You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
What America can learn from ancient Rome's death by mass migration
2024-09-18
[American Thinker] It is a common historical myth that Rome fell in 476 A.D. after Odoacer, King of the Goths, sacked the capital city and forced Romulus Augustus to abdicate his throne.

The historical reality is rather different. Over the course of nearly a century, Germanic tribes — fleeing everything from war, famine and tribal politics — moved, unimpeded, into Roman territory. And the Empire died not by traditional invasion but by unchecked mass migration.

During this period, Rome was ruled by a disaffected elite. Rather than send out a legion or two to kick some culus and take nomen, they decided it would be easier and cheaper to just wave them in and grant them citizenship. In return for citizenship and farmland, entire clans of Angles, Burgundians, Franks, Ostrogoths, Vandals and Visigoths agreed to serve in Rome’s military forces. The fact that this upended centuries of Roman law and practice regarding citizenship didn’t cause the upper echelons of Roman society to get their subligaculum in a bunch. They figured, now that the barbares were citizens, they’d just start acting like Romans.

That was overly optimistic thinking on the part of the Romans. Assimilation tends to occur when people enter a new culture, in small numbers, and experience social pressure to blend into their new communities. Assimilation tends to make it easier to get along in one’s newly adopted homeland because it eliminates barriers to economic success, like being unable to speak the local lingua franca.

But Rome admitted too many Germanic tribesmen, too quickly. Suddenly Rome’s elite found themselves trying to persuade guys with names like Giselric the Plunderer or Hairuwulf the Skull-Crusher to slap on a toga and eat stuffed grape leaves while daintily reclining on a Roman lounge chair. As you may have guessed, that didn’t work out so well.

In the end, unchecked mass migration, bulk amnesty and pay-for-citizenship schemes didn’t rescue Rome, they killed it. Following about three centuries of political confusion, the remnants of the society spawned by the Eternal City morphed into a distinctly Germanic simulacrum of the Empire called the Holy Roman Empire.

If you’re reading this and thinking to yourself, "Gee, that sounds kind of like the U.S. today!" you may be onto something.
Posted by:Besoeker

#7  What did it mean to be Roman?
When everybody is Roman,
Roman means nothing.
Who maintains a loyalty to nothing?
Without loyalty to a central govt,
You have a reversion (at best) to tribalism.
That spells Cultural Darwinism for the central authority.
Posted by: mossomo   2024-09-18 13:29  

#6  The Roman Empire did not fall at all, it lived on for 1000 years in the Eastern part.

But indeed, it's a complicated story. I recommend to visit the churches of Ravenna with their splendid mosaics.
Posted by: European Conservative   2024-09-18 12:28  

#5  1177 BC by Eric Cline is creepy.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2024-09-18 12:03  

#4  It is more complicated than that.

For example, Flavius Stilicho, who was of Vandal barbarian ancestry commanded a number of Roman Legions in battle against, among others, the Huns, Goths and Franks. He was executed by a Roman emperor in 408. The Roman army basically fell apart after that and Rome itself was sacked in 410.

There were other barbarians who fought successfully for Rome in command positions.
Posted by: Lord Garth   2024-09-18 11:21  

#3  "It is a common historical myth that Rome fell in 476 A.D. after Odoacer, King of the Goths, sacked the capital city and forced Romulus Augustus to abdicate his throne"

Odoacer was Germanic, but not a Goth, let alone their king. He actually fought the Ostrogoths later on. He also didn't sack Rome (that was Alarich).

At that time, the party was in Ravenna, not in Rome.
Posted by: European Conservative   2024-09-18 11:11  

#2  The unending border and civil wars drained the traditional manpower pools to the point that Rome relied more and more upon auxiliary troops of 'allies' which incorporated those 'migrants'. At the critical Battle of Châlons against the invading Hun army, half of the forces where allied Germanic tribes. Eventually, the 'allies' started to ask 'why are you in charge?'.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2024-09-18 10:23  

#1  Decline of the Aztec Empire
Posted by: Skidmark   2024-09-18 09:26  

00:00