Rome fell because of illegal aliens?

[Ladewig]

I've seen some right-wing bloggers claim that the real cause for the fall of Rome was that they did not prosecute their illegal aliens. Some of these folks cite Peter Heather's "The Fall of Rome: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians" as supporting their view.

Does anyone know if this book supports that view or if the author is being misquoted?

[brodski]

When you have an expanding empire, the concept of illegal immigration become a little tricky, philosophically speaking.

[drkitten]

When you have an expanding empire, the concept of illegal immigration become a little tricky, philosophically speaking.

I'm not sure this is really relevant for several reasons.

First, by the time Rome fell, the Empire had not been expanding, for several centuries. Hadrian's wall, for example, dates from the second century and represents the high-water mark of the Roman Empire. The last of the Romans left two generations before the official "fall" of Rome.

But despite the fact that Rome had not been expanding geographically, it had been expanding by various means of legal immigration. Most of the people doing the actual work in the Empire, including for example, most of the troops in the various legions, were technically not Roman citizens, but has been born and bred within the Empire and were as culturally Romanized as any of the native "citizens."

Historically speaking, the United States is in a somewhat odd situation w.r.t. citizenship, largely as a result of the Constitutional definition of citizenship. In many other countries -- Japan is a classic example -- citizenship is not conferred merely by moving to, or even being born in, the country. It literally takes an Act of Parliament for a non-Japanese to become a citizen. One effect of these is that there are often multiple generations of people of foreign extraction -- in Japan, they are mostly people of Korean, Chinese, or SE Asian descent -- whose families have been living in Japan, in many cases since during or before the Second World War. These people typically have residency rights, but not voting rights or other rights such as access to public housing, public sector employment, or public education.

These people are not, in modern terminology, "illegal aliens," since they are in the country legally. Similarly, most of the non-citizens in the Roman Empire were also in the Empire legally (there weren't really any legal barriers to simply living in the Empire, no matter where you were from). These people are, however, second-class residents.

My understanding is that Heather's book (I haven't read it, but have read some reviews) doesn't suggest that these "aliens" -- the peaceful workers who actually fed the Empire -- were the cause of the Fall, but the military conflict with the outright barbarians, pure and simple. If the right-wing pundits want to suggest that "illegal aliens" who come into LA to cut people's laws for a dollar an hour are analogous to, literally, an armed invations force... then yes, they're misrepresenting the content of the book. The Latino lawn guy was actually one of the people protecting the Roman Empire.

[Skeptic]

People in Roman times had passports? Rome issued visas? Who knew?

[CplFerro]

These people are not, in modern terminology, "illegal aliens," since they are in the country legally...

Dear dr,

In other words, they are legal aliens.

Cpl Ferro

[Jimbo07]

Rome issued visas?

Oh, you know, veni vidi visa, and all that...

:D

[bruto]

Baghdad fell because of illegal aliens too.

[Banbury]

From the title I thought someone suggested the Roman Empire fell to an Alien invasion. :o
Maybe Roland Emmerich could make a movie from it.

[drkitten]

In other words, they are legal aliens.


Yes.... and the point of my rather lengthy article that you obviously didn't bother to read is that this distinction, between "legal" and "illegal" aliens did not exist in Ancient Rome, because Rome had no immigration laws. But in terms of social/economic stature, the "non-citizens" of Rome were closer to the multigenerational legal alients of Japan than to anything that currently exists in the United States.

[Roboramma]

I also got from what you wrote DrK that if we were to compare them to any group in the US, the most fitting would be "American citizens". Though of course the comparison to multigenerational Japanese legal aliens carries more information because it gives a better understanding of the culture that they existed in. But if someone feels the need to identify them with an American group (because they can't see past their own back yard), that seems to be the only valid comparison.

[ChristineR]

Well, according to Patrick Buchanan, Rome fell because it tolerated male homosexuality. So that settles it.

[Skeptic]

Well, according to Patrick Buchanan, Rome fell because it tolerated male homosexuality. So that settles it.

But did it tolerate gay sex with illegal aliens?

[kevin]

But did it tolerate gay sex with illegal aliens?

I doubt it, that probably would've only left a smoking crater where nothing would grow until the 2nd coming of Zeus.

[Chaos]

You know, from a certain perspective, that theory isn´t that bad... I mean, the Goths, Huns, Vandals and so on who plundered Rome crossed the border illegally, they came for the money, destroyed the livelyhoods of ordinary citizens, and then left to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. That description fits, almost exactly, the typical populist description of today´s illegal immigrants :D

[Deus Ex Machina]

You know, from a certain perspective, that theory isn´t that bad... I mean, the Goths, Huns, Vandals and so on who plundered Rome crossed the border illegally, they came for the money, destroyed the livelyhoods of ordinary citizens, and then left to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. That description fits, almost exactly, the typical populist description of today´s illegal immigrants :D

weellll I hate to turn to history here but..

The barbarians that came to the Roman Empire were, initially, invited into it so they could fight at the border against other barbarians. Once the Roman Empire lost its ability to protect itself with its own forces it was at the mercy of the barbaran armies.

A similar thing happened to the romano-celts in Britain after the fall of Rome when they invited Saxon mercenaries in to help them.

[Crossbow]

Well there were several reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.

However, the one reason which has long been the most popular with the public has the rise of Christianity. As Christianity spread, the Roman Empire shrank.

[blutoski]

I've seen some right-wing bloggers claim that the real cause for the fall of Rome was that they did not prosecute their illegal aliens. Some of these folks cite Peter Heather's "The Fall of Rome: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians" as supporting their view.

Does anyone know if this book supports that view or if the author is being misquoted?

There are lots of books that analyze Rome's trajectory through history, with different ideas about what failed, but I'm unaware of any that single out one reason. The empire was huge and complex, and lasted for perhaps as much as 1600 years - the Western democracies should be so lucky.

My personal interpretation is that Rome's big problem was the cycle of civil war, starting just before the Julians. The borders were very stable, or even expanding, during periods of internal stability, for example, Rome was slightly larger in 400AD than during the republic. This was after two sackings of Rome itself. Barbarians only had access during, or shortly after, Roman civil wars, when the armies had been relocated from the frontier, to be redeployed against domestic targets.

A second major problem was a side effect of the monarchy: the army was traditionally a way for citizens to make their bones for eventual political careers in the Senate or judiciary. The nation's best and brightest sought fame through conquering enemies of the Republic. However, with the emasculation of the Senate's power, the army was no longer seen as a place for bright leaders to build a reputation, and its role and overall management became neglected. Also: monarchs perceived the army as a potential source of usurpers, and deliberately underpaid generals, encouraging the elites to work in the Praetorian Guard. The result was that the military lost a lot of its competence: the best soldiers were intentionally moved out of the army.

Another huge change was moral: Rome's success against the barbarians was essentially a policy of genocide. Julius Caeser is estimated to have killed half the Gauls (3 million people) during his management of this region. Over time, as Romans changed their moral standards, this policy became hard to stomach, and barbarian populations eventually became unmanageable.

There are other one-off theories: lead poisioning killed off the oligarchy of powerful families, plagues crippled the capital at crucial moments, &c.

[hh-dragon]

Another theory I've heard is economic. The Roman economy kept moving in the direction of more and more slave labor. Wealth became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Farms and mines were run as large centralized operations using essentially disposable slaves. The poorer Roman citizens lost their farms, their jobs and their social usefulness and just collected welfare and went to gladiator games.

Essentially, the Roman empire was such an initial success because of its citizen soldiers and strong proto-middle class, but once it lost that structure it became vulnerable. Plus, cheap slave labor discouraged technological innovation.

This is a simplification, since the Roman economy went through a lot over the centuries, but it sounds very compelling.

[Zbu]

Another theory I've heard is economic. The Roman economy kept moving in the direction of more and more slave labor. Wealth became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Farms and mines were run as large centralized operations using essentially disposable slaves. The poorer Roman citizens lost their farms, their jobs and their social usefulness and just collected welfare and went to gladiator games.

Essentially, the Roman empire was such an initial success because of its citizen soldiers and strong proto-middle class, but once it lost that structure it became vulnerable. Plus, cheap slave labor discouraged technological innovation.

This is a simplification, since the Roman economy went through a lot over the centuries, but it sounds very compelling.

Good thing that can't happen here! ;)

[RSLancastr]

There is room for debate in this, of course. But, while many of the things mentioned in this thread were contributing factors, scholars seem to be nearly unanimous in the conclusion that Rome fell primarily because its leadership was largely comprised of shape-shifting lizard men from another dimension.

[clarsct]

weellll I hate to turn to history here but..

The barbarians that came to the Roman Empire were, initially, invited into it so they could fight at the border against other barbarians. Once the Roman Empire lost its ability to protect itself with its own forces it was at the mercy of the barbaran armies.

A similar thing happened to the romano-celts in Britain after the fall of Rome when they invited Saxon mercenaries in to help them.

There is controversy as to whether or not the Vandals were invited into Northern Africa....but they were NOT invited to Rome..And they were not ever invited to DEFEND Rome.

The rest holds true if you're speaking about the Goths...


Oh, and the recruited the Goths to defend against Attila the Hun, whom I would say there ought to be debate on whether or not to classify him as a 'barbarian'.


The Goths sacked Rome for nonpayment. The Vandals sacked Rome because of a broken wedding arrangement, or so the story goes. I think they sacked Rome because they COULD.

[bigred]

Oh, you know, veni vidi visa, and all that...

I don't know whether to laugh or throw up at that joke.

;)

[bigred]

Well there were several reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.

However, the one reason which has long been the most popular with JREF has the rise of Christianity.
Fixed.

:rolleyes:

[bigred]

The empire was huge and complex, and lasted for perhaps as much as 1600 years - the Western democracies should be so lucky..More like half that (if even that), but yeah a long time for sure.

And there are many reasons that contributed, some of which you mention...

Personally I think it was because of the stinkin liberals ;)

[westphalia]

A non-existant middle class can be blamed, as can a host of other factors. While civil war certainly weakened the empire at unfortunate points in its history, those wars were hardly a 5th-century phenomenon, and had occurred regularly throughout Roman history, even during the "halcyon" days of the Republic.

With regards to illegal immigration, the parallel between the United States and Rome (though, as correctly pointed out, Rome did not have "illegal" immigration as we understand it) holds valid in one regard. Rome was infiltrated - by invitation or by force - by masses of people who had no personal stake in Rome's survival, and no particular affection for Rome's institutions and history. These barbarians realized that being invited to settle land in return for military service (foederati) was the dying effort of a sick empire to stay afloat. Why work within Roman institutions, and fight for your paymasters, when you can take what you like by force, and import your own standards and traditions? The barbarians were primarily interested in what Rome had to offer them materially and physically.

(Critics of this argument might well point out how well the barbarians acculturated themselves into the conquered Roman territory, but I see this amalgamation more as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.)

The fear some conservatives have about the U.S.'s illegal immigration problem is the importation of vast numbers of people who have no particular loyalty to the United States (indeed, are often inimical to it), have no experience working within the framework of a stable, relatively corruption-free democracy, and no affinity for institutions and ethics that traditional American society upholds.

I don't see any particular difference between the Romans importing Goths, Franks and Burgundians to more economically police their borders and the U.S. importing illegals to more economically perform unskilled labor and artificially drive down wages.

[drkitten]

With regards to illegal immigration, the parallel between the United States and Rome (though, as correctly pointed out, Rome did not have "illegal" immigration as we understand it) holds valid in one regard. Rome was infiltrated - by invitation or by force - by masses of people who had no personal stake in Rome's survival, and no particular affection for Rome's institutions and history.

This is drivel. I should like to use a stronger word than drivel, but I don't have a sufficiently large vocabulary.....

Rome was not "infiltrated ... by force." I'm not even sure that such a conjunction of words makes sense.

Rome was invaded, by force, by barbarian invaders, who were interested in the material goods that could be physically looted from the smoking ruins of the once-proud cities.

The settlers who entered by invitation were the ones who defended the empire against the barbarian invaders. Had the settlers not been present, Rome would probably have fallen a good deal more quickly precisely because they would not have been able to rely on the voluntary immigrants for support.



I don't see any particular difference between the Romans importing Goths, Franks and Burgundians to more economically police their borders and the U.S. importing illegals to more economically perform unskilled labor and artificially drive down wages.

I'm glad you don't. Because the next step in that argument is to recognize that, far from the Goths, Franks, and Burgundian legionaries being a destabilizing force, the legionaries were a key aspect ofholding off the other Goths, Franks, and Burgundians who were interested in looting, instead of working in, the Roman cities. Just as the Frankish soldiers were key to stabilizing Imperial Rome, so (your analogy suggests) are the illegal aliens key to stabilizing the current US economy and political structure.

[westphalia]

Rome was invaded, by force, by barbarian invaders, who were interested in the material goods that could be physically looted from the smoking ruins of the once-proud cities.

Rome was invaded for many reasons, looting being only one of them. Outside pressures from the Huns, for example, probably pushed much of the German migrations into the Empire. The Goths and Germans were motivated by their need for security.

The settlers who entered by invitation were the ones who defended the empire against the barbarian invaders. Had the settlers not been present, Rome would probably have fallen a good deal more quickly precisely because they would not have been able to rely on the voluntary immigrants for support.

I'm sure Valens at Adrianople would agree with you. What nonsense.

Just as the Frankish soldiers were key to stabilizing Imperial Rome, so (your analogy suggests) are the illegal aliens key to stabilizing the current US economy and political structure.

I don't see any evidence that the influx of German soldiers was on the whole more beneficial than detrimental.

[iAmerican]

I've seen some right-wing bloggers claim that the real cause for the fall of Rome was that they did not prosecute their illegal aliens. Some of these folks cite Peter Heather's "The Fall of Rome: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians" as supporting their view.

Does anyone know if this book supports that view or if the author is being misquoted?

Haven't read Heather but Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope," makes the case that, after a brief "break-away," we linger on the periphery of the Roman Empire ("Leviathan," Hobbes: Empire=Church), and are rapidly being reabsorbed. The same families, Rome's "Black Aristocracy," tracing its descent from caesars and popes, sit in the same castles, on the same hills, occupied for two and three thousand years...while Knight of Malta, and Hitler's banker, Prescott Bush's grandson claims Rome's Fifth Column elite as his "base." Sounds as if Rome's has yet to fall.

Not until the American People cast the Anti-Christ into the Pit shall Rome fall.

Listen to America's Whig Founders. They were true Prophets.

[dudalb]

I am not crazy about the Roman Catholic Church but this "The Pope Is The Source Of All Evil" is just plain stupid.

[Damien Evans]

Haven't read Heather but Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope," makes the case that, after a brief "break-away," we linger on the periphery of the Roman Empire ("Leviathan," Hobbes: Empire=Church), and are rapidly being reabsorbed. The same families, Rome's "Black Aristocracy," tracing its descent from caesars and popes, sit in the same castles, on the same hills, occupied for two and three thousand years...while Knight of Malta, and Hitler's banker, Prescott Bush's grandson claims Rome's Fifth Column elite as his "base." Sounds as if Rome's has yet to fall.

Not until the American People cast the Anti-Christ into the Pit shall Rome fall.

Listen to America's Whig Founders. They were true Prophets.

nice failpost

[Lensman]

veni, vidi, visa

I thought that translates as, "I came, I saw, I shopped".
(Attributed to Mrs Caesar ;) )

[blutoski]

I've had some time to review some new material about this since my earlier post in May.

I get the impression that there is a growing consensus that the Romans were simply defeated militarily by an series of increasingly sophisticated external aggressors.

Specifically, there has been a great deal of excavation in regions north of the frontier, about which we had little information from late antiquity.

Of particular interest is the evidence that during the first three centuries of Barbarian trade with Romans, Rome's major advantages of agrarian technology, weapons technology, and political organization were propagated over the frontier.

The second development of interest was the Hunnic Empire's expansion into Barbarian territory, pushing these enormous populations against the frontier, and in the case of the Goths, over the frontier and into Roman territory. The Huns also brought two important weapons into the hands of the barbarians: the composite bow on horseback, and the battering ram. The former devastated field armies, and the latter neutralized the frontier fortresses.

We have to remember that at all times, Rome had to keep a substantial force - about half their standing army at any time - in defensive positions in the East facing Persia (part of the reason the two kingdoms developed was the obvious need for executive power near the Persian front).

Ultimately, the defeat of the West was due to these Barbarians squeezed between the Huns and Rome, and seeing Rome as the less militarily capable at this point, they either chose to be absorbed by the Hunnic empire, or make a deal with Rome to shore it up with more troops.

If I were to suggest a way for Rome to have avoided their Western defeat that took about a century from 360 to 470, I would say that:


they would have benefitted from intelligence over the frontier
they should have paid the Goths, as agreed
they should have concentrated their engagements into pre-emptive strikes instead of distributing their armies to defend every frontier city
they should have upgraded their fortress gates to defend against battering rams
they should have chosen engagement locations that would disadvantage the Hunnic bows and cavalry - bogs, forests, mountains...
the Eastern kingdom should have contributed forces earlier, and more consistently (they withdrew their support of an amphibious attack on Vandal Carthage after a year of preparation, leaving Rome essentially undefended)

[bigred]

I am not crazy about the Roman Catholic Church but this "The Pope Is The Source Of All Evil" is just plain stupid.gasp

Careful - do you realize where you are?

Although if you follow up with "Christians are the source of all evil" all will be forgiven. :thumbsup: