The simple fact is that Charlemagne is simply so unknown and hence politically correct that the EU can name a prize after him. They wouldn't do that with a Napoleon prize and especially not with a Hitler prize. — ssu

Agreed completely.

Obviously, the people who made up the European population at the time when Charlemagne lived - 8th and 9th centuries - were already completely germanic — Gus Lamarch

That's not true. The Franks, Lombards and co dominated the existing population but did not exterminate it.

the Franks - helped to extinguish — Gus Lamarch

Nope. The Salian Franks, of which Charlemagne was a descendent, fought on Rome's side against Atilla.

The simple fact is that Charlemagne is simply so unknown and hence politically correct that the EU can name a prize after him. They wouldn't do that with a Napoleon prize and especially not with a Hitler prize. — ssu

Charlemagne is not unknown. On the contrary, he is seen as a great king. Rightly so in my view. To compare him to Hitler is really unfair.

E.g. Charlemagne invited Jews in his kingdom, and this is how Ashkenaz came to be. Hitler killed them.

That's not true. The Franks, Lombards and co dominated the existing population but did not exterminate it. — Olivier5

I am not talking about widespread extermination of the Roman population. What I say is that with the Roman population growth decreasing since the 2th century, and with the growth of the Germanic population, and soon after, with the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire, the culture, values, morals, traditions, taboos, etc. of the Romans died and were supplanted by medieval Germanic European culture - Charlemagne lived in a period that even the ashes of the ancient flame of Rome had already been forgotten; the Byzantine Empire was already seen as a "Greek Empire" and not important at all for the events in Western Europe -. Independent Roman culture died at the end of the 4th century with its Empire.

Why do you think Charlemagne was recognized as "Pater Europae" and "Augustus Romanum gubernans Imperium" - "Father of Europe" and "August Emperor, governing the Roman Empire" respectively - Because he rekindle that lost memory that the whole land where they lived - the Germanic barbarians - had once been something incredibly glorious and splendor, something that had been completely forgotten by the masses of the barbarian population.

hy we have about 100 to 200 more years — Gus Lamarch

You know, the prevalent feeling when Rome fell was disbelief. Many couldn't accept the fact that it was over. They kept going on with the fiction that it would rebound...

We're exactly at this stage now, I think: the system is already dead but we can't see it yet.

I just hope the Easter empire (Europe) lingers on a bit longer than the Western one (US), like the first time around.

The Salian Franks, of which Charlemagne was a descendent, fought on Rome's side against Atilla. — Olivier5

And then they invaded the province of Soissons of Syagrius - the last roman Dux of Gaul -.

He was an autocrat. The empire was already dead anyway.

I am not talking about widespread extermination of the Roman population. What I say is that with the Roman population growth decreasing since the 2th century, and with the growth of the Germanic population, and soon after, with the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire, the culture, values, morals, traditions, taboos, etc. of the Romans died and were supplanted by medieval Germanic European culture - Charlemagne lived in a period that even the ashes of the ancient flame of Rome had already been forgotten; the Byzantine Empire was already seen as a "Greek Empire" and not important at all for the events in Western Europe -. Independent Roman culture died at the end of the 4th century with its Empire.

Why do you think Charlemagne was recognized as "Pater Europae" and "Augustus Romanum gubernans Imperium" - "Father of Europe" and "August Emperor, governing the Roman Empire" respectively - Because he rekindle that lost memory that the whole land where they lived - the Germanic barbarians - had once been something incredibly glorious and splendor, something that had been completely forgotten by the masses of the barbarian population. — Gus Lamarch

@Olivier5

Charlemagne lived in a period that even the ashes of the ancient flame of Rome had already been forgotten — Gus Lamarch

Oh is that why he went to Rome to be sacred emperor by the pope? You're being ridiculous.

We're exactly at this stage now, I think: the system is already dead but we can't see it yet. — Olivier5

The imperial Roman system died with the ascension of Diocletian in 284 AD. If this happened now in our era, we have at least 100 more years, but you never know. The Roman Empire did not collapse during its crisis, we can.

Charlemagne lived in a period that even the ashes of the ancient flame of Rome had already been forgotten; — Gus Lamarch

By the masses. Of course the aristocracy still had the knowledge.

Oh is that why he went to Rome to be sacred emperor by the pope? You're being ridiculous. — Olivier5

Rome - in the times of the great emperors like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius - had a population of 1 million people. The population of the city had fallen from 800,000 - during the sack of the Visigoths in 410 AD - to 450–500,000 by the time the city was sacked in 455 by Genseric, king of the Vandals. Population declined to 100,000 by 500 AD. After the Gothic siege of 537, population dropped to 30,000. But yeah, the flame of Rome hasn't extinguished in 800 AD... Please man...

What is you point exactly? You keep changing track all the time.

My point is that Charlemagne tried to be Western Emperor for a reason: it was politically useful, it was filling a void, as the memory of the Western Rome empire was still alive. The mark it left was just to big to vanish in 3 centuries...

In Arabic and Persian, a European is called a "rumi", literally a 'Roman'. The great Persian poet Rumi was called such because he was from Anatolia.

the flame of Rome hasn't extinguished in 800 AD... Please man... — Gus Lamarch

The Roman Empire was still in existence in 800 AD, in the East, and it rulled over Sicily and the South of the Italian peninsula. The division between a Western half and an Eastern one was little more than an administrative conveniance to better rule ONE huge empire. And sometimes the Eastern emperor(s) could not agree with the Western one(s) and they quarelled and fought battles, but it was still conceptually one empire, not two.

Still around in kicking in 800 AD. Including in Italy.

Still around in kicking in 800 AD. Including in Italy. — Olivier5

It may thus be that what Karl der Gross was trying to do when getting crowned Western emperor was to push back against Irene, empress in Constantinople, telling her: "I got this side of your old empire covered, thank you very much".

In that same swoop he got leverage on the pope and an influence on the Church's direction... That was a big move.

But the guy didn't stop there: he soon proposed Irene to marry her, which would have made him the Big Boss of the whole empire... She didn't take the offer.

An interesting question I had a while back was what are the major differences between the Germanic tribes of the Lombards, Vandals, Saxons, Franks, etc. versus the Medieval Europe of around 800 CE? What constituted tribal identity versus territorial/state/vassal identity? When did tribal (lifestyle?) identity slough off and identification with propertied Lords, kings, vassals, and general territory take its place?

I know the common answer is that Germanic tribal society had elements of this already in it (pledging a loyalty to a king, let's say), but that transition always seemed a bit "just-so" for my taste. To what extent was Medieval Europe a continuation of "barbarian" Germanic tribal culture? There just seems to be a sort of gap when discussions of "barbarians" during the Roman Empire turn into Feudalism after the Roman Empire.
@Gus Lamarch You might be interested as well.

@Olivier5@Gus Lamarch

So as a path to an answer, I would say we can start somewhere in the reign of Charlemagne and the beginning of the "Holy Roman Empire" as to how Germanic tribal identity and culture were eventually replaced with feudalism. It is obviously complex and hard to pin down, but here are three things I think should be considered:

1.) The Catholic Church had no interest in competing with tribal chieftains for power and conversion. Local chieftains often had the backing of tradition (including pagan religious practices) to keep them in power. Wherever a chieftain converted to Christianity, so went the tribe. Thus converting to Christianity, often stripped away tribal privileges and rites to Christian ones, taking away local identity and replacing it with a more universal one.

2.) Charlemagne's own policies unified Germanic tribal identities. His court was filled with key positions from leaders of different tribal affiliations. He can have Saxon, Gothic, Jutes, Burgundians, all in the same court. This intermixing led to slow dissipation over probably 100 years of keeping tribal affiliations intact in favor of hereditary identification only.

3.) Roman Law- With the integration of Germanic tribes into the Roman political and military system, these Germans became more Romanized. This in itself, could have diminished the identity with tribe for identity with a territory or legal entity. Thus various Germanic "dux" (dukes) within the Roman Empire were already in place along Spain and southern France (as were ancestors of Charlemagne). Being incorporated in a multi-ethnic Empire itself could diminish the fealty towards local affiliation with any one tribe. With the Church's help in keeping records in monasteries and libraries, these leaders retained Roman law far into the Holy Roman Empire's reign.

4.) Nobility transfer by kings- Since the unification of Charlemagne, there was a conference of land and title from top-down sources. As local tribal kings (chieftains?) were quashed during the wars of Charlemagne, he then doled out titles of land (dukes and counts) to those he favored, thus diminishing the local identity of leadership further.

Charlemagne is not unknown. On the contrary, he is seen as a great king. Rightly so in my view. To compare him to Hitler is really unfair.

E.g. Charlemagne invited Jews in his kingdom, and this is how Ashkenaz came to be. Hitler killed them. — Olivier5

Those who did unite large parts of Europe together, even if for their lifetime, are going to be compared to Napoleon and Hitler. Yet in the current climate having a prize named after a king who was responsible for example to the massacre of Verden and beloved by the Nazis wouldn't be and obvious pick, but times have changed. Basically the whole concept of "Great Kings" isn't so popular today, even if there obviously are able kings who were successful conquerors.

Kings kill people. That's part of the job description.

Hadrian's war against the Jews killed hundreds of thousands. Ceasar's conquest of Gaul led to an estimated 1 ml deaths. But Charlie is the bad guy because he killed 4500 Saxon warriors?

Thanks for pointing at the Franco-German connotation, evident in the Division Charlemagne. Note that the alliance between these two acts as an informal European leadership of sorts. Hence Charlemagne in EU symbolism also evoke Franco-German ties.

To what extent was Medieval Europe a continuation of "barbarian" Germanic tribal culture? There just seems to be a sort of gap when discussions of "barbarians" during the Roman Empire turn into Feudalism after the Roman Empire. — schopenhauer1

I see that you have already provided quite a few answers. Generally speaking, it was as you said a progressive cultural convergence between the German rulers and their Roman or Gallo-Roman subjects, helped and catalysed by the Church as one big melting pot or unifier (later divider) of European identity. The same thing happened in England after William's conquest: he removed the leaders only, and replaced them with French speaking kinghts who had fought for him. A progressive melting of two cultures into one then took place, ultimately creating modern English.

Many of these barbarian kings were already Romanized to a degree, eg Theodoric. His Roman subjects loved his rule.

So as a path to an answer, I would say we can start somewhere in the reign of Charlemagne and the beginning of the "Holy Roman Empire" as to how Germanic tribal identity and culture were eventually replaced with feudalism. It is obviously complex and hard to pin down, but here are three things I think should be considered:

1.) The Catholic Church had no interest in competing with tribal chieftains for power and conversion. Local chieftains often had the backing of tradition (including pagan religious practices) to keep them in power. Wherever a chieftain converted to Christianity, so went the tribe. Thus converting to Christianity, often stripped away tribal privileges and rites to Christian ones, taking away local identity and replacing it with a more universal one.

2.) Charlemagne's own policies unified Germanic tribal identities. His court was filled with key positions from leaders of different tribal affiliations. He can have Saxon, Gothic, Jutes, Burgundians, all in the same court. This intermixing led to slow dissipation over probably 100 years of keeping tribal affiliations intact in favor of hereditary identification only.

3.) Roman Law- With the integration of Germanic tribes into the Roman political and military system, these Germans became more Romanized. This in itself, could have diminished the identity with tribe for identity with a territory or legal entity. Thus various Germanic "dux" (dukes) within the Roman Empire were already in place along Spain and southern France (as were ancestors of Charlemagne). Being incorporated in a multi-ethnic Empire itself could diminish the fealty towards local affiliation with any one tribe. With the Church's help in keeping records in monasteries and libraries, these leaders retained Roman law far into the Holy Roman Empire's reign.

4.) Nobility transfer by kings- Since the unification of Charlemagne, there was a conference of land and title from top-down sources. As local tribal kings (chieftains?) were quashed during the wars of Charlemagne, he then doled out titles of land (dukes and counts) to those he favored, thus diminishing the local identity of leadership further. — schopenhauer1

It is a fact that the barbarian germanic tribes eventually assimilated to Roman culture. The point is that they simply made this culture theirs:

"Over time, the Lombards gradually adopted Roman titles, names, and traditions. By the time Paul the Deacon was writing in the late 8th century, the Lombardic language, dress and hairstyles had all disappeared. Paul writes:

The Lombards live and dress as if all the land they currently inhabit - referring to Italy - was their native land: We are from Lombardy! Some would have the courage to shout - referring to the Lombards who called Italy as Lombardy -."

My point is that Charlemagne was the first European monarch, after the fall of Rome to really bring to public knowledge to the masses, that everything they had was the legacy of a fallen civilization - remembering here, that for the ordinary citizen of the 8th century from Western Europe, the Byzantine Empire was seen as the "nation of the Greeks" -.

The only real barbaric people who were completely assimilated and tried to maintain Roman order during the fall of the Roman Empire and afterwards, were the Visigoths. The Visigoths were romanized central Europeans who had moved west from the Danube Valley. They became foederati of Rome, and wanted to restore the Roman order against the hordes of Vandals, Alans and Suebi. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD; therefore, the Visigoths believed they had the right to take the territories that Rome had promised in Hispania in exchange for restoring the Roman order - and they tried -.

Many of these barbarian kings were already Romanized to a degree, eg Theodoric. His Roman subjects loved his rule. — Olivier5

Even Theodoric knew that only being romanized they could prevail:

"An able Goth wants to be like a Roman; only a poor Roman would want to be like a Goth."

Theodoric's quote.

Theodoric "Kingdom" - better named as an Empire - at its height.



And if he had the time, he probably would try to restore the Western Rome - he was raised on Constantinople, wrote and could read Greek and Latin, was well versed on Roman law and customs, so he was probably the last good chance of restoring Rome as it was known back then -.

Hadrian's war against the Jews killed hundreds of thousands. Ceasar's conquest of Gaul led to an estimated 1 ml deaths. But Charlie is the bad guy because he killed 4500 Saxon warriors? — Olivier5

In no way am I claiming that he is the villain of the story. I am claiming that he was the first post-roman monarch to try to remind the masses of the origin of their entire civilization - Rome -. He was not an innovator, a revolutionary; he simply knew how to use the fragments of the Roman heritage that still remained.

Thanks for pointing at the Franco-German connotation, evident in the Division Charlemagne. Note that the alliance between these two acts as an informal European leadership of sorts. Hence Charlemagne in EU symbolism also evoke Franco-German ties. — Olivier5

When it comes especially to EU symbolism, the EU has a genuine identity problem.

Case example is the bland stupidity in the appearance of the euro notes: there aren't any people in them, what is depicted are basically unknown bridges as a metaphor for connecting people. Usually countries would have put their leaders or historically important people into their cash notes, and surely there would be such worthy historical individuals in European history. But nobody did even try this as they understood what a useless bickering match would it all have ended up with countries demanding their famous persons to be put in euros. And this shows how these historical people are linked to a national heritage. Even if Charlemagne was the "father of Europe", he surely was a French king, especially for the French.

And for this trans-national pan-European ideology and symbolism the EU has a hard time to invent things. The real "founding fathers" of the EEC were ordinary politicians and bureaucrats, which can hardly be created into larger than life figures and put onto a pedestal. And so has the whole invention of EU symbolism been carried out: with the passion of a nine-to-five bureaucrat inventing Europe Day and taking a famous piece from Beethoven as the anthem of the union.

And of course, if we were talking about the Charlemagne prize, we also have to note the Jean Monnet prize, a person who himself got also the Charlemagne prize:

The Jean Monnet Prize for European Integration aims at honouring Jean Monnet's memory and life achievements. It does so by rewarding talented individuals or groups having contributed to supporting or strengthening European Integration through a project they designed and implemented.

Win 1500 euros!

The Lombards live and dress as if all the land they currently inhabit - referring to Italy - was their native land: We are from Lombardy! Some would have the courage to shout - referring to the Lombards who called Italy as Lombardy -." — Gus Lamarch

The only real barbaric people who were completely assimilated and tried to maintain Roman order during the fall of the Roman Empire and afterwards, were the Visigoths. The Visigoths were romanized central Europeans who had moved west from the Danube Valley. They became foederati of Rome, and wanted to restore the Roman order against the hordes of Vandals, Alans and Suebi. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD; therefore, the Visigoths believed they had the right to take the territories that Rome had promised in Hispania in exchange for restoring the Roman order - and they tried -. — Gus Lamarch

Yes, this goes along with point 3 in my theory. However, I think this gets less tenuous as you went more North and East in away from the big Roman cities. In that case, I would gather it is more a case of 1, 2, and 4. Would you maybe agree there? Is there something else I have not mentioned that could be a factor in the de-tribalization into that of a more hierarchical feudalism?

Perhaps economics have to do with it as well. The agricultural practice of the three-crop rotation system spread from southern Europe to North, replacing the more pastoral into an agrarian, land-based one.

Yes, this goes along with point 3 in my theory. However, I think this gets less tenuous as you went more North and East in away from the big Roman cities. In that case, I would gather it is more a case of 1, 2, and 4. Would you maybe agree there? — schopenhauer1

Yes, I fully agree with you. Roman culture, even though it was rooted in the north - like Gaul and Britain -, did not have enough time to take root completely - as in the cases of Iberia, and Italy -. Also, since contact with the Germanic tribes was much more aggressive and chaotic - Gaul and Britain were border provinces, while Iberia and Italy were not - it was to be expected that the borders would be those that would be most affected and culturally disrupted.

Is there something else I have not mentioned that could be a factor in the de-tribalization into that of a more hierarchical feudalism? — schopenhauer1

Perhaps economics have to do with it as well. The agricultural practice of the three-crop rotation system spread from southern Europe to North, replacing the more pastoral into an agrarian, land-based one. — schopenhauer1

These are probably the most solid facts we have. Starting from here, I suppose we would enter the realm of psychological and environmental theories and hypotheses - like the Little Ice Age" between the 5th and 9th centuries that could have affected both the fall of Rome and the European social structure of the following centuries -.

Perhaps economics have to do with it as well. The agricultural practice of the three-crop rotation system spread from southern Europe to North, replacing the more pastoral into an agrarian, land-based one. — schopenhauer1

Have to comment here. The biggest change from the Roman Empire and Antiquity is the collapse of the "globalization" of agriculture, which made large cities and advanced societies impossible. If Rome had been fed from Northern Africa, Constantinople had been from the Nile delta. Once these places were lost large cities as Rome and Constantinople simply couldn't be fed by the local regions and the city populations withered away. Might have some impact on Roman culture and the rise of feudalism.

Have to comment here. The biggest change from the Roman Empire and Antiquity is the collapse of the "globalization" of agriculture, which made large cities and advanced societies impossible. If Rome had been fed from Northern Africa, Constantinople had been from the Nile delta. Once these places were lost large cities as Rome and Constantinople simply couldn't be fed by the local regions and the city populations withered away. Might have some impact on Roman culture and the rise of feudalism. — ssu

So it is this weird in between time in Europe, between the Roman fall and the rise of feudalism, roughly about 400 CE- 900 CE, whereby the (often) migrating Germanic tribes transformed more-or-less into non-tribal, yet feudal entities. There are things to unpack here:
1.) The Germanic tribes prior to the post-Roman times, were largely pastoral. Cattle and livestock defined their economic lifestyle more than planting and farming.

2.) Post-Roman Empire the feudal system relied on farming to increase production for feudal lord in a more-or-less self-sufficient manner. This may have been an import from the manorial system in southern Europe (read Roman Empire's influence) whereby there was a Roman elite and his landholdings. However, due to the economic collapse, which you rightly point to, this manorial system went from commercial agriculture (to be sold in wide networks of trade), to local use (very short-distances, local, and often self-contained). Thus the slave systems of old gave way to peasants and surfs. However, these peasants and surfs must have slowly themselves turned away from their ancestral pastoral lifestyle as land was closed in by armies and such. Actually, I don't know the details of this transformation of Germanic pastoral to farming feudal, so that would be interesting to explore.

Have to comment here. The biggest change from the Roman Empire and Antiquity is the collapse of the "globalization" of agriculture, which made large cities and advanced societies impossible. If Rome had been fed from Northern Africa, Constantinople had been from the Nile delta. Once these places were lost large cities as Rome and Constantinople simply couldn't be fed by the local regions and the city populations withered away. Might have some impact on Roman culture and the rise of feudalism. — ssu

Completely. The later Roman Empire was in a sense a network of cities. Two diagnostic symptoms of decline are subdivision, particularly of expansive formal spaces in both the domus and the public basilica, and encroachment, in which artisans's shops invade the public thoroughfare, a transformation that was to result in the souk - marketplace -. Burials within the urban precincts mark another stage in dissolution of traditional urbanistic discipline, overpowered by the attraction of saintly shrines and relics.

The city of Rome went from a population of 800,000 in the beginning of the period to a population of 30,000 by the end of the period. As a whole, the period of late antiquity was accompanied by an overall population decline in almost all Europe, and a reversion to more of a subsistence economy. Long-distance markets disappeared, and there was a reversion to a greater degree of local production and consumption, rather than webs of commerce and specialized production. What was once a "globalized" world, became a isolated fragmented continent - people living in Italy didn't have any notion or information of how was life in Egypt from the 6th to the 9th century, contrary to the roman period, where distant information was easily accessed -. These long distances knowledge only became the norm again after the 10th century onwards.

We should consider too, the theories of both Michael Rostovtzeff and Ludwig von Mises about the economic collapse of the Roman Empire:

"Historian Michael Rostovtzeff and economist Ludwig von Mises both argued that unsound economic policies played a key role in the impoverishment and decay of the Roman Empire. According to them, by the 2nd century AD, the Roman Empire had developed a complex market economy in which trade was relatively free. Tariffs were low and laws controlling the prices of foodstuffs and other commodities had little impact because they did not fix the prices significantly below their market levels. After the 3rd century, however, debasement of the currency - i.e., the minting of coins with diminishing content of gold, silver, and bronze - led to inflation. The price control laws then resulted in prices that were significantly below their free-market equilibrium levels."