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.

Wasn't people's wealth in the past much more tied to the land and their family/social networks than in the present? It's not like there was a job market back then. You don't send out resumes. It's not like you can just show up in a city and expect to make a living. To do what? Odd jobs? Crime? People were generally much less mobile and footloose in the past and much more embedded in local contexts prior to the Industrial Revolution and depersonalization of relationships allowed by money and bureaucratization.

I would imagine those who had extensive experience in governmental administration and/or made their living though education/literacy would be able to move, but that's a small subset of the population.

I don't know if anyone will read this at this stage but there is an ongoing discovery in ancient dna. Mainland Italy's genetic makeup changed drastically from the start of imperial Rome because of a massive, and I mean massive, influx of eastern mediterranean ancestry. These people came mostly in the form of Greek - speaking Anatolians and to a lesser extent Levantines. This shift is starting to be called the "east med shift" in ancient dna and the evidence is quite frankly astounding. Whatever reason, indentured servitude to become a Roman citizen, or any other reason, tons of eastern provincials migrated en masse to Italy in the early stages of Imperial Rome. Of course, places like Sicily already had greek speaking populations since the first Greek colonies on Italian and Sicilian shores. Just a funny anecdote considering the question above.

Didn't most of the aristocracy migrate to the new capital with Constantine over time?

The new barbarian kingdom let taxation slip, since their armies were mostly landed now, not paid. Moreover, the aristocracy in the west became much more rural. Finally, there was a greater focus on churches and monasteries instead of the usual civil infrastructure.

[removed]

You are missing the largest one. That of eastern mediterraneans (Greek - speaking anatolians mostly) to mainland Italy from the start of imperial Rome.

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

As rome unwound, plebeians would take marble and stone from the colosseum to sell for food. This after a full year of no sun, a plague, and hardly any food. Other sites were just ignored as it was too expensive to maintain. The church came in and rebuilt but in their vision.

Out of curiosity, are there any known holdouts of Roman cities continuing to operate after the fall of the western Roman empire?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Most citizens were just rural farmers who had no reason or means to move. The only people who moved were like some priests/scribes/gentry who might have moved, but you'd have to think about the reasons why. Did they fear they would suffer at the hands of the Ostrogoths? If not, then that removes a lot of the pressure to move to the east.

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.

Thank you

> I heard a group of about 40,000 went with to Constantinople from Rome when Constantine made it the new capital.

Wasnt this from around the empire? And since it was voluntary migration, most of those migrans were opportunist or who had nothing and wanted to start from a fresh plate.

[removed]

Search for "Чагырская пещера", there are plenty of photos

[deleted]

What did the nine years war have to do with the Salem witch trials?

First, thank you very much for this productive input. I got a question: So why was the Roman infrastructure and architectural culture destroyed gradually? When you go to Rome today, you hardly can find a complete temple. Even the well known Forum Romanum is nothing more than a few stone blocks..

Thanks on book reecomendation.

In class we read an incredibly interesting primary source from the late Roman Empire, i can't remember who it was.

Basically this very well off Roman aristocrat was living in Gaul with his family, and he wanted to move back East to Greece, as this was during the advanced stages of the "decline of the western empire". His wife however preferred to stay in Gaul, and remained there with her children rather than move back East.

Very telling that this person preferred staying in Gaul which was ruled at that point by who we would commonly assume to be "savage barbarians".

The Road to Armageddon: Paraguay versus Triple Alliance 1866-1870 biy Thomas Whigham