University Dissertation about the Late Roman Empire

Hi guys, i come here as a history student intent on writing a dissertation to graduate.

The theme is late antique history, in particular the developments of aristocraticidentityin Gaul, between the III century crisis and the Merovingian Kingdoms (VII-VIII centuries), and how this identity influenced economy, politics and society.

Mind you, the sources i'll be using are secondary, not primary.

I'd like to ask some questions about some ideas i've had:

-Rhine Army: was it really "detaching" from the rest of imperial administration? The experience of the Imperiul Galliarum in the III century shows that in times of difficulty, a province could detach itself and fight off the threats alone, while still considering itself as Roman. This could only be intensified by the loss of North Africa (i know there was a fiscal link from the South northwards). What i'm asking is: how was this tendency to separatism connected to the Frankish conquest of Gaul? Were the Franks, in some ways, the successors of the Rhine army?

-Romanization: I've noticed a pattern, in Roman imperial history, that is the gradual shift from Italy to the provinces (and then to barbaricum) as the source of military manpower. In the III century, when provincials were prominent in the military, the empire still held togheter, but in the (late) IV-V, when barbarians got enlisted in the army, things got out of control and the supposed rogue roman armies of the III century were replaced in the V by germanic kingdoms. Was it just because it was distinct armies (and not individuals/small tribes) with distinct identity that entered the army, or was there a more profound cultural pattern? Like, Roman identity was no more appealing to the barbarians, so it got trashed?

-Also, was Christianity involved in reducing the perceived differences between romans and barbarians? I mean, while in the III century a roman could be defined by its allegiance to the Empire, a christian in the V did not require a single christian empire to exist. Also, legitimacy was less tied to being roman and more to being christian, so barbarian kingdoms over roman subjects could be tolerated. What being roman was had changed, and it did not require an empire.

So, what do you guys think? I remember some time ago i had a similar thread with @scholar, and i believe i have expanded what he said. If you're out there, help me Obi Wan, you're my only hope! :p
 

scholar

Banned
Oh wow, this is the first time this has happened!

I'd be more than happy to help, but there is someone here who is a magnitude higher than me when it come to this subject: LSCatilina. He seems to have disappeared recently, but that happens with people on this board sometimes. Send him a message and ask him for advice.

This has actually made me want to revive an old discussion I was having with him regarding the transition from a Roman World to Christendom in Europe.

You might have some difficulty promoting the Frankish Empire as a similar institution to the Empire of the Gallic Provinces during the Third Century Crisis, but it is not completely illusory. You have to make this points highly tentative, and merely suggestions, rather than a hard imposition on the past. Charlemagne and much of his Empire after being crowned was in the spirit of Rome, but it was also a separation from Rome as well. Rather than being Romans in Gaul who took control over the situation, this was a partially roman foreign government that employed and had close ties with the preexisting structures of Rome, and sought to duplicate some of its greatest successes.

The Ostrogoths were more clearly agents of Rome, and the Roman senate actually had something of a curious resurgence under Ostrogothic control when they were operating under the blessings of the Roman Empire in Constantinople.

The Visigoths were arguably more Roman as well, and there is a King of the Visigoths named Ataulf that certainly makes this a good claim. Take this quote with a grain of salt, for reasons you can find from the link (Sorry, wikipedia)

At first I wanted to erase the Roman name and convert all Roman territory into a Gothic empire: I longed for Romania to become Gothia, and Athaulf to be what Caesar Augustus had been. But long experience has taught me that the ungoverned wildness of the Goths will never submit to laws, and that without law a state is not a state. Therefore I have more prudently chosen the different glory of reviving the Roman name with Gothic vigour, and I hope to be acknowledged by posterity as the initiator of a Roman restoration, since it is impossible for me to alter the character of this Empire

Gaul and the Franks were more German than these other parties, because they were more on the periphery of the Roman World. You can definitely make the argument that there is some real points of connection here, both before and after Charlemagne. It was this idea of continuity of Western Rome that eventually led to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire in the first place. However, your argument will be stronger for the southern parts of France than the northern part of France, even though the Soissons dwelled in the north.

-----

Germans and other tribal people were being invited and incorporated into Rome before the third century crisis, and actually some Emperors become highly criticized for it by near contemporary sources. I am reminded of Aurelius, who had at first brought some Germans in, and later expelled them. The problem of the Germans was not necessarily cultural, but political. Given the highly chaotic nature of Rome, and the transition of Rome from Republican veneer style institution to a Military Dominate, soldiers and military commanders became loyal to their immediate patrons and not to Rome itself. This perpetuated the third century crisis, and it precipitated in the employ of foreign soldiers. First as auxiliaries, then as join military operations, until the dying days of the Empire the dominant military force. Since Rome had its political authority suborned to military power, and since its military power was transferred to those who were not roman, the empire ceased to matter politically. The Germanic peoples with their independent and parallel political and military command structures awkwardly inside the Roman State, after a few generations, they were able to simply "become" the government. Roman identity lingered for a long time after that. The Roman political identity was dramatically reduced in both scale and importance, but the Roman cultural and societal identity remained long afterwards. In a sense, it never completely died in some parts of Europe. The very name for Romania in the Balkans, the Roman Catholic Church, and to a lesser extent the Renaissance City States in Italy are examples of this.

The Roman identity only really died in areas of cultural and social continuity when it was supplanted by the "French", "Spanish", and "Italian" identities.
---

Christianity played a pivotal role in diminishing the differences between Roman and German. The previous quote was recorded by a Christian Roman, who was reconciling the two identities. Arianism posed something of a problem, but after the shift to Orthodox Christianity was made, the Roman World was consumed by the larger world of Christendom and the unity provided by that common belief. It didn't prevent wars, infighting, and highly distinct local identities from developing, but knowledge of Latin and connections with the Catholic Church was a unifying influence that completely defined the transition to and the majority of the middle ages.
 
Last edited:
Hi guys, i come here as a history student intent on writing a dissertation to graduate.

The theme is late antique history, in particular the developments of aristocraticidentityin Gaul, between the III century crisis and the Merovingian Kingdoms (VII-VIII centuries), and how this identity influenced economy, politics and society.

Mind you, the sources i'll be using are secondary, not primary.

I'd like to ask some questions about some ideas i've had:

-Rhine Army: was it really "detaching" from the rest of imperial administration? The experience of the Imperiul Galliarum in the III century shows that in times of difficulty, a province could detach itself and fight off the threats alone, while still considering itself as Roman. This could only be intensified by the loss of North Africa (i know there was a fiscal link from the South northwards). What i'm asking is: how was this tendency to separatism connected to the Frankish conquest of Gaul? Were the Franks, in some ways, the successors of the Rhine army?

-Romanization: I've noticed a pattern, in Roman imperial history, that is the gradual shift from Italy to the provinces (and then to barbaricum) as the source of military manpower. In the III century, when provincials were prominent in the military, the empire still held togheter, but in the (late) IV-V, when barbarians got enlisted in the army, things got out of control and the supposed rogue roman armies of the III century were replaced in the V by germanic kingdoms. Was it just because it was distinct armies (and not individuals/small tribes) with distinct identity that entered the army, or was there a more profound cultural pattern? Like, Roman identity was no more appealing to the barbarians, so it got trashed?

-Also, was Christianity involved in reducing the perceived differences between romans and barbarians? I mean, while in the III century a roman could be defined by its allegiance to the Empire, a christian in the V did not require a single christian empire to exist. Also, legitimacy was less tied to being roman and more to being christian, so barbarian kingdoms over roman subjects could be tolerated. What being roman was had changed, and it did not require an empire.

So, what do you guys think? I remember some time ago i had a similar thread with @scholar, and i believe i have expanded what he said. If you're out there, help me Obi Wan, you're my only hope! :p

Actually, yes, if you know how to use search engine on this forum - you may find posts of LSCatilina on this subject and your dissertation is ready :)
 
I've noticed a pattern, in Roman imperial history, that is the gradual shift from Italy to the provinces (and then to barbaricum) as the source of military manpower. In the III century, when provincials were prominent in the military, the empire still held togheter, but in the (late) IV-V, when barbarians got enlisted in the army, things got out of control and the supposed rogue roman armies of the III century were replaced in the V by germanic kingdoms. Was it just because it was distinct armies (and not individuals/small tribes) with distinct identity that entered the army, or was there a more profound cultural pattern? Like, Roman identity was no more appealing to the barbarians, so it got trashed?


Istr Toynbee mentioning in his Study of History that about halfway though the 4C, Germans in the Roman rather suggests something of the kind. army started retaining their German names rather than Romanising them.
 
You might have some difficulty promoting the Frankish Empire as a similar institution to the Empire of the Gallic Provinces during the Third Century Crisis, but it is not completely illusory. You have to make this points highly tentative, and merely suggestions, rather than a hard imposition on the past. Charlemagne and much of his Empire after being crowned was in the spirit of Rome, but it was also a separation from Rome as well. Rather than being Romans in Gaul who took control over the situation, this was a partially roman foreign government that employed and had close ties with the preexisting structures of Rome, and sought to duplicate some of its greatest successes.

The Ostrogoths were more clearly agents of Rome, and the Roman senate actually had something of a curious resurgence under Ostrogothic control when they were operating under the blessings of the Roman Empire in Constantinople.

The Visigoths were arguably more Roman as well, and there is a King of the Visigoths named Ataulf that certainly makes this a good claim. Take this quote with a grain of salt, for reasons you can find from the link (Sorry, wikipedia)



Gaul and the Franks were more German than these other parties, because they were more on the periphery of the Roman World. You can definitely make the argument that there is some real points of connection here, both before and after Charlemagne. It was this idea of continuity of Western Rome that eventually led to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire in the first place. However, your argument will be stronger for the southern parts of France than the northern part of France, even though the Soissons dwelled in the north.

The point i thought about was interpreting the Franks as what the Romans were to the Greeks, to see some kind of continuity in the conquest of Gaul.

I mean, their gallo-roman subjects even promoted the myth of the Franks coming from Troy, as the Greeks once did for the Romans.

I believe that the Franks, being orthodox, presented much more continuity than the Goths (which never really fit inside the empire, and hanging between being an occupying, alien army or just another separatist roman army).

What being roman meant was evolving, and this evolution was led by the orthodox Franks. The existence of the Gothic model (ethnic/class separation based on religion, or vice versa) was somehow inhibiting the process by which being roman became being christian.

Sure, the HRE was not the same as the old gallic empire, but it was its evolution in the spirit of changing identities (legitimacy shifted from romanitas to being christian). Is assolved the same role, hence the Rhine Army-Merovingians analogy, against the Saxons, for example.

We could say that, even if being roman (as an ethnonym) was a less felt feeling, what romanitas was in practice, as a source of legitimacy and as civilizing mission (christianity) was essentially the same.

So, yes, my thesis is that identities changed, and with them the whole political-economical reality (hence the faliure of the Goffart accomodation theory: barbarians were not mere soldiers, but a militarized landed aristocracy), but in the end there was continuity, because identities must have a basis in the past (legitimacy, old roman aristocratic loans to frankish society, civilizing mission).

It's a bit of a rambling, but that's what's on my mind :)
 
Last edited:
What i'm asking is: how was this tendency to separatism connected to the Frankish conquest of Gaul? Were the Franks, in some ways, the successors of the Rhine army?

The so-called Gallic Empire was really not a separatism. Think of the name as how "Byzantine" is used : an historiographical name. Posthumus and his successors were eventually just your average emperor usurper that didn't made it up to Rome but managed to get an hold in provinces.

That said, was it really unrelated? Not, but not in the way you describe : the Rhine's leagues were really a problem for Gaul in the IIIrd century, and the imperial policy was seen as ineffective at best. The solution was : "we have a better candidate for the empire".

Note that at this point, Franks are definitely not in position of conquering Gaul : they're only part of the handful of leagues dwelling on western Germania, and doesn't have at all the capacity to take over the provinces.

In the Vth, they'll be able to, because they would have became the Roman army of the Rhine border, in name and in facts up to the nature of the army.
So yes, the Franks were "successors", one could say that Clovis ruled the last real Roman army in Gaul even if it would be a more or less technical point (that had its importance, tough) : he's the last of the generals that are still acknowledged by Rome.

Was it just because it was distinct armies (and not individuals/small tribes) with distinct identity that entered the army, or was there a more profound cultural pattern? Like, Roman identity was no more appealing to the barbarians, so it got trashed?
I think you got it a bit wrong. Barbarians, by the Vth century were extremely inter-mixed with Romans, at the point their very own identity is a by-product of romanisation (several distinctive features as laws, material culture, etc. only appears AFTER their entry in Romania, to get more distinctive).

While the distinction clearly existed, it was more of a military/political one : to simpify things a lot, a Barbarian was someone who was under the obedience of a Barbarian king would it be a Roman (even if it ceases to be the case, when the Roman state crumbles). Not only Barbarians represented only but a tiny fraction of the overall population, but even that was importantly mixed with former Gallo-Roman slaves, Roman freeholders and colons, Barbarians present within Romania since centuries (laeti, for exemple), etc.

But again, you always had a proper Roman army in provinces, in fairly large numbers. It "simply" went under Barbarian-Roman rule instead of purely Italian rule as one could see with the shitload of counts and dukes that join one or the other side.

Of course, the Late Roman culture is not (couldn't be) the same than Late Republican/Early Imperial Rome (and certainly not the peplum-idealised version of it) : it recieved influence from provinces (in Gaul, obviously Gallic influence, but as well from other provinces up to Syria) and Barbaricum (trough border exchanges but as well Barbarians settlements in provinces as in northern-western Gaul, or Saxon Shore, etc.).

But eventually, the Roman core was overwelmingly present in this reshuffle of identities and you really have to wait the Carolingian period to have Roman ientity (safe for the city of Rome itself, but that's another question) being percieved negatively.

-Also, was Christianity involved in reducing the perceived differences between romans and barbarians?
Yes, but at the benefit of romanisation.
See, Christianity was politically an imperial cult, and as civic cults marked a cultural and political romanity and romanisation (you have, for exemple, a "Mars of the Thing" in Antiquity's Danemark), the same for Christianism.

But while making these identities much more compatible, these remained until the VIIth in Gaul, later in southern Gaul, Spain, etc. (you have "Romans" in Aquitaine at least until the early Carolingian period)

I mean, while in the III century a roman could be defined by its allegiance to the Empire
A Barbarian could do that as well, tough. As in this Frankish grave in Pannonia saying "Franks by race, Roman by arms".
While not totally wrong, the situation was far more complex and the collapse of Roman state really halped simlyifing things, Barbarian kings recieving de facto the imperium.

I mean, their gallo-roman subjects even promoted the myth of the Franks coming from Troy, as the Greeks once did for the Romans.
Not really.

The whole mythos is definitly not coming from the provincial population but from Franks themselves. Long story short, Roman ethnography didn't saw other peoples as worthy of an history but intengible (Look at Tacitus's statement on Germania).

What did Romano-Barbarians scholars? They went trough the two big historiographical mythos in Late Antiquity, which is Aeneid and Exodus, and ripped them off like crazy.
Frankish origin mythos is one of the obvious result, but Jordanes' accounts in spite of being more realistic-looking is such as well (and hence why everything it tells before the IIIrd century should be seen extremely cautiously, as all the Barbarian mythographical migrations).

I believe that the Franks, being orthodox, presented much more continuity than the Goths (which never really fit inside the empire, and hanging between being an occupying, alien army or just another separatist roman army).
That's simply not true. Remember that Romano-barbarian peoples, by their nature itself were religiousy diverse. Franks before Clovis accounted Niceans, Arians, Pagans, Jews, etc. It's really when Clovis claimed the whole imperium that you had a big update on this and it was relatively long to do : Aquitaine and Provence populations long remained "Romans" and not "Franks"

As for Goths...While not totally wrong again (it's still largely so, you had a "Gothic nation" in Spain alike Franks in Gaul in the VIIth for exemple), it's an a-posteriori view.
Alaric II for instance, managed to have a decent religious policy, but he had simple too much to face at the same time.

Bruno Dumézil wrote a really interesting study about religious policies on this time : and eventually, what appears is that Romano-barbarians rulers eventually strived to persue the imperial policy on religion : codifying and excercing their power on the religious infrastructure (giving its political nature, no big surprise there) while keeping often a desire to maintain the "rights" of other beliefs.

Most of the struggles involved the "secular" takeover of religious infrastructure as in Vandalic Africa (and there, the religious casus belli of Constantinople is more or less of a scam : not only it ceased at this point, but Africano-Roman population couldn't care less about it until Vandals became unable to defend themselves from Berbers).

Evenetually one should remember that the differences between Homeism (which is wrongly identified as "hardline" Arianism) and Niceism are relatively vague : baptism wasn't needed to pass from one to another.

So, yes, my thesis is that identities changed, and with them the whole political-economical reality (hence the faliure of the Goffart accomodation theory: barbarians were not mere soldiers, but a militarized landed aristocracy),
There's simply no material (see : archeology) evidence of a political-economic revolution. Most of the Late Antiquity sites of power (political or economic) remained the same, most of the military uses as well, etc.

Barbarian is, at its very core, a political identity : it became more and more attractive with the collapse of Roman state because there wasn't much more alternative to being tax-exempted (Reims population actually revolted when it was implied they weren't really Franks and had to pay) and (critically for the landed aristocracy) having the royal imperium and court providing a political assise (trough entrustons, for Franks) : it's painfully obvious with post-Roman Gaul where the region closer to political power "Francized" quickly, and with the southern ones didn't.


I'd advise you, in order to write your dissertation to take a look at : Patrick J. Geary, Bruno Dumézil, Roger Collins, Michel Rouche, Edward James, Bachrach Bernard (for what matter armies) at least for the matter of Franks.
 
Last edited:
Top