[POLL] Are Odoacer's or the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy continuations of the Western Roman Empire?

Are Odoacer's or the Ostrogoths' Kingdom of Italy continuations of the Western Roman Empire?

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 34.1%
  • No

    Votes: 83 65.9%

  • Total voters
    126
A spinoff from the other poll.

The Western Roman Empire (or the empire in the west, depending on how you see it) is commonly stated to have fallen with either the overthrowing of Romulus Augustulus in 476 and the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy by Odoacer or the death of Julius Nepos in Dalmatia in 480.

However, the Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno gave his assent to Odoacer's ruling of Italy on Rome's behalf, saying that there was no need for a separate Western ruler but that Odoacer should nonetheless pay homage to the "legitimate" Western Emperor, Julius Nepos, an edict which Odoacer went on to give lip-service to. After the Ostrogoths gave Zeno too many problems, Zeno told Theoderic to go and beat up Odoacer instead, which he would do two years after Zeno died; Anastatius recognised Theoderic as a patrician in the same way Zeno recognised Odoacer.

It's obvious that the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy was a successor state to Odoacer's kingdom, and that Odoacer had overthrown Romulus Augustulus essentially with Zeno's retroactive permission (he was busy with the putsch of Basilscus at the time), and Theoderic likewise to Odoacer. Obviously, this state of affairs had drifted considerably by the time Justinian decided to Make Roma Great Again sixty years later, but that's a problem for another time.

Long story short, did the WRE live on in Odoacer's or the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy?
 
Last edited:
Yes, if for no other reason than you can switch out Odoacer and Theoderic with anyone that wasn't German and come back with a no-brainer question, place them under a puppet emperor and come back with a no-brainer question, and do a side-by-side comparison to what is unquestionably considered the Western Empire and come back with near nonexistent differences.

We place too much emphasis on events like Odoacer's takeover and Theoderic's invasion, because we think of them in the context of the death of an empire when they were really just changes in management. Violent changes of government of course, but civil war was always a Roman institution like any other so that's no excuse to place the two in a different context.

I'm not one to claim continuity between Rome and the Germanic Kingdoms that partitioned its territory: Vandals have no claim to make, the entire basis of their power and relevance was on treachery and opportunism, the Visigoths likewise took what they could from the Romans when the chance arose, the only people with the remotest shadow of a claim would be the Franks and even still their close relationship to Rome ended with Syagrius. But simply because two Germans came to power in Roman land under strange circumstances doesn't mean that a historical line in the sand has been drawn.

Those kingdoms(The Goths, Vandals, et cetera) operated on a broken contract model where the initial Foederate status with the Empire was abandoned whenever there was a sign of weakness. Those were subordinate peoples breaking from Roman domination and taking settled land with them. Odoacer and Theoderic were no such thing, by comparison those two were little more than custodians, well respected and powerful custodians, but still they were representatives of Imperial authority that they all too readily submitted themselves to. Visigoths and Vandals made no such pretensions, even the more involved Burgundians and Franks didn't pay the empire that sort of respect. Odoacer and Theoderic to just a smidge of a lesser degree, ruled the same empire in much the same way as the Magistri Milite that came before and the Emperors that they felt the need to prop up; no different than Ricimer, or Orestes or even Stillicho.
 
No. Odoacer's Kingdom of Italy has different roots, in much the same way that the Ottoman Empire is an entity distinct from the (Eastern) Roman Empire.
 
The Roman Senate not only existed under Ostrogoth rule, but was actually significant in governance.
The Catholic Church not only existed under Ostrogoth rule, but was actually significant in as well.
This differs from the status of the Patriarchs of Constantinople under the Ottomans, who were representatives of the second religion of the empire and not of the first in importance.
The Ostrogoths and Odoacer let the title of emperor fade, but kept the pillars of Roman society intact. They can be considered heirs of Rome in a way.
 
Yes. If the two states had time to consolidate, I think the natural development would be some king take the title of emperor sooner or later.
 

scholar

Banned
Yes, though Odoacer is a little more questionable since we do not really know what direction he would have taken if left alone.
 
No. Odoacer's Kingdom of Italy has different roots, in much the same way that the Ottoman Empire is an entity distinct from the (Eastern) Roman Empire.
The same senate, the same land, the same language, the same alphabet, the same religion, most of the same laws and a lot of the same people. How did it have different roots again?
 
Because it's actually ruling on behalf of the ERE?
Ummm... nope. That makes no difference really. Truth be told, it was probably closer to Rome than any contemporary state. The argument was that Odocer's Kingdom was to Rome what the Ottoman Empire was to the Byzntine Empire. The situations are completwly different.
 
The problem is i think that even though they are as near to Rome as they can get they dont claim to be Rome. And even if they did no one would accept them as Rome.
This means they dont say they are Rome and noone at the time thinks they are Rome - so they are not Rome.
 
The problem is i think that even though they are as near to Rome as they can get they dont claim to be Rome. And even if they did no one would accept them as Rome.
This means they dont say they are Rome and noone at the time thinks they are Rome - so they are not Rome.
That's also false. The Byzantine Historian Jordannes ontinued to refer to the inhabiants on the peninsula as Roman well after the collapse of the WRE. The peninsula was called Romagna when the Lombards arrived. The Popes certainly considered Italy to take precedence over ths ERE.
 
Since the Kingdoms came under ERE authority I would consider that the WRE itself had ended but that the Kingdoms were still a continuation of Roman authority.
 
That's also false. The Byzantine Historian Jordannes ontinued to refer to the inhabiants on the peninsula as Roman well after the collapse of the WRE. The peninsula was called Romagna when the Lombards arrived. The Popes certainly considered Italy to take precedence over ths ERE.

Because most of the inhabitatnts were roman. The goths were a very small percentage of the populace. But they were seperate from the roman society. I accept that given time they would assimilate to the much bigger roman populace and finally the state may get a completly roman identity - i think this would be very likely but far from sure. But mostly they didnt have time and till they existed they were non romans, didnt identify as such and werent called romans by others.

I dont see how the pope considering Italy taking precedence over the ERE has any significance regarding the question at hand.
 
That's also false. The Byzantine Historian Jordannes ontinued to refer to the inhabiants on the peninsula as Roman well after the collapse of the WRE. The peninsula was called Romagna when the Lombards arrived. The Popes certainly considered Italy to take precedence over ths ERE.
I would be very surprised to find the Patriarch of the West not consider Italy to take precedence over the ERE just as the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East not consider Syria to take precedence over Rome.
 
No, Odoacer can't be a continuation of the WRE, because such a thing like the WRE never existed legally. The roman empire was never divided. That is a modern construction.

Nevertheless I voted Yes. From the point of view of the roman empire and its emperor in Constantinople, the province of Italia was now governed by a patricius instead of a co-emperor. Looking to the situation in the west a co-emperor would be a bit overpowered anyways.

Even Theoderich later started as roman magister militum and king of the goths. So he had 2 hats. This did not always work that well. But I see Italy as a province of the roman empire until the Langobards conquered most of the roman province.
 
I'd say no, to be fair to the Ottomans -- but I've always enjoyed the contrarian "the Church is the heir to the HRE, and since it helped organize and put itself above the temporal kingdoms of Western Europe..." take
 
I don't think that "succession" is the correct term to analyse this situation. They were, indisputably, a structure within the greater the Roman structure and, as far as I know, they never claimed otherwise. It's like asking if Burgundy is a successor of France. It certainly was not. But, was Burgundy a part of France as a whole? It certainly was.
 
Top