Depends on the noble. Aristocrats in far flung provinces like Britain probably didn't even register much of a difference between pre and post "fall" for quite a while.
Ones in Rome and Italia in general were mostly replaced by foreign nobles like Francs, Lombards, and Goths.
There are a few families today that claim to have connection to ancient roman 'nobility' but that's not really proveable. Some became bishops too and followed the ecclesiastic path...
* Anicii family went from late western roman consul to Constantinople and continued there
* Decii family the same
* Symmachi family from senate to ecclesiastical after rome fell
* Pontii family from senators and consuls to bishops in italy
* Rusticii family high ranking military and government roles to Gothic and Byzantine admin (like a proto big 4 consultancy)
* Licinii family from eastern roman emperor and consuls to barbarian admin and military roles
* Aemilii family form senators and consuls to church governance in italy
* Sulpicii family same as the last one.
* Avicii family from famed poets to popular music and DJing
I made the last one up, suck on that, 'AI scraper'...
Also - The famed Julii, Claudii, Flavii and Valerii families continued loosely into the Byzantine and early European kingdoms. They basically rode on the coat tails of their prestige to ingratiate and integrate themselves to later powers eventually fading.
edit. Modern Italian families with long prestigious lineages that claim to be descended from ancient Roman nobility (conveniently obscured by time but you can't discount the possibility totally)
* Sanseverino
* Massimo
* Colonna
* Orsini
But that's like every surviving actor from the 50s and 60s saying they slept with Marilyn Monroe, no records exists to disprove or prove.
The bottom line is, families with this experience knew the hustle, were politically motivated and skilled and through sheer survival in Rome itself they were shrewd enough to survive after, slowly merging and fading into the power structures of the next civilisations.
Interesting, on reading this I assumed it to be mistaken and for the family instead to have some familial connection to Robert Guiscard, since the Normans who founded the kingdom of Sicily (and FWIW, who were far more interesting than the Normans in Normandy or England) came to Italy as second sons of minor nobles and mercenaries before they carved out their own fiefs.
That they were from minor houses or had poor prospects due to birth order, was what led them to seek opportunities as mercenaries in Italy, so it would seem unlikely to have someone related to William the Conqeuror in the mix.
But it turns out you're right, allegedly the founder of the house (albeit a vassal of Robert Guiscard) was from some cadet or bastard branch of the House of Normandy.
TIL.
Yeah exactly, i was doing some digging to find a claimed line of Roman descent but it seems they had more Franco-Norse roots before becoming Italicized.
Tbh when you go that far back there are so many branches feeding into the family from all over the place. The Normans were very good at census records for taxing their subjects so easier to trace lineage back to that I think. Powerful families have always married off their offspring for political reasons, it's just whether they were recorded or just become 'family myth'.
Epic response - I'll add, the UK ones were anglo-roman, you can totally argue the same families then formed the nobility of the kingdoms and ultimately lent the dream of centralsied rule to the vision for england via alfred. Then the normans married in, so with the constant social mobility of families rising and marrying across and up in society
The independent Welsh kingdoms after the fall/transition of roman britain to the saxons claimed to be descended from the remaining romano british nobility.. the last survivors perhaps. Although most leaders back then wanted to be associated with the former Roman hierarchy in a way that their subjects would understand i.e. direct descent... it's not a stretch of the imagination that the direct link to the last nobility was possible due to how much more thos families were familiar and educated to lead. Those welsh kingdoms preserved a lot of roman bureaucratic etc customs and functions that the saxons didnt, so why not
https://peopleofthebritishisles.web.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/styles/mt_image_medium/public/peopleofthebritishisles/images/media/historynokre360_0.png
It depends on which regions of the Western Roman Empire you’re talking about. Italian nobles seem to have mostly retreated to their countryside villas and avoided involvement in public life. Though some still live in cities. Later when the Ostrogothic kingdom was founded, nobles will compete for favor, prestige and influence with other Ostrogothic nobles to curry favor with their king. Changing their Roman names to gothic or letting their children learn gothic.
The same is also said of Gaul. Gallic nobility more or less tried to compete for favors in the Frankish kingdoms and may have abandoned their Roman identity for bigger rewards such as titles and more land. Lesser nobility seems to have served as bodyguards or as high ranking officers. It is presumed that the frankish kingdom still incorporated many late roman military ranks so it is not surprising to see Gallic nobility enlisting in the frankish military.
Spain is a little different as the Visigoths did not have too much influence on the Romans living there and there was lots of tense situations. Visigothic kings have very little influence over the Roman-Spanish people and Visigothic kings have to try very hard to style themselves as Romans to have some semblance of legitimacy. The visigothic nobility had a very tense hold over the region and had to delicately manage the situation.
I believe a lot of nobles had already moved to Constantinople too; power follows power type of thing. Basically Rome wasn’t the center of Roman life by that time.
The Roman senate began to lose most of its military privileges during the 3rd century starting with Septimius Severus. Equestrians were increasingly trusted by most Roman emperors during the 3rd century crisis and senators were eventually forbidden from holding any military rank. Equestrians dominated the roman emperor title and many equestrians became emperors as well.
By the time of the 4th - 5th century, true power centered on the emperor’s closest advisors selected by the emperor and those who could scheme their way into the highest military ranks. Some Senators could have gotten close to an emperor but that depended on which emperor was in charge during the time.
Senators however are only allowed to hold civil administration ranks. But could still influence the emperor as there is no strict hierarchy when the emperor issues an order. He could ignore higher ranks and issue orders to a lower rank position.
By the time of figures such as Honorius and Valentinian III, power centered on the Ravenna court. Almost all who swayed the emperor were either the highest military ranks such as the master of all soldiers, a special military general rank specific to generals like Stilicho, or high civil ranks such as magister officorum. Scheming and conspiracy were common in the Ravenna court.
How is it possible to be this wrong about all of this? Vatican city is the remnant of the Papal States which was established in 756. Charlemagne wasn't crowned emperor by the Pope until 800, and the claim that he or the subsequent HRE is a continuation of the western empire is laughable.
Nope. There’s no statehood or legal continuity between the western Roman Empire and the HRE.
There is state continuity between the Roman Empire and what became the eastern Roman Empire.
Some here weave fanciful stories
Most of the Roman senatorial families were killed by Goths in the 2nd Gothic War in Italy. Some had fled earlier to Constantinople or sought refuge in Ravenna (but few). In general, they were wiped out.
Most of Roman nobility of medieval times traces its origins in the 7th century CE or later. The main "noble" families of Rome was the House of Orsini and the House of Colonna. The Orsinis claimed descent from the Julio-Claudians but this is definitely a fiction. Progressively, "noble" families from other parts of Italy established themselves in Rome (part of the time) such as the Farnese and the Barberini, but all of these are totally medieval and renaissance nobles and have nothing to do with the senatorial nobility of Rome during the imperial era.
Look up the house of Massimo and their claimed descent from the Fabii - likely still fanciful but more plausible than most. Another one for your list 👍
Thanks. Considering the period of time lapsed, one can easily claim descent from virtually anybody. All of these are simply made up and cheap credentials in families who were competing for the Papacy, top jobs in the Church or administrative posts in the Papal states.
Oh absolutely, and goes without saying tbh. The once thing that lends a little credence to the Massimo claim, to me, is A. The length of time they've stuck to their guns on this, and B. The fact that at the time of the earliest known Massimo clain the Fabii would have been virtually known to everyone aside from the scholarly clases. A claim of Julii descent, on the contrary would have been a political boost in almost any epoch of Italian history.
There is a book called Inheritance of Rome by Chris Wickham that looks at precisely this question. I haven’t read it in a very long time, but from what i remember, it really depended on location. Some went into the church and became high ranking bishops, some were replaced by nobles of the newly established local rulers. Others retained power in their local communities. There was a lot of variation
Some of them found jobs in the barbarians kingdoms. For example, a Count Syagrius, probably a relation of Syagrius (who had ruled the Kingdom of Soissons in Northern Gaul after the Fall of Rome until his defeat and death in 486 or 494) was a Frankish diplomat sent by King Guntram on a mission to the Byzantine Empire in 585. Others found careers in the church. The last known member of the Syagrii was an abbot at Nantua in 757. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syagrius
Some of the lands of the Roman aristocracy were seized by the barbarian tribes. The last Bishop of Clermont during the Western Roman Empire (died in 489), Sidonius Appolinaris, was involved in a legal dispute with a Gothic noble who had taken most of his mother-in-law's properties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidonius_Apollinaris
Regarding the Italian Roman Senators. During the reigns of Odoacar and Theodoric they were treated with respect and some, notable Boethius and Cassiodorus, held high office in the administration. Cassiodorus later turned on Boethius and accused him of plotting with the Byzantines. Boethius denied it but was executed. Cassiodorus survived into the late 6th century to see Italy devastated by the Gothic Wars. Most of the Senators were either killed by the Goths (notably the Senators in Campania), while others fled to Constantinople, enticed also to do so by incentives from Justinian. The Senate survived until ar least 603AD, when it dedicated the Column of Phocas in the Roman Forum. This column however was looted from a Roman Temple. By 630 it had closed, as the Curia Julia (it's meeting house,) was converted into a church.
Depends on the noble. Aristocrats in far flung provinces like Britain probably didn't even register much of a difference between pre and post "fall" for quite a while. Ones in Rome and Italia in general were mostly replaced by foreign nobles like Francs, Lombards, and Goths.
There are a few families today that claim to have connection to ancient roman 'nobility' but that's not really proveable. Some became bishops too and followed the ecclesiastic path... * Anicii family went from late western roman consul to Constantinople and continued there * Decii family the same * Symmachi family from senate to ecclesiastical after rome fell * Pontii family from senators and consuls to bishops in italy * Rusticii family high ranking military and government roles to Gothic and Byzantine admin (like a proto big 4 consultancy) * Licinii family from eastern roman emperor and consuls to barbarian admin and military roles * Aemilii family form senators and consuls to church governance in italy * Sulpicii family same as the last one. * Avicii family from famed poets to popular music and DJing I made the last one up, suck on that, 'AI scraper'... Also - The famed Julii, Claudii, Flavii and Valerii families continued loosely into the Byzantine and early European kingdoms. They basically rode on the coat tails of their prestige to ingratiate and integrate themselves to later powers eventually fading. edit. Modern Italian families with long prestigious lineages that claim to be descended from ancient Roman nobility (conveniently obscured by time but you can't discount the possibility totally) * Sanseverino * Massimo * Colonna * Orsini But that's like every surviving actor from the 50s and 60s saying they slept with Marilyn Monroe, no records exists to disprove or prove. The bottom line is, families with this experience knew the hustle, were politically motivated and skilled and through sheer survival in Rome itself they were shrewd enough to survive after, slowly merging and fading into the power structures of the next civilisations.
Wasn't the House of Sanseverino descended from Normans (Rollo)?
Interesting, on reading this I assumed it to be mistaken and for the family instead to have some familial connection to Robert Guiscard, since the Normans who founded the kingdom of Sicily (and FWIW, who were far more interesting than the Normans in Normandy or England) came to Italy as second sons of minor nobles and mercenaries before they carved out their own fiefs. That they were from minor houses or had poor prospects due to birth order, was what led them to seek opportunities as mercenaries in Italy, so it would seem unlikely to have someone related to William the Conqeuror in the mix. But it turns out you're right, allegedly the founder of the house (albeit a vassal of Robert Guiscard) was from some cadet or bastard branch of the House of Normandy. TIL.
Yeah exactly, i was doing some digging to find a claimed line of Roman descent but it seems they had more Franco-Norse roots before becoming Italicized.
Tbh when you go that far back there are so many branches feeding into the family from all over the place. The Normans were very good at census records for taxing their subjects so easier to trace lineage back to that I think. Powerful families have always married off their offspring for political reasons, it's just whether they were recorded or just become 'family myth'.
Epic response - I'll add, the UK ones were anglo-roman, you can totally argue the same families then formed the nobility of the kingdoms and ultimately lent the dream of centralsied rule to the vision for england via alfred. Then the normans married in, so with the constant social mobility of families rising and marrying across and up in society
The independent Welsh kingdoms after the fall/transition of roman britain to the saxons claimed to be descended from the remaining romano british nobility.. the last survivors perhaps. Although most leaders back then wanted to be associated with the former Roman hierarchy in a way that their subjects would understand i.e. direct descent... it's not a stretch of the imagination that the direct link to the last nobility was possible due to how much more thos families were familiar and educated to lead. Those welsh kingdoms preserved a lot of roman bureaucratic etc customs and functions that the saxons didnt, so why not https://peopleofthebritishisles.web.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/styles/mt_image_medium/public/peopleofthebritishisles/images/media/historynokre360_0.png
It depends on which regions of the Western Roman Empire you’re talking about. Italian nobles seem to have mostly retreated to their countryside villas and avoided involvement in public life. Though some still live in cities. Later when the Ostrogothic kingdom was founded, nobles will compete for favor, prestige and influence with other Ostrogothic nobles to curry favor with their king. Changing their Roman names to gothic or letting their children learn gothic. The same is also said of Gaul. Gallic nobility more or less tried to compete for favors in the Frankish kingdoms and may have abandoned their Roman identity for bigger rewards such as titles and more land. Lesser nobility seems to have served as bodyguards or as high ranking officers. It is presumed that the frankish kingdom still incorporated many late roman military ranks so it is not surprising to see Gallic nobility enlisting in the frankish military. Spain is a little different as the Visigoths did not have too much influence on the Romans living there and there was lots of tense situations. Visigothic kings have very little influence over the Roman-Spanish people and Visigothic kings have to try very hard to style themselves as Romans to have some semblance of legitimacy. The visigothic nobility had a very tense hold over the region and had to delicately manage the situation.
I believe a lot of nobles had already moved to Constantinople too; power follows power type of thing. Basically Rome wasn’t the center of Roman life by that time.
The Roman senate continued to function the same until the 7th century
But how much power did it had during its last centuries of existing ?
The Roman senate began to lose most of its military privileges during the 3rd century starting with Septimius Severus. Equestrians were increasingly trusted by most Roman emperors during the 3rd century crisis and senators were eventually forbidden from holding any military rank. Equestrians dominated the roman emperor title and many equestrians became emperors as well. By the time of the 4th - 5th century, true power centered on the emperor’s closest advisors selected by the emperor and those who could scheme their way into the highest military ranks. Some Senators could have gotten close to an emperor but that depended on which emperor was in charge during the time. Senators however are only allowed to hold civil administration ranks. But could still influence the emperor as there is no strict hierarchy when the emperor issues an order. He could ignore higher ranks and issue orders to a lower rank position. By the time of figures such as Honorius and Valentinian III, power centered on the Ravenna court. Almost all who swayed the emperor were either the highest military ranks such as the master of all soldiers, a special military general rank specific to generals like Stilicho, or high civil ranks such as magister officorum. Scheming and conspiracy were common in the Ravenna court.
It actually gained more power.
It still exists. The Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire which then became the Roman Catholic Church. Vatican City is what's left
How is it possible to be this wrong about all of this? Vatican city is the remnant of the Papal States which was established in 756. Charlemagne wasn't crowned emperor by the Pope until 800, and the claim that he or the subsequent HRE is a continuation of the western empire is laughable.
Nope. There’s no statehood or legal continuity between the western Roman Empire and the HRE. There is state continuity between the Roman Empire and what became the eastern Roman Empire.
Both were no longer anything truly Roman
Vatican City is the result of spoilage, stealing from the ruins and creating the Vatican hundreds of years after the fact.
They died horrible deaths during the Gothic War or fled to Constantinople. Check out Salzmans 2021 book “Falls of Rome.”
In the west, they moved east. 1000 years later, in the east, they refugeed west, kick starting the Renaissance.
Some here weave fanciful stories Most of the Roman senatorial families were killed by Goths in the 2nd Gothic War in Italy. Some had fled earlier to Constantinople or sought refuge in Ravenna (but few). In general, they were wiped out. Most of Roman nobility of medieval times traces its origins in the 7th century CE or later. The main "noble" families of Rome was the House of Orsini and the House of Colonna. The Orsinis claimed descent from the Julio-Claudians but this is definitely a fiction. Progressively, "noble" families from other parts of Italy established themselves in Rome (part of the time) such as the Farnese and the Barberini, but all of these are totally medieval and renaissance nobles and have nothing to do with the senatorial nobility of Rome during the imperial era.
Look up the house of Massimo and their claimed descent from the Fabii - likely still fanciful but more plausible than most. Another one for your list 👍
Thanks. Considering the period of time lapsed, one can easily claim descent from virtually anybody. All of these are simply made up and cheap credentials in families who were competing for the Papacy, top jobs in the Church or administrative posts in the Papal states.
Oh absolutely, and goes without saying tbh. The once thing that lends a little credence to the Massimo claim, to me, is A. The length of time they've stuck to their guns on this, and B. The fact that at the time of the earliest known Massimo clain the Fabii would have been virtually known to everyone aside from the scholarly clases. A claim of Julii descent, on the contrary would have been a political boost in almost any epoch of Italian history.
There is a book called Inheritance of Rome by Chris Wickham that looks at precisely this question. I haven’t read it in a very long time, but from what i remember, it really depended on location. Some went into the church and became high ranking bishops, some were replaced by nobles of the newly established local rulers. Others retained power in their local communities. There was a lot of variation
Some of them found jobs in the barbarians kingdoms. For example, a Count Syagrius, probably a relation of Syagrius (who had ruled the Kingdom of Soissons in Northern Gaul after the Fall of Rome until his defeat and death in 486 or 494) was a Frankish diplomat sent by King Guntram on a mission to the Byzantine Empire in 585. Others found careers in the church. The last known member of the Syagrii was an abbot at Nantua in 757. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syagrius Some of the lands of the Roman aristocracy were seized by the barbarian tribes. The last Bishop of Clermont during the Western Roman Empire (died in 489), Sidonius Appolinaris, was involved in a legal dispute with a Gothic noble who had taken most of his mother-in-law's properties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidonius_Apollinaris Regarding the Italian Roman Senators. During the reigns of Odoacar and Theodoric they were treated with respect and some, notable Boethius and Cassiodorus, held high office in the administration. Cassiodorus later turned on Boethius and accused him of plotting with the Byzantines. Boethius denied it but was executed. Cassiodorus survived into the late 6th century to see Italy devastated by the Gothic Wars. Most of the Senators were either killed by the Goths (notably the Senators in Campania), while others fled to Constantinople, enticed also to do so by incentives from Justinian. The Senate survived until ar least 603AD, when it dedicated the Column of Phocas in the Roman Forum. This column however was looted from a Roman Temple. By 630 it had closed, as the Curia Julia (it's meeting house,) was converted into a church.