What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Tamas]

The Roman Empire doesn't really have anything to do with the issue . . . FWIW 19th century America indicates the advantage of a high immigration industrial economy over slave-based agrarian economies as a general principle. . .

It's hard to talk about immigration in ancient Rome in any meaningful way because the concept of "immigration" doesn't really translate and even if it did we don't have anything resembling useful data to say anything intelligent about it.  What we can say is the the Roman polity lasted as long as it did in significant part because it was very successful in expanding the pool of talent and manpower it drew from.

Agreed on the Roman bit but America is hardly a generic example, it was very specific and advantageous circumstances on an absolutely massive geographical scale that was pretty much impossible to repeat in written history. In other words, you have to get really lucky to have such a massive technological and biological (as in terms of viral immunities and such) advantage that you can essentially wipe an entire continent clean of contending fellow human factions.

[The Minsky Moment]

I agree that Rome's collapse was mostly a military affair. But I think it was also socio-economic in the sense that a lot of the population ruled over had no real investment in the Roman system, since they were not beneficiary of it neither did they identify with it too much culturally.

I'd take issue with that statement - what is the evidence for it?

A distinctive characteristics of most of the "barbarian" actors in the 5th century is how invested they were in the Roman system.  They weren't seeking to destroy or collapse the system - they wanted to preserve it and share in the benefits.  Of course intentions can pave a road to hell.  but the problem was not lack of sympathy for or investment in the system.  Lack of investment in the imperial system was more an issue for traditional Roman landowners who by mid century made the calculation that they were better off making arrangement with local warlords rather than engaging with a deteriorating and erratic imperial bureaucracy.

You sometimes see Aetius referred to as the "Last of the Romans" even though he spent many of his formative years with Goths and  "Huns".  I scare quote Huns because they were already an ethnically polyglot grouping.  On the other hand Stilicho is referred to in the historical record as a ethnic Vandal, whereas in fact he was a loyal Roman general whose efforts did much to keep Rome afloat.  It is dangerous to generalize based on ethnic identification.

The Roman Empire had a lot of problems to deal with in the 5ht century; its willingness and ability to accept other ethnicities as citizens was not a cause of those problems; it was one the reasons it lasted as long as it did under adverse conditions.

[Malthus]

Heh not only did all sorts of people accept identity as "Roman" during the empire's existence, they continued to do so for centuries, with increasingly tenuous claims to actually being "Roman".

Moscow is the third Rome! 😀

[Threviel]

I think it was the byzantine history podcast that had the story from the Greek independence war. Supposedly some Greek military unit landed on a greek-speaking island and asked the people there what they were, presumably asking whether they were independence-minded or Ottoman loyalists.

"We are Romans" they answered.

[Tamas]

Heh not only did all sorts of people accept identity as "Roman" during the empire's existence, they continued to do so for centuries, with increasingly tenuous claims to actually being "Roman".

Moscow is the third Rome! 😀

But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.

[Razgovory]

I do like how we changed the topic to migration period demographics.  It's such a natural segue from the Biden Presidency.

[garbon]

Heh not only did all sorts of people accept identity as "Roman" during the empire's existence, they continued to do so for centuries, with increasingly tenuous claims to actually being "Roman".

Moscow is the third Rome! 😀

But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.

Can you define 'invested/interested in keeping x system going'... as well as 'fight for its survival'? I'm trying to think about what % of people in say British people would fit into those two buckets and can easily think of definitions where whole swathes of the population aren't counted in either.

[Tamas]

Heh not only did all sorts of people accept identity as "Roman" during the empire's existence, they continued to do so for centuries, with increasingly tenuous claims to actually being "Roman".

Moscow is the third Rome! 😀

But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.

Can you define 'invested/interested in keeping x system going'... as well as 'fight for its survival'? I'm trying to think about what % of people in say British people would fit into those two buckets and can easily think of definitions where whole swathes of the population aren't counted in either.

I am not sure, I am going mostly by impressions based on my readings on the period, and even historians can do little more than make educated guesses, I think.

I think that just because urban centers developed under the Romans and became Romanised I don't think we can think of most of the population under Roman rule as "Roman". And that had to contribute to why the Romanised way of living disappeared.

[The Larch]

What? The Romanised way of living dissappeared? What kind of crap have you been reading?

[Eddie Teach]

Gladiatorial games just aren't the same without the lions, though.

[Razgovory]

Half of Europe speaks a Romance Language.  I think it is fair to say that the ancestors of these people were Romanized.

[alfred russel]

But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.

"Rome" obviously evolved as time went on and by the late 5th early / 6th century the pope was as important as any western emperor. The Roman Catholic Church persists to this day - it is one of the most popular religions in the world - the roman system survives.

[Tamas]

But in terms of % of population how many people living under Roman rule were invested/interested in keeping the Roman system going? Plenty of poor free people and slaves around who I imagine had no matching identity and especially no economic interest to fight for its survival.

"Rome" obviously evolved as time went on and by the late 5th early / 6th century the pope was as important as any western emperor. The Roman Catholic Church persists to this day - it is one of the most popular religions in the world - the roman system survives.

I have the read the book and its a good read and convincing argument but considering the Catholic Church as a re-establishment of the (or rather a) Roman Empire is still a bit of a stretch imho.

[Tamas]

What? The Romanised way of living dissappeared? What kind of crap have you been reading?

I was putting that wrongly, but "Romans" as such did disappear as a gradual process (not their influence on further generations).

[PDH]

Gregory of Tours (6th Century) felt himself to be Roman even though his patrons were Merovingian Franks.  The local nobility of the Late Roman Period in the West simply turned from what they saw as far away and non-supportive Rome to closer by rulers (who also sought to fit in to the roman system) as Minsky said.

The real change was in the complexity of the culture that went along with the breakdown of trading over distances.  The strength and ingrained nature of Roman Society can be seen in how long the West survived AS Roman before splitting apart.