I've been reading about Roman history lately, and it's interesting (though unsurprising) how hard it is to find the barbarian POV on events.
I know it can be hard to find information like this, but I'm really wondering what the various tribes who started sacking Rome and other major cities towards the end of the Western Empire thought of the advanced structures. In the Middle Ages, it seems like it took the Germanic and Frankish people a long time to approach that level of sophisitcation again, and I'm wondering why they didn't have captured Roman engineers to learn and copy from, etc? Did they just not care? Were they in awe of the coliseum or pantheon but unable to replicate them?
Thanks for any information on this topic!!
Rather than issues with engineering and technology, the constraints on monumental architecture in the post-Roman era were more organizational, economic, and even cultural. Indeed, at the level of society, politics, and technology, post-Roman states were not as different as you'd think when compared to their late Roman predecessors. What those societies prioritized compared to the earlier empire is another matter.
We've actually gotten a recent flurry of questions about the end of late antiquity, although there's always room for more discussion, especially on the specific topic of post-roman public works. In any case, this discussion authored by u/Iguana_on_a_stick examines life in "Roman Cities" after the end of the empire and might give you a clearer idea of what post-Roman states were like. I myself also answered a slightly more targeted question about the kinds of people who were "doing well for themselves" after the proclamation of the first Kingdom of Italy as well as this other answer more generally examining societal divisions in post-Roman Italy. You'll see that rather than barbarians looking to put "Captured Roman Engineers" to work, the people running post-Roman breakaway states were many of the same people who had been running the late Empire.
Although the city of Rome itself experienced a dramatic decline in Late Antiquity (you can read more about that here) you do see the construction of some kinds of new structures, notably churches (examined in that same answer). Concurrent with Rome's decline in importance, you also see the growth of other cities: Ravenna is the prime example, but so are a number of others; notably Milan, Pavia, and Bologna. Venice, although more peculiar and worthy of a separate examination, is also an example of a successful post-Roman urban space and a remarkable feat of human engineering and ingenuity even in its early days.
Its important to note that, by the Late Antique period in most of the West, many of the Classical structures which were built during the Classical period were in various states of disuse. Many scholars attribute this decline in euergetism and public building to the decline of the curiales, a group of governing local elite who were largely responsible for the extensive classical building of the 1st through 3rd centuries AD^1. With their decline, public building fell into the hands of the emperor and his direct court, which after the early 4th century became ever more focused on the Eastern Empire and Constantinople. There is significant evidence to suggest existing buildings were still in use during the Late Antique period. James Gerrard has suggested that re-use of Classical structures in post-Roman Britain may have been a strategy used by the elite, many of whom were leftover military leaders or landowners under Rome, to associate themselves with the power and legacy of the Empire^2. It seems that large-scale building projects were inexorably tied their perceived usefulness. Under the Empire, the curiales benefited in the form of prestige and greater social mobility. By the 5th and 6th centuries in the West, there was not enough personal benefit to the local elite to justify spending huge fortunes on public building.
References