For how long was Rome remembered?

[Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck]

ANy ideas how long common people in former Western Roman Empire remembered that in the past such a state had existed and that they had been a part of it? Were for example people in Italy in 530s aware that they had been Romans and that the army coming from the east are "their own people"?

 

[stevej713]

The perception of the Roman Empire throughout the Middle Ages is a very interesting subject. First, the Roman Empire was never "forgotten" - the various Gothic kings, upon taking over the various parts of the Western Roman Empire, kept Roman law in place and legally owed fealty to the Emperor in Constantinople. I remember reading in John Julius Norwich's Byzantium trilogy that the average person living at the time would not have had any concept of the Roman Empire falling when Romulus Augustulus abdicated.

I'd say that the idea of "Romanness" as a form of identity was probably forgotten within a few generations, at least outside of Rome and/or Italy. People who were born and died under a Gothic King rather than a Roman Emperor would probably have some knowledge of "the Roman Empire" but it would have meant very little to them. At the very least, they probably would have known that the Emperor lived in Constantinople. Over time, their perception of the Emperor would sour as he became more "oriental" and spoke Greek rather than Latin, until the Emperor was regarded as entirely foreign and not Roman at all.

By the time of Charlemagne, the people living in the former Western Roman Empire would have had little concept that they were "Romans", instead basing their identity on their Christian faith and their allegiance to their king. That's not to say that the Roman Empire was forgotten, but that it was firmly in the past. Some who were more well-acquainted with Byzantium may have had some understanding that the Emperors in Constantinople had a direct lineage from Rome, but this would have been ignored further away from the Byzantine Empire due to the perceived "foreignness" of the Empire, their inability to reach places like Spain, France, and Britain, and their rather tyrannical rule in Italy as foreign occupiers.

After Charlemagne, from what I understand the Roman Empire became more associated with Charlemagne himself, and to some, the term became synonymous with "powerful Christian state". A state that claimed total hegemony over the Christian world would be considered "the Roman Empire", regardless of whether the actual city of Rome was a part of that state. Controlling Italy was initially a priority in the case of Otto the Great, but afterwards "Roman Emperor" was a legal title conferred by the Catholic Church, symbolizing the highest political rule in Christendom. Of course, this diminished after the Investiture Controversy as the Holy Roman Emperor clearly could not claim to be temporal and ecclesiastical leader of the Christian world.

This is all from a Western European perspective, of course. To the Byzantines, who called themselves Romans, the Roman Empire never fell and was never forgotten, and people as far away as India, Mongolia, and China would speak of a powerful state to the west called Rome when they were in fact referring to the Byzantine Empire. And as we all know, the Turks named the land they conquered "Rum", perceiving that they had conquered Roman land.

 

[Byzantion]

The perception of the Roman Empire throughout the Middle Ages is a very interesting subject. First, the Roman Empire was never "forgotten" - the various Gothic kings, upon taking over the various parts of the Western Roman Empire, kept Roman law in place and legally owed fealty to the Emperor in Constantinople. I remember reading in John Julius Norwich's Byzantium trilogy that the average person living at the time would not have had any concept of the Roman Empire falling when Romulus Augustulus abdicated.

I'd say that the idea of "Romanness" as a form of identity was probably forgotten within a few generations, at least outside of Rome and/or Italy. People who were born and died under a Gothic King rather than a Roman Emperor would probably have some knowledge of "the Roman Empire" but it would have meant very little to them. At the very least, they probably would have known that the Emperor lived in Constantinople. Over time, their perception of the Emperor would sour as he became more "oriental" and spoke Greek rather than Latin, until the Emperor was regarded as entirely foreign and not Roman at all.

By the time of Charlemagne, the people living in the former Western Roman Empire would have had little concept that they were "Romans", instead basing their identity on their Christian faith and their allegiance to their king. That's not to say that the Roman Empire was forgotten, but that it was firmly in the past. Some who were more well-acquainted with Byzantium may have had some understanding that the Emperors in Constantinople had a direct lineage from Rome, but this would have been ignored further away from the Byzantine Empire due to the perceived "foreignness" of the Empire, their inability to reach places like Spain, France, and Britain, and their rather tyrannical rule in Italy as foreign occupiers.

After Charlemagne, from what I understand the Roman Empire became more associated with Charlemagne himself, and to some, the term became synonymous with "powerful Christian state". A state that claimed total hegemony over the Christian world would be considered "the Roman Empire", regardless of whether the actual city of Rome was a part of that state. Controlling Italy was initially a priority in the case of Otto the Great, but afterwards "Roman Emperor" was a legal title conferred by the Catholic Church, symbolizing the highest political rule in Christendom. Of course, this diminished after the Investiture Controversy as the Holy Roman Emperor clearly could not claim to be temporal and ecclesiastical leader of the Christian world.

This is all from a Western European perspective, of course. To the Byzantines, who called themselves Romans, the Roman Empire never fell and was never forgotten, and people as far away as India, Mongolia, and China would speak of a powerful state to the west called Rome when they were in fact referring to the Byzantine Empire. And as we all know, the Turks named the land they conquered "Rum", perceiving that they had conquered Roman land.

Interesting is that allegedly the Vandal king Geiseric had knowledge of old Carthage and seeked out to revenge it.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Interesting is that allegedly the Vandal king Geiseric had knowledge of old Carthage and seeked out to revenge it.

Source? If that's accurate, a surviving Vandal Kingdom would have an interesting founding legend.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Gildas, writing in the 540s or 550s, refers to his fellow Britons as "citizens" (cives) and to Latin as "our language". Granted he seems to have received a classical education himself, which would make him more aware of Romanitas, but on the other hand Britain had been one of the least Romanised provinces, so you'd expect residual Roman feeling to die out quicker there than on the mainland.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

ANy ideas how long common people in former Western Roman Empire remembered that in the past such a state had existed and that they had been a part of it? Were for example people in Italy in 530s aware that they had been Romans and that the army coming from the east are "their own people"?

I'd say that even into Charlemagne's day the Roman identity persisted. Though keep in mind that up until 50 years prior to that point, the Roman Empire actually held control over Rome. They still controlled portions of Italy until the 11th Century. Even in Aquitaine there was somewhat of a Gallo-Romance identity that became Occitan. The Franks themselves were Romanized thanks to contact with the Northern Gallo-Romans for centuries. The core of Francia and later the Kingdom of France would be what once was the Domain of Syagrius.

The Roman Senate continued operating into the 7th Century, but their last official act was in 603. Though people still knew of the Senate, and titles like Senator, Patrician, and Consul were somewhat still in use in the Medieval Era. During the High Middle Ages, Charles d'Anjou the Count of Provence and future King of Sicily/Naples would be honored with such titles. People knew of the Roman Empire and its institutions though. Emperor Otto III of the HRE wanted to restore the old Roman Institutions like the Senate. Though he was ran out of Rome by popular riot. He had gathered an army to march on the city, but died due to catching malaria. Had he lived, the Ottonian HRE could have evolved into more of a true successor the WRE, or at least a parallel Empire.

I'd say that the idea of "Romanness" as a form of identity was probably forgotten within a few generations, at least outside of Rome and/or Italy. People who were born and died under a Gothic King rather than a Roman Emperor would probably have some knowledge of "the Roman Empire" but it would have meant very little to them. At the very least, they probably would have known that the Emperor lived in Constantinople. Over time, their perception of the Emperor would sour as he became more "oriental" and spoke Greek rather than Latin, until the Emperor was regarded as entirely foreign and not Roman at all.

Not really. Visigothic Spain was basically untouched as the Ibero-Roman culture and religious practices (Chalcedonian Christianity) basically assimilated the Visigoths. They continued the old Roman institutions within their Kingdoms and maintained old Roman infrastructure.

As for the Byzantines speaking Greek, Greek was the language of the East since before Alexander the Great. Though his conquest was what kicked Hellenization into overdrive. It was practically a second language to the Roman elites and administrative officials. Though while Greek won out in the 7th Century as the Empire lost more of Latin speaking lands and was left with a largely Greek speaking core, Latin still was on Byzantine inscriptions, regalia, and coinage as late as the 11th Century.

Gildas, writing in the 540s or 550s, refers to his fellow Britons as "citizens" (cives) and to Latin as "our language". Granted he seems to have received a classical education himself, which would make him more aware of Romanitas, but on the other hand Britain had been one of the least Romanised provinces, so you'd expect residual Roman feeling to die out quicker there than on the mainland.

Well to be fair, the more urbanized Romano-Britons were fucked over by the plaugue which did the most damage to urban centers. To the more manorial Anglo-Saxons, the plague was less devastating.

Interesting is that allegedly the Vandal king Geiseric had knowledge of old Carthage and seeked out to revenge it.

I feel like this is an exaggeration if anything. None of the Germanic Kings wanted to truly destroy the Empire. They wanted it around as it was the ultimate cash cow. This was the same reason why Atilla the Hun also turned back since his host was so full of gold from the loot and tribute he gained from the Romans.

To the Byzantines, who called themselves Romans

They legally were Romans though. They were the Eastern continuation of the Empire which became the sole Empire after the Western Regalia was returned to Constantinople. This was recognized by the other contemporary Germanic Kings at the time. King Clovis received Consular regalia from Rome. I think King Dagobert took religious cues from Constantinople such as when he made a treaty with Emperor Heraclius to arrange for the compulsory baptism of all Jews within the Frankish Kingdom.

The Pope used a flimsy legal justification to crown Charlemagne. And even his Western Contemporaries disputed the validity of the coronation. Its highly unlikely Charlemagne saw this as a real title since he hardly did anything to restore the Old institutions and framework of the Empire. He likely saw that title as a personal honorific.

And as we all know, the Turks named the land they conquered "Rum", perceiving that they had conquered Roman land.

Mehmed II proclaimed himself "Kaisar y Rum" (Caesar of Rome) and saw himself as a Muslim Constantine. Had he lived longer he likely would have focused on subjugating Southern Italy. His invasion and seizure of Otranto was a success which shocked the Christian world. Though the campaign was abandoned after he died as the Empire had to sort out issues of succession and a transition of power.

 

[JanWellem]

There were still a lot of Roman structures to remind the people living in areas formerly under Roman rule in the following centuries, be it Roman aquaeducts, baths, city walls with gates, basilicas, castra, forums, grave monuments, triumphal arches etc., many with Latin inscriptions commemorating not just local magistrates or governors responsible for the (re-)construction of said structures, but the emperor, under whose rule this was done, as well.

It was practically a second language to the Roman elites and administrative officials.

Indeed,. to a point that Caesar didn't state "alea iacta est" upon crossing the Rubicon, but "Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος" (anerríphthō kýbos).

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Well because of the prophecy in the book of Daniel that the world would end when the Roman Empire fell, people saw that the world still existed and deduced that the Roman Empire also still existed. The empire had always had periods where the eastern emperor was the only Emperor, and emperors had come from all over anyway, so there was nothing specifically different about the German emperors than the earlier ones. The so called fall of the WRE was perceived as just going back to the situation where the eastern emperor rules over the entire indivisible, eternal and according to some, universal empire. The authority of the Germanic kings was perceived as either illegal and backed up only by force, or as representatives of the one emperor, at least until the Germanic kings managed to employ enough scholars to formulate arguments against this. Even into the 12th and 13th century, people used the same legal argument for the Holy Roman Emperors supremacy over European kings as they said applied for all prior emperors over the kings.

Essentially, until at least the 9th century, every single person in the old Roman Empire saw themselves as Romans, but because everyone else was just as Roman it didn't really make much difference and joined descriptors like Christian in terms of being a true part of your identity but not one you necessarily use to define yourself because it's so taken for granted. It's only coming up to the 13th century when the Germanic kings start enunciating their authority as identical to that of the emperor in their own kingdoms and Italians start questioning why the Roman Empire hasn't had much power in Rome in ages that people start to say that the Roman Empire has fallen and that there is a fundamental difference between who we were then and who we are now, instead of being I'm a Christian, a Roman and in a feudal relationship with the king of France as my superior.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

It was practically a second language to the Roman elites and administrative officials.

It had been during the Classical period, but Greek seems to have dropped off the Western curriculum sometime during the third or fourth century. By Augustine's time, it seems that even educated people only studied Greek to (the equivalent of) primary school level, if that.

They legally were Romans though.

Legally, yes. In cultural terms, they spoke Greek rather than Latin(/a Latin-derived language), and their culture clearly owed more to ancient Greece than to ancient Rome. So whilst you can make a case for the Byzantines being Romans, I think you can make a stronger case for them being Greeks, even if their government traced back to the old Roman government.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Was it ever truly wholly forgotten?

 

[stevej713]

Not really. Visigothic Spain was basically untouched as the Ibero-Roman culture and religious practices (Chalcedonian Christianity) basically assimilated the Visigoths. They continued the old Roman institutions within their Kingdoms and maintained old Roman infrastructure.

That's basically what I said in the first paragraph - the practice of Roman law continued without interruption into the age of the Gothic kings. That doesn't mean the average Spaniard would have continued to believe they were still living in the Roman Empire, at least not after a few generations. It was obvious that Spain had a king, not an Emperor. In an age when literacy was rare and travel was limited, knowledge of the "Roman Empire" would have been restricted to old stories and church lessons and not much else, whereas the Visigothic king would have been an omnipresent figure.

Just to clarify, my post was referring to the common people's view of the Roman Empire and not the views of the various kings and popes of history. The concept of "translatio imperii" and other legal devices would have been completely lost on the average person living at the time.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Legally, yes. In cultural terms, they spoke Greek rather than Latin(/a Latin-derived language), and their culture clearly owed more to ancient Greece than to ancient Rome. So whilst you can make a case for the Byzantines being Romans, I think you can make a stronger case for them being Greeks, even if their government traced back to the old Roman government.

They were basically Hellenized Romans. The "Byzantines" continued to operate Roman institutions and enforce Roman law. Eastern Roman society is basically a Medieval continuation of late Roman society but in Greek. The Edict of Caracalla made it that everyone within Rome's borders were considered Roman citizens. Culturally they were Roman because they continued most of the late Roman Empire's practices as well. Things like the Roman triumph, the games of Hippodrome, the nature of the Roman monarchy, etc were all inherited from ancient Rome. Sure they wore Greek dress like the Chlamys instead of the toga, but could you blame them? The toga was pretty uncomfortable for most settings, and the Greek style dress was considered more luxurious and monarchical. Diocletian's adoption of Imperial Diadem was based on Greek style monarchical despotism as he embraced his role as monarch rather than continuing the fiction of the Roman Republic being a thing.

Think of it like this. If Most of the US got conquered by a foreign power, or got cut off from the rest of the nation forcing the government to relocated West towards the Pacific, would that part of the US not be considered American? Sure they're now closer to the Pacific but, in terms of society and culture they'd generally be American. Now extend this divide by a couple of centuries and you'd likely see more of a Latin/Hispanic influence, but they would still be fundamentally Americans. The people there, and the government would definitely consider themselves part of the USA. If the foreign power manages to proclaim a puppet state, or proclaim itself the new US government, why would the actual Americans recognize them?

This is basically how the Romans viewed it. The Romans didn't see themselves as "Hellenes." To call a Roman a Greek/Hellene was a massive insult at the time as it implied that they were pagans and not the proper Eastern Romans (Rhomaoi). This was an insult levied by the Latins towards the Romans who called the Emperor in Constantinople "Imperator Graecorum" (Emperor of the Greeks). Even the Latin Empire recognized this as within their own inscriptions they often had things like "Imperium Romanorum/Romaniae" Though in official correspondence with the Papacy they called themselves the Empire of Constantinople since the Pope only recognized the Hohenstaufen HRE. The Romans themselves referred to there Empire as Rhomania anyways.

One doesn't have to be a Latin to be a Roman since the Eastern parts of the Empire while not Latin Speaking were integrated into the Empire for centuries and its citizens considered themselves Romans. The edict of Carcalla was a recognition of this fact.

The things about modern Greeks being "Hellenes" instead of Rhomaoi was something created by 19th Century Greek Nationalists trying to get support from the West against the Ottomans. The Western Powers like the UK and France would have been less willing to help the Greeks since they largely thought of themselves as inheriting the Roman mantle. With things like philhellenism gaining steam back then, it was pragmatic to cater to that. Though the Roman identity for Greeks was present in the 20th Century as well. When Greek soldiers invaded the island of Lemnos they were greeted by children trying to see what a "Hellene" was. When the soldiers asked them if they were Hellenes, the people there responded that they were Rhomaoi (Romans).

That's basically what I said in the first paragraph - the practice of Roman law continued without interruption into the age of the Gothic kings.

That's true. Though the Hohenstaufens and later French Kings would try and bring it back in the West. Though other Emperors in the East like the Macedonians were still using the code and adding to it. Heck Justinian's last volume of his law code was published in Greek recognizing that Greek was becoming more common in the East.