Societies & ethnicities

hmm, no
I'm looking for a population shift, not just being ruled by a foreign dynasty

>without collapsing
Every civilization that is not around today has collapsed. You're question disappoints me with how fucking retarded it is.

you can read the question in 2 ways

-civilizations that survive today and went through a population shift
-civilizations that went through a population shift and collapsed for other reasons completely unrelated

Brazil in the XIXth century was as black as Haiti, massive European immigration and race-mixing made our demographics more close to Colombia and Venezuela, with 20% blacks, 40% mulattoes and mestizos and 40% whites.

Of course we didn't collapse because white people are superior.

People could get citizenship by joining the Auxillary, and after the mandatory 25 years of service that everyone always served, they would get citizenship, a plot of land and a pension.

What you are implying is that it was the "barbarisation" of the military that caused the destruction of the Roman Empire, but this is frankly bullshit. The millitary, since Marius's reforms allowed for non romans to become romans through it, and said reforms happened in the 1st century BCE.

There were a shitload of factors that caused the demise of the empire, but it wasn't a sudden change in ethnicities... it's an empire for God's sakes. The British Empire didn't die because we let non brits fight in our armies.

Carthage's armies were polyglot and mainly mercenary but he still almost brought Rome to her knees.

>Bulgaria, the dominant ethnicity were Bulgars, they were simply conquered by Byzantines, then by the Turks
uhh, you omitted the part where southern slavs became the ruling elite after turkic bulgars
>Lithuania, are you referring to Poland Lithuania?
no I'm refering to how baltic lithuanians were dominant since the beginning of the lithuanian duchy
then they conquered ruthenia and were progressively overshadowed by slavs and became the minority, becuase they were never keen on settling those lands

The Caliphate went from dominated by pure North Hedjazis to eventually Syrians and Persians.

>Of course we didn't collapse because white people are superior.
>its race not culture

are all hues retarded

>What you are implying is that it was the "barbarisation" of the military that caused the destruction of the Roman Empire, but this is frankly bullshit. The millitary, since Marius's reforms allowed for non romans to become romans through it, and said reforms happened in the 1st century BCE.

It's a mechanism that created loyalty. You fight for Rome, contribute to the cause, become part of the community itself by acquiring land. Once you have land, you have interest in defending it.

>What you are implying is that it was the "barbarisation" of the military that caused the destruction of the Roman Empire, but this is frankly bullshit.
Goths, Vandals, Heruli, Scirii showed zero loyalty to the Roman cause, despite that, Rome had to recruit them due to the lack of internal manpower. In the long term, 2 of them sacked Rome itself.

>Carthage's armies were polyglot and mainly mercenary but he still almost brought Rome to her knees.

Carthaginian armies were literal shit.
What brought Rome to its knees was Hannibal over the top genius ability.
The only ethnicity that ever made a difference in battles were the Numidian cavalry.
At Zama, Scipio had managed to get Numidian squadrons of his own, more numerous than Hannibals, which allowed him to use Hannibals strategy against Hannibal himself.

At Zama the polyglot Carthaginian infantry was twice in numbers that of Rome and got slaughtered.

Roman Empire had a change in the dominant ethnicity from Italian to Greek (in the Byzantine empire).

Nope, quick google confirms that German is the largest group in the USA.

>English Americans are 7.6% of the total population.

WOW!

>uhh, you omitted the part where southern slavs became the ruling elite after turkic bulgars

when? I'm not 100% familiar with the story of Bulgaria, that's why I asked to expand

As far as I know, the ruling class were the Dulo, which were from the steppes

The Kometopuloi were shortlived

then Bulgaria disappeared until the Asen who were probably mixed slav?

Did black Brazilians ever rule the country at that time? Otherwise it's simply a country ruled by foreigners.

hmm, hard to say
basically because from what I'm getting, by the time the Duchy reached its maximum expansion, a significant part of it was ravaged by Mongols and then they started the union with Poland

basically slavs never had a chances to make their numbers relevant because foreigners were doing that already

you are all retarded
those are all muh heritage delusionals who think that having an irish great great great grand father means they are irish themselves
but overall white americans form a uniform culture that is more divided by state, religion, political stance than someone's ancestors

when did the shift happen?
though by then it had split

>backpedalling this hard

though in a hindsight

Anglo-Saxons are Germanic too, while Germans are Frank-Saxon, they basically re-merged after splitting

he's not me..

he's not me

OP asked for an ethnic shift, not a cultral one. In which case I'd say the Roman Empire since it went from Pagan Roman to Greek Christian, which is a shift in both, while continuing as a single political entity, reduced as it was.

It did lose half of its territory in the while, including the part of its former dominant ethnicity..

i'm not him
t. author of this post

Well your going to have to sort out some cut-off dates for this argument, since we're all related if you go back far enough.

...

not really, look at the writing styles

but if you really want to go down that path, go ahead, I have zero interest in debating that and I'm going to stick to the topic

>It's a mechanism that created loyalty. You fight for Rome, contribute to the cause, become part of the community itself by acquiring land. Once you have land, you have interest in defending it.

But that's not what you said. You said that changing the dominant ethnicity destroyed Rome, and that this happened because of the "barbarisation of the millitary". You are right, however, in saying that it was a loyalty mechanism.

"The Roman cause" did not exist at that point, mate, they'd extended as far as they could and therefore couldn't reward new soldiers with land. Conquering new land is how they gave legionnaires what they wanted. the fall of Rome should not be attributed due to Rome having these tribesmen in their armies since the Visigoth tribe who attacked the city would be fighting Visigoths defending it!

It was not the change in ethnicity, but the declining birthrates, and therefore the weakening of the army.

>Carthagian armies were literal shit
Evidently they weren't.
>Hannibal was a military genius
Another military genius by the namo of napoleon said that generals recieve too much credit, and it's the soldiers who win the battles
>The only ethnicity that ever made a difference in battles were the numidian cavalry [dubious] [citation needed] [discuss]
No one can dispute that they were effective, user, but you can't win a battle with javelins and a short sword.
>At Zama, scipio...
Scipio was better than Hannibal at the battle, because Hannibal refused to adopt new tactics (matter of the elephants), presumably because he got overly confident. That, and the fact that he had a lot more cavalry than Hannibal did, which according to Napoleon, really do win battles.

>Meme about Carthage having twice as muh infantry than Rome
This is completely untrue. Rome had 29 thousand infantry and carthage had 36.

how back do human civilizations go? 5000 years?

that's your cut off

most are at best 2-3000 years old anyway

What does it mean to collapse, exactly? Because I have plenty of examples where a particular ethnicity or culture became dominant/ascendant in an empire and caused a dynastic/regime change, inevitably accompanied by some civil war, but I'm pretty sure that would be characterized as a collapse, even when it's the collapsing former society that created the power vacuum leading to a regime change. And there's there's the question of the difference between "progress" and "collapse".

You might as well ask if there ever was a society that went through a change of elites/dominant class without collapsing.

>5000 years
that's about as old as the Indo-European split.

>But that's not what you said. You said that changing the dominant ethnicity destroyed Rome, and that this happened because of the "barbarisation of the millitary". You are right, however, in saying that it was a loyalty mechanism.

The two things go in pair. The change of the dominant ethnicity and the elimination of the loyalty mechanism are the effect of the Constitution Antoniniana.

>"The Roman cause" did not exist at that point, mate, they'd extended as far as they could and therefore couldn't reward new soldiers with land.

Well, with the exception of Trajan, Rome went basically without conquests for over 200 years and they didn't have much of a problem with recruitment until then. There wasn't a need for new land to give to legionaries.

>It was not the change in ethnicity, but the declining birthrates, and therefore the weakening of the army.

Hm no. The difference being that even during civil wars, nobody ever questioned the Roman status. Even rebels continued to use Roman law, they simply wanted another leadership. The loyalty to the system, what I called the Roman cause, was there. Even Greeks that survived the collapse of the Western side kept the system. Visigoths, Franks and so on did not.

> Visigoth tribe who attacked the city would be fighting Visigoths defending it!
Hmm, by then, most cities had non-existant defenses, at least in the Western part. There were the Visigoths or other barbarian shifting their roles from defenders to attackers. Both sacks of Rome show that.

>Napoleon

At Waterloo he went to the toilet for 15 mins, came back and Ney lost him the entire cavalry (and his own life). He'd call bullshit on his own quote.

>but you can't win a battle with javelins and a short sword
mobility certainly helps if your plan is to surround the enemy

>Rome had 29 thousand infantry and carthage had 36.
Hmm, I haven't really read modern estimates in a while, I'll accept your point.
They still got slaughtered.

actually that'd be somewhere between 4-6500 years ago

for it to be relevant it should belong to some sort of recognizable group, say germanic, celtic, italian, iranian or similar

You might as well ask if there ever was a society that went through a change of elites/dominant class without collapsing.

that's actually equivalently valid and deserves his own thread, probably going to do that the next time I'm in the mood

>What does it mean to collapse, exactly? Because I have plenty of examples where a particular ethnicity or culture became dominant/ascendant in an empire and caused a dynastic/regime change, inevitably accompanied by some civil war, but I'm pretty sure that would be characterized as a collapse, even when it's the collapsing former society that created the power vacuum leading to a regime change. And there's there's the question of the difference between "progress" and "collapse".

Though that's probably true for pretty much any civilization that was conquered by a more developed one? I'm not looking for a simple dynastic change.

I get that defining the conditions isn't easy, so let's say:
- the different ethnicities must have a rather equal standing in the law system
(eg, it doesn't count if an ethnicity is more numerous but just slaves)
- there's a shift in the numbers. the dominant core initially outnumbers but then is outnumbered
- the dominant core loses control of ''power''

is there any society that continued fine without the new core implementing radical changes?