Attitudes Of The

[backfire22]

A very curious subject that I always have had much interest in was the attitude of foreign states of the Western Roman Empire following the abdication of Romulus and the conquest of Italy by Odoacer. Imagine an institution that has been around for centuries and then within a very short span of time it simply ceases to exist. How would a foreign polity react to that and what was the general political climate following the "collapse" of the Western Roman Empire.

 

From what I have always understood was that the barbarian conquerors (Visigoths, Franks, etc.) never really considered the Roman Empire in Europe to have "collapsed" at all that it was still in existance in some form.

 

I'm certain there has to be some historical account of this type information but let us DISCUSS

[Primus Pilus]

We must realize, while to us it may seem an instant collapse with a defined moment where it all came to an end, to the people of the time the fall of Rome was a gradual process where changes in climate and attitude were identifiable. The Romans themselves had not been in true power for a considerable time, and the various regional powers were well aware of who was. They did not view the 'Empire' in collapse as we do, but they did understand that its power and function was considerably different than it may have been 200 year prior.

 

As states in the west did not exist as we understand them in the modern context, there wasn't necessarily a uniform policy regarding diplomacy. Some tribes were certainly allied with Odoacer and the Vandals while others were not. Those who were friendly with the church certainly had a different attitude than those who weren't, etc.

 

In the east, the collapse of the west was buffered by the continuance of the 'Byzantines'. Relations continued with the eastern emperor along the same lines they likely always did. Certainly the Roman position was weaker without 'Rome', but eastern kingdoms knew that the eastern emperor was the continuance of Roman power and had probably long dismissed the governing power of Rome the city (and Ravenna) amidst the turmoil.

 

I am not suggesting that Odoacer was ignored by other powers at all, only that he was dealt with for who he was and not viewed as some strange new and unknown entity in the western picture.

 

(I mumbled this out rather quickly at the office, I hope it makes some sense)

[Tobias]

The Eastern Roman Empire under Emperor Zeno (before and after he regained the throne from Basiliscus) was sent the imperial regalia by Odovacer, himself saying that one Emperor was enough for the world. I believe Odovacer created a state that was still part of the Roman Empire, or at least strongly linked to it.

If you want an account of the fall and politics of the time, i recommend "The Last Legion" by Valerio Massimo Manfredi. I know that the plot of Romulus Augustus being rescued and taken elsewhere is fictitious, but the book gives an accurate idea of the times, and the attitudes of the people.

[Onasander]

The barbarian kings saw themselves as servants to the emperor, but were soverign over thier own tribe occupying the territory of Rome. It was the dawn of the Feudal Age in the west, ushered in by the Eastern Emperors who had no real authority over the kings in the west.... kinda like in Ancient China. They just got lucky that the barbarians in the west liked the old ways enough to propose a continuation of it De Jure, though the Byzantines wern't exactly in a position till Belisarius to make it De Facto.

 

Odoacer's kingdom was recognized by Odoacer as still part of the roman empire, just as the Kurds in Iraq throughout the 1990's were part of Iraq, except Odoacer knew how to pay better lipservice to the emperor than they did to Hussein.

 

There are a few old German AoW books from the 6th century a few years back I was trying to track down translations of, but over the last six years I lost the latin titles to them (at least it looked latin to me, I was sixteen at the time). I don't know if they deal exclusively with the Art of War, Statecraft, or just History of the state, but I know they exsist. I have long lost the titles though. They would definately be of intrest.

 

Also, the Saline Laws (Frankish Laws) used to be one the internet(might still be), it talked about Roman/ Frankish penal code in it. I don't remember any mentions in the Visigoth Code, but then again, I never finsihed reading it.

[Onasander]

The Visigoth Code

http://libro.uca.edu/vcode/visigoths.htm

 

 

Roman and Germanic attempts at codification

 

The most influential code of law in history was promulgated by Justinian. However, there were a number of important Roman and Germanic precursors. In 438 AD the Theodosian Code was promulgated.

 

The code was a compilation of Roman constitutional and public law, particularly edicts prepared by the Emperor and his public lawyers. Of particular interest within this code is the formulation of laws giving effect to the establishment of representative government in the provinces and the collation of a large amount of public trust law (the law restraining abuses of public office). Some of these laws are expressed in fairly forthright language. One edict from 331 AD begins: Lay off straightway ye rapacious hands of bureaucrats, lay off I say.

 

Other laws included in the Theodosian Code require the notification of corrupt behaviour, mandatory attendance of officials at local government meetings, the honest administration of justice and the seizure of deserters.

 

The Theodosian Code was supplemented until 472 by updated Novellae (literally, the New Constitutions). This approach was based on the success of the juristic commentators of the 2nd century in their commentaries on Roman private law.

 

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire centred on Rome, the first Germanic Kings embraced the code approach to law. In Gaul, the Visigoth King Euric sponsored a codification of Germanic customary law in the late 5th century. In 506 AD his successor, King Alric II, published a code of law called the Lex Romana Visigothorum (the Breviary of Alaric) which applied to his Roman citizens in 506.

 

At about the same time in Italy, the Ostrogothic King Theodoric published by Edict a code of general application to all his citizens both Roman and German. This short period of calm before onset of the Dark Ages was later referred to as a Golden Age. However, Theodoric died and his policies were fragmented by religious intrigue, the Western Empire collapsed into the chaos of the Dark Ages.

 

 

Ooops, sorry, it wasn't the Saline laws, it was Salic, my memory was wrong on that. Here's the link, it's a short read, unlike the massive, boring Visigoth code:

 

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/salic.htm

 

 

A little something for me to read once I get back home next month (I'm stuck in Fairbanks Alaska for a month, please don't delete this link till then, I found this really interesting(http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/econ/econ.htm)

[Tobias]

That link on Salic laws is fascinating. It really does show the times doesn't it?

Just one question regarding Odovacer's state: Did it have an official currency of it's own, or did it use something else, or a combination of foreign coins?

[Ursus]

From what I have always understood was that the barbarian conquerors (Visigoths, Franks, etc.) never really considered the Roman Empire in Europe to have "collapsed" at all that it was still in existance in some form.

 

 

The Roman Empire had been making increasing use of allied Germanic troops for some time. The Romans couldn't stop the massive immigrations, but they could put a vaneer of Romanization on some of the tribes and use them as buffers against other tribes. These Germanics were therefore used to thinking of themselves as belonging to Roman realm in some fashion .... they did take up some measure of Roman law and government.

 

In fact, most of the Germanic tribes had not come to destroy the Roman way of life, but merely seize the riches of Roman civilization for themselves. We are told by some sources that when some of the Germanic tribes took over, they could be found dressed in togas and living in country villas like the Roman governors before them. Clearly they accepted those aspects of Roman civilization they found comfortable. All they had to do was live in the shadow of the still functioning Roman government in the East, the part of the Roman empire still too rich and defensible for them to carve up completely.

 

 

Of course, the Roman influence on these tribes was strongest on the continent and in heavily Romanized provinces. In Britain, the far flung outpost of the empire, most traces of Romanatis soon collapsed under the onslaught of the Anglo-Saxons.

[DecimusCaesar]

According to the Oxford History of Medieval Europe, Some areas of the former Western Roman Empire changed while others did not.

For Instance the running down of public life in Noricum (Western Austria) was quick in the face of German pressure, because after the Germans cut off supplies and payments the area was abandoned.

Italy, being the home of the Western Empire did not see much drastic changes in the years following the abdication of Augustulus in 476, for instance the old Roman senatorial system with its Consuls, Aediles etc survived according to some sources up until AD 534.

 

It was therefore a matter of where you lived within the Former Western Empire, as some areas declined faster than others, although many things such as Civic life or Roman fashion might survive in Italy they would have declined much faster in places such as Britain (although Rome had already cut off political links with Britannia in 410) so it probably depended on where you lived.

[DanM]

The germanic kingdoms set up in the west after the fall of the Western Roman Empire did not follow a uniform policy with respect to their attitude towards the Empire. Each one was driven by the political realities it faced and by the temperment of its leaders.

 

Italy, Spain and Illyria were controlled by the two branches of the Goths (Visigoths and Ostrogoths). These rulers made a big show of their deference to the Roman Empire in the east. I believe they usually styled themselves as viceroys of some form or another. The main reason for this policy can be debated, but I think its based in the fact that there were very few Goths and very many Romans.

 

Most estimates I have read show that the Gothic nation was in the range of 300-400 thousand when it occupied Italy and that includes women and children. When you compare that with the several million "Romans" in Italy, you can easily see that the Goths had to make accomodations. This theory is further supported by the fact that the Roman Senate survived for a long period after the fall of the Empire and that Gothic leaders made a big show of consulting the Senate even when it had no practical power.

 

Also, there is the matter of how the new Germanic immigrants were given lands. Each landowner, by law, was required to give up 1/3 of his estates to the new Germanic overlords, but he was allowed to keep 2/3 for himself. As such, the senatorial and decurial leaders were co-opted into the new order. And its worth mentioning that Roman administration continued in much the same form during the Gothic period in Italy.

 

In Burdundy, the information sources are not as plentiful, but it is likely that a similar land sharing deal was struck, religous toleration was practiced and Roman administrative practices in the government continued. As a result, its safe to say the Burgundian overlords faced similar demographic challenges in their new kingdoms.

 

Very few records are present about the early Frankish kingdom. It is believed, however, that some Romans held on to their property for a time and some Roman administration survived for a time even if it was less of a survival than in sourthern Gaul, Italy and elsewhere. Since the ratio of Germans to Romans was probably not as severe as in the south, its likely that showing any respect for the old order wasn't as important.

 

The Vandals were different. They persecuted the native Roman citizens who did not follow the Arian brand of Christianity as they did. They siezed land in a more agressive and erratic manner, although some of the wealthy Roman landowners did survive. And they gave no lip service to the Roman Emperors in Constantinople. In fact, they would tell them off whenever it suited them to do so.

 

I hope this helps. There are a lot of good books on this subject, but unfortunately most of them are not in English. Many of the books that address these subjects are written either in German or French. AHM Jones is a great writter of books in English on this subject if you are interested in learning more for yourself.

[Imperator Marzullius]

The Visigoth Code

http://libro.uca.edu/vcode/visigoths.htm

 

Where's 'The Roman Code'?