EAST GERMANIC PEOPLES

(Völkerwanderung, German, "Folk Migrations")

 

EARLY EAST GERMANIC PEOPLES (200 BCE - 282 CE)

Goths (Gothic, Gutens, Latin, Gothi, Greek, Gothoi) (200 BCE - 220 CE)

Rugians (Latin, Rugii, Old Norse, Rygr, "Rye-farmers") (100 BCE - 230 CE)

Bastarnae (Latin, Bastarnii, Greek, Basternae) (50 BCE - 220 CE)

Vandals (Old Norse, Aurvandil, "Shining Wanderers") (200 BCE - 282 CE)

  Burgundians (Latin, Burgundiones or Burgundii, Old Norse, Burgundar, "Men of Bornholm") (70 - 282 CE)

 

MIDDLE EAST GERMANIC PEOPLES (220 - 500 CE)

Thervingians (Gothic, Tervingi/Thervingi/Teruingi, "People of the Forest") (220 - 400 CE)

Bastarnae (220 - 300 CE)

Greuthungians (Gothic, Greuthungi/Greutungi, "People of the Steppe") (220 - 386 CE)

Crimean Goths (370 - 500 CE)

Gepids (Gothic, Gepanti, Latin, Gepidae) (220 - 454 CE)

Heruls (Latin, Herulii, Old Norse, Erilaz, "Fighters") (250 - 489 CE)

Rugians (230 - 487 CE)

Scirians/Skirians (Gothic, Sciri/Skiri, Latin, Scirii/Skirii, "Pure-bloods") (238 - 376 CE)

Vandals (282 - 409 CE)

Burgundians (282 - 411 CE)

 

ROMAN FEDERATES (275 - 550 CE)

Bastarnae (275 - 296 CE); Goths (275 - 493 CE); Heruls (375 - 550 CE); Burgundians (406 - 473 CE)

Scirians (409 - 489 CE); Vandals (409 - 428 CE); Rugians (436 - 487 CE)

 

LATER EAST GERMANIC PEOPLES (418 -  750 CE)

Visigothic Kingdom (418 - 720 CE)

Vandalic Kingdom (435 - 534 CE)

Gepidian Kingdom (454 - 567 CE)

Burgundian Kingdom (473 - 534 CE)

Ostrogothic Kingdom (493 - 553 CE)

Crimean and Pontic Goths (500 - 750 CE)

 

Between about 200 BCE and 500 CE, Europe saw a period of mass transhumance that altered the trajectory of the great Greco-Roman Mediterranean civilization, ultimately leading to the destruction of the West Roman Empire and the transformation of the East Roman Empire, laying the foundations for the subsequent Medieval European civilization of Christendom. These mass migrations, known in German as the Völkerwanderung ("Folk Migrations"), involved primarily the North, West, and East Germanic peoples, but also included the Sarmatians and Alans (Western Aryan Nomads), Huns and other early Turkic peoples, Finnic peoples, and Slavs. The net result of these migrations was the development of complex ethno-cultural aggregates in what had been the western half of the Roman Empire, with successor states composed of a Germanic warrior ruling class governing through the vestiges of Roman civil administration (especially embodied by the Roman Catholic Church) over the decimated remnants of a mix of Romanized peoples (Gallo-Romans, Romano-Britons, Romano-Berbers, Hispano-Romans). It also saw the transformation of the East Roman Empire into a successor state in which Greek language and culture quickly reasserted itself over Latin language and culture (symbolically referred to by historians as the "Byzantine Empire"). Despite the quick collapse of the Hunnic Empire (ca. 469 CE), the Huns blazed a trail that would be followed by a long series of Turkic, Slavic, Finnic, and Mongolic invaders, each in turn sweeping across the steppes of eastern Europe into central Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Finally, the abandonment of eastern Europe by the most dynamic elements of the East Germanic and Sarmatian peoples under pressure from the Huns (ca. 370-469 CE), not to mention the depopulation of huge swathes of arable land in eastern and central Europe, led to the gradual emergence of the Slavs as the primary ethno-cultural force in most of eastern Europe, as well as parts of central Europe and the Balkans. The Finnic peoples expanded into the central Baltic littoral from the eastern Baltic littoral, absorbing many of the remnant East Germanic peoples there (the subsequent ethno-cultural aggregate being known as the Balts), while several Slavic cultures developed elsewhere in eastern and central Europe (aggregates of proto-Slavic, Sarmatian, North Thracian, East Germanic, Finnic, Greco-Roman, and Turkic peoples). Since the Enlightenment, this period has been known to most historians as the beginning of the "Dark Ages," a term coined both in reference to the collapse of Late Classical Civilization (and with it the enlightened intellectual culture and material sophistication of the Romans) and to the paucity of reliable historical source information about the period (thus, leaving us "in the dark" about many aspects of the emerging Medieval European Civilization).

 

Here, I have broken up the history of the East Germanic Peoples into four phases, both for ease of reference and to aid in understanding, but keep in mind that the reality is far less tidy. Note that the phases have considerable temporal overlap, and that the cast of characters changes over time as tribal coalitions shifted, broke up, and recombined under historical forces (particularly the Hunnic Conquest, ca. 370-454 CE, and the Fall of the Roman Empire, ca. 335-566 CE). Like many ancient tribal peoples, the East Germanic peoples did not have anything approaching the modern concept of nationalism, and they generally had far more practical views about the relationship of ethnicity and personal identity—tribes and individuals usually followed patterns of success and failure in mutual association in which tribes, warrior cults, tribal coalitions, and kingdoms generally formed around successful leaders and partnerships, and could include individuals or groups from any ethnic background (consequently, lack of success could cause these same groups to quickly fall apart). Any sense of loyalty generally was shared between individuals, it was usually based on mutual contractual social obligations (e.g., swearing of fealty in return for strong leadership), and it was built from the ground up (e.g., tribes following a strong leader, that leader choosing to follow a war-chief, that war-chief following a king). A high premium was placed on individual liberty. Certainly, the ties of blood relationships and shared cultural-linguistic traditions were present, but they were often trumped by broader senses of necessity and survival. Thus, it was not uncommon for most of the groups described herein to be composed of individuals and groups from very diverse backgrounds. For example, the Visigoths are best not thought of as a tribe of Goths, but a coalition that included, at various times, individuals and clans and tribes of Goths, other Germanic peoples, Huns (a Turkic people), Alans and Sarmatians (Aryan peoples), rebellious units from the Roman army, escaped or liberated Roman slaves, and Gallo-Roman brigands (bagaudae/bacaudae). The last groups (Roman rebels and deserters, slaves, brigands, etc.) would themselves have been composed of individuals from a dizzying array of backgrounds (e.g., West Germanic, East Germanic, Sarmatian, Italic Roman, Greek, Illyrian, Hispano-Roman, Gallo-Roman, Berber, or Semitic). It is perhaps unsurprising, then, to realize that despite the importance of these groups in the historical phenomenon of the Völkerwanderung and the Fall of the Roman Empire, they have left very few traces of themselves, and the successor-states they carved out of the Roman Empire were mostly relatively short-lived. Indeed, the only people whose language has survived is the Goths (known to academics, but not a living language), and most of what we know about the East Germanic peoples comes from the Romanized Gothic writer, Jordanes/Jordanis, whose "Origins and Deeds of the Goths" (often known by the misnomer, Getica) was written in the sixth century CE. Other than that, there are brief mentions of East Germanic groups in various Greek and Roman works (Ammianus Marcellinus probably being the best of these), and scattered migration-era monuments, settlements, and tombs. However, modern historians have made great strides in drawing together these disparate sources of information to help us put together a fairly coherent picture of the East Germanic Peoples (please see my "History in Depth" button below).

 

The primary tactical component of any East Germanic army (harjis) was the warband (hansa), composed of warriors (gadrauhts) that had taken an oath of loyalty (aitheis) to a warlord (kindins). These warriors were mostly footsoldiers (militonds), although the personal retinue (gefolge) of many warlords was often mounted, especially after the spread of East Germanic culture onto the grasslands of southern Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine. Although the East Germanic peoples put a much heavier emphasis on massed archery (bugamanna, "bowmen") and cavalry (reiders, "riders") than many other Germanic peoples, they did not utilize any kind of formal system of specialization to separate different classes of warriors (e.g., heavy infantry, skirmishers, cavalry, light cavalry, etc.). Each warband would likely have consisted of a mix of men armed, armored, and otherwise equipped to the best standard each individual could manage. Naturally, some men would have had particular skills in certain areas (e.g., tracking, stealth, archery, riding, etc.), and smart warlords would have detailed such specialists to perform tasks of tactical necessity. Thus, informally, there probably existed some small degree of specialization, although separate deployment on a battlefield would have been rare, fairly simple, and dictated by the prevalent circumstances of each battlefield. The personal retinue of a warlord (Gothic, gefolge, but often called a comitatus, "band of companions," in Latin texts) was the core of any Germanic army, consisting of the warlord, close family members, and a sworn band of bodyguards and brothers-in-arms. These men often formed close ties of brotherhood, had high morale, and could rely on their leader to supplement their wealth and equipment with regular gifts, often choice items of booty or equipment made to order by craftsmen in the lord's thrall. Under ordinary circumstances, these bodyguard retinues (hereafter, "retinues" or "superior warbands") would have been the only men under arms and formed the only professional warrior class, although the retinue of a particularly powerful warlord or king could number in the hundreds (1,000 men probably being the maximum, 200 to 500 being the norm). Depending on the size, wealth, and power of a given socio-political entity (i.e., tribe, coalition, kingdom), there could be numerous warlords, each with his own retinue. The warriors in each retinue owed their loyalty directly to their own lord, however, and even if he in turn had given his oath of loyalty to another, more-powerful warlord (kindins) or king (reik), the overlord could not directly command his chieftains' men. It should be noted that although Germanic society was male-dominated, Germanic women had a fierce reputation (particularly in pre-migration societies)—it has been plausibly suggested that the Valkyrie (Old Norse, valkyrja(ur), "chooser(s) of the slain") legends of northern Europe has its origins in early Germanic female warrior cults (Old German, walküren, "wish-fulfillers," i.e., those that grant the wish of Germanic warriors to die in battle). Roman writers (Livy, Tacitus) tell us that early Germanic women often accompanied their men to battle, exhorted them during battle, rushed in to drag severely wounded men to where they could be tended, and in some cases fought alongside the men (Old Norse, skjaldmaer, Old German, schildmaid, "shield-maiden"). Perhaps the most famous example is Brynhildr Budladóttir in the Volsung Saga (Völsunga saga, "Saga of the Volsungs"), the tale of the fall of the Burgundians to the Huns (later adapted into the Medieval German romance, the Nibelungenlied ("Song of the Nibelungs")).

 

The primary purpose of the retinues was to guard the person of their lord, to fight alongside him in battle, to raid other tribes and defend against raids, and to aid their lord in his dynastic ambitions. East Germanic warlords were engaged in an almost ceaseless round of internecine struggles aimed at attracting the best warriors to their warbands, increasing a warlord's wealth and power, and extending his protection over the largest number of tribesmen. This, of course, created fertile ground for the recruitment of young men (and women) seeking their fortune as warriors. The sons of the warlords and retinue warriors often followed their fathers into the superior warbands (and inherited prized equipment like armor and sword), but young men from the non-martial classes (e.g., farmers, craftsmen, miners, etc.) had ample opportunity to test their mettle as a warrior, if that was their inclination, by traveling to the muster of any warlord known to be recruiting and of sufficient reputation to attract volunteers. These recruits became an important supplementary source of manpower (hereafter, "common warbands"), literally and figuratively providing a given warband with greater depth and tactical breadth. This is best illustrated by looking at the standard deployment of the East Germanic warbands for battle—the keilerkopf (Old German, "boar's head") or cuneus (Latin, "wedge").  In this formation, the warband was deployed in a square or rectangular formation, with one of the flat sides forming the front. The front rank(s) would consist of the men of the retinue/superior warband, with the warlord in the center and his men arranged along the front by virtue of rank (i.e., the higher the rank, the closer to the warlord). The men of the common warband(s) would then be arranged behind and/or on the flanks, creating as many ranks as possible, depending on the size of the overall warband (this is why some modern writers refer to this formation as a kind of "flying column" or "fighting column"). The ranks would generally be pretty tightly packed, although there is no evidence of drilled maneuver, and the Germanic style of combat would have required more room for each warrior than was generally provided for Roman soldiers. Usually, the front rank(s) would be the most heavily armored (helmet, mail, lamellar, and/or studded leather and shield), the best equipped (sword, axe, spear, and/or fighting knife), and of proven mettle (i.e., veterans). The following ranks would consist mostly of younger men, or men new to this particluar warband, often (although not always) with inferior equipment (usually, a minimum of shield and spear). The poorest warriors, or perhaps those more inclined toward archery, would form the rearmost ranks, acting as support archers. Sometimes they would be deployed separately as skirmishers. As warriors proved themselves, secured access to better equipment, and gained prestige, they would gradually move up in social rank and position in the warband. If they attracted the attention of their chosen warlord, they could even advance into the retinue. Multiple warbands would be deployed side-by-side in like manner, with the highest-ranking warlord or king and his men in the center and lesser warlords and their men extending out to each side (once again, proximity to the center being a sign of rank). This basic deployment was apparently used both when fighting on foot or when mounted, although most of the time only the highest-ranking warriors would have been able to be mounted—the sources do sometimes mention Germanic foot warriors operating in support of cavalry, but more often it seems that when it was deemed tactically expedient, when greater mobility was necessary, mounted warriors would fight in separate formations to those of the infantry (sometimes this seems to have been adopted in response to Roman deployment). However, the sources are clear that like their North and West Germanic counterparts, East Germanic warriors usually prefered to fight on foot and would dismount for battle most of the time. There is no evidence for East Germanic horse archers—since bowmen were usually the poorest, low-ranking warriors, it would seem they always fought on foot. However, warlords of great power and reputation often attracted whole units of allies from other tribes, including some whose tactical stance was different from the East Germanic warriors (e.g., Sarmatians/Alans, Huns, Thracians, Finns, Slavs), and these units would have provided greater tactical flexibility.

 

There has been some attempt during modern times to suggest that some of the East Germanic peoples (the Goths in particular) became "Sarmaticized" after migrating onto the grasslands of eastern Europe, where they came into contact with the semi-nomadic horse-herding Sarmatian peoples (see my Western Aryan Nomads gallery and notes). In particular, there has been an effort to suggest that East Germanic cavalry may have departed from the standard tactical stance of Germanic cavalry toward that of the armored lancer typically deployed by the Sarmatian peoples. This is pure fantasy. Although there were undoubtedly units of Sarmatian lancers that joined the following of various East Germanic warlords, and some of these probably retained their native martial practices, and there remained independent Sarmatian enclaves (e.g., the Roxolani, Taifali, and Iazyges) in central and eastern Europe living cheek-by-jowel with the East Germanic peoples, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence (historical and archeological) is that Sarmatian culture gradually gave way to East Germanic culture, not vice-versa. I just don't believe there is any definitive evidence to suggest East Germanic cavalry could ever have been classed as lancers. Like the infantry (and like the Romans), the standard approach to battle for East Germanic cavalry was to exchange missiles with the enemy (i.e., thrown spears, javelins, darts) in order to "soften up" their formation(s), and if tactically sound to make a charge with hand-to-hand weapons (i.e., spears, swords, axes). Keep in mind that this is a time before the invention of stirrups, and hard-charging cavalry lancers of the time usually utilized very heavy armor for man—and often horse—in order to forego use of a shield and wield a long lance with both hands (making them into something like mounted pikemen). There is no evidence that mounted East Germanic warriors ever used horse armor (no period art depicts Germanic cavalry with barding, and no Germanic tombs include barding), and they are always shown in surviving period art with a shield and a one-handed spear and/or sword and/or axe. No barding, no lances, no stirrups. Roman writers suggest that both Germanic cavalry and infantry were more impetuous than their Roman counterparts, and that they had a predilection toward making wild charges, but this is probably only partly true (and part propaganda), and battle accounts reveal the Germans were likely more tactically sophisticated than the popular Roman image. In situations like that which occurred at the Battle of Hadrianopolis/Adrianople (9 August 378 CE), where a timely charge by Germanic cavalry (supplemented by Huns and Alans) swept away their Roman counterparts and were thus able to surround the Roman infantry, it is clear upon closer examination that this was not the product of a particularly aggressive tactical stance, but rather one of tactical circumstance—the East Germanic cavalry had been out foraging and made a timely return to find that their infantry was engaged in battle with the Romans. The flanks of the Roman army were exposed to them (i.e., the Roman cavalry units on the flanks did not realize there was any Germanic cavalry in the vicinity, and essentially had their backs turned to them). The East Germanic cavalry did exactly what Roman cavalry would have done, seeing a clear tactical advantage, by charging into the unsuspecting enemy ranks. As has been mentioned, the East Germanic peoples did indeed seem to put a heavier emphasis on bowmen and cavalrymen, but this seems to have been as much a response to the tactical necessities imposed by east European topography as it was to Sarmatian influence—unlike the vast forests, mountainous terrain, numerous rivers, and marshes of northern and central Europe, where it was impossible to maintain large horse herds, and cavalry and massed archery would have been of limited utility, the wide-open grasslands that predominated in much of eastern Europe virtually demanded these troop types, especially when facing marauding bands of nomadic horsemen. Remember also, that this "greater emphasis" is one of subtle degree—as has been mentioned, even those East Germanic peoples that had migrated into eastern Europe continued to prefer to dismount to fight. 

 

As with the other Germanic peoples, the East Germans were a warrior society that highly prized martial skills. Even outside the professional warrior class, every able-bodied man in each tribe was expected to be prepared to take up arms on behalf of their chosen leader in times of need. Normally, these militias would remain under arms for a limited time for specific purposes (e.g., until raiders were repelled), although the vicissitudes often imposed during the Völkerwanderung often led to these militias staying under arms for extended periods of time (likewise, the common warbands would have grown significantly during times of war and migration). In some cases, they may even have formed the core of new warbands. Indeed, the strategic outlook of the various East Germanic peoples could vary greatly in time and place, depending on specific circumstances. When settled and engaged primarily in only low-intensity inter-tribal conflicts, each tribe would likely only muster a handful of superior warbands, perhaps occasionally supplemented with common warbands, militia, and/or allied or mercenary units of various origins—other Germanic tribes, Sarmatians (Roxolani, Taifali, Iazyges), Thracians (e.g., Dacians, Carpians), and/or proto-Slavic peoples (Venedae and Early Bastarnae). Even if they also fielded tribal militia (almost always defensively), the numbers would not have been great (several thousand at best) and the goals limited. The great tribal coalitions that were formed to raid the Roman Empire, to defend against Roman punitive expeditions, to defend against the Hunnic invasions, or to build up regional powerbases of particularly effective warlords and kings could field substantially larger armies (5,000 to 20,000 men), and their goals were often more complex. If the Huns had not invaded Europe when they did, it is likely that several large Germanic buffer states would have developed beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. As it was, the Hunnic invasions set off a true mass migration of East Germanic peoples that forced many into even greater coalitions, initially of refugees, or that contributed to the development of highly militarized vassal states under Roman and/or Hunnic suzerainty. In either case, East Germanic armies grew considerably in size (20,000 to 70,000 men) and scope of operations. Those that remained under the Huns retained their native Germanic character and institutions much longer, although the Hunnic invasions ultimately led to the collapse of East Germanic society in central and eastern Europe, to be subsumed by the rise of the Slavs, Finns, and Turks. Those groups that migrated into the Roman Empire were, unsurprisingly, deeply affected by Roman culture and the vicissitudes of migration, eventually leading to the foundation of several successor states in what had been the western half of the empire. While on the move, the tribal militia would largely have been converted into common warbands, and the superior warbands of those warlords that came to the fore would have grown considerably in size (forming the nucleus of a new aristocratic class). After entering the Roman Empire, the common warbands would have had increasingly good opportunities to better equip themselves as well—through service as Roman federates or by taking booty during times of rebellion and war. Once settled, the conquered Roman population would have filled the lower ranks of society and the subservient Roman civil administration, while most of the surviving Germans would have installed themselves as a land-owning aristocracy. Indeed, we can see in the basic Germanic system of relationships of mutual loyalty, bound by contractual oaths, and balkanized power structure, one of the socio-cultural precursors to Medieval European feudalism. Initially there was no comparable system of inherited power or dynasticism—there were certain royal lineages that regularly produced leaders, but there were often several competing lineages within a given group, and blood ties alone were not sufficient to assure any kind of political inheritance. After entering the Roman Empire, and especially by the time various groups had succeeded in carving out federate or independent kingdoms, this began to change as particularly powerful royal lineages, supported by remnant Roman civil administrations, were able to establish themselves on a more permanent basis (e.g., the Baltung Dynasty of the Visigoths, the Amaling Dynasty of the Ostrogoths, and the Nibelungs of the Burgundians). By that time, most of the Germanic peoples had been converted to Christianity (the Arian sect was dominant amongst the East Germanic peoples), and the Christian Church was eager to support the development of stable political structures.

 

These are particularly challenging armies to model because at various times and under various circumstances, the composition, equipment, and appearance of different East Germanic armies would have diverged significantly. The traditional male clothing was a tunic, usually long-sleeved, and often of brightly colored fabric (striped clothing was popular). Wealthy individuals could have wide bands of colored stitching or applique around the hem at neck, wrist, and waist. During inclement weather, a second short-sleeved tunic or hide/fur vest could be added, as well as a thick woolen or fur cloak. Long form-fitting trousers were the norm, sometimes with integral stockings for the feet, although in hot weather this may have been replaced with shorter capri-like trousers that only came down to the upper calf. The long form-fitting trousers were probably the precursor of Medieval hose. Puttee-like leg bindings of wool or hide/fur were often added, strapped to the lower leg (below the knee) by long leather thongs. These may have been for added warmth in inclement weather or as a kind of greave or both. Wool, linen, a wool-linen composite, hide, and fur were the usual materials used for clothing. The Romans tended to portray the Germanic peoples as fur-clad or naked savages, technologically far behind the Romans, but Germanic warrior grave goods and other archeological finds (e.g., ancient Germanic urban centers and mining and metal works) have provided evidence of greater sophistication. Indeed, although the Roman army was equipped to a more uniform standard (i.e., every man in the army was provided with good armor and weapons), Germanic armor- and weapon-smiths could produce higher quality equipment (e.g., pattern-welded swords and substantial spangenhelm) for a more rarified clientele (i.e., primarily the members of the superior warbands). Indeed, there is even some suggestion that warlords sometimes gifted their retinues with similar clothing to add to their sense of being part of a distinct brotherhood (the Romans too were experimenting with proto-uniforms at this time). East Germanic warriors are universally portrayed carrying a large, flat, round shield with a central boss, although the westernmost tribes (e.g., the Burgundians and Vandals) are sometimes pictured with West Germanic oval or hexagonal shields. There has been some suggestion that the Goths "traditionally" utilized a large plank shield, often called a "coffin shield" due to its resemblance to the outline of a modern hexagonal-sided coffin, but the evidence for this type of shield is extremely thin (a single archeological find that may or may not belong to a Gothic warrior), whereas the vast majority of Migration-era shields seem to have been round or oval in shape. Archeological finds have verified the claim by Roman writers that these shields could be highly decorated (painted and/or embossed with metal talismans), with a stout central boss of metal (backed by a handle), although they seem to have only banded the edge with leather (the Romans used metal). Once the East Germanic peoples came into sustained contact with the Roman world (ca. mid-second century CE), and certainly after they migrated into the Roman Empire, this would have changed considerably. As has been mentioned, those warriors serving as federate troops would have had access to Roman fabricae (arms workshops), successful East Germanic rebels would have looted Roman equipment, and sometimes East Germanic rebels were joined by dissafected groups of Romans. Indeed, the appearance of Late Roman and East Germanic armies was probably very similar (perhaps helping to explain the prolifieration of proto-uniforms and proto-heraldry). Those tribes that remained under Hunnic dominion seem to have retained their native Germanic character longer—whereas those Germanic tribes that migrated into Roman territory were militarily successful but found themselves vastly outnumbered by the native Roman population, and thus social assimilation ultimately favored the Romans, the Huns were militarily successful but found themselves living amongst numerically superior Germanic vassals, and social assimilation favored the Germans. Altogether, this indicates that later East Germanic armies (ca. mid-third century CE onward) would have had a motley appearance.

 

I originally put this army together for a Battle of Hadrianopolis scenario (9 August 378 CE), but with more recent additions I now think these figures could be used to represent the armies of the eastern East Germanic peoples (Thervingians, Greuthungians, Gepids, Rugians, Scirians, Heruls, Bastarnae, and Generic Goths) during the Middle Period (ca. 220-550 CE), as well as the Later Period Gepidian Kingdom (454-567 CE) and the Pontic/Crimean Goths until about 600 CE. In my judgment, the Burgundians and Vandals should probably be modeled separately, since they lived in close proximity to the West Germanic peoples from a very early date, and they adopted many of the elements of material culture associated with the West Germanic peoples, and therefore they would have looked slightly different from their eastern brethren. Likewise, I think the various East Germanic federate peoples should be modeled separately in order to incorporate the heavier Roman influence on their material culture. The infantry are mostly from Old Glory 15s, with some from Splintered Light Miniatures, except the bowmen, who are all from Lancashire Games. The cavalry are a mixture of figures from Miniature Wars, Old Glory 15s, and Splintered Light Miniatures, and the camp uses wagons from Museum Miniatures and camp followers and equipment from Donnington Miniatures. As is often the case in many of my armies, the shield transfers and flags are from Little Big Men Studios.