Multicultural societies don't wo-

>multicultural societies don't wo-

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262934/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Burger education everyone

the moment that mutt of Caracalla gave out citizenship like candy is the exact moment the Empire was doomed, sadly enough

Do you see any romans around today?

I agree--we need to bring the metic system back. The RAISE Act is a good start.

do you even know what plebians and patricians are?

The word ' to sack' comes from the act of Goths emptying their sacks in Roman women.

Multicultural societies work as long as they're white and rich. See: Switzerland

>shill
>uses a failed civilization to prove that said civilization worked.

Rome based a lot of its own culture on Greece but for everyone else it conquered they forced standard Greek-Roman Culture. Also not everyone in Rome was a citizen, you had to be of Roman descent or earn it.

The year they gave citizenship to anyone within the borders is the same year they stop growing and it's right before the great schism. I believe you can be any race but in order for a nation to thrive everyone must hold the same basic culture.

That's a Gaul, though.

>The year they gave citizenship to anyone within the borders is the same year they stop growing and it's right before the great schism. I believe you can be any race but in order for a nation to thrive everyone must hold the same basic culture.

Every citizen must have a common interest in the state. You can't have groups of "citizens" that perceive their interests to be in weakening the state.

It lasted far longer than any other yet but he is actually giving a reason as to why it failed. Rome actually had concrete (much stronger than we make today) and steam power invented in its borders before the retards of the time led it to ruin.

FUN FACT: The Romans actually used lead pipes to transport some of the water into Rome because they didn't know the metal could fuck you up, some people think this is why they became retarded and crashed the empire. Who would win? Strongest Empire to ever exist at the time or some lead pipes?

Oh gee, let's see how (((multicultural))) Rome actually was!
>no kikes free to cheat people
>no niggers to make mulattoes
>no muzzies to muzzie

this.
I believe this painting depicts the ancient sacking of Rome by Brennus, from which we get the line "Woe to the Vanquished."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia

The user's point is still valid though.
>bring hundreds of thousands of Germanic barbarians into your Empire and train them to fight in your army
>act surprised when they continuously rebel and sack your cities, even your capital.
The Roman Empire was complete trash, like almost all Empires were.
Pre-Punic War Republic was GOAT

s/education/indoctrination/

Yea, an empire that collapsed due to multiculturalism is a great example of multiculturalism working

Yes that's right but I run into an issue a lot when thinking about that. What if both parties feel they are helping the state by fighting each other?
But basically do what Rome did, put everyone, even emperors under the Eagle (basically a symbol for Rome's might and history) and those that spit on the Eagle are traitors who just hate the state for the sake of and should be hung.

I agree, turning points for Rome'd downfall were the adoption of greek, degenerate customs, which caused the civil wars of 1st century bc, and the citizenship granted to foreigners by Caracalla.

Roman strenght, as Cato remarked often, came from the fact that the society was very much traditional, based on community duty and not seeking personal wealth or hedonistic pleasure.
This is what allowed them to become strong and expand, also, I remember you, by granting only a "social citizenship", not proper real one, to subjects outside of latium.
As soon as carthage was destroyed, romans did not have enemies, they became wealthy, and started to look at foreign customs, like greek, which true roman people like Cato considered disgusting and degenerate. This different mind set brought the problem of social differences between plebs and patricians, the gracchi reforms, the civil war between marius and sulla, caesar and pompey, and octavian and mark anthony in seemingless succession. Ultimately, it lead to the empire, which with time became more and more degenerate and represents the root itself of the roman demise.
As a matter of fact we are repeating history, we are in the degenerate undecent part of roman history, and eventually I am conviced this will lead to the demise of western society and the possibility of starting from scratch once again

vote lega or fdi

>what is hundreds of rebellions and genocides to stop those rebellions

This is such a retarded argument. Roman was a white empire that ethnically cleansed inferior peoples with chad coloniae. The ME of the time was still white in the sense that Lebs and Jews are white. They didnt have arabs or africans in their empire in any big amounts.

based

They died because they accepted immigrants(barbarians), bribed them to be nonviolent and then crashed the economy with unlimited welfare(free korn), causing the biggest chimp out in history.

Rome wasn't a democracy, you fucking retard. And even though there were were elections for things like the senate, there was no UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. Women could not vote. Slaves could not vote. Most minorities could not vote. It was akin to how voting rights worked in antebellum America. It also wasn't multicultural in the sense of all ethnicities being equal. Greco-Roman culture was the dominant force, and while minorities existed, their cultures did not have equal status. They were SUBJECTS. It's like saying the british empire, with conquered territory across the world, is the same as modern britain being invaded by niggers and pakis and pretending they're all equal.

>When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

if the end result is that they stop being white and rich then what part of that constitutes working?

Roman Empire was 52% land of its time that collapsed toe to excessive mongrelization.

Over time the lead poisining would make them literal retards.

Rome was ran by whites dumbfuck

Senatus Populusque Italianus

Makes no sense to try and detach the population from the culture. Italians aren't Italians because of their culture but the genes of Italians gave birth to this culture. If this weren't true, there would be only a few cultures all over Europe and all the different people inside the Austrian Empire for example would have assimilated and not give birth to the modern South Slavic nations.

Will Italy still be Italy when only 50% of people will actually be Italians but others will be Italians because of the citizenship? What about if only 10% were genetically Italians? The culture would be totally different and it wouldn't be an Italian culture.

If current migration trends don't stop and we keep all the immigrants, by 2050 around 20% will be Muslim. Will they still be Italians and have Italian culture? The answer is no.

...

>FUN FACT: The Romans actually used lead pipes to transport some of the water into Rome because they didn't know the metal could fuck you up, some people think this is why they became retarded and crashed the empire. Who would win? Strongest Empire to ever exist at the time or some lead pipes?

The lead pipes were rather safe, they quickly become layered in minerals and stuff that prevent any leaching into water

HOWEVER

The romans used lead acetate to sweeten their food and thus poison themselves. The recipe called for boiling he grapes in lead pot to give it a sweet taste..

Multiculturalism as in Italians, Frogs and Germans. They've been alright for the last 4 centuries, all still speaking their own languages, not much strife between them. Basically, multiculturalism works as long as everyone involved is white, they leave each other alone and they promise to defend one another if outsiders start getting aggressive

>pic semi-related

Thank you my friend, everytime I open threads about roman empire on /pol I cannot help but cringe at times, amerimutts 95% of the times do not even remotely know what they are talking about it's good to know there are people with a decent knowledge of roman history and society here.
The true splendor of rome in my opinion was during the early republican period, when the society was stern, based and sound. It did not collapse until centuries later, but this is only because the "machine" it was was so perfect and well oiled it continued to run for inertia. The problems that would have lead to its eventual demise had deep, far deeper roots that stemmed ever since the late republican period.
Nowadays it's the same, we are just in the middle of the storm this didn't start today

The end of your rant

>we are in the degenerate perood of rome.

Very true, i speak with many people about this. Liberals think degeneracy is progress and acceptance. Those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it. Its fucking mind boggling how retarded these libs are getting!

Well, i guess thst makes you a white nationalist. Kek.

I agree with you, and it goes without saying, this holds true not only for italy but for the rest of europe. The only thing I would like to say though, is to not act as if Italy was an homogeneous ethnic and cultural state, we are not, we have never been and never will, protecting what binds us together as one nation is right, but it is also important to consider and value all of our differences, there is a huge difference between someone as near as rome and naples, both genetically and culturally, it is important to remember this and preserve also this type of difference.

glutony, ofc

Exactly. What book is this, btw?

The overal summary is that the only way of making a "multicultural" society work is with a very rigid hierarchy of dominance. Imperialism, Fascism, something like that. Equality and multiculturalism don't mix.

>Rome
>multicultural society
Rome was destroying and assimilation/absorbing other culture for centuries. There is nothing multicultural about it.
Rome was unironically extremist civic nationalist society and after Caracalla Severan basically made everyone living in Roman borders a roman citizen, it started what was a slow decline. By end of 4th century Roman Noble class was amerimutt tier mongrels obsessed with christian pacifism and morality.
This was one of big reasons why Rome fell, It absorbed so much foreign to Roman ideals cultures that by death of Flavian dynasty, Rome was ruled by Punic-Syrian-Roman Severan family which was the final even slightly roman, they added tons of aramaic culture into Imperial cult, that it was unrecognizable anymore. Severans basically started "The Crisis of Third Century" with their military spending and degenerate inbred rulers, it basically ended the empire.

The only period when Rome actually worked was durring Roman Republic, Julio-Claudian dynasty, Flavian dynasty and Nerva–Antonine dynasty when Rome was still ruled by mostly Romans.
Cato the Elder was right in the end...

This type of weakness and degeneracy we see spreading today is what ultimately lead ancient societies to die. First the Greeks, after becoming wealthy their philosophers such as socrates, plato and arystotles spoke openly about the degeneracy of society, and how it would have lead to its destruction. Socrates died at the hands of that same society, but arystotles lived long enough to see those words come true, when finally Philip II of makedonia, a barbarian, invaded greece, paving way to his son Alexander, later destroyed by that same degeneracy Arystotles, his teacher, tried to warn him about.
Later romans started to adopt those same degenerate customs, with many true citizens of the Vrbe trying to stop that process, such as cato, but gradually and overwhelmingly they took foot in society, much like today, leading to its demise.

>multicultural is the same as multiethnic

THIS
They were from diferent ethnics, but all had the same culture

>”HEY GUISE! THIS ONE IRRELEVANT COUNTRY WITH AN INCREDIBLY SMALL POPULATION AND NEAR ENDLESS RESOURCES ISNT TOTALLY DESTROYED! THAT MEANS Sup Forums IS COMPLETELY BTFO AND MULTICULTURAL SOCIETIES WORK ALL THE TIME!!!

Even if the empire had some good parenthesis, it was full blown degenerate as an istitution itself and there are no fully "good" dynasties. Even the julio-claudian one you present, had yes Augustus and Claudius, both good emperors, but Caligula, Nero and Tiberius were all renown and sigusting degenerates, paving way to the many that would have come after, namely Caracalla

I'm no white nationalist or whatever. I think every nation should have a place in this world. So I don't want shitty cultures where I live to destroy the country I live in. I actually do realize that some cultures are superior even to European ones like Chinese and Japanese. Though if you try to make your country diverse and push for it and try to convince people to mix then you give birth to a new more homogeneous population and you lose your initial diversity. I don't understand how the left but even some centre-right parties, see Sarkozy which is a retard, doesn't see the dissonance in their vision.

I'm not even Italian. I'm Russian. I came here because I loved the culture so I convinced my father to convince his company to relocate him here.

I'm well aware how genetics works. Saying that culture is independent from your genes is bullshit. Genes and culture develop concurrently and influence each other so there's a tight feedback loop. Change the changes and you change the culture, there are no buts.

The part of Russia where I lived was shit so I didn't bring my culture here because I wanted this country to stay Italian. Africans and Asians are shitheads and bring their toxic culture here and try to make it dominant especially Muslims. They don't realize that it's their toxic culture that created their shitty countries but they can't see it because the culture is literally in their genes, well at least the majority of their culture is influenced by their genes.

Actually there are diversity indexes and Italy is very homogeneous. The diversity between Italians is very small but even small differences can give birth to different cultures. The differences between humans and chimpanzees is only 1% genetically. We aren't chimpanzees.

That's why Italy is homogeneous and already diverse at the same time. You don't need to insert more diversity in Italy because it will make the country unstable and hard to govern.

They didn't give everyone citizenship until what? The 3rd or 4th century IIRC? And that's when things started declining too.

And even then, even if it were "multiculturalism" in the modern sense, it's nowhere near as extreme. 2000 years ago, the ancient peoples of north africa, egypt, the levant, and anatolia were whiter than they are now. The current peoples there are a result of tons of mixing from niggers/arabs/turkics/mongols/etc after tons of slave trade and arabian/asian invasions. If anything, the ancient peoples of north africa and the levant looked more like modern Sardinians, which are essentially unmixed pure "neolithic farmer" phenotype.

Not "nordic" or any of that bullshit, but these ancient peoples were of a more mediterannean phenotype. You can still see traces of this in certain groups like how maronite lebanese and alawite syrians look "whiter" than the typical shitskins.

It was an Empire, not a nation. Empires work because there is one race dominating others and I'm sure it helps when ethnic groups are confined in places far away that they occupied for centuries instead of today where we displace said ethnic groups to a country they've never belonged to.
Empires are by definition multicultural, well done OP

I think part of the problem with regards to the dynasties themselves is that many emperors didn't have kids of their own, and successors to the throne were often adoptees.

I think dynasties bound by blood are more important because much of what it takes to be a good leader, IMO, is in the blood. Good stock is good stock, and there's a reason why certain lineages rise to the top and become the rulers in the first place

Excellent Post Italiabro. Nice to see someone posting good info. I, too, hate the ignorance so common in threads about ancient Roman history. Hopefully all these sweet summer children read this post so they can stop posting stupid shit.

...

They had slaves, though.

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM (1932)

>Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.

Publik skools have scant attention to history, especially classical, and Latin is all but abolished at the secondary level.

People don't even know people like Sulla or Cincinnatus anymore.

>The true splendor of rome in my opinion was during the early republican period, when the society was stern, based and sound.
absolutely

for me one of the most powerful examples of this is the ritual of Devotio, an absolute testimony of the spiritual strength of these people

>Once the battle was engaged, the left wing began to falter and Decius Mus called upon the Pontifex Maximus, M. Valerius, to tell him the means by which to save the army. The pontifex prescribed the required ritual acts and a prayer (for which see devotio).[2] After performing the ritual, the fully armored Decius Mus plunged his horse into the enemy with such supernatural vigor and violence that the awe-struck Latins soon refused to engage him, eventually bringing him down with darts. Even then, the Latins avoided his body, leaving a large space around it; and so the left wing of the Romans, once faltering, now swept into this weakness in the enemy lines. Manlius, conducting the right wing, held fast, allowing the Latins to use up their reserves, before crushing the enemy host between the renewed left and Samnite foederati at their flank, leaving only a quarter of the enemy to flee.

american education everyone

They force their culture and erased the conquered through the process called as romanization. Plus citizenship weren't free, either through lineage or earning.

>As the Romans extended their dominance throughout the Mediterranean world, their policy in general was to absorb the deities and cults of other peoples rather than try to eradicate them,[4] since they believed that preserving tradition promoted social stability.[5] One way that Rome incorporated diverse peoples was by supporting their religious heritage, building temples to local deities that framed their theology within the hierarchy of Roman religion

Also Italy is already too diverse. Some economists actually measured economic diversity and genetic diversity and found out that if the population is too genetically diverse, economic development halts and even reverses which explains why so many African countries are shitholes but if you are not enough genetically diverse then your economy develops very slowly. So there's a an equilibrium, a middle ground.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4262934/

Too diverse countries are also very hard to govern, control and there are a lot of studies which shows that multiculturalism but even ethnic diversity decreases volunteering work, trust between people, cooperation, and so on.

Nope. See

>the moment that mutt of Caracalla gave out citizenship like candy is the exact moment the Empire was doomed, sadly enough

Then how do you explain Rome improving and stabilizing in the 4th century after the 3rd century crisis?

The barbarization of the army created a stronger more multi skilled force with far superior Calvary than the earlier imperial times.
Rome had suffered a huge population decline in the 3rd century from plagues and civil war and welcomed new potential citizens to prop up the population and have a bigger tax base. Nobody wanted to return to the 3rd century inflation and as long as the Germanic tribes wanted to be Roman and earn their citizenship it wasn't a problem.
The problem occurs when tribes like the Goths and huns wanted gibs but didnt want to be Roman.The Goths beat the Romans in open battle and so dictated terms of their settlement so of course they never integrated and made themselves special snowflakes.Literally identity politics in the ancient world.

>>bring hundreds of thousands of Germanic barbarians into your Empire and train them to fight in your army
It was either that or deal with the Germanics + The Huns assravaging everything in sight + your already shithole of an economy crashing to the ground (Western Rome's income was only about 10% of the East's, perhaps even lower)
>>act surprised when they continuously rebel and sack your cities, even your capital.
The Goths first revolted due to the stupidly horrendous conditions that the Romans had put them in camps (Sound familiar?)
Also you appear to be ignoring the fact that Stilicho's army primarily consisted of Goths employed after crushing King Radagaisus, and were dead loyal to Stilicho (Who was a Half-Vandal by the by) and began to follow/support Alaric due to the fact that the Romans began a massive pogrom on the Goths after the execution of Stilicho, murder of their family members and confiscation of property, some were even sold to slavery after Radagaisus was defeated, so they saw this as an opportunity to be free, the only thing these fags wanted was a living space and the arrival of Huns is considered the reason why they moved "westwards", to avoid the Huns.

the moment the romans lost power of their empire was when it was starting to collapse. so yeah, multiculturalism doesnt work

*Blocks your Empire*

>Literally haveing the proverb When in Rome do as Romans do
>Multicultural

Interesting anecdote I was not aware of it

You realise once monoracialism ended the empire was on a steep decline well within 100 years

rome is the ultimate redpill

>based on community duty
Back then when ethnic roman were actually the soldiers the effectiveness and discipline was outstanding. But since the ethnic romans grew rich and lazy and they instead recruited barbarians to supplement the lack of recruits things went downhill.

Flavian Dynasty was perfect even Domitian was ok :^)

*Blocks your leadership*

Judah collapsed from multiculturism too.

G*rmanic scum belong on the cross.

>Then how do you explain Rome improving and stabilizing in the 4th century after the 3rd century crisis?
what's there to explain? the state was clearly collapsing, the fact that it managed to last a little more before completely going down the shitter is not really a counter evidence of anything, if anything it shows how resilient was the old Roman state

the army getting stronger is not a good sign by itself when it's near anarchy level in terms of organization

So these emperors were white?

>Septimus Severus (Punic)
>Geta & Caracalla (Punic + Syrian)
>Elagalabus (Syrian)
>Alexander Severus (Syrian)
>Philip the Arab (Syrian)
>Aemilianus (Moor)
>Macrinus (Berber)

*Blocks your non beadyness*

>people use her as evidence for Celtic warrior women

Also I forgot to add Alaric didn't just come in and "Muh bix nood mofugga I'mma sack Rome instantly lmao". He actually tried negotiating with the Romans but they kept refusing his demands because they were expecting reinforcements like retard. AFter the second siege and preparation for negotiations, a retarded Roman general surprise attacked Alaric and his forces (resulting in failure). Obviously Alaric was pissed after failing negotiations with the fags for a third time so he sacked Rome, after besieging it a total of three times.

A relative moment of stability does not mean a rebirth of society, as a matter of fact even the 4th century was plagued by intestine wars, religious and social problems and differences, and contributed to the ultimate defeat of the empire as more and more focal point of the roman society weakened.
As a matter of fact rome was not even anymore capital of the empire, it was moved to milan first and then ravenna

Regards to Alaric's demands he basically wanted tribute and some land for the Goths to settle in, that was basically one of the things Alaric strived for.

you misspelled cultural supremacy.

You do realize she got overwhelmingly defeated and because of her ethnic britons suffered a genocide?

Alaric was a good leader and chieftain, smart enough to abandon the ship before the disaster, yet I do not understand why you are keeping to bring him up

>barbarization of the army created a stronger more multi skilled force with far superior Calvary than the earlier imperial times.
>the Goths beat the Romans in open battle
So it wasn't even worth Barbarizing the force since it wasn't elite and got beat by random savages.
Sulla and Caesar used to take on 3-1 odds against Barbarians and win with fully Latin forces.

JUST

>old Roman state
It was done by reform not resilience alone.4th Century was far from collapsing.The walls of Constantinople was constructed then and the economy was good.

The 5th century is when it went rapidity to shit from 410AD the legions abandoning Britannia to 476 AD The western roman empire falling.

Rome was populated originally from outcasts and criminals. They tricked the Sabines and stole their women because they didn't have enough. Rome was constantly absorbing ethnicities FROM JUMP. Seeing ethnicity as a deciding factor whether in Rome or today is myopic and simple.

Finally a Roman Thread!

BEcause most people I've met and talked to seem to have this idea that Alaric just came in and sacked everything with no form of negotiation, so just wanted to clarify.

>Failed
>lasted a thousand years
>the basis for your governmental and judicial systems
Oy vey
Roman society always accepted outsiders, a tradition upheld since Romulus.
They also extended Roman citizen to nearby towns expanding their own pool of manpower reserves.
The key is these new arrivals were thoroughly romanized, unlike the swarms of the later empire.
>Rome
>no kikes
The Romans are the ones who disperse the kikes in the first place, when Hadrian destroyed their temple.
The adoption of Greek was a sympton, not the cause. An expansionistic Rome could not remain a direct vote citizen soldier state at its current technology level. Generals and their soldiers went. On campaign for years, make the latter more loyal too their general than to their state themselves.
Cato was a remarkable hypocrit, denouncing Greek culture while steeping his lifestyle with it.
>making shit up
Universal suffrage is not a prerequisite for democracy kike.
The Roman Empire had a tradition of extending citizenship to allied states. One of the reasons they were able to keep losing to Pyrrhus and Hannibal and still come out victorious.
Extending citizenship was a tradition since the founding of Rome. Making very one in the empire a citizen was likely a tax grab.

>Multicultural societies
>Switzerland
What fucking world do you live in??

...

...

the east is one thing, the west is another, the collapse of "Rome" is very much a synonym with the collapse of the west, usually

also needless to say, I hardly consider the east "Roman" just because what little was left of the Roman state was moved there, the Empire was already unrecognizeable by the time of Constantine

Yeah, but they're from Bangladesh, Sudan, and Nigeria.

What made the Roman Empire fall? Barbarians. Fuck off shill.

>slavery doesn't wor-

...

ITT: Gauls, Sicels, Greeks, Oscans, and Etruscans larp as Romans