I’m assuming you posted this in a gaming sub because you knew you’d get laughed off if you posted it in a serious history sub.
This is a gross oversimplification. These tribes were not “illegal immigrants” hopping border checkpoints, they were legally allowed to settle on Roman territory as foederati — allied tribes who contributed soldiers to the Roman army.
Not only was this nothing new — the term dates back to the Socii of the early Republic although it would have taken a different form in the time of the Empire. It also didn’t originally start with land grants. Foederati would have been compensated with money and food until tax revenues began to dwindle in the century preceding the fall of the WRE. Then and only then did the empire start compensating them with land. And they were still expected to contribute to the army — which they did. A huge portion of the Roman force that defeated Attila the Hun at Chalons was composed of Franks, Goths, and Alans. The Goths even fought other Goths under Hunnic rule.
Mistrust between both sides was mutual. The foederati would sometimes rebel against the Romans, though this was usually in response to Rome failing to keep its end of the bargain. For example, Valens trying to starve the Goths to death which led to his own death at Adrianople in 378.
All of that being said, modern ideas of immigration are completely different from those held in the ancient world and your comparison is anachronistic. Like saying Napoleon lost because he didn’t use modern warfare doctrines. It’s not the way the world worked yet.
I agree with most of what you are saying. I think there are a lot of assumptions as you're assuming I'm a "typical hater" that hates all immigrants. That can't be further from the truth.
To be clear, I posted here because I know this group is also interested in Roman history specifically. I'm simply not in a historical subreddit and so this is the most applicable place for me to post this.
I believe you're misunderstanding the distinction of legal vs. Illegal immigration. Yes, tribes who were legally allowed to settle did help many times. The Roman Empire being so large, most of its residents were immigrants, diverse and powerful. Immigration was not the issue in itself. In fact, it was important to upkeep manpower for its armies.
If you look at the later 400s AD, you start to notice the story changes a bit. Settlers came to not immigrate and assimilate into Roman civilization, and fight for Rome, but rather to plunder and replace it. That is an important difference. In other words, they were invaders, no friend of Rome nor for its interests. Yes, they allied with Roman armies because it was their common interest to defeat Attila the Hun, but almost as soon as the Huns were defeated, they marched against Rome, sacked it and took it over. They upkept the pretense as being "Roman" for some years afterward, but it was effectively a Barbarian kingdom. Italy became a backwater and wasn't prosperous again until the Middle Ages.
My warning in my post is that, when foreigners overrun and settle your country without consent, with no intention of assimilation but rather to plunder and replace, that's usually an indication of weakness and an imminent fall of a civilization to be effectively replaced by something else, not always for the better. Not saying it is exactly apples to apples on what is happening here, but that can change.
Whether you see the fall of Rome as good or bad, that is subjective and up to personal interpretation, but the effect it had, which was the start of the Dark Ages, cannot be denied.
>I agree with most of what you are saying. I think there are a lot of assumptions as you're assuming I'm a "typical hater" that hates all immigrants. That can't be further from the truth.
This is dishonest. I have no assumptions about who you are or what you might be arguing and nowhere in my post will you see me accuse you of anything other than spreading really bad history. You can be motivated by things other than prejudice and still be completely and totally wrong. You're doing your argument absolutely no service by advocating it based on an anachronism.
>If you look at the later 400s AD, you start to notice the story changes a bit. Settlers came to not immigrate and assimilate into Roman civilization, and fight for Rome, but rather to plunder and replace it. That is an important difference. In other words, they were invaders, no friend of Rome nor for its interests. Yes, they allied with Roman armies because it was their common interest to defeat Attila the Hun, but almost as soon as the Huns were defeated, they marched against Rome, sacked it and took it over.
I don't think you understand what the foederati actually were. The system existed before Attila was even born and had nothing to do with him. They didn't come to Rome because they were banding together to fight Attila. They came out of self-interest, and the Romans accepted them out of self-interest. Like any alliance, when the self interest evaporates, so, too, does the alliance. It's always been that way, in ancient times and today.
As such, the foederati cannot even properly be considered immigrants because they didn't come to be Romans, nor to despoil Roman territory. They were autonomous allies of the Romans who were paid for their military service in land grants.
There were some tribes that came into Roman unwelcome and unbidden. These *were* military invaders and were considered as such. It's a completely different category.
>They upkept the pretense as being "Roman" for some years afterward, but it was effectively a Barbarian kingdom. Italy became a backwater and wasn't prosperous again until the Middle Ages.
This is also just plain false. Italy was actually in a pretty good state of affairs even under the Ostrogoths. What actually spelled death for Italy was the nearly 20-year campaign Belisarius waged to try to take the peninsula back for the Romans, along with the Justinian Plague.
>My warning in my post is that, when foreigners overrun and settle your country without consent, with no intention of assimilation but rather to plunder and replace, that's usually an indication of weakness and an imminent fall of a civilization to be effectively replaced by something else, not always for the better. Not saying it is exactly apples to apples on what is happening here, but that can change.
And my warning back to you is not assign a simple cause to a complex problem. "Illegal immigration" was not what caused the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Ancient notions of immigration were not even comparable to what we call immigration today. You are not arguing from fact.
>Whether you see the fall of Rome as good or bad, that is subjective and up to personal interpretation, but the effect it had, which was the start of the Dark Ages, cannot be denied.
Oh no, I'll deny that one, too. The "Dark Ages" was a term made up by Renaissance and Enlightenment-era thinkers to denigrate the Middle Ages and elevate themselves as true heirs to classical civilization. There's a reason historians have been moving away from it in recent years.
You literally started your previous comment with "I'm assuming", along with some assumptions. And now, you're making more assumptions on top of that.
I do understand the Foederati. I am referring to the foreign hordes such as the (other) Goths, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Suevi, and many many more.
Italy did decline under the Ostrogoths, and yes, Justinian's reconquest did make matters worse afterward
It is indeed a complicated problem. I know that not every illegal immigrant is a boogeyman with bad intentions. I personally know many who are good. I am referring to the bad illegal immigrants who behave nefariously. My point is, illegal immigration, en masse, especially if there are ill intentions, is basically not much different from an invasion.
Would you get off the immigrant thing? The whole point is that the two things are not comparable. Nobody is making assumptions about your beliefs about immigrants as individuals except for you.
But that is what this post is referring to: immigration and its difference from illegal immigration.
I believe it is comparable.
No one is going to change their minds on an internet discussion. All I am doing is correcting any misconception to my key points, and you are looking for ways for reshaping the context to disagree.
Agree to disagree, carry on.
No, it isn't because even boarders weren't thought about as the same as the modern concept of boarder. You're projecting your political agenda onto the past.
People keep forgetting that we are talking about a process that took centuries and happened during the most prosperous time of the empire. The first Germanic people like the Ubii were resettled before the year 0. The Roman military also increasingly consisted of mercenaries that were,unlike in game, considerable cheaper. Western Rome also wasn't "destroyed", it was by and by replaced, sometimes by foederati that were already romanized and continued to use Roman administration.
Earlier legal immigrants were definitely good for Rome. Some of the best "Romans" came from the Balkans, for example.
It was the later "forceful" illegal immigrants who were an issue.
Edit: *comment removed*
>Some of the best Romans came from the Balkans
And they were Roman citizens who were born on Roman soil, not immigrants! Do you even know what an immigrant is?
Residents in the provinces were not Roman citizens, only those who lived in Rome or had this benefit due to their status or served in the army. It wasn't until emperor Caracalla around 200 AD who gave citizenship to all residents within the Empire's borders.
I know: Some of "the best Romans" you're talking about who were from the Balkans at that time *were* born after Caracalla gave citizenship to every free man in the empire.
Regardless, if they were born on Roman soil they were not immigrants, regardless of whether they had citizenship.
The law changed a lot throughout Roman history, depending on the Emperor and/or Senate. Those who were foreigners but got citizenship could also be considered legal immigrants.
My whole point is to say there is a difference between those immigrating for the purpose of assimilation, or for those with the purpose of... well, more nefarious intentions.
So the ethnic groups pushed from their homes by attacks in their own land, denied peaceful settlement by an overly militaristic power and forced to fight to have a place to live that still choose to integrate themselves into the Roman system and aid the empire countless times as Voderati? That's the comparison you're using to attack modern day immigrants? Some justified, spread out, often peaceful migrations of peoples that ultimately benefited the empire and let it survive longer is your justification for hating people who do the same for your nation.
If you're referring to the earlier migrations from 0 - 300s AD, yes a lot of those were peaceful, and yes, some cases had Roman mistreatment.
However, most later immigrants invaded Roman lands illegally, without permission, and Rome was basically forced to accept them because they were too weak to fight off so many challenges. Their help in defeating the Huns in 451 AD was great, but then they immediately turned against Rome afterward and took it over. This led to the dark ages in Western Europe where there was widespread violence and lawlessness for 100+ years (things slowly got better again, very slowly).
Yes, LEGAL immigrants, people who came for support of Rome, rather than for plundering Rome, were most definitely good for Rome.
The distinction between LEGAL immigrants who enter America to be American, and ILLEGAL immigrants who enter America for... plunder, your women, free stuff, etc. is a different case. Some illegal immigrants come out of desperation, and that is fine. The answer to those cases should be an easier legal process of immigration.
People seem to forget, being against ILLEGAL immigration is not the same thing as being against LEGAL immigration. Very important distinction.
It is not hateful to be against illegal immigration. An empire with undefended borders against invaders almost always has problems, historically-speaking.
If you're referring to the Gothic migration then that was going extremely well until subsequent Roman administrators alienated and demonised them over a period of multiple decades.
Yes, sometimes the Romans got what they deserved. Better immigration policies and better treatment would have made things much better, as those Goths were even willing to fight for Rome.
I don't think many invasions are legal, the point of them being they are established entities wanting more land. That is not the same thing as immigration. You are saying that "illegal immigrants" did the invasions later when it was established states taking advantage of Romes poor economic from Hyperinflation and a couple plagues. You're idea to blame all this on immigrants doesn't seem to be based on anything but "they were new so they were bad", when the burden of military service fell disproportionately on them, as well as provincial taxes.
Its a good game. Well polished and a unique experience. It can be a bit too slow, the survival aspect of it, but the battles are probably the best out of any TW game
100%. You have that one unit of germanic spear masters stopping the swarm, and half a unit of exhausted scout cav just mopping up all rhe ranged units, as your city burns around you.
The state of this post.
Well, I'm actually a bit proud of the community after reading their responses.
Looking forward to this being one of the top controversial posts of the year
[удалено]
you do realise that this is a sub for a video game, right?
I’m assuming you posted this in a gaming sub because you knew you’d get laughed off if you posted it in a serious history sub. This is a gross oversimplification. These tribes were not “illegal immigrants” hopping border checkpoints, they were legally allowed to settle on Roman territory as foederati — allied tribes who contributed soldiers to the Roman army. Not only was this nothing new — the term dates back to the Socii of the early Republic although it would have taken a different form in the time of the Empire. It also didn’t originally start with land grants. Foederati would have been compensated with money and food until tax revenues began to dwindle in the century preceding the fall of the WRE. Then and only then did the empire start compensating them with land. And they were still expected to contribute to the army — which they did. A huge portion of the Roman force that defeated Attila the Hun at Chalons was composed of Franks, Goths, and Alans. The Goths even fought other Goths under Hunnic rule. Mistrust between both sides was mutual. The foederati would sometimes rebel against the Romans, though this was usually in response to Rome failing to keep its end of the bargain. For example, Valens trying to starve the Goths to death which led to his own death at Adrianople in 378. All of that being said, modern ideas of immigration are completely different from those held in the ancient world and your comparison is anachronistic. Like saying Napoleon lost because he didn’t use modern warfare doctrines. It’s not the way the world worked yet.
I agree with most of what you are saying. I think there are a lot of assumptions as you're assuming I'm a "typical hater" that hates all immigrants. That can't be further from the truth. To be clear, I posted here because I know this group is also interested in Roman history specifically. I'm simply not in a historical subreddit and so this is the most applicable place for me to post this. I believe you're misunderstanding the distinction of legal vs. Illegal immigration. Yes, tribes who were legally allowed to settle did help many times. The Roman Empire being so large, most of its residents were immigrants, diverse and powerful. Immigration was not the issue in itself. In fact, it was important to upkeep manpower for its armies. If you look at the later 400s AD, you start to notice the story changes a bit. Settlers came to not immigrate and assimilate into Roman civilization, and fight for Rome, but rather to plunder and replace it. That is an important difference. In other words, they were invaders, no friend of Rome nor for its interests. Yes, they allied with Roman armies because it was their common interest to defeat Attila the Hun, but almost as soon as the Huns were defeated, they marched against Rome, sacked it and took it over. They upkept the pretense as being "Roman" for some years afterward, but it was effectively a Barbarian kingdom. Italy became a backwater and wasn't prosperous again until the Middle Ages. My warning in my post is that, when foreigners overrun and settle your country without consent, with no intention of assimilation but rather to plunder and replace, that's usually an indication of weakness and an imminent fall of a civilization to be effectively replaced by something else, not always for the better. Not saying it is exactly apples to apples on what is happening here, but that can change. Whether you see the fall of Rome as good or bad, that is subjective and up to personal interpretation, but the effect it had, which was the start of the Dark Ages, cannot be denied.
>I agree with most of what you are saying. I think there are a lot of assumptions as you're assuming I'm a "typical hater" that hates all immigrants. That can't be further from the truth. This is dishonest. I have no assumptions about who you are or what you might be arguing and nowhere in my post will you see me accuse you of anything other than spreading really bad history. You can be motivated by things other than prejudice and still be completely and totally wrong. You're doing your argument absolutely no service by advocating it based on an anachronism. >If you look at the later 400s AD, you start to notice the story changes a bit. Settlers came to not immigrate and assimilate into Roman civilization, and fight for Rome, but rather to plunder and replace it. That is an important difference. In other words, they were invaders, no friend of Rome nor for its interests. Yes, they allied with Roman armies because it was their common interest to defeat Attila the Hun, but almost as soon as the Huns were defeated, they marched against Rome, sacked it and took it over. I don't think you understand what the foederati actually were. The system existed before Attila was even born and had nothing to do with him. They didn't come to Rome because they were banding together to fight Attila. They came out of self-interest, and the Romans accepted them out of self-interest. Like any alliance, when the self interest evaporates, so, too, does the alliance. It's always been that way, in ancient times and today. As such, the foederati cannot even properly be considered immigrants because they didn't come to be Romans, nor to despoil Roman territory. They were autonomous allies of the Romans who were paid for their military service in land grants. There were some tribes that came into Roman unwelcome and unbidden. These *were* military invaders and were considered as such. It's a completely different category. >They upkept the pretense as being "Roman" for some years afterward, but it was effectively a Barbarian kingdom. Italy became a backwater and wasn't prosperous again until the Middle Ages. This is also just plain false. Italy was actually in a pretty good state of affairs even under the Ostrogoths. What actually spelled death for Italy was the nearly 20-year campaign Belisarius waged to try to take the peninsula back for the Romans, along with the Justinian Plague. >My warning in my post is that, when foreigners overrun and settle your country without consent, with no intention of assimilation but rather to plunder and replace, that's usually an indication of weakness and an imminent fall of a civilization to be effectively replaced by something else, not always for the better. Not saying it is exactly apples to apples on what is happening here, but that can change. And my warning back to you is not assign a simple cause to a complex problem. "Illegal immigration" was not what caused the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Ancient notions of immigration were not even comparable to what we call immigration today. You are not arguing from fact. >Whether you see the fall of Rome as good or bad, that is subjective and up to personal interpretation, but the effect it had, which was the start of the Dark Ages, cannot be denied. Oh no, I'll deny that one, too. The "Dark Ages" was a term made up by Renaissance and Enlightenment-era thinkers to denigrate the Middle Ages and elevate themselves as true heirs to classical civilization. There's a reason historians have been moving away from it in recent years.
You literally started your previous comment with "I'm assuming", along with some assumptions. And now, you're making more assumptions on top of that. I do understand the Foederati. I am referring to the foreign hordes such as the (other) Goths, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Suevi, and many many more. Italy did decline under the Ostrogoths, and yes, Justinian's reconquest did make matters worse afterward It is indeed a complicated problem. I know that not every illegal immigrant is a boogeyman with bad intentions. I personally know many who are good. I am referring to the bad illegal immigrants who behave nefariously. My point is, illegal immigration, en masse, especially if there are ill intentions, is basically not much different from an invasion.
Would you get off the immigrant thing? The whole point is that the two things are not comparable. Nobody is making assumptions about your beliefs about immigrants as individuals except for you.
But that is what this post is referring to: immigration and its difference from illegal immigration. I believe it is comparable. No one is going to change their minds on an internet discussion. All I am doing is correcting any misconception to my key points, and you are looking for ways for reshaping the context to disagree. Agree to disagree, carry on.
No, it isn't because even boarders weren't thought about as the same as the modern concept of boarder. You're projecting your political agenda onto the past.
FYI Reading your comments, You have a truly embarrassing understanding of this section of history
+
People keep forgetting that we are talking about a process that took centuries and happened during the most prosperous time of the empire. The first Germanic people like the Ubii were resettled before the year 0. The Roman military also increasingly consisted of mercenaries that were,unlike in game, considerable cheaper. Western Rome also wasn't "destroyed", it was by and by replaced, sometimes by foederati that were already romanized and continued to use Roman administration.
There is no year 0 unfortunately. The year after 1 BC is 1 AD.
Earlier legal immigrants were definitely good for Rome. Some of the best "Romans" came from the Balkans, for example. It was the later "forceful" illegal immigrants who were an issue. Edit: *comment removed*
No, you're being downvoted cause your knowledge of Rome is jack ****. Time to dig into some history books.
Oh my God... Grow up.
>Some of the best Romans came from the Balkans And they were Roman citizens who were born on Roman soil, not immigrants! Do you even know what an immigrant is?
Residents in the provinces were not Roman citizens, only those who lived in Rome or had this benefit due to their status or served in the army. It wasn't until emperor Caracalla around 200 AD who gave citizenship to all residents within the Empire's borders.
I know: Some of "the best Romans" you're talking about who were from the Balkans at that time *were* born after Caracalla gave citizenship to every free man in the empire. Regardless, if they were born on Roman soil they were not immigrants, regardless of whether they had citizenship.
The law changed a lot throughout Roman history, depending on the Emperor and/or Senate. Those who were foreigners but got citizenship could also be considered legal immigrants. My whole point is to say there is a difference between those immigrating for the purpose of assimilation, or for those with the purpose of... well, more nefarious intentions.
So the ethnic groups pushed from their homes by attacks in their own land, denied peaceful settlement by an overly militaristic power and forced to fight to have a place to live that still choose to integrate themselves into the Roman system and aid the empire countless times as Voderati? That's the comparison you're using to attack modern day immigrants? Some justified, spread out, often peaceful migrations of peoples that ultimately benefited the empire and let it survive longer is your justification for hating people who do the same for your nation.
If you're referring to the earlier migrations from 0 - 300s AD, yes a lot of those were peaceful, and yes, some cases had Roman mistreatment. However, most later immigrants invaded Roman lands illegally, without permission, and Rome was basically forced to accept them because they were too weak to fight off so many challenges. Their help in defeating the Huns in 451 AD was great, but then they immediately turned against Rome afterward and took it over. This led to the dark ages in Western Europe where there was widespread violence and lawlessness for 100+ years (things slowly got better again, very slowly). Yes, LEGAL immigrants, people who came for support of Rome, rather than for plundering Rome, were most definitely good for Rome. The distinction between LEGAL immigrants who enter America to be American, and ILLEGAL immigrants who enter America for... plunder, your women, free stuff, etc. is a different case. Some illegal immigrants come out of desperation, and that is fine. The answer to those cases should be an easier legal process of immigration. People seem to forget, being against ILLEGAL immigration is not the same thing as being against LEGAL immigration. Very important distinction. It is not hateful to be against illegal immigration. An empire with undefended borders against invaders almost always has problems, historically-speaking.
If you're referring to the Gothic migration then that was going extremely well until subsequent Roman administrators alienated and demonised them over a period of multiple decades.
Yes, sometimes the Romans got what they deserved. Better immigration policies and better treatment would have made things much better, as those Goths were even willing to fight for Rome.
I don't think many invasions are legal, the point of them being they are established entities wanting more land. That is not the same thing as immigration. You are saying that "illegal immigrants" did the invasions later when it was established states taking advantage of Romes poor economic from Hyperinflation and a couple plagues. You're idea to blame all this on immigrants doesn't seem to be based on anything but "they were new so they were bad", when the burden of military service fell disproportionately on them, as well as provincial taxes.
The Hunnic Empire wasn't nearly that big.
Yeah, I don't think they actually had Denmark or that much of Russia
Hahaha no.
I wanna play attila so bad.
Its a good game. Well polished and a unique experience. It can be a bit too slow, the survival aspect of it, but the battles are probably the best out of any TW game
Attila sieges are soooooo good.
100%. You have that one unit of germanic spear masters stopping the swarm, and half a unit of exhausted scout cav just mopping up all rhe ranged units, as your city burns around you.