Or la Notice ne parle pas réellement de lètes, mais bien de gentiles.
Voici ce qu'en pense Robert Vermaat :
Citer:
Was he a Roman or not? By the time of the settlement, most certainly. From what we know of such posts, the early ones are always Roman military men, not surprising because we are talking about the settlement of a military group plus families. However, this group is changing over the next decades, and by the early 5th c. you will have a civilian population which provides recruits for the Roman army like everybody else. No cavalry, certainly not specialized warriors, just regular recruits going to regular units. No way they still provided cataphracts or horse-archers, that's impossible.
So by c. 400, the guy in charge can be a 'sarmatian' (who perhaps even speaks the original language a bit), but he is a civilian (likely lives in a big villa) with perhaps his grandfathers' sword hanging on the wall (remember that posession of arms is still forbidden for non-military, only allowed for ex-military).
I fear that your Taifali went the same way. I read that they were only 'found' because of a local name somewhere? The probably went the same way as the Sarmatians. The Alans were different, I think, because they were settled as a military force and used continuously after that - as a unified group, in times when this became increasinly important. That way, they develop independent fiefs. We see the same with the Franks- those entering the empire earlier were absorbed, the ones who are a self-ruled military group by c. 420 become a Frankish kingdom.