Why couldnt the Romans/Byzantines culturally assimilate their conquerors?

Contrary to the way the Han Chinese culture had successfully done so for centuries (Mongols, Manchus, etc) why couldn't the Roman Empire of antiquity, or the Bzyantine empire of the middle ages do the same with their respective conquerors?

I know Odacer and the Ostrogoths kind of assimilated, but this was short lived and surface level at best.
 
Last edited:
Similar to the way the Han Chinese culture had successfully done so for centuries (Mongols, Manchus, etc) why couldn't the Roman Empire of antiquity, or the Bzyantine empire of the middle ages do the same with their respective conquerors?

I know Odacer and the Ostrogoths kind of assimilated, but this was short lived and surface level at best.

Theocraic dfifferences had been taken very,very seriously. Germanic conquerer had been mostly either heretic Arians or pagans (like the Saxons). Forther more the Empire had quite a animosity towards the Northern Barbarians for centuries. The North-South dualism between Rome and Germania continued towards the age of Reformation and further (Kulturkampf). Ancient Romans as well as Italians had been negatively regarded as "Welsh" in Germany until the 20th century.
 

Deleted member 67076

Contrary to the way the Han Chinese culture had successfully done so for centuries (Mongols, Manchus, etc) why couldn't the Roman Empire of antiquity, or the Bzyantine empire of the middle ages do the same with their respective conquerors?

I know Odacer and the Ostrogoths kind of assimilated, but this was short lived and surface level at best.

They did. The Visigothic language went extinct in by the time the Moors invaded and the upper class adopted Catholicism for well over a century by then.

The Ostrogoths were deeply assimilated by the time of Justinian's invasion (wearing dress based of Roman military uniform), the upper class being bilingual, practicing standard court procedures carried out for centuries, and so forth.

The Vandals were destroyed quickly enough and never left an imprint. Future conquerers were able to Arabize the population only after centuries of active effort (The Normans record an African Romance language in Tunisia spoken by locals) with Islamization and a shifting economy that reduced urbanization combined with a trend towards pastoralism and a lower population.

Britain was never that Romanized in the first place and underwent a severe breakdown in trade, urbanization, economic complexity and political implosion. These brought back old tribal loyalties that worked against the propagation of a Roman cultural identity. Throw in the immigrating Germanic tribes and that allowed them to over a period of 3 centuries, culturally assimilate the natives.

Really, Gaul is the only region where the conquerors left a major cultural mark, but even then- there's plenty of Roman influence in the region. Frankish fashion is based off Roman military dress for example.
 
Really, Gaul is the only region where the conquerors left a major cultural mark, but even then- there's plenty of Roman influence in the region. Frankish fashion is based off Roman military dress for example.

Other way around; Roman military dress is based off Frankish fashion.:D
 
Really, Gaul is the only region where the conquerors left a major cultural mark, but even then- there's plenty of Roman influence in the region. Frankish fashion is based off Roman military dress for example.

What cultural marks did the Franks leave?
 
They did. The Visigothic language went extinct in by the time the Moors invaded and the upper class adopted Catholicism for well over a century by then.

The Ostrogoths were deeply assimilated by the time of Justinian's invasion (wearing dress based of Roman military uniform), the upper class being bilingual, practicing standard court procedures carried out for centuries, and so forth.

The Vandals were destroyed quickly enough and never left an imprint. Future conquerers were able to Arabize the population only after centuries of active effort (The Normans record an African Romance language in Tunisia spoken by locals) with Islamization and a shifting economy that reduced urbanization combined with a trend towards pastoralism and a lower population.

Britain was never that Romanized in the first place and underwent a severe breakdown in trade, urbanization, economic complexity and political implosion. These brought back old tribal loyalties that worked against the propagation of a Roman cultural identity. Throw in the immigrating Germanic tribes and that allowed them to over a period of 3 centuries, culturally assimilate the natives.

Really, Gaul is the only region where the conquerors left a major cultural mark, but even then- there's plenty of Roman influence in the region. Frankish fashion is based off Roman military dress for example.

This, more or less.
The long and successful existence of several Romance languages testifies pretty clearly which way assimilation tended to go. Germanic languages are being in written with Latin script (and are being written in the first place, one could argue). Not to mention all those churches around...
Of course, there was interplay and the invaders left an important mark in some aspects. So did the various nomadic groups who invaded Northern China and established states there.
Eastern Rome was prima facie less successful at assimilating its conquerors, as far as the Asian and African provinces go (Balkans are... complicated, and I don't feel I can really discuss that situation here; Turkification of Anatolia would also deserve a separate discussion). But it would be better said that the Arab Islamic conquerors were even better than the Romans (which says a lot)at the "assimilation game" (this is a simplification so sweeping to border the unuseable). Although they also eagerly picked up what they found interesting, which includes a lot of things ranging from baths to philosophy and medicine.
 
I think one issue is a population disparity. Central Europe could support a rather dense population so the migrating peoples had a significant demographic influence (at least in France and the Balkans). Mongolia, southern Siberia, and such, could support a relatively smaller population compared to China, so invading groups were somewhat more relegated to the ruling class, more like the Normans in Britain than the Saxons.


At least that's the impression I've gotten from my admittedly limited knowledge of Chinese history.:eek:
 
why couldn't the Roman Empire of antiquity, or the Bzyantine empire of the middle ages do the same with their respective conquerors?

They totally did, in no small part because Barbarians were largely romanized already.
German peoples, even before entering in Romania, where romanized to a huge extent (it helped that a good part of them was made of romans by the early Vth).
Not only institutionally, trough military and administrative matters (Sitilicho is the most flamboyant exemple, but it was repeted for basically anyone). But as well culturally, by the use of roman goods or tastes.

Does that means Romano-Germans were deprived of distinct features? Obviously not. But we have to check these carefully.
Francisca or eagle gibular are often described as being typically Frankish or Gothic. Fair enough. But these simply doesn't appear before their entry in Romania.
Nothing, nada, que dalle. Not even a daguerrotype of a IIIrd century Frank holding a francisca.

If it was the only one thing : but it applies as well to clothes, laws (even Salic law is hugely influenced by roman law), historiography (basically a mix of Aeneid, Bible and possibly folk tales), etc.

And still, these formed the bulk of romano-germanic identities. What did happen?

It's a common feature to see identitary features being exacerbated.
Hypenathed-American could be a fitting, if somewhat misleading ("It's like a bubble. Well it's not. But picture a bubble")

Romans were never too much about giving other people the same importance than their. Ethnographycally, it went to denying other peoples an history of their own. Meaning that once they identified (or mis-identified) a group of people, everything going in the same rough region was considered as the same. It's why Vandals by the IIIrd century were considered as Celts (well, admittedly, Germans were in great part influenced by Celtic features, but that's another issue).

So, it went down to this. A Frank, Goth, Saxon, is someone whom king is a/the king of Franks, Goths, Saxons.

While it was acceptable as long the WRE was able to enforce its power, when the imperium passed trough romano-german entities (as, for example, Chilperic considered as a roman general ruling over Belgica Secunda), Barbarian identities became attractive.
Less taxes, prestige of the military elite, clear and legit authority far more close than Constantinople's or Roman usurpers (with possibly a refusal of Roman authority itself, clearly after Bagaudae)...

With romano-german kings being the continuators of the Late Empire, and giving the personnalisation of this one, you had an identitary afflux.
And when it come to distinguish not only romano-germans and newcomers, from the rest...Well, there wasn't much choice but exacerbation if not making up (less conciously than "playing along").

And these features became more or less widespread.

So you had cultural modification, but in the continuity of the Late Empire, and less Germanic than "germanizing".
Another example is the language : Gothic or Frankish were basically dead languages by the VI, only used ceremonially in the former case.
(At the point Ostrogithic texts are written in very good latin, with some "germanisms" being randomly put.)

Socially, the difference is weak if not simply unexistant.
Even admitting all the Barbarians entering in Romania took over and replaced roman population (and ignoring sources, as the ones pointing out that many landed Barbarians quickly lost their lot to former owners), we're talking of some thousands people there.

In the countryside, there's simply no trace of a replacement of population, and elites (to not speak of the bulk of population) there probably remained the same than in Roman period (or even pre-Roman period).
It's even more obvious in towns, that remained the main relay of political power after the collapse of WRE, basically up to the Xth century. Bishops, for example, hold the power there and as well in royal administration without being replaced (some tried, as Vandals, and by replacing them with other -just more disciplined- bishops and it failed big time).

Feudalism owes something to these romano-german presence of course, but is certainly not a direct consequence, appearing by the IX/Xth centuries for diverse reasons. (Mostly military changes, political collapse, systematisation of vassality as pre-requisite of power relations).
 
Theocraic dfifferences had been taken very,very seriously.
Actually not so much : differences between Homeism (often confused with strict Arianism) and "Niceanism" were mostly handwaved on an everyday basis (at the point a baptism wasn't necessary when switching from one to another).

As Bruno Dumézil pointed out, Romano-Barbarian kings actually prided themselves to maintain the religious diversity that surrounded them, as they were in the continuation of the Late Romania.

Not that it couldn't be used as an easy pretext, but it didn't represented the everyday reality. When Africano-Romans called for byzantine help against Vandals, it wasn't their Homeism they resented, but their incapacity to hold on Mauri raids and conquests.

Germanic conquerer had been mostly either heretic Arians or pagans (like the Saxons).
That's much more complex : Barbarian identity could be defined as Arian, but it was only a part of there religious set. Niceans were a large part of Barbarians (would it be only because many Barbarians were originally Romans), as were Heathens, as were Jews, etc.

Eventually, Homeism was widely used as a definite marker on Barbarians only after their settlement in Romania (Burgunds, for exemple, where originally Niceans before switching to Homeism)

Forther more the Empire had quite a animosity towards the Northern Barbarians for centuries.
It existed, as well the continuous relationship such as trade, migrants, exchanges, etc. You don't live neighbouring someone else for centuries without some kind of mutual-beneficing and mutually influenced relationship.

What cultural marks did the Franks leave?
A thing that people just have to understand, is that Franks didn't existed outside the Roman scope. Right from the beggining they're a creation related to the existence of Romania : being a gathering of various Germanic peoples, reinforced by a large Gallo-Roman presence even before the Vth century.

When we're saying Franks, we're talking of a people that was dipped right from the start onto a Roman civilisation.
Eventually what's left is an identity, and some words. The political identity is maybe the most important part.

And even the political institutions are LARGELY coming from Late Roman era, or evolving from it. Political rites are essentially a superposition onto this.

I'll point, again, that almost all (if not all) identitarian features such as clothes, law, weaponry, jewellry only appeared after their entry in Romania, in order to distinguish Franks from their undistinguishable neighbours.

so invading groups were somewhat more relegated to the ruling class, more like the Normans in Britain than the Saxons.
Even that is disputable, and disputed : it quite prooved that landowners, nobles and else from the Late Empire largely remained in place for what matter Romano-Barbarian kingdoms. Syagrii, for exemple, played a decisive political (and military) role in Merovingian Gaul.
 
What about
- architecture (The classical one, not Romanesque architecture)
- technology (running water, aqueducts, concrete)
- knowledge (different historic and other works lost during late antiquity)
- science
- administration (except the churche, there is no centralized administration until the 17th century)
- political unity (compare 4th century Europe and 18th century Europe)?

So, in fact, a partially assimilation of the conquerers occured, but not a full romanization. Great parts of Roman culture and knowledge were lost during the invasions (and the wars of Justinian against the Ostrogoths) - this never happened in China.
 
What about
- architecture (The classical one, not Romanesque architecture)
By the Late Empire, the classical architecture had given up to a late imperial architecture. Long story short : more massive buildings made of bricks.

The few remaning buildings from the era, most were replaced by newer ones as for what concern Roman buildings (go in any Italian city, you won't find much ancient neighbourhood : even "medieval" centers were mostly re-build in later centuries), are generally continuing the style and knowledge.

I mean...look at your point : Early Middle Ages didn't continued classical architecture. You could as well argue that Romano-Barbarians didn't spoken a classical latin, therefore not being acculturated.

- technology (running water, aqueducts, concrete)
Ah, concrete. It never fails to appears as the last argument of "Barbarians ate my Romans"
Concrete use was eventually abandoned even during Late Roman era : it was expensive, required some technicality and material found essentially in Italy (use of concrete elsewhere is much more restricted)., and was essentially used for massive buildings.
Eventually, using abandoned suburbium was clearly easier and cheaper.

The recipe was known : it's written in Vitruvius' treaty which was copied since Early Middle Ages. It wasn't used (at least during a period : we know some concrete was used in medieval Italy at lest by the XIIIth).

I give you that the immaterial technology was lost, lack of transmission : there's certainly a difference in quality between building teams that are used to a certain material and keep memory on how to use it, and taking it from a book.
But that's the lot of technologies that get abandoned (for good or less good reasons) with time (a bit like many stone work was better in the XVIIth or XVIIIth than in the XIXth in Europe)

And even if it was lost, like a poor ark, how exactly would that point that Barbarians weren't hugely romanized?
I think you're cheery-picking stuff that have nothing to do with basic cultural structure there. (I don't think you're saying concrete is an essential part of romanity, isn't?)

Aqueducts remained in place after the Vth, but became indeed less used as they cost a lot to be repaired : even Byzantium had trouble repairing his own after Avar destructions.
It was just cheaper to just let it down , critically giving it ceased to be widely used due to demographical changes (loss of population, new centers of population even in ancient cities, etc.)
It's not a problem of lack of cultural assimilation or Barbarians being Barbarians, but about societal changes due to crisis that Europe had to wait centuries to really get out.


I would point, again, that you're mentioning feature that concerned maybe 10% of the Roman population. Do you really think this make it essential for Roman culture?

- knowledge (different historic and other works lost during late antiquity)
Which is irrelevant to the cultural continuation and assimilation, unless arguing every book made the Roman culture (in which case you can write off 95% of the population of Romania off the Roman culture)

- administration (except the churche, there is no centralized administration until the 17th century)
Romano-German kingdoms largely maintained Late imperial administration which was everything you want except centralized : while you had a personified rule, the basic administrative and political structure was the city (understood first as a municipe, then as the seat of a count and bishop after the IVth in most of Romania).

You're basically projecting a modern conception of state into Roman Empire, anachronically so, in order to point a cultural difference that I'm afraid to say so again, didn't really existed.

- political unity (compare 4th century Europe and 18th century Europe)?
Did you even took a look at Late Imperial civil wars, split of Romania and various usurpers?
If something, VI/VIIth Europe may have been somehow stabler than the Late Empire.

So, in fact, a partially assimilation of the conquerers occured, but not a full romanization.
But, according your choices, romanisation means being exactly like Roman elites and having EVERY of classical features even ones that weren't widespread in all empire.

At this rate, nobody was romanized, not even Romans.

More seriously : when institutions, material culture (the everyday stuff), the language, the beliefs, even arts are in the same continuity...Well, yes, you're facing a same culture and that's obvious once you take a look not at the classical culture of the Ist century, but at the actual Roman culture of the IVth/Vth century.

There, I'm afraid to say, I think you're writing off all the evolution that happened within the Roman Empire between the Ist century and the Vth century as if it never happened or shouldn't have happened : a bit like if one argued that because Indian immigrants aren't speaking Shakespearian English, that means they're not assimilated to the true English culture.

Great parts of Roman culture
Which you didn't really gave exemple for, I'm afraid : you just mentioned either vague or irrelevant points, when you gave exemples that you cherish in Roman culture but aren't representative either historically (meaning up to the Late Empire) or socially. In short, I think you have an elitist view on culture.

this never happened in China.
Think of XIXth/XXth crisis in China, and all that was lost and you may have an idea of what Late Romania looked like in terms of structural changes and losses.

We could count all the damages caused by Mongols in China similar to what they caused among the Arabo-Islamic world, including cultural (part of pre-Mongol litterature for exemple) and technical losses (advancies into hydraulical technology).
It's not the same extent, but saying it never happened in China is blatantly wrong and serves only an obsolete narrative.
 
Last edited:
A love of steak. :D

Well, it's true that it seems that medieval population relied more on animal proteins than their predecessors, including more animal fat (mostly from pork, but as well duck or goose especially on the south).

However I doubt it was a cultural feature : , the De observatione ciborum (A dietetic manual written for a Frankish king in the VIth century by a greek medic) points that : while a large part is given to meat and animal products, the recipes are largely inspired from Apicus and Imperial gastronomy.
In fact, Anthemius specifically say that Franks loved lard and roasted meats but more surprising maybe, milk, if it's an indication on how Franks let a mark in these matters.

It may be because pork was more easily avaible, as sheeps were more used for wool production, and that beef was more used for farm work; but again that's something that was already present during the last centuries of the Roman Empire : the wine/bread/olive was more of an symbolical feature even in the IInd century while a-wine based regimes became more current (or more accounted for, as Gallo-Roman uses while romanized, kept a lot of the pre-conquest agricultural structures).

So, we may be there as well in presence of a continuation of Roman cuisine, evolving with the rest of the culture and due to the climatic and demographic changes, turning onto other products more easily (pork doesn't require nearly as much employees).

I don't really remember a text about a Frankish preference for steak specifically, tough.
 
Last edited:
So Rome did manage to somewhat culturally assimilate its invaders.

Why isn't there a Rome today the same way there's a China?
 
So Rome did manage to somewhat culturally assimilate its invaders.
It's even more than that : Rome was a decisive factor on the ethnogenesis of Barbarian peoples. Without Rome, you won't have Franks or Goths to speak of.
While culturally distinct, these peoples were romanized from the start, and while influencing provincial population themselves, it wasn't a situation where Rome assimilated radically different cultures.

Why isn't there a Rome today the same way there's a China?

Mostly because the universal Roman imperial idea died out with the VIIth century, as the ERE was reduced drastically. What came eventually were more "national"-minded imperiums (even if at some points, HRE tried to claim some romanity, it was essentially about Rome as a Christian symbol, not the romanitas).

Before, even with the fall of WRE, Constantinople was still seen as the universal Roman Empire. But when it was cut off from western Europe, the concept quickly died out : even Carolingians didn't claimed being Romans but christian emperors where Rome essentially had a role of translatio imperii with Davidic kingdoms alike.

That Papacy replaced Rome as an universal institution in the XIth century may be an important factor as well.
 
So Rome did manage to somewhat culturally assimilate its invaders.

Why isn't there a Rome today the same way there's a China?

Aside what LSCatilina said, with which I agree, there's the notable fact that China's invaders conquered it in one piece they last couple of times they got through (which is remarkably closer in time to us than the Migration Period).

By the way, as the Goths and the Franks were Romanized, so were the Khitan and the Jurchen fairly Sinified from long before conquering China (I can't say about ethnogenesis though, which is, I gather, poorly understood anyway).
Of course, the overall dynamics are otherwise different in many respects.
 
Top