Roman rump states?

[Arkenfolm]

Um, yes they do. As long as they have a direct link of political continuity to the old United States, then they are the United States. If some warlord created a Chinese-speaking state in the territory of the former United States, they wouldn't be the United States. If, however, the United States is reduced to 30% of their original territory, and a Chinese-speaking state is left with a direct line to the US, it would still be the US. Same with Byzantium/Rome/Eastern Roman Empire.

The formerly Mexican territories of the US would actually be a great comparison to Rome vs Byzantium in this regard. Estados Unidos is still the United States, just as Basileia Rhomaion is still Imperium Romanum.

Rightful successor or not, the important fact is the state and its people consider themselves the successor (or really just the same country, "successor" implies the original fell which it didn't), as do many other countries around them.

I just came back to this and saw an article on a roman rump state of Altava which was ruled by people styled ruler(emperor) of the Romans and Moors.

Altava was basically to North Africa as the Germanic peoples were to Western Europe. It shouldn't really count.

 

[DominusNovus]

Doesn't the Eastern Empire itself a rump state given that they not only lost land but they lost Latin, the original language of Rome. If the only thing left of USA in 3000 occupies 30% of the Continental 2000 USA, doesn't have Washington DC, and doesn't speak English anymore, (I mean a total switch like Modern English to Spanish/Danish/ Chinese, an evolution like Middle English to Modern English is in some sense still English and compatible with whatever the British would be speaking in the future) they don't deserve to call themselves American at all.

This reminds me of a very long, tedious, and circular discussion we had about a year ago on the 'were the Byzantines Roman' question.

So, are American citizens who don't speak English and live in, say, Texas, not American? If so, do they stop being American if the Eastern and Western Seaboards decide to secede, taking the bulk of the population and the old capital with them?

Or, put another way: if Maryland joined the CSA and DC was abandoned, are the Union citizens not American?

 

[LSCatilina]

Doesn't the Eastern Empire itself a rump state given that they not only lost land but they lost Latin, the original language of Rome.

That's a real misconception there : romanization (cultural, institutional or political) of the eastern Romania was made in Greek since the day these provinces were taken over by Romans.
That the municipalisation, the fiscal organisation, the administrative network, etc. was made in Greek was certainly not a problem, and you had little transition in this matter between the IVth century eastern Romania and its VIIth century counterpart.

It can be argued that eastern Romania was on average more romanized than several parts of western Romania (even with Britain excluded, because let's not point the elephant in the room), due to the permanance of late imperial structures (politically and institutionally), deeper urbanisation and Christianisation (altough this could be said about Italy, Africa and parts of Gaul and Spain, altough far from everything.

Simply said, you're focusing on language, when it was simply irrelevant in the East from the moment Romans conquered it, and used the already present hellenistic network. Calling the region less romanized because of the language, conveniently forgotting virtually everything else is, I must say, either ignorant of the realities of romanisation or made in bad faith.

I just came back to this and saw an article on a roman rump state of Altava which was ruled by people styled ruler(emperor) of the Romans and Moors.

It's certainly less of a special roman rump state, that your ususal petty Berber kingdom. Not only Masuna didn't proclaimed himself emperor but King of Maurs and Romans, which is perfectly on line with what we know of Barbarian states in general, and Mauri petty states in particular.

The only reason it's mentioned along the semi-legendary Kingdom of Soissons is because some people really can't accept that Barbarian kingdoms were for all intent and purposes successors of the western Roman states in virtually all matters, to the point arguing that a small entity without remotly half of the legitimacy and the roman structures is "more Roman".

 

[Alex Zetsu]

If Maryland joins the CSA (and it somehow won) then the unionists aren't American if they forget English too.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Let me repharse that. They would be LEGALLY American, but that's it

 

[DominusNovus]

Let me repharse that. They would be LEGALLY American, but that's it

That is all the matters. Particularly for America and Rome, above almost all other countries. Both nations (to use an imperfect word for the identity here) proudly define themselves by their civic identity, such as their legal code, rather than ethnic, religious, or linguistic identity. That is not to say that there are no tensions within that self identity based on those factors, but that they are secondary.

Consider religion: It is quite easy to make a case that, for many people, even in iur very secular age, religious identity (or lack thereof) is far more consequential than linguistic fluency. Colonial and, to a slightly lesser degree, early independent America, overall, held particularly vehement antipathy for Roman Catholicism. And yet, America is now a Catholic plurality nation, and it is not remotely inconceivable that it might be Catholic majority within the foreseeable future.

Within the context that, again, religion can matter more than language, and the Founders were hardly pro-Catholic, does that religious shift make them any less American?

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

That is all the matters. Particularly for America and Rome, above almost all other countries. Both nations (to use an imperfect word for the identity here) proudly define themselves by their civic identity, such as their legal code, rather than ethnic, religious, or linguistic identity. That is not to say that there are no tensions within that self identity based on those factors, but that they are secondary.

Consider religion: It is quite easy to make a case that, for many people, even in iur very secular age, religious identity (or lack thereof) is far more consequential than linguistic fluency. Colonial and, to a slightly lesser degree, early independent America, overall, held particularly vehement antipathy for Roman Catholicism. And yet, America is now a Catholic plurality nation, and it is not remotely inconceivable that it might be Catholic majority within the foreseeable future.

Within the context that, again, religion can matter more than language, and the Founders were hardly pro-Catholic, does that religious shift make them any less American?

Indeed. But to be honest, I think that this conversation will end without anyone being convinced and with a lot of bad feelings on each side. And people like Lee-Sensei and Alex Zetsu will wind up getting the last word because people are just tired of continuing the debate.

Time to Ignore this thread, I guess.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

Thanks for the question.

Of course it was. This is the reason why I voted NO! There was no byzantine empire or even a division of the roman empire in East and West. Such shit never happened. Not in roman times. It happened amongst historians more than 1000 years later. A successor of the roman empire is fully impossible! Because it existed in every manner you can imagine until the Fall of Constantinople. Well, perhaps a little bit earlier.

There was always just one roman empire. The one and only roman empire. We may discusss seriously, if it fell 1204. But everything earlier is just pure nonsense.

Of coure some guys who define "roman" not the political way, like ancient romans always did, but the rassistic way, which I thought was obsolete after WW2 amongst historians, might disagree.

Honestly, from the point of view of e.g Augustus, there is no doubt, that a so called Byzantines of the year 1000 AD were romans. The city of Rome and Italy became so unimportant during the 3rd century. No need to discuss about that with modern racists. Not for Augustus and not for me.

Some guys here in this thread tried to define roman in a ethnological, geographical and cultural manner. But this is ecxactly, what the roman never did. Everybody who got the roman citizenship was a roman. No matter how and why. Actually "Integration" into roman culture or any ethnological proximity was NEVER really needed for roman citizenship. All you needed was patronage.

So everybody, trying to argue with such modern terms, is just sooo fully wrong and misled.
You have been a roman, because somebody decided, you are one. No matter what. Simple like that.

One last quote.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

If Maryland joins the CSA (and it somehow won) then the unionists aren't American if they forget English too.

This is a bad analogy. The eastern half of the empire didn't "forget" Latin. Latin was never the majority language spoken in the east, either among the lower or upper classes. Even during the Roman conquest of the east, Greek was scene as the cultured and superior language, even among many Romans. Literary works were written in Greek, upper class Romans frequently learned Greek and became notorious philhellenes. This was occurring as far back as the time of Cato The Elder, who fought a losing battle against this. The first major Latin literary works and histories didn't even really appear until the time of Augustus, and by the Rome was already fairly Hellenized. During the imperial period, Roman administrators in the east were required to know Greek, and administration was frequently carried out in both Latin and Greek.

More importantly, after the Edict of Caracalla, everyone living inside the Roman Empire was a Roman. Whether they spoke Greek, Latin, Celtic dialects, Aramaic, Coptic, etc. they were all Romans, and definitely identified themselves as such, and continued to do so well after the western half of the Roman empire fell.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Great, so the Byzantines stopped being Roman the very moment the West died (Ok, Edict makes them LEGALLY Roman, but that's it)

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

Great, so the Byzantines stopped being Roman the very moment the West died (Ok, Edict makes them LEGALLY Roman, but that's it)

Okay, just peeked back in order to see that you seem to be rude again. Why do you phrase your words in a way that can be interpreted as disrespectful?

Yes, it's hypocritical of me to say that.

 

[DominusNovus]

Great, so the Byzantines stopped being Roman the very moment the West died (Ok, Edict makes them LEGALLY Roman, but that's it)

Even Latin-speaking Justinian? And since you're willing to extend such comparisons all the way to the present, you're surely okay with saying native-born American citizens who don't speak English aren't American, right?

 

[LSCatilina]

More importantly, after the Edict of Caracalla, everyone living inside the Roman Empire was a Roman.

That's not entierly true, and why it wasn't the case highlight the complex sense of political and civic identity in Late Romania.

Slaves, of course, weren't considered as citizens, but more importantly neither were dediticii (gentiles or laeti), while being under the direct imperial jurisdiction. Their status as directly depending from the emperor rather than imperial law allowed the permanance of their settlements in the long-run as, in one hand, even if their descendents could technically claim a citizenship, it seems they were para-legally more second-rate citizens at best, and generally considered as laeti themselves, and in the other hand you had a regular "re-suppliment" of gentiles and laeti within provinces (the laetic status remaining quite attractive).

Even not considered the problem of the para-legal conception of laeti descendents as not-entierly-Roman, as it happened with Stilicho, it really marked the Barbarian status as technically depending from the empire only (with all that it stressed in matter of personal service, which wasn't to displease Barbarians that saw it as prestigious and echoing their own conceptions), eventually impressed a lot of what we call foedi passed with them legally and politically, with the maintain of Barbarian own leaders (Goths, but as well the lot of Frankish magisteri militiae).

The initially dominant/dominee relationship between Rome and "her" Barbarians paved the way to a distinct relationship where Barbarians were outside the civil institutions as an organized group (with Barbarians eventually be defined as "whoever follows a Barbarian king rather than being citizen" (at least technically, it was more complex culturally and socially) : it really asked the collapse of the roman state in the west and the replacement of the imperial figure by technical lieutnants to Constantinople, to have the civic-political identity of Romans declining (or rather, being mixed up with Barbarian status)

Time to Ignore this thread, I guess.

Or, maybe, just ignore the tideous parts and participate to the discussion, critically if some people are willing to take it seriously. Just sayin'

 

[Magnum]

To go back to the original question in the OP, "What is the possibility of Roman rump states?", here are a couple of other possibilities:

Africa (centred on Carthage):
Stotzas (545)
Gregory the Patrician (647)

Italy:
John of Conza (617)
Eleutherius (619)
Maurikios Chartoularios (642)
Olympius (652)
Tiberius Petasius (730)

Sicily:
Mizizios (668)

Anatolia:
Longinus (492)

Ebro Valley:
Burdunells (496)
Peter (506)

Lots of rebels, usurpers and would-be emperors who, had they been just a tad more successful, but not too successful, could have established rump Roman states capable of surviving a couple of generations, if not more.

 

[Somewhereovertherainbow]

To go back to the original question in the OP, "What is the possibility of Roman rump states?", here are a couple of other possibilities:

Africa (centred on Carthage):
Stotzas (545)
Gregory the Patrician (647)

Italy:
John of Conza (617)
Eleutherius (619)
Maurikios Chartoularios (642)
Olympius (652)
Tiberius Petasius (730)

Sicily:
Mizizios (668)

Anatolia:
Longinus (492)

Ebro Valley:
Burdunells (496)
Peter (506)

Lots of rebels, usurpers and would-be emperors who, had they been just a tad more successful, but not too successful, could have established rump Roman states capable of surviving a couple of generations, if not more.

Wow, thank you for the wonderful list you made, I greatly appreciate it. I looked at the list of Roman usurper's that you posted and I am curious right now as to which one would have had the greatest chance of success

 

[LSCatilina]

Wow, thank you for the wonderful list you made, I greatly appreciate it. I looked at the list of Roman usurper's that you posted and I am curious right now as to which one would have had the greatest chance of success

Practically none for what matter western Romania : these men were invested (or, more often than not, invested themselves) in the late Empire with administrative (militia) roles would it be military (Vicentius was probably trusted the military charge of Taraconnensis by Majorian) or civil (which was generally translated by an episcopalian position, but not always).

Most of them joined up Barbarians, as part of their kingoms' militiae, because the fall of the Roman state in West only let Barbarian imperium as a legitim authority coming from imperial institutions. Similarily, Barbarians rulers readily accepted them as part of their military and administrations, because not only it strengthened their own power (the death of Vicentius was a blunder for Euric's power in Spain, for exemple), but it strenghtened their role as successors of the empire.

Some of these, however, as Burdunellus, Sidonius (for a time) or Syagrius did, tried to assert their power independently, or rather in opppsition to Barbarians, but they were no real difference in matter of power and network between Burdunellus and Vicentius, for exemple : only the latter elected (with the main part of late Roman militia and elites) to serve the Romano-Barbarian state, which succeeded to the western Roman state.
As long you're in a situation where Barbarians are the legal and institutional successors of the roman state in the west, and acknowledged as so by Constantinople and post-imperial Roman militia and elites, it won't be anything more than a ponctual and regional outburst.

(Now, in another discussion thread, the possibility of a more or less romanized ensemble of high-kingships in sub-Roman Britain was put forth, especially because the situation was more chaotic than it was in Gaul or Spain)

For what matter the post-Justinian reconquests in Africa and Italy, it's a bit more complex.
It was generally less a claim to forge their own states, but to dispute the imperium to whoever ruled in Constantinople (as for Gregorius or Eleutherius, or more obviously with Heraclius), or more of a munity as in the case of Stotzas for exemple. For every usurpation that managed to chase off a previous dynasty, you had a lot of failed and abortive rebellions such as Magnum listed : they didn't formed rump states because not only they didn't tried, but because they couldn't if the imperial claim failed.
Not that you didn't have few genuine tentatives to carve out of the empire some independent (probably more de facto than de jure, tough : exarchates were growingly independent since Justinian, especially Carthage) entities, as Mauricius' ducal claims, but they failed mostly for the same reasons.

That said, I don't see why exarchates couldn't eventually be percieved as their own states, more or less subservient to Constantinople : in a no-Islam TL, for exemple, the aformentioned growing autonomy (and neglect, Africa is barely mentioned in imperial archives after the VIth) of the Exarchate of Carthage (and, a bit less so, the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Roman Duchy) couldn't lead to de facto post-imperial states.
But for what matter the Vth century, I don't see it happening without a severe decline, if not partial collapse, of the eastern Roman state

 

[Gloss]

Practically none for what matter western Romania : these men were invested (or, more often than not, invested themselves) in the late Empire with administrative (militia) roles would it be military (Vicentius was probably trusted the military charge of Taraconnensis by Majorian) or civil (which was generally translated by an episcopalian position, but not always).

Most of them joined up Barbarians, as part of their kingoms' militiae, because the fall of the Roman state in West only let Barbarian imperium as a legitim authority coming from imperial institutions. Similarily, Barbarians rulers readily accepted them as part of their military and administrations, because not only it strengthened their own power (the death of Vicentius was a blunder for Euric's power in Spain, for exemple), but it strenghtened their role as successors of the empire.

Some of these, however, as Burdunellus, Sidonius (for a time) or Syagrius did, tried to assert their power independently, or rather in opppsition to Barbarians, but they were no real difference in matter of power and network between Burdunellus and Vicentius, for exemple : only the latter elected (with the main part of late Roman militia and elites) to serve the Romano-Barbarian state, which succeeded to the western Roman state.
As long you're in a situation where Barbarians are the legal and institutional successors of the roman state in the west, and acknowledged as so by Constantinople and post-imperial Roman militia and elites, it won't be anything more than a ponctual and regional outburst.

(Now, in another discussion thread, the possibility of a more or less romanized ensemble of high-kingships in sub-Roman Britain was put forth, especially because the situation was more chaotic than it was in Gaul or Spain)

For what matter the post-Justinian reconquests in Africa and Italy, it's a bit more complex.
It was generally less a claim to forge their own states, but to dispute the imperium to whoever ruled in Constantinople (as for Gregorius or Eleutherius, or more obviously with Heraclius), or more of a munity as in the case of Stotzas for exemple. For every usurpation that managed to chase off a previous dynasty, you had a lot of failed and abortive rebellions such as Magnum listed : they didn't formed rump states because not only they didn't tried, but because they couldn't if the imperial claim failed.
Not that you didn't have few genuine tentatives to carve out of the empire some independent (probably more de facto than de jure, tough : exarchates were growingly independent since Justinian, especially Carthage) entities, as Mauricius' ducal claims, but they failed mostly for the same reasons.

That said, I don't see why exarchates couldn't eventually be percieved as their own states, more or less subservient to Constantinople : in a no-Islam TL, for exemple, the aformentioned growing autonomy (and neglect, Africa is barely mentioned in imperial archives after the VIth) of the Exarchate of Carthage (and, a bit less so, the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Roman Duchy) couldn't lead to de facto post-imperial states.
But for what matter the Vth century, I don't see it happening without a severe decline, if not partial collapse, of the eastern Roman state

If Islam exists but their incursion in Maghreb fails, is it feasible to have the exarchate become independent, more so when the capital was moved back to Constantinople after Constans died?

 

[Agricola]

If the moslems stop in Egypt and never invade roman Africa, by whatever reasons, there is a chance, that the romans and the berbers cut a deal. Like they already did more than once. And looking from Carthago to Hispania et Sicilia (and beyond), history would be fully different.

The end of the ancient world and the roman world is all about islam. And about loosing the mediterrenean sea as the integrating hub for ancient trade and culture. If you do not loose this hub, ancient times do not end in the 7th century. Pirenne was right partially

 

[Gloss]

If the moslems stop in Egypt and never invade roman Africa, by whatever reasons, there is a chance, that the romans and the berbers cut a deal. Like they already did more than once. And looking from Carthago to Hispania et Sicilia (and beyond), history would be fully different.

The end of the ancient world and the roman world is all about islam. And about loosing the mediterrenean sea as the integrating hub for ancient trade and culture. If you do not loose this hub, ancient times do not end in the 7th century. Pirenne was right partially

Well but the Mediterranean never lost its status of being a center, or at least not directly because of Islam expansion. It would take more than centuries for that to happen.

 

[LSCatilina]

If Islam exists but their incursion in Maghreb fails, is it feasible to have the exarchate become independent, more so when the capital was moved back to Constantinople after Constans died?

I assume that by Maghreb, you meant North Africa (Maghrib/Mauretania in the medieval sense stops at, roughly, Algers and everything between this point and Cyrenaica is Africa/Ifriqiya)

I don't think so : the exarchate of Ravenna seems to have been increasinly tied up in the VIIth and VIIIth centuries with other Roman holdings in Italy outside its jurisdiction (Sicily, notably), and you'd probably end up with something similar in Carthage, altough we don't know much about what happened in the exarchate due to the lack of sources and possibly interest outside major revolts in the VIIth.
You could argue that Gennadius-like rulership could make the exarchate sort of double-tributary state between Constantinople and Damas, but, at this point, there's nothing really preventing Arabs to take Carthage in the VIIth century : Constantinople would need to dedicate a good part of its ressources without a real guarantee : on the other hand, if Arab power declines earlier and importantly in the region, Romans would have less issues asserting their power in what remains of the exarchate.

The end of the ancient world and the roman world is all about islam. And about loosing the mediterrenean sea as the integrating hub for ancient trade and culture. If you do not loose this hub, ancient times do not end in the 7th century. Pirenne was right partially

Partially indeed.

What he missed or mesestimed was the decline of the Mediterranean Basin as a political, cultural and commercial hub since the VIth century due to the Romano-Persian wars, and the clear decline of Byzantine influence in western and central parts of the regions in the VIIth century.

Hodges pointed the reshuffle of trade roads in Western Europe, less due to a disinterest on mediterranean trade, than the consequences of the decline of byzantine trade and approvisionment in precious metal (the collapse of the provencal system, reusing byzantine coinage in local workshops to dynamize long-range exchanges for exemple), and that the focus put on North Sea markets wasn't a last resort before the decline of mediterranean trade but the emergence of local dynamics first (Carolingians being more intermediaries and competitors in the emerging long-range trade between Arabs and North Sea, as hinted by monetary reforms and relation Arab coin mettallic value).

While the VIIIth century and the Arab conquests certainly provoked important changes, it wasn't that of a radical departure for what matter trade and economics, which might be seen rather in the IXth/Xth centuries as a consequences of both Abbassid economical crisis (which indirectly provoked the bulk of Viking raids and expeditions, altough it did appeared earlier) and possibly the crisis of Umayyad Spain in the same time from one hand, and the increasingly concentrated decisional and responsable power of an elite (especially in England and Scandinavia) passing from a strongly structurated economy of mobilisation to a network of competitive markets.

I didn't went into the re-edited version, but Hodges' Dark Age Economics is really interesting on this (altough it essentially treats about North Atlantic and North Sea).

For what matter the topic, the problem being less the political loss of the Mediterranean sea (which was not really complete in some parts) than the social-economical costs of Roman wars and defeats against Persians and Arabs, and the weariness of Eastern-Western exchanges at the benefit of a long-range trade.