>NOOOOOO MUH FALL OF ROME MUH COLLAPSE OF CIVILIZATION NOOOO MUH DARK AGES MUH 6000000 DEAD ROMANS

>NOOOOOO MUH FALL OF ROME MUH COLLAPSE OF CIVILIZATION NOOOO MUH DARK AGES MUH 6000000 DEAD ROMANS
Not my problem, I'm not a Roman. Also my ancestors were the barbarians who attacked it. So I view it positively.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Your Barbarian ancestors viewed it negatively lmao and kept harping about reviving it.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Your Barbarian ancestors viewed it negatively lmao
      They didn't. And the Franks felt zero guilt about Clovis and his descendants conquering the Romans.

      >kept harping about reviving it.
      Yes it would've been very prestigious

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >And the Franks felt zero guilt about Clovis and his descendants conquering the Romans.
        The Franks didn't even conquer parts of Gaul until the end of Roman rule.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Gaul includes Belgica, which the Franks held a large portion of prior to 476. And are you aware of the Kingdom of Soissons, or are you that historically illiterate?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Gaul includes Belgica, which the Franks held a large portion of prior to 476
            This was granted to them
            >And are you aware of the Kingdom of Soissons
            The 'Kingdom' was hardly even a real thing and wasn't attached to the Roman state at all after the death of Majorian. It was one powerful warlord who roughly controlled an area. Clovis didn't 'conquer' a Kingdom as much as he won a power struggle amongst a man who was likely considered a Frankish King himself.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It was a Roman rump state ruled by a Roman. How moronic can you be?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It was a Roman rump state ruled by a Roman
            Unlikely anybody saw it that way. Syagrius was a warlord no different from Riothamus. His army was majority non Roman, his leadership was majority non Roman. There is clear evidence he was thought of as a Frankish King during his time as Warlord. Even Gregory of Tours puts his father as a Frankish King after they removed Childeric.
            >After the Franks expelled him they unanimously adopted as their king Aegidius who, as we have said above, had been sent by the government as magister militum.

            There is not even any evidence that a 'Kingdom of Soissons' even existed. It is a modern invention based on a faulty rendition of Gregory's naming of him as Rex

            See
            >Late Roman Warlords by Penny MacGeorge

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            His army was majority Gallo-Roman, which isn't exactly Roman, but I wouldn't call it non-Roman either.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >His army was majority Gallo-Roman
            We don't really have any proof for any of the army in the North other than the large Frankish contingents from Gregory. The Gallic field army had ceased operations in Northern Gaul after the death of Aetius. At best we can assume Aegidius and Syagrius conscripted from their own estates, but they didn't have any interaction with the central state.
            >Gallo-Roman, which isn't exactly Roman
            'Gallo-Roman' wasn't a real identity, it's a modern term. They just considered themselves Romans.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >We don't really have any proof for any of the army in the North
            Yes, but it is the by far most likely option.
            >'Gallo-Roman' wasn't a real identity, it's a modern term.
            Eh, I doubt that the average Gallo-Roman wouldn't feel a sense of otherness if he travelled to Italy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, but it is the by far most likely option.
            It seems to me like the least likely option. Northern Gaul had already been highly detached from the Central state Constantine's rebellion and for what was essentially just really large private landowners, they would be conscripting such an absurdly large army of supposedly 6000 men. Not to mention, the Gallic field army just didn't exist anymore. They were absorbed into the remnants of the Italian field army and were commanded by the central state. They wouldn't have had any part in it.
            > I doubt that the average Gallo-Roman wouldn't feel a sense of otherness if he travelled to Italy.
            Well they didn't think of themselves as anything other than Roman, they did not think of themselves as any different from Romans in Italy or in Illyria and so on. So of course they wouldn't. Gallo-Roman only exists as a modern term to express regional denominations rather than actual identity or culture.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Some probably would've identified as Gauls. I'm sure Italians would have a tendency of referring to people from the region as such. The Gaulish language also only died out during the Merovingian period.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >they would be conscripting such an absurdly large army of supposedly 6000 men
            6000 men isn't absurdly large.
            >They were absorbed into the remnants of the Italian field army and were commanded by the central state.
            The central state did not exist in Gaul anymore.
            >Well they didn't think of themselves as anything other than Roman, they did not think of themselves as any different from Romans in Italy or in Illyria and so on.
            Identities are relative to each other, next to a third group you may feel a common bond, but when you only have each other to compare yourselves with it's a completely different story. Not to mention that do we really have any record whatsoever of how the peasants in Gaul identified?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >6000 men isn't absurdly large.
            For a private landowner it certainly is. Syagrius did not have the functions of the state, and to assume that he could muster an army of majority Romans at that number is absurd when the far more powerful and well resourced armies under the central state could not do that.
            >The central state did not exist in Gaul anymore.
            I'm pretty sure what I wrote heavily implies that.
            >Not to mention that do we really have any record whatsoever of how the peasants in Gaul identified?
            No, but that's the same everywhere in the world for basically every identity. Written sources are basically only from the elites. Those in Southern Gaul like Sidonius were diehard Roman Patriots and he very much expected others in Gaul to hold the same attitude. Our majority of details for the common man comes from how they are referred to in texts and how their material culture formed. Which is both overwhelmingly Roman in nature. The later Merovingians would deal with the natives in Gaul as Romans and derived their naming from Roman conventions for them. There was the majority Roman community, which lived under mostly Roman law, had members of their community uplifted and worked in service of the Merovingian, and even later Carolingian courts who were Roman in identity and culture.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >to assume that he could muster an army of majority Romans at that number is absurd
            I don't see another source of manpower that could have been larger.
            >I'm pretty sure what I wrote heavily implies that.
            Yet you talk about Gallic soldiers getting integrated with the Italian army as if it was somehow still relevant 20 years after Gaul got cut off.
            >Written sources are basically only from the elites
            And elites have basically always been alot more cosmopolitan than the deeply rooted peasantry, i.e. their identities aren't a good indication of how the general population felt.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't see another source of manpower that could have been larger.
            Settled Alans in the region, Franks, Amoricans (although they would mostly be serving under their own Warlord). Even the Roman state did this through the enlistment of Goths, Burgundians, Alemanni and even Vandals. Only the Illyrian Warlords were exempt from the problem of a majority foreign army by the 450's.
            >Yet you talk about Gallic soldiers getting integrated with the Italian army as if it was somehow still relevant 20 years after Gaul got cut off.
            I bought it up, because it is evidence that there were no more Roman field armies active in Gaul far before the time of Syagrius and therefore the largest possible source of Roman manpower is out of the question for his army.
            > i.e. their identities aren't a good indication of how the general population felt.
            I think by the time that this has been the shared identity for nearly 400 years it can be. Tellingly enough there was no nativist revolts after the Batavi encouraged the Treveri and Lingones. There was no separatism, military officers from Gaul, who were explicitly not from higher society by the middle 3rd century created no party of separatism against the state, they were considered completely Roman culturally and in identity. No problem arose from these officers and any faction of high Command was usually paired with the fates of other Western commands like that of Hispania and Illyria with the most obvious expression of this being in Julian's succession

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >therefore the largest possible source of Roman manpower is out of the question for his army.
            You don't recruit new soldiers from people who are already soldiers. The source is the people, not the army, and in 20 years new generations of men have become strong enough to carry a sword while the older generations have become too frail.
            >There was no separatism, military officers from Gaul, who were explicitly not from higher society by the middle 3rd century created no party of separatism against the state
            Seperatist sentiments is by no means a requirement for having regional identities, and there was the Gallic Empire which was sort of seperatist.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            > The source is the people, not the army, and in 20 years new generations of men have become strong enough to carry a sword while the older generations have become too frail.
            True, but that doesn't mean we should suspect that the army was filled with Romans. There was no access to large pools of soldiers, Syagrius was more or less a private landowner, the only way he would have been able to conscript Romans was off of his own properties and through negotiations with civil centres in his relative region of control. Not to mention, even in the region beforehand, the majority of recruits came from the settled Alans in the area which were used to bolster Aetius' army. It would make his army nearly half of that of the Illyrian field army which had far more advantages when it came to recruiting than Northern Gaul ever did, let alone after the collapse of the central state. There is clear enough evidence that there was a major Frankish armed force making up his army so much so that Frankish Kingship was not out of the question, especially not for his father who was one for a few years. Even other Roman warlords in Northern Gaul like Paulus were known as leaders of Frankish armies.

            >Seperatist sentiments is by no means a requirement for having regional identities
            No, but I don't believe there is really any evidence that the people in Gaul at the point of the Late Empire believed themselves to be separate from the Roman identity. Soldiers clearly didn't. Elites clearly didn't. Even far later aristocrats believed themselves to be Romans. There existed regional identifiers but not separate identities

            >there was the Gallic Empire which was sort of seperatist.
            The Gallic Empire was in no way separatist. The Gallic Emperor considered himself the rightful Roman Emperor, it was no break away state but an attempt of claiming Rome as a participant of a civil war. The very way the civil war ended was through the forfeiture of the claim to Rome and the claim of Augustus.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not him but the gallic empire was more a sort of "emergency empire", necessary to preserve the power of Rome in the absence of the central government, rather than a separatist state. From their perspective, they were in the same position as Byzantium/East-Rome was in 476.
            Even the Palmyrenes were not really separatists, specially not under Odenatus.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Even after barbarians destroyed Aeneas's city, Italians still managed to make a comeback.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The Italian man.

      500CE-1830CE.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Hourly reminder that northern Italians (the ones responsible for 80% of Italy's accomplishments) are Germanicized Gauls

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Remove
          Northern Italians are Roman-Latins with some minor heritage of Po celts.

          The barbarian destroyers can come to destroy but the Italian man remains resilient to this destroyer!

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Minor heritage
            Keep coping. The Romans didn't replace the entire Gaulish population.
            And a frickton of Lombards settled there, giving Lombardy its name.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The Romans didn't replace the entire Gaulish population.
            They did, Romans and Latins outnumbered the Gauls which is seen through linguistic shift.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >In Italian-language contexts, Milanese is often (like most things spoken in Italy other than standard Italian) called a "dialect" of Italian. However, linguistically, Lombard is a Western Romance language and is more closely related to French, Romansh, Occitan and to other Gallo-Italic languages than it is to standard Italian.

            Do you like being moronic? Serious question.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I find it so funny how American Romaboos are so ignorant of basic Italian history/culture

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine the "rape" bet those Roman wenches begged for Aryan wiener.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      didn't the Ostrogoths go very easy on Rome for the final sacking? I seem to recall Rome being significantly less damaged than say Jerusalem in the 1st crusade.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The Ostrogoths didn't sack Rome and the "easy" Visigoth sack you're talking about wasn't the final one. Inform yourself on the very minimal facts about the age before posting, instead of just looking at a random map and guess.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Adolescence is idolizing rome, adulthood is realizing that the empire had long since deteriorated into a horrific parasitic order devoid of goodness.

    >Imagine being a warlord that conquered a town of the falling empire's periphery and after killing all the Roman soldiers you find out that all the citizens hated them more than they ever feared you and declare you their liberator and you end up asking yourself Are we the gooddies?

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Cope, barbare.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      What am I coping for?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Your inferiority complex, of course

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t have an inferiority complex, considering I don’t live 2,000 years in the past. Meds are the ones who have been having the inferiority complex for the past eon.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            sure thing pal, that's why you made this thread

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Projection

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Hot take based on my ass: The army of Syagrius was recruited from the bagaudae

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      There actually were a lot of bagaudae in the armies of the Merovingians too. There were all of these Gallo-Roman cutthroats that joined Frankish warbands and got a share of the loot.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Well not bagaudae per say, but something similar.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    autism thread

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *