Roman interaction with the many tribes of Germany was predominantly a militaristic power struggle. The very structure of the organizational system employed by the Germanic tribes, resulting in a lack of major settlements, combined with the almost non-existent infrastructure present in the region, proved to be a combination that caused Rome's inability to conquer and incorporate Germany into the Empire as had been done with Gaul and Britain. From this stalemate instead emerged four centuries of economic, cultural, political and militaristic interaction between the Roman Empire and the peoples of central and northern Europe. This interaction brought changes to the Germanic tribes in areas such as leadership organization, military doctrines and structures, economic practices, the concept of being Germanic, and began the process of early Christianization of the Germanic tribes. In order to effectively discuss the changes that interactions with the Roman Empire had on Germanic societies it is important to understand the nature of their existence in the early stages of their relationships in order to have a frame of reference within which the changes that occurred have occurred has taken place can be conveniently viewed. In terms of primary sources on the discussion of Germanic tribes and their way of life, the most famous is Tacitus' foray into ethnographic work with his Germania. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay First, it is important to understand that Germani or Germanus and Germania are Gallic and Roman creations, not Germanic. As Tacitus states, the name Germani is of Gallic origin and was the name given by the Gauls to a group of successful conquerors who had crossed the Rhine into Gallic lands and ousted them. The word was later taken up by the Romans and attributed to the peoples who existed in northern and central Europe. However, Tacitus states that this was the name given to a nation and not to the race, but referred to the race. The word Germani and the romanized Germanus became the name by which the peoples of Northern Europe were known in the Roman Empire. For a Roman a German either lived in Germany or came from there, for a Roman he was a gens or race. This would therefore seem to suggest some form of Germanic unity, but this is not the case, evident from the disagreement on the origin of the Germanic peoples provided by the natives to Tacitus. A German would likely only refer to himself as Germanus when in the Empire, when outside of Roman territories this would not have been the case and the German would instead identify more with his particular tribe of origin. In Germany, Tacitus states that Germanic tribes would appoint not only a king of noble birth but also one or more commanders selected for their valor. At first glance this would appear to describe a dual existence of both royal and military authority within the Germanic tribes. Caesar also describes the advent of this system which in modern scholarship is called the “Western Gallo-Germanic Revolution”. It refers to the period around 50 BC, when many of the more advanced Germanic tribes located around the Rhine transitioned towards a more oligarchic form of leadership while maintaining a royal family. A more traditional form of kingship was still practiced among East Germanic tribes and in Scandinavia. Interestingly, the Germanic kingship of pre-migratory tribes often manifested itself in dual kingships, holding sacral responsibilities over small, ethnically homogeneous tribal groups. The Roman influence on this transition from kingshipthe oligarchic tribal leadership was present, but in a rather hidden way. The Romans would not have been the ultimate force in the change from kingship to oligarchy in the Germanic tribes, but they were involved in its maintenance in the early stages. Initially, Roman policy was to support oligarchic factions and oppose the return of a royal family to the position of king. Certainly there are examples of some old Germanic royalty who met their end due to their efforts to become kings of the Germanic tribes again, a notable example being Arminius, who was poisoned by his own people who once considered him a hero under this pretext. Although Roman policy was initially to support oligarchs against the idea of ​​kingship, it soon turned to Rome by supporting the formation of Germanic kingdoms on the condition that Rome was involved in choosing the king. This form of kingship would also have been different from the traditional Germanic form. The dual system of kingship discussed by Tacitus, present in West Germanic societies in the first century, appears to have finally given way to a system in which the previous separation between a military power and a royal authority figure disappeared in the fourth century. The philological basis for this can be found in the root words from which the Germanic tribes derived their names for their leadership and in the frequency of their use as time passed. These three root words are thiudans, Truthin and Kuning; the oldest of these three words is thiudan and means "ruler of a people", which in the late Roman period had been replaced with Truthin. The word, kuning, meant "leader of a war band" and by the late Roman period had become the primary term attributed to the leaders of all Germanic tribes, signifying the transition to a more military-oriented form of leadership that manifested itself between the Germanic tribes. One explanation that can be given for this transition and consolidation of authority in the form of military leaders is due to the ever-increasing conflicts that the Germanic tribes were facing with the Roman Empire as well as other tribes. Much like the confederations that formed in opposition to Rome and Attila, it would follow that, in the face of escalating military actions by Rome, authority over the tribes would be resigned and ceded primarily to successful militaristic warband leaders , whose influence would later spread to different tribes and peoples. The reason for this is that the leaders who arose and are recorded in the histories of Rome were in fact opponents of Roman expansionism into the Germanic regions. It is reasonable to argue that it was due to interactions with the Roman Empire that some important Germanic figures rose to prominence, linked to this system of king and leader and, in particular, the definitive consolidation of power in the hands of military authority. As Tacitus said, the war leader's position depended entirely on his personal abilities as a military leader along with his continued successes as a leader. Thus, if military authority began to prevail over noble authority in Germanic societies, it would follow that these leaders would rise up due to their opposition to Roman expansion into Germanic regions, which would have been the main threat to Germanic societies before of the arrival of Attila and the Huns. As for a rather interesting case in the development of Germanic leadership structures and the influence Rome had on them, we can look to the Alamannic Confederacy. Ammianus' account of the Alamannic army before the Battle of Strasbourg in 357 AD tells that the Alamanni practiced a form of kingship that seemed to create for itself a hierarchical set of superior kings,kings, minor kings and princes. It is arguable that the development of confederations in the 4th century occurred at least in part to oppose Rome and the other dangers that the Germanic tribes began to face, as well as the unification of smaller tribes under more militaristic tribes that probably once again arose in opposition to Rome. The Alamannic Confederacy, at least clearly, employed a different form of leadership, probably to accommodate the various tribal leaders banding together. The Alamanni also appeared to be at least partially hereditary, which is likely due to Roman interference with the idea that Rome might be able to control the Alamanni by influencing future generations. However, while Rome appeared to uphold the somewhat hereditary nature of the Alamannic Confederacy and the system of leadership it maintained, it also ensured that no individual ruler became the equivalent of a Great King. In terms of military practices, Tacitus makes two statements that they are of importance. The first is that there was no form of professional standing army in the Germanic tribes. This would seem true. It was true that Germanic warlords and tribal leaders could maintain small personal followings and form warbands for times of conflict, but these were not permanent entities and the maintenance of the men was personal and not a donation or tribute from of others. The situation changed in the 4th century, and the concept of a professional army began to appear in the Germanic tribes. An archaeological example of this would be the discovery at Esbjol Mose of the remains of a defeated Germanic army. The discovery of a large and unique cache of military equipment and its contents suggests a well-organized and well-equipped standing professional army, with a structured hierarchy. The stratigraphy of this discovery places the defeat of the army and the subsequent ritual destruction of its equipment in a period after 300 AD, which coincides with literary evidence that Germanic kings began to develop and maintain personal and permanent house armies. The statement Tacitus makes about the Germanic tribes regarding military practices is his reference to their basic military tactical skills. It is true that Germanic military leadership was primitive compared to the Roman military tradition in the earlier periods of their interactions. Successful military leaders such as Ariovistus, who found success fighting Germanic and Celtic tribes, were unable to surpass Roman military leaders such as Julius Caesar in command of the Roman armies. Provided the terrain was accommodating, Roman military doctrine was far superior to Germanic. It is in this area of ​​military leadership and military doctrine that Rome can be seen early to influence the Germanic tribes, on a very individualistic level, particularly in the examples of the two most eminent Germanic leaders in the early 1st century AD, Arminius of Cherusci and Maroboduus of the Marcomanni. Both of these individuals, like other Germanic leaders who sought leadership over their own people, served in the Roman army and were trained in Roman military doctrine. Both knew that Germanic tribal warfare could not confront the Roman war machine head-on. If a Germanic army was ever able to challenge Rome, it would have to be highly disciplined, efficiently commanded, and exist as an entity for a long period of time. Of these two, Maroboduus placed particular emphasis on tactics, level of training, and equipment. These two are particular examples of the permeation of Roman military ideals into Germanic tribes through individual agents who experienced the trainingRoman military. However, Germanic tactics as a whole remained at a basic level for much of the Migration Period, relying on the fighting ability of the Germanic warrior as a singular entity as opposed to the discipline of cohesive units of the Roman tradition. While the tactics of the Germanic armies remained much the same, the weapons used changed due to the need for some form of adaptation needed to combat the Roman armies, indicating the influence the Roman Empire was having on the military practices of the Germanic tribes. The general theme was greater use of weapons that would allow engagement from a greater distance. Axes, particularly throwing axes, became the favorite weapon of Germanic warriors of the Migration Period, as did javelins and long spears. These weapons would have allowed the Germanic armies to be better equipped to deal with offensive measures against armored Roman enemies. In terms of economic practices, Tacitus states that the early Germanic tribes primarily used a barter system and had no formal currency of their own. states that the southern Germanic tribes were open to the use of Roman denarii. However, Tacitus makes no mention of the rest of the Germanic tribes in relation to their economic system. At the very least, archaeological evidence shows that Roman imports found their way to Northern European tribes. It is not known whether these goods were the result of economic exchanges or raids. It is possible that Roman currency returned to Germanic societies with Germanic individuals returning from service as auxiliary troops in the Roman army. The fact that Roman denarii have been found in large quantities in regions of Northern Europe with a stratigraphic date of the late third century would suggest that the use of Roman currency had begun to be used throughout the Germanic world. As a further aspect of the Roman effect on the Germanic economic system, there is an example of the intensification of Germanic agriculture through a process of large-scale expansion due to the transfer of agricultural practices from the Roman Empire to develop the previous level of subsidence of the agriculture present in the Germanic regions as stated by Tacitus. This intensification of the agricultural potential of the Germanic regions would have allowed for an increase in population size and consequent economic and military growth. Finally, it is likely that Christianity found its way into the Germanic tribes through the Roman Empire. Tacitus states that the first Germanic tribes practiced a form of paganism linked to the tradition of their origins and the cult of the gods born on earth. The most notable example of Germanic tribes that came into contact through their interaction with the Roman Empire would be the Goths of the Danube and Crimea. The Goths in this period were carrying out raids and attacks in the Balkans and Asia Minor which at that time would have been the most heavily Christianized region of the Empire. If it is assumed that prisoners were taken during these raids, it is likely that through this practice the Goths were exposed to Christianity in the mid-2nd century, and through the descendants of these Roman Christian prisoners there would have been the beginning of the conversion of the Goths to Christian faith. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay In conclusion, the interactions that the Germanic tribes had with the Roman Empire over the course of four centuries shaped the development of their society including that of the transition from a traditional noble system of kingship to one conducive to military authority. There are also changes.