alternatehistory.com

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
Top