Basically, what wasn't eaten locally. Better check the corrected version.
Concerning the Fall of Western Rome
- Thread starter Miranda Brawner
- Start date
Basically, what wasn't eaten locally. Better check the corrected version.
I would disagree. IMO, Orestes, when he revolted against Julius Nepos, did so with the full backing (and possibly under the orders of) the Roman Senate. They did so because Nepos was a puppet of Constantinople. When Odoacer forced Augustulus to resign some months later, the Senate sought to have ZENO become sole emperor, so that they may have all the influence upon Odoacer, whilst Zeno was busy in the east. Basically, they wanted to be left alone and have all the power and influence.
http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/nepos.htm
scholar
Banned
Unfortunately, I do not speak French which prevents me from doing much with this. Which can only allow me to question to what extent anything of real substantial value was lost. It is easy to lose the steppes and increasingly arid regions, but if the more economically active zones remained with the Byzantines that would explain why economically speaking, North Africa remained important until after the Arab Conquests.
I just have a few minor points on this: It was possible to become "germanized" and retain a roman identity. As a cultural body, it was more than possible to become more German in custom after decades to centuries under Germanic Rule, while remaining Roman. You even stated that the two were conciliable, and I might put forward that even if theoretically speaking the populations may have been going much closer to the Germans, that they still remained Roman. It was only when the Latin Language was standardized that French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, and others were born. Up until that time it was merely the distinction between spoken Latin and Classical Written Latin, and the Latin of the Church.
Because of this I question the extent to which anyone can really judge the population's cultural make-up, at least until Charlemagne and his quest to create a new Jerusalem in Gaul. Clothing, weaponry, and to some extent funerary rites are superficial, where people seek to emulate those in authority. After a certain point being German had no bad stigma, and being Roman did not mean you could not be more like the Germans.
Oh, another point, before this the Franks and other groups in France were called Gallo-Romans for a fairly significant time after the fall of Western Rome by outsiders, or at the very least in the context of early medieval england.
Oh, I would not say that Justinian's campaigns were a lightswitch in which all connections suddenly stopped. Rather, I would suggest that it was much more like a vital pivot in the course of history and society in the region. It took time for everything to change course, but by the time of his death the cracks were seen almost everywhere his armies visited.
I don't disagree (even if I'd really nuance the unicity of the Senate there), but I was talking about Romans in a large sense (including Barbarians entities), rather than part of the Roman Senate.
I translated the conclusions there.
Summarizing the conclusions.
Maurs in Byzantine (and Roman) Africa designated two groups : Inner and Outer Maurs. The first, tribally organised, were often recognized several level of autonomy, if not officialy recognized. The second, recognized as well, keep having ties with Inner Maurs (that were a mix of Maurs and low social classes of Africano-Romans).
As for "nothing of value was lost", that's clearly a huge rationalisation. We're not talking of "some highlands" there, but of a Byzantine Africa reduced to immediate coastline (and even that being threatened regularly by Berbers) while provinces quite romanized and rich before WRE's fall directly fall under Maur control (that is, again, a mix of natives and Outer Maurs).
Even provinces considered rich during Vandal rule were lost eventually and never recovered by Byzantium.
I just have a few minor points on this: It was possible to become "germanized" and retain a roman identity. As a cultural body, it was more than possible to become more German in custom after decades to centuries under Germanic Rule, while remaining Roman. You even stated that the two were conciliable,
Disproven by modern research. The distinctive features of Barbarians (law, historiography, material culture) appeared after their entry in Romania and their use doesn't imply a cultural germanisation, but rather a political germanisation.
(There's many people wearing Jeans, drinking Coca-Cola, and watching Holywood movies in the world, without making them Americans)
It's even funnier when you realize that a large part of these cultural features were partially from Roman origin, only with some "let's put something that looks "Barbarian". touchs.
A Frank, by the VIIth century, is an inhabitant of northern Gaul. And...that's all. You may have some cultural and ethnic features, but for all that matter, it's a Gallo-Roman pledging alliegance to a Frankish king, pulling a '̶M̶u̶r̶i̶c̶a̶ ̶#̶1̶ Francia#1 from a predetermined set of cultural references.
As for linguistical matters, while the standardisation of Latin played much, you still had enough difference between Romance speeches and Late Latin that it was noticed by scholars. The separation didn't happened overnight, furthermore : and the languages differenciated themselves on different lines. While French seems to have differenciated itself from Gallo-Roman speeches around 800, it took longer for other, in spite of being in Carolingian orbit : Old Occitan, Italian, Retho-Roman; whereas some languages as Old Castillan appeared at the same time if not earlier (compared to the two last ones).
Again, you overlook that I'm not talking of culture, but about political AND ethnical identity.
We have enough proofs of cultural exchange between provincial Romans and Romanized Barbarians to not go in a debate about it.
What is more relevant is to observe that Roman identity, based on citizenship, and Barbarian identity, based on royal authority, were considered as distinct.
It doesn't mean you couldn't pass from one to another, but these were exclusive, at least up to the VI/VIIth centuries, and even passing from one to another raised issues.
Half-paranoid suscpicion against Barbarians or people percieved as such in Rome :basically, an interest and identitary issue caused by the growing importance of people that raised from a military ground (more or less "Barbarised") at the expense of the old senatorial elite.
It's not because something is technically legal, that it is socially accepted.
Identitary reinforcement on Barbarians, after the Vth century, were being Barbarian implied the growing use of distinctive features.
As for "clothes are irrelevant", it's a really weird statement when you know a bit the period (and critically with mixing Vth century with IXth as nothing happened in between).
Giving that Barbarian culture was essentially a romanized one, that all distinctive features only appeared after their contact or entry with Romania.
Neither material culture, law, religion etc. clearly distinguished Barbarians of other Barbarians, but as well of provincial Romans that were "barbarised".
What clearly distinguished them were political identity (obeying to a king of [X] and fiscality). With their political domination established, it became really attractive : paying less taxes, enjoying the benefit of being part of a warrior elite, having access to royal honors (truste).
Giving that Romans "playing Barbarians" made the distinction even more hard, you had issue of new cultural sets considered as Barbarians, even if genuinly absent of the first identitarian features (a bit like, when you play Cow-Boy and Indians as a kid, your disguisement may probably exxagerate real ones)
How can we judge then the Barbarisation of the population? By material culture (tombs), names (Germanic names being clearly more present by the VIth century), texts (we have many accounts of Romans "barbarizing" by accepting Barbarian gifts such as clothes), acceptance of royal authority as their own and not only as issued from the imperium.
Basically, the same way we considered Romanisation.
As for "Charlemagne's quest to edify a new Jerusalem", it's at best monacal wishful thinking or romanticized history.
Charlemagne's program was gaining the hegemon over Christiendom, in all likeness of Byzantine's ones except in its cultural features.
Past that, you didn't have an imperial program, as pointed out by the lasting use of "King of Franks and Lombards".
"Gallo-Roman" is an historiographical name, just as "Western Roman Empire". You'd never find one occurence of this in contemporary texts.
As for exonym : Arabs called Ifranj (Franks) every western people : English, German, Scandinavian, etc. That doesn't really mean something when it comes to their identity, but more on the Arabo-Islamic perception of different peoples.
As for Anglo-Saxon use.
Bede said:
Mostly Collins, Dumézil, Geary, Heather and Rouche on the matter of identity.
I know Halsall by name, and maybe trough some articles he wrote (I don't really remember which ones, to be honest), but I didn't had access to his main works.
From what I understood, but again not read, his thesis weren't opposed to these of the aformentioned scholars.
scholar
Banned
Why then was North Africa considered economically prosperous and viable right up until the Byzantines lost the territory?
And why I am confronted with maps like this everywhere I turn?
The Barbarians had been accumulating material assets and culture beyond the border of Roman Empire since before the time of Marcus Aurelius. This much is just factual. You saw the emergence of Roman-like Villas and German immitations of Roman products in areas Rome had no direct contact with because of trade. Further, the Germans with growing populations and the creations of more complex tribal confederations had to have developed something along the line of a material culture before they invaded.
I will put forward no argument that their entry into Rome did not define them and shape who they became, but I wouldn't say they had nothing before they crossed the Rhine.
I do not know why you argued with me over a point of culture. Political and ethnic identity are both aspects of culture, and you seem to be making some cultural arguments. As a result I am actually moderately confused by some of your points, for instance about the division based on direct politics. For instance, since the Roman populous obeyed German Kings, does this make them politically German?
I will take another look at this tomorrow just to see if I understood you correctly.
I would make the argument it was certainly more decisive than the seal being returned to Constantinople. Also, "heirs" and "successors" are more or less tautologies. If your argument is that it is more towards successor, you will get no argument from me because that word could just as easily been written when I wrote my response as heir.
But back to your point, where in Latin Romania? You brought up areas in Southern Gaul, areas Justinian did not conquer, as something of a counter. This wasn't illustrative of my point. My point was in regards to where Justinian conquered, where Justinian's armies had turned entire societies which perceived themselves to be Roman into conquered peoples. That as Justinian was invading to retake provinces, he had fundamentally misjudged how much the Roman world changed. Furthermore, his expansion and then his successor's inability to maintain that expansion saw the Roman World decline and contract. It is in the wake of his campaigns that we can talk about a truly post-Roman world.
Your argument and research on North Africa is an example which supports this point. Should Justinian's invasion severed the connections the roman population had with the berbers, and much of the heavily romanized lands retained by the Vandals be lost, then we see a dramatic reduction in the Roman World in that region. Instead of being a broad cultural impact, you see it being what is maintained by the armies of the Byzantines along the coastline and little more. The Roman World, in this case, was dramatically reduced to what Byzantium held.
Furthermore, Gondovald being Roman and Rebelling to seek Roman support from Constantinople doesn't actually change this point, nor disprove it. In fact, it may support it. How much support did Gondovald get from Italy, from Spain, from Africa, from other areas in France? Was not his revolt heavily linked to the Byzantine Empire, and thus further support my argument that the Roman World had been condensed into the sphere and orbit of Constantinople whereas before the Roman World was still very much alive without it? You mentioned Ostrogothic Italy as a mediator between Frank and Visigoth, did anything similar happen with different German groups compromise and make peace through the idea of a shared Roman world after Justinian that was not done through either the Catholic Church or Constantinople? And was not the Catholic Church approach much more restricted to religious camaraderie rather than Roman camaraderie?
Did you not make the argument that the synthesis of Visigoth and Roman was postponed some centuries in the wake of Justinian's campaigns? That the Byzantine presence in Southern Spain caused a rift between Romans and Visigoths, which had before not been so pronounced?
Even in Italy in the years after Justinian's campaign there became a far more pronounced and noticeable division between Romans and Italians, whereas during the later Roman Period Italy had become little more than geography as far as being Roman was concerned. In fact, I would argue the only reasons why there were even still Romans in Italy was because the identity had reverted to an alignment with the City of Rome rather than the Roman Empire in Constantinople.
All of this shows the break happening with Justinian. Things may not have been completely broken for some time, especially since I had meant to imply that the failure of his successors were the final nail in the coffin, but that certainly appears to be the clear point where we can start truly talking about a Post Roman World, at least much better the end of the line of Emperors given the Ostrogothic brief restoration.
Lastly, I would like to apologize if I misinterpreted any of your points or if my own ignorance on the issue is showing too much.
It's not because the rule of Byzantium was heavily reduced from what was the Roman rule in the same region it stopper being a prosperous province. It's just that it's more than apparent by now that this wealth wasn't issued from a monopole of the land by Byzantines, and that Maurs (as well Inner Maurs, meaning autonomous tribes/entities inside the limes than Outer Maurs) had themselves access to a wealthy ground.
I'd point, furthermore that Carthage's wealth was as well based on trade and particularly being the middle-man between Constantinople and Latin Romania, critically after the Lombards in Italy.
Eventually, the really important lack of written sources force historians to rely on archeological traces (that point out a wealthy Africa by then). It seems that Byzantines were strangely less preoccupied by Africa at the point to not mention it more in their chronicles that Western Romano-Germanic chronicles did.
I don't really have a clue about it : I think about a growing autonomy and a less direct intervention from Constantinople, that would match the political ambitions of Africano-Romans.
There's many reasons : copy/pasting anachronically nation/state conceptions (if Byzance had the lead there, then it must have been part of the empire), legacy of previous historiography of the region never really corrected (there's many wikipedia pages based on early XXth maps), half-assed work (why bother?).
If it was only about Africa : but Spain is badly made as well.
The Barbarians had been accumulating material assets and culture beyond the border of Roman Empire since before the time of Marcus Aurelius. This much is just factual. You saw the emergence of Roman-like Villas and German immitations of Roman products in areas Rome had no direct contact with because of trade. Further, the Germans with growing populations and the creations of more complex tribal confederations had to have developed something along the line of a material culture before they invaded.
I may have been a bit confusing there, so allow me to precise my point : I didn't want to say that they were nothing before they crossed Rhine. I wanted to say that before their contact with Romania (roughly the IIIrd century) there's nothing to indicate they were structured entities.
It's pretty likely that peoples as Alamans, Franks, Goths formed themselves relativly to Romania, would it be only to be able to attack and raid it in a first time; then by clientelisation/assimilation with a clear distinction between Roman and "Barbarian" citizenship that cristallized names and hierarchy at this point.
That said, it's to be noted that many features that are considered as typically Barbarians didn't really appeared before these peoples settled in Romania. For groups as laeti or dedicati, it can mean the IIIrd century.
It's less a question of service, than formal service and acknowledgment.
For exemple, Roman bishops were pretty much necessary to the administration of cities (and their immediate countryside). They had little interest (them and their families, as familial communauty worked as a political ensemble) to adopt a Barbarian identity, their social situation being safe.
(The same can go for some urban counts)
But for other Romans, elites or not, the easiest way to know a social ascencion was trough the king or his truste (roughly, Germanic equivalent to comes). Giving that the truste was strictly associated with Barbarian identity, this had to change, and that passed trough a formal alliegance to the king rather than just service.
You had other reasons, whom fiscal advantages weren't the least interesting.
I may want to precise it indeed. For me, "heir" implies an acknowledgement of the inheritance, acknowledgement that something was transmitted in a continuity.
"Successor" on the other hand, may not implies this continuity.
For example : French Revolutionary Republic succeeded to Bourbon Absolute Monarchy, but wasn't its heir.
The late Antiquity situation on this regard was a bit weird : culturally (and even politically at first), Romano-Barbarians kingdoms were the heirs of the Roman Empire. But for diverse reasons, Barbarians began to percieve themselves as successors rather than heirs, radicalizing a posteriori and in their historiography their differences with Late Romania (while still being objectivly the same civilisation than Late Empire, at least up to Carolingians).
Ah, I think I understand your point better now. But I'd still disagree. Italians (at least up to Tuscany) would still refer themselves as Romans, and as well Africano-Roman population (that actually welcomed Byzantines in fear of Maurs).
As for other peoples present in these provinces, as Maurs, Vandals or Ostrogoths, they never considered themselves as Romans.
It didn't much changed, qualitativly speaking, from the late IVth century to late Vth century, in cultural or identity matters.
Justinian conquests may certainly have caused a geopolitical shock, giving the prestige of Ostrogoths (on the other hand, nobody cared about Vandals, and some Visigothic factionsasked Byzantines to come to help against the others) and the brutality of the Gothic Wars.
But really frankly, I can't really think of an identity shift in the reconquered provinces. The passage from Romans, members of a "transnational communauty", to a Barbarian identity happens later and systematically outside the Byzantine borders. It's whay makes me thing that while the conquest may probably have played a role, the whole process was dependent from inner Romano-Barbarian situation.
Given the sources I was able to get, I'd disagree again (sorry
). The trade between Byzantium and Latin Europe really began to decline with the mid-VII, and definitely did with the Arab conquests of the 630's.Exchanges such as the so-called Provencal system (basically use of African coinage and Byzantine gold in Merovingian Provence to coin local money. It points out a Rhine/Africa/Constantinople trade), shows the remaining dynamism of Byzantine trade (even if North Sea ways began to boom at the same period)
Are to blame, at least in my opinion, Romano-Persian wars that really drained out fiscal revenues and imperial treasury; and the definitve lost of the formers and the ruin of the latter with Arab conquests.
It may be outdated partially (I know the author made a new edition in 2012), but Dark Age Economics of Richard Hodges is really interesting on this (even if, he does focuses a lot on North Sea trade)
I agree there, but up to a point. The lasting differenciation between Romans and Maurs was issued from the former perception of the latter.
With Vandal failure to take care of the 533's Berber revolt/invasion; Africano-Romans called Byzantine to help in order to prevent the likelty takeover by Maurs (that wouldn't have be done without violence).
Vandals already lost Byzacena before Byzantine invasion, a region that Solomon took back. It's just that they ignored the Berber society structures.
It doesn't mean the changes of the Berber society structures : these were really similar to IIIrd century ones. Byzantines ignored both the present and past realities, rather than ignoring the changes themselves.
Furthermore, Gondovald being Roman and Rebelling to seek Roman support from Constantinople doesn't actually change this point, nor disprove it. In fact, it may support it.
Okay, it's going to be *really* complicated there, and I have to contextualise the revolt in the Merovingian policies in 580's. Take a breath, and you should have a coffee
1)
Mummolus (a Roman count that more or less ruled over Burgundy) revolts against Gontran (the king whom seat was Orléans) and prepare to be besieged in Avignon, that was bordering one of the other parts of the Frankish Kingdom.
In the same time : Desiderius of Toulouse (another Roman) and Bladast of Novempopulania (a Goth) revolt themselves against Chilperic I that reigned from Soissons, while they took Western Aquitaine from Gontran at his benefit not long before.
Desiderius and Mummolus end by forming some sort of alliance, while Gontran Boson of Auvergne (a Frank) goes to Constantinople to encounter Gondovald more or less bastard of Clotaire I that was spoiled from his rights by Caribert (brother of Gontan, Chilpéric and Sigibert, but that died at this point).
Desiderius was part of the powerful Syagrii family (that rooted from Albi and Quercy to Burgundy and Provence); while Mummolus was tied with Ferreolii, Firminii and maybe up to the Frankish royal family of Koln.
Bladast is known to have intervened in Spain at the benefit of Leovigild.
Gontran Bonson, while Frank, shares familial ties with Roman nobility of Auvergne.
The whole alliance (that while essentially Roman, holds the majority of military power) is supported by diverse bishops (almost all Romans, except a Romano-Frank) of southern Gaul, and was critically turned against Chilperic, while avoiding to attack Childebert II.
2)
Gondovald arrives in Marseille at the end of 582, welcomed by nobility of the kingdom of Childebert II, and with a treasure that Mauricus gave him.
Brunehilde just recovered much power, with the majority of Childebert, tying alliances with Visigoths of Ermenengild catholic faction, opposed to Leovigild, that recieved as well Byzantine support.
In this geopolitical configuration, sending Gondovald as a claimant in Gaul, that would help Brunehild to take advantage of the situation to take over the part ruled over by Chilperic whom rule was discredited, but whom possession was part of a complete unification of the Frankish Kingdom's policy.
In the same time, Merovingian lineage is declining, and Gondovald argues of the possibility of an extinction to claim his legacy.
Gontran Bonson switch sides to join with Gontran (getting his hand on the treasure) and tries to take Avignon, only to see Brunehilde (regent of Childebert II and Visigothic princess) helping the revoltees, sending an army with at his head a Frankish relative of Mummolus.
Gondovald still joins Mummolus in Avignon, but Childebert II suddenly allies himself with Chilperic, his father's murderer; and Chilperic even makes Childebert his heir. Gondovald have to withdraw on Mediterranean Sea (Lerins Islands or possibly Byzantine Corsica), while the new allies campaign unsuccessfuly in Aquitaine.
3) (You can have an aspirin)
But, in a new addition in what was an overly long list of Twilight Zone-like twists (and it's not finished), Chilperic manages to sire an heir, Clotaire II. Childebert II can't hope inheriting and alliances reverse once again : Childebert and Gontran being allied against Chilperic.
And then Chilperic is murdered
D) while Gondovald was about to come in Gaul anew and Gontran proclaims his desire to protect Clotaire II, and occup Chilperic and Childebert's Aquitaine (totally abusing from the situation).Gondovald appears now as an usurper, while Gontran the main target of the revolt originally, becames the loyal protector of Merovingian interests. All of that in less than 3 years.
Gondovald have only to join up with Romans revoltees, and to follow their ambitions (basically, the same thing that Ermengild had to at the same time). The Romano-Frankish army goes north in late 584 and proclaims Gondovald king, in the same times he take backs Childeric's part in his name, but in his own name for the other cities, in a march that wasn't too problematic and establishing his court in Bordeaux. (yellow are parts he didn't controlled)
But (yes another "but") he's overtaken by events : some nobility of Childebert II's part of Frankish Kingdoms began to want *him* as king. Childebert II and Brunhilde being not too happy about it. In the same time, Gontran proclaims Childebert II as his sole heir.
Gundovald is fucked.
Or was he?
...
Yes, he was.
He's eventually attacked by a huge army formed by the whole of the Frankish Kingdom, led as well by Franks and Romans and have to withdraw in Novempopulania with Bladast as main support, hoping reinforcement from others Goths.
Leovigild having crushed his son's rebellion, and doesn't help Gondovald (that not only was part of Constantinople's meddling, but as well kidnapped the promised wife if Reccared after having stole her douary).
So, when it comes to support, it was far less based on "who's Roman, who's Frank, who's from Constantinople" but decided essentially from Frankish situation.
As long he was an asset in Brunhilde/Childebert II's amibitions, nobody complained and he recieved much support from Franks of these courts but from Romans as well (that prooved being huge assets for their kingdoms before the revolt. An "Austrasian" held conspiracy isn't to reject.
And of course, the whole idiotic list of twists that would be easily considered as ASB if used in any timeline posted on this board.
Regarding Spain, Hermenegild's failure is the main responsible. Without rebellion, or with a victorious one, you may had a more important Gothic support.
As for Italy, that I didn't mentioned yet, Audhari married his half-sister and his son was made Duke of Asti (and father of the "bavarian" king Haribert). Giving the absence of troubles from Provence, an at least passive support may be expected (and is, in a macro-historical perspective, pointing out the traditional alliances between Aquitaine and Lombard Italy)
It should be clear right now that Clovis didn't compromised out of good will: he conquered Aquitaine, advanced in Septimania and stopped only because Ostrogothic army was freed from byzantine pressure on its coasts (and maybe because the lesson they wanted Alaric to teach Alaric about compromising with Catholics really went too far for them).
Theodoric prestige managed to make him imposing his policy to Visigoths, and maybe to prevent Clovis attempting something funny in Mediterranean coast, and the far more efficient resistance he pulled in the region made Clovis "compromising".
Nothing even remotly close to an international pacification meeting.
Other similar mediations happened afterwards, essentially trough Frankish intervention, the kingdom being the raising star of Western Europe.
I could mention Dagobert's support to Sisenand in 631, taking care of the ongoing chaos in Spain (and eventual pacification), as it's the best known.
Or the Frankish influence over Anglo-Saxons that if more peaceful, was still decisive and representative of the privilegied role of Francia in the geopolitical organisation of Western Europe.
I'm afraid I don't entierly understand your point. Using Gondovald's exemple, we see Roman bishops supporting Roman armies in late VIth century, while supporting Brunhilde support of Byzantine's policy in Spain.
I should recheck my sentence, but I didn't wanted to blame Justinian itself, but the maintained Byzantine presence.
Again, Byzantine conquest of Betica was made following an alliance with one of the Visigothic factions (that had a desastrous tendency to call a powerful neighbour to take care of an annoying rival,and being much in deep .... afterwards : Ostrogoths, Byzantines, Franks, Arabs), and the (limited) Byzantine coastal presence reinforced some factions inside the Visigothic kingdom : some comes (as Orsones revolt), some royal factions (as Ermenegild's).
Overall that maintained the arian identity of Goths, up to Recared whom conversion opened a détente with Byzantines that was at their advantages. By the VIIth century, the fusion of Goths and Romans had officialy began (it already happened before in many respects), with half a century late on Franks (in the northern part. The southern part was very much Roman, when it came to identity, in spite of no Byzantine direct presence) and remained a bit slow at first giving the maintained arian identity of nobiliar factions (as Witteric's)
I'm not too sure about it : Lombards did took a while before claiming themselves "Kings of All Italy", and you really had a distinct Italian identity with them (complete with patriarchs).
The Gothic Wars themselves did much to destructure Late Antiquity Italy, nobody argues, but I don't think (while I clearly need to read more on this period to be more sure of what I points there) Justinian conquest had an immediate responsability there : more possibly the destructuration of Italy helped greatly the Lombard conquest that fit on the shoes of Ostrogoths and Byzantines and monopolized mainland italian identity at their benefit.
Indeed, but it was the case of many provincial identities. The dominate political and ideological structure was all about bypassing regional identities and appeal directly to the emperor.
With the fall of the dominate, regional identities reappeared, such as in Spain or in Gaul : and even if the greater Roman prestige in Italy probably slowed down the whole process (as, maybe, it explain the really late distinction of Italian off Romance speeches) I'm not sure Justinian conquest did something else to help relaunching it after that Roman prestige was clearly lowered by the brutal conquest and the relativly easy Lombard takeover.
But again, I should check that more carefully.
Would you have not other "Roman" population in Latin Romania (meaning Africa as well) at this point (as in people calling themselves Romans), I'd agree with you. But it wasn't the case : Aquitaine, Provence, Africa, parts of Spain.
Even in Italy, while the Ducatus Romanus was a clear reference to the city, regions as Romania (modern Romagna) tends to nuance your point.
Please, don't apologize for anything. It's a really stimulating exchange, and it forces me to check and double checks my points and eventually to correct myself if I want to be understood, or if I want to not say too much idiocies.
(And I laughed my ass off re-reading Gondovald's tentatives, so that's that)
Last edited: