Rome was a Multicultural Utopia

My history professor devoted an entire class to the idea that Rome was a multicultural society, which is why it was so successful. How do you feel about that?

Other urls found in this thread:

therightstuff.biz/2016/06/19/the-origins-of-the-diversity-myth/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_(cultural)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

He lied and so are you

SLIDE THREAD
>SLIDE THREAD

It worked for awhile because Rome would crucify anyone starting shit.

But multiculturalism and letting in refugees was its downfall. Just ask the Goths.

Guess he forgot about the various persecutions, public capital punishment, and slavery.

Ask him if you need those things to make multiculturalism to work.

>Rome was a multicultural society
Any empire is by definition multicultural.

Though it also always has a single dominant ethnicity.

Posting twice so that nobody can 1 post meme me

^This the ruling white elite had all the other races and cultures under their Caligae. This is why it worked for awhile. But then they let in the wrong refugees and got their shit rekt.

PROTIP: MultiRACIAL can work, values and shared ideas are what makes a society work. MultiCULTURE NEVER works.

Rome fallen when Romans got lazy and Germanic people replaced Imperials in army.
Then 'enriched' legions sacked and partitioned western Roman Empire.

He should also talk about Pater Famillias having the right of life or death on his wife and kids.

Well I guess when your empire consists of many different countries you conquores, you could technically call that multiculturalism? Not to mention all the diversity of slaves as well.

It's true. It's the same reason why America is so successful. We're the world's #1 superpower and we're also the most racially and ethnically diverse major nation in the world.

There is a super good class on youtube from Yale about the Hospitalier.

Multiculturalism+welfare is what wrecks a society

It was multicultural but Roman (and in part Greek) culture was superior.

Rome literally had their own refugee crisis.
>In the summer of 376, a massive number of Goths arrived on the Danube River, the border of the Roman Empire, requesting asylum from the Huns

While the Romans initially accepted the refugees, they couldn't handle the logistics of moving and feeding them, and the barbarians ended up looting and attacking in earnest.

It wasn't, though. Rome conquered countless regions and forced the inhabitants to assimilate into their mono-culture.

If your history teacher really wanted the US to follow Rome, he would support a Trump America invading 3rd world Mexico and Socialist Canada and turning them into capitalist countries with American culture erasing whatever shit was there prior.

Reminds me of this article.
therightstuff.biz/2016/06/19/the-origins-of-the-diversity-myth/

Multiracial =/= multicultural.

>ruling white elite
Elite was elite, and plenty weren't European or Latin. Fuck off with wewuzism.

The reason Rome failed was because it lost its own sense of identity and what it meant to be Roman. It was its last days that they allowed anyone born in the city to become a citizen.

More allowed itself to become flooded by minority cultures, and that is why it failed.

Your history prof got his degree out of a cereal box.

Well it was "multicultural", it didn't exactly practice multiculturalism in a modern sense.

Rome was more fond of like, enslaving other cultures.

>forced the inhabitants
False.
>mono-culture
No such thing. People adopted Roman ways, but often it created a regional variety. They did so on their own, because Roman culture was superior. On the other hand, Romans themselves adopted lot of things from Greeks previously and during imperial era.

Its actually because they had a good army, installed puppet dictators in the countries they conquered, and established an inter-state trade and built roads all over the damn place.

And they generally let people be who they were as long as they paid their taxes and didnt rebel.

So people would say "hmm well being conquered actually wasnt all That bad" comparatively speaking.

The secret to rome's success was giving people enough of what they want and not taking everything that others had.

The secret to rome's failure was not watching their fucking back door, because they got bent over and fucked in it.

>forced the inhabitants to assimilate into their mono-culture.

This is just absolutely not true. The Romans allowed every region they conquered to continue following their own customs, traditions and religion as long as they gave tribute to Rome. Israel, for example, was allowed their own ruling theocracy and Rome never cared until the Isrealis themselves revolted against Rome and drove them out of Israel.

The Romans even went out of their way to erect statues of every god from every region that became part of Rome in the capital. It was out of respect for their religion.

You're just straight up talking out of your ass and making shit up.

It was the exact opposite, actually. It was multiethnic but monocultural. By the end of the Western Empire only 10% of the army was Italian for instance, but those 90% would still be willing to fight and die for the Empire.

Roman society was built on conquest and slavery. As a result of both they were a multicultural society. When people spout that bullshit, "diversity is our greatest strength" ask yourself what concrete thing it brings to the table.

Rome could be considered Multicultural but all the people they conquered such as the Gauls assimilated to Roman culture. It was only at the later days of the empire did the stream of bodies from Germania turn into a flood. Rome fell because of Multiculturalism and a lack of cultural hegemony.

Roman state fell in 1453.
Reasons were many, you can't point to a single reason that caused it.
Barbarian invasions, plagues, political instability, decline of civic virtue, vastness of empire, Western part was poorer and less inhabited, and many others.
And Constitutio Antoniniana was promulgated in 212, long before their last days.

Sure, take a look at all the roman bathhouses they build all around their empire.
Everywhere Rome conquered Roman culture was brought and institutionalized.

i feel bad for you that you are in a history class

i hope history is not your major

what a joke

It demanded Romanization. It didn't tolerate you continuing to have your entire culture, just pointless shit like religion and food. It was like America before the 1960s.

Romans in Constantinople dressed in clothes that wrapped on, in the Roman style and as such were more Roman than the Romans of the time. They were on the outskirts of empire and wore Roman identity proudly.
The Romans who actually lived in Rome at that time were much impressed by the Greek styles and wore clothes that draped on, held with a pin.
Refinement that comes with power, influence and exposure to ideas from far away leads to multiculturalism. Always has.

Exactly, Rome was a Conquering Military Empire, it was because they ran a tax Ponzi scheme that required them to keep conquering and taxing to pay for the state that they were so successful for so long.

/thread

Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

Wrong. It was a melting pot where most Roman customs were adopted but things like religion were allowed to continue. They most certainly did not tolerate everything continuing as before. It wasn't just taxes.

It was multicultural, but it had no gooks or niggers, only sandniggers and whites.

Niggers were less than 2% of the population worldwide back then.

>pointless shit like religion and food
...and social order, and law, and pretty much everything as long as you paid tribute in either money or troops.
That depended on mode of acquisition, some parts had very little autonomy, some were practically protectorates.
You people have no idea how Roman Empire worked, stop spouting nonsense.

the romans operated on a "if we can't keep in charge, drop it like a hot potato" basis, but then they grew complacent and retarded, and they started reaching further than comfortable and then also taking the strain of multicultural immigrants and refugees. in addition they started relying less on slaves because they started feeling bad about it, and their military became shit as all ethnic romans with top of the line education and equipment were replaced by barbarian brutes who would turn on their supposed leaders the moment it was fruititious for them.

they were definitely never going around exterminating people based on race or religious beliefs, they were very lenient with that shit.

Because Roman civilization was fucking enforced upon conquered peoples and many many revolts by those peoples were always put down.

Gauls being peace because Caesar had the hands chopped off of all the fighting men from x tribe doesn't = multicultural success.

This.

>2 posts by this id

Even though the shills are evolving, it's still glaringly obvious...

It seems, my superior Germanic genes have led to some controversy.

your prof is a retard. tell him that.

Multiculturalism is literally the EXACT reason that Rome collapsed.

Some areas had autonomy in law early on, by the later empire in the time of the Tetrarchy none did.

They didn't force Romanization but highly encouraged it among the ruling classes. Even in the Greek eastern empire this was effective where changes in tastes sime as adding backdrops to privately funded theatres came into vogue.

They fucked up Carthage and Jews pretty bad, but yeah, they were generally lenient.
>they started relying less on slaves because they started feeling bad about it
That had nothing to do with that. Slave revolts and slaves murdering owners was common, and scared the shit out of them.
Also, slave isn't really that productive. A man with some freedom is.
And that's why early form of feudalism appeared.
That's what kinda wrecked Rome, regional magnates grew more powerful, richer and more independent.
While they lived their opulent lives, they didn't give a fuck about the state.

That's because they peacefully (key word) assimilated.
They weren't forced.
>highly encouraged it
Obviously, if you wanted influence in Rome you had to act like a Roman.
Not to mention that Roman culture and way of life was superior, so elites in conquered regions readily adopted it.
Rome was center of the world at that time, those who came to Rome were amazed by it.

Literally believing the propaganda his teacher intended. Good goy.

Rome's government and institutions made it so that the people who were conquered would desire to assimilate into their culture. Rome was multicultural in that they had a population made up of many diverse people. You also have to remember this was done at the end of a sword.

Besides, the laws in Roman society greatly benefited its own citizens over any people it conquered. The large degree of success they gained was due to their adaption and improvement of ideas and techniques that were proven to work in other civilizations.

Similar scenario here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

>muslim refugees in
>immediately start a civil war and seize power

There was a little bit of carrot/stick though. You could expect better treatment the more Roman you were and worse treatment (not violence but things like the level of autonomy you were allowed) if you kept doing things the old way.

I think we could learn something from them in rewarding integration and not giving full privileges to people who refuse to do so.

There were a lot of Assyrian's who were high ranking commanders in the Roman empire. Most of whom come from Turkey and Syria.

Top fucking kek. Ask him what "Ego Romanus Sum" means. In Rome, you had no real rights and no possibility to hold political office unless you were a Roman, latian (white) landowning male.

I don't think he talked to you about how anything related to Carthage was systematically destroyed and how more than a third of the population were slaves from other races and cultures?

Also it was not multicultural in any way. Rome latinized (or let Greek keep hellenizing the eastern shores) many parts of its Empire, sometimes brutally.

>multi-ethnic = multi-culture
you got memed on

...

Isnt it ironic?
Germanics were the uncivilised cumskins then

Sounds a lot like the
>moorish spain was a tolerant paradise
meme

It wasn't really 'multicultural' as we understand it today, it was an Empire, the widest organic state conceived, and it included various peoples with various cultures, but there wasn't much mixing in terms of culture as social mobility was extremely low compared to nowadays, unless of course you consider slaves getting moved to work in the mines in another province only to die at 20 as "social mobility".

Moreover, central idea to the Empire is the recognition of the divine authority of the Roman senate and of the Emperor, as in, you can keep your local customs, but you bow to the Emperor and its divine legitimacy no matter what.

It was pretty monocultural as the romans were a
western greek civilisation.

>implying the provinces of rome were multicultural

rome itself as a whole was made of many cultures

that does not mean they mixed heavily apart from the markets and living under roman rule

Your professor is a retard. No wonder Americans grow up to be idiots. They learn from their best.

Nope. They allowed cultures that were compatible with roman/greek culture to exist. Look at the christians and jews for example, they didnt tolerate their shit

it's actually true
it's the reason why they went to hell though

True.
>I think we could learn something from them in rewarding integration
That's how it worked in past lad.
You had lot of migrations in Europe.
You even had some peculiar cases like Tatars living in Poland peacefully, millions of German settlers in Eastern Europe, French Protestants moving to Germany and Netherlands, and so on.
This ''culture of immigrants is of same status as native culture'' is a rather modern idiocy.
For some time it was pretty much okay.

He's fucking retard.

"When in Rome, do as the Roman does"

>Rome was a multicultural society
ROME WAS FUCKING MONOCULTURE RETARDS. There were fucking one culture - Roman culture. The main civilisation was a Roman civilisation. As son as Romans begin to search sintesis of civilisation and cultures they begin to fall. Eastern influence incresed and Rome broke into two parts.Multicultuarlism is dead of every state.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_(cultural)

Most African nations have far more genetic, linguistic, and cultural diversity than America.

Meanwhile among modern first world nations the more homogeneous they are the better off they tend to be.

I'm sure the good professor had some evidence to back up his claims?

..that relied heavily on slavery.

Everything you wrote is moronic and completely incorrect please kill yourself

Rome fell because it was multicultural
They had a good run when they were monocultural

>When in Rome
>Do what you want because we are tolerant and progressive! :^)

multiracial can only work in specific cultures, ie cultures that don't attach any importance to race. western culture does and always have, it will never be colourblind, different races = different identities = competing factions. same with east asian cultures, or indian culture.

And yet Rome collapsed.

Besides, I bet the Franks were not raping roman women on the streets like syrians and north africans do in present day germany.

Ave arminius

Wasn't actually multicultural FYI. Predominately European peoples.
Extreme minority of non-European ethnics.
Rome required that all assimilate, and the did. That is why is was so successful, because while all could come: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".

feels like radical Marxists rewriting history again

Over here we have WHO WERE THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH?!?!?!? Or SAINT GEORGE WAS A TURK!!?!?!?

...

bigger

Rome was multicultural because it was successful, not the other way round.

The Roman Empire fell because the people become accustomed to peace and prosperity, making them ripe for conquest by more vigorous foreign powers. The original racial stock which founded that empire was blended out of existance. The virtues of honor, loyalty, courage and duty had all but dispersed by the late imperial period. Men mutilated themselves to avoid military service, entire legions were routed by small barbarian army's, the incompetent high command had trouble organizing large army's, Rome was a shell of her former self. The vices that were condemned by pervious generations had become the virtues of the late empire. Rome had ceased to exist long before the empire had fallen.

It's true. The Romans key to the success of the Roman empire lay in their toleration of exist religions and exist ethnic identity. They didn't want to make everyone Roman and force them to worship their pantheon; they just wanted taxes paid regularly and compliance with Roman law. It was a good deal for everyone and made Rome by far the most successful and powerful empire the world has ever seen. Sup Forums has no answer to this because Sup Forums is basically the Goth / Hun / Troglodyte response of crude, powerless, butthurt faggots who wish the whole world was made in their image. It's not, so Sup Forums loses -- by definition from the very start. That's what makes this board consistently hilarious. It is always on the losing side because that's its identity.

this

the down fall is a hole slew of things but one of the biggest turning points was resources / logistics. they spread themselves so far and wide they couldn't maintain their borders. constantly bombarded by what today is isis. also didn't help they couldn't fully assimilate everyone which brought in in-fighting and lack of nationalism for rome.

its actually ironic. whats happening today not only in the US, but all of western civilization is what happened with the roman empire. the only thing that has helped us maintain our control to this point has been our mass communications network and overwhelming military force. so its a slower process of destruction. this destruction will be brought in by political suicide (muh refugees and multicultural unification) and in-fighting (massive political divides).

funny many thought the warmongering right would bring the downfall when in reality it was the homosexing left.

4th post best post

...

>Goths

Lawfag here.
Foreigners carried their law and customs and the republic/empire was fine with that, as long as they didn't mess with native romans or the official power.
It was a good thing in a sense that the dominated states could feel assimilated and not just subjugated.
The main difference between Rome's multicusturalism and today's western MC is that the natives were prioritized, so foreigners were stimulated to adopt romans' customs.
>TL;DR: romans weren't #refugeeswelcome #religionofpeace liberal nu male beta faggots

In our version of multiculti, things like "integrating" and "assimilating" are seen as dirty words and inhuman and we want to make the outsiders feel at home by bending over ourselves.

It's so disgusting.

Yes they were you favela monkey. The Romans were literally killed of due to unrestricted mass immigration and low birth rates. Most Roman emperors from the early principate all the way through the late dominate were foreigners of non-Roman origin. The real Romans were ruled by foreigners for most of their imperial history. The Romans perished because of their apathy and ingnorance. If you don't fight back against foreigner invaders you will perish, no questions asked. History will repeat itself, except this time it won't just be the Roman race, but the entire White race.

ave cesar

>How do you feel about that?
SUMMON THE URBAN COHORTS!

>G*rmans tried to ruin Europe for not only 2, but 5 damn times, succeeding in half of them.
>They are now trying to do so for the 6th time.
>Retarded Am*ricans on the internet endorse these subhumans.

'Multicultural' does not mean 'invade foreign lands and leave them alone until they refuse to pay their taxes.'

Same thing with the myth of the Ottoman multicultural empire. When Napoleon invaded Egypt, he found that the Ottomans had almost no control in the area. They had simply whipped the Mamluks ass and made them pay tribute. Even the Mamluks let their society function that way. As long as you paid taxes, they didn't give a fuck. Napoleon invaded with the idea that he would 'liberate' the citizenry from the Empire but he found decentralized villages who functioned autonomously and preferred the freedom of the Beys to the bureaucracy of French democracy.

Rome in no way respected anyone but Romans.

I'm gonna have to argue the successful point since it doesn't exist anymore.
That is the lesson rome gave us.

ah-way, true to kai-sar
degenerates like you belong on a cross

delet this stulte

Lel wasn't like 1/3 of times population slaves?

Your prof might be onto something here....