What was the life and culture like, in Italy and the city of Rome of the 5th-6th centuries? During the WRE, ostrogothic occupation and Byzantine rule. How severely different it was comparing to the old Republican and Principate times?It's both funny and sad noticing classic long Roman names in Italy of that era. 5-6 century senators' and consuls' names sounds superclassic. Much more Roman than that of any general imperial elites of the 3rd century Crisis and further. I understand that it's because of the mostly provisional nature of the Crisis and Dominate ruling powers. Romanized provincial aristocracy began to play the key political roles while the Italics themselves were left somewhere on the background. But do they changed along with the whole Empire? Or mostly retained their Latino-Tuscan culture? Their customs, lifestyle, fashion, cuisine and so on...
>>17278864>During the WRE, ostrogothic occupation and Byzantine rule. How severely different it was comparing to the old Republican and Principate times?Later Roman rule is very different just because of the many new things introduced during Diocletians and later Constantine's rule. Life and culture was pretty different from the Republic considering that the region was no long a mass militarised region where nearly every man between the ages of 18-30 was conscripted.>Romanized provincial aristocracy began to play the key political roles while the Italics themselves were left somewhere on the background.Italians would always play a leading role in the Senate, they would still make up a majority of the Senate in the 4-5th centuries followed only by Southern Gaul. >But do they changed along with the whole Empire? Or mostly retained their Latino-Tuscan culture? Their customs, lifestyle, fashion, cuisine and so on...It's rather the other way around, what developed in Italy was projected outwards
>>17279809>Senate in the 4-5thAnd the 6th as well. Yet, the Roman senate of that time is just a city council. Same as the one in Constantinople.
>>17279871>Yet, the Roman senate of that time is just a city council. Same as the one in Constantinople.The Roman and Constantinople Senate were completely different in nature. Roman Senators were effectively the main source of men in administration, government and the at times the military. They went far beyond the city. The Senate in Constantinople went the other way around where administrators and military men where given the rank of Senator. The Constantinople Senate did not act as a city council while the Roman one did in part.
>>17279880Were they? I remember almost every magister and commander of the late 4th century I was reading about was either some illiterate provincial (like emperor Valentinian) or even worse - have a germanic name.
>>17278864Compared to how many times Germans were raped and conquered, Italians are a purebred master race. Also Italians technically won WW1, while Germany has never won a single war, despite starting many.
>>17279925>I remember almost every magister and commander of the late 4th century I was reading about was either some illiterate provincial (like emperor Valentinian) or even worse - have a germanic name.Either you're being selective or not looking very hard. Every position of administration was filled in with men who came to Rome and either were already from or worked their way up into the Senate. Even the military elite or the 5th century was dominated by Romans of high standing from Aetius to Marcellinus let alone the administration.
>>17279960>Aetius to MarcellinusBoth were provincials.>Who came to Rome Exactly! And that's the case. Moving to Italy doesn't make you an Italic. It's almost always ambitious provincials who come to the foreground. Fun fact - there are much more true Roman names amongst the consuls and senators during the ostrogothic occupation, than it was during the late 4th century and 5th century. It's because Italy got isolated and left on its own, without provincials (but with germanic invaders).
>>17280026>Both were provincials.Aetius was not. His father might of been but he lived most of his life in the centre of power. Marcellinus was from a 'noble' family so was highly regarded, we don't know where he came from but he was from the West and known as a Patrician by title.>there are much more true Roman names amongst the consuls and senators during the ostrogothic occupationAll the names previously mentioned are also Roman. There is no such thing as a 'true Roman name'.
>>17280040You don't get what I am talking about. Look, this is the late 4th century consuls. Almost entirely simple one-word names, or complex names but constructed from titles like 'Flavius' or 'Augustus'. This indicates in them romanized provincials.
>>17280040>>17280054And now - look at the western consuls after the fall of WRE. You can witness a miracle - traditional complex Roman names and surnames, just like in the republican times. Something, we haven't seen since the Crisis. Italics weren't extinct by 4th-5th-6th centuries. They were just overshadowed. And I'm asking specifically about that people - true Italian CORE Romans. Their names seem classic, but what those people were like. Were their culture still the same, albeit christian? Were they still that literate noble people, and so on.
>>17280054You are confusing have a long name with being from Italy. We just don't refer to them in most cases. For example Decimius Magnus Ausonius (who is actually consul in 379) or how we refer to him, Ausonius or his grandson Paulinus of Pella, whose full name we do not know because we only know his clan, Magnus and his personal name Paulinus and even at the time he was just called Paulinus of Pella. They are from Gaul. This is common with all Roman names regardless of where they are from, it's common in Gaul, Spain, Africa and Illyria. You cannot actually identify if somebody is from Italy by their name unless it is a known name like the clan Symmachi which is one of the oldest clans in Late Antiquity and they only emerged in the 3rd century. >>17280067>Italics weren't extinct by 4th-5th-6th centuries. They were just overshadowed.Italians were not overshadowed at all. They were the majority of people in offices in all times during the Empire. Using consulships isn't a very good measure since as an actual office it was only ceremonial and given as an award for a good life of service. The various Comes are what are notable >Their names seem classicIf you're trying to equate their names with those of the Republic you'd be dead wrong considering most of these clans emerged in Late Antiquity and their personal names did too.>Were their culture still the same, albeit christian? Were they still that literate noble people, and so on.Roman rhetoric culture didn't really change since the Late Republic in any serious manner, which was followed by most aristocrats in the Empire by this time. Obviously they are not the same as Republican Romans, these families weren't even notable until the 3rd century at the earliest.
>>17280106>as an award for a good life of serviceWasn't it 'patricius'?
>>17280054>Nigrinianus
>>17280119It's similar but Patrician is a lifelong title which is a bit more exclusive. In the Roman West it was basically for the top military commanders and administrators only like the Praetorian Prefect, Comes of Illyria, Africa and the Magister Militum.
>>17278864It was fine until brown Byzantines chimped out
>>17280167Thank you so much for your responses. Very interesting and informative.
>>17280176Italy really was left desolated after the Justinian's reconquista. But to be fair, it was the ostrogothic pests who did all the damage, not wanting to give up the occupied land and frankly terrorising the locals. Later, there were another germanic savages, langobards, who prevented the recovery process. Literally germs of Europe.
>>17280188Who could have known that the ostrogoths would fight back?Also Justinian sent an army too weak to successfully occupy all of Italy. It was entirely his fault that Italy was left a shithole, since Italy was fine under Ostrogothic rule
>>17280216>was fineNot really. It just wasn't desolated by barbarian war crimes and plague.
>>17280216If it was fine, why then there was no resistance from the Italians to Byzantine forces? On the contrary, they actively aided the Byzantines, helping them to eradicate the gothic yoke.Lemme guess - because they were the ungrateful brownoids, unable to appreciate the far more primitive people helding them in captivity?
>>17278864I imagine it felt empty and somewhat spooky living in a city that was built to house over a million people when there was only like 20k left
>>17279933>germoids call meds moorish rapebabies>meds call germoids mongol rapebabiesWho the fuck cares? You are both rapebabies, and you both live in Europe, the most raped continent on the planet.
>>17280250Heraclius experienced similar feeling when visited Rome...
>>17280238was there resistance from Romans when the Ostrogoths took control?It's just that Romans had become total cucks that wouldn't take up arms for anything
>>17280267The haven't aided to barbarians, THOUGH, unlike the Byzantines.
>>17280275some did, some didn't same with the Byzantines
>>17280267Odoacer deposed a literal child. It was literally like taking candy from a baby. People didn't care much about it at the time because he maintaining Roman political institutions and cooperated with his masters from Constantinople. Goths only became nigger-tier after Theodoric murdered him. They started to face more opposition from the local population. Then based Justinian annihilated them.
>>17280417kek, there were 200k Goths in Italy at maximum
>>17280408>source - my ass
>>17280455cope brownoid
>>17280461Not an answer. /pol/-turd fantasy confirmed.
>>17280417Italy itself didn't even have a population of 15 million people lmao who the fuck believes Procopius on this
>>17280492>denial
>>17280424I think the likely number is more like 50,000 or less.
Aeternal Annonarian-Suburbicarian rivalry
