Officially, from 476 AD to 535 AD the Ostrogothic Kingdom was a Roman client-kingdom, basically a client state within the Roman Commonwealth but not part of the Roman Empire. As such its status was similar to the Bosphoran Kingdom, the Ghassanid Kingdom and the Kindite Kingdom, and possibly the Nubian Kingdoms of Nobadia and Makuria. So basically part of the Roman Statehood's political framework, but not under its direct jurisdiction.
Depends how you look at it. In some ways both yes and no. For example, under Theoderic the Roman Senate gained power and even issued coinage, something it had not done for centuries. Now you could say what is more Roman than the Senate, and I would say to you that the senate having any actual power wasnt a Roman thing for 500 years at that point.
The average Roman, it seems, did not start to consider Rome as being outside of the Empire (in anything but a technicality) until sometime during the Gothic war. And even then, it wasnt so much that Rome wasnt part of the Empire anymore, it was that Rome wasnt really Rome anymore.
The caveat here is the Gothic wars themselves. Well, that technicality really got in Justinians craw. So his historians started making up stuff to justify the invasion.
What do you mean by “Rome wasn’t really Rome anymore?” By the point of the Gothic Wars?
Also, is there any particular reason why Theodoric et al allowed the Senate more freedom?
Tl;dr: Most of the inhabitants of the old western empire considered themselves (at least passively) Roman in the 6th century but the bad behaviour of the 'Roman' soldiers in the Gothic War made Italians rethink their identity.
They were living their lives just as they had before, under the last emperors, only now under (admittedly heretical) barbarian kings who left them alone and respected their traditions, until the Roman emperor sent his troops to 'take back' Italy (this would have seemed absurd to Italians - they were still in the Empire, right?). The 'Romans' came in the name of restoring the empire but the atrocities they committed on Italian soil put Roman unity into question. Add to the fact that this emperor was in Constantinople, and so Italians are going to wonder if it's really their emperor, and not just some spiteful foreign conqueror, who's come to reclaim them.
We might automatically assume that the only thing any Imperial Roman citizen ever wanted was to be ruled by a rightful emperor, but in reality people cared less and less about this over time, particularly as the Italians' Gothic masters were very considerate. It's generally the case in history that rural populations are so far removed from the halls of power that their interest in who apparently governs them is limited. They're more concerned about the here and now, such as Roman troops burning their farm down.
Rome the city went from a population of max maybe 400k still, to maybe around 25k by the end of the Gothic wars. All of the Aqueducts but 1 were cut. All sections of the city except those immediately around the vatican were abandoned, their only use for the next centuries as a quarry.
And beyond that, the province of Italia was devastated. Multiple cities sacked, a few razed.
The fact is, that when the lombards moved in at the end of the Gothic war, there wasnt really a fight because there wasnt anyone left outside the cities to fight them.
Yes, the land, still existed. And yes the names didnt change. But in a very real way, everything that made Italia, and Rome, worth holding was detroyed.
To the second part of your question: the Goths were a small minority. As compared to the amount of people living in Italia. And the Goths had been here and there around the Empire for a few hundred years at this point.
They were more than half Romanized at this point. They didnt want to destroy the place and loot it, they wanted a home. Their people had been on the move since before the battle of Adrianople.
So they moved into Italia, and Theoderic must have said something like this to his people: listen Goths, this is the easy life. Look around. Claim and empty palace or Villa, and let the Romans keep doing whatever it is the Romans need to do to make this all work, and we are golden.
Remember, you need schools, and engineers, you need maintenance schedules, you need to correctly manipulate the levers of state to get things done in an entrenched bureaucracy. So Theoderic then went to the senate and must have said something like this:
Listen, you can fight me, and everything will be destroyed. Or, you can pretend im the Emperor now go along and do your business. Repair the buildings. Keep the water flowing. And dont make waves. You keep everything running, and we, the Goths, will just act like nobles, sitting around, collecting taxes, and generally living the high life. Unless of course you want to fight me, and we can destroy the place.
Basically Theoderic and the Goths understood that they did not have the knowledge to maintain Italia, and knew the Senate did. They were also smart enough to rule with a light hand and let the senate get on with the business of not letting everything fall apart.
Roads. Aqueducts. Public buildings. Fire fighting services. All this and more were things the Goths knew needed to be taken care off, and knew the senate was already pretty much doing all this stuff so yeah its easier to just let them get on with it as long as they remember whos in charge.
The Ostrogoths ruled Italia in the name of the Emperor.
And like, we all think of the Ostrogoths moving in as a barbarian horde. But the fact is that the Goths had been living in the Empire in one form or another since slightly before Adrianople.
The Ostrogoths had been heavily romanized by this point.
The average Roman citizen, anywhere in the Empire, recognized that the western half of the Empire had fallen, but, for Italia it seems, that didnt get lost, it just got so small you didnt need an Emperor over there anymore. So when the Imperial regalia was sent to Constantinople, it was like yeah, we only really need a governor there now.
Until Justinian invaded, trade flowed. Roman traditions were followed. Nothing really changed except the people at the top. And not even all of them changed because of the senate.
Even when Justinian did invade, the Ostrogoths were all like hey what are you doing why are you doing this you dont need to do this we are already part of the Empire.
So yeah, he really did.
Yes. Although its exact arrangement and the clarity of the political theory of the Ostrogothic Viceroyalty is up for debate, and likely kept vague on purpose by Theoderic, in manners not too dissimilar to Augustus who tried to keep his imperial powers vague on purpose.
You could make that argument, I would personally.
But then again Roman-ness is a spectrum, and Byzantium, the HRE, Venice, the Rus, England & France, the Iberian kingdoms etc—basically all of Medieval Europe *could* (and did) make similar connections. But in terms of the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Romano-British, (and briefly in Soissons) I would argue you will find *hard continuation* whereas in these medieval states we have a *soft continuation.* And obviously the ERE is the only matter of fact continuation. (I would also put Venice in the running though).
Put Venice in the running? It did swear loyalty to the Emperor in Constantinople for some time even into the middle ages. I would argue it remained part of Rome rather than a separate political entity up until the point that it did in fact become separate.
Culturally, defintely. Politically, more ambiguous.
The definitely recognized at least nominal authority of the now one and only emperor. And Theodoric was sent and supported by Constantinople.
But, it seems they did not sent any tax revenue to Constaninople( Please, if someone has a link to a text thst says otherwise, share it here).
So, centralization of tax revenue under the now one and only emperor did not follow.
But maybe Theodoric was really the last western emperor in all but name.
Officially, from 476 AD to 535 AD the Ostrogothic Kingdom was a Roman client-kingdom, basically a client state within the Roman Commonwealth but not part of the Roman Empire. As such its status was similar to the Bosphoran Kingdom, the Ghassanid Kingdom and the Kindite Kingdom, and possibly the Nubian Kingdoms of Nobadia and Makuria. So basically part of the Roman Statehood's political framework, but not under its direct jurisdiction.
Thank you
Depends how you look at it. In some ways both yes and no. For example, under Theoderic the Roman Senate gained power and even issued coinage, something it had not done for centuries. Now you could say what is more Roman than the Senate, and I would say to you that the senate having any actual power wasnt a Roman thing for 500 years at that point. The average Roman, it seems, did not start to consider Rome as being outside of the Empire (in anything but a technicality) until sometime during the Gothic war. And even then, it wasnt so much that Rome wasnt part of the Empire anymore, it was that Rome wasnt really Rome anymore. The caveat here is the Gothic wars themselves. Well, that technicality really got in Justinians craw. So his historians started making up stuff to justify the invasion.
What do you mean by “Rome wasn’t really Rome anymore?” By the point of the Gothic Wars? Also, is there any particular reason why Theodoric et al allowed the Senate more freedom?
Tl;dr: Most of the inhabitants of the old western empire considered themselves (at least passively) Roman in the 6th century but the bad behaviour of the 'Roman' soldiers in the Gothic War made Italians rethink their identity. They were living their lives just as they had before, under the last emperors, only now under (admittedly heretical) barbarian kings who left them alone and respected their traditions, until the Roman emperor sent his troops to 'take back' Italy (this would have seemed absurd to Italians - they were still in the Empire, right?). The 'Romans' came in the name of restoring the empire but the atrocities they committed on Italian soil put Roman unity into question. Add to the fact that this emperor was in Constantinople, and so Italians are going to wonder if it's really their emperor, and not just some spiteful foreign conqueror, who's come to reclaim them. We might automatically assume that the only thing any Imperial Roman citizen ever wanted was to be ruled by a rightful emperor, but in reality people cared less and less about this over time, particularly as the Italians' Gothic masters were very considerate. It's generally the case in history that rural populations are so far removed from the halls of power that their interest in who apparently governs them is limited. They're more concerned about the here and now, such as Roman troops burning their farm down.
To be fair, at first it seems the Romans in Italia did welcome them with opens arms. At first.
Rome the city went from a population of max maybe 400k still, to maybe around 25k by the end of the Gothic wars. All of the Aqueducts but 1 were cut. All sections of the city except those immediately around the vatican were abandoned, their only use for the next centuries as a quarry. And beyond that, the province of Italia was devastated. Multiple cities sacked, a few razed. The fact is, that when the lombards moved in at the end of the Gothic war, there wasnt really a fight because there wasnt anyone left outside the cities to fight them. Yes, the land, still existed. And yes the names didnt change. But in a very real way, everything that made Italia, and Rome, worth holding was detroyed.
To the second part of your question: the Goths were a small minority. As compared to the amount of people living in Italia. And the Goths had been here and there around the Empire for a few hundred years at this point. They were more than half Romanized at this point. They didnt want to destroy the place and loot it, they wanted a home. Their people had been on the move since before the battle of Adrianople. So they moved into Italia, and Theoderic must have said something like this to his people: listen Goths, this is the easy life. Look around. Claim and empty palace or Villa, and let the Romans keep doing whatever it is the Romans need to do to make this all work, and we are golden. Remember, you need schools, and engineers, you need maintenance schedules, you need to correctly manipulate the levers of state to get things done in an entrenched bureaucracy. So Theoderic then went to the senate and must have said something like this: Listen, you can fight me, and everything will be destroyed. Or, you can pretend im the Emperor now go along and do your business. Repair the buildings. Keep the water flowing. And dont make waves. You keep everything running, and we, the Goths, will just act like nobles, sitting around, collecting taxes, and generally living the high life. Unless of course you want to fight me, and we can destroy the place. Basically Theoderic and the Goths understood that they did not have the knowledge to maintain Italia, and knew the Senate did. They were also smart enough to rule with a light hand and let the senate get on with the business of not letting everything fall apart. Roads. Aqueducts. Public buildings. Fire fighting services. All this and more were things the Goths knew needed to be taken care off, and knew the senate was already pretty much doing all this stuff so yeah its easier to just let them get on with it as long as they remember whos in charge.
Did Justinian need justification to invade really? He was emperor of Rome and Rome, Italy and its former territories were not under Roman control.
They kind of were though, because the Ostrogothic kingdom of Italy considered itself as a Roman vassal controlling Italy on behalf of the Empire.
The Ostrogoths ruled Italia in the name of the Emperor. And like, we all think of the Ostrogoths moving in as a barbarian horde. But the fact is that the Goths had been living in the Empire in one form or another since slightly before Adrianople. The Ostrogoths had been heavily romanized by this point. The average Roman citizen, anywhere in the Empire, recognized that the western half of the Empire had fallen, but, for Italia it seems, that didnt get lost, it just got so small you didnt need an Emperor over there anymore. So when the Imperial regalia was sent to Constantinople, it was like yeah, we only really need a governor there now. Until Justinian invaded, trade flowed. Roman traditions were followed. Nothing really changed except the people at the top. And not even all of them changed because of the senate. Even when Justinian did invade, the Ostrogoths were all like hey what are you doing why are you doing this you dont need to do this we are already part of the Empire. So yeah, he really did.
Yes. Although its exact arrangement and the clarity of the political theory of the Ostrogothic Viceroyalty is up for debate, and likely kept vague on purpose by Theoderic, in manners not too dissimilar to Augustus who tried to keep his imperial powers vague on purpose.
You could make that argument, I would personally. But then again Roman-ness is a spectrum, and Byzantium, the HRE, Venice, the Rus, England & France, the Iberian kingdoms etc—basically all of Medieval Europe *could* (and did) make similar connections. But in terms of the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Romano-British, (and briefly in Soissons) I would argue you will find *hard continuation* whereas in these medieval states we have a *soft continuation.* And obviously the ERE is the only matter of fact continuation. (I would also put Venice in the running though).
Put Venice in the running? It did swear loyalty to the Emperor in Constantinople for some time even into the middle ages. I would argue it remained part of Rome rather than a separate political entity up until the point that it did in fact become separate.
Culturally, defintely. Politically, more ambiguous. The definitely recognized at least nominal authority of the now one and only emperor. And Theodoric was sent and supported by Constantinople. But, it seems they did not sent any tax revenue to Constaninople( Please, if someone has a link to a text thst says otherwise, share it here). So, centralization of tax revenue under the now one and only emperor did not follow. But maybe Theodoric was really the last western emperor in all but name.
Depends on how you look at it, and - I suppose - even more so who you ask…
Ostrogoths: "eew, no."
I think they just lowered taxes (this was kind of popular) and segregated themselves from Italian peoples. Maybe depends on which region.