26 Heydemann
state emerges as essentially Roman. While it is clear that Cassiodorus shaped
his collection to deliberately convey such a message, it is also fairly certain
that there was actual continuity to a remarkable degree.44 The changes that
Theoderic introduced are probably less ‘un-Roman’ than they have been often
made out to be. Rather, they point towards the creation of a reduced govern-
mental apparatus, which became more tightly centred on the royal court, and
to the blurring of boundaries between military and civil functions.45
An essential aspect of securing the consensus of both the senatorial and
the Gothic elite was the provision and accommodation of the Gothic army.46
There has been fierce debate among historians about whether the barbarian
armies who established their rule in the Roman territories received land for
settlement or rather a share of the tax revenues. Recent work tends to empha-
size that tax shares and landed property were not mutually exclusive models.47
For Ostrogothic Italy, the limited evidence that we have indeed suggests a com-
bination of tax-based salaries and the redistribution of land, both of which
would have resulted in a process of administrative decentralization. This mat-
ter is of obvious importance for how we imagine the distribution of power and
wealth between the Roman landowners and the Gothic military elite. The task
had to be handled in such a way as to avoid alienating the former, while giv-
ing the latter access to land and more or less direct control over its resources,
which probably intensified the integration of the Gothic elite into the social
fabric of Italy.
Whatever our judgement about continuity and change in Italy after 476/493,
it is clear that careful argument was needed to persuade the wider public of
the new government’s political authority and legitimacy. The texts produced
at the court to this end, notably the works of Ennodius and Cassiodorus,
show that intense rhetorical efforts were made to explain the functioning of
the Ostrogothic polity to the different political actors involved, and to con-
vince them that this was a polity which deserved their support and loyalty.
The rhetoric of civilitas was employed profusely to suggest the ‘Romanness’ of
the Ostrogothic state, in which political culture and civil society functioned
44 For the political message of the Variae see Giardina, Cassiodoro; Kakridi, Cassiodors
Variae; and most recently, Bjornlie, Politics.
45 Bjornlie, “Law, Ethnicity and Taxes”, p. 158–60 and in this volume.
46 Halsall in this volume. See also Innes, “Land”; Bjornlie, “Law, Ethnicity and Taxes”, and
Porena (ed.), Expropriations.
47 See also Halsall in this volume.