Anybody ready for a second American Civil War?

[Shad]

How did the Roman empire fall again?

Legal immigration and an army with no loyalty to the state.

 

[Shad]

Canadians don't lock their doors. You may sleep on the couch, and I'll make breakfast.

This one does after multiple standoffs with attempted B&E.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How did the Roman empire fall again?

There's a big question hiding as a pithy response...lol

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Legal immigration and an army with no loyalty to the state.

Legal immigration???

 

[Twilight Hue]

Aw c'mon guys, it won't be that bad... We'll just shoot each other over this government shutdown thing.


... God I hope it doesn't come to that.

I can see it now.....

 

[Shad]

Legal immigration???

Yes, the great migration which resulted in populations pledging loyalty to Rome which really had none in respect to the government nor it's ideals. Not that Rome was anything great but the core concept is true.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, the great migration which resulted in populations pledging loyalty to Rome which really had none in respect to the government nor it's ideals. Not that Rome was anything great but the core concept is true.

That is one helluva self serving spin you're putting on things there. Care to start a thread on it, so we don't sidetrack this one? Classical history is a hobby of mine.

 

[Shad]

That is one helluva self serving spin you're putting on things there.

Not really. See; Goths, Visigoth and Franks.

Care to start a thread on it, so we don't sidetrack this one? Classical history is a hobby of mine.

Are you able to access a copy of "The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians" by Peter Heather?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not really. See; Goths, Visigoth and Franks.



Are you able to access a copy of "The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians" by Peter Heather?

I own a copy.

 

[Shad]

I own a copy.

The book points out the immigration issue I was talking about and the lack of assimilation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The book points out the immigration issue I was talking about and the lack of assimilation.

Sorry on the delay, mate. This wasn't something I could address without a little thought, and some reading. It's been a few years since I read The Fall...

I still think this is a bit tangental, so if we want to get too in depth, we should start a new thread, but I'd make the following quick points;

1) The hegemony of the Roman Army had been drastically altered LONG before the fall of the Western Empire. There are a lot of points to cover in that, but briefly;

(whoops...stupid post button. Let me edit before responding please!!!!)

 

[Shad]

Sorry on the delay, mate. This wasn't something I could address without a little thought, and some reading. It's been a few years since I read The Fall...

I still think this is a bit tangental, so if we want to get too in depth, we should start a new thread, but I'd make the following quick points;

1) The hegemony of the Roman Army had been drastically altered LONG before the fall of the Western Empire. There are a lot of points to cover in that, but briefly;

(whoops...stupid post button. Let me edit before responding please!!!!)

Take your time. It is late here so you have a good 12-16 hours before I will be on RF again.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The book points out the immigration issue I was talking about and the lack of assimilation.

All right...take three I think! I've started from scratch again, just FYI.

There is a lot to cover here, but since the thread appears to have died off, I don't suppose it matters if we post about this here.
I've had a quick skim of Heather's book, since it's been a few years since I have read that one. My more recent reading has been more focused on Persia and her successors.

A few quick points;
1) The hegemony of the Roman Army had been at best questionable since the time of the mid-Republic. Armies were no longer citizen soldiery by that time. That is centuries prior to the fall of the Western Empire. Non-citizens were allowed (or coerced) to join. Non-Romans made up a full 50% of the legions. Mercenary bands, or migrant bands were then added on top of this to bolster manpower, and for more specific roles (commonly skirmishing, cavalry, etc in mid-Republican times...)

2) The Legions had become very closely aligned to their generals since the late Republic, as demonstrated by rules governing standing armies not billeting in Rome, and evidenced by Caeser's ability to seize power. Whether migrant or 'true-Romans' there appears little doubt that allegiances were commonly not to the founding city. Apart from some periods of stability, including much of Augustus' time, this only grew worse once Rome was not a Republic.

3) Border patrolling and the policies of assimilating immigrants had long been established. The difference with the Goths was basically;
(a) Roman attention was focused elsewhere (specifically the Persians)
(b) The normal processes, of letting the migratory party in, spreading them wide to prevent co-ordination, drafting of young men in the army (to thin out hotheads, etc) and the provision of farming land, so they'd have something to lose was not followed. None of it was followed.
(c) As well as not providing arable land, Roman officials at the border likely extorted from the Goths, who had little option but to source their food from the Roman Officials.

The Romans then doubled-down on this by holding one of their notorious hostage banquets. However, they didn't keep the Goth leaders captive, and they didn't kill them. They just pissed them off and then released them. Establishing an aggrieved and cohesive group (or 2 groups, in this case) within your borders is not sound policy. Failing to give them any sort of investment, or anything to lose just makes them desperate. Pressure from the Huns meant the reasons for them leaving the tough conditions of their homelands remained unchanged...

It's really no surprise that things got out of hand.

I'd suggest that;
1) The Fall of the Western Empire was partly due to immigrants who had not assimilated...but the reasons for that were largely Roman failure to follow their normal policies and processes.
2) The Rise of the Western Empire was partly due to immigrants, including even those who had no assimilated, strangely.
3) Any argument that migration caused the Fall of the West AND that this is somehow informative about modern events really needs to deal with the policies of the Eastern Empire, which thrived whilst using...wait for it...massive numbers of mercenaries and immigrants in her armies.

 

[Shad]

All right...take three I think! I've started from scratch again, just FYI.

There is a lot to cover here, but since the thread appears to have died off, I don't suppose it matters if we post about this here.
I've had a quick skim of Heather's book, since it's been a few years since I have read that one. My more recent reading has been more focused on Persia and her successors.

A few quick points;
1) The hegemony of the Roman Army had been at best questionable since the time of the mid-Republic. Armies were no longer citizen soldiery by that time. That is centuries prior to the fall of the Western Empire. Non-citizens were allowed (or coerced) to join. Non-Romans made up a full 50% of the legions. Mercenary bands, or migrant bands were then added on top of this to bolster manpower, and for more specific roles (commonly skirmishing, cavalry, etc in mid-Republican times...)



2) The Legions had become very closely aligned to their generals since the late Republic, as demonstrated by rules governing standing armies not billeting in Rome, and evidenced by Caeser's ability to seize power. Whether migrant or 'true-Romans' there appears little doubt that allegiances were commonly not to the founding city. Apart from some periods of stability, including much of Augustus' time, this only grew worse once Rome was not a Republic.

Yes as per the Marian Reforms. I considered and incorporated these factors. However you are missing a key fact. The internal wars of Rome were about controlling the Empire not replacing it. Those from the great migration were not trying to take over the Empire.

3) Border patrolling and the policies of assimilating immigrants had long been established. The difference with the Goths was basically;
(a) Roman attention was focused elsewhere (specifically the Persians)
(b) The normal processes, of letting the migratory party in, spreading them wide to prevent co-ordination, drafting of young men in the army (to thin out hotheads, etc) and the provision of farming land, so they'd have something to lose was not followed. None of it was followed.
(c) As well as not providing arable land, Roman officials at the border likely extorted from the Goths, who had little option but to source their food from the Roman Officials.

The Romans then doubled-down on this by holding one of their notorious hostage banquets. However, they didn't keep the Goth leaders captive, and they didn't kill them. They just pissed them off and then released them. Establishing an aggrieved and cohesive group (or 2 groups, in this case) within your borders is not sound policy. Failing to give them any sort of investment, or anything to lose just makes them desperate. Pressure from the Huns meant the reasons for them leaving the tough conditions of their homelands remained unchanged...

The groups from the Great migration didn't assimilate into the Roman system. That is the key difference. Also you merely establish the migrant's interest is not in the Roman systems nor what is has to offered but escape. This is the difference between immigrants by choice and migrants of circumstance. The Romans had no obligation to invest.

It's really no surprise that things got out of hand.

Sure. Still the point remains it was rebellion not a civil war.

I'd suggest that;
1) The Fall of the Western Empire was partly due to immigrants who had not assimilated...but the reasons for that were largely Roman failure to follow their normal policies and processes.

You are bring up standards not established as procedures of government.

2) The Rise of the Western Empire was partly due to immigrants, including even those who had no assimilated, strangely.

Not applicable to Eastern Iberia, Italy, Western Greece nor North Africa. At best you can link the Marian reforms with the conquest of Gaul, England and the rest of Iberia.

3) Any argument that migration caused the Fall of the West AND that this is somehow informative about modern events really needs to deal with the policies of the Eastern Empire, which thrived whilst using...wait for it...massive numbers of mercenaries and immigrants in her armies.

One of the rebellion such as the Goth in the Balkans occurred in the East Empire. Also the Eastern Empire ultimately fell to a dynasty formed by a migrant that swore loyalty to Byzantium; House of Osman. The House that founded the Ottoman Empire...[/QUOTE]

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry again on delay. Take it as a compliment...I actually need to think about your posts...

Yes as per the Marian Reforms. I considered and incorporated these factors. However you are missing a key fact. The internal wars of Rome were about controlling the Empire not replacing it. Those from the great migration were not trying to take over the Empire.

I don't think the goths were originally trying to replace the empire either. I think the course of events led them to places they did not originally intend.
I'd also suggest that Julius was the one who established the Empire...overthrowing the Republic in the process. So there is some precedent to outsiders moving into Roman territory with the intent of breaking the political structures (even if Julius himself was not truly an outsider).

The groups from the Great migration didn't assimilate into the Roman system. That is the key difference. Also you merely establish the migrant's interest is not in the Roman systems nor what is has to offered but escape. This is the difference between immigrants by choice and migrants of circumstance. The Romans had no obligation to invest.

'Obligation' appears to be a very strange/modern way to judge this. The Romans were free to do whatever they liked, but the Goths were too. Not effectively managing the situation caused the Romans severe issues. They had previously avoided these issues through more judicious and proactive action.

Sure. Still the point remains it was rebellion not a civil war.

Potato/potato...(hmm..that makes less sense when written)
Some of the Goths were given permission to settle within Roman territory. Whether it's a rebellion or a civil war seems a fairly semantic discussion, especially since other Goths were invaders, pure and simple.

You are bring up standards not established as procedures of government.

So?
In a modern context, if US policy is to firmly but politely refuse entry to immigrants of a certain type, but in reality is taking bribes of children in exchange for dog meat, I don't think the policy is as important as the reality.
Policy is as effective as it's implementation.

Not applicable to Eastern Iberia, Italy, Western Greece nor North Africa. At best you can link the Marian reforms with the conquest of Gaul, England and the rest of Iberia.

I never suggested the entire Empire was built on immigrants. Gaul alone can make my point.

One of the rebellion such as the Goth in the Balkans occurred in the East Empire. Also the Eastern Empire ultimately fell to a dynasty formed by a migrant that swore loyalty to Byzantium; House of Osman. The House that founded the Ottoman Empire...

Immigration and the place of migrants within the Empire was positively ubiquitous. It isn't 'good' or 'bad'. It's both, and neither, all at once. And you're stretching on the House of Osman. The Empire was weak by then...and had survived for an immensely long period.
Indeed, Konstantine had needed Ottoman help to ascend to the throne in the first place.

 

[Shad]

Sorry again on delay. Take it as a compliment...I actually need to think about your posts...



I don't think the goths were originally trying to replace the empire either.

No as they were migrants of circumstance.

I think the course of events led them to places they did not originally intend.

As often rebellions do.

I'd also suggest that Julius was the one who established the Empire...overthrowing the Republic in the process. So there is some precedent to outsiders moving into Roman territory with the intent of breaking the political structures (even if Julius himself was not truly an outsider).

Caesar didn't break the Republic. Caesar used the reforms and actions of Sulla which were legal and never repealed by the Senate. More so Caesar was part of the First Triumvirate so his acts were not those of isolation. August and the Senate broke the Republic.

'Obligation' appears to be a very strange/modern way to judge this. The Romans were free to do whatever they liked, but the Goths were too. Not effectively managing the situation caused the Romans severe issues. They had previously avoided these issues through more judicious and proactive action.

Sure management was awful. It could be a motto of the Empire.

Potato/potato...(hmm..that makes less sense when written)
Some of the Goths were given permission to settle within Roman territory. Whether it's a rebellion or a civil war seems a fairly semantic discussion, especially since other Goths were invaders, pure and simple.

I was talking about a specific case with the settlement of Thrace.

So?
In a modern context, if US policy is to firmly but politely refuse entry to immigrants of a certain type, but in reality is taking bribes of children in exchange for dog meat, I don't think the policy is as important as the reality.
Policy is as effective as it's implementation.

Again you are injecting procedure not bring up those of the Roman system

I never suggested the entire Empire was built on immigrants. Gaul alone can make my point.

You brought up immigration in relation to the Western Empire. I pointed out that it wasn't applicable to those areas.

Immigration and the place of migrants within the Empire was positively ubiquitous. It isn't 'good' or 'bad'. It's both, and neither, all at once. And you're stretching on the House of Osman. The Empire was weak by then...and had survived for an immensely long period.

No. I am bringing up a point you didn't know about. More so you validate my point that when circumstance are right claimed loyalty means nothing to those pledging said loyalty.

Indeed, Konstantine had needed Ottoman help to ascend to the throne in the first place.

Yup. And in return he was betrayed.