What happened to Roman settlers after the Empire fell?

[LatinRookie]

Hi everyone,

Picture yourself as a Roman landowner in Gaul or Hispania or wherever. When the city of Rome fell and it became clear that the Empire was collapsing in the west, where did these people go? They were Romans, so did they go back home? Or did they assimilate into the local cultures? Did their domains become the prototypes for the feudal domains that would later appear?

It's tricky for me because sometimes I characterize the Romans as an ethnic group that colonized Europe, but I have to remember that Rome was a culture above all else. So Gallic barbarian tribes could, within a generation or two, become full Romans. What do you think?

 

[Matthaeus]

The Roman soldiers definitely stayed and interbred with the native cultures they conquered, as far as I know.

 

[Ealdboc Aethelheall]

They certainly did. Rumania, for instance, was part of the Roman Empire for only a short time, yet the settlers staid and ultimately gave us the Rumanian language.

I am from the Low Countries, and am always amazed by how much more common it is for 'southerners' like me (i.e., people from Belgium and the southern provinces of the Netherlands) to have slightly darker skin and black hair. Undoubtedly this is not just because Roman soldiers and traders lived and worked here, but when I'm in a fanciful mood I do imagine my ancestors trundling from Italy and Spain to these northern lands where woollen socks were far from a luxury!

 

[Iohannes Aurum]

They certainly did. Rumania, for instance, was part of the Roman Empire for only a short time, yet the settlers staid and ultimately gave us the Rumanian language.

I am from the Low Countries, and am always amazed by how much more common it is for 'southerners' like me (i.e., people from Belgium and the southern provinces of the Netherlands) to have slightly darker skin and black hair. Undoubtedly this is not just because Roman soldiers and traders lived and worked here, but when I'm in a fanciful mood I do imagine my ancestors trundling from Italy and Spain to these northern lands where woollen socks were far from a luxury!

The Netherlands was under Spanish control at one point as well.

 

[Victus]

Also according to venetian legend, after the fall of Rome some of the population in the outlining cities made an exodus towards its shores to escape the huns and others and founded a new city there.

Spoiler: Off-Topic

Honestly, to me the Roman Empire never truly died. Its culture and uniqueness still shape our culture, to such a degree that, consciously or not, we compare our works to that of those who were the greatest amongst them: Cicero for politicians, Virgil for poets, Caesar for generals et caetera. In a way, all of us who hail from Europe, whether it be by birth, or simple adoption of the culture, are all sons of Rome. Its ideals and identity live on through us, even if we don't know it. I think that is the mark of a truly grand empire: Its ability to live on even after its supposed death by the mere power of its legacy. And I hope that we will see such new empires rise and give us even more revolutions in culture, law, ideals and ideas. Although I would like it if it came with a bit less warfare, as I am not very fond of dying. But as the sands of time slip by the hourglass that keeps on turning, such request shall go unheeded in the abyss of time and space, left only to those who trully seek to find it. But they will rise. They will always rise. Greatness is a characteristic that we simply cannot contain. Sic transit gloria mundi, sed mundi novi venient.

 

[Ealdboc Aethelheall]

The Netherlands was under Spanish control at one point as well.

Indeed it was! I live in a part of the Netherlands that was under Spanish control for a longer time than the rest of the country. I am not sure how great an impact the Spanish soldiers had genetically. We do, however, have a word for 'child' in southern Dutch dialects that refers directly to the Spanish parentage of some sixteenth- and seventeenth-century children: pegatter, which appears to derive from 'pagador' - i.e., a paymaster associated with the Spanish army.

 

[Cinaedus]

They probably didn't even notice this so-called "fall".

Would you really notice a change if it took ten years to take place ? Or even one or two hundred ?

The Roman Empire never fell, it just took another face.


But I wasn't there, so nothing but "if's".

 

[Victus]

They probably didn't even notice this so-called "fall".

Would you really notice a change if it took ten years to take place ? Or even one or two hundred ?

The Roman Empire never fell, it just took another face.


But I wasn't there, so nothing but "if's".

Well, if they didn't notice the huns raping their livestock and eating their wives, then I guess it explains why the roman empire fell after all. But then it raises the question of how did ancient romans all get so much xanax?

 

[Pacifica]

Lol, I like your humour, Victe.

 

[cinefactus]

They probably didn't even notice this so-called "fall".

Would you really notice a change if it took ten years to take place ? Or even one or two hundred ?

They did notice.
As a couple of examples Gregory of Tours ac feretas gentium desaeviret, regum furor acueretur, eclesiae inpugnarentur ab hereticis, a catholicis tegerentur... Vae diebus nostris, quia periit studium litterarum a nobis, nec reperitur rethor in populis, qui gesta praesentia promulgare possit in paginis

A bit later we have Bede: Fracta est autem Roma a Gothis anno milesimo CLXIIII suae conditionis, ex quo tempore Romani in Brittania regnare cessarunt, post annos ferme CCCCLXX, ex quo Gaius Iulius Caesar eandem insulam adiit

 

[LVXORD]

Also according to venetian legend, after the fall of Rome some of the population in the outlining cities made an exodus towards its shores to escape the huns and others and founded a new city there.

Spoiler: Off-Topic

Honestly, to me the Roman Empire never truly died. Its culture and uniqueness still shape our culture, to such a degree that, consciously or not, we compare our works to that of those who were the greatest amongst them: Cicero for politicians, Virgil for poets, Caesar for generals et caetera. In a way, all of us who hail from Europe, whether it be by birth, or simple adoption of the culture, are all sons of Rome. Its ideals and identity live on through us, even if we don't know it. I think that is the mark of a truly grand empire: Its ability to live on even after its supposed death by the mere power of its legacy. And I hope that we will see such new empires rise and give us even more revolutions in culture, law, ideals and ideas. Although I would like it if it came with a bit less warfare, as I am not very fond of dying. But as the sands of time slip by the hourglass that keeps on turning, such request shall go unheeded in the abyss of time and space, left only to those who trully seek to find it. But they will rise. They will always rise. Greatness is a characteristic that we simply cannot contain. Sic transit gloria mundi, sed mundi novi venient.

Sounds like the Aeneid all over again...

 

[Victus]

Sounds like the Aeneid all over again...

Well, I am a writer. Or want to be a writer. Or just have delusions of being a writer. Whichever.

 

[Cinaedus]

They did notice.
As a couple of examples Gregory of Tours ac feretas gentium desaeviret, regum furor acueretur, eclesiae inpugnarentur ab hereticis, a catholicis tegerentur... Vae diebus nostris, quia periit studium litterarum a nobis, nec reperitur rethor in populis, qui gesta praesentia promulgare possit in paginis

A bit later we have Bede: Fracta est autem Roma a Gothis anno milesimo CLXIIII suae conditionis, ex quo tempore Romani in Brittania regnare cessarunt, post annos ferme CCCCLXX, ex quo Gaius Iulius Caesar eandem insulam adiit

Grégoire de Tours: 538 - 594 (wikipédia) and Bede comes one hundred years later.
Facing history, one should always stay humble, we were'nt there, they were'nt either.

 

[LatinRookie]

I'm sure they must have noticed that things were in decline. I'm pretty sure that in the 5th century people on the Italian peninsula were exposed to greater levels of violence than before as barbarian tribes were moving in. On the other hand, Rome always had doomsayers so many people must have thought that this was just another rough period (just like the one right after Marcus Aurelius. Apparently this Commodus guy was useless as an emperor).

I just wonder how many Romans stayed and were assimilated and how many went home. Also, I read that as imperial authority started to fail, rich Romans left the cities to go live on their country estates. Once there, they started ruling their immediate surroundings as lords. The villages nearby started to become dependent on them as they could no longer count on support from Rome. Medieval Europe was a patchwork of little feudal states. How many of these territories began as the holdings of Romans who never went home?

 

[cinefactus]

Grégoire de Tours: 538 - 594 (wikipédia) and Bede comes one hundred years later.
Facing history, one should always stay humble, we were'nt there, they were'nt either.

What about Hydatius?

Well, if they didn't notice the huns raping their livestock and eating their wives,

Gens Hunnorum pace rupta depraedatur provincias Galliarum: plurimae civitates effractae

 

[Ealdboc Aethelheall]

I'm sure they must have noticed that things were in decline. I'm pretty sure that in the 5th century people on the Italian peninsula were exposed to greater levels of violence than before as barbarian tribes were moving in. On the other hand, Rome always had doomsayers so many people must have thought that this was just another rough period (just like the one right after Marcus Aurelius. Apparently this Commodus guy was useless as an emperor).

I just wonder how many Romans stayed and were assimilated and how many went home. Also, I read that as imperial authority started to fail, rich Romans left the cities to go live on their country estates. Once there, they started ruling their immediate surroundings as lords. The villages nearby started to become dependent on them as they could no longer count on support from Rome. Medieval Europe was a patchwork of little feudal states. How many of these territories began as the holdings of Romans who never went home?

Well, as many Latin speakers would have lived in areas like Gaul, Britain and North Africa for generations (and would likely descend from the 'native' populations as well as men and women who originated elsewhere) it is very likely that they would have thought of the areas in which they lived as 'home'. How many Americans, Canadians or Australians would think of the European, African and/or Asian lands of their ancestry as 'home', as opposed to the areas in which they and their parents grew up? I imagine many still feel a cultural or ethnic attachment, but would they feel a strong desire to move to the area(s) their ancestors came from if the situation in the former colonies which they inhabit worsened? And would this be precisely because those were the areas where all or some of their ancestors were born?

Some of my ancestors are from Germany, but if you ask me where 'home' is, it's the southern Netherlands and, perhaps, Flanders, where people speak dialects of Dutch that are very similar to my own.

 

[LatinRookie]

How many Americans, Canadians or Australians would think of the European, African and/or Asian lands of their ancestry as 'home', as opposed to the areas in which they and their parents grew up?

This is true but I feel like there is a difference. The ancestors of North Americans immigrated and started new lives, separate from the states they left. In the case of Romans they remained under the direct control of the great city on the Tiber. Am I wrong in assuming they would have felt direct cultural and political influence? I'm sure would have been affected by their proximity to Rome (i.e. someone in northern Britannia would have felt the influence of Rome left than someone in southern Gaul). How close were these people to Rome in spirit? Were they distinct ethnically? Romans had people called "provincials", so maybe Roman lords in Gaul for example, fell into this category. I read somewhere that the vast majority of the Empire's inhabitants were actually not citizens.

 

[Ealdboc Aethelheall]

Well, then think of the Falklands. The people who live there are generally strongly attached to their close association with Britain, yet no exodus has taken place despite the territorial dispute with Argentia. What is more, in an age without television, film or internet Rome must have been a distant reality to most, and we know that populations intermingled. Villages often sprang up close to Roman military camps, and many soldiers are believed to have had spouses under local law, even if the Roman military code technically did not allowed them to have families.

 

[LatinRookie]

I'm not sure about the Falklands thing, but I think your point about the "distant reality" is a good one. I wonder how much contact these Romans in the provinces actually had with the great city itself.

On the topic of soldiers taking local wives: were most Roman soldiers not native to the regions they served in? Was their original plan to return home?

 

[cinefactus]

On the topic of soldiers taking local wives: were most Roman soldiers not native to the regions they served in?

Not originally, but in the later empire I think things changed