Multiculturalism has never worked

>Multiculturalism has never worked
Wasn't rome and the byzantine empire multi-ethnic and multicultural ? Asking for a friend

>inb4 "look how that turned out"

I believe that the Jews let foreigners in in the Byzantine empire.

But look how that turned out.

Look how it turned out.
You can't just say what's 2+2 and don't give me that 4 answer.

>inb4 "look how that turned out".
Literally this, though.

Multi-ethnicity aside, one of the big things that broke the Roman Empire was multiculturalism.

Instead of actually setting goals for assimilation, citizenship was granted for military service.

This resulted in a large number of auxiliary units who held no respect for rome despite having roman citizenship.

This resulted in multiple forces who were loyal only to the people who paid them.

This is part of the reason why there were so many people trying to become the emperor of Rome; the people under their command weren't loyal to Rome, they were loyal to their commander, so they had no objections to their commander subverting the tenets of Rome for the sake of personal power.

By the time the Huns arrived, Rome was already stretched to breaking point. The mass migration event that resulted from the Hun invasion was basically overkill, and completely shattered a Western Roman Empire that no longer held the unified military power it once did.

Multiculturalism fragmented Rome, and once fragmented, Rome simply could not stand.

Source on that book?

this desu

>inb4 "look how that turned out"
Yeah, but look how that turned out.

The more multicultural Rome became the shittier their quality of life became til it collapsed.

II din't know, my source is Sup Forums.

Pretty sure its Nicomachean Ethics

Here ya go.

>inb4 "look how that turned out"

>""Les ambitieux firent venir à Rome des villes et des nations entières pour troubler les suffrages ou se les faire donner; les assemblées furent de véritables conjurations; on appela comices une troupe de quelques séditieux; l’autorité du peuple, ses lois, lui-même, devinrent des choses chimériques, et l’anarchie fut telle qu’on ne put plus savoir si le peuple avait fait une ordonnance, ou s’il ne l’avait point faite" Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence - Montesquieu

Just like in any western country, we are getting fucked in the ass by ambitious that import migrant en masse to change the vote.

This is an old one; Plato calls someone out for using this argumentation as well.

So Europeans never fought among themselves. Life was just a perfect utopia before those devilish brown and black people were brought around huh

We never really evolved past the Greeks did we?

look how that turned out

well, did it work?

Yugoslavia?

Roman and Byzantine were multi-ethnic, but strictly mono-cultural. Roman cultural supremacy was strongly enforced and only non-Italian ethnics that became Roman citizens (so cultural Roman) could hold true positions of power or have an real influence.

thanks

>Wasn't rome and the byzantine empire multi-ethnic and multicultural ?
Of course, they were 'empires' however each ethnic group largely stayed where they belonged.

Look how it turned out when the genetic diversity hit a critical threshold dummy.

indeed

There used to be a Russian who posted here with verryyy good ideas on multiracialism and such.
I suggest you look for him in the archives, for a russian flag and words like "racial laws" , "
But i dont really believe you come here to actually learn or discuss, probably a cucked manlet shitskin :D

The reason Rome worked was because Roman culture was so prestigious that it successfully dominated to some extent all of the other cultures within the empire, co-opting provincial elites and encouraging submission from them.

It was when Roman culture lost its prestige that the Empire began to collapse in the 4th century.

The roman empire was multicultural but only as a consequence of its conquests, it didn't start out that way.

You could argue it was the reason for its downfall, or why it lasted so long. Or maybe both. In any case the romans were definitely good at incorporating other peoples into their nation, and that's because they ENFORCED their culture and laws, while at the same time allowing their subjects some freedom. Please compare with modern western nations desperately trying to erase their original culture and history to accomodate islam and others.

Also please put things into perspective: their "multiculturalism" involved mostly demographics around the mediterranean, despite what some rascals might tell you there were no legions of sub-saharan africans roaming the streets of rome.

Rome was a completely different state then a modern democratic nation state. Despite having a vast empire, Rome was more or less ruled like the city-state it essentially was. The ruling class consisted exclusively of ancient Roman families. Admittedly, this changed somewhat with the rise of the emperors, since emperors had authority over the ruling class and since quite a few emperors weren't of Roman descent. However, you'll find that the traditional Roman aristocracy still had a lot of influence in statecraft in imperial times, especially in the first two dynasties. And the emperors who weren't of Roman descent were mostly adopted and raised in Roman culture, not in a supposed 'melting pot' with no identity.

Moreover, despite the empire encompassing a large amount of land that is host to many different cultures, the cultures themselves did not intermix as in a way that would be 'multicultural' by present day standards. That different territories were made part of the same empire, doesn't mean that they suddenly adopted the same culture and started migrating and mixing en masse. Most people more or less kept their old way of life after Roman conquest. Obviously, this line of thinking shouldn't be taken to the extreme. Obviously, migration did exist and obviously the cultures inside the empire affected and changed each other to some degree (take for instance the spread of Christianity). Also every culture had to deal with Roman culture being present in the form of officials, soldiers and shrines of Roman deities whose authority has to be acknowledged. However, this implies a change in native culture, not the replacement it, as is suggested in the concept of multiculturalism,

That the Roman empire encompassed many different cultures doesn't mean that those cultures actually mixed and created a multicultural society nor does it mean that the realm of politics became multicultural, since the political class was still Roman.

This it's all bullshit considering they took the entire pantheon from the greeks, numerals from the mid easterns and a very long etc...

The Romans required those living within the empire to adopt graeco-roman civilization and culture. Modern multiculturalists don't require immigrants to adopt the host country's culture and civilization and allow them all to keep their own barbaric values in sections if cities

The Jews literally burned Rome
>inb4 Christian revisionism

if you annex multiple countries of different ethnicities of course your going to have many cultures within your borders. its just like saying the british empire was multicultural because they owned bits of africa and asia