Maximum-Bad-7295 t1_it47x7c wrote on October 20, 2022 at 8:29 PM

Even by 300 AD roman peasants were bound to their landlord, and forbidden by law to leave the manor. Thus a large part of the population was unable to migrate. In order to maintain the empire's armies, and to fund the frequently recurring civil wars, the tax burden on roman citizens had become unbearingly heavy. This combined with the suppressive religious policies of a now Christian empire, made many people welcome barbarian rule. (As happened when roman North-Africa came under muslim-arab rule two centuries later. Also, these were troublesome times, and travelling for long distances could be very hazardous, so my guess is that there might have been migration from areas close to the eastern part of the empire, and perhaps some wealthy citizens (merchants and others, whose wealth was not tied to the land), but all in all, I'd go for very limited migration.

scijior t1_it55gba wrote on October 21, 2022 at 12:30 AM

This was what I was going to posit as well. The late Roman Imperial term for this practice is coloni (quick Wikipedia article on it). Peasants from the late Empire through the Dark Ages were essentially serfs; beginning with contracting away rights for food and a part of land, and then just legally being owned by the local lord. Fascinating stuff.

Rear-gunner t1_it59bom wrote on October 21, 2022 at 12:59 AM

If you think about it, the landlord is also unlikely to leave.

AnaphoricReference t1_it6g2bg wrote on October 21, 2022 at 7:42 AM

The Romans had by the time of the official "fall" of the Western empire already introduced the practice of stationing Germanic mercenary cavalry directly with landowners and towns in Italy, so that the mercenaries could collect their own wages directly as taxes. This feudal societal organization would basically remain unchanged in the Ostrogothic and Lombard kingdoms. Landowners and mercenaries had a shared interest in preventing the peasants/commoners under their control from leaving if that impacted income, and would be definitely capable of hunting them down if they did.

I do not have the impression, if you look at the sources covering later attempts by the Eastern Roman empire to expand their influence in Italy at the expense of the barbarians, that they had much popular support for doing so. On the contrary: small Lombard feudal armies for instance regularly defeated larger but very low morale locally sourced (Eastern) Roman armies. And parents complained about their children dressing as barbarians to look cool. That doesn't give the impression that the average former Roman was willing to risk his life to be able to live under an emperor in Italy. At best you could describe it as an attitude of apathy.