6th century military revolution

[Jim Webster]

I'd sort of come across this in it's various forms but I hadn't seen it put together in this short summary before (it's only about eight minutes)

One for our Imperial Dave perhaps 

[Imperial Dave]

Ooooo...ta very much Jim

[Jim Webster]

Ooooo...ta very much Jim

I thought you might find it interesting 
He does have some good stuff on his channel

Another guy who has some good stuff, I like his Neolithic and bronze age is this chap  https://www.youtube.com/@DanDavisHistory/videos

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks once more 

[Keraunos]

Interesting, but I did a double-take when I heard him talk of 'Roman ethnic identity'.  'Roman identity' I can understand, likewise 'ethnic identity' but I've never heard of the two being put together before, nor do I understand what he is getting at.

[Jim Webster]

Interesting, but I did a double-take when I heard him talk of 'Roman ethnic identity'.  'Roman identity' I can understand, likewise 'ethnic identity' but I've never heard of the two being put together before, nor do I understand what he is getting at.

Is he driving at the point that Roman civilians had a different 'identity' to the Roman Military? Certainly it's generally accepted that Roman soldiers, even if born within the Empire, adopted a 'military culture' which picked up various 'barbarian traits' some of which may have been invented and passed on to barbarian recruits who took them home after service.

Ethnic identity is perhaps one, short hand way of describing this.

[nikgaukroger]

A very poor (and erroneous) one if it is the case.

[Jim Webster]

I went back and listened to it again, and then copied the transcript. As in all these things, capitals and punctuation are mine.

An older argument that the resulting recruitment of barbarians led to the barberization of the roman military and thus its weakness but this has since been challenged and rejected since about the 1980s. What was actually happening was that the roman army had by the 5th century developed its own identity one that was distinct from civilians in barbarian fashion and some customs were adopted as a way of doing this with the actual Latin of the military being heavily spiced with German.
The increased recruitment of non-Romans led by the 6th century to armies usually being raised from those who did not hold a Roman ethnic identity. During the late empire, groups such as the Goths took on the role of soldiers. To be a soldier was to be a Goth, it's just what they did and in the aftermath of the western empire's collapse this appears to have been reinforced.

I'm reminded of the quote from Theodoric the Great. "The poor Roman imitates the Goth, the rich Goth, the Roman."

We then have to look at what an ethnicity was. One definition is "the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent."  This comes from Oxford Languages who provide the dictionary for Google.

Wiki comes up with an interesting one
An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a people of a common language, culture, common sets of ancestry, traditions, society, religion, history, or social treatment. The term ethnicity is sometimes used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism.

Ethnicity may be construed as an inherited or societally imposed construct. Ethnic membership tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language, dialect, religion, mythology, folklore, ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, or physical appearance. Ethnic groups may share a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, depending on group identification, with some groups having mixed genetic ancestry.

In this case the Goths could probably be described as an Ethnicity.
It is interesting that the first paragraph seems to relate to the Greeks in the Hellenistic period. We see 'Greek' families in Egypt who are at least three quarters Egyptian who regard themselves as Greek. One suspects the same happened in Bactria but with less evidence. They gave less weight to genetics than to language and culture.
So was there a 'Roman ethnicity' which might not be shared by those who made up the Roman Army?

Not arguing to support him, just trying to dig down into what was happening

[nikgaukroger]

To be honest I think he was just being a bit careless. Looking at his cited references strongly suggests it.

I think "ethnicity" is avoided as much as possible these days in history writing due to the genetic bit and all the historical baggage that comes with (especially from C19th and earlier C20th) which can lead to problems. Unless there is a specific genetic element just using "identity" is preferred. So the Roman army would have its identity, as would noble Roman civilians, as would <<insert group here>>.

[Jim Webster]

To be honest I think he was just being a bit careless. Looking at his cited references strongly suggests it.

I think "ethnicity" is avoided as much as possible these days in history writing due to the genetic bit and all the historical baggage that comes with (especially from C19th and earlier C20th) which can lead to problems. Unless there is a specific genetic element just using "identity" is preferred. So the Roman army would have its identity, as would noble Roman civilians, as would <<insert group here>>.

I suspect that we run into problems with a lot of us not being up to what the current uses are. The maker of the video is down as "B.A. in History, minor in Anthropology from The State University of New York, Cortland"
Not sure of his age. But it could be twenty years ago.

[nikgaukroger]

Actually, I think I am probably be careless as well 

I think that the "ethnicity" term can be used where an author has the space to explain their position on identity and that it is multi-layered and contextual. Where they don't it is best avoided. A short video/podcast would, I'd suggest, fall into the latter.

[Jim Webster]

Actually, I think I am probably be careless as well 

I think that the "ethnicity" term can be used where an author has the space to explain their position on identity and that it is multi-layered and contextual. Where they don't it is best avoided. A short video/podcast would, I'd suggest, fall into the latter.

Yes the nature of a short video is that there is the temptation to use a short hand phrase 'everybody understands'   

[Keraunos]

It is interesting that the first paragraph seems to relate to the Greeks in the Hellenistic period. We see 'Greek' families in Egypt who are at least three quarters Egyptian who regard themselves as Greek. One suspects the same happened in Bactria but with less evidence. They gave less weight to genetics than to language and culture.
So was there a 'Roman ethnicity' which might not be shared by those who made up the Roman Army?

Thanks for those thoughts.  On the 'Greeks' in Hellenistic Egypt, one factor may have been Macedonian attitudes to the hierarchy of races.  My understanding is that unlike the Romans they were not open to the idea of granting rights and citizenship to someone who was not Graeco/Macedonian.  I was informed a little while ago that after Raphia the Egyptian soldiers who had fought so well for them were given the status of 'Persians', who they regarded as better than the Egyptians but not as good as Greeks.  If you had any claim to be Greek, it was worth trying to hang on to, like anglo-Indians trying hard to be classed as British.