Onward to Rome

“Foreigners” seeking entry at Europe’s external borders are not a new phenomenon. “As early as the middle of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire faced intense migratory pressure in what we call the Migration Period,” notes medieval historian Sebastian Scholz. The Germanic kingdoms were also frequently challenged by roving foreign tribes. This raises the question: how did the Romans behave when the numerous barbari (Latin for “foreigners”) appeared? How did the Franks deal with the peoples they had conquered? How did the Moors treat the Visigoths?

Of course, historical experiences don’t directly correspond to situations today. Nevertheless, says Scholz, knowledge of past migrations can contribute to a better understanding of today’s migration crisis. Since 2022, he has been involved in the UZH Center for Crisis Competence, where researchers from all seven UZH faculties study the causes, development and consequences of crises and analyze the effectiveness of various solutions (see box below). Taking a historical perspective reveals five lessons for the present-day management of migration.

The UZH Center for Crisis Competence (CCC) researches the causes, development and consequences of crises and analyzes the effectiveness of various solutions.  The center combines the crisis management expertise of all seven UZH faculties under one roof and conducts interdisciplinary research into how practical knowledge from different fields can be deployed in crisis situations.

UZH Center for Crisis Competence

Scholz tells us that the term Migration Period might paint a simplified picture of the turbulent transition from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages. “The Germanic tribes – Goths or Franks – were multiethnic alliances, not homogenous peoples,” he says. These groups underwent dynamic shifts, organizing themselves into larger confederations and occasionally roaming the countryside as plundering cavalry warriors – then fragmenting, blending with others, intermarrying and migrating elsewhere.

“These were highly complex developments, even in the Middle Ages,” observes Scholz. Even peasants didn’t always remain tied to their land. Records from the 9th century reveal that farm workers on church properties could relocate and start anew elsewhere, a practice encouraged by estate managers to optimize land use. Even beggars were quite mobile. “Migration was completely normal in the Middle Ages,” says Scholz. This brings us to our first insight from the early medieval period that could help us take a more relaxed approach to today’s migration: 

1. The migration of today is neither novel nor exceptional in scope. In the early Middle Ages, it was normal for smaller and larger groups of people to migrate.

Economic migration was widespread in late antiquity. The Roman Empire was a highly attractive labor market. “A lot of people wanted to go there and reap the benefits,” says Scholz. The Romans typically reacted pragmatically to foreigners, although a certain skepticism toward them persisted. Despite this, the migrants’ hopes for safer and better lives were largely fulfilled. Romans made moderate concessions towards foreigners, permitting those with proven capabilities to rise in status and take on important military functions without reducing the wealth of locals in the process.

After a certain period of service, successful barbari were awarded Roman citizenship, or a scaled-down version thereof. The Romans relied heavily on war-savvy outsiders to secure their 7,500-kilometer-long borders. Emperor Constantine the Great, for example, employed the battle-tested Thervingi, who were later absorbed into the Visigoths, as auxiliary troops to protect the borders of the empire. In return, they received monetary payments and trading rights. Even in the early Middle Ages, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, certain kinds of specialists were more sought after than others. Blacksmiths were easily employable during this tumultuous time.

From the 6th century on, when the first water mills were built, operators were in high demand. There was also a need for long-distance traders who journeyed as far as India and the Philippines, as attested by tariff records from the port of Marseille in the year 716. Widespread commerce and exchange during the Roman era is evidenced by the numerous Roman coins found in regions that were never under their control, notes Scholz. Our key takeaway:

2. Labor shortages were addressed via immigration as early as late antiquity. The prospect of obtaining citizenship and social mobility encouraged integration.

Romans discovered the hard way, however, that it’s better to keep one’s promises. They resettled the Visigoths, who had fled from the Huns into Roman territory, in Thrace. In the process, they violated some agreements, leading to armed reprisals against the Romans. Eastern Roman Emperor Valens underestimated the threat and was soundly defeated. “The Battle of Adrianople in the year 378 represented one of the most disastrous losses the Roman military ever experienced,” explains Scholz.

This forced Valens’ successor Emperor Theodosius to revert to proven pragmatic approaches: he signed an agreement with the triumphant Visigoths, granting them “foederati” status and territories along the lower Danube. In return, they took on border protection duties for the Romans in that area. This only goes to show that:

3. Fair agreements lead to win-win situations for locals and newcomers alike.

Many Germanic fighters were able to improve their social standing by serving in Roman legions. Foreigners with strategic talent and leadership abilities even ascended to the highest ranks of the Roman military. Many of these men were far from crude warriors – instead, they adapted to educated Roman society, learning Latin and embracing the local way of life. “In late antiquity, the mercenaries in the Roman army spoke Latin,” says Scholz.

The Moors likewise found initial success with their strategy of coexistence, as they advanced into the Iberian Peninsula starting in 711 and occupied Christian Visigoth territory. Although the Moors differed greatly from the defeated Visigoths in appearance, religion, customs and practices, the conquerors and the conquered lived relatively peacefully alongside each other until the 9th century. The Moors granted the inhabitants of the formerly Visigoth kingdom certain rights, and in exchange for tribute payments, more autonomy as well as freedom to practice their religion. Both Christians and Muslims had an interest in peaceful co-existence. We may conclude that:

4. “Live and let live” was a successful strategy for dealing with migration.

Despite certain obstacles and prohibitions, the Moors, Ibero-Romans and Visigoths converged not only culturally – as evidenced by some architectural masterpieces in Granada, Seville and Córdoba – but also interpersonally. In what is today Spain, the Moors did not impose any restrictions on intermingling with Christians until the 9th century. “This wouldn’t have been possible anyway,” explains Scholz. “Groups whose rulers didn’t try to prevent mixing with other groups fared the best.”

Similarly, the Franks, after establishing their kingdom under King Clovis I (482–511), did not introduce a prohibition on mixed marriages – unlike the Visigoths and later the Lombards – and thereby prevented social and societal conflicts from the outset. Charlemagne deliberately promoted the integration of the Frankish and Lombardian leadership class after the conquest of the Lombard kingdom in 774. Marriages quickly produced solidarity between conquerors and conquered, and in other cases seems to have been an effective way of establishing new connections and networks.

Recent genetic studies from various burial sites reveal that the skeletal remains of women often did not share much genetic material with the local population, meaning that they must have been newcomers. In other words:

5. Integration between local groups and migrants promoted peaceful coexistence and was culturally enriching.