Why Ancient Rome Needed Immigrants to Become Powerful

  
Via:  kavika  •  one month ago  •  30 comments

Why Ancient Rome Needed Immigrants to Become Powerful

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




The Caesars embraced newcomers, less out of idealism than out of self-interest.



BARRY STRAUSSHow “Roman” was the Roman Empire? Well, by some measures: not very.




As the Roman emperors sought to expand and strengthen their empire, they recognized that immigration was a means for both. Although the Roman elites sneered at immigrants, the emperors welcomed them into the labor force and military, keenly understanding that for the empire to grow and thrive it had to have new blood. Not only was the populace changing but the emperors themselves came from diverse backgrounds, from Spain to Syria.

Their legions contained ever fewer Italians, let alone Romans. Rome became a melting pot, in many ways as much a Greek city as a Latin one, and with African, Celtic, Egyptian, German and Jewish populations as well. But not everyone was pleased with the emperors' approach to immigration.

READ MORE: Julius Caesar's Forgotten Assassin

Writing in the late first century AD, for example, the poet Juvenal invents a character who can’t bear how Greek the city of Rome had become, what with its Greek-speaking population and their customs. He complains in frustration, “For a long time now the Syrian River Orontes has flowed down into the Tiber.” For that matter, some Greeks were equally xenophobic, like the Greek satirist Lucian (second century AD), who scorned coarse Roman patrons. But snobbery could not stem the tide of change.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Kavika
1  seeder  Kavika     one month ago

A lesson from history?

 
 
 
Enoch
1.1  Enoch  replied to  Kavika @1    one month ago

Seems about right to me.

When Ronald Reagan was Emperor he observed that while some railed against brown skinned laborers from south of the border as illegal immigrants, he saw willing workers.

More things change, more they stay the same.

Enoch, Who Wasn't Built in a Day.    

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @1    one month ago

Beware, everyone who has ever seen Sparticus is an expert on Rome, lol.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
2  dave-2693993    one month ago

Kai su, teknon?

Yes, the Romans relied heavily on integrating conquered tribes, peoples, what have yous, into their army. The Roman army was probably one of the worlds greatest construction engineering and "companies" of all time.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3  1stwarrior    one month ago

Remember though, they utilized the immigrants for labor and military as they expanded the Roman Empire.

Not so for the U.S.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @3    one month ago

Are you saying that the US doesn't use immigrants for the military and labor??

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @3.1    one month ago

No - I said that the U.S. is NOT expanding their "empire", hence they don't have the same "need" that the Romans did for immigrant labor/military.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1.2  seeder  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.1    one month ago

I do believe that we need immigration for a couple of reason which I've stated in other article. We as a nation without immigration will fall into the same situation as much of Asia and Europe, an aging population without a birthrate to maintain and grow the population. 

As far as the military goes, we have the largest and most expensive military in the world. The argument can be made if we are not intent on expanding our reach why do we need the current military and the increases that are being proposed. 

BTW immigrants are a large and growing part of our military. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.1.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @3.1.2    one month ago
The Caesars embraced newcomers, less out of idealism than out of self-interest.

Immigrants have played a large part in the varied history of our own country all across the nation. Immigrants have helped make America the great diversified culturally rich country it has become. 

If not for the immigrants, much of the progress America has made in our history would not have been possible in the time frame it took place. And the innovations and inventions that immigrants brought to our country helped put America a head above many other countries for many centuries. And still are. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

No, the Romans, when they conquered the world, were an insular society.   Even Roman citizens of the "head count" weren't allowed to serve in the army as the Romans conquered the Mediterranean.  It wasn't until Marius's innovations around 100 BC that poor Romans were allowed to join the army. By that time, Rome was the greatest power in the world. Even Italians were not recognized until as citizens until the very end of the Republic.     

By the time of the Empire, Rome was primarily concerned with simply maintaining borders.  Then facing external pressures, they started allowing large migrant caravans to cross the borders unopposed  Crossing in such huge numbers, the migrants felt no need to integrate and essentially set up essentially independent barbarian states where they decided to settle. It was only a few generations until the end of the Empire.  

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago

Hey Sean,

I don't see what you are saying is any different than what Kavika posted.

On the other hand, I had probably the best Latin teacher that ever walked this earth. One year, of course we had the obligatory reading of Caesar. Actually pronounced K-eye-sar.

He was a back stabbing rat bastard, if there ever was one.

Here is some reading.

http://www.romeacrosseurope.com/?p=7605#sthash.6uyB5d06.dpbs

Caesar´s Germanic Cavalry: An Elite Fighting Force

Welcome to Rome Across Europe!

If this is your initial time joining us, we appreciate you stopping in to check us out. If you’ve been here before, thanks for thinking enough of us to come back for more.

On a site dedicated to the History of Rome and traveling to various regions to discover cool places and amazing things within what was the Imperium Rōmānum (Roman Empire), we couldn’t not discuss one of the most polarizing and charismatic people to grace the pages of antiquity. Love him or hate him, Gaius Julius Caesar was a man known among everyone in Ancient Rome.

How was it that Germanic tribesmen began so trusted upon by one of Rome’s greatest Generals? When did their use come into fashion for Rome? Let’s find out!

Time and again, Caesar’s German Cavalry had more than proven their worth. In Gallia, they gave Caesar the advantage over hostile horsemen while alongside siege craft in Alesia they helped bring about Caesar’s victory.

In Greece, Caesar’s Germans proved that they could fight as well on foot as they could on horseback, then in Egypt they helped clinch the victory over Ptolemy XII Auletes.

Few in number, Caesar treated his German Cavalry as elite, often holding them in reserve until the situation became desperate. It was then, that Caesar’s elite German warriors could decisively influence the course of a war.

But it this wasn’t always the case. Of course, the Romans had used neighboring people as Auxilia though never in such an esteemed role as Caesar held his non-Romans.

By the time of Julius Caesar’s Gallic War (58-51 BC), it appears that the typical Equites Romani  (Roman Cavalry) may have disappeared altogether, and that Caesar was entirely dependent on allied Gallic contingents for his cavalry operations. This is deduced from an incident in 58 BC when Caesar was invited to a parley with the German king Ariovistus and needed a cavalry escort.

Since he didn’t yet trust the allied Gallic cavalry under his command, Caesar instructed them to lend their horses to some members his Legiōnēs. Thus was the beginning of the Legio X Equestris (10th Mounted Legion).

After Caesar had beaten back German tribal intrusions into Gallia in 58 and 55 BC, the Germans decided to join Caesar. Four hundred strong, they were there as a both a show of goodwill and trust as well as for the loot and glory in battle.

Julius Caesar’s Germanic tribesmen were tall, muscular men with skin toughened by the elements and scarred from battle wounds. Hailing from the Usipetes and from the Tencteri, these tribesmen were built for war armed with spears, swords, shields, and helmets.

That the Germans would fight for former foes was not at all unusual. What mattered to them was that they got the spoils promised or deserved.

Caesar was impressed by the martial spirit of the Germans.  He wrote that, though in the past the Gauls had been more warlike than the Germans, the Gauls had come to “not even pretend to compete with the Germans in bravery”.

Caesar valued his German warriors so highly, that he replaced their pony-like horses with the larger steeds of his bodyguard, Tribunus Militum (Military Tribunes), and Equites (Knights). It was in 52 BC, during the final and most critical year of Caesar’s Gallic War, when his fortunes would fall to an all time low, that his German Cavalry would rise to the occasion.

As Caesar was accepting the surrender of the town of Noviodunum Biturigum, the cavalry of Gallic King Vercingetorix appeared. Caesar ordered his Allied Gallic Cavalry to take the field.

Caesar’s Gauls had the worst of the ensuing fight, prompting Caesar to commit his 400 Germans. With a furious charge, the Germans scattered the enemy and inflicted heavy casualties.

Vercingetorix, however, regained the initiative with a defensive victory at Gergovia. With many of his Gallic allies having switched sides, Caesar recruited another 600 German tribal cavalry and light troops from across the Rhine.

In Gallia Narbonensis, Vercingetorix again attacked Caesar. The sudden appearance of Vercingetorix caught Caesar unprepared, but the Gallic cavalry failed to close in for combat with the Romans.

Meanwhile, Caesar’s Auxiliary Cavalry kept the enemy at bay which allowed his Legionaries to form a defensive square. It was at this moment when Caesar’s German Cavalry gained the summit of a nearby hill.

Never content with being on the defensive, Caesar’s Germans routed a body of Gallic horsemen and hurled them back upon their own infantry. The rout caused the entire Gallic cavalry to flee like rats from a sinking ship.

The Gauls placed the greatest reliance on their cavalry, and with its defeat their spirits sank. Vercingetorix retreated to the stronghold town of Alesia.

Perched on a plateau and surrounded by hills and streams, Alesia seemed impervious to assault. In addition to its supreme defensive location, there were ramparts below the town, a 6-foot wall, and a trench to enclose the Vercingetorix’s camp.

Caesar surrounded the Alesia with over 14-miles of 2 concentric rings of earthworks, ditches, ramparts, spikes, stakes, covered pits, forts, and camps. An inner ring of fortifications faced the defenders of Alesia, while an outer ring protected the Romans from the anticipated Gallic relief army.

Construction of the Roman fortifications was still going on when Vercingetorix’s cavalry sallied out of the Gallic camp. Numbering close to 10,000 men, the Gauls were met in battle by Caesar’s Cavalry.

The fighting swept over a 3-mile stretch of plains between the hills. The Gallic horsemen gained the upper hand over Caesar’s Auxiliary Gallic and Spanish Cavalry, but once again Caesar had kept his Germans in reserve.

Just as before, Caesar’s Germans turned the tide and harried the Gauls back against either their outer wall or trench. Behind the attacking Germans, the Roman Legions readied for battle.

Below them at the camp ramparts, frantic Gauls jammed up the narrow gates as they abandoned their horses to scramble across the trench and up the wall. The Germans were right behind them, swords slashing and spears thrusting.

Riding down their panicked foes and capturing a number of horses into the bargain, Caesar’s German Cavalry galloped on. Vercingetorix was forced to remain on the defensive, and even sent out his own cavalry to raise a relief army among the nearby tribes.

As the siege dragged on, the rebellious Gauls and non-combatants of Alesia were reduced to near starvation. Their spirits rose with the sighting of the arrival of the Gallic relief army under Commius, King of the Atrebates, who had an army estimated at 120,000 men (or 3-times larger than Caesar’s worn down men).

With his Legionaries defending against Vercingetorix’ men, Caesar sent his Cavalry to engage Commius’ troops. The hard fought battle lasted until the sun neared the horizon.

Caesar’s Germans then massed all their squadrons for a charge. The German Cavalry struck Commius’ Gallic horsemen like lightning, causing the Gallic cavalry to flee and thus allowing his archers to be easily cut down.

second Gallic assault at night died in the fire of Roman siege engines, and a third attack saw Caesar’s Cavalry seemingly destroy Commius’ infantry from the rear. With no help left, Vercingetorix surrendered more or less bringing an end to the Gallic Wars.

Caesar plunged the Roman Republic into the Great Civil War of 50 BC, when he marched his Legions across the Rubicon and into Italy. For 4 years, Caesar’s Gallic and Germanic Cavalry accompanied his Legions through the Civil War against the Pompeians and the interludes of the Egyptian and Pontic wars.

In 48 BC, Caesar blocked Pompey from reaching his supply base at Dyrrachium only to find his own supply route to Italy severed by Pompey’s naval dominance of the Adriatic. When Pompey tried to break through Caesar’s entrenchments, the Germans fought on foot beside Caesar’s Legions.

The German sortie slew several Pompeians before returning back to Caesar’s camp. Nevertheless, Pompey eventually managed to pierce the blockade.

Caesar’s force was demoralized, low on supplies, and forced to withdraw into Thessalia. Caesar stormed the defiant town of Gomfoi and gave it over to be ransacked by his half-starved troops.

The whole army, especially the Germans, embarked on an orgy of gluttony and drinking. At Pharsalus, Caesar overthrew Pompey’s initially successful cavalry charge and inflicted a crushing defeat.

Pompey fled to Egypt where the ministers of Ptolemy XII assassinated him. After a lightning campaign against Pharnaces II of Pontus, who had occupied Armenia and Cappadocia, Caesar returned to Italy.

In 46 BC, Caesar continued the war against the followers of Pompey in North Africa. At first Caesar was vastly outnumbered, but after being reinforced he was able to bring the campaign to a victorious end at Thapsus.

The Great Civil War was brought to an end in 45 BC, when Caesar faced the last Pompeius’ forces at Munda. Caesar possessed 8 Legions with over 8,000 cavalry, including his veteran Gauls and Germans, plus King Bogud of Maurentia with his corps of Moorish horsemen.

The Legio X Equestris caved in the enemy’s left flank. The Cavalry, with Bogud in the lead, vanquished the enemy horsemen and fell upon the enemy’s flank and rear.

Caesar returned to Rome and became Dictator. For their allegiance and service to him, Caesar rewarded his veteran Legionaries with a generous gift of gold coins equal to 27 years pay (not too shabby).

Caesar disbanded his Praetorian Guard and his Spanish Cohortes (Tactical Military Units). Likely his Gallic and German Cavalry disbanded as well, with plunder and coin, and maybe even the coveted Roman citizenship.

Upon the Assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, a new civil war erupted. No doubt, this gave many of Caesar’s Germans a chance for more military service for the Romans.

Fierce, fast, and ferocious, the Germanic Cavalry of Julius Caesar inspired those who would become Emperor to charge the Germans with their protection. This trend would last until the Sack of Rome by the Visigoths (Germanic peoples), and ultimately lead to the Fall of the Western Roman Empire.

While it lasted, the Germanic Auxilia of was a thing of beauty. We hope you enjoyed today’s adventure and look forward to having you back again.

Till next time, Don’t Stop Rome-ing!

 

References:

Appian, Appian’s Roman History. Vol. III. Trans. Horace White. William, Heinemann LTD, 1964.

Caesar. The Conquest of Gaul. Penguin Books, 1982.

Cowan, Ross. ‘Head-Hunting Roman Cavalry‘, Military Illustrated 274 (March 2011).

Delbrück, Hans. The Barbarian Invasions. trans. Walter J. Renfroe. University of Nebraska Press, 1990.

Dyke, Ludwig. ¨Caesar’s Elite Germanic Cavalry¨. War History Online, 8 June 2016.

Fuller, J.F.C. Julius Caesar, Man, Soldier, and Tyrant. Da Capo Press, 1965.

Goldsworthy, Adrian Keith. The Roman Army at War 100 BC-AD 200. Oxford Claredon Press, 1998.

Macdowall, Simon. Germanic Warrior 236-568 AD. Osprey Publishing, 1996.

Macdowall, Simon. The Late Roman Cavalryman 236-565 AD. Osprey Publishing, 1999.

McCall, Jeremiah. The Cavalry of the Roman Republic. Routledge, 2002.

Wilcox, Peter and Trevino, Rafael. Barbarians Against Rome. Osprey Publishing, 2000.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  dave-2693993 @4.1    one month ago

I don't see what you are saying is any different than what Kavika posted

Well let me try again.  We are talking of an era that stretched almost 1,000 years and covers monarchy to a Republic to autocratic rule by Emperors. The Rome that became a world power, the Rome of the Republic, did not need or use immigrants, at least in the sense we consider immigrants to be members of society rather than conquered subjects to be exploited.  Poor Romans, let alone immigrants, weren't allowed in the legions until almost the end of the Republic, when Rome was already the dominate power in the known world. I believe there's a distinction between immigrants, people who migrate from a foreign  land and become citizens, and compelling the use of foreign armed levies.

Republican Rome did use foreign auxiliaries  but they were never considered Romans. They were entirely foreign units that fought under Roman direction. Serving in the Auxiliary  didn't make one Roman or entitled to become one. The Germans you cited used by Julius Ceaser were essentially mercenaries  , fighting for plunder. They weren't Romans or immigrants of any sort.

After the fall of the Republic, when the barriers between citizens and non citizens broke down, the Empire wasn't trying to become powerful. It was simply trying to maintain it's territorial integrity under whatever strong man had enough support of the legions to become Emperor. As the Empire lost that battle to invading migrants, it broke apart.   

 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.1.2  dave-2693993  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    one month ago

I see what you are saying Sean, but Kavika's seed is not about the Roman Republic, it is about the Empire, about the Caesars. Your comments about how things worked during the Republic is not a contradiction to the Seed describing how things changed post Republic.

I will quote the seed here:

The Caesars embraced newcomers, less out of idealism than out of self-interest.
BARRY STRAUSSHow “Roman” was the Roman Empire? Well, by some measures: not very.

As the Roman emperors sought to expand and strengthen their empire, they recognized that immigration was a means for both. Although the Roman elites sneered at immigrants, the emperors welcomed them into the labor force and military, keenly understanding that for the empire to grow and thrive it had to have new blood. Not only was the populace changing but the emperors themselves came from diverse backgrounds, from Spain to Syria.

Then going back to expansion, as you mentioned the Legionaries were basically Roman. It is true a lot of expansion happened during the days of the Republic. That wasn't the end of growth. The Empire expanded and in turn adjusted how it did business in order to sustain itself.

Here is an image of the turning point as Rome pivoted from a Republic to an Empire during the time of Julius Caesar.

c1a9bcb219d2e7c5b3954e327c60bfd9.jpg

Then here is the  Empire ~200 years later, give or take.

Map%207%20FINAL%20romto211.jpg

It certainly grew, and, of course eventually over extended itself.

As an FYI, Julius Caesars Germanic Legionaries really were more than Mercenaries. He did a good job of brining his allies into the fold.

Here is some more interesting reading giving some insight to earnings beyond plunder for his allies.

If you have time to follow the link there is some really good reading there:

https://www.historynet.com/julius-caesars-triumph-in-gaul.htm

After each victory Caesar took pains to create a viable political settlement, rewarding allied tribes. The Aedui in particular grew in power and influence. Caesar could be utterly ruthless in the pursuit of victory, but he clearly believed that it was more practical to be generous to defeated enemies after a campaign. For example, when he sent the surviving Helvetii back to their homeland, he arranged to provide them with food until they had reestablished their own farms and harvested their first crops. He even permitted the Boii, one of several groups that had joined the Helvetii migration, to settle in Gaul as a favor to the Aedui.

It was always the Roman way to turn defeated enemies into allies, and Caesar gives us one of the most detailed descriptions of how the process worked. After surrendering, the vanquished handed over hostages to him as a pledge of good faith. (No mention is ever made of their fate in cases where the tribe subsequently rebelled.) Caesar also expected the new allies to support future Roman operations with grain supplies and troops.

Caesar gave a few terrible examples of the price of resistance. He executed the council of elders of one tribe. In the main, however, he left the peoples defeated by his army to govern their own affairs in their traditional way, with little or no Roman interference.

Tribes like the Aedui prospered following Caesar’s arrival in Gaul. So did many individual leaders. The Roman governor was often called upon to arbitrate disputes between and within the tribes. His backing greatly augmented the power of the druid Diviciacus, making him effective leader of the Aedui for a number of years. In other tribes Caesar appointed men as kings or senior magistrates, giving them honors and wealth, and backing them with military force when necessary. Inevitably, those aristocrats who failed to win his favor were forced to watch rivals being promoted over them, knowing well that this situation was unlikely to change as long as Caesar and his army remained in Gaul.

Then, of course in the 1st century Legionaries who served there terms were granted Roman Citizenship, which was a step above status of Freeman.

Maybe I should have used different words than:

I don't see what you are saying is any different than what Kavika posted.

Rather each set of words were speaking of Rome at different times.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago
By the time of the Empire, Rome was primarily concerned with simply maintaining borders.  Then facing external pressures, they started allowing large migrant caravans to cross the borders unopposed  Crossing in such huge numbers, the migrants felt no need to integrate and essentially set up essentially independent barbarian states where they decided to settle. It was only a few generations until the end of the Empire.  

Sean, the large migrant caravans that you speak of were the Visagoths and they were driven to the Roman borders because of the invasion of northern Europe by the Huns. The Romans allowed the Visogoths south of the Danube but treated them with extreme cruelty. The Visogoths rebelled and killed the Eastern Roman Emperor, Valens. A truce was signed and unraveled some years later and the Goths sacked Rome.  After the Battle of Adrianople Germanic tribes (which Rome had battled for centuries) Vandals and Saxons surged forward and breached the borders of the Roman Empire. 

This, of course, was one reason for the downfall of the Roman Empire but there were others as well.  

 
 
 
dave-2693993
4.2.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Kavika @4.2    one month ago
The Romans allowed the Visogoths south of the Danube but treated them with extreme cruelty. The Visogoths rebelled and killed the Eastern Roman Emperor, Valens.

To make the whole thing more complicated Roman General (Bulgarian) Flavius Aetius is often credited with defeating Attila the Hun at the Battle of Chalons aka Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, etc, etc.

In reality the Romans relied heavily on the Franks, Visigoths, Bugundians, etc to defeat Attila. Attila went after other parts of the Roman Empire afterwards but stayed clear of Gaul. Attila pissed off the wrong people when he killed the sister of a warrior from Gaul who was married to some Visgoth of power. Attila's Oh Shit moment.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @4.2    one month ago
Sean, the large migrant caravans that you speak of were the Visagoths a

The Visigoths were but one of those migrant caravans that breached the border against Rome's wishes. The Vandals basically traversed the entire Empire plundering along the way for decades. Ostrogoths, Franks, etc.. would be offered territory in exchange for service against other barbarians and the cycle would continue, as the concept of "Rome" became but one of the many allegiances the immigrants were loyal to.  

 
 
 
charger 383
5  charger 383    one month ago

In those times when you conquer lands, you take the people there in, chase them off, kill them or make slaves of them

 
 
 
Kavika
5.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  charger 383 @5    one month ago
In those times when you conquer lands, you take the people there in, chase them off, kill them or make slaves of them

That is true but as the article states the Roman Empire was far beyond that as immigration to the Empire increased and was encouraged by the Emperor and the Empire and Rome became a melting pot. 

 

 
 
 
charger 383
5.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Kavika @5.1    one month ago

and they were adding more land to the empire so they had room for them

 
 
 
tomwcraig
6  tomwcraig    one month ago

I have a couple issues here.  One of the reasons Rome allowed immigration was simple, to keep the conquered populations happy by allowing them to have military service and the ability to move around within the borders of the Empire.  Another reason was also simple: Need for manpower in the military, particularly in the border regions.  Most of the military was actually made up of the conquered peoples to reduce the actual burden on the Roman population, which is why towards the end of the Empire (particularly the Western Roman Empire), the military kept rebelling and replacing Emperors like favorite candy flavor of the day.

This entire article is a rather simplistic view of the Roman Empire, muddied by the explanation and comparison to the Roman Republic.  The truth is while the Roman Republic formed the basis of the government, it was the military realities that was the true basis for the Roman Empire.  The main reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire was a combination of disease, rebellions, and lack of military personnel fully trained in Roman tactics and equipment.  Remember, even as the Roman Empire was weakening, it was more often more advanced than their enemies in terms of equipment.  The Roman military towards the end actually was made up more of Barbarian mercenaries than regular Roman armies, and that is what lead to the multiple sackings of Rome and the end of the Empire.  Similar things happened with the Byzantine Empire as well.

 
 
 
Kavika
7  seeder  Kavika     one month ago

Actually the article does state some of what you've stated, tomcraig. 

As I said in my comment to Sean, one of the reasons that the empire collapsed was the Goths and their rebellion. There were a number of reasons and the military running the Empire was one of them. They changed emperors by the dozen, it was a very precarious position. 

Corruption was another area that weakened the empire. Many historians believe that the splitting of the empire (East and West) contributed to it's downfall. 

There are numerous other reasons that they empire fall but the article is more about the use of immigrants to grow the empire which it did. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
8  Ronin2    one month ago

Romans also made extensive use of slavery (since they were taken from the losing side in battle and the slave trade- pretty sure they would qualify as "immigrants" as well); no one is advocating the US going back to using slavery.

From the article:

Between roughly 300 BC and AD 200, millions of immigrants came to Italy. Most arrived in chains, as slaves, the victims of Rome’s wars of expansion or of piracy.

As backup

https://www.ancient.eu/article/629/slavery-in-the-roman-world/

Slavery was an ever-present feature of theRomanworld. Slaves served in households,agriculture, mines, the military, manufacturing workshops, construction and a wide range of services within thecity. As many as 1 in 3 of the population inItalyor 1 in 5 across theempirewere slaves and upon this foundation of forced labour was built the entire edifice of the Roman state and society.

Slavery as An Accepted Reality

Slavery, that is complete mastery (dominium) of one individual over another, was so imbedded in Roman culture that slaves became almost invisible and there was certainly no feeling of injustice in this situation on the part of the rulers. Inequality in power, freedom and the control of resources was an accepted part of life and went right back to themythologyofJupiteroverthrowingSaturn. As K.Bradley eloquently puts it, 'freedom...was not a general right but a select privilege' (Potter, 627). Further, it was believed that the freedom of some was only possible because others were enslaved. Slavery, was, therefore, not considered an evil but a necessity by Roman citizens. The fact that slaves were taken from the losers inbattle(and their subsequent offspring) was also a helpful justification and confirmation ofRome's (perceived) cultural superiority and divine right to rule over others and exploit those persons for absolutely any purpose whatsoever.

Aside from the huge numbers of slaves taken aswarcaptives (e.g. 75,000 from theFirst Punic Waralone) slaves were also acquired viapiracy,trade, brigandage and, of course, as the offspring of slaves as a child born to a slave mother (vernae) automatically became a slave irrespective of who the father was. Slave markets proliferated, perhaps one of the most notorious being the market onDelos, which was continuously supplied by the Cilician pirates. Slave markets existed in most large towns, though, and here, in a public square, slaves were paraded with signs around their necks advertising their virtues for prospective buyers. Traders specialised in the commodity, for example, one A. Kapreilius Timotheus traded throughout theMediterranean.

I have no problem with legal immigration to the US; but if you are going to us the Roman Empire as an example- it needs to be taken in context.

 
 
 
Kavika
9  seeder  Kavika     one month ago
I have no problem with legal immigration to the US; but if you are going to us the Roman Empire as an example- it needs to be taken in context.

Neither do I, but that isn't the premise of the article. It's that immigration, both using slavery and voluntary immigration helped build the Roman empire. 

Also the Romans bought loyalty from many of the Germanic tribes and that relationship was dangerous at best. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
10  Nerm_L    one month ago

The Roman Empire encompassed half the land area of the United States (all of Europe is only slightly larger than the United States).  The distance from Istanbul (Constantinople) to Rome is the same as the distance from New Orleans to Detroit.  And people moving from New Orleans to Detroit are not immigrants.  People moving from one Roman region to another Roman region were not immigrants, they were all Romans.

The culture in New Mexico is not the same as the culture in Maine.  The two regions are separated by 2,400 miles; that's about the same distance from Seville, Spain, to Istanbul, Turkey, which spanned the Roman Empire.  People travelling between New Mexico and Maine are not immigrants.  People travelling from the Iberian Peninsula or Asia Minor to Rome were not immigrants, either.

The biggest problems with these comparisons between the United States and the Roman Empire is that Europeans have always thought small.  All the European countries are tiny compared to the United States.  And those tiny countries have engaged in perpetual warfare with each other since the Roman Empire conquered the Mediterranean.  Europeans have always been insular; one only need travel one hundred miles to be in a totally different culture.

If the United States followed the Roman model for 'immigration', then the US should conquer and annex the western hemisphere.  Everyone in the western hemisphere would be governed by imperial Washington D.C.; Central and South America would be regions within the US empire.  And people from those regions would not be immigrants just as the people in annexed Roman regions were not immigrants.

 
 
 
Kavika
10.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @10    one month ago
The biggest problems with these comparisons between the United States and the Roman Empire.

The articles isn't comparing the US to the Roman Empire...It's stating what transpired in Rome..

Europeans have always thought small.  All the European countries are tiny compared to the United States.

So the British Empire was small, or France, Spain, Netherlands etc. Difficult to say that these countries thought small.

 
 
 
Split Personality
10.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @10.1    one month ago

512

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
11  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ    one month ago

The Ancient Romans conquered my people and enslaved them for a few hundred years. 

 
 
 
Kavika
11.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @11    one month ago
The Ancient Romans conquered my people and enslaved them for a few hundred years. 

The Romans were never on Mars. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
12  It Is ME    one month ago

"As the Roman emperors sought to expand and strengthen their empire, they recognized that immigration was a means for both. Although the Roman elites sneered at immigrants, the emperors welcomed them into the labor force and military, keenly understanding that for the empire to grow and thrive it had to have new blood."

When did the Definition of "Conquered", become to mean "Immigrant" ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
luther28
13  luther28    one month ago

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no great civilization that has not utilized an immigrant population to further themselves. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online





JohnRussell
zuksam
Dulay
epistte


61 visitors