Analyses of imitatio imperii commonly focus on the ceremonial and symbolic aspects of the Roman empire—victory celebrations, creation of a capital, ceremonial dress and language, imagery on coins, and legal pronouncements— not ethnicity. Perhaps one reason is that in modern English, ‘imitation’ carries derogatory connotations of uninspired copying that remove the agency and creativity of the imitator. Imitated items and practices are seen as poor copies of originals, the latter of which are much more worthy of attention. Under this definition, one would expect an imitator of Rome to claim to be Roman, resembling Athaulf's claim that Goths were unable to submit to law and so should join and revive Rome, not replace Romania with Gothia. Following this logic, the Visigoths may be considered imperfect imitators of Roman ethnic concepts since the identity they claimed was not ‘Roman’ but ‘Gothic’, a poor copy of the original.

However, this is not how the classical rhetorical tradition understood imitatio. Students learned Latin grammar and rhetoric by replicating styles and forms, but this required careful selection of appropriate material to emulate as they wrote on new topics in new ways to rival rather than parrot the original. Aemulatio was such a central part of imitatio that texts regularly paired the terms. Using this definition, Visigothic authors did not just imitate; they borrowed Roman ethnic concepts, adapted their stories of Gothic origins, and asserted their legitimacy within Hispania in order to supersede the empire, not to become it.