48  

(table cont.)

Sala Rib Lombc Ale Baif Abt Saxg Thuri/j Frisk Af

intestine 1256 1831

– intestine 2457 2432
pierced
– intestine 4058
mutilated
stomach wound 1225
bowel wound 1826
– if pierced 2427
abdomen 1228
– attacked 1829
with sword
– pierced 2457
guts and fat 4+30
spilt on top
rib 349 1222 1054
– dislodged bone 2055
belly 1241 3030
belly pierced 2042 2032
medical
treatment 3043
severe wound 3044
loin maimed 6048
– pierced 1549
– transfixed 3050
hand, foot, 1009 4010 66⅓56
eye, ear
nose
ear cut off 1525 1005 d½wer9 4010 2020 128 ?7209 1008 128 305
– no loss of 506 129 319 half 16
hearing
– loss of 4021 257 144010 10019 606
hearing
half of ear 611 622 610 quarter17
crippled 2011
ear pierced 319 39
eye, nose d
½wer3–4
eye struck 62½22 100 9
4015 5011 ?7207 1006 ½wer27 6 6 ⅓ 7
out
– laming of eye half 16
– still usable quarter17 20⅔26
– loss of vision 5010
2014
14408 228
(i.e. both eyes)
eye, mouth 1212
disfigured
  LEGES BARBARORUM 49

(table cont.)

Sala Rib Lombc Ale Baif Abt Saxg Thuri/j Frisk Af

eyebrow 213
upper eyelid 612 323 214
lower eyelid 1213 625 214
nose cut off 4523 1007 4018 918 72011 1007 249 609
nose pierced 913
1515
unable to sneeze 1217 617 half 16
able to sneeze 508 616 quarter17
whiskers 216
cheek 315
617
– 2 cheeks 616
throat pierced 618 1215
tongue cut 10025 4025
1224 1009
as16
out eye
able to speak 2026
jaw 1513
chin 2019
1214
punch on nose 337
bruise 138
visible bruise 1½39
bruise beneath
clothes 140
wound visible
below hair,
sleeve or
trousers x247
lips 165
upper 619 324
lower 1220 623
tooth
knocked out 1526
teeth exposed 206
front teeth 167 620 218 810
upper front 621
canine? 322 1225 421 319 1512
other teeth 626 322
jaw teeth 88 123 123 420 411
lower front 1224
collar bone 625 421 2058
– lesser damage 1559
piercing arm 1613 626
– above elbow 631 616
– below elbow 332 317
– light bleeding 1½33
– heavy bleeding 334
50  

(table cont.)

Sala Rib Lombc Ale Baif Abt Saxg Thuri/j Frisk Af

– unbroken skin 335

– below elbow 336
– above elbow 637
– damaged elbow 1238 1518
crippled arm 2039 68 627
2405
105

arm cut off 8043

at elbow 40 40

above elbow 1223

below elbow 624
both bones 1225 3019
at shoulder 8041 50⅓ 8046/51
57

striking arm 814

wrist blood 438
elbow blood 439
shoulder blood 440 3017
junction of 444
elbow/shoulder
arm lamed ½cut58
off
arm and hand as for59
thigh &
foot
loss of hand 10011 ½wer18 72012 10010 4545
– both hands 144012
lamed hand 62½10 5012 ½wer19 half 16 5011 4053
– still movable quarter17
hand wound 2052
thumb, big 5011 5013 1/6 wer201243 1212 2028 33⅓14 13⅓28 3020
toe cut off [thumb]
thumb nail 329 36018 521
thumb lamed 30 12
25 14 b
6 42
18019
upper thumb 241
joint
– lower 342
– junction 443
with arm
2nd finger 3513 3615 1621 1046 913 930 18024 33⅓15 729 1522
– 1st joint 2½44 ⅓
– 2nd joint 545 ⅔
– nail 323
3 other 45 14

fingers
2 fingers 3515
1 finger 3016
3rd finger 1517 522 649 514 431 12025 33⅓15 6½30 1224
– 1st joint 1½47 ⅓ 135
– 2nd joint 348 ⅔ 236
  LEGES BARBARORUM 51

(table cont.)

Sala Rib Lombc Ale Baif Abt Saxg Thuri/j Frisk Af

– lowest 337
– nail 225
4th finger 918 823 852 514 632 12025 33⅓16 831 1726
– 1st joint 250 – 135
– 2nd joint 451 – 236
– lowest 337
– nail 427
little finger 1519 1624 as53 913 1133 24020 33⅓16 632 928
– one joint thumb 8021
– two joints 16022
– nail 139
all five 4133
finger nails 134
3rd finger 1254
disabled
militarily add
⅓15
palm 434
laming of ½ for56
hand, foot, cutting
finger off

disfigurement 335 2405 5018

worse injury 636
sinew 355 1260
– incurable 3061
small sinew 662
disabled 10027 2060 wer59
penis 645–6
one testicle 72014 10013 ½wer31
– both 144015 10012 wer30 8042
– testicle 6+32
restored
castration 20028 20019 4059 werx345
any limb 3618
hernia 369.
pierced hip 16 16
1261
striking hip 817
lamed knee 1262
leg pierced below knee 363
broken thigh 1247 2405 105 1233 3033
lamed thigh friends48
thigh pierced 650 3034
extent of stab 1s per
inch51–4
shin pierced 1235
52  

(table cont.)

Sala Rib Lombc Ale Baif Abt Saxg Thuri/j Frisk Af

– bone below knee 6–1234 3036

– cut off at knee 8057
lamed foot 4520 5017 ¼wer26
foot struck 62½21 10016 ½wer25 4066 5056 72013 10010 4535
off
– lamed half 16 5011
– still movable quarter17
– both feet 144013
leg struck off at knee 5067
leg struck off at hip 8068
big toe 1627 664 1057 ½thumb27 3017 86 2037
other toes ½finger ½finger28
58

2nd toe 628 365 747 1538

3rd toe 329 365 648 939
4th toe 330 365 549 640
5th toe 231 365 ½other 450 541
big toenail 1½59 toes29 h
other toenails ½59
rest of foot 1551
blood spilt as for52
fingers
Sources
Pactus legis 17,1–10; 29,1–18, ed. K.A. Eckhardt, MGH LL nationum Germanicarum
4,1 (Hannover 1962); Lex Ribuaria 1–6, ed. F. Beyerle and R. Buchner, MGH LL
nationum Germanicarum 3,2 (Hannover 1954); Edictus Rothari 45–73, ed. F. Bluhme,
MGH LL 4 (Hannover 1868); Leges Alamannorum 57,1–68 (see note d) below), ed.
K. Lehmann and K.A. Eckhardt, MGH LL nationum Germanicarum 5,1 (rev. 2nd
edn., Hannover 1966); Lex Baiwariorum 4,1–16, ed. E. von Schwind, MGH LL
nationum Germanicarum 5,2 (Hannover 1926); Laws of Æthelberht 33–72,1, ed. F. Lie-
bermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen 1 (Halle 1903); Lex Saxonum 1–15, ed. K.F. von
Richthofen, MGH LL 5 (Hannover 1875–89); Lex Thuringorum 1–25, ibid.; Lex Frisionum
22,1–89 (and NB also Lex Frisionum (Additio Sapientum) 2–3 etc.), ed. K.F. von
Richthofen, MGH LL 3 (Hannover 1863); Laws of Ælfred 44–77, ed. F. Liebermann,
Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen 1 (Halle 1903). The Burgundian code has no table as
such (though cf., e.g. Liber Constitutionum 5; 11; 26; 48; 93, ed. L.R. von Salis, MGH
LL nationum Germanicarum 2,1 [Hannover 1892]); while Chindaswinth’s impres-
sive laws (Lex Visigothorum 6,4,1; 6,4,3, ed. K. Zeumer, MGH LL nationum Germani-
carum 1 [Hannover 1902]) are so much more elaborate as to frustrate comparison
with those tabulated here.
The tables are designed to show that the “barbarian” leges are all trying to do
the same sort of thing about personal injury, though in almost invariably distinc-
tive ways: that is to say, they vary in the injuries they identify (and their extent);
in the order in which they are listed; and in the seriousness—reflected in the com-
pensation specified—with which any one injury is viewed. Inevitably, given the
“multi-layered” structure of many of these lists (especially, e.g., Lex Sal.), thorough
consistency is not to be expected (e.g. see note a) below). I have as a rule omitted
bindings, blows struck on others’ weapons, or throwing into river (e.g. Lex Sax. 6;
  LEGES BARBARORUM 53

8–10), since these do not appear regularly enough to sustain comparison. I have
tried (so far as feasible) to follow the head-to-toe order essayed (if scarcely consis-
tently exercised) by all codes; the superscripted numbers following each compensa-
tion shows the place it occupies in any one code’s sequence (not the clause number).l/m

Other notes
a) Lex Sal. details are taken very largely from the oldest (“A”) group of MSS,
though with some details—signalled in Italics—from the “C” (later Merovingian)
tradition.
b) At this point, Lex Rib. enters the helpful generalization that if a limb ‘hangs
maimed’ composition is half what it would be for excising it altogether; cf. Lex
Fris. 58.
c) The Lombard compositions listed here are those of homines liberi as opposed
to aldii or servi.
d) The Lombard wergeld is not actually made clear until Leg. Liutpr. 62 (724),
where it seems to be established that a minima persona [. . .] exercitalis has 150s (¾
the Frankish ingenuus, cf. above, pp. 31–2), while the primus has 300s (50% more
than Frank, or half the Frankish antrustio). Perhaps the relevant point is that pay-
ment of half a wergeld for loss of eye, nose, hand or foot is exactly the same prin-
ciple in Frankish as in Lombard custom.
e) There are two sets of Alamannic compensations, those of the Pactus legis Salicae
being almost certainly the earlier, i.e. early seventh-century. But complexities in the
transmission mean that it makes more sense to list/analyse the tariff of the eighth-
century revised “ducal” code.
f ) Bavarians, like Lombards, distinguish compensations for freemen, freedmen
and servi; only those of liberi are analysed here.
g) Saxon compositions are given only for nobiles, apart from single clauses on liti
and servi; the former are what is listed here, which is of course why the figures are
so much higher than in other tables.
h) Lex Sax. here makes the interesting and otherwise unique stipulation that all
these compositions are to be doubled for women if virgins, though paid at the same
rate if already married.
i/j) Lex Thur. gives figures for both nobles and freemen; the latter, one-third of
the former, are those tabulated here.
k) Lex Fris., not content with providing by far the longest and most elaborate
tariff, proceeds to expand and modify this with a series of Additiones Sapientium; these
I have omitted, in order not to complicate and lengthen the table beyond tolera-
bility; indeed, I have omitted some of the original tariff ’s complexities, to which
there is no counterpart in others.
l/m) Oliver, “Language of Early English Laws”, pp. 247–9, offers instructive com-
ment on such tabling of injuries compared to other systems.
This page intentionally left blank
 GENS INTO REGNUM: THE VANDALS1

J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz

I. Problems and sources

The theme of the ESF project has been the transformation of the
gentes into regna. All the peoples that settled and established kingdoms
within the empire were described in Latin as gentes. The meaning of
gens is however ambiguous. That emerges clearly from many of the
studies. Gens is generally translated as “tribe”, and a tribe is a large
association held together by a sense of obligation to a group which
is defined by common descent of its members. But this is where
complications begin. For the common descent of a tribe may be
entirely biological, in that the members of the group are demon-
strably derived from common ancestors, but far more often than not
it is almost entirely mythical, as for instance the descent of all the
biblical Israelites from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.2 The implied kin-
ship is in fact simply a metaphor, even a very powerful metaphor,
prescribing how members of a group ought to behave towards each
other, namely as kinsmen to kinsmen. Between these extremes there
is a whole spectrum of conditions depending on the history and cus-
toms, and especially the degree of openness of a particular tribal
group. It must be remembered that until quite recently common
descent was not as strictly defined in terms of genetic transmission
as it has been since Darwin and Mendel. The Romans for instance,
for all practical purposes considered a son by adoption fully equal
to a biological son.
Even in tribal societies, which are ostensibly organised on a basis
of kinship groups, there is considerable flexibility with regard to the

1
I want to thank Mike Clover for helpfully answering questions of mine, and
Philipp von Rummel for allowing me to use his valuable Magister Thesis.
2
M. Weber, Grundriss der Sozialökonomik, Part 3: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (2nd edn.,
Tübingen 1925) p. 223: “Dieser Sachverhalt: daß das ‘Stammesbewußtsein’ der
Regel nach primär durch politisch gemeinsame Schicksale und nicht primär durch
‘Abstammung’ bedingt ist”.
56 .... 

admission of outsiders.3 The famous Berber historian and political

theorist Ibn Khaldûn (1332–1406) tells us that among Arabs mem-
bership of a tribe was something which one could acquire as well
be born into. “It is clear that a person of a certain descent may
become attached to a people of another descent, either because he
feels to be well disposed towards them, or because there exists an
old alliance or client relationship, or yet because he has to flee from
his own people because of a crime that he has committed. Such a
person comes to be known as having the same descent as those to
whom he has attached himself, and is counted as one of them with
respect to the things that result from common descent, such as
affection, the rights and obligations concerning talion and blood
money, and so on.” The same is true among Berbers today.4 In
practice the degree of openness in the case of a particular group
depends on political considerations, the priority given to monopolis-
ing material or other advantages over other priorities, for instance
that of maximising military manpower.
The tribal sense solidarity too is something problematical. It is
often assumed that it is adequately summarised as a sense of iden-
tity. But this is surely to define the whole in terms of only a part,
because the active component of this sentiment is not what the indi-
vidual tribesman feels about himself, but what he feels about a com-
plex of obligations, duties and sentiments shared with other members
of the group. What makes tribal feeling dynamic is that the indi-
vidual tribesman feels that his well-being is bound up with the suc-
cess of the group, and that he must therefore loyally subordinate his
own interests to those of the collective. But it is important to realise
that tribal feeling is not the same in every tribal grouping, but some-
thing whose strength, range and direction differs strongly from group
to group, and changes very much with the circumstances in which
a particular group finds itself.5

3
Ibid., p. 217: “Nicht nur die Tatsache, daß, sondern auch der Grad, in welchem
das reale Blutsband als solches beachtet wird, ist durch andere Gründe als das Maß
der objektiven Rassenverwandtschaft mitbestimmt.”
4
Ibn Khaldûn, The Muqaddimah, an Introduction to History, transl. F. Rosenthal, 3
vols. (London 1958) p. 267. See also M. Brett and E. Fentress, The Berbers (Oxford
1996) p. 230: “all that defines any such tribe as an actual social unit is the belief
in a common ancestor, whatever the actual genetic reality may be”.
5
Weber, Grundriss der Sozialökonomik, p. 222: “Der Inhalt des auf ‘ethnischer’ Basis
möglichen Gemeinschaftshandelns bleibt unbestimmt. [. . .] Ganz regelmäßig wird,
   57

Ethnicity is essentially an internal psychological state and as such

it is difficult of access to the researcher. This is true even when we
are dealing with a people who have left a literature to tell us some-
thing about the priorities and emotions of its creators. It is much
more difficult when, as with the Germanic gentes who founded the
regna, they have left little or no such direct evidence. In cases like
this, the method must be that of behaviourism: the strength and
character of the ethnicity of a gens must be deduced from both its
behaviour in recorded situations, and from institutions such as dress,
language, shared traditions, law, and religion, which make tribal dis-
tinctiveness visible, and indeed help to create and nourish the under-
lying emotions.6 But this approach too is not straightforward. For
the institutions were fluid. Without exception the gentes borrowed
heavily from the institutions of the Roman world in which they were
establishing their kingdoms. But the fact that the institutions which
expressed ethnicity were changeable, and that they had in any case
often been appropriated from the Romans, does not mean that tribal
solidarity which they expressed and upheld was necessarily weak and
insignificant.7 It is likely that, then as now, tribal solidarity was at
some times, and in some circumstances, extremely powerful, whether
for creation or destruction. After all the breaking up of the century
old imperial structure which these gentes brought about involved a
massive change.
The occupation of North Africa by the Vandals after 429 A.D. was
a decisive turning point in the disintegration of the Western Empire.

wenn diese Ausdrücke [Völkerschaft, Stamm, Volk] gebraucht werden, entweder

eine [. . .] gegenwärtige politische Gemeinschaft oder Erinnerungen an eine früher
einmal gewesene [. . .] oder Sprach- bzw. Dialektgemeinschaften oder endlich eine
Kultgemeinschaft, mit hinzugedacht.” In other words the content of “ethnicity” is
provided by the situation and history of the particular ethnos.
6
Ibid., p. 219: “Fast jede Art von Gemeinsamkeit und Gegensätzlichkeit des
Habitus und der Gepflogenheiten kann Anlaß zu dem [. . .] Glauben werden, daß
zwischen den sich anziehenden oder abstoßenden Gruppen Stammverwandtschaft
oder Stammfremdheit bestehe”. Ibid., p. 217: “Die Frage [. . .] ob die als auffällig
abweichend und also scheidend empfundenen Differenzen auf ‘Anlage’ oder ‘Tradition’
beruhen, ist für ihre Wirksamkeit [. . .] nomalerweise gänzlich bedeutungslos”.
7
Ibid., p. 223: “Praktisch [. . .] pflegt die Existenz des ‘Stammesbewusstseins’
wiederum etwas spezifisch Politisches zu bedeuten: daß nämlich bei einer kriegerischen
Bedrohung von außen oder bei genügendem Anreiz zu eigener kriegerischer Aktivität
nach außen, ein politisches Gemeinschaftshandeln besonders leicht auf dieser Grundlage
[. . .] entsteht.”