Thread on Mutability & Rigidity of Roman Identity in Late Antiquity

––– Brought to you by a beautiful Chianti

Dull point first, basically a disclaimer: labels such as Romans & Barbarian capable of multiple interpretations & uncertainty esp about the ethnic allegiance of an individual such as Odoacer or Guntharis.

Good example of fluidity = clusterf*** of 545 in which Guntharis entered an agreement with Moorish Antalas to divide the African provinces. Guntharis was called by praetorian prefect Areobindus to defend Carthage against a force of Moors and [ex Roman] rebels. The Romans won.

In order to seize power Guntharis slandered Areobindus to soldiers in Carthage & had him put to death. Having gained the city Guntharis refused to hand over any gains to Antalas who promptly switched back to being loyal to the emperor [Justinian] and both armies clashed.

Eventually Guntharis’ side emerged victorious but he was assassinated by his commander in chief the Armenian Artabanes. Like I said... total clusterf***

Anyway, fluidity aside, simply being born on imperial territory was not enuf. Look at the Ostrogothic Theoderic born in Pannonia in 450s – he’d be a “Roman” by that reckoning while someone like Narses (who spent 80+ years in Roman Empire but was born in Persarmenia) would not!

A man who might be uber Roman like Paul (educated in Antioch and of Roman birth/genos) by AD 540 was unashamedly working as an interpreter for the Persian king Khusro.

Romanitas was often an overriding layer to an ethnic foundation. Hence why Justinian – in opening sections of Novels – referred to the ethnos of the Pisidians, Lycaonians, Paphlagonians and Cappadocians like it's no biggie.

While ancient historians believed being born a Goth made one a Goth, modern scholars prefer to emphasise the subjective element: that one’s birth does not determine one’s identity. Truth is more like 2/3 former, 1/3 latter.

NB Clashes that look very Goth vs Roman in late C5th/early C6th Balkans often actually involved mixed groups who identified with either a Roman or Gothic leader (opportunism is always the governing factor).

UMMM Why was Vitalian a "Roman" rebel rather than a warlord/Gothic leader (cf Marcellinus Comes)? His name & his father (Patriciolus) = Roman. But then lots of barbarians had Roman names. Ultimately twas probably the fact he was a stout upholder of Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

Rly awkward point for ByzAmbo: Romans became divisive bastards in C5-7th. We dnt talk bout this enough. Take Africa, the prob was rarely Vandals. Fr early stage in reconquest there were figures like Stotzas, John & Guntharis who constantly tried to seize control of provinces.

Let's tawk bout DEFECTIONS. Defections were evrywhere. Even Belisarius was invited to make himself emperor of western half. Tho B was loyal, many Romans weren’t & swelled the ranks of Ildebald’s forces. One of Belisarius’ bucellarii, Gundulf, became 1 of Totila’s generals ffs.

A Roman garrison at Beroea (540) didn’t receive its wages for many years and so deserted to the Iranian side. A soldier (John Cottistis) seized the fortress of Dara in 536 too – though his rule was cut short by the local citizens.

TBH attitudes were always reconfiguring with power shifts. Prokopios for example although he initially took a very negative view of the Franks later espoused a more conciliatory attitude.

A good example of power shifting is Cassiodorus. He tried to claim Goths were superior to other gentes because they combined Roman virtues with barbarian virtus. But Cassiodorus may as well be talking with a gun to his head as far as Constantinople is concerned.

Which is a polite way of saying Cassiodorus is no longer in a position where anybody who is actually [Eastern] Roman gives a sh** about his views. He has Stockholm Syndrome as far as they're concerned.

Could the Goths become the mainframe ethnicity, the gens glue that held together the universal populus?? Prob not. Not because they were lacking but because half the binding power of the Roman gens/name was wrapped up in its historical triumphs & nuances. Goths lacked these.

E. Romans became the populus Dei surrounded by the gentes. Israel rather thn Rome is held up as the precursor; a ppl with a covenant – now the New Covenant. Unlike previous empires, Constantinople was an ecclesia (with a personality) & not merely a patria (dumb clot of land).

Psalm 79:
“Thou has brought a vineyard out of Egypt; thou hast cast out the gentes, and planted it.
Thou has made a path in its sight…
The shadow of it covered hills, and the branches thereof the cedars of God.”

The obvious problem with the New Israel/Covenant argument is that it was one of the pagan gentes (Rome) that smashed and scattered the Jewish gens.

Anyway, back to attitudes re: barbarian. Justinian’s nephew Germanus had no qualms with marrying the Goth Matasuntha & the emperor’s godson Aksum, who was either a Bulgar or Hun, was appointed magister militum per Illyricum.

Don't read too much into that, however, as elite politics is always elite sh**. If you're a piece-of-shit barbarian with no power you're going to get treated like a piece of shit. No historian wants to tell you that basic fukn fact. You're welcome.

Often evidence is contradictory. On one hand Constantinopolitans massacre Goths and Isuarians. Then took up fashion of dressing in Hunnic style (inc wearing of trouers) a practice banned in early C5th (old) Rome.

Good example of ethnic tension is when the people of Edessa wanted to kill the Goths billeted on them according to Joshua the Stylite.

Fr Justin I (518-) most barbaric factors were irrelevant compared to whether you espoused Chalcedonianism. Arians were almost eliminated fr capital in C6th. Emperors tended to be able to suffer them if they served in the army – the expeditionary force to Africa had over 1,000.

By 535 this policy was reversed & Arians banned fr serving in army. In 575 Tiberius enrolled barbarians & their womenfolk asked the emperor for an [Arian] church to pray in –– the Constantinopolitans went mad however & accused the emperor of being Arian for even considering it.

Theoderic req the emp restore Arian churches of Constantinople thru embassy of pope John I (526). This request = ignored. Prokopios wrote on the wealth of Arian churches. Malchus wrote tht Justinian spared the Exakionite churches (those beyond the Constantinian walls) for 10yrs.

NB On popular opposition to Arians in Constantinople the best source is the life of St Marcellus Akoimetos (Dagron, 1968).

Birdseye view? Ethnic prejudices transformed into religious ones. Indeed, people might scoff at a foreign potentate visiting the capital until they learnt he was –––– Christian.

BYZ MOTTO MAY AS WELL BE

GERMINE BARBARICO NATI SED FONTE RENATI
(born of barbarian stock, but reborn in the font).

______ THE END ______