any roman history buffs here?

[SIR ETHNICCEL]

according to a simple google search Rome as an empire officialy seized to exist in 476 CE.

The lands controlled by the empire are summarised according to this map.

my question is, what exactly happened to those lands after the barbarians captured Rome? Were there still ex Roman nobles or governors who controlled those provinces for themselves i.e making them their own kingdoms? Or maybe did the barbarians work together with Roman nobles to govern the lands and trade routes?

Or did those lands just simply do their own thing as independant states?

 

[Uninvited]

The Roman Empire officially ended in 1453. In Italy the senate still existed for quite a while after the Fall of Rome and the Germanic kings there tried to pass themselves of as the continuation of Rome and sought the Eastern Emperor's acceptance.

 

[proudweeb]

according to a simple google search Rome as an empire officialy seized to exist in 476 CE.

The lands controlled by the empire are summarised according to this map.

my question is, what exactly happened to those lands after the barbarians captured Rome? Were there still ex Roman nobles or governors who controlled those provinces for themselves i.e making them their own kingdoms? Or maybe did the barbarians work together with Roman nobles to govern the lands and trade routes?

Or did those lands just simply do their own thing as independant states?

it's pretty complex, some of the roman institutions like the senate existed past 476. Roman authority had been on and off in the west for like 150 years before that

 

[WizardofSoda]

according to a simple google search Rome as an empire officialy seized to exist in 476 CE.

The lands controlled by the empire are summarised according to this map.

my question is, what exactly happened to those lands after the barbarians captured Rome? Were there still ex Roman nobles or governors who controlled those provinces for themselves i.e making them their own kingdoms? Or maybe did the barbarians work together with Roman nobles to govern the lands and trade routes?

Or did those lands just simply do their own thing as independant states?

I only know some about Britain for that question. There was big fear in Britain when the Roman legions left that it would go to barbarism. But it went like you said, the laws of Rome mainly stayed, the organizational structure mainly stayed, business went on as per usual. I don't know the details but I read there was some return of pre-Roman British ways. British historians call the period of like 500-600+ years after the Romans left.. 'Romano-British culture.'

That is how it goes the elites in 'the colonies' don't want to take orders from the central state anymore. But by that point after 100's of years, much of the elite are Romans, either outright or culturally.


Its like when the US pulled out of Afghanistan and that was only for 20 years we were there and with not great control. But the institutions and utilities and government structure we put in place aren't going away now. Even a lot of the cultural stuff isn't going away now.

 

[SIR ETHNICCEL]

The Roman Empire officially ended in 1453. In Italy the senate still existed for quite a while after the Fall of Rome and the Germanic kings there tried to pass themselves of as the continuation of Rome and sought the Eastern Emperor's acceptance.

so in other words business as usual but under new rulership?

that means the provinces in the map were still somehow linked to Rome?

with 1453 you mean the Byzantines?

 

[SIR ETHNICCEL]

it's pretty complex, some of the roman institutions like the senate existed past 476. Roman authority had been on and off in the west for like 150 years before that

when did the lands officially split entirely from Rome either through independance or been conquered by other nations? I know in Africa many parts were swallowed up by the Arabs and in Europe barbarians took some lands also.

this is my main question

 

[proudweeb]

when did the lands officially split entirely from Rome either through independance or been conquered by other nations? I know in Africa many parts were swallowed up by the Arabs and in Europe barbarians took some lands also.

this is my main question

basically they were conquered and occupied by various tribes, sometimes still nominally roman

keep in mind things were a lot looser back then, like w/o modern communication or transport systems, so who was in what "country" or even what a country was, could often be unclear

 

[Uninvited]

so in other words business as usual but under new rulership?

that means the provinces in the map were still somehow linked to Rome?

with 1453 you mean the Byzantines?

Some provinces had strong Roman continued presence like Norh Africa and Iberia which would be reconquered in the following decades and centuries.
Britain probably had the biggest drop off of Roman influence out of all the provinces.
Most in Western Europe became Germanic with Roman flavour.
Eastern Romans never called themselves Byzantines, they referred to themselves as Roman. When Western Nations like HRE tried to claim the Roman mantle they called Eastern Rome Kingdom of The Greeks or stuff like that.

 

[SIR ETHNICCEL]

basically they were conquered and occupied by various tribes, sometimes still nominally roman

keep in mind things were a lot looser back then, like w/o modern communication or transport systems, so who was in what "country" or even what a country was, could often be unclear

Ok I get you. So basically "somewhat linked to Rome" but all scattered territories under some warlord, tribe or maybe closely linked to Rome.

 

[SIR ETHNICCEL]

Some provinces had strong Roman continued presence like Norh Africa and Iberia which would be reconquered in the following decades and centuries.
Britain probably had the biggest drop off of Roman influence out of all the provinces.
Most in Western Europe became Germanic with Roman flavour.
Eastern Romans never called themselves Byzantines, they referred to themselves as Roman. When Western Nations like HRE tried to claim the Roman mantle they called Eastern Rome Kingdom of The Greeks or stuff like that.

Just wondering why did the Arab empire swaalow up the African colonies so easly? I read that Egyptians didnt even put up a fight at all. Makes me wonder how weak the Roman rule must of been and maybe even oppresive for people of Egypt to "role out the red carpet" for the Arbs so to speak.

 

[proudweeb]

Just wondering why did the Arab empire swaalow up the African colonies so easly? I read that Egyptians didnt even put up a fight at all. Makes me wonder how weak the Roman rule must of been and maybe even oppresive for people of Egypt to "role out the red carpet" for the Arbs so to speak.

roman sasanian war left the romans very weak. They had been at war like 30 years straight before the arabs struck

 

[SIR ETHNICCEL]

roman sasanian war left the romans very weak. They had been at war like 30 years straight before the arabs struck

wow nice one thanks brocel, now i got something to read up on.