Partying like it's 1859: let's break up families just like we did in the slave days!

In the 90s German historian Alexander Dermandt enumerated some 210 putative causes for the fall of the Empire ; and more have been posited since.

Off the top of my head : political turmoil and instability ; military over-expansion (which is bad when your economy is heavily based on tribute and plunder from conquests) ; patronage/factionalism within the military ; over-reliance on slave labour & attendant lack of paying jobs for the urban poor ; disruption of the food supply (see: political turmoil) ; debased currency ; completely mismatched imperial income/spending ; crumbling infrastructure ; repeated civil wars ; travel made unsafe due to banditry (see: lack of jobs & war veterans) ; epidemics… the so-called barbarian invasions might have eventually tipped the cart over, but it was rotting long before they ever came.

But sure, it was all because of damn dirty immigrants. And undocumented immigration from Mexico is 1:1 equivalent with Attila’s ride-by, obviously :rolleyes:.

BTW, Rome only became an Empire because it managed to assimilate and include so many people and cultures in the first place (that is, in fact, the definition of an empire). It often had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so because nativists are a plague everywhere, but hey. Who do you think fought in the Legions ? Who patrolled the borders, built the aqueducts ? Answer : North Africans, Gauls, Sarmatians, Dacians, Egyptians, Greeks… Hell, some Roman *Emperors *were North African !

Settle down, fellas. Kobal said there wasn’t a single case in the history of the world where letting in a vast number of immigrants unchecked, no matter the conditions, did anything other than improve the nation in question. I’m pretty sure it’s not a questions Emperor Valens damaged the Empire greatly by allowing the Visigoths to settle inside his borders. Rome achieved greatness by expanding, sure, but it rarely worked out well for them in the long run by letting in great swaths of people who considered themselves foreigners.

Attila’s “ride-by” has a greater similarity to the US fostering autocratic governments in Central America than it does with the resultant net immigration in both cases. Not that I’m trying to suggest that Emperor Donald is going to die in battle leading his armies against the brown hordes on the plains of Arizona.

I think it is disingenuous to write that it’s trumps policy to separate children from their families. Trumps policy change was to prosecute illegal crossings whereas the previous mode was to look the other way (some of the time). When you arrest adults they are put in adult jail, their kids aren’t allowed to come with, nor would you want them to be. This separation would happen whether these were immigrants or fifth generation citizens.

This might seem like nitpicking to some, but it is important. If you want to be taken seriously and have objective, logical discussion, don’t play word games to impart intentional emotional bias.

Yes and no. I mean, he did what other princes had done before, and it had worked out fine for them - with the Franks, the Vandals, the Alans (and much later would work with the Vikings in Northern France)… The truth is, nobody really knows why the Visigoths broke off the accords between them and Rome. But, again, it’s not like they acted in a vacuum.

In the long run Rome built a state that conquered or purchased the (then, by them) known world and lasted some 2300 years (from Romulus and Remus to Manzikert) and built stuff that is still in use today.

I think, on the whole, they did kind of OK for a bunch of iron age idiots living out of a swamp :D.

I… whut ?

More’s the pity. But then I don’t think he could pull off a muscle cuirass.
…And now I really want to see that, damn it all.

Thanks, I didn’t catch what RTFireFly’s sarcasm was referring to. Now I can stop futilely trying to “be balanced” on the issue. :slight_smile:

But some of them, I assume, are good people.

I would say letting the Vikings settle in Normandy was another example of inviting foreigners in and not having it work out in the long run. I suppose it worked out fairly decently for the few centuries, but that Hundred Year’s War was a real pisser for the French monarchy.

The Vandals and the Alans did much the same as the Visigoths, except were less successful in their confrontations with all the other barbarian groups being run off by the Huns. The Franks weren’t so much let in as they were ignored.

I wouldn’t argue the success of the Roman Empire. But their greatest accomplishments were done by their local citizens, and their military was only reliable and effective when manned by Latins. A constant refrain of both Roman commentators and later historians was that the legions became regional powerbases for petty tyrants as soon as they were debased by the various other members of the late Republic/Empire. It’s fairly obvious that this was a correlative effect, not a causative one, but it still bears mentioning in the context of “vast immigration is always a great thing.”

Sorry, I was reaching there. Both were causes of mass immigration into a stable state which had thought they were controlling the cause of problems.

…this is one of those mental images you just can’t unthink, isn’t it? :slight_smile:

But that was some 400 years down the line. It wasn’t the same people fighting, it wasn’t even the same monarchy. *And *we won, dammit !
And for those 400 years, the descendants of Rollo did exactly what they’d signed up for : fought off the Vikings, even conquered half of them. And paid hommage and tribute to the King (well, until they had their own island and kind of let that second part slide).

Besides that, and much like the Visigoths, it’s not like it was immigration, not as such. More a case of “So hey, here’s the thing : we happen to have all these sharp, sharp swords ; mind if we settle here and then we won’t murder the fucking lot of you weaklings in your sleep ? Pretty please ?”. When Latinos or Syrian refugees come in guns blazing, and en masse instead of in a trickle, then the situations might be comparable.

Hard disagree there. For one thing, their old timers would scoff at you calling Latins “local citizens”, on account of the rest of their Italian allies having to fight a goddamn war to gain Roman citizenship in the first place. For “true Romans”, Italians were themselves a bunch of unwashed foreigners.

For another, Rome would never, ever in the history of ever have gotten all that land without the foederati. Let alone hold it, because “military service in exchange for citizenship and some land” kept quite a few warrior tribes tentatively peaceful (mostly not ; but those who took the deal typically fought against those who wanted their independance, so it worked in a dysfunctional bloody sort of way) instead of at Rome’s throat.

As for accomplishments, well, I’m not sure what you put in that category ; but the typical feats of “Roman engineering” were in 95% of cases built by the Legions stationed in the provinces whenever they had nobody it was overly pressing to smash - and those legions were a bunch of non-Latins by and large, because by that time nobody in Italy needed citizenship any more and the citizen-soldier thing was long past. Only the core of the troops and the officers were typically “Romans from Rome”.

Yes, but in truth that would have happened were the legions made up of just about anybody. These commentators (particularly the Antique ones, but Gibbon had his head up his British arse too) didn’t grok that what really had changed the paradigm was letting Octavian declare himself totally_not_King on the back of being acclaimed by his troops.

To be fair, it’s not like they had a real choice, he happened to have said troops camped right outside the city and he knew where the Senators lived ;). But it’s that precedent (really the one set before by Sulla, but Octavian becoming Caesar Augustus was the culmination of that new paradigm) that really screwed the Roman state’s political cohesion and turned every two-bit centurion into a would-be Emperor down the line.
By the way, Sulla’s troops ? Mostly poor Italians.

One could go further and opine that it’s really Marius’ decision to let the poor and the unemployed into the Legion in the first place that started it all. Prior to the reforms only the landed and them as could provide their own gear could enlist. Which made the Legion revolt-proof : they were the ones in power already, the ones who had the money and the land, who were they going to seize it *from *?

After the reform, with weapons provided by the State and the whole “20 years of fighting and then we’ll set you up in a farm in some colonia somewhere” deal, when the soldiers had no more “skin in the Roman game” as it were, the army as a whole became a lot more troublesome because the State now had to get them that farm. Which meant having to be on a constant state of conquest, else the army of have nots would grumble and eventually march on Rome to get their due from the haves. Hence, the Empire.

But as noted, as far as wrong decisions go it had a decent run before biting them in the arse one time too many :).

I’m not sure to which extent the Western Empire ever thought it controlled the Mongol state, or even were aware of its existence when the Vandals and Goths showed up ?
EDIT : WTF is up with the board lately, why does it add all these empty lines whenever I hit the enter key just the once ?

Truly, irony is dead:

Cops Plead “Allow ICE Employees To Go Home To Their Families” After Protesters Blockade Prison In Portland

Awesome!

You lose the argument when you begin rationalizing concentration camps for children. Stop it.

I hope they do, at least. I’ve seen a lot of spin on this one. All people want is a fig leaf they can use to claim they don’t support this. And there are garbage people out there trying to give it to them. They seem less extreme than the people actually arguing this is the right and proper thing–who also do exist, apparently.

BTW, to save money ICE is buying war surplus uniforms for its officers.
An example.

Well, plenty of people forgot that the president before Obama started an unnecessary war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, untold atrocities and generally horrible crap.

Separating kids from their parents is horrible but so is starting an unnecessary war.

Yeah? But what about that time Obama wore a tan suit? That’s just as bad as stupid wars and child/parent separations!

Call your senators and representative. It’s all we have-----unless you have a better idea.

There are some forms of misdemeanor child abuse and child neglect that could result in separation. But that is all “in the best interests of the child” I don’t know how you can make an argument that all of these separations are in the best interests of the child.

You mustn’t frequent right wing FB pages. I **swear **I am not making this up, I’ve seen such brilliant examples of cognitive dissonance as “these people are taking their children along with them while they’re committing a crime, which is child abuse ergo the children are better off taken away”. Like they’re bringing their kids to a violent bank heist or something. Unfuckingbelievable.
Politics gives people brain spiders, I swear to og.

I haven’t found a right wing FB page that isn’t a total waste of time. I content myself to frequenting this left wing message board where the signal noise ratio is about 50/50.

Maybe the best, most articulate post I’ve seen on the subject.

Nice work!