Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
Classique et Germanique

The Taboo Roots Of Imperial Collapse

Recommended Posts

Gauls were in Central Anatolia, not Palestine and this were orthodox christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hold overs from the Crusades?

 

I am not sure. On another thread, a poster (P.P.?), said that they may have been Celtic auxilliaries settled in present day Anatolia. I am a little wary of that because a province was named Galatea, v.g., Galatians.

 

Gauls were in Central Anatolia, not Palestine and this were orthodox christians.

 

Migration? Religious metagenesis? It is only a short walk from there to there. These traits are also seen in Turkey and Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure. On another thread, a poster (P.P.?), said that they may have been Celtic auxilliaries settled in present day Anatolia. I am a little wary of that because a province was named Galatea, v.g., Galatians.

 

I was talking about Kosmo's Palestinians.

 

The Galatians were Celts (Tolistobogii, Trocmi, and Tectosages) who moved into Asia Minor after getting their arses handed to them while ravaging Greece, Thrace, Illyria etc... in the 1st half of the 3rd Century BC. Seems they took advantage of the post-Alexander termoil.

 

They had a lot of fun ravaging Asia Minor until Attalus of Pergamum put an end to the party. After that they were corralled into what became known as Galatia and were used as mercenaries from then on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, Pantagathus is quite correct. The fog is lifted from my besotted, alleged brain. Nonetheless, I will stand (and/or fall) with the migration - metagenesis business, since it does not contradict the afore mentioned learned post. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever had the pleasure of experiencing discrimination?

Unfortunately, yes. The government has laws which discriminate against whites. All companies with over 50 workers must employ 70% blacks. All companies doing government work must have a black partner. Whites aren

Edited by Lex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Always please give credit to the source of images... (I know it can be found with a simple right click, but I still think its a goodwill gesture).

 

www.Romanity.org

You're right. Sorry about that, I was in quite a rush when I made my post, but I also figured it could be found with a right-click.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that this maps showing political control have much to do with ethnicity as many regions kept an overwhelming roman majority and there was no racial change due to migrations as most migrators were indo-europeans.

Actually only the turkisation of the Black Sea steppe was a racial change at an unknown date. And this was outside the empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that this maps showing political control have much to do with ethnicity as many regions kept an overwhelming roman majority and there was no racial change due to migrations as most migrators were indo-europeans.

Actually only the turkisation of the Black Sea steppe was a racial change at an unknown date. And this was outside the empire.

 

I agree with Kosmo that to take ethnic information from those maps is a complicated thing to do, and might not give the right answer.

 

Forgive me if someone's made this clear already -- I haven't reread the whole thread -- but the ethnic shift that we see at the end of the Western Roman Empire (racial shift, if it technically was one, which I doubt) had been happening for at least 900 years from historical information (and probably a lot longer if archaeological and linguistic information is taken into account).

 

Why 900? Because that's how old in 476 AD was the play by Aristophanes which seems to show that in Athens public order was maintained by Scythian 'policemen' (who were slaves), and, what's more, that Scythian policemen screwed Greek women when they had the chance. From all that time, throughout the Greek expansion, the rise of Rome, and the early Empire, slaves continued to be drawn from both north and south of the Mediterranean belt as well as from within it -- Africans from one side, northern Europeans/Eurasians from the other side. Very many of them died without contributing their genes to the Greek-and-then-Roman general pool: others, however, did contribute.

 

The gradual shift from slave raiding, to employment of auxiliaries, to permission for warrior groups to settle in the Empire, was exactly that -- a gradual shift. Does anyone really know if the total volume of migration changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why 900? Because that's how old in 476 AD was the play by Aristophanes which seems to show that in Athens public order was maintained by Scythian 'policemen' (who were slaves), and, what's more, that Scythian policemen screwed Greek women when they had the chance.

 

HA! Excellent point Andrew, hits home even more for me right now because I just reread that particular play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that Roman "decadence" caused its fall is a myth concocted by Christians in the middle ages as an explanation to the peasants for why God would allow something as horrendously bad as the fall of the Roman Empire. The notion that ethnic impurity would cause decadence is complete nonsense, the decadence was caused because they were wealthy, and they weren't wealthy because of constant warfare, they were wealthy because they had a vibrant economy. Whether constant CIVIL war had negative cultural impact is an interesting question.

Edited by dnewhous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of which are surprisingly incompetent when it comes to preventing boat loads of refugees from entering Europe.

 

 

Ah, but why should they try and stop it? Eh?

 

 

It's a great source of wealth for their country. The Afrcian families in Europe bring money to their country, to the remaining family members living africa. It is a significant source of wealth for their poor economies.

Edited by PerfectimusPrime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of which are surprisingly incompetent when it comes to preventing boat loads of refugees from entering Europe.

 

 

Ah, but why should they try and stop it? Eh?

 

 

It's a great source of wealth for their country. The Afrcian families in Europe bring money to their country, to the remaining family members living africa. It is a significant source of wealth for their poor economies.

 

Absolutely. I've moved to the country where I thought I could find the best balance between income and lifestyle. It happened to be legal for me to do it. But how could I possibly blame others for trying to do the same? -- especially since many of them, unlike me, are faced with poverty and even starvation if they stay put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large portions of this thread have drifted decidedly off topic. At the moment I feel too lazy to amputate the offending portions. So how about a friendly reminder to take modern politics/sociology to the Afterhours lounge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×