How Much Better Off Were the Ostrogoths in Italy than the Western Empire?

[Tjakari]

I ask because, while the West was falling apart, the Ostrogoths were a regional power and rather stable with the same amount of territory and they made use of the same bureaucracy and institutions so why was one so much better off?

 

[Tjakari]

bump for apostasy

 

[Magnum]

All of those new Ostrogothic soldiers probably had something to do with it. Also the fact that Theoderic was in a position to come to a diplomatic understanding with his neighbours.

 

[Tjakari]

apologies for bumping an old thread, but I still have the same question and I don't see much use in making a new thread.

 

[NolanFoster]

From what I've read, after the end of the western empire, economic activity slowly recovered to levels Italy hadn't seen in decades. It continued that recovery into the Ostrogothic period, so both Germanic regimes were doing something right where the last emperors were not. They also kept a working relationship with the Roman Senate, which had more power than any time since the Republic.

 

[LSCatilina]

I ask because, while the West was falling apart, the Ostrogoths were a regional power and rather stable with the same amount of territory and they made use of the same bureaucracy and institutions so why was one so much better off?

I think that's a reather weird question, not only because morally hierarchising ancient states is something that can't really be done from an historical point of view, but because as you said, Ostrogothic Italy largely kept Late Imperial structures.
Arguably, other Romano-Barbarian kingdoms did so, but Ostrogothic Italy still participated from an Imperial Romanity culture where other were distinct enough.

Now, saying Ostrogothic Italy was territorialy and politically stable is wrong : while Theodoric's reign was an all-time high for Ostrogoths, it doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened without them as Italy was still essentially living on Late Roman structures that Odoacer or Theodoric used the same way.

Furthermore, the huge factionalism after Theodoric points a clear inner stability issue (while not essentially due to Ostrogoths) that allowed the Gothic Wars and the ruin of Italy.

But again, the main difference between Ostrogothic Italy and other western kingdoms weren't the use of late imperial structures, as it was a thing in all of them, but its participation to the maintain of an imperial culture (municipes, games, classical schools, african pottery use).

Roughly, Ostrogothic Italy and Vandal Africa are still participating to the same political culture than the Roman Empire in Constantinople, when western Romania was in the process on evolving differently.

From what I've read, after the end of the western empire, economic activity slowly recovered to levels Italy hadn't seen in decades.

It's less to actual administrative changes (there weren't much, if at all on this matter) than the end of endless wars and conflicts in the Vth century. For obvious reason, this impaired trade possibilities.

It continued that recovery into the Ostrogothic period, so both Germanic regimes were doing something right where the last emperors were not.

The main problem with this claim, is that Ostrogothic administration was the very same than Late Roman administration. Ostrogoths, but as well romano-barbarian kings in general, pride themselves to be patricians, keeper of the roman structures.

The main difference was contextual, and not some "germanic" influence on a decadent late Roman society.

They also kept a working relationship with the Roman Senate, which had more power than any time since the Republic.

That's debatable : Roman Senate kept most of its power during the Empire as an institutional/social symbol and as a municipal power. During Ostrogothic rule, you had the same comedy of a ruler listening to the Senate, telling them they were all marvellous people, and doing whatever he wanted while the Senate served as a conflated municipal council.

There again, Ostrogoths largely kept the uses of Late Empire, the only romans uses and administration they knew about.

 

[Tjakari]

I think that's a reather weird question, not only because morally hierarchising ancient states is something that can't really be done from an historical point of view, but because as you said, Ostrogothic Italy largely kept Late Imperial structures.
Arguably, other Romano-Barbarian kingdoms did so, but Ostrogothic Italy still participated from an Imperial Romanity culture where other were distinct enough.

Now, saying Ostrogothic Italy was territorialy and politically stable is wrong : while Theodoric's reign was an all-time high for Ostrogoths, it doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened without them as Italy was still essentially living on Late Roman structures that Odoacer or Theodoric used the same way.

Furthermore, the huge factionalism after Theodoric points a clear inner stability issue (while not essentially due to Ostrogoths) that allowed the Gothic Wars and the ruin of Italy.

But again, the main difference between Ostrogothic Italy and other western kingdoms weren't the use of late imperial structures, as it was a thing in all of them, but its participation to the maintain of an imperial culture (municipes, games, classical schools, african pottery use).

Roughly, Ostrogothic Italy and Vandal Africa are still participating to the same political culture than the Roman Empire in Constantinople, when western Romania was in the process on evolving differently.


It's less to actual administrative changes (there weren't much, if at all on this matter) than the end of endless wars and conflicts in the Vth century. For obvious reason, this impaired trade possibilities.


The main problem with this claim, is that Ostrogothic administration was the very same than Late Roman administration. Ostrogoths, but as well romano-barbarian kings in general, pride themselves to be patricians, keeper of the roman structures.

The main difference was contextual, and not some "germanic" influence on a decadent late Roman society.


That's debatable : Roman Senate kept most of its power during the Empire as an institutional/social symbol and as a municipal power. During Ostrogothic rule, you had the same comedy of a ruler listening to the Senate, telling them they were all marvellous people, and doing whatever he wanted while the Senate served as a conflated municipal council.

There again, Ostrogoths largely kept the uses of Late Empire, the only romans uses and administration they knew about.

So basically, the Ostrogoths just had the good fortune to come to power on the tail end of the 5th century crisis; changing next to nothing about how the state was run and only managed to keep it together with the same string&glue tactics that the Emperors did. Right?

So would the same thing have happened under an Emperor, or would the drive to restore imperial territory actually hurt them as the invasions lost their momentum?