlier, in the early fifth century, Orosius perceived
gentes as part of countries and provinces. In his description of the
earth at the beginning of his chronicle,28 he characterized each
province by the number of gentes (which were not enumerated with
names). Thus it seems that he perceived a gens as a comparatively
small unit and as kind of a subdivision of a province, and it is
significant for Orosius, who was interested in the powerful regna mundi
and particularly in Rome,29 that gentes often enough occurred in the
plural. But this may have been an (older) theory, whereas the historical
reality of his own time looked different: In the beginning of book
5, Orosius recalled the Roman victories over numerous peoples and
23
Isidore, Etymologiae 9, 1, 1: Initio autem quot gentes, tot linguae fuerunt, deinde plures
gentes quam linguae; quia ex una lingua multae sunt gentes exortae.
24
Isidore of Sevilla, Etymologiae 9, 1, 10: nemo tamen tam desidiosus est ut in sua gente
positus suae gentis linguam nesciat.
25
Isidore of Sevilla, Etymologiae 9, 1, 14: Ideo autem prius de linguis, ac deinde de gentibus posuimus, quia ex linguis gentes, non ex gentibus linguae exortae sunt.
26
Isidore of Sevilla, Etymologiae 9, 2, 1: Gens est multitudo ab uno principio orta, sive
ab alia natione secundum propriam collectionem distincta. Thus, there is no significant difference in the meaning of gens and natio (etymologically, according to Isidore, gens derived
a gignendo, natio a nascendo). This is confirmed in sources of the ninth century. For
example, Louis the Pious, according to the Astronomer, in 822 summoned an assembly circumiacentium . . . nationum in Frankfurt, and, in the following year, an assembly
conlimitantium gentium, at the same place (Astronomus, Vita Hludowici imperatoris 35,
ed. E. Tremp, MGH SS rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum [64] [Hannover
1995] p. 410; 36, p. 412). Wandalbert of Prm, Miracula s. Goaris 7, ed. O. HolderEgger, MGH SS 15, 1 (Hannover 1887) p. 365, in the same context mentions
Romanae nationis ac linguae homines and Romanae linguae vel gentis homines. Cf. also Brhl,
Deutschland, p. 247.
27
Isidore of Sevilla, Etymologiae 9, 2, 97: Horum plurimae gentes variae armis, discolores
habitu, linguis dissonae, et origine vocabulorum incertae.
28
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos I, 2, pp. 940.
29
For his theory of the four great realms, cf. Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos
2,1, pp. 81f.

46

cities respectively communities (ciuitates)30 which at the same time

meant their ruin: Look, the more fortunate Rome is in its victories, the more unfortunately everything outside Rome is defeated.31
Here, gentes were obviously peoples outside the Roman Empire, but
with a similar structure: It was only through the christian faith that
they were integrated. It is significant that Orosius used the same criteria for a province which Isidore later applied to peoples, namely
laws and their own unique customs.32 For Orosius, however, a people
(outside the Empire) had its own king and was therefore paralleled
by a kingdom.33 Such a political connotation is not to be found in
Isidore. Orosius ideal is a complete unity of country, law, and religion.34 Thus, in his ideological argumentation, christianized Rome as
the one and only Empire had overcome all the tribal distinctions of
the past.
In our context it is particularly important to see how Orosius perceived the Germanic peoples of his time. No doubt, he saw them
as gentes35many of them were called gentes: the Marcomanni, Quadi,
30
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 5, 1, 1, p. 276: Scio aliquantos post haec deinceps permoueri posse, quod uictoriae Romanae multarum gentium et ciuitatum strage crebrescunt.
quamquam, si diligenter appendant, plus damni inuenient accidisse quam commodi.
31
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 5, 1, 3, pp. 276f.: ecce quam feliciter Roma
uincit tam infeliciter quidquid extra Romam est uincitur. Cf. also Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 7, 1, 2, p. 434: Babylon and Rome as the masters of peoples: multa conuenienter inter Babylonam urbem Assyriorum tunc principem gentium et Romam aeque nunc gentibus
dominantem conpacta conscripsi: fuisse illud primum, hoc ultimum imperium.
32
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 5, 1, 14, p. 279: Olim cum bella toto Orbe
feruebant, quaeque prouincia suis regibus suis legibus suisque moribus utebatur, nec erat societas
adfectionum, ubi dissidebat diuersitas potestatum; postremo solutas et barbaras gentes quid tandem
ad societatem adduceret, quas diuersis sacrorum ritibus institutas etiam religio separabat?
33
Cf. Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 7, 3, 10/11, pp. 439f., with an allusion
to the end of the world: unde etiam Dominus ipse Iesus Christus in Euangeliis, cum temporibus
illis in summa tranquillitate uniuersus mundus ageret cunctasque gentes pax una uelaret et a discipulis suis interrogatus esset de conclusione temporum subsequentium, inter cetera sic ait: audituri autem
estis proelia et opinionis proeliorum . . . consurget enim gens in gentem et regnum in regnum et erunt
pestilentiae et fames et terrae motus per loca (Mt 24, 69). For reges as leaders of gentes,
cf. ibid. 7, 37, 8, p. 539 (Goths), and 7, 43, 14, p. 562 (Alans, Vandals and Suebs).
34
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 5, 2, 1, p. 280: Mihi autem prima qualiscumque
motus perturbatione fugienti, quia de confugiendi statione securo, ubique patria, ubique lex et religio mea est.
35
Cf. Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 5, 16, 1, p. 314: Cimbri, Teutonae, Tigurini
and Ambronae as Gallorum Germanorum gentes; 6, 9, 1, p. 377: Suebos maximam et ferocissimam gentem; 6, 21, 12, p. 423: maximas fortissimasque gentes Germaniae armis subegit; 7,
15, 8, p. 471: nam cum insurrexissent gentes inmanitate barbarae, multitudine innumerabiles,
hoc est Marcomanni Quadi Vandali Sarmatae Suebi atque omnis paene Germania; cf. also 7,
22, 6ff., p. 483; 7, 28, 29, p. 505 ( gentes Gothorum instead of Eutropius Gothos); 7,
32, 9ff., p. 513f.; 7, 38, 1, pp. 542f.

47

Vandali, Suebi, Alamanni, Goti, Saxones, Burgundiones; twice, obviously

without any difference in meaning, he refers to them as populi36
and would have preferred them to be subdued.37 In his own time
God allowed these gentes to attack the Roman Empire on all its frontiers,38 though for a good reason, for this alone allowed the pagan
barbarians to acknowledge the christian faith.39 It may be significant
that Orosius, in contrast to other regions where provinces were established, preferred to use gentile names for the Germanic peoples
rather than geographical expressions. He even spoke of gentes where
his source, Eutropius, had used provincia (Dacia).40 This seems to be
a conscious choice since the only time he ever deviated from this
custom and invented a Gothia was in the famous speech of Athaulf,
king of the Goths, who claimed first to have tried to destroy the
Roman Empire in order to establish a Gothic one. Here, Gothia
became a respublica, a political term parallel to Romania.41
In Merovingian times, the leges confirm that gentes, as in Isidore, still
were distinguished by their (written) laws and (unwritten) customs
36
Cf. Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 7, 41, 8, p. 554; 7, 37, 8, p. 539: duo
tunc Gothorum populi.
37
Cf. Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 7, 12, 2, p. 465: [ Traianus] apud Agrippinam
Galliae urbem insignia sumpsit imperii; mox Germaniam trans Rhenum in pristinum statum
reduxit; trans Danuuium multas gentes subegit; regiones autem trans Euphraten et Tigrin sitas
prouincias fecit.
38
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 7, 22, 67, pp. 482f.: soluuntur repente undique
permissu Dei ad hoc circumpositae relictaeque gentes laxatisque habenis in omnes Romanorum fines
inuehuntur. (7) Germani Alpibus Raetia totaque Italia penetrata Rauennam usque perueniunt;
Alamanni Gallias peruagantes etiam in Italiam transeunt; Graecia Macedonia Pontus Asia Gothorum
inundatione deletur; nam Dacia trans Danuuium in perpetuum aufertur; Quadi et Sarmatae
Pannonias depopulantur; Germani ulteriores abrasa potiuntur Hispania; Parthi Mesopotamiam
auferunt Syriamque conradunt.
39
Cf. Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 7, 41, 8, p. 554: quamquam si ob hoc solum
barbari Romanis finibus inmissi forent, quod uulgo per Orientem et Occidentem ecclesiae Christi
Hunis Suebis Vandalis et Burgundionibus diuersisque innumeris credentium populis replentur, laudanda et adtollenda misericordia Dei uideretur, quandoquidem, etsi cum labefactione nostri, tantae gentes agnitionem ueritatis acciperent, quam inuenire utique nisi hac occasione non possent.
40
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 7, 12, 2, p. 389; Eutropii Breviarium 8, 2,
2, p. 50. On the other hand, Orosius changed Eutropius adversus Germanos (9, 1, 1,
p. 57) into in Germania (Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 7, 19, 1, p. 477).
41
Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos 7, 43, 5ff., p. 560: [Athaulf ] se inprimis ardenter inhiasse, ut oblitterato Romano nomine Romanum omne solum Gothorum imperium et faceret
et uocaret essetque, ut uulgaritur loquar, Gothia quod Romania fuisset et fieret nunc Athaulfus
quod quondam Caesar Augustus, at ubi multa experientia probauisset neque Gothos ullo modo
parere legibus posse propter effrenatam barbariem neque reipublicae interdici leges oportere, sine
quibus respublica non est respublica, elegisse saltim, ut gloriam sibi de restituendo in integrum
augendoque Romano nomine Gothorum uiribus quaereret habereturque apud posteros Romanae restitutionis auctor, postquam esse non potuerat immutator.

48

which derived from long-lasting mores.42 The famous prologue of the

Lex Salica described specific features of the gens Francorum.43 Historiographers seemed less clear. It is true that in Gregory of Tours and
Fredegars chronicles only a few of the Germanic gentes, such as the
Franks and Langobards (but also the Huns and Alamans), were
explicitly called a gens,44 but, more frequently, they were distinguished
from other gentes.45 Thus, for Gregory and Fredegar, all these peoples
were gentes. When Fredegar reports that it was the custom of the
Franks (mos Francorum) to symbolically offer a solidus and a denarius
when courting for a wife, he used one of Isidores criteria for distinguishing peoples,46 and Gregory, accordingly, twice recalled the
mos of a people.47 Further, Fredegar reports the myth of a Scandinavian
origin of the Langobards, whose name was more recent.48 (It is interesting to note that it was not necessary to keep the same name after
the migration.)
When comparing these views with perceptions dating from the
late eighth and ninth centuries, it is worth noting that Isidores
42
Cf. Lex Bajuwariorum prol., ed. E. v. Schwind, MGH LL nationum Germanicarum
5, 2 (Hannover 1926) p. 200: Deinde unaquaque gens propriam sibi ex consuetudine elegit
legem. Longa enim consuetudo pro lege habetur. Lex est constitutio scripta. Mos est vetustate probata consuetudo sive lex non scripta (cf. Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae 5, 3). . . . Mos est
autem longa consuetudo de moribus tracta tantundem. Cf. ibid. pp. 201f.: Theuderichus rex
Francorum . . . iussit conscribere legem Francorum et Alamannorum et Baioariorum unicuique genti
quae in eius potestate erat, secundum consuetudinem suam, addidit quae addenda erant et inprovisa et inconposita resecavit . . . (Chlothar completed that). Haec omnia Dagobertus rex
gloriosissimus per viros inlustros . . . renovavit et omnia vetera legum in melius transtulit ut unicuique
genti scriptam tradidit, quae usque hodie perseverant. On the other hand, Franks can live
under the Salic law as well as barbarians! Cf. Pactus legis Salicae 41, 1 (= Lex Salica
69), ed. K.A. Eckhardt, MGH LL nationum Germanicarum 4, 1 (Hannover 1969)
p. 154: Si quis ingenuum Francum aut barbarum, qui lege Salica uiuit, occiderit . . .
43
Pactus legis Salica prol., p. 213: Gens Francorum inclita auctore(m) Deo condita, fortis
in arma, firma pace fetera, profunda in consilio, corporea nobilis, incolumna candore, forma egregie,
audax, uelox et aspera . . .
44
Cf. Gregory of Tours, Historiae 1, 32, p. 25: gens Alamannorum; 2, 12, p. 61:
gens Francorum; 4, 41, p. 174: gens Langobardorum; 6, 2, p. 266: gens Francorum; 9, 25,
p. 444: gens Langobardorum; 9, 29, p. 447: gens Langobardorum; Fredegar, Chronicae 3,
11, p. 96: gens Francorum; 3, 65, p. 110: Langobardorum gens, priusquam hoc nomen adsumerit,
exientes de Scathanavia.
45
Cf. Gregory of Tours, Historiae 5 prol., p. 194: a gentibus adversis oppressi; 8, 30,
p. 395: gentesque adversas; Fredegar, Chronicae 2, 57, p. 81: cum pluris prilia Wandalis et
Suaevis ceterisque gentis (sic); cf. also ibid., p. 79: cum gentes vicinis; 3, 9, p. 95: utilissimus vir in gente sua (the Franks); 3, 11, p. 96: gentes que vicinas erant; 3, 22, p. 102:
ut quod aliae gentes passae sunt non perferamus.
46
Fredegar, Chronicae 3, 18, p. 100: ut mos erat Francorum.
47
Gregory of Tours, Historiae 2, 27, p. 71: ut Gothorum pavere mos est; ibid. 10, 27,
p. 520: mos Francorum (to remain seated after the meal).
48
Fredegar, Chronicae 3, 65, p. 110 (the Langobards believed that they had been
given their name by a God).

49

approach had prevailed. This is attested not only by the fact that
his remarks were repeated word by word in the encyclopedia of
Hrabanus Maurus, De universo,49 or by a similar statement given by
Bede and repeated (and altered) by Frechulph of Lisieux in the ninth
century,50 but first of all by the precise analogy in the letter that
Regino of Prm placed at the beginning of his chronicle: The
different peoples differ from one another in their origin (descent),
customs, language and laws.51 It may suffice here to state that the
same criteria recur independently in several other contexts. To give
only a few examples: Einhard, the biographer of Charlemagne, reports
the emperors decree that all nations under his dominion should
record their laws,52 and in another chapter, he confirms that all the
nations living between the rivers Rhine and Vistula, Danube and
the North Sea nearly spoke the same language, but were fairly distinct in their customs and habits.53 The synod of Tribur (895) prohibited divorces from foreign women from another people,54 but
acknowledged explicitly that the gentes each had their specific law.55
The criterion of gens-specific customs is verified in a report in the

49
Hrabanus Maurus, De universo 16, 1f., ed. J.-P. Migne, PL 111 (Paris 1864)
col. 435445.
50
Cf. Beda Venerabilis, De linguis gentium, ed. J.-P. Migne, PL 90 (Paris 1904)
col. 1179: Initio autem quot gentes sunt, tot linguae fuerunt. Deinde plures gentes quam linguae,
quia ex uno lingua multae sunt gentes exortae. Cf. Frechulph of Lisieux, Chronicon 1, 28,
ed. J.-P. Migne, PL 106 (Paris 1864) col. 936C: Divisiones autem linguarum septuaginta
duas fuisse historia declarat, non ut solummodo tot homines tunc fuissent, et non plures, sed tot
jam principes familiarum ex filiis Noe procreatos ostendit, qui populos et gentes condiderunt.
51
Regino of Prm, Chronicon, p. XX: diversae nationes populorum inter se discrepant
genere moribus lingua legibus.
52
Einhard, Vita Karoli 29, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SS rerum Germanicarum
in usum scholarum [25], 6th edn. (Hannover 1911) p. 33.
53
Einhard, Vita Karoli 15, p. 18: deinde omnes barbaras ac feras nationes, quae inter
Rhenum ac Visulam fluvios oceanumque ac Danubium positae, lingua quidem poene similes, moribus
vero atque habitu valde dissimiles, Germaniam incolunt, ita perdomuit, ut eas tributarias efficeret.
The following specification displays that Einhard here meant chiefly the Slavs. Thus
he obviously did not feel any contradiction to the fact that these Slavs inhabited
Germany.
54
Synod of Tribur, MGH Capitularia regum Francorum 2, ed. A. Boretius and
V. Krause (Hannover 1890/97) nr. 252, c. 39, pp. 235f.: Si quis alienigenam in matrimonium duxerit, habere debebit. Quicunque alienigenam, hoc est alienae gentis feminam, verbi gratia
Francus mulierem Baioaricam, utrorumque consultu propinquorum legitime vel sua vel mulieris lege
adquisitam in coniugium duxerit, velit nolit, tenenda erit nec ultra ab eo separanda, excepta fornicationis causa.
55
Synod of Tribur, c. 39a, pp. 235f.: quamvis enim una fides et unum baptisma (Eph
4, 5) utramque nationem regat, legem tamen inter se, quantum ad seculum, sortiuntur diversam.
Cf. ibid. c. 39, p. 236: legem tamen habent diversam et, quantum ad saeculum, interdum longe
disiunctam. If faith did not alter life, quomodo mutat eam, qui non mutat vitam, sed transit

50

Annals of Fulda recording that the Danes swore their oath according to their own rite, namely with their weapons.56 The common
origin of members of a gens is confirmed by the origines gentium which
have already been discussed thoroughly.57 This could include the
phenomenon of migration and taking possession of a new country
or region, which is clearly seen in the Translatio s. Alexandri which
reports that the Saxons came from Britain, landed in Hadeln and
were settled by the Merovingian king Theuderic in the land of the
Thuringians.58 Consequently, a gens had its proper territory (which
is worth mentioning because German legal historians still tend to
emphasize the Personalittsprinzip). In the Annales regni Francorum we
read about terra illius, that is of the gens Francorum,59 and the Translatio
s. Alexandri mentions frontiers and neighbours of the Saxons.60 However,
de gente ad gentem? Hrabanus Maurus reports that the Saxons did not allow members of other peoples to function as witnesses: Liber de oblatione puerorum, ed. J.-P.
Migne, PL 107 (Paris 1864) col. 431B: Hoc enim, aiunt, legem gentis suae pati non posse,
ut alterius gentis homo in testimonium citetur ad infringendam legem libertatis suae. Cf. also
Council of Neuching (872), ed. A. Werminghoff, MGH Concilia 2 (Berlin 1908) nr.
16B, p. 104 l. 22: gentis suae institutiones legum.
56
Annales Fuldenses a. 873, p. 79: iuxta ritum gentis suae. Similarly Annales regni Francorum a. 823, p. 160, that the Wilci conveyed power on Milegast secundum ritum gentis.
57
Cf. most recently H. Kugler, Das Eigene aus der Fremde. ber Herkunftssagen der Franken, Sachsen und Bayern, Interregionalitt der deutschen Literatur im europischen Mittelalter, ed. H. Kugler (Berlin and New York 1995) pp. 175193; H. Wolfram,
Origo et religio. Ethnic traditions and literature in early medieval texts, Early Medieval
Europe 3 (1994) pp. 1938; J. Barlow, Gregory of Tours and the myth of the
Trojan origins of the Franks, Frhmittelalterliche Studien 29 (1995) pp. 8695; E. Ewig,
Trojamythos und frnkische Frhgeschichte, Die Franken und Alemannen bis zur
Schlacht bei Zlpich, ed. D. Geuenich, Ergnzungsband zum Reallexikon fr Germanische Altertumskunde 19 (Berlin and New York 1998) pp. 130; H.H. Anton,
Troja-Herkunft, origo gentis und frhe Verfatheit der Franken in der gallischfrnkischen Tradition des 5. bis 8. Jahrhunderts, Mitteilungen des Instituts fr sterreichische Geschichtsforschung 108 (2000) pp. 130; H. Wolfram, W. Pohl, H.-H. Anton,
I.N. Wood and M. Becher, Origo Gentis, RGA 22, 2nd edn. (2002, forthcoming).
58
Rudolf of Fulda, Translatio s. Alexandri, ed. B. Krusch, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen, philologisch-historische Klasse 2, 13 (Gttingen 1933) p. 423:
Saxonum gens, sicut tradit antiquitas, ab Anglis Britanniae incolis egressa per Oceanum navigans Germaniae litoribus studio et necessitate quaerendarum sedium appulsa est in loco, qui vocatur
Haduloha, eo tempore, quo Thiotricus rex Francorum contra Irminfridum generum suum, ducem
Thuringorum, dimicnas terram eorum crudeliter ferro vastavit et igni. . . . Audivit enim causam
adventus eorum promissisque pro victoria habitandi sedibus, conduxit eos in adiutorium; quibus
secum quasi iam pro libertate et patria fortiter dimicantibus superavit adversarios vastatisque indigenis et ad internitionem pene deletis, terram eorum iuxta pollicitationem suam victoribus delegavit.
59
Annales regni Francorum a. 787, p. 76; cf. also Annales Fuldenses a. 840, p. 30: The
emperor Louis (the Pious) pursued his son throughout Thuringia usque ad terminos
barbarorum and expelled him a finibus regni.
60
Translatio s. Alexandri 1, p. 423: A meridie quidem Francos habentes et partem Thuringorum;

51

the same author knew very well that the common origin was normally weakened by marrying wives from other gentes: When praising
the Saxons for trying to avoid this intermarriage he at the same time
acknowleged this as an exception; it was significant for the Saxons,
not for a gens as such.61 Moreover, it is important to state that gens
could describe a small tribe as well as a great realm, and even the
regna mundi,62 the people of God orfollowing biblical terminology
the pagan peoples63 (which could even be united by the same faith).64
We can sum up that, in the ninth century, gentes (or nationes) still
meant the same thing (though the evidence has become much more
dense), and were still perceived by using Isidores criteria.65 The same
quos praecedens hostilis turbo non tetigit, et alveo Unstrotae dirimuntur. A septentrione vera
Nordmannos, gentes ferocissimas. Ab ortu autem solis Obodritos, et ab occasu Frisos, a quibus
sine intermissione vel foedere vel concertatione necessario finium suorum spacia tuebantur. Cf. also
Lupus, Vita Wigberti 13, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGH SS 15, 1 (Hannover 1887)
p. 41, l. 28ff.: Effera Saxonum gens proprium transgressa limitem, in finitimorum se agros effuderat
et indigenas non satis fidentes propriis viribus in oppidum cui Buriburg nomen est formidine sui
conpulerat.
61
Translatio s. Alexandri 1, p. 423: Generis quoque ac nobilitatis suae providissimam curam
habentes nec facile ullis aliarum gentium vel sibi inferiorum conubiis infecti propriam et sinceram
et tantum sui similem gentem facere conati sunt. Unde habitus quoque ac magnitudo corporum
comarumque color, tanquam in tanto hominum numero, idem pene omnibus.
62
Cf. Hrabanus Maurus, Expositio super Jeremiam 16, 50, ed. J.-P. Migne, PL 111
(Paris 1864) col. 1155B: Manifesta est historia, quod gens magna Medorum seu Persarum, et
reges multi cum Cyro Persarum rege, et Dario Medorum, convenerunt ad devastandam Babyloniam,
ubi Balthasar rex tunc regnabat. For Notker Balbulus, Gesta Karoli Magni imperatoris 2, 8,
ed. H.F. Haefele, MGH SS rerum Germanicarum Nova Series 12, 2nd edn. (Hannover
1980) p. 59, the Persians of Harun-al-Rashid were a gens. For Hrabanus, not only
the Saxons, but also Franks and Romans were gentes: Liber de oblatione puerorum, col.
431B: dicunt quod super Saxonem nullus de Francorum aut Romanorum, aut ex alia qualibet
gente, licet inter suos nobilis natu atque honestus conversatione habeatur, nisi Saxo testis esse possit. Similarly the Annals of Fulda a. 873, p. 79, speak of the gens Francorum, and
Regino of Prm, in the preface of his chronicle, knew Hebrews, Romans, Greeks
aliaeque gentes (Chronicon, p. 1).
63
Cf. Alcuin, Interrogationes et responsiones in Genesin 155, ed. J.-P. Migne, PL 100
(Paris 1863) col. 535A: Alia vero longe praestantior, quod pater est non unius gentis Israeliticae
solum, sed et omnium gentium, quae fidei ejus vestigia sequuntur. Accordingly, Hrabanus
Maurus, Commentarius in Genesim, ed. J.-P. Migne, PL 107 (Paris 1864) col. 555D.
64
Cf. Remigius of Auxerre, Enarrationes in psalmos. Ps. 48, ed. J.-P. Migne, PL
131 (Paris 1853) col. 389A, to Ps 48, 2: omnes gentes, id est, tam gentiles quam Judaei.
Cf. later on Widukind of Corvey, Res gestae Saxonicae 1, 15, ed. H.-E. Lohmann and
P. Hirsch, MGH SS rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum [60] (Hannover
1935) p. 25: Franks and Saxons became una gens ex Christiana fide. On the other
hand, faith, of course, exceeded the tribal (and social) structures; cf. Hrabanus
Maurus, Liber de oblatione puerorum, col. 432A: Deus enim personam hominis non accipit,
sed in omni gente et conditione qui timet Dominum et operatur justitiam acceptus est illi.
65
A complete change of the perception of gentes after the migration, however, is
claimed by H. Kleinschmidt, The Geuissae and Bede: On the Innovativeness of
Bedes Concept of the Gens, The Community, the Family and the Saint. Patterns of Power

52

terms were used for the regna mundi as well as for the peoples in the
East Frankish kingdom. Therefore, the authors did not distinguish
terminologically between tribes and peoples which all followed the
same criteria. Thus we should not be surprised that the sources cannot answer the question asked by Carlrichard Brhl: Were the
Germanic and early medieval gentes tribes or peoples?66 This is simply the wrong question. The authors, however, perceived differences
between the single gentes, which might have referred to a proper clan
consciousness. In his Liber de oblatione puerorum Hrabanus Maurus proclaimed a certain hierarchy of peoples and preferred his Franks
to the Saxons: They had not only been Christians for a much longer
time, but they had also subjected the Saxons and converted them
to the christian faith.67
II
Differences will become more distinct if, in a second step, we focus
on the concrete usage of the terms and the context of naming the
various (Germanic or barbarian) peoples. It may be helpful to complete this picture by a quantitative analysis. Although it may be misleading to compare the absolute numbers used in the seventh book
of Orosius histories with Gregory of Tours and Fredegars chronicles and the later, Carolingian sources (Fig. 1), we can easily observe
that the authors discussed here had a similar perception of the
Germanic gentes, whereas the frequency of their occurrence naturally changed in the course of the historical process and according
to the differing perspectives of the authors (we notice a slight shift
of interest from the Goths to the Franks and other peoples that is
easily explicable from the historical development). Gentile names
prevailed (Fig. 2a and 2b), but it is worth noting that Gregory and
in Early Medieval Europe (Selected Proceedings of the International Medieval Congress. University
of Leeds, 47 July 1994, 1013 July 1995), ed. J. Hill and M. Swan, International
Medieval Research 4 (Turnhout 1998) pp. 77102, who claims that the political
concept of a gens was a secondary, post-migrational one.
66
Brhl, Deutschland, pp. 260 and 262.
67
Hrabanus Maurus, Liber de oblatione puerorum, col. 432A: Quis enim ignorat sub hac
plaga mundi habitans, Francos ante Saxones in Christi fide atque religione fuisse, quos ipsi postmodum suae dominationi subegerunt armis, atque superiores effecti, dominorum ritu, imo magis
paterno affectu, ab idolorum cultu abstrahentes, ad fidem Christi converterunt? Sed nunc a quibusdam primatibus de ipsa gente secundum carnem editis ingrate spernuntur . . .

100

80

80

60

60

82 84

88
79

54
44

40
20

13
5

13

0 0 0

Bavarians

Alamans

0 0 0

Burgundians

100

23
9
4

0 0 1

0 0 0

Franks

Dani/Normanni

Goths

100

80

80

74

60

60

40

40

36

25

22

19

20
0

34

20

12 11

12

40

40

40

34

10
0

Langobards

15
2

Saxons

49

20

5 2

0 0 0

Suebi

14
3 2

Thuringians

11
0 0 0

Vandals

53

Fig. 1. Frequency of the mentioning of the Germanic peoples

8
0

34

Legend
Orosius
Gregory
Fredegar
Annales r. Francorum
Annales Fuldenses
Regino

100

54

300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

298

233
217
192

132

131

102

69
53
31

28

Gregory

Orosius

Ann.regni Franc.

Fredegar

Ann. Fuldenses

Regino

Legend
gens
territory

Fig. 2a. Ethnic and territorial terms for the Germanic peoples

298

300
280
260
240
220

233

217

200

192

180
160
140

131

120

132
102

100
80
60

69
53

40
20
0

28

28

1
Orosius

Gregory

Fredegar
gens

Legend

Ann.Fuldenses
Ann.regni Franc.
territory

Fig. 2b. Ethnic and territorial terms for the Germanic peoples

Regino

55

Fredegar sometimes, for certain peoples, already used regional names:

seven resp. five times for Thuringia (Toringia), fifteen resp. nine times
for Burgundy (Burgundia/e)68 and even five resp. three times for the
Franks (Francia). This could indicate a trend, as territorial expressions became much more frequent in Carolingian times though gentile names still prevailed throughout this period.69 This coincides
with a decrease of attaching peoples names to peoples attributes
(such as gens or populus) and an increase of territorial terms (such as
fines, regio, regnum or provincia) and of personal attributes (such as rex,
dux or princeps) (Fig. 3a and 3b). This usage may indicate an increasing organization of these peoples, or, rather, a more conscious perception of an increasing political and social organization. Unlike
Orosius, for Gregory and Fredegar gentes do not necessarily imply
peoples outside the realm or Empire: they may have organized their
own kingdoms, but they were considered equal (at least as gentes).
Moreover, many had become part of the Frankish kingdom. When
King Sigebert collected the gentes from beyond the Rhine,70 or the
kings reign was regarded as a kingdom over gentes,71 gens had not
only adopted a political dimension, but was also closely connected
with the kingdom (which, however, was a reign over several gentes).
From this point of view it is not surprising that Gregory at least
once speaks of Francorum gentem et regnum.72
For the ninth century, I have compiled a quantitative analysis on
the base of three major sources: the Annales regni Francorum, the Annales
Fuldenses and the chronicle of Regino of Prm.73 Here I will only
present the results:
Names of peoples and the corresponding names of territories
(such as Saxones and Saxonia, Baioarii and Baioaria etc.) were now used
completely parallel and with the same meaning.74 For example,

Their country was once even called patria (Fredegar, Chronicae 3, 36, p. 104).
It is worth noting that Gregory and, in his last book, Fredegar abandoned the
general term Germani in favour of the particular expressions for the single peoples.
In the first two books, he still uses Germani twelve, Germania five times.
70
Gregory of Tours, Historiae 4, 49, p. 185: Sigyberthus rex gentes illas quae ultra
Renum habentur commovit.
71
Gregory of Tours, Historiae 5, 1, p. 194: Gundovaldus dux . . . collectisque gentibus
super quas pater eius regnum tenuerat.
72
Gregory of Tours, Historiae 5 prol., p. 193: Taedit me bellorum civilium diversitatis,
que Francorum gentem et regnum valde proterunt, memorare.
73
Cf. Goetz, Gentes.
74
Cf. for example Regino, Chronicon a. 853, p. 76: The Aquitani handed over the
68

69

56

50
46
40

40

34

34

30
26

25

22
20

20

16

10

10 10
5

5
3
00

0
gens

11

10

77

4 4

6
3

populus

provincia

9
4

2
00 0

fines etc.

16

15

2 1 1
0 0

regnum

000

exercitus etc.
optimates etc.
rex/dux/princeps

Legend
Orosius
Ann.regni Franc.

Gregory
Ann.Fuldenses

Fredegar
Regino

Fig. 3a. Attributes to the expressions of Germanic peoples

120
110
103

100
90

98

85

80
70

68

60

55

47

50
40

40

30

34

20
10
0

26
20
12
4
Orosius

50
37

30

33
27

18

14

11

11

Gregory

Fredegar

Ann.regni Franc.

Legend
Sum
Territorial attribute

Fig. 3b. Attributes to the expressions of Germanic peoples

Ann.Fuld.

Peoples attribute
Personal attribute

Regino

57

according to the Annales Fuldenses, the army of Charles III, which

consisted of Franks, Alamans, Thuringians and Saxons, derived de
diversis provinciis.75 It may be, therefore, that Saxones here merely meant
people from Saxonia (and not: Saxons by birth and origin).76 These
corresponding forms were, however, used in different quantities:77
For the West Frankish kingdom (40 : 145) and Italy (66 : 261), the
territorial expression predominated,78 whereas for the East Frankish
kingdom the ethnic name slightly prevailed (378 : 292). It did so,
however, only for the Franks and for the Saxons before their submission which was also the case for the Thuringians and Frisians;
in all other cases, territorial names were more frequent.79 Correspondingly, ethnic names predominated by far for peoples outside the
Frankish Empire (288 : 39).
Within the Empire, the usage of ethnic and territorial names
depended mainly on the functional context: Territorial names preferably referred to places, destinations or sojourns whereas ethnic names
referred to army and war, assemblies, political actions and revolts
or legations.80
Qualifications such as gens, regnum or provintia,81 were used only
occasionally, but with no recognizable distinction in regard to the
different peoples or regions. Not only personal qualifications (such as
rex/principes or optimates/primates/primores), but also territorial qualifications
(such as fines/confinium/termini, terra, regio or provincia) were preferably
connected with ethnic names (except pars).

rex Aquitaniae (Pippin); their provintia was devastated a suis indigenis. Ibid. a. 862/63,
p. 80, where Regino speaks of finibus Brittanniae and fines Brittonum. Cf. also Annales
regni Francorum a. 782, pp. 62f. with their adaptation, the so-called Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi: The original reports that Widukind took refuge partibus Nordmanniae,
whereas according to the revision ad Nordmannos se contulerat.
75
Annales Fuldenses a. 882, p. 98; ibid. a. 870, p. 72. Cf. Thegan, Gesta Hludowici
imperatoris 9, ed. E. Tremp, MGH SS rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum
[64] (Hannover 1995) p. 190: Louis the Pious received envoys ex omnibus regnis et
provinciis et exteris nationibus; ibid. 14, p. 194, he received envoys et omnes . . . paganorum nationum.
76
Cf. Becher, Rex, pp. 18, 29.
77
Cf. Goetz, Gentes, fig. 3, p. 115.
78
This is still true if one neglects the frequent geographical terms Gallia and Italia
(63: 108).
79
See Goetz, Gentes, fig. 1, p. 113, and 4, p. 115. For some regions, ethnic
names were lacking, such as Burgundy, Provence, Septimania, Alsatia or Hessia.
80
Cf. Goetz, Gentes, fig. 2, p. 114.
81
Cf. Goetz, Gentes, fig. 5, p. 116.

58

Populus was used indiscriminately with both ethnic and territorial names, whereas gens was used exclusively with ethnic names;
more frequently, however, it characterized a people that had been
mentioned shortly before, as a detached expression. All in all, most
peoples were referred to somewhere as a gens.
Within the East Frankish kingdom, ethnic and territorial expressions were used not only for the (later) duchies of the Franks, Saxons,
Bavarians and Alamans, but also (and frequently) for the Thuringians
and Frisians or (occasionally) for the Ribuarii:82 These ethnic names
were not exclusively bound to the future duchies.
Finally, ethnic (and partly also territorial) names were used without any recognizable distinction for peoples in the East as well as
the West Frankish kingdoms or Italy, the Normans, the Slavic peoples,
Hungarians and even Saracens or Persians. Terminologically, the
authors perceived no difference. For the author of the Annales regni Francorum, the (pagan) Danes were a gens as well as the christian Franks:
Ex utraque parte utriusque gentis, Francorum scilicet et Danorum, twelve noblemen respectively met at the border on the river Eider to work out
a treaty (though, of course, according to the authors judgement,
these two peoples were seen in a complete contrast).83 Instead, the
authors rather distinguished in a political sense between gentes or
nationes inside of or outside of the Frankish Empire; the latter were
exterae nationes.84 The difference lay in the respect accorded to the
different groups: the foreign peoples were savage ( ferox), militant (bellicosa), worthless (nequissima), avaricious (avida), impious (nefandissima),
inhuman (immanissima), barbarous (barbara) and perfidious ( perfida). But
still they were gentes. Thus, the perception and the estimation of gentes
were two different things. For Einhard, the pagan Saxons were a
natio,85 and the nationes living in Germany (namely the region between

Cf. Goetz, Gentes, fig. 1, p. 113, and fig. 4, p. 115.

Annales regni Francorum a. 811, p. 134.
84
Cf. Annales Fuldenses a. 841, p. 32: Lothar I dispelled his brother Louis usque
ad exteras nationes; Divisio regnorum, ed. A. Boretius, MGH Capitularia regum Francorum
1 (Hannover 1883) nr. 45, c. 6, p. 128 l. 28: sive infra patriam sive contra exteras nationes; Annales Fuldenses a. 876, p. 87, for Louis the Youngers speech to his uncle
Charles the Bald before the battle of Andernach: wars were evil even if they were
led against exterae gentes (and much more against relatives). Cf. also Council of Paris
(829), ed. A. Werminghoff, MGH Concilia 2 (Berlin 1908) nr. 50, c. 24, p. 678
l. 12 and 19: exterae nationes.
85
Einhard, Vita Karoli 7, p. 9: Charlemagne subdued the Saxons who, like almost
all nations inhabiting Germany at that time still were savage and pagan.
82

83

59

the river Rhine and the river Vistula) could well be Slavs!86 As far
as the definition of gens was concerned, there was no difference
between ones own people and the others.
To conclude, we can say that it is difficult to investigate the structure of early medieval ethnogenesis based on the corresponding terminology used to describe these peoples because contemporary authors
of that time did not perceive such a process: The gentes were just
there (and, according to the christian belief, had their origin in the
construction of the Tower of Babylon). They could wander around
and find new settlements, but they did not alter as a gens. The
authors, however, did perceive gentes all around, and we are undoubtedly allowed to conclude that for the writers of the early Middle
Ages gentes or nationes were not only a familiar institution, but that
they also had a consistent (theoretical) concept of the factors that
separated one gens from another. The perception of gens (as a concept),
however, has to be distinguished from the esteem of certain gentes.
Were there differences, though, that enable us to observe a transformation of the ethnic concept between late Antiquity and the
Middle Ages? Perhaps we may say that the few authors of the fifth
to the early tenth centuries that have been examined here had a
similar perception, but a changing usage of gentes. Authors of the
ninth century still thought in the dimensions of Isidore of Seville,
regarding gentes as originally ethnic units distinct from each other by
their own laws and customs, their descent and their language. The
later gentes of the ninth century, however, could also be small tribes
as well as inhabitants of large Empires, and they could dwell outside or inside the Frankish Empire. In Italy, for example, the term
referred to the Romans as well as to the Langobards and other peoples.87 Thus, no difference was made between tribes (Stmme) and
peoples (Vlker). Moreover, each gens had its own territory. The
changing usage was due to evolving political structures. Above all,
in the Frankish Empire, the gentes (who formerly were Germanic peoples) became an element of the inner structure (organisation) of the
realm, and in this sense they were considered as provinces and
acquired territorial names beside the gentile expressions. This usage
Einhard, Vita Karoli 15, p. 18: omnes barbaras ac feras nationes. Cf. n. 53 above.
Cf. Council of Rome (743), ed. A. Werminghoff, MGH Concilia 2 (Berlin 1908)
nr. 3, p. 29 l. 5f.: ne deinceps quisque Romanus aut Langobardus aut cuiuscumque gentis . . .
86

87

60

was not completely new since it occurred already in Orosius geographical description, but it had been neglected for a long time when
the Roman Empire had incorporated so many gentes. It expanded
when the Germanic peoples established kingdoms of their own, and
became important again when these peoples were integrated into the
Frankish Empire. Now, the gentes even became a constitutive element
of the Frankish kingdoms that consisted of regna and gentes.88 When
the Annales Fuldenses reported for the year 840 that Louis the German
made sure of the fidelity of the Eastern Franks, the Alamans, Saxons
and Thuringians,89 this enumeration of peoples described exactly his
(newly acquired) realm (the Bavarians had been under his rulership
before). Thus, in the ninth century, these peoples formed a decisive
element in the process of nation building.
Yet, gens and regnum, though both terms were interrelated, were
not the same. In his pact with Pope Paschal I, Louis the Pious
declared that no one of our realm, no matter if he be a Frank or
a Langobard or a man from what ever gens living under our power
should have the right of electing the Pope.90 It may be enlightening
that the newly built East or West Frankish kingdoms were not yet
perceived as new gentes (though gens as a term would have allowed
such a usage). That means: For us, ethnogenesis mainly (or at least
partly) is a political act, which may include nation building (the
building of France and Germany); contemporary people of the early
Middle Ages, however, though they were able to adapt their terminology to the altering conditions, still distinguished a (more or less
native) gens from the (changing) political establishment of a new reg-

88
Cf. Regino of Prm, Chronicon a. 880, p. 116: Under the rulership of Charles
III, the Frankish Empire obtained summum imperii fastigium non solum Francorum, verum
etiam diversarum gentium regnorumque; cf. ibid. a. 882, p. 119: Charles III failed in spite
of the support ex diversis regnis et gentibus; Notker, Gesta Karoli Magni imperatoris 1, 26,
p. 35: the emperor Charlemagne was rector over many nationes; ibid. 2, 11, p. 67:
Louis the German ruled over totius Germani Rhetiarumque et antiqu Franci nec non
Saxoni, Turingi, Norici, Pannoniarum atque omnium septentrionalium nationum.
89
Annales Fuldenses a. 840, p. 31: orientales Francos, Alamannos, Saxones et Thuringios
sibi fidelitatis iure confirmat. Accordingly, Arnulf s realm consisted of the Bavarians,
Eastern Franks, Saxons, Thuringians, Alamans and a part of the Slavs (ibid. a. 888,
p. 116). Cf. Notker, Continuatio Erchanberti, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS 2 (Hannover
1829) p. 329: Louis the German received totam Germaniam, id est totam orientalem
Franciam, Alamanniam sive Rhaetiam, Noricum, Saxoniam et barbaras nationes quam plurimas.
90
Pactum Hludowici pii cum Paschali pontifice, ed. A. Boretius, MGH Capitularia
regum Francorum 1 (Hannover 1883) nr. 172, p. 354 l. 40ff.: nullus ex regno nostro,
aut Francus aut Langobardus aut de qualibet gente homo sub nostra potestate constitutus . . .

61

num, or in any case, they did not yet acknowlege the evolving
Carolingian kingdoms as gentes. Nevertheless, from Gregory of Tours
onwards, the authors did not only perceive a strong relationship
between gens and regnum, but they also referred much more to the
barbarian kings and kingdoms than to their gentes. Therefore, in the
final analysis, they equally had, or adopted, a political notion of the
Germanic peoples.