01-07-2019, 12:07 AM
I agree with you , Robert Vermaat, it is very important do define " still Roman" in 494 AD. But with this expression I mean the presence of a still full romanized state in Spain ,with a Roman aristocracy and a Roman leader, which still had independent military forces , like Syagrius in Soissons.
Unfortunately , there are not many sources on late Roman Spain, but it is known , that there was a Roman usurper , Burdunellus,against the Visigothic rule in 496 AD. It is known by literary sources , that king Eutic of the Visigoths had finally conquered most of modern Spain in 484 AD. The army of Syagrius capitulated in 486 AD , and parts of Roman Provence did not surrender until 477 AD. These facts indicate , that there could have also been Roman resistance in Spain after the fall of the Western Empire.So could it be possible, that there was still Roman resistance in Visigothic Spain, not especially in 494 AD, but between 476 and 496 AD?
Unfortunately , there are not many sources on late Roman Spain, but it is known , that there was a Roman usurper , Burdunellus,against the Visigothic rule in 496 AD. It is known by literary sources , that king Eutic of the Visigoths had finally conquered most of modern Spain in 484 AD. The army of Syagrius capitulated in 486 AD , and parts of Roman Provence did not surrender until 477 AD. These facts indicate , that there could have also been Roman resistance in Spain after the fall of the Western Empire.So could it be possible, that there was still Roman resistance in Visigothic Spain, not especially in 494 AD, but between 476 and 496 AD?
