Italy from the fall of WRE to Justianan re-conquest

[ray245]

I have been reading about this book called 'The Ruin of the Roman Empire' by Hames J. O'Donnell which basically describe how the Roman Empire in the west can actually be rebuild if Theodoric or his heir was recognised as the Western Emperors, the so-called Barbarians as compared to letting the Eastern empire re-built it.

It argues that the 'ruins' of the Western empire can be re-build and be more Roman they could have been under Justinian re-conquest, even if the plague of Justinian did not occur. That the more the Eastern emperors tried to re-unify the two places together, the more separate they become.

It seems to me that Italy during that period was distinctively Roman as far as anyone in Greece. That the integration between the Gothic Migrants and the native Romans, similar to China under the Qing Dynasty. Seems to me that the Gothic disposal of the last western emperor did not really end the Western empire as we know it. In fact, the Western empire ended due to the Romans themselves.

So the question is, will Italy be much more stable without Justinian and his predecessor intervention in that region, and the Western empire can actually be rebuild with a base of operation from Italy, just like how the Romans began expanding after the last Punic war?

[Thanas]

Not having read the book, how does the author explain the fact that goths and romans were seperated by law and that Theoderic did not depict himself as a roman emperor, but as a gothic king? How does he explain the fact that the average goths in Italy had no intention of becoming romans?

[ray245]

Not having read the book, how does the author explain the fact that goths and romans were seperated by law and that Theoderic did not depict himself as a roman emperor, but as a gothic king? How does he explain the fact that the average goths in Italy had no intention of becoming romans?

He pointed that the Goths is not the majority of the people living there to begin with. On the issue of Theoderic not naming himself as an Roman emperor, he aruges that he is an emperor in all ways except for the name. He also argued that Goths is basically part of the Roman empire as always, such as the words of Flavius Magnus Aurelius Casiodorus 'that the goths had been forever part of the Roman world' -Pg 126.

Also he argued that Eutharic naming as a Consul and be accepted to some degree is a hint that Theoderic seeks to position his dynasty as Roman as it could be, and basically all administration was Roman on every level, such as using Romans and etc.

From my perspective, if you compare the Yuan or Qing Dynasty in China, which was taken over by the Mongols and the Manchurians respectively, as a Chinese dynasty, then it is reasonable enough to view Theoderic's Italy as Roman as well.

[ray245]

A quote regarding the goths from the book.

Where did the supposedly mighty Goths and Lombards go?

We must give some credit to the powerful urge to go native-to Romanize-that newcoers in Italy felt for many centuries. The priest-poet Ennodius made fun of a contemporary, Jovinian, who couldn't decide what part he wanted to play, for he wore a Goth's beard and a Roman's winter cloak. Was he Goth or Roman? Or was Jovinian the sort that Cassiodorus had in mind when he observed drily that it was poor Romans who imitated the Goths, just as rich Goths imitated the Romans? Imitation is the first step towards assimilation.

Or were the Goths even ever there? Number and time tell the story. The invasion of Italy which we know consist of four distinct events, two stiill to come in our story. The arrival of Alaric and his troops in the early 400s brought outsiders, and most of that group moved on in the 410s. Through the fifth century, other frights and fights, notably with the Huns, came and went, each leaving behind a few settlers-and time passed. Theoderic appeared in the late 480s with the largest force ever until then to think of settling in Italy, and those soldiers and families spend the next fifty years, two generations nestling into their homes. Italy was then to be attacked from Constantinople and the ruling government eventually, after a long and bloody battle we will have to steel ourselves to watch, overthrown. Theoderic's regime had little effect on the ethnic makeup of the population, or its tendency to coalesce into one people. The last two invasion were equally barbaric. Justinian send troops in the 530s and 540s in an act that was notionally Roman, but the troops themselves came from the same wellspring of Roman military force in the Balkans as Theoderic and his men. When, in the 560s, the Lombards arrived, they came as creatures of the empire themselves, with no less obvious roots in all the obvious places, but we will see them settle mainly away from the cities, in numbers that cannot have been large. Of those four invasions, Justinian's left the greatest demonstrable number of "barbarians" resident in Italy.

Pg 120-121

[Pablo Sanchez]

The point about the Goths etc. being a minority in Italy doesn't make that much difference, because cultural assimilation is an organic process that defies predictions of that kind. Sometimes conquerors who form a minority in their new lands are eventually absorbed (e.g. Normans in England), sometimes the local culture is the one that changes to accommodate the conqueror (e.g. Gallo-Romans and the Franks).

[Thanas]

Not having read the book, how does the author explain the fact that goths and romans were seperated by law and that Theoderic did not depict himself as a roman emperor, but as a gothic king? How does he explain the fact that the average goths in Italy had no intention of becoming romans?

He pointed that the Goths is not the majority of the people living there to begin with.

Which really doesn't matter much considering neither were the lombards.

On the issue of Theoderic not naming himself as an Roman emperor, he aruges that he is an emperor in all ways except for the name.

That argument is not really much of one, considering that if you call yourself rex gothorum, you do not see yourself as a roman at all.

He also argued that Goths is basically part of the Roman empire as always, such as the words of Flavius Magnus Aurelius Casiodorus 'that the goths had been forever part of the Roman world' -Pg 126.

That argument is a very curious one considering Cassiodorus was the panegyricist - e.g. the person paid to write gothic propaganda. Meanwhile, the Boethius affair would beg to differ.

Also he argued that Eutharic naming as a Consul and be accepted to some degree is a hint that Theoderic seeks to position his dynasty as Roman as it could be, and basically all administration was Roman on every level, such as using Romans and etc.

If it was as roman as it could be, why is there little intermarriage between the nobility? And barbarian consuls are very well attested in the fourth century. In fact, a frank called Nevitta was the first consul of non-roman origin.

A quote regarding the goths from the book.

Or were the Goths even ever there? Number and time tell the story. The invasion of Italy which we know consist of four distinct events, two stiill to come in our story. The arrival of Alaric and his troops in the early 400s brought outsiders, and most of that group moved on in the 410s. Through the fifth century, other frights and fights, notably with the Huns, came and went, each leaving behind a few settlers-and time passed. Theoderic appeared in the late 480s with the largest force ever until then to think of settling in Italy, and those soldiers and families spend the next fifty years, two generations nestling into their homes. Italy was then to be attacked from Constantinople and the ruling government eventually, after a long and bloody battle we will have to steel ourselves to watch, overthrown. Theoderic's regime had little effect on the ethnic makeup of the population, or its tendency to coalesce into one people. The last two invasion were equally barbaric. Justinian send troops in the 530s and 540s in an act that was notionally Roman, but the troops themselves came from the same wellspring of Roman military force in the Balkans as Theoderic and his men. When, in the 560s, the Lombards arrived, they came as creatures of the empire themselves, with no less obvious roots in all the obvious places, but we will see them settle mainly away from the cities, in numbers that cannot have been large. Of those four invasions, Justinian's left the greatest demonstrable number of "barbarians" resident in Italy.

Pg 120-121

I am loath to comment on a work I haven't read yet, but it seems to me as if the author places too much emphasis on the lineage of the Byzantine soldiers. His argument that they were largely barbarian in nature is not an argument I would make myself, considering that it is very hard to formulate an opinion on recruiting practices. Hugh Elton, for example has shown that even in units that carried Barbarian names (the auxillia palatina), only 25% of them were actual barbarians and the rest were provincial romans. I really doubt that this was different in the barbarian-free east. Furthermore, after several years of speaking Latin and living in a roman way, can a Barbarian really be called a Barbarian anymore?

[ray245]

That author does support the idea that the Barbarians aren't that 'barbaric' and moreover, he blames the Principate as the reason why there is so many barbarian incursion to began with, that borders regions are not romanised to a full extend. That the borders of the Roman empire was never secured properly, to begin with.

It is rare to read about books from Historians who actually view the Principate in a pretty bad light to some extend. More books seems to glorify the Principate era.

Other than that, he seems to view Justinian as a pretty destructive and bad Roman emperor, even before the Nike riots and etc.

By the way, this is a pretty new book, that was only published last year I think, so there is not many people who is around to provide analyze of his arguments online.

Which brings up the question of this thread, what is the situation in Italy like on a ground level? Do the people living there still view themselves as Romans?

Do they view the goths as a legitimate 'Roman' government?