Thread 17974251

>there were not 2 empires, but 2 administrations in the same empire, just like the Tetrarchy were not 4 empires
>once Romulus II got fired, Zeno I became emperor of both administrations
>and Flavius Odoacer became dux (duke) for Italy
>all those "barbarian invasors" were born inside the Empire, raised in Roman values and culture
>and by the Edict of Caracalla (Constitutio Antoniniana) all were Roman citizens
The entire "fall" was written by a fat christian anglo, Edtard Gibbon, that for some unknown reason hated himself.

The "reconquest" of Justinian I happened because in Hispania, Italia et Africa seccessionists raised to power and killed the friends of Justinian. Frankia stayed loyal to Justinian.

PD: Clovis (Flavius Chlodovechus) was ascended as Consul per Gallia by Anastasius I Dicorus.

>>17974251 (OP)
Rome died when it converted to christjewry.
Seethe.

How are you going to claim Clovis as consul when he's the one who defeated the actual continuation of western empire in gaul?

why don't we just say federates instead of foederati?

>>17974279
>actual continuation of western empire
There was no western empire, it was the western administration of the only Roman Empire.

And I'm not claiming anything, it's History, emperor Anastasius I proclaimed Clovis (Flavius Chlodovechus) as consul.

Flavius Syagrius didn't swear loyalty to Anastasius I.

>>17974300
>emperor Anastasius I proclaimed Clovis (Flavius Chlodovechus) as consul
source?

>>17974251 (OP)
>replace your elites with Germanic foreigners instead of the usually Romano-Illyric men bearing the same genes found in early Iron Age central Italy and western balkans
Nope. Imagine now all American senators and governors being spics and the wasp president has less power than previous president and only has somewhat direct authority in the north east.

>>17974251 (OP)
>>all those "barbarian invasors" were born inside the Empire, raised in Roman values and culture
Nearly all of them lived completely apart from Roman society, did not want to be part of the Roman state and were actively hostile to Romans. The Vandals, the Iberian Alans and Seubi never sought accommodation with the Romans nor did they want to. The Visigoths were completely opportunistic and exploited the Romans at every opportunity they got
>Frankia stayed loyal to Justinian.
The Franks literally invaded Italy to fight their armies.
>PD: Clovis (Flavius Chlodovechus) was ascended as Consul per Gallia by Anastasius I Dicorus.
And Attila was named Magister Militum, doesn't somehow make them a Roman ally.

>>17974311
'Clovis, Anastasius, and Political Status in 508 C.E.: The Frankish Aftermath of the Battle of Vouillé' by Ralph Mathisen.

>>17974317
They’re already on track to become Hispanic and Indian

>>17974317
>Germanic foreigners
They were born inside the Empire, that's why they were Roman citizens in the first place.
And on contrary with the "spic senators", they actually believed in the "Roman dream" and wanted to be part of the Imperium as equal Romans with the natives.

>>17974364
>And Attila was named Magister Militum, doesn't somehow make them a Roman ally.
Only a Roman citizen can be a Magister Militum.

Attila also was born inside the Empire and was educated in Constantinople, he wanted to be a Roman Emperor. He even resurge the Roman religion (despite his ancestors being Tengrists) when he proclaimed he had the 'Sword of Mars' (Mars was the father of Romulus, founder of Roma).

>The Vandals, the Iberian Alans and Seubi never sought accommodation with the Romans nor did they want to.
They wanted to be part of the Imperium, they didn't want to pay taxes (neither the Roman natives wanted).

>The Franks literally invaded Italy to fight their armies.
>Romans since they were settled by Julian II
Civil war is a pretty Roman tradition.

>>17974380
They didn’t, they were racialists and enslaved the locals, treated them badly and rejected everything Roman. It’s a damn shame germanics got so lucky because they would have been btfo’d numeros times but Christianity did cuck the Roman Empire.

>>17974380
>They were born inside the Empire, that's why they were Roman citizens in the first place.
That is not how Roman citizenship worked even after Caracalla. These people were recognised as foreigners and never as part of the Roman state. Even those who did find integration with the Roman state did not become citizens. Even people who actually were part of the Roman state like freed slaves did not become citizens on being freed.
>>17974389
>Only a Roman citizen can be a Magister Militum.
That's not true. Alaric was also given an honourary title of Magister Militum and he was not a Roman citizen.
>Attila also was born inside the Empire and was educated in Constantinople
He was not.
>he wanted to be a Roman Emperor.
At no point does any source, or any of his intentions show this.
>They wanted to be part of the Imperium
There is not a single point where they even try to make accommodation with the Roman state. They remained hostile to Roman authority and actively fought them wherever they were. They waged a war of conquest in Iberia and later Africa directly contrary to Roman forces.
>>Romans since they were settled by Julian II
The Franks were never Romans. They were settled as 'allies' of the Roman state, which are not Romans.
>Civil war is a pretty Roman tradition.
A foreign people, who do not follow any Roman authority, leadership or goals are actually Roman?

>>17974251 (OP)
Pretty much this.

The Western administration lost Britain, Gaul, Africa, and Hispania in relative quick succession, those really became independent Barbarian kingdoms, but Italy remained influenced by Constantinople under Odoacer, than Theoderic, than his successors, they were basically governors under the Byzantine Emperor. Justinian's invasion was closer to a civil war, and it resulted in a pretty similar system being set up, just with the Exarchs governing Italy instead of Ostrogothic kings.

I would argue that Roman Italy really only ended in the 8th century, when the Lombards (who never submitted to the Emperor) destroyed the exarchate and when the Donation of Pepin happened.

>>17974285
Literacy

>>17974416
>rejected everything Roman.
They were heavily romanized

>>17974498
Most of these peoples did not even stop segregating themselves from the Roman population until the 7th century, or in the case of the Vandals and Ostrogoths, never. One of the major problems that Ostrogothic nobility had after the death of Theodoric was the attempts by the queen to give the king a Roman education and livelihood which was unacceptable to them.

>>17974420
>These people were recognised as foreigners and never as part of the Roman state.
Yes, they were part of the Roman state, but they could preserve their own traditions.

It's like modern USA, 'Native Nations' are part of USA but they have their own tribal government.

>Alaric
He literally named himself Flavius Alaricus and demanded to be treated as a Roman as equal as the natives. His mother language was latin, not gothic. And he was Magister Militum per Illyricum because his Roman citizenship.

>Attila
He wanted to be, he recieved a ring and letter from the sister of Valentinian III.

>The Franks were never Romans. They were settled as 'allies' of the Roman state, which are not Romans.
Remember 'Civitas sine suffragio', Latins were also 'allies' that demanded citizenship and got it, just without the right to vote.

Roman citizenship was given to ALL free men, no matter their class or status, allies too. Also, roman citizenship itself had subclasses.

>They remained hostile to Roman authority and actively fought them wherever they were. They waged a war of conquest in Iberia and later Africa directly contrary to Roman forces.
No shit, like usurpers and rebels, Romans too, fought against the state's authority.

>>17974510
>Most of these peoples did not even stop segregating themselves from the Roman population until the 7th century
Actually this was a Roman law, not something initiated by the foederati, the Roman emperor felt that some influence Roman patricians would become more loyal to their new gens (tribes) than to the state.

The segregation law never applied for the common folk of Romans and foederati.

>had after the death of Theodoric was the attempts by the queen to give the king a Roman education and livelihood which was unacceptable to them.
And? Ofc some nobles didn't want to lose their tribal identity, that doesn't mean they rejected all Roman culture. By that time, those "germanic peoples" no longer spoke germanic languages but latin.

>>17974492
THIS. Finally someone that knows.

The funny things is that lasted very little, because became (neo)Roman again under Augustus Carolus Magnus (Charlemagne).

>>17974416
>>17974498
They were Romans.

>>17974251 (OP)
Different law code, different empire. Only the East maintained Roman laws and ultimately perfected them under Justinian.

>>17974790
The Western Roman Empire was created by Charlemagne, the so-called WRE before him was literally called 'pars occidentalis', aka west side of the same Empire.

>>17974285
Anglo larp, everyone else says federates

>>17974852
In Spain they're also called 'foederati'.

>>17974264
That doesn’t make any sense retard.

>>17974279
>>17974300
>>17974311
>>17974373
The “Kingdom of Soissons” wasn’t real. Watch “Historian’s Craft’s” video on this. It was just another germanic realm like Alemania.

>>17974364
>Nearly all of them lived completely apart from Roman society, did not want to be part of the Roman state and were actively hostile to Romans.
This retard has never read a single book on this subject. Read Inheritance of Rome, then get BTFO.

>>17974616
Yes. Another funny thing: the end of the Roman Senate would be a good way to mark the official fall of the empire, however, it continued to exist under the Goths but dispersed during the Exarchate. So that would mean Western Rome fell after Justinian reconquered Rome and Italy?

It's more like, Italy continued to be functionally Roman under the Eastern Emperor, but then Byzantium completely shit itself in the 8th century with civil wars, and the Lombards who never submitted to Roman rule took pretty much everything. Then Pope, the last renmant of the Roman order basically said fuck the Byzantines and turned to the Franks for protection. So I would say the fall of Ravenna in 751 was the true fall of the Roman Empire in the West. But even after that, the Papacy and Italy was tied so much to the concept of the Roman Empire that 18 years later the Pope made Charlemagne the new Western Emperor.

IN THIS HOUSE EDWARD GIBBONS IS A HERO
ROME FELL IN 476AD
AND THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE CONTINUED ON UNTIL 1453AD
END OF STORY

Stilicho was right about everything and he should have been emperor.

>>17974613
>Yes, they were part of the Roman state
Except the Romans did not want them there, did not allow them to be there and they had nothing to do with the Roman state other than going to war with it.
>He literally named himself Flavius Alaricus
No he didn't.
>and demanded to be treated as a Roman as equal as the natives.
He demanded titles, money and land. Not for equal treatment.
>His mother language was latin, not gothic
lmao
>And he was Magister Militum per Illyricum because his Roman citizenship.
He gained the position through extortion, it came with no actual military responsibilities or leadership of Roman troops. Nor was he a Roman citizen.
>He wanted to be, he recieved a ring and letter from the sister of Valentinian III.
You're forgetting the entire story around it to pretend like that meant he wanted to be Emperor when even in it he asks for Gaul.
>Remember 'Civitas sine suffragio', Latins were also 'allies' that demanded citizenship and got it, just without the right to vote.
This as a concept stopped being practiced in the Late Republic.
>Roman citizenship was given to ALL free men, no matter their class or status, allies too
Caracalla granted citizenship to people in the Roman world. Not to their allies. This was also a one time grant, slaves who became freed did not become citizens, foreign conscripts did not become citizens.
>No shit, like usurpers and rebels, Romans too
Except they were fighting the Roman state from outside of it, and never even considered themselves as part of it.

I don't know why you are literally making up shit about them being citizens or somehow being part of the Roman state when they actively rejected the Romans and the Romans rejected them. At no point are any of them ever called citizens or even considered so under the law.

>>17974613
>Actually this was a Roman law
There does not exist any segregated law in any Roman law or codex. There are allowances for separate court systems, which could be overruled by Roman ones in the case of the Jews but that is not a segregated law and none exist for Germanic peoples. There is no evidence that segregation laws existed under the Roman state and only first emerge under the barbarians after the end of Roman rule.
>the Roman emperor felt that some influence Roman patricians would become more loyal to their new gens (tribes) than to the state.
Outsiders did not become patricians and nor did they legislate for the invading peoples for the obvious reason that they had no control over them and couldn't do so anyway.
>that doesn't mean they rejected all Roman culture
The entire complaint is about rejecting Roman culture and norms.
>By that time, those "germanic peoples" no longer spoke germanic languages but latin.
Why are you lying? These people maintained a completely segregated community from the locals. There is no evidence of what you are saying.

>>17975097
I've read plenty, and it becomes rather clear that many of these peoples did not want anything from the Romans that was not the prestige, wealth and legacy from them with no intention of being ruled or participating in the Roman state. The examples I already gave show that. The Vandals quite literally never engage in any friendly relations with the Roman state and rejected any authority from them

>>17974251 (OP)
>The entire "fall" was written by a fat christian anglo, Edtard Gibbon, that for some unknown reason hated himself.
The fall narrative was ironically propagated by Justinian so that he could take credit for "restoring" the roman empire in the West.

>>17974251 (OP)
>all those "barbarian invasors" were born inside the Empire, raised in Roman values and culture
We've got a civic nationalist in here I see.

>>17974264
>Constantine Converts
>Rome experiences a religious revival
>Enters a period of stability and calm after a century of military anarchy
>Doesn't even lose momentum until well into the middle ages

The problems of the empire were many fold and going hard back into paganism couldn't have fixed them as Julian found out.

>>17974300
It wasn't. There was a western emperor and an eastern emperor. Romulus Augustulus was deposed, the west's nominal independence died but even then the east never really had proper control over the west.

Although honestly, I think you can argue the west died as an independent entity with Valentinian III. At that point it was just an entity whose "emperors" were controlled by semi-autonomous Germans pledging only nominal fealty to the East. Odoacer, for all intents and purposes, was independent as was Theoderic.

>>17975607
>Except the Romans did not want them there
Some Roman patricians didn't want him, others that have gothic ancestry yes. You forget goths were becoming part Romans since the III century.

Emperor Maximinus Thrax was goth from his father and alan from his mother.

>no actual military responsibilities
Yes, protecting the Balkans.
>or leadership of Roman troops.
Yes, his troops.
>Nor was he a Roman citizen.
Yes, he was, learn Roman Law, ONLY a Roman citizen can become magister.

>when even in it he asks for Gaul.
Tetricus was a Roman Emperor and only ruled the Gauls.
By those times you no longer need the control of Roma to be an Emperor, just control Roman land and being choose by the army.

>Caracalla granted citizenship to people in the Roman world. Not to their allies.
Caracalla granted citizenship to ALL free men INSIDE the Empire, this included the allies INSIDE the Empire and other non-Romans ('peregrinus').

Foederati =/= mercenary.
Foderati was meant to be settled in Roman land and become Roman; mercenary once the job was done return to his homeland.

>This as a concept stopped being practiced in the Late Republic.
False, same shit happened in Hispania under the Empire, where Iberian allies also became Roman citizens thanks to an Edict by Vespasian.

>when they actively rejected the Romans and the Romans rejected them.
Because this is oversimplified BS. You are forgeting that "goths" and other germanic peoples were NOT peoples / nations perse, hey were CONFEDERATIONS of many tribes. Those means anyone could be part of the confederation, even ROMANS.
When Flavius Alaricus broke relationship with the state, many Roman citizens joined him wanting to avoid the hellish imperial bureaucracy.
So even if your "gibbonian narrative" was right, "pureblood goths" became a minority in their own confederation that was filled by Roman desertors and fugitive slaves. So, in the end, you still have Romans ("neo-goths", "neo-vandals", etc.) vs Romans (imperial troops).

>>17974251 (OP)
>Gibbon invented the fall of the Roman Empire
your brain on pop history

>>17975617
Read 'Godos de Hispania' by León Arsenal. Because all the crap you're saying was proven false years ago.

>>17975632
>anon unironically thinks not wanting to be a slave of the Roman state (tax-payer) is equal to not wanting to be part of the Roman civilization
Anon, not all "germanic peoples" worked in the same ways.
Goths, both 'visi-' and 'ostro-', alongisde the franks, wanted to be part of the Imperium.
Suebi, Burgundians and Vandals wanted to be part of the Roman civilization but not the Imperium. In the same way Pamyra and Tetricus' Gaul were Roman states, just not THE Roman state with the Eternal City as capital.

There's a big difference right there, by the times of Justinian's reconquest, both suebi and vandals were no longer germanic peoples but latins, because their whole culture was Romanised in some degree, their mother language were no longer Suebian nor Vandalic but Latin (vulgar).
And whole Justinian' reconquest happened in the first place, because both Suebi and Vandal nobilities were scared af to no longer distinguish themselves from the Roman natives due to their own people being so "Roman" / "Roman-like".
The irony here is, both Suebi and Vandal peoples could have being a thing inside the Imperium if their nobles didn't become so paranoid.
Flavius Hildericus (Hilderic, who had Imperial blood because his mother Eudoxia) and Amalasuintha were great friends of Justinian, Justinian even considered them as Romans as equal as him, if they weren't overthrowned and killed, Justinian would have never invaded Italia nor Africa, because for him, they were already Roman territories under Roman kings.

>>17976455
>Yes, protecting the Balkans.
Which he didn't do.
>Yes, his troops.
Which was not part of the Roman army structure. Roman units were assigned elsewhere.
>Yes, he was,
Where is this ever said?
>ONLY a Roman citizen can become magister.
Where is this said? There are no laws stating that Roman titles couldn't be granted to non-Romans or citizens. In fact it was done frequently.
>Tetricus was a Roman Emperor and only ruled the Gauls.
Tetricus was somebody who claimed to be the rightful sole ruler of the Roman Empire and actively attempted to make this a reality until he surrendered to Aurelian. He was ruling through the apparatus of the state, he came from within it and acted within its norms and culture. Attila was part of none of these things, he had a completely independent power base with no Roman control or authority and had no history of being part of the Roman state.
>Foederati =/= mercenary.
In affect they were as they were failed attempts at integration.
>Foderati was meant to be settled in Roman land and become Roman
The Foederati only existed because of Roman failure to do this. They were unable to break up these invading groups like they had done in the past. What you are trying to refer to are the Laeti, which are foreign groups which became integrated. If Theodosius defeated the Goths, there would be no such thing as the Foederati, they only existed as a compromise due to the inability for the state to defeat them.
>False, same shit happened in Hispania under the Empire, where Iberian allies also became Roman citizens thanks to an Edict by Vespasian.
And it still has absolutely nothing to do with Late Antiquity.
> hey were CONFEDERATIONS of many tribes
I am not forgetting that.
>Flavius Alaricus
He never called himself this, nobody ever refers to him as this. Can you stop it with you historical revisionism LARP?

>>17975617
Read 'Godos de Hispania' by León Arsenal. Because all the crap you're saying was proven false years ago.
Rex Flavius Ervigius, visigoth king, his father was Ardabastus (Roman-Armenian or Persian) and his mother was Flavia Juliana (you can't get more Roman than that); where the segregation and "superior germanic blood" here?

Also, where the "superior germanic blood" in Vandals when they mixed with Alans (Iranians, Roman-Persians)?

>>17975632
>anon unironically thinks not wanting to be a slave of the Roman state (tax-payer) is equal to not wanting to be part of the Roman civilization
Anon, not all "germanic peoples" worked in the same ways.
Goths, both 'visi-' and 'ostro-', alongisde the franks, wanted to be part of the Imperium.
Suebi, Burgundians and Vandals wanted to be part of the Roman civilization but not the Imperium. In the same way Palmyra and Tetricus' Gaul were Roman states, just not THE Roman state with the Eternal City as capital.

There's a big difference right there, by the times of Justinian's reconquest, both suebi and vandals were no longer germanic peoples but latins, because their whole culture was Romanised in some degree, their mother language were no longer Suebian nor Vandalic but Latin (vulgar).
And whole Justinian' reconquest happened in the first place, because both Suebi and Vandal nobilities were scared af to no longer distinguish themselves from the Roman natives due to their own people being so "Roman" / "Roman-like".
The irony here is, both Suebi and Vandal peoples could have being a thing inside the Imperium if their nobles didn't become so paranoid.
Flavius Hildericus (Hilderic, who had Imperial blood because his mother Eudoxia) and Amalasuintha were great friends of Justinian, Justinian even considered them as Romans as equal as him, if they weren't overthrowned and killed, Justinian would have never invaded Italia nor Africa, because for him, they were already Roman territories under Roman kings.

Western Rome ended when the last italian byzantine usurper was defeated, it was all germanic larp from then on.

>>17976492
>many Roman citizens joined him
Except when you look at it, it turns out nearly none of them did. The few that followed him after Rome were more or less hostages.
>So even if your "gibbonian narrative" was right, "pureblood goths"
I never said this.
>became a minority in their own confederation that was filled by Roman desertors and fugitive slaves
And this never happened. There is literally no evidence that exists to back up some majority Roman groupings acting under foreign control against the Roman state.
>>17976497
>Read 'Godos de Hispania' by León Arsenal. Because all the crap you're saying was proven false years ago.
Then prove it. Telling somebody to read a book isn't an argument.
>and his mother was Flavia Juliana (you can't get more Roman than that)
Forgetting the fact that the Visigoths kidnapped her?
>where the segregation and "superior germanic blood" here?
What is your obsession with something I never talked about? I never said anything about superior germanic blood. Are you mentally ill?
>In the same way Palmyra and Tetricus' Gaul were Roman states
Absolutely nonsensical comparison. Two active participants in civil war which emerged from the Roman state are not the same in any way to foreign invaders.
>both suebi and vandals were no longer germanic peoples but latins, because their whole culture was Romanised in some degree, their mother language were no longer Suebian nor Vandalic but Latin (vulgar).
Procopius directly disagrees with this and notes that the Vandals did keep separation from the Romans. spoke their own language and had their own allotted lands, which encouraged a civil war as Byzantine soldiers married Vandal women but were unable to take their allotted properties.

>>17976506
>And whole Justinian' reconquest happened in the first place, because both Suebi and Vandal nobilities were scared af to no longer distinguish themselves from the Roman natives due to their own people being so "Roman" / "Roman-like".
The entire justification in Procopius' work for the invasion of Italy was the exact opposite. For the Vandals it was to attack the unfaithful Vandals and free Roman from their rule.
>both Suebi and Vandal peoples could have being a thing inside the Imperium if their nobles didn't become so paranoid.
They have never acted in any friendly manner to the Romans. Why would they suddenly just roll over for them? It wasn't paranoia which made Gaiseric an opportunistic warmonger. He wanted wealth and power, and he got it by defeating the Romans and seizing their land.
>Justinian even considered them as Romans as equal as him
At no point is this ever said. Amalasuintha was at best a friendly foreign ruler to him, and her deposition a causus belli for something he had clearly been planning for.
>because for him, they were already Roman territories under Roman kings.
Who rejected Roman rule and segregated themselves from the Roman population? Not even Theodoric was willing to have Romans serve him in any capacity outside of civil service.

>>17976492
>Which was not part of the Roman army structure
They were part of the Roman army structure in the same way that the Auxilia (actual non-Romans) were, but differenciated from the legionaries.
The foederati were in the middle, they were Romans who were allowed to preserve their tribal identity.

>Where is this ever said?
In the foedus between Emperor Valens and the goths, which includes the application of the Constitutio Antoniniana (like centuries before the Lex Julia was applied to the Italic foederati, giving them the Roman citizenship).

>Where is this said?
Roman Law, for be a magister first you have to achieve the 'cursus honorum', which only a Roman citizen can do.

>In affect they were as they were failed attempts at integration.
Do you realised that Roma has 2000 years of history and in those years many foedus were signed and applied with success, right?

>What you are trying to refer to are the Laeti
Anon, I know the difference between both, but let me tell you, by the IV and V centuries, not even the Romans cared about the differenciation between both terms, again the Edict of Caracalla was never revoked, therefore, Roman citizenship became Antiquity's "free visa".
I get your point of not considering 'foederati' was Romans because their "lack" of loyalty to the state and preservation of tribal identity, but in reality they were.

>Can you stop it with you historical revisionism LARP?
Read 'Godos de Hispania' by León Arsenal.
Even Saint Isidoro of Sevilla considered the goths as Romans until the moment that FLAVIUS ALARICUS is chosen as Rex by his men, when the foedus was break and goths no longer were submitted to ROMAN LAWS, then he later explain how goths will recover their 'Romanitas' under Flavius Ataulfus (when he marries and has a son with Galla Placidia) and under Flavius Wallia when he signed the foedus with Emperor Honorius.

>>17976506
>>17976509
>anon be like
>NOOOO modern historian with facts is not a reliable source
>better trust Procopius, known for being a propagandist and not very reliable
Kek.

>>17976506
>foreign invaders.
Check where those "foreigners" were born... oh, inside of the Empire.

>>17976548
>They were part of the Roman army structure
They were completely outside of the Roman army structure. When they are first ever called up for duty by Theodosius they do so as outside of the Roman army and instead as usual allies.
>in the same way that the Auxilia (actual non-Romans) were
This is completely different.
>In the foedus between Emperor Valens and the goths
Valens never actually made an agreement with the Goths other than to let them cross the Danube. The agreement to make them foederati was by Theodosius. Valens was trying to break them up into small groups like usual with Laeti, which are a group which only became citizens after their service finished.
>which includes the application of the Constitutio Antoniniana
This didn't happen.
>Roman Law
Cite the relevant law
>for be a magister first you have to achieve the 'cursus honorum'
Huh? The Magister Militum was an appointment. You didn't have to go through any process other than being given the title to achieve it. Alaric never held a Roman title before he extorted the East for it.
>and in those years many foedus were signed and applied with success, right?
The Visigoths were a fundamentally different sort of relationship to the former integration of foreigners or making allies. You cannot compare them at all because they aren't similar. The Laeti were never given separate lands of their own to live under with their own leaders, they were almost always killed or divorced from their former communities which did not happen to the Visigoths. Many Roman allies like the Sarmatians lived outside of Roman borders and were often the target of Roman terror campaigns like under Constantine and Constantius II
>by the IV and V centuries, not even the Romans cared about the differenciation between both terms
Yea they did actually. Considering that Laeti is a term largely from Late Antiquity and used extensively in the 4th century, but almost never in the 5th as foederati superseded it.

Honestly I'm to a point where i say everyone was roman at that time, the roman idea got raped to death anyways since the third century when someone could even claim to be a roman emperor in the most backwater provinces, and especially after Caracalla did his thing and gave everyone cicltizen ship, honestly i don't get why people are so fixated on what's roman when the entire European tribes all were under the influence of the empire anyways.
It's really just semantics at that point.

>>17976492
>>17976548
'In the name of Rome...inflicted a vast slaughter upon the barbarians in Spain.' - Rex Flavius Wallia, recorded by Hydatius, bishop of Chaves.
It is explained how thanks to Wallia, goths were considered Romans by their own right and merits by "Roman natives".

The irony here is, Alans and Silingen Vandals wanted to become Romans, so asked Emperor Honorius to signed a foedus in good will (giving back hostages), Honorius rejected it (he was following the advices of his commander Constantius) and instead sent the goths to exterminated them.

Suebi and Hasdingi Vandals survived because they accepted Emperor's rule.

>>17976548
>Read 'Godos de Hispania' by León Arsenal.
Not an argument.
>Saint Isidoro of Sevilla
Isridore does not actually represent the thoughts of people who lived over a century before him. He lived in a post Roman world with no connection to the Roman state and one with the Visigothic state.
>and goths no longer were submitted to ROMAN LAWS,
They never lived under Roman law in the first place. It was already a significant humiliation to Theodosius to allow them to do so.
>>17976554
>>NOOOO modern historian with facts is not a reliable source
I never said this. I am simply telling you that it is not an argument to namedrop somebody and provide nothing.
>better trust Procopius, known for being a propagandist and not very reliable
Are you saying that the main source, which the majority of all study is based upon for this period is not actually legitimate because of something which isn't even true? Procopius was by far one of the most critical historians of antiquity, not even Tacitus was as openly critical as he was.
>>17976557
Being born in the Empire did not somehow make them no longer foreign to it. The Isaurians were part of the empire for centuries, were actually Roman citizens and they were considered foreigners by the Roman public and leadership. The same thing goes for the Samaritans who were by law citizens and had been for centuries but nobody ever considered them as anything other than foreigners.
>>17976572
> Alans and Silingen Vandals wanted to become Romans, so asked Emperor Honorius to signed a foedus
Wanting to become allies does not mean wanting to become Roman. If anything it was just a way to try to win legitimacy after they had seized the lands.
>Hasdingi Vandals survived because they accepted Emperor's rule.
Gaiseric never accepted Roman rule. He did so for 6 months while Asper was leaving Africa and reneged on it as soon as he left to take Carthage

>>17976567
OP here, I feel you anon, the "fixation" here is because you still see anons oversimplifying it like it was a Hollywood slop, where you have 2 homogeneous groups in eternal warfare: Romans vs "barbarians", as if the pass of centuries and mixing didn't affect them (same shitty portray happens with pagans and christians in Late Antiquity).

You still can read books narrating the "fall of the Empire" as some dark-fantasy post-apocalyptic scenario, and all thanks to the self-hating anglo Gibbon 'the Fat-tard'.

>>17976567
>honestly i don't get why people are so fixated on what's roman
Because the Romans cared about it. It is dishonest just to lump everything under the Roman category when not even the Romans did that. People from Illyria were not accepted as Romans because of their citizenship but because they had completely become part of their culture, became a working part of the Roman system and constructed myths of belonging to a common Roman ancestry. Being citizen never meant being a Roman. Even in Late Antiquity there were many groups within the empire itself which were citizens but were not Roman. Armenians, Isaurians, Samaritans, hardline Jews, Numidians and non-urban Arabs were largely kept separate from the Roman identity and attribution despite citizenship and long ties with the Romans.

>>17976582
Our perspective of the early middle ages (or is it used to be known - late antiquity) is skewed by anglo historians who dominate the era because Germans are more interested in the middle ages and early modernity while the French are ahistoric cunts who only study history to justify their judeo-liberal demon ideologies.
Britain did collapse and the island for centuries was a lawless hellhole were marauding biker gangs would constantly fight over their petty kingdoms.
The transition from antiquity to middle ages was far more smooth in mainland Europe and Italy, there was no "collapse".

>>17976577
>wanting to become Roman.
Alans and Vandals started to dress like Romans, started to speak Latin, started to use Roman names, started to follow Roman Lwas mixed with their tribal laws, but THEY NEVER WANTED TO BECOME ROMANS.

>Gaiseric never accepted Roman rule.
Anon discovers what the concept of 'lie' is, congrats.

>Isaurians
>Samaritans
Check how they became Romans... by foedus (treaty created specifically to Romanize (aka, make Romans) tribes, cities, entire nations while preserving their identity in the process, instead of following a hard acculturation that would make them rebel).

>Being born in the Empire did not somehow make them no longer foreign to it.
Check "foreigners" that were born inside... were born insde thanks to a foedus.

>>17976593
>Being citizen never meant being a Roman.
The whole thread started because the ROMAN CITIZENSHIP, and anon responds with this crap.
Which goths, vandals, suebi, burgundians and franks achieved because the foedus they signed was under the Constitutio Antoniniana that affect ALL free men inside the Empire, allies and 'peregrini' inclueded. I guess, anon doesn't know that meaning of 'ALL'.

The absolute state of /his/.

>>17976597
True, the funniest part is how the 'Grand-Father of Anglosaxons', Cerdic of Wessex, saw himself as a trve Roman and a 'Restitutor Imperium'.
>Cerdic, from the Roman 'Caractacus', which came from the Brythonic 'Caratīcos'
>his father was Elafius, Roman governor of Britannia
So, his invasion of Britannia was "akshually" his duty as trve Roman to restore the Roman Order.

>"Cerdic, if you proclaim yourself to be a TRVE ROMAN, why Britannia no longer speaks Latin?"

>>17976599
>started to speak Latin, started to use Roman names
They never did that.
>started to follow Roman Lwas mixed with their tribal laws
Missing the entire point that they deliberately self segregated themselves from Romans in law.
>Check how they became Romans... by foedus
The Isaurians become Romans because Anastasius completely destroyed their tribal structure through constant military force and annihilated any authority they could have outside of Roman means. The Romans never had the Isaurians as foederati, that would be nonsensical as they were already citizens and part of the Roman state even if in reality they carved out their own independent enclave to occasionally harass and raid around the region. The Samaritans never became Romans, they were all just mostly killed during the reign of Justinian after they caused social upheaval and Justinian asked the Arab allies to take care of it for him to which they were massacred. Justinian then dismantled all of their independent power structures and abolished the Patriarch position. The Roman way of integrating rebellious peoples was by fire and sword, not by alliance.

>>17976608
>Which goths, vandals, suebi, burgundians and franks achieved because the foedus they signed was under the Constitutio Antoniniana that affect ALL free men inside the Empire
Where exactly is it ever stated that allies became Roman citizens? The Romans at the time never thought they were. There is at no point in the 4-5th century anybody ever mentions allies as becoming Roman citizens or acting as though they were. Really, where are you getting this? Because you seem to be misunderstanding Caracalla's grant of citizenship to be a forever law, which it was not. It was a grant, the Theodosian Codex and Justinian's Codex makes no mention of it, to them it was not an applicable legal force and had no bearing on their day. Simply being in the Roman Empire and free did not make somebody a citizen. Laws from the 4-5th century when concerning citizenship instead talk about cases of making people citizens and who does not get to be citizen. Freed slaves for example did not become citizens, foreign peoples who joined the army did not become citizens until they finished their service. People who did not live in the Roman world beforehand or did not have rights to a citizen status still had to earn it in some way after Caracalla. It wasn't just granted for free if you came in after.

>>17976633
>>17976635
>read the Edict of Caracalla
>ALL free men, included the peregrini, become Roman citizens
>foederati were peregrini, therefore they also became Roman citizens
>the ONLY exclusion was the 'dediticii' (enemies that surrender under harsh conditions and former slaves that were criminals)
>'dediticii' didn't applied to foederati, therefore foederati were not excluded
>the Constitutio Antoniniana was never revoked
>Justinian actually made it absolute after he abolished the status of 'dediticii' in the year 530, so former ones became Roman citizens
>sources: 'Junian Latinity in Late Roman and Early Medieval Texts' by Simon Corcoran and 'The Roman Law of Slavery' by William Warwick Buckland

>>17976657
>foederati were peregrini, therefore they also became Roman citizens
You keep working under an assumption that foederati were granted a citizenship. Where at any point in the 4-5th centuries are any of these people ever referred to as citizens? Even in the Visigothic settlement there is no point where they are referred to as Roman citizens. There is no recognition on either side of citizenship, not in text, not in any of the laws promulgated or writings of others.
>the Constitutio Antoniniana was never revoked
Roman law is not 'revoked'. They simply just remove laws during codification because Roman law is not a consistent system with universal application. You can have two completely contradictory laws in effect, which was the goal of forming Codex's, to remove defunct laws and contradictory ones and in Late Antiquity the edict of Caracalla was defunct. New laws had already formed regarding granting of citizenship which were instead used.

>>17976657
>>17976691
The Edict of Caracalla had little effect. A cobbler in Gaul or Syria was probably unaware he could appeal to be judged by laws that applied to a "citizen" cobbler in Rome, should he ever be brought before a court. Then in just 23 years the crisis of the third century began and it was basically irrelevant from that point on.

>>17974251 (OP)
I was thinking about this and other related stuff these days
>we arbitrarily call the republic an empire after Augustus, even if he was just combining powers together like Julius Caesar did, and the correct title was princeps instead of emperor
>we call the eastern rome administration as byzantine empire even if nobody called it that in their period, and treat it like a completely different thing

>>17976952
History is completely full of these things because people are trying very hard to manipulate it. “Byzantine empire” makes as much sense as “I’m trans-female”

>>17976952
The Romans called it a "Republic" all the way into Justinian's timeframe and I believe Constantine XI even did so in the last few days. The usage the Romans had at the time for Res Publica was more akin to modern Americans calling the government "The State." The reason we just "arbitrarily" rename it is because we recognize the change of devolved power via election to a centralized despotic rule. Rome was such a long lived entity that if you don't break its 1700 year length up into divisions like The Kingdom period, Republican Period, Imperial, Byzantine -- you'll get confused as fuck.

>>17977006
If anything I'll argue byzantum was kind of a revival of republicanism due to the smaller more concentrated population and territory.
I think kalliedis talk about this in one of his books.

>>17975224
Gibbons did not consider the Byzantines to be Roman

>>17977006
The problem is that the divisions aren't like "Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Principate, Roman Dominate, Constantinople Rome Empire, Frankish Rome Empire", the way they call it really minimize Rome as a distant empire with no heirs

>>17977071
Gibbon was fat and I would not have sex with him

>>17977071
correct which is why I distinguished between the Roman empire and the Byzantine empire
Byzantine of course not being the term used at the time

>>17974251 (OP)
So what happened there? Why many other kingdoms were created like Frankia, etc.? Was it voluntary or what?

>>17974251 (OP)
I'm so annoyed at people equating the Germanic migrations with the low class filth that is currently flooding Europe. Most Germanic settlers of the Roman Empire joined with the rank of "gentiles" (nobility) or yeoman (freeman, this social class died mostly out in France during the early Middle Ages). The feudal organization of France was a merely more Germanic continuation of the old Roman form.

>>17978390
>The feudal organization of France was a merely more Germanic continuation of the old Roman form.
Feudalism is about 400 years removed from the Roman Empire. It emerged from the collapse of the Carolingian Empire.

>>17978449
Except the land grants given to Germanic foederati had already people living on them. Moving to the city, or staying on their homeland without property rights as slaves or serfs was their only option.

>>17974251 (OP)
The "true" is a lie we tell children.

>>17978455
That's not what feudalism is. It's a state structure where power is devolved to powerful magnates in absence of the central state. Which wouldn't be the case in these post-Roman states where the king was in charge of all appointments.
It's not clear for many cases what they actually did to get land, even for the Ostrogoths where it is best recorded. What they did was receive a section through a special tax which allowed them to pay for the lands they settled in Northern Italy to avoid discontent since nobody really talks about any land usurpation. The only deal in foederati we have that actually lasted for any length is that with the Visigoths and only in Aquitaine we know what happened, they were given rights over all the tax from the region so there is a chance something similar may have happened but in this case we do actually have people complaining about it for their arbitrary nature and rule. So for the others there is a good chance it was nowhere near as peaceful as the Ostrogoth transfer of land to settle on.

>>17975091
It does if you're not dumb.
>>17976189
>>Rome experiences a religious revival
A religious revival that involves an attack on the traditional religion and values that made Rome is a bad religious revival.
>>Enters a period of stability and calm after a century of military anarchy
>>Doesn't even lose momentum until well into the middle ages
These are just falsehoods. I assume you're Christian so it's likely that you're consciously lying.

>>17978463
Ja, I never said that feudalism already existed during Roman times, just that the Germanics were classified as "gentiles" (nobles) in the files of the Roman administration.

>>17978475
>just that the Germanics were classified as "gentiles" (nobles) in the files of the Roman administration.
Settlements are all post-Roman. Germanic peoples weren't really included at all in the Roman state for administrative considerations. 'Nobility' in the Roman Empire essentially meant being a Senator, which was gained through a lot of things but mostly just state appointments and only gave one more legal protections and rights. Germanic peoples didn't get anything special from the Romans, usually because they couldn't do anything with them anyway

>>17975632
But when I listen to History of Rome, Mike constantly insists that if the Romans had been less racist then barbarians would have been happy to integrate into the empire and lead Rome to a new age of Germano-Roman glory.

>>17979078
This is true to some degree for the Goths but not really for any of the other Germiggers. The Roman government was so awful to the Goths they all but forced them to revolt. The other tribes didn’t give a fuck they just wanted gibs

So I can't tell, is this thread actually trying to debate what does and doesn't count as the fall of the WRE or is it just a German or some other weird ethno-nationalist (and likely right-winger) trying to create some scenario where the Germanic kingdoms were actually still Rome in order to legitimize whatever unhinged ethnic superiority views he can then wield against whatever other ethnicities and nationalities he dislikes (likely as a way of declaring them "not white")?

>>17979932
Judging by the picrel, I think he's appealing to a Germanocentrist diatribe from the 19th Century where the Roman Empire only remained great because of Germanic mercenaries and supposedly Germanic barrack Emperors. Finally even greater Germanics sprinted from Scandinavia to Italy and, by crushing the already Germanic Roman Empire, opened the era of a supposed Germanic megalomania that was abruptly ended by the revolutionists of the 18th and 19th Century.

>>17974251 (OP)
>because in Hispania, Italia et Africa seccessionists raised to power and killed the friends of Justinian. Frankia stayed loyal to Justinian
That's proper bullshit I'm afraid. Franks didn't give two shits about Roman titles and allegiance, as they enjoyed being simply too far away from Constantinople, and Vandals in Africa were never 'friends' of Justinian or any other emperor for that matter

>>17979097
No it isn’t, the Roman’s should have been MORE RACIST to Germans because that’s why the lost the gothic war of 376-382. The Romans gave federated status to the franks in 358 while they were fighting a war with the Persians. The franks eventually climbed the military ladder and they negotiated the truce with the goths in 382 that basically killed Rome. They didn’t have to though since the goths were repelled and quarantined in Bulgaria by 380. They did it on purpose because German ethnics were deliberately trying to destabilize the empire. Theodosian was the worst Roman emperor.

>>17978390
No the germanics were dirty savages according to Roman sources like Sidonius Apollinaris.

>Why do you bid me, though I might be able, to prepare a song of Dionysus, lover of Fescennine verse, when I am placed among shaggy-haired hordes and enduring Germanic words praising, now and then with a grim face, what a gluttonous Burgundian sings, pouring rancid butter upon his hair?

The duplicitous, murderous, treacherous and snake-like Illyrians killed the empire. Fuck Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, etc. I don't even get how Diocletian is praised so much: his system didn't work, the economy was still in the toilet during his rule, he didn't "bring stability" the empire had already long stabilized under Aurelian... but it can be argued he was just mopping up after he and the rest of his cohorts needlessly killed Gallienus and was lucky that he came in as the actual competent leaders of the breakaway areas were dead and replaced by halfwits.

I also don't believe for a second that Carus died in a freak lightning strike and Numerian died because, uh, he just did. Diocletian obviously was playing the long game, had them killed, then spread propaganda about Carinus after paying off Carinus' prefect to switch sides and kill him. I'm glad that overrated old fuck lived long enough to see his entire system collapse.

>>17980060
>Diocletian is praised so much: his system didn't work
Nearly all of the reforms of Diocletian lasted centuries. His failure was the Tetrarchy. Nearly everything else that he did was successful. He fundamentally changed the way the Roman Empire was ruled, completely changing the administration, laws and military. He was the first emperor in nearly a century to provide a long and successful reign where Romans were victorious on all fronts. Aurelian was not a reformer, he didn't solve any of the issues actually befalling the state other than the two civil wars, the empire was still plagued by a failing administration, tax system and invading peoples when he died.

>>17974251 (OP)
funny how this name Flavius became so popular after Rome became Christian

>>17974492
>Roman Italy really only ended in the 8th century, when the Lombards (who never submitted to the Emperor) destroyed the exarchate and when the Donation of Pepin happened.
Yes, this is a good point, however I also lend credence to Eduardo Fabbro's view of the Lombards being a Byzantine breakaway army that basically did a mutiny because Narses was dismissed, I like this because it explains a lot of things, like how little resistance the Byzantines were able to respond to it. (pic rel)

>>17979932
>create some scenario where the Germanic kingdoms were actually still Rome
There isn't really a scenario you have to create, there was no "western court" anymore, but no matter what view you take on how much Roman continuity there was, even detractors call them successor states. Clovis' Latin-Germanic Merovingian Kingdom (the spring bed of which Medieval civilisation would grow) was only possible due to him working hand in hand with the Gallo-Roman elite, Childeric I. his father had already been a Roman general.

>>17976722
Perhaps was irrelevant for Roman judges, but foederati took it seriously, you even have Cerdic of Wessex considered himself Roman and a 'Restitutor' of the Roman Order in Britannia.

>>17976952
>>17976996
Correct, if you read thr history of Ancient Egypt, Persia, China, etc. Despite all the foreign invasions and dynasties they had, their civilizations stayed alive.
>Persian dynasty in Egypt
>Egypt as civilization and ethnic ethos still alive

>Macedonian dynasty in Persia
>Persia as civilization and ethnic ethos still alive

>Mongol and Jurchen dynasty in China (Yuan; Qing)
>China as civilization and ethnic ethos still alive

>Roman citizen of germanic ancestry, Flavius Odoacer, became dux (not rex) of Italia
>"Roman civilization and ethos is joever" - modern historians

It's all so tiredsome.

>>17979940
I recommend you to read the letters of "Byzantine" historians and diplomats about the Franks. Even if it was just larping, both "Byzantines" (eastern Romans) and Franks (western "neo-Romans") considered it important.

Again, Clovis only could get the support to conquer and defeat the goths (also "neo-Romans") because Anastasius I Dicorus granted him the titles of patricius and Consul per Gallia.

Franks considered themselves cousins of the Romans because Troy,
>Romans -> Aeneas
>Franks -> Francus
This is why Charlemagne considered himself the true Augustus and why Franks during the Crusades in Constatinople saw themselves restorers of the Romanitas that was corrupted by the "Greeks".

>>17980905
>Again, Clovis only could get the support to conquer and defeat the goths (also "neo-Romans") because Anastasius I Dicorus granted him the titles of patricius and Consul per Gallia.
Clovis' power base was dependent on his own people. The only Roman people with an independent power base were the Northern Gauls under Syagrius and he was defeated in a pitched battle. When it came to winning Gaul, the Romans weren't relevant. They in fact served as his first obstacle and the war with the Visigoths was conducted through his Frankish armies winning victories against the Visigoths.
>Franks considered themselves cousins of the Romans because Troy,
>Romans -> Aeneas
>Franks -> Francus
This rhetoric only emerges after Charlemagne.
>and why Franks during the Crusades in Constatinople saw themselves restorers of the Romanitas that was corrupted by the "Greeks".
The Crusaders do not say anything like that. Their issue was with them being Greek, simply parroting older Roman stereotypes and how they were schismatics. Never once does anything about Romanitas come up.

>>17974251 (OP)
>The entire story of the Fall of Rome is fake
More than fake, it should be read in a similar optic as the yuan and qing dynasties.
The only real difference was that unlike it happened in China, in the west the barbs failed to keep the empire united, and even the closest attempt (the HRE) was VERY far off.

>>17980936
>>17980905
You're both wrong, Clovis powerbase wasn't established either by the sanction of East Rome(though this may been more than just an honorary title as people like to claim) or "his own people", he took over an existing Roman bureaucracy filled with Gallo-Roman clergyman and bishop and was DEPENDENT on their corporation.

>>17981127
>he took over an existing Roman bureaucracy filled with Gallo-Roman clergyman and bishop and was DEPENDENT on their corporation.
The clergy were barred from Roman administration, and the system of government had dissolved decades before Clovis showed up, authority and administration was local and ad hoc lead by local elites and the given bishop of the community. He relied on them for cooperation to rule the lands, but not to take it. Nor would the Franks be happy to leave this state of affairs as is, they implemented a new administration which was really just another layer between these locals and the king with a count being appointed to manage their affairs. And to begin with he never would have gotten to rule over these communities without the force of arms which the Frankish tribes gave him, otherwise you would still have an independent Roman ruled state in Northern Gaul and a massive Visigothic presence in the rest of Gaul.

>>17981146
The point was that Clovis' legitimacy and acceptance was sanctioned from the Gallo-Roman clergy due to his conversion to Catholicism, the Roman bureaucracy didn't "dissolve" either and was occupied by the families of Gallo-Roman senators, the Franks didn't abolish any previous institutions but instead co-opted them, even if they had shrunk because it wasn't linked to the entire world anymore.

>>17981169
>the Roman bureaucracy didn't "dissolve" either
It did. The Roman administration simply did not operate without the central state to make it work. All that you are left with without it is local governance. The state was unable to fill in positions for the courts of general administration since the early 460's as they no longer controlled the region.
>and was occupied by the families of Gallo-Roman senators
Senators were defined by their state positions, from what we do know like with Sidonius, as the state receded these men kept to their local communities as there was no point filling the roles they used to as they were expensive to do and without the state they weren't paid for it. Without the state to pay for these positions and manage them there was simply no point in continuing them.
>The Franks didn't abolish any previous institutions
This is largely because they already dissolved before they showed up. The Roman court system and non-local administration just didn't exist anymore and it wouldn't return. It was extremely expensive to run in the first place and they weren't willing to pay to reconstruct it. The Praetorian Prefecture of Gaul for example dissolved after the Visigothic conquest of Roman Gaul and would only have a short return with Theodoric who had the Roman administration still intact in Italy and could easily expand it with a large central state and willing class which a still existing tradition of state service.

>>17974613
>Alaric
He saw himself as German.
>Attila
He was proud of his steppe identity.

>>17981184
>The Roman court system and non-local administration
Gallo-Romans continued living under Roman law and court systems, the tax system partly survived, members of the senatorial families became advisors or servants to Frankish kings, there was even projects to rebuild infrastructure on a non-local scale i.e when Gregory of Tours talks about Childebert I believe, restoring an amphitheatre.