You're right, as Gaul became a province with Caesar and then fully part of the empire. By the collapse, the population was well romanized.

As you've stated, this event occurs within the Gothic Wars, an attempt of reconquer by the Eastern empire. It goes a bit beyond the only migration process itself we were discussing here, although it is a consequence of it. Quite sadly, the large amount of deaths actually occured with the attempt of reconquer, Justinian plague etc

It is obvious that nothing is white or black. Yes, violent episodes occured without a doubt throughout the territory, the barbarians themselves were not a unique people, they all had different ways of bringing changes into the places they arrived. The Wisigoths for example did not have the same relationship towards religion than let's say the Vandals. For very much detail, each tribe and place should be studied separately.

Changes were not unseenable, true. They were even needed. Otherwise, the Empire would not have "fallen". But as I have emphasized, this is why the old roman families and clergy was, and has been, very important in the process. Small populations of the countryside were more in contact with their local bishop than the king.

I don't know the numbers but some of the aristocracy definitely did. However I guess it was more the aristocracy from the City, who were more linked to the power itself and the emperor.

For aristocracy or land owners of the rest of the Empire, as long as the barbarians were not messing everything up, I guess the bargain was alright.

Very interesting question. I honestly don't know.

If any kind of resistance was there, I think it was more of a cultural one rather than an organised armed one.

But it is definitely something that needs to be studied ! We never know and might be surprised

Thanks ! It is true the preservation is quite different from one thing to another. There are a bit of various reasons. Time is obviously one of them but not only. It happened sometimes that in order to build other monuments or support economy or war effort in troubled times that some monuments or places actually got destroyed to recycle the materials.

I imagine also that more modern conflicts could have damaged some places. Also, I don't remember precisely the place name, but I believe Mussolini actually ordered the destruction of old buildings to clear space and build a massive street through Rome.

If we look on the brightside however, we do have some monuments such as the Coliseum or the Pantheon which have made it quite good so far despite a few damages here and there. If we think also about the main roads paved by the romans, we are in a way still using some to this day technically, but obviously they're under concrete now..

I would also add that due to the fragmented political power and emergence of brand new regimes across Europe that the places of power changed of location too and so, I guess, the money allowed to maintain certain buildings in good shape.

In a way, yes. The roman power ran out of recognition and prestige with time. One of the strenght of the Empire through its History was obviously its military. But it also became its weakness during the fall. There are 2 main things to remember when it comes to this :

• Very often, the peoples located on lands the Empire would conquer didn't necessarily pay their tribute with money but with men who would join the military. It was at the time win-win for the Romans. Not only it was growing their ranks but it was also automatically preventing the conquered to make up a new armed force. On the barbarian perspective, joining the roman army was giving them the opportunity of eventually gaining ranks and perhaps lands, and even citizenship.
• That leads immediately to the second point. Lands. Recognized and respected soldiers were given lands by the government. They were not the absolute rulers of their lands, the Emperor was obviously willing to remain the top leader over its territory, but those soldiers with property still had some liberty. Looking at History, such a system can only work when the initial power is strong. Which was not the case during the empire's last century. The Empire got more and more fragmented.

But that's only for the political part. Culturally, the Romans inprint remained in Europe and was respected by the barbarians. When the barbarians rulers arrived with their courts and nobles, they knew that the main people was remaining roman. According to some (rare) testimonies which arrived to us, they understood they needed to work with the people already settled in good terms. One of the best example for this might be the Franks.

According to quite some historians, we might want to thank Christianism for this whole process of (not full, but still) preservation. The barbarian rulers understood they needed the roman people. The roman people was responding positively to the Church. So the barbarian needed the Church. And the Church needed strong protective rulers who eventually all got baptized. The Church ultimately gained power (it was the Franks who actually recognized first the Vatican as a state and well, the Vatican was in a way benefiting of Rome's aura) and more and more churches and cathedrals were built, which also led more or less directly to the preservation of some Ancient texts and works which were also rewritten in churches' offices.

And as we've discussed above, many rulers, even hundreds of years after the Fall, had in mind to restore the glory of the old Empire which was still seen as a wonder.

To conclude : the Fall of the Western Empire was the fall of its political system. But not of its people, culture or infrastructures. Sure, time did its work, adjustments were made here and there, romans and barbarians shared couches, but the whole presence and aura of the Empire was still there.

Indeed, I saw afterwards that you've mentioned it was a long period yourself.

No worries for the politics side, that's what History is.

You're right. However, I would go back to what I said about how the barbarians were actually trying to respect and pursue what the Romans had established rather than erasing everything to start their own thing from scratch. The examples you're mentioning are right, but they are people who are moving away from places where sometimes bombs are literally raining and food supplies are almost non-existent.

If we go back to the barbarians, they in fact had all the interest possible of having the roman machine to keep on going, with already established laws, cereals farmed and functioning water systems. As I said above, would the barbarians had come into the empire in a more "viking" way, then no doubt the roman migration would have been much much more significant.

Some history books are talking of an invasion from the barbarians but the reality's more grey. Barbarians were already in the landscape for a long time. As a matter of fact, by the end of the west empire, most of the army, including leaders, was made of barbarians. The "invasion" was in fact the arrival of big groups of people, fleeing themselves from what was probably more of an invasion this time : the Huns.

Yes, some tensions and conflicts probably occured in the process, but it was not the bloody invasion depicted in our school books.

Some probably did.

But for the most part, I don't think it was the case.

The process of the Fall of the western part was in fact quite long and not to be seen as one big wave of soldiers invading and killing everything. If it had been the case, then probably more roman migration would have occured indeed. But actually, the "barbarians" were already in the Roman landscape since quite some time. Quite a number of them was holding high positions within the military and it is even said that, by the end of the western part, most of the armies was barbarian or coming from barbarian bloodlines. All of this while the last emperors were losing in power and prestige.

Also, the Fall of the empire was probably not perceived the same way according to where you were living in the Empire. A citizen of the City was probably more concerned of losing the Emperor than let's say a farmer in the countryside who only knew approximately the emperor's face thanks to the money coins.

We must also not forget quite an interesting fact. The "barbarians" had no interest in destroying the Roman culture and infrastructures of supply and power. It appears that they actually wanted to preserve and pursue it (just have a look at how some leaders even yeeeears after the Fall did their best to bring the Empire, or at least the idea of the Empire, back). Some of the new people in charge actually asked for councelling from romans of long roman bloodlines on how to keep everything in place.

This probably helped in having the smoothest change as possible and so to not "scare" the roman people.

I would add that even 100-200 years after the fall, people who were descending from old roman families were much respected and had quite some positions of power, still as councellors or within the Church, which worked closely with the new powers in place across West Europe to maintain society.