migration period - linguistic impact

PARISIEN:
"
When we see the phenomenal consequences of the victory of Hastings, it is likely that the Lombards of Italy and the Visigoths of Spain were only a few thousands or even hundreds of Germans
"


Adolfo:
"
Around 200 000 barbarians crossed the Pyrenees. This includes not only goths but suebi and vandals. Take into account that the Spanish population was not very high by then ,thence the demographic impact of the invaders was not insignificant. Also it is remarkable that they represented the Roman authority since they were confederates of the Roman empire, so the native population used to obey the Roman rulers , didn't see them as invaders but to the contrary, as people who came to put some order in a collapsing Roman empire.
"


Which view is correct and what were the consequences of the demographic impact of the invaders on the languages of Europe?

greg Fri May 09, 2008 9:32 pm GMT
Ouest : « What do you think happened to these populations, what was their fate if only a few percent survived and settled in Western Europe? ».

Franchement, tu passes du coq à l'âne en évitant soigneusement toute confrontation strictement linguistique. Je comprends que tu tiennes à éviter d'avancer tes arguments (si tu en as) sur la genèse et/ou les origines du français, mais force est de constater que tu t'éloignes du sujet sur lequel tu prétends informer. On peut parler des vases Ming ou de la reproduction des gastéropodes si ça te chante, mais je doute de ton efficacité sur le "créole romanogermanique".
______________


I had the feeling that you and Parisien exclude a Romano-Germanic Creole as the starting point of Romance (and French) because of the idea, that German conquerors of the Roman empire were just a small number ("squadron"), quickly absorbed by the native Gaulois who had adopted the Latin language and civilization to become GALLO-romans.

Quoth: "Il faut se souvenir de ce qu'était dans les temps anciens une invasion réussie (ou non). C'était un clan de guerriers qui s'arrangeaient pour faire boule de neige autour d'eux. " (PARISIEN)

But if you have another view about the matter, feel free to correct me.

Ouest : « I had the feeling that you and Parisien exclude a Romano-Germanic Creole as the starting point of Romance (and French) because of the idea, that German conquerors of the Roman empire were just a small number ("squadron"), quickly absorbed by the native Gaulois who had adopted the Latin language and civilization to become GALLO-romans. »

Ce n'est pas que X ou Y exclut un "créole romanogermanique". C'est plutôt que X et Y attendent un commencement d'argumentation linguistique plutôt qu'un discours vaguement historicisant ressassé en boucle.

> Which view is correct ?


The view of Adolfo may be correct because in the great migration period of Germanic tribes who lost their homeland and they need to find or invade a new land for all the tribes to live. So "around 200 000 barbarians crossed the Pyrenees" may be really.

The victory of Hastings is just a reward of Normans' hope to gain a richest land. These Normans had not lost their homeland and they invaded the England is just hope to share and occupied more land for rent. So the invaders may be only a few thousands or even hundreds men, only the knights of Norman king, a small population.