Posted on 11/26/2019 6:05:44 AM PST by shoff
New DNA analysis has found that Roman satirists may have been right when they spoke of Greeks and Syrians taking over their city. Things started to change however from 900 BCE to 200 BCE, as Rome grew in size and importance, and the diversity shot up from 27 BCE to 300 CE, when the city was the capital to an empire of 50 million to 90 million people, stretching from North Africa to Britain to the Middle East.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“But they were cool with Rome annexing Greece and Assyria?”
Of course. You either do it to them or they’ll do it to you.
You only own that which you are WILLING and ABLE to defend, by whatever means at your disposal.
The western half of the Roman empire fell or rather quietly stopped in terms of imperial administration in 470 AD.
But the eastern Roman empire remained. They called themselves Romans and their emperor was called the Roman emperor until 1453.
In the west, Rome the city was continually occupied and Roman culture remained over all of the former imperial domains.
The Roman empire was very diverse. One dynasty of emperors, from Septimus Severus were actually Phoenician/ Carthaginian by blood but Roman by culture.
Another, Philip the Arab was, well Arab. Then you had Spanish, Dacian etc emperors
It wasn’t lack of assimilation. The Frank’s became the French, the visigoths became Spanish and the various Germanis were highly influenced by Latin culture.
The collapse was economic primarily and secondarily due to plagues spreading as so many were living in close proximity to each other, in squalid conditions
The grain dole was set up by the Gracchius brothers before 100BC, still in the time of the Republic.
Considering that the Roman empire survived another 1553 years, we can say that that welfare wasn’t the or even a cause of collapse
The Roman empire left Britain in 430 AD, the Vikings came 300 odd years later, not “shortly after the romans left “.
Vikings were heavily assimilated into the local brew
Tye Roman empire before the collapse of the western provinces did not Balkanize
Lucian was an Assyrian of Greek culture who wrote exclusively in Latin
Yes death by a thousand cuts, or should I say millions of cuts.
It’s easier to take the scraps left over from the democrats than to fight them.
“Exactly, look what happened in the Americas after 1492.”
If only we stayed in a semi agricultural nomadic state we’d all be living in bliss.
“It became Balkanized so badly, that it soon didnt exist.”
The bread and circuses only forestalled the inevitable.
“ALL ROADS LEAD TO OBAMA !”
Makes you wonder which one of their emperors was 1/2 Kenyan.
In my own musings and speculation, I suspect that Christ came at the earliest time and place in history when His message could be spread to the ends of the earth. The Roman Empire was a necessity to this end.
Correct.
We’re going thru it here now, as is Europe and other countries, with social upheaval (homos, trannies, pc crap etc) to distract from the “Balkanization of America” and the Western world’s civilizations.
With 50-60 million already here, if they all wore the same uniform, we’d look like an occupied country.
I used “Balkanize” loosely for the many invasions the Romans in the western provinces couldn’t hold against, and the influx of foreigners, diluting the WRE (western roman empire).
Balkanization proper, started centuries later.
What we do know of the collapse of the Roman empire is that it was due to two economic reasons:
1. the united Roman Empire was a slave-based economy. This meant giant latifunda - farms, run by slaves, enriching wealthy men who only got wealthier while poorer folk had fewer to no opportunities to rise. Also a slave-based economy depends on constantly getting more slaves. When that stops, the economy collapses.
The eastern Roman empire successfully transitioned away from slavery, but that took time.
2. inflation and debasement of currency - when currency could not be trusted, that eroded trust in the institutions of Empire.
The influx of foreigners - Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Burgundians etc. didn’t change the culture - ultimately all of these got assimilated in the higher culture of the Romans.
Also these were large groups of people but miniscule compared to the base populations. Which is why the Frankish empire ended up speaking a Latin tongue as did the Visigoths. And why the Turkic speaking Bulgars became fully assimilated by the Slavs they ruled
No other nation has as much influence until modern times.
That’s what I saw in the article. Scary!
Not really.
After the Roman empire, the following nations had massive cultural and demographic impact on the world
Tang dynasty China
The Chola dynasty which spread indic culture to south east Asia
The Ummayyad dynasty of Caliph
The Mongols
The mughal empire
Timur e langs empire
Manchu dynasty China
The Spanish
Tye Portuguese
Until tye French and English empires
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.