LOOK WHAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DID FOR ROME

[caldrail]

'Illegal' immigration into Britannia during the 5th century certainly had a profound effect. Genetically, it has been found ( see oppenheimer etc ) that the Anglo Saxon, viking and Norman invasions only account for 8% of the British genetic makeup* - and yet almost all of the British Isles speak a language derived from a mixing of dialects imported from Lower Germany, with some Scandinavian and Norman French input. Despite being Celts in the ethnic sense (whatever that word really means ) almost none of us speaks Welsh, Cornish or Gaelic. The same situation exists in Turkey, where the language and identity of a relatively small proportion of central Asian nomads was imposed upon a population which, in the genetic sense, is not very different from that of Anatolia prior to the disaster at Manzikert. Which means, wether they like it or not, most Turks have a great deal of Greek and Armenian genes!

 

It wasn't the 'illegal' ommogration that made the difference, but rather the intent of those who migrated to our shores. Saxons were already resident in Britain before the seccession from the Roman Empire in substantial numbers (there are saxon graves dated during the occupation in my region), yet the Romans regarded them as 'good citizens'. We could therefore point to the collapse of administration after the Romans had gone and question the illegality of germinic arrivals, part;y since some of them would have been invited by resident germanics on the basis that there was lots of good farming land to be had (just a few britons you might want to evict first though), although it has to be admitted that certain landings were made on the basis that this same land was for the taking and who was going to stop them?

 

It should also be pointed out that the failure of the resident Brirtons to contain these migrant populations contributed to their subjugation. There are earthworks across southern Britain built to impede their advances. So it isn't just that the germanic tribers arrived, legally or not, but also the inability of the native Romano-Britons to enforce law and order upon them.

[XIIII]

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam." (Moreover, I advise that Carthage must be destroyed.) (The expression was also at times phrased more compactly "Carthago delenda est" or "delenda Carthago").

 

After the second Punic War, Carthage had been severely reduced in power and influence. It certainly was no longer a threat to Rome. This vindictiveness did not make sense to me.

 

 

Twice was enough, I think, for a good many Romans. Carthage would undoubtedly produce another son or cousin or nephew or some other convaluted relation of Hamilcar or Hannibal who would, of course, take up arms a third time.

 

It was time to nip it in the bud, so to speak.

Edited September 11, 2012 by XIIII

[caldrail]

Polybius gives the game away. He underlines the hatred that existed for Carthage and anticipates their final destruction (he wrote ghis hisotries around 150BC, just before the final war). I think what we ought to bear in mind is that warfare in ancient times was far less concerned with protocol and ettiquette than later eras. It was often all or nothing. Rome smelled blood and wanted to be rid of their rival. Polybius refers to Carthage as a state in terminal decline politically and irredeemably decadent. Clearly there was a common sentiment in Rome that Carthage really ought to be pushed over the brink and gotten rid of once and for all.