Professor Rob Collins

It's a good question.

I don't know that we can answer definitively in either way, partly because we don't have their own words.

And when it comes to questions of identity, I think it's really important for all of us to try and let people speak for themselves.

It's very easy to pin an identity on someone, but that can be problematic.

I suspect though, I would be of the inclination to say they probably did still view themselves as Roman.

And I think partly that's because the power of Rome was such that it continues to have a lure and a draw.

And so anyone that was part of the Roman Empire, we still see where we do have better written sources on the mainland of Europe.

In the 6th century, you know, we still see parts that have not, you know, kings who, you know,

are calling themselves Romans and identify themselves as Romans.

And if they can connect themselves to the Byzantine court of Justinian or something, they do.

There definitely is a perceived advantage and probably cultural cachet for still being considered Roman.

Christianity comes into that, though, too.

Because Christianity is the Western successor of Rome.

And sometimes to be Christian is to be Roman.

And so parts of Europe that were never part of the Roman Empire, but they convert to Christianity, also start talking about the Roman faith or call themselves Roman as a synonym almost for Christian.

And so the way those two processes work,

perhaps side by side, will be another factor.

So I think they probably still see themselves as Roman at some level, but what might change is where in their, I guess, their mix of identity that falls.

It might be that in 400, you would see yourself as Roman first, in Britain second.

You know, in 500, you might see yourself as a Briton first, and perhaps not only a Briton, but a Briton of a particular tribe or group or kingdom.