Multiculturalism sucks

>multiculturalism sucks
>what was ancient rome

Other urls found in this thread:

romanarmy.net/Latearmy.shtml
patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41582
faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/die-voelkerwanderung-ein-begriff-macht-karriere-13874687.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Let us take lessons from Romans and not share their fate.

HAIL GENGHIS KHAN!

A single latin culture that dominated all the other cultures and the other cultures were permitted to exist as long as they didn't disrupt the social order.

tldr OP is a faggot

Ancient Rome wasn't multicultural you faggot, every tribe the Romans subjugated either converted to Roman culture or was a weakness which eventually cased the empire to fall. No exceptions.

This is true. Towards the end the Romans abandoned their latin culture and started embracing barbarian cultures.

>multiculturalism sucks
>ottoman empire
It sucks believe me...

Fuck you

In a similar vein, when they used "barbarian" fighting styles (like light infantry, cavalry, and archers) as "auxiliary forces" to complement the main Roman section of the force which was heavy infantry, they were successful military conquerers. However, the second they started adopting these "auxiliary force" styles of combat as their own (mainly to save money, a light infantry force is cheaper than a heavy infantry force), their army started to weaken. Eventually they were actually paying entire armies of barbarians to keep their border safe FOR THEM.

>T*rks
>Culture
pick one

No you idiotic morons. Their culture adapted heavily to Greek influences and their republican government turned into an autocracy based more along the lines of oriental kingship. Eastern cults like the Egyptian goddess Isis or Mithras were imported and very popular among Romans. Later on they adopted Christianity from the East. They also used auxiliaries a lot in their armies, and granted all people in the empire citizenship eventually. The local culture wasn't forced to change either. There were Roman influences like aqueducts and amphitheatres but the local cultures remained largely intact apart from the aristocracy

Period authors complained about lack of social trust and civic apathy in the face of ever growing migrations pressuring the borders and economic troubles. People were retreating into the communities that were going to make the modern countries that you see today. People were more and more focused on gibsmedats and distractions rather than sustaining the empire.

This sounds exactly like the multicultural west.

I don't get it. Romans were enforcing Latin culture and Religion on conquered peoples (except Greeks).

you do realize you are describing the later years exactly as the Empire started to crumble? you are literally arguing against yourself

>Religion

no. They just made them put a statue of the emperor in their temples. Didn't make them worship Roman gods. Even then, some people like the Jews were given an exemption and didn't have to worship the emperor at all. And Latin culture only reached the aristocracy. Everyone else remained pretty much the same.

No, I am talking about the empire from Augustus' time.

romanarmy.net/Latearmy.shtml
patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41582


One writer jerking off over the shining image he had of earlier legions does not reality make.

>when in Rome, do as the Romans do
>Multiculturalism

That's assimilation.

most of what you said is way after Augustus time, and the fact is that they still kept and enforced their original culture on each territory they conquered

adopting auxiliaries has little to no impact on the topic

Oh so you're talking about the fall of the republic when authoritarianism took root?

>what was ancient rome
it was a nation that failed for many reasons, one of which was its dependence on foreign fighters to bolster its dwindling military power.

>Didn't make them worship Roman gods.
That was the case for the politheistic religions, because the Romans just assumed that those are the same gods just with diffrent names and stories, as well as later the Jews. But christians were still not welcome.
>Latin culture only reached the aristocracy.
If it did, we wouldn't have such languages as French and Spanish nowadays.

>multiculturalism sucks
>where is ancient rome

fixed that for you

> it's time to redefine what means to be Roman

>Their culture adapted heavily to Greek influences
No,both cultures influenced each other.
>Eastern cults like the Egyptian goddess Isis or Mithras were imported and very popular among Romans
The pagans religions are basically worshiping the same things.
>Later on they adopted Christianity from the East
The eastern Roman empire wasn't even Roman at this point.The first king of Byzantium was armenian or something.

What I meant was that from Augustus time onwards, ie. when the empire was at it's greatest heights, it was multicultural. The Roman empire was at it's largest extent in the mid 2nd century. By that time, almost everything I listed was occurring. And it was largely still applicable even until the later 4th century. Shit didn't really fall apart until the late 4th and early 5th century, which had nothing to do with multiculturalism, but with barbarian migrations from outside the empire, not people already within.

A nation who's downfall was letting people keep their cultures intact without any sort of integration, leading to cultural conflicts within the state.

You're retarded. After the Social War, every single non-Roman group on the Italian peninsula unequivocally assumed Roman culture as their own. By the time of Vespasian, you had Gauls assuming Roman names and Roman culture entering into the Roman military. By Trajan, Brittania was essentially Roman culture as well.

Multiculturalism literaly killed the ancient rome
It was too big and too diverse to rule.
The roman didn't feel patriotic anymore when they strated giving the citizenship to everyone so they stopped paying their taxe and doing the military service

Relying on too many foreign fighters was a result of the barbarian invasions, which is the overall cause

Rome was multiracial but not multicultural. You were not allowed to be a Roman if you didn't assimilate.

Did you mapleniggers not get this in school?

You don't even need to use Rome as an example. America is multicultural it's the most powerful nation on Earth.

>barbarian migrations from outside the empire
Which only succeeded because they found sympathies in the non-Roman peoples the Empire was already hiring to defend itself.

it was a gradual degeneration, and at its height the Empire was still mostly unicultural, with Latin being imposed on the conquered ones, and citizenship being still mostly an Italic thing
high Greek culture reached mostly the patricians

of course, being an Empire in the traditional sense, it wasn't totalitarian, so sure, in Gallia you still had Gauls doing their thing and same with other provinces, but that's not multiculturalism, as most of these different cultures would be confined to their territories

and moreover, the crisis of the third century was the first step towards the downfall

But that is not true in the least. At the height of the empire they were Roman. They spoke Latin in ghe West and unofficialmy Greek in the East. But every city, no matter where was the same. When cities were founded, be it in France or Syria, a bth bouse was set up, a civil service building, walls, etc. Military was the same throughout, with the legions. The local branch of govt was the same, with local governors and administrations. Even the architecture was the same, as well as how they built roads.

TL:DR - you are a retard, read some Goldsworthy.

What are you screeching about? I just said all people within the empire were eventually given citizenship, which is true, as it happened under Caracalla.

>mfw Marcus Aurelius (aka Sup Forums's favorite Roman Emperor) married his daughter off to a Syrian man

Sup Forums eternally BTFO

>America is multicultural it's the most powerful nation on Earth.

>He still believes this

Which was one of the largest nails in the Roman coffin.

>the Romans just assumed that those are the same gods just with diffrent names and stories, as well as later the Jews

You don't know what you're talking about. People retained their local deities. Each area had its local traditions and gods that Roman didn't interfere with. They introduced the imperial cult but only made it an addition to the deities already worshiped by locals. The jews never even accepted the imperial cult. They were allowed to continue worshiping only their monotheistic religion.

>But christians were still not welcome

Many emperors didn't care or pay attention to them, only a few like Nero and Diocletian bothered persecuting them. Then of course Constantine made it legal in the early 4th century and it spread afterwards, and the empire was still strong after it was adopted.

>If it did, we wouldn't have such languages as French and Spanish nowadays.

Spain and southern Gaul were heavily latinized. But they were anomalies. In general, most of the empire wasn't latinized to that extent.

Rome fell remember? Also Rome was multicultural but never multi-racial (at least within Italy itself).

White people of different cultures can easily live together, there are tons of examples in history. There are zero examples of different races coexisting for any serious length of time.

America rose to power when it was near 90% white. As soon as we became diverse we started to decline. The USA will be a second world country by the end of the century.

>Greek
>Paying debnts

Pick one

Where the Romans really fucked up was when they rejected a lot of the Germanics who were willing to become their allies like the Goths, Franks, and who ever were fleeing the Huns at the time.

>Which only succeeded because they found sympathies in the non-Roman peoples the Empire was already hiring to defend itself.

No, because the army was crippled through poor leadership, lack of pay, corruption, and because the boundaries of the empire were too vast too contain all barbarians at once on several fronts. Plus the Persian empire was revitalized and they needed to concentrate more troops in the East, leaving insufficient numbers in the west to defend the vast danube and rhine frontiers. As well, the Romans themselves were too bigoted to realize that the barbarians just wanted to settle within their borders peacefully, so they slaughtered and abused many of them needlessly instead of trying to actually come to an accommodation with them. For example, had they just let the Vandals and Goths settle in their frontier regions instead of indiscriminately slaughtering them, Athens and Rome wouldn't have been sacked, they would've had more strong fighting men, and things would've stabilized. But bigotry prompted them to fuck over the barbarians and the barbarians fought back in response

The forcefull establishment of a dominant roman culture throughout its realm, and limiting the cultures of the regions it occupied from being expressed?

If Rome was so great where is it now HUH?

>was

> Multiculturalism now
All cultures and traditions are equally worthy. Or, to be more correct: all cultures and traditions are equally good, except for your national one, which is evil racist and should disappear.

> Rome:
All free people have the right to dream to be part of the greatest culture and civilization, which is the Roman one. Roman mos maiorum is the supreme guide and ethic, and all foreigners are to be assimilated. The best part of their barbarous (or degenerate) traditions might be assimilated, on Roman terms.


Yeeeah, EXACTLY the same

A nation that declined when its borders and involvements overextended its ethnic core?

>and at its height the Empire was still mostly unicultural

Lel no. Greek clture was far more dominant in the East, which was the largest and most economically relevant part of the empire.

>with Latin being imposed on the conquered ones

Wasn't imposed except on the local aristocrats and on some western provinces like Hispania and southern gaul.

>nd citizenship being still mostly an Italic thing

No. the height was the mid 2nd century, and at that point anybody who served in the roman military was given citizenship, as well as foreign aristocrats. Quite a lot of people held Roman citizenship. In fact, emperors from the 2nd century onward were increasingly non italic. Many spaniards like Trajan and Hadrian, even arabs and north africans like Septimius Severus. Then in the 4th century there were many balkan emperors. And as i said, in the 4th century rome was still very much at its height.

>and moreover, the crisis of the third century was the first step towards the downfall

No, they recovered from it even before the end of the 3rd century. Aurelian reconquered most of the territory, and Diocletian shored up and stabilized the empire. By Constantine's reign, they were essentially fully recovered. It wasn't until the barbarian invasions of the late 4th and early 5th century that the western empire spiraled out of control.

So because the civilian and military infrastructure and government was Roman that means the local culture must've been roman too? You sound like the retard here.

>Lel no. Greek clture was far more dominant in the East, which was the largest and most economically relevant part of the empire.
that's irrelevant, as those would still be foreign provinces subject to Roman rule, that's why I talked about Rome not being totalitarian
that still isn't multiculturalism

>Wasn't imposed except on the local aristocrats and on some western provinces like Hispania and southern gaul.
yeah and what do you think those locals do with it? they taught the locals, there's a reason Romance languages exist

>No. the height was the mid 2nd century, and at that point anybody who served in the roman military was given citizenship, as well as foreign aristocrats. Quite a lot of people held Roman citizenship.
still very little compared to the number of natural born Romans in Italy, who had their birth right

And Trajan and Hadrian where not full Spaniards, their families were patricians with origins in Italy.

>And as i said, in the 4th century rome was still very much at its height.
top kek, good one

see for the difference with multiculturalism

>top kek, good one

Their military was larger than ever, they had strong, stable leadership, and they were finally being united in a single religion which was leading to more social cohesion. Exactly how were they weaker than in the 2nd century?

>ancient rome was multicultural
>ancient rome collapsed
really makes you think

>believing anything written about (((history)))

>not knowing real history like the black death was a CRISPR9 plague designed by the elite in Poland to depopulate Europe for Polish domination.

their increased military was only functional to the increased instability they had to deal with, and by then even if their military was large, they had already crossed the line and made their army full of foreigners, who would eventually lead to the constant internal wars and inability to respond to outside threats

it was pretty much a dead cat bounce

>what was ancient rome
A Degenerate Shithole that the Romans abandoned to create a Christian Empire in Constantinople.

Rome was a murderous savage, Rome destroyed European civilization.

rome fell because of cultural divide you retard

>they had already crossed the line and made their army full of foreigners,

Foreigners had been a large part of roman armies since the days of the late republic.

>who would eventually lead to the constant internal wars and inability to respond to outside threats

The fourth century was relatively stable actually, excepting the early struggles between Constantine and the tetrarchs, so not sure what you're referring to.

Yeah all that slavery, poverty, inequality and corruption was awesome. We should bring it back desu

>Foreigners had been a large part of roman armies since the days of the late republic.
only as auxiliaries for the very most, the bulk of the Roman army would be Italic

as I said, a dead cat bounce, Rome had changed so much by then that it's not surprising it completely collapsed shortly after
are you still trying to defend multiculturalism despite its linear relationship with Roman collapse?
Rome from its inception to its domination of the med sea and beyond was very monocultural and used to shit even on the "degenerate greeks", that's the fact.

Just like the US can still afford being the #1 superpower nowadays, the momentum from their glory days is still strong, but it's not gonna last forever.

>comparing ancient rome to modern standards

not the brightest one are ya?

Compared to the slavery, poverty, barbarity, lawlessness of places outside of Roman influence, it was pretty good. It was the most advanced ancient civilization

Uh no they just conquered the most advanced civilization and kept using its inventions untill they got BTFO by forest niggers while the most advanced civilization continued to thrive for the next millenium.

>only as auxiliaries for the very most, the bulk of the Roman army would be Italic

Auxiliaries were about half of the Roman army in Augustus' day, later on they far outnumbered native legionaries. Most specialized roles like cavalry and archers were usually auxiliaries.

>are you still trying to defend multiculturalism despite its linear relationship with Roman collapse?

False cause fallacy. As I said, the fall was caused by barbarian invasions, not by internal issues.

>Rome from its inception to its domination of the med sea and beyond was very monocultural and used to shit even on the "degenerate greeks", that's the fact.

Not really. From the punic wars onward there was quite a bit of Greek influence. Cato was just butthurt and he was in the minority. Besides, he died long before Rome reached its height.

>multiethnic≠multicultural

>As I said, the fall was caused by barbarian invasions, not by internal issues.
literally not a single historian considers the barbarian invasions as the only case

are you really denying early Rome was extremely monocultural? are you really gonna clutch at every straw?

>literally not a single historian considers the barbarian invasions as the only case

Pretty much every single modern historian considers it as the main cause. Simply put, without the barbarian migrations and upheaveal of the late 4th/5th century, rome wouldn't have fallen.

>are you really denying early Rome was extremely monocultural?

Early rome? We were talking about the empire. I was just saying that even from punic war times, Greek had a substantial influence on the Roman upper class.

Mods discussion and where to move


Mods discussion and where to move
Jj

one of the main causes, not the main cause, barbarians were pushing since centuries before and yet Rome resisted, it's only when the internal problems started becoming strong enough that the whole wall crumbled and barbarians began ravaging the lands

I'm talking early Rome as in the Rome that became the master of the mediterranean and beyond. You are clutching at the small Greek elements that were starting to make its way in a very monocultural Rome that wouldn't even easily give citizenship to its Italian allies.

I'm done with you, I'm having dinner now.

>implying we dont have slaves today

>forest niggers

>A single latin culture that dominated all the other cultures

Americlap education everyone.

Lets talk about empires that went to shit when the citizens divided by town v country

Rome, ottoman?

The western Roman empire's armies were still just as successful in the field right up until the last emperor was deposed though.

They adapted to a changing military environment over the course of centuries, retaining the same doctrines and equipment they'd used.

Roman and romanized by brutal force of arms. They kept what you might now think of as "ethnic minorities" by literally defeating, suppressing and enslaving them until they ceased to revolt.

British.

>it's only when the internal problems started becoming strong enough that the whole wall crumbled and barbarians began ravaging the lands

Wrong. It was because of the magnitude of the forces pressing on their borders at any given time. In the 2nd century, itwould only be one tribe on the rhine, or something like that, but in the late 4th century and early 5th, they had to constantly worry about Persia in the east as well as multiple incursions along the Danube and Rhine frontiers. They had to deal with Persians, Goths, Vandals and Huns all at once. It was nearly an impossible juggling act.

>You are clutching at the small Greek elements that were starting to make its way in a very monocultural Rome that wouldn't even easily give citizenship to its Italian allies.

The conversation was originally about the roman empire from augustus onward, when it was at its height. I merely noted that Rome wasn't monocultural, even in the republican era, although that isn't relevant to what we're discussing.

>Leaf talks about Ancient Rome

RAKE!

YOU'LL NEVER SEE A SINGLE CENT.

...

They had an extremely aggressive Latin colonization program. That's why Spaniards speak Spanish, Romanians speak Romanian, French speak French, etc.

Does this really need explaining?
As soon as they let their auxiliaries hold too much demographic sway and let unfettered immigration take control, they collapsed.

REALLY MAKES YOU THINK

According to german news xenophobia led to the fall of the roman empire.
faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/die-voelkerwanderung-ein-begriff-macht-karriere-13874687.html

hahahahahaha
>tfw it was the fucking krauts and huns that directly led to the collapse of the Empire going so far as to sack Rome itself.

Should have been more tolerant. Ich hasse eures Volk, Alter

Spain, Southern France, Dacia (romania) were particularly latinized and colonized, but they only represent relatively small parts of the empire. Most of the empire wasn't latinized in that way. Also there are many more factors to why the romance languages developed as they did, not all of them having to do with latinization.

They aren't entirely wrong. If the Romans had just let the Goths and Vandals settle in their border territories without abusing and indiscriminately killing them, they probably wouldn't have fallen

last time i checked ancient rome collapsed

>relatively small parts of the empire
wew
>If the Romans had just let the Goths and Vandals settle in their border territories without abusing and indiscriminately killing them, they probably wouldn't have fallen
That happened moreso due to administrative incompetence, not bigotry.

>but they only represent relatively small parts of the empire

False. Carthago and Syria was latinized as well. The sway of Greek and Latin was much larger than today because half the empire was conquered by the Muslim ultraassimilators

>probably wouldn't have fallen

Wrong again. The Germans had zero interest in becoming Latinized when they migrated in. They kept their customs, language and way of life because at that time, Rome was becoming a weak horse. Again, at that point they had no interest in becoming Romans, they were simply escaping the Hunnic people to the east.

If people would just let blacks rob them and stop labeling them with such archaic words as "criminals", there would be less black criminals.

>wew

Britain, northern gaul, raetia, macedonia, bithynia, egypt, syria, north africa. None of it latinized in anywhere near the same way as in southern gaul and hispania.

>Carthago and Syria was latinized as well.

Carthage but not outside of it. Syria wasn't latinized beyond the aristocracy

It's an interesting sort of mental gymnastics, that, if affirmed in this case it's really just a proxy for migrants now. It's all just an obtuse way of saying let in millions of people who don't want you to exist but want to leech off of you until you disappear.

There wasn't enough time to properly colonize many of those places. Also, notice that half of those were already Hellenised heavily? And that Rome was a nominally philhellenic Empire? Alexander already laid the groundwork for those areas hundreds of years before, even the fucking jews were hellenised (leading to the Maccabee revolt).

In addition, some tribes were simply superior to others. The celtiberians of Hispania in their oppida were more easily latinized than savage fucking picts and alans.

After some 1400 years.

Britain is in interesting case, as it seems it was it's way to becoming Latinized before the forest niggers forced the Romans to abandon it, which led to the Celts re-asserting control over the area, only to later be supplanted by Ingvaeonic tribes. When it comes to the eastern provinces, you realize that those areas were heavily hellenized thanks to Alexander, and the Romans were total Greecophiles right? They had no reason to remove culture that was keeping the east unified, especially since most educated Romans (the merchants and administrators) all spoke Koine Greek.

>The Germans had zero interest in becoming Latinized when they migrated in.

That's just plainly false. Alaric and his like made numerous requests to be accepted and settled peacefully into the empire. They had even adopted Arian christianity.

>They kept their customs, language and way of life because at that time, Rome was becoming a weak horse.

No, they did so because the Romans didn't want to let barbarians settle in their country. There was intense xenophobia among Romans and many barbarians responded by disdaining Romans.

>they were simply escaping the Hunnic people to the east.

They wanted both to escape the Huns and to settle in the advanced and superior Roman civilization.

An ancient empire destroyed by multiculturalism?

the Rome posting in this thread is pretty weak desu
Not enough roman memes

>areas were heavily hellenized thanks to Alexander, and the Romans were total Greecophiles right

You realize that hellenization hadn't had any significant impact on the majority of people outside of cities right? But yes, it was certainly more pervasive than Latin, which is what i was saying.

>The Germans had zero interest in becoming Latinized when they migrated in.

Wat. Franks spent the next thousand years trying to out-Roman the Romans.

Napoléon called himself imperator and gave his regiments fucking aquila for fucks sake.