EARLY GERMAN HISTORY---WEST GERMANS

EARLY GERMAN HISTORY---WEST GERMANS AND EAST GERMANS---POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE GERMANS---EARLY GOTHIC MIGRATIONS

EARLY GERMAN HISTORY

The present series of lectures is designed to give a broad and general view of the long sequence of the migratory movements of the northern barbarians which began in the third and fourth centuries A.D. and cannot be said to have terminated till the ninth. This long process shaped Europe into its present form, and it must be grasped in its broad outlines in order to understand the framework of modern Europe.

There are two ways in which the subject may be treated, two points of view from which the sequence of changes which broke up the Roman Empire may be regarded. We may look at the process, in the earliest and most important stage, from the point of view of the Empire which was being dismembered or from that of the barbarians who were dismembering it. We may stand in Rome and watch the strangers sweeping over her provinces; or we may stand east of the Rhine and north of the Danube, amid the forests of Germany, and follow the fortunes of the men who issued thence, winning new habitations and entering on a new life. Both methods have been followed by modern writers. Gibbon and many others have told the story from the side of the Roman Empire, but all the principal barbarian peoples---not only those who founded permanent states, but even those who formed only transient kingdoms---have had each its special historian. One naturally falls into the habit of contemplating these events from the Roman side because the early part of the story has come down to us in records which were written from the Roman side. We must, however, try to see things from both points of view.

The barbarians who dismembered the Empire were mainly Germans. It is not till the sixth century that people of another race---the Slavs---appear upon the scene. Those who approach for the first time the study of the beginnings of medieval history will probably find it difficult to group and locate clearly in their minds the multitude of Germanic peoples who surge over the scene in distracting confusion. The apparent confusion vanishes, of course, with familiarity, and the movements fall into a certain order. But at the very outset the study of the period may be simplified by drawing a line of division within the Germanic world. This capital line of division is geographical, but it has its basis in historical facts. It is the distinction of the West Germans from the East Germans. To understand this division we must go back for a moment into the early history of the Germans.

WEST GERMANS AND EAST GERMANS

In the second millennium B.C. the homes of the Germanic peoples were in southern Scandinavia, in Denmark, and in the adjacent lands between the Elbe and the Oder. East of them beyond the Oder were Baltic or Lettic peoples, who are now represented by Lithuanians and Letts. The lands west of the Elbe, to the Rhine, were occupied by Celts.

After 1000 B.C. a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200 B.C. it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100 B.C. southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Ceasar. Now all these peoples who expanded over western Germany from their original seats between the Oder and Elbe we will class as the West Germans.

The other movement was a migration from Scandinavia to the opposite coasts of the Baltic, between the Oder and the Vistula, and ultimately beyond the Vistula. This migration seems to have taken place at a later period than the beginning of the expansion of the West Germans. It is placed by a recent authority, Kossinna, in the later bronze period, between 600 and 300 B.C. (1) By the latter date they seem to have pressed right up to the Vistula to the neighbourhood of the Carpathians. These comers from Scandinavia formed a group which in dialect and customs may be distinguished from the West Germans, as well as in their geographical position; and we designate them as East Germans. The distinction is convenient because the historical roles of these two divisions of the German race were different. There is also a third division, the North Germans of Scandinavia; but with them we are not concerned.

In the period with which we have to do, the West Germans are comparatively settled geographically, whereas the East Germans are migratory. Now it is not difficult to understand why this is so. All the ancient Germans were shepherds and hunters. They had some agriculture before the time of Julius Ceasar, but not much. Central Europe till well into the Middle Ages consisted largely of dense forests and marshlands. There were, however, districts free from wood, and the absence of wood was the circumstance which largely determined the early settlements of the Germans. Geographers are able to fix the position of such tracts of steppe land by means of the remains of steppe plants---plants which cannot live either in the forest or on cultivated soil---and also by the remains of animals which are characteristic of the steppe. Cases of such land, for instance, are the plain of the upper Rhine and the eastern portion of the Harz district.

When a people settled down in such a district they could live, as a rule peaceably and contentedly, on their flocks and herds, until their numbers began to increase considerably. Then their pasture land, limited by the surrounding forests, became insufficient, and presently the food question grew pressing. There were three solutions open: they might take to agriculture, which would enable them to support a far larger population in the same area; they might extend their pasturage by clearing the forest; or they might reduce their superfluity of population by emigrating. The third resource was that which they regularly adopted; the other two were opposed to their nature and instincts. A portion would emigrate and seize a new habitation elsewhere. This, of course, meant war and conquest. This process went on at the expense of the Celts until Central Europe became entirely Germanised. They would then have naturally advanced westward or southward, but the Roman power hindered them. Thus the Western Germans, having no further room for expansion, shut in on the east by their own kinsfolk who were tightly packed, on the west and south by the Roman Empire, were forced to find another solution for the food question. Perforce they took to tilling the land. We have direct evidence for this important change in their habits. Ceasar describes the Germans as mainly a pastoral people: they did practise agriculture, but it was little. About one hundred and fifty years later Tacitus describes them as practising agriculture. This transformation, then, from a preeminently pastoral state to an agricultural state came about during the century after their geographical expansion was arrested by the power of Rome. That period was a critical stage in their development. Now remember that all this applies to the West Germans: it is the West Germans to whom the descriptions of Caesar and Tacitus relate. The East Germans beyond the Elbe were by no means in the same position. They were not hemmed in in the same way. Their neighbours to the east and south were barbarians---Slavs and others---who did not hinder their freedom of movement, and so there was no motive to give up their pastoral and migratory habits.

You can now understand how in the second century A.D. the East and West Germans are distinguished not only by geographical position but also by the different stages of civilisation which they have reached. The West Germans are agricultural and have attained those relatively settled habits which agriculture induces. The East Germans are chiefly pastoral and represent a stage from which the West Germans began to emerge a couple of centuries before.

I may illustrate this further by referring to a different interpretation of the evidence which was put forward by Dr. Felix Dahn, who devoted his life and numerous works to early German history. (2) He starts from the great change from the unsettled life of the Germans in the time of Caesar, when they depended chiefly on pasture and the chase, to the relatively settled life, in which agriculture predominated, corresponding to the description of Tacitus. Using this fact as a minor premise, he lays down as a general rule that when such a change takes place from an unsettled to a settled life increase in population is a natural consequence. And from these two premises he argues that Germany increased largely in population. Such an increase, he says, would only begin to tell four or five generations after a people had adopted settled habits; that means 120 or 150 years. If we take about A.D. 20-30 as the middle point of the period of change---between Caesar and Tacitus---then four or five generations bring us down to the period A.D. 140-180, just the time in which the East-German migratory movement began. He concludes that increase of population, due to the change from pastoral to agricultural habits, was the cause of the migrations and the expansive movements which began in the second century A.D.

You will readily perceive the fallacy which underlies this interesting arguement. Dr. Dahn applies to the Germans as a whole, and to the East Germans in particular, the evidence of Tacitus, which is true only of the West Germans, who came under Roman observation. The picture of Tacitus is taken entirely from the West Germans; of the German peoples beyond the Elbe the Romans knew little more than the names and geographical positions of some of them. Thus Dr. Dahn does not take us any further. Increase of population,

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

BUỔI ĐẦU LỊCH SỬ ĐỨC---TÂY ĐỨC VÀ ĐÔNG ĐỨC---THỂ CHẾ CHÍNH TRỊ CỦA ĐỨC---DI CƯ ĐẦU GOTHICLỊCH SỬ ĐỨCLoạt bài giảng, hiện tại được thiết kế để cung cấp cho một cái nhìn rộng và chung của chuỗi dài của các phong trào di cư của các rợ Bắc mà bắt đầu trong thế kỷ thứ ba và thứ tư A.D. và không thể được cho là đã chấm dứt cho đến thứ chín. Này quá trình lâu dài hình Europe vào hình thức hiện tại của nó, và nó phải được nắm trong phác thảo rộng của nó để hiểu rõ về khuôn khổ của châu Âu hiện đại.Có hai cách trong đó đối tượng có thể được điều trị, hai quan điểm mà từ đó chuỗi các thay đổi đó đã phá vỡ đế chế La Mã có thể được xem. Chúng tôi có thể xem xét quá trình, trong giai đoạn đầu tiên và quan trọng nhất, từ điểm nhìn của Đế chế đã được dismembered hoặc tách biệt nó khỏi các rợ người đã dismembering nó. Chúng tôi có thể đứng ở Rome và xem những người lạ quét qua các tỉnh của mình; hoặc chúng tôi có thể đứng về phía đông của sông Rhine và về phía bắc của sông Danube, giữa các khu rừng của Đức, và làm theo tài sản của những người đàn ông đã ban hành từ đó, chiến thắng mới sống và nhập vào một cuộc sống mới. Cả hai phương pháp đã được theo sau bởi nhà văn hiện đại. Gibbon và nhiều người khác đã nói với những câu chuyện từ phía bên của Đế quốc La Mã, nhưng tất cả các dân tộc man rợ chính---không chỉ những người sáng lập ra tiểu bang vĩnh viễn, nhưng ngay cả những người thành lập chỉ tạm thời Vương Quốc---đã có mỗi nhà sử học đặc biệt của nó. Một tự nhiên rơi vào thói quen suy niệm các sự kiện từ bên trong La Mã bởi vì phần đầu của câu chuyện đã đi xuống cho chúng tôi trong hồ sơ mà được viết từ phía La Mã. Chúng tôi phải, Tuy nhiên, cố gắng để xem những thứ từ quan điểm của cả hai.Các rợ người dismembered đế quốc đã là chủ yếu là người Đức. Nó không phải là cho đến thế kỷ thứ 6 mà mọi người thuộc một chủng tộc---người Slav---xuất hiện khi trong bối cảnh đó. Những người tiếp cận đầu tiên nghiên cứu về sự khởi đầu của thời Trung cổ lịch sử có lẽ sẽ thấy khó nhóm và xác định rõ ràng trong tâm trí của họ vô số gecmani người tăng qua cảnh trong sự nhầm lẫn mất tập trung. Sự nhầm lẫn rõ ràng biến mất, tất nhiên, với sự quen thuộc, và các phong trào rơi vào một thứ tự nhất định. Nhưng ngay từ đầu rất nghiên cứu giai đoạn có thể được đơn giản bằng cách vẽ một đường phân chia trong thế giới Đức. Dòng này vốn của bộ phận là địa lý, nhưng nó có cơ sở của nó trong sự kiện lịch sử. Nó là sự khác biệt của Tây Đức từ Đông Đức. Để hiểu phân chia này chúng ta phải trở lại cho một thời điểm vào lịch sử đầu của Đức. TÂY ĐỨC VÀ ĐÔNG ĐỨCTrong thiên niên kỷ thứ hai trước công nguyên những ngôi nhà của các dân tộc German đã ở phía nam Scandinavia, Đan Mạch và các vùng đất tiếp giáp giữa sông Elbe và sông Oder. Về phía đông của họ vượt sông Oder là dân tộc Baltic hoặc Lettic, bây giờ được đại diện bởi Litva và Letts. Các vùng đất về phía tây của sông Elbe, để sông Rhine, đã bị chiếm đóng của người Celt.After 1000 B.C. a double movement of expansion began. The Germans between the Oder and the Elbe pressed westward, displacing the Celts. The boundary between the Celts and Germans advanced to the west, and by about 200 B.C. it had been pushed forward to the Rhine, and southward to the Main. Throughout this period the Germans had been also pressing up the Elbe. Soon after 100 B.C. southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Ceasar. Now all these peoples who expanded over western Germany from their original seats between the Oder and Elbe we will class as the West Germans.The other movement was a migration from Scandinavia to the opposite coasts of the Baltic, between the Oder and the Vistula, and ultimately beyond the Vistula. This migration seems to have taken place at a later period than the beginning of the expansion of the West Germans. It is placed by a recent authority, Kossinna, in the later bronze period, between 600 and 300 B.C. (1) By the latter date they seem to have pressed right up to the Vistula to the neighbourhood of the Carpathians. These comers from Scandinavia formed a group which in dialect and customs may be distinguished from the West Germans, as well as in their geographical position; and we designate them as East Germans. The distinction is convenient because the historical roles of these two divisions of the German race were different. There is also a third division, the North Germans of Scandinavia; but with them we are not concerned.In the period with which we have to do, the West Germans are comparatively settled geographically, whereas the East Germans are migratory. Now it is not difficult to understand why this is so. All the ancient Germans were shepherds and hunters. They had some agriculture before the time of Julius Ceasar, but not much. Central Europe till well into the Middle Ages consisted largely of dense forests and marshlands. There were, however, districts free from wood, and the absence of wood was the circumstance which largely determined the early settlements of the Germans. Geographers are able to fix the position of such tracts of steppe land by means of the remains of steppe plants---plants which cannot live either in the forest or on cultivated soil---and also by the remains of animals which are characteristic of the steppe. Cases of such land, for instance, are the plain of the upper Rhine and the eastern portion of the Harz district.When a people settled down in such a district they could live, as a rule peaceably and contentedly, on their flocks and herds, until their numbers began to increase considerably. Then their pasture land, limited by the surrounding forests, became insufficient, and presently the food question grew pressing. There were three solutions open: they might take to agriculture, which would enable them to support a far larger population in the same area; they might extend their pasturage by clearing the forest; or they might reduce their superfluity of population by emigrating. The third resource was that which they regularly adopted; the other two were opposed to their nature and instincts. A portion would emigrate and seize a new habitation elsewhere. This, of course, meant war and conquest. This process went on at the expense of the Celts until Central Europe became entirely Germanised. They would then have naturally advanced westward or southward, but the Roman power hindered them. Thus the Western Germans, having no further room for expansion, shut in on the east by their own kinsfolk who were tightly packed, on the west and south by the Roman Empire, were forced to find another solution for the food question. Perforce they took to tilling the land. We have direct evidence for this important change in their habits. Ceasar describes the Germans as mainly a pastoral people: they did practise agriculture, but it was little. About one hundred and fifty years later Tacitus describes them as practising agriculture. This transformation, then, from a preeminently pastoral state to an agricultural state came about during the century after their geographical expansion was arrested by the power of Rome. That period was a critical stage in their development. Now remember that all this applies to the West Germans: it is the West Germans to whom the descriptions of Caesar and Tacitus relate. The East Germans beyond the Elbe were by no means in the same position. They were not hemmed in in the same way. Their neighbours to the east and south were barbarians---Slavs and others---who did not hinder their freedom of movement, and so there was no motive to give up their pastoral and migratory habits.
You can now understand how in the second century A.D. the East and West Germans are distinguished not only by geographical position but also by the different stages of civilisation which they have reached. The West Germans are agricultural and have attained those relatively settled habits which agriculture induces. The East Germans are chiefly pastoral and represent a stage from which the West Germans began to emerge a couple of centuries before.

I may illustrate this further by referring to a different interpretation of the evidence which was put forward by Dr. Felix Dahn, who devoted his life and numerous works to early German history. (2) He starts from the great change from the unsettled life of the Germans in the time of Caesar, when they depended chiefly on pasture and the chase, to the relatively settled life, in which agriculture predominated, corresponding to the description of Tacitus. Using this fact as a minor premise, he lays down as a general rule that when such a change takes place from an unsettled to a settled life increase in population is a natural consequence. And from these two premises he argues that Germany increased largely in population. Such an increase, he says, would only begin to tell four or five generations after a people had adopted settled habits; that means 120 or 150 years. If we take about A.D. 20-30 as the middle point of the period of change---between Caesar and Tacitus---then four or five generations bring us down to the period A.D. 140-180, just the time in which the East-German migratory movement began. He concludes that increase of population, due to the change from pastoral to agricultural habits, was the cause of the migrations and the expansive movements which began in the second century A.D.

You will readily perceive the fallacy which underlies this interesting arguement. Dr. Dahn applies to the Germans as a whole, and to the East Germans in particular, the evidence of Tacitus, which is true only of the West Germans, who came under Roman observation. The picture of Tacitus is taken entirely from the West Germans; of the German peoples beyond the Elbe the Romans knew little more than the names and geographical positions of some of them. Thus Dr. Dahn does not take us any further. Increase of population,