6 Arnold, Bjornlie, and Sessa
heuristic divergence is not only unavoidable but also more accurately reflects
the current state of the field. Additionally, the volume presents a variety of
approaches to the ‘handbook’ format. Whereas many of the authors offer
nuanced syntheses of the most recent scholarship on a particular topic (e.g.
Heydemann, Arnold, Marazzi, Halsall, and Sessa), a few use the platform to
advance original readings of the evidence (e.g. Bjornlie, Squatriti, Cooper, and
Lizzi Testa). Because of this variation, the volume speaks to an exceptionally
wide range of readers, both specialists in the field and students new to the
Ostrogothic era.
The chapters in this volume describe and evaluate many fundamental
developments in virtually every area of life in the Ostrogothic kingdom. To
help orient readers unfamiliar with the period, this brief introductory section
outlines major developments in the realms of politics and the army, ethnicity
and social relations, the environment, cities, the economy, religion, and cul-
ture. It also alerts readers to the relevant chapters in the volume to which they
may turn for further reading.
Politics and the Army
Odovacer’s deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476 marked the temporary
end of direct Roman imperial rule in Italy and the beginning of a seventy-
five-year experiment in non-Roman (or perhaps quasi-Roman) regional gov-
ernment. During this period, a series of barbarian leaders, many of whom
hailed from a single dynasty (the Amals), oversaw the armies and adminis-
tration of Italy, and at times even undertook imperial projects of their own
(e.g. Theoderic’s successful expansion into regions of Gaul and Western
Illyricum—a topic explored by Arnold in this volume). As studies have shown,
Odovacer (who was a barbarian, but not a Goth) and the Ostrogothic kings did
not simply replace Roman soldiers and administrators with ethnically distinct
barbarians, nor did they demolish all of the many still-functioning Roman
institutions and structures that had been used to govern Italy for centuries. On
the contrary, they improvised on changes already taking place. For example,
a division between the army and civil militia had its origins in the Diocletianic
reforms of the late 3rd century and had become increasingly significant in
Italy during the 5th century, when direct control of the Italian military became
a crucial component of regional political power. Theoderic, like earlier gen-
eralissimos (e.g. Aetius or Ricimer), independently controlled his army, com-
prised mainly of non-Roman troops personally loyal to him, and delegated