how did the roman/visigoth split work? was it a caste system of sorts, or?
>>16534609Different legal system, no Romans in state functionaries, which was normal in all the post Roman West other than Ostrogothic Italy. The highest a Roman could reach in the Visigothic Kingdom was as an important Bishop since that was dictated by church election and not Royal appointment (that is, if the King didn't elect his own man first)
>>16534657This, people often gloss over the fact that under Odoacer and then the Ostrogoths, that Italy was still by and large incredibly Roman ruled. It wasnt till the Byzantines invaded that the ember of Rome in the west was finally snubbed out in favor of Greek despotism
>>16534657is it true visigoths were "loyal" to rome so to say?
>>16535039Politically loyal to Rome? Not really, the Visigoths were opportunists, during the turmoil when trying to impose Valentinian III on the throne and there was no real army to impede them the Visigoths attempted to take settlements in southern Gaul until they were stopped by the new Magister of Gaul, Aetius. After 450 they would effectively be at war with Rome at all times.
>>16534657Hey, Romans did get state positions. Not very often but you do still see them around once in a blue moon.It's kind of sad no one has ever bothered to make a comprehensive study of Post-Roman Latins in western europe.It would be a very interesting subject to read into. At best you get narrow looks into one region in one century. (Say: Gaul 500 AD)
>>16534609Originally, the Goths had a different faith and a different law completely separate from the Romans.>was it a caste system of sorts, or?Not really, it was more a difference in expertise. Romans usually became churchmen, administrators; the Goths, being on top, had military and political power and cnetered in that. Don't interpret this as being a strict division, nor being a sign of total Gothic domination, because for most of the 6th century the Visigoths were fighting eachother, letting local elites run their own little fiefdoms. In fact, I'd argue that the Ostrogothic state was at its most stable when it was the least gothic, after the legal differences were abolished and the treligious difference had vanished. The late Goths were imitating everything the Byzantines did. It was actually kind of funny.
>>16534609They were incorporated in the system of Roman politics. Amalaric, King of Visigoths, was a proconsul to Rome.
>>16535326>Amalaric, King of Visigoths, was a proconsul to Rome.proof though
>>16535364History of Monetary Systems, p. 60
>>16535381I was asking for an actual source related to the topic. Like you know, a primary source which says so.
>>16535388No you asked for proof which you were given, you are now moving the goalposts.
>>16535409Secondary 'sources' are not above scrutiny. Let alone since they don't even source anything. You've more or less just shifted the responsibility of proving the point to somebody who hasn't proved the point. Simply stating so regardless of who does it does not make it true.
>>16534869>Greek despotismNigger the Roman Empire was ruled the way the Byzantine was“Greek despotism” is a fantasy in the minds of feudal franks who had no bureaucracy.
>>16535415You didn’t scrutinize it though, you just rejected it out of hand.
>>16535421Justinian set the new trend of being called the same exact titles of Greek kings of old and copied the diadochi-Persian practice of Proskynesis. Cope however you like but after the plague wiped the old Roman ruling class of Constantinople, it became a Greek despotate closer to say the Seleucid empire of old than the Roman Empire >>16535427
>>16535421Justinian set the new trend of being called the same exact titles of Greek kings of old and copied the diadochi-Persian practice of Proskynesis. Cope however you like but after the plague wiped the old Roman ruling class of Constantinople, it became a Greek despotate closer to say the Seleucid empire of old than the Roman Empire
>>16535427It doesn't provide a citation for the claim, therefore there is no reason to believe it. I have found no record of such a thing anywhere else, it's not mentioned by the chroniclers. Gregory of Tours says that Clovis was made a Consul in 2.38 (which is not a Proconsul, and should never be equated as such), but I have yet to find anything about Amalaric being called Consul let alone Proconsul. Not to mention the first claim of being integrated into Roman politics due to this, is just wrong. This is recognition of the other but does not mean that they were somehow in the same political community. Attila was made a Magister Militum with the pension which came with it but it conferred no actual position within the Roman state
>>16535446>Justinian set the new trend of being called the same exact titles of Greek kings of oldHeraclius did this and it would be a co-title for centuries after>and copied the diadochi-Persian practice of ProskynesisDiocletian did that 250 years before>it became a Greek despotate closer to say the Seleucid empire of old than the Roman EmpireCan you actually state how it was any different? Can you say in definite terms, without buzzwords how the administration, military, ceremony and culture was different from say 50 years beforehand?
>>16535415Did you move the goalposts?
>>16535458>NOOO some other Greek emperor made the empire more greek! But it was Roman n sheeetSounds like some massive cope to me, its some massive tranny logic to have your entire argument hinge only on the fact that they still used some terms of the old empire to mean that it was still Roman despite using Greek as their main language and adopting archaic eastern despot practices
>>16535474Diocletian was Illyrian and outright rejected the use of Greek in government Not to mention you have yet to actually describe in any way how the state was actually different in any substantial or meaningful way
>>16535477The burden of proof is on you, nobody in non Greek modern nor contemporary academia refer to the Byzantine Greeks as Romans.
>>16535485>Make claim>Don't prove it>Ask other people to prove a claim you haven't proved wrong
>>16534609In all Germanic kingdoms it was the same. Everyone has their tribal laws, so when the Visigoths took over the Suebian kingdom the Suebes continued to be ruled by their own laws. What was important was that when the laws interacted with each other - simplest example, a Visigoth kills a Roman - the law of the sovereign ruled on the case. I'm not sure about visigothic laws but I know that Longobard and Frank law generally saw their own people as privileged, that is the weregild of a Frank would've been 2-3 times higher of that of a Roman and weregild was often used to calculate penalties for infractions other than homicide.
>>16535485Anthony Kaldellis got his PhD in Michigan and is a professors at the University of Chicago.
>>16535448Justinian did not do any of that, and the Byzantine administration was never similar to that of the Seleucids. They ruled very much in-line with the Late Roman Empire, appointing Judges to manage civil affairs in provinces according to Roman law, with Strategoi/Magister Militums managing military affairs. The government was one of appointed magistrates and bureaucrats just like the late empire, it was always seen as a unitary state which is why so many revolts happened, legitimacy was republican/populist in nature rather than based on blood. The military focused on professional formations outlined in official military manuscripts, and even during the theme system there was a massive professional corps called the Tagmata, whose units could date all the way back to Constantine in some cases.
>>16535807>Anthony KaldellisI also listen to the History of Byzantium podcast with Robin Pierson.
>>16534609rome was a fake empire made of nazi spies and pillage rapists
