Was the roman empire the very first victim of multiculturalism?
In the late 2nd millenium BC, every great power bordering the Mediterranean was severely damaged by southern European barbarians. That was the first recorded event of other-ethnic invaders causing extreme disarray.
The Aryan invasion of the Indus valley was not recorded but it was earlier.
>>81127972
Yes. They became too dependent on foreign mercenaries and allowed the Legions to grow weak.
>>81127972
Did rome ever try to.be multicultural? Not that i know of.
They just couldnt keep the germanic cumskins out>>81127972
>>81128858
>over the span of a couple of centuries.
Americans and history...
>>81127972
No. You cant compare an empire ruled with an iron fist and modern democratic countries.
It's also because the focus went from being Roman to being Christian. At the beginning they would romanize people and the multiculturalism wasn't all that big, like the difference between a Texan and a New Yorker, then the focus was to Christianize people regardless of their culture (more or less). At that point it became more like what we have today. There was a literal "Remove Germanics" political movement in Gaul near the end.
>>81127972
Rome was a culturally pluralistic society where many subjects maintained their own culture but within the context of recognizing the authority and legitimacy of Roman power and practices. This is the inversion of a multicultural society where many cultures form the broad 'national' culture, instead Roman Empire transmitted culture in a top-down fashion, with Rome acting as the over-culture influencing the under-cultures beneath it, in this situation it is the under-cultures that have to accept and adapt towards the nature of the over-culture rather than the over-culture adapting and changing for the under-cultures.
>>81129260
Christianity was the culture, and it was roman in the late era. Everyone was encouraged to be roman christian. There was no multiculturalism, no even in the west, they just couldnt hold the land.
Consider the eastern half survived another 1000 years, no it wasnt multiculturalism
>>81127972
Not fully. The romans ruthlessly enforced the law on everyone with extreme violence, often massacing whole peoples, insurgent slaves etc. Tens of thousands of crucified pople along a road to the province's capital (or Rome) was not unusual. They were cucked in the Vth cent though, letting in too many immigrants and refugees to enforce Rome's will over them, they later declared their own kingdoms.
>>81128858
op here and i think this is very true. in the last days of roman empire, the legions was filled with weak, very bad equipped mercenaries, not roman soldiers, cuz of bordes was way too big to defend.
>>81127972
the roman empire of was the first victim of islam
the empire was still thrive into the 700s but islam rose and destroyed it by taking Egypt, the bread basket for the empire.
People often forget that the invasion of islmamic hordes is the reason for the crusades. It wasnt just a bunch whites conquering the world, it was whitie finally having enough and kicking the shit out of islam
>>81128993
Uhh yes they were the definition of multicultural. Worship of all gods were recognized in the empire and Rome itself had literally hundreds of religions practiced inside of it. Rome didn't care who you worshiped as long as you worshiped the Cult of Caeasar in addition.
Also there was no conception of race based racism as we know it. You were considered inferior if your country was a weak and not known for having a history of being good at war.
This system survived for nearly a thousand years /pol/ BTFO as usual as usual
Hardly. Culture was tiered at Rome, and the value changed over time. Romans never gave hoot about North African moors, even when Severus was emperor. They also didn't give a shit about Asia Minor because they most notably didn't really have a tradition in rhetoric. People got a hardon for Greece depending on the age and person. When novi homines came in from the provinces, Narbonensis at first then Spain and later Asia, they adapted to the culture of the ruling class. Culture and ideas of hoi polloi didn't mean shit to them.
If you're Gibbon, Rome declined because of Christianity's moral principles and un-Roman docility.
If you're any modern scholar, Syme Millar Badian Alfoldy Levick, Rome's decline was caught up in the demonstrable birthrate decline at Rome and in Italy.
bunch of idiots on 4chan as usual.
>>81132194
>The romans ruthlessly enforced the law on everyone with extreme violence, often massacing whole peoples, insurgent slaves etc. Tens of thousands of crucified pople along a road to the province's capital (or Rome) was not unusual.
>Spartacus:Roman legionary at was punished, try to rebel=death, totaly deserved
>Implying that germanic tribes didn't use slavery, raid villages, sacrifice innocents and drink from their skulls
>Implying that romans enforce their laws and not let the conquered people decide their laws only if it doesn't break the Mos Maiorum, basically not human sacrifice or religions that implies mutilations or selfmutilation.
>Implying that there wasn't a law against harsh punishment of the slaves
>>81127972
babylon?
>>81127972
Probably not the first, but maybe the first one that was recorded.
>>81136293
Yeah brah, killing 50% of Gaul's population and enslaving the rest, nothing they could do, huh?
>>81138907
It's more like 1/3 enslavement, 1/3 killed and the last third pacified.
>>81127972
It wasnt thoug,
Rome very actively required that people become romanized, they allowed them time to do so, but everyone in that red area became Romans culturally
In the end, they began to let millions of people from Germanic tribes in the north settle independent sub-communities of their own societies in their borders.
not long after the Empire tore itself apart over ethnic divisions.
>>81127972
Why don't all you guys pick up a few books on the roman empire and read them if you're so obsessed with it? They answer your questions far better than dummies on /pol/ will.
>>81129125
>Empire ruled with an irom fist
>Mfw the cause of collapse is the senate themselves
>>81138907
This is what happened when you try to pass the roman territory without permission to destroy an ally tribe of Rome, or when you are too scared by the roman power that you start a rebellion against them. None of the gallic wars was started by the romans
>>81127972
No, it was a victim of multiple things, mainly greed and mismanagement. Also conscripting mercenaries instead of actually raising their own armies, which consistently backfired
