Post historical paybacks

what a shitty meme

I'm a Romaboo and this makes me very angry. Kys.

>the Roman Empire was destroyed by (x)
>being right
As a Romaboo from the age of 10, you do a disservice to the fallen.

what's your objection exactly

a major contributor to Rome's ultimate destruction, both East and West, 476 and 1453, was migration/immigration, and now today the German Nation if you don't consider it to have been 'destroyed' after WWII, currently has a senile population, birth rate below replacement level and massive rates of immigration of people with little to no hope of integration

it mightn't be getting destroyed in the exact same way with overtly aggressive armed invasions per se but once Germany is no longer German you might as well say it's destroyed

Are you saying immigration is a bad thing you racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, islamophobic, trump supporting cisgendered pig

What wasted quads

Look at Yourself and feel bad

nice numbers

Praise kek i guess?

> a major contributor to Rome's ultimate destruction, both East and West, 476 and 1453, was migration/immigration
If you consider an agressive invasion of small armed groups "an immigration", then I guess 1066 was a Norman immigration in England and Crusades was a French immigration in Levant.

the period after the collapse is commonly called the Migration period and with reason, entire peoples shifted to former Roman territories

This.

Nice McBride btw

Romaboo too, I didn't mean the image, I meant the post.

how do we know warriors looked this aesthethic?

Considering we're forced to accept the aggressive invasion of small armed muslim groups in our nations as just "immigration" or "refugees" then yeah, you'd be correct. By the modern definition of "immigration" all of those qualify.

archaeology my man

gone too soon, rip

>small number
I think more have come into Europe than there are currently people in my Nation, millions of people isn't a "small" number

Yes, and "entire people" meaning tens of thousands, while the population of Roman provinces like Gallia, Italia and Span they settled in was several millions each. And they didn't "immigrate" in the modern sense, they literally invaded the territories and conquered them with arms.

>I have no idea what Roman history is: the post

Only a small percentage of them are actually armed or belong to some militant or terrorist group, but yeah you're right, the effect is all the same, the ethnic replacement of the natives.

>Yes, and "entire people" meaning tens of thousands
according to who? Following previous migrations like the Cimbric/Tueton it wasn't just one army taking over, it was an entire people moving and settling in a new area

>while the population of Roman provinces like Gallia, Italia and Span they settled in was several millions each.
kill. rape and interbreed (ie. rapebabies), and at the end you have a complete change in culture
what's your point?

>they literally invaded the territories and conquered them with arms.
as I said

not an argument

What destroyed Roman Empire it was gov. debt, like mostly other empires also.

It's always the economy.

and marxism

>Yes, and "entire people" meaning tens of thousands
nigga, there are millions of immigrants in Europe.

Alright, here is an argument then.
The ability for those Germanic fuckwits to move in to begin with was due to massive Roman instability with both the bureaucracy and the economy, with militant governors with armies loyal to them over Rome causing massive instability of the entire Empire. The economy was in such shambles that mass starvation was prevalent in several towns and inflation ran rampantly out of control wrecking prices and leaving many displaced from their homes. Rome was already a collapsing disaster, the Germans just put an end to the clusterfuck that was once the mighty Roman Empire. Under Germanic rule, the conditions of most improved even as the Classical works were nearly lost, if not for the Islamic Caliphates, and the Germanic kings ruled largely unopposed from the former Roman citizens.

I think Collins almost single-handled bullied the Brits to such massive levels of asshurt that it made up for centuries of bogshits getting pushed around by the english.

> according to who?
According to historians.
> it was an entire people moving and settling in a new area
Entire tribal federations*. And they were small to begin with, considering limitation of ancient agriculture and logistic.
> kill. rape and interbreed (ie. rapebabies), and at the end you have a complete change in culture
That's the kicker, neither culture nor genetics changed in any significant way in the areas settled by barbarians. Just go to France or Spain, they still speak broken Latin there and look nothing like Germans.
> what's your point?
The fall of the Roman empire is a very poor analogy for the migrational crisis Europe is having right now and only historically illiterate yet politically opinionated retard would use it in an argument.

Germany did not destroyed by muslim immigration, they have a hard fight but they will not loose

Yes, it did.

Everyone already hates Germany because of the EU, and the EU is what allows Germany to end up this way in many ways.
By abandoning the EU, Germany become an even bigger joke. By keeping it, they get blacked harder.

Your country is ruined, and even with all the risings in right wing stuff, it'll never get too big in Germany because it'll be haunted by "BUT HITLER :(((" and be put down by lefties.

You had a good run, Hans. Time to accept your fate and start ceding lands to netherlands and poland.

>The fall of the Roman empire is a very poor analogy for the migrational crisis Europe is having right now and only historically illiterate yet politically opinionated retard would use it in an argument.
It's all for the giggles look at this fucking post

I never denied any of that if you read my posts, what I said was that the Roman Empire was undeniably under constant strain to fend off mass invasions of people who conglomerated on their borders which had to be defended constantly with most of the legions essentially acting as garrisons along the Rhine and Danube.
If you wanted to you could easily associate this with a myriad of other issues that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire, namely civil dissension leading commanders of the aforementioned legions to take them from their posts to fight against rivals, the massive cost of maintaining those hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and so on.

>According to historians.
bit ambiguous, anyone in specific that makes the claim that it was only a few thousand men rather than entire peoples 'immigrating'/invading?

>Entire tribal federations*
semantics

>And they were small to begin with
again I'll need a source, historians like Tacitus might be hyperbolic at times but this is a big claim you're making

>Just go to France or Spain, they still speak broken Latin
good point, I'm not an expert on Romance languages though

>and look nothing like Germans.
what do Germans look like

>The fall of the Roman empire is a very poor analogy for the migrational crisis Europe is having right now
wildly different circumstances but I don't think the OP was saying the two were perfectly analogous, just that they both have immigration leading to destruction in some degree at its core

>France permits the US to get independence from Britain
>150 years later, the US become a superpower and make English replace French as the international language

I've posted the book I rely on.
> bit ambiguous, anyone in specific that makes the claim that it was only a few thousand men rather than entire peoples 'immigrating'/invading?
Tens of thousands, not "a few", and why do you think "entire peoples" have to be something big in the first place? The invading groups were ad-hoc tribal federations, not nations in a modern sense, the idea of "entire peoples migrating into Roman empire" is a product of 19th century historiography influenced by the nationalism at the time.
> what do Germans look like
Tall handsome blondes, all of them. For real, see picrel.
> just that they both have immigration leading to destruction in some degree at its core
Again, calling barbarian invasion in Rome "an immigration" is anachronistic and historically inaccurate.

>be Roman
>conquer Germanic territory
>complain about Germanics living in your empire
>fall apart due to incompetence and blame it on ethnic groups whose lands you occupy
>2000 years later
>wewuzians draw arbitrary parallels to today's society with muh immigration

>I've posted the book I rely on.
do you expect me to find it and read it before the thread 404's?
give me the run down on what he says, or better yet what you yourself took from reading the book
what sources does he use, since I'm breddy sure he wasn't alive then and has to use some alternative due to the dearth in primary sources of the time

>Tens of thousands, not "a few"
still waiting on your source for that specific info

>and why do you think "entire peoples" have to be something big in the first place?
past examples like the Cimbri, Tuetones, Ambrones, the migration of the Helvetii (not necessarily settling in Roman territory here to be sure), and plenty more
numbers might be inflated by those recording but it was never as low as just tens of thousands and they always brought their families with them which swelled the numbers

>The invading groups were ad-hoc tribal federations, not nations in a modern sense,
people sharing a common culture, language, common blood and ancestors are a Nation and a people even if they split themselves up into tribes and clans

>the idea of "entire peoples migrating into Roman empire" is a product of 19th century historiography influenced by the nationalism at the time.
records speak of them as separate people though, tribes were just subsets to the greater "Germanic people" so your 'argument' is pure semantics and nit picking

>I extended the boundaries of all the provinces which were bordered by races not yet subject to our Empire. The provinces of the Gauls, the Spains, and Germany, bounded by the ocean from Gades to the mouth of the Elbe [...] the Cimbri and Charydes and Semnones and other peoples of the Germans

>inb4 you complain about translations

>Again, calling barbarian invasion in Rome "an immigration" is anachronistic and historically inaccurate.
would you prefer migration

capthca: thes autisme

I always see pictures like these. From where are they? Where can I buy the book?

Osprey, artist was Angus McBride but he died a while back

Nice, thank you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
>The migrants comprised war bands or tribes of 10,000 to 20,000 people,[3] but in the course of 100 years, they numbered not more than 750,000 in total, compared to an average 39.9 million population of the Roman Empire at that time.
So yeah, any one of these "peoples" had tens of thousands tops, and significant part of these 750k is an actual Frankish immigration from Belgium to the nearby Northern France, which happened mostly after the imperial rule collapsed in the region.
>people sharing a common culture, language, common blood and ancestors are a Nation and a people even if they split themselves up into tribes and clans
Tribal federations shared none of these, except maybe a language. The german tribes at the core of the invasion had no problems with forming federations with Iranian steppe nomads and accepted fugitive slaves en masses.
>are a Nation and a people even if they split themselves up into tribes and clans
Wait, are you trying to say there was some common Germanic nation at the time or that all these Goths, Vandals and Suebs were nations in themselves? Because both of that is anachronistic and historically inaccurate.
>would you prefer migration
No, I would prefer "invasion".

You've been using wikipedia as your source this entire time?
Embarrassing.

Your original claim (I'm assuming you didn't read the whole thing at first from your other response) was just
>tens of thousands
with conveniently no mention of the 750,000 number from wikipedia

>which happened mostly after the imperial rule collapsed in the region.
the number deals strictly with some "100 year period" that they don't define clearly, they also define the Migration Period itself as being both from the 1st c. AD - 8th c.AD as well as bringing up the definition used by 19th century historians
>often defined as running from about the 5th to 8th centuries AD.

Wikipedia is a shite source
have you even read the book they tagged with this and that you posted a picture of?

>Tribal federations shared none of these, except maybe a language.
>share a language
>don't share a common ancestry or blood
what? how?

>The german tribes at the core of the invasion had no problems with forming federations with Iranian steppe nomads
I don't see your point here, forming alliances out of expediency proves me wrong in what way?
I'm assuming you're taking it from

>In particular, a group of Huns and Alans had attached themselves to the Goths in the autumn of 377, and some of these survived to treat with the Romans in 382 [...] A crucial point, however, is clear: alongside the Goths settled in the Balkans in 382, there were also Huns, and probably some Alans too, and there is every reason to suppose that some if not all of them participated in Alaric's revolt.
and for some reason from this you draw the conclusion that I was wrong even though it clearly has the Goths, Huns and Alans as separate peoples migrating together

>Wait, are you trying to say there was some common Germanic nation at the time
there was a German people so there was a German nation as far as I'm concerned

>No, I would prefer "invasion".
even when what you just linked is literally called the "Migration Period"?

>You've been using wikipedia as your source this entire time?
>Wikipedia is a shite source
Are you one of these 2cool2wiki guys? And yes, I've read the book I've linked, wiki just repeats the same.
> with conveniently no mention of the 750,000 number from wikipedia
Because 750k is a total over 100 years in the entire empire and includes actual mass immigration of Franks across the Rhine. Every one of these tribes federations like Goths and Vandals you called "entire people" comprised of tens of thousands.
> what? how?
Because common ancestry wasn't required to join such federation. Yes, the core was germanic-speaking, but they didn't care about the blood and allowed everyone to join them on the way, including slaves.
> Goths, Huns and Alans as separate peoples migrating togethe
More or less, until Alans was defeated in Spain and was assimilated into supposedly genetically uniform "Goth" nation.
> there was a German people so there was a German nation as far as I'm concerned
I see, you're one of these "nations existed before modern nationalism" guys.
> even when what you just linked is literally called the "Migration Period"?
And half of the article is a discussion of why this is a bad name given by nationalistic German historians in the 19th century.

>Because 750k is a total over 100 years in the entire empire
false, only the West which is what the Migration Period focuses on because of its fall in the 5th century

>Because common ancestry wasn't required to join such federation
I never claimed it was, I never even brought up federations, I stated that 'peoples' crossed over and you took umbrage at that word and got us embroiled in your semantic autism
the book doesn't even contradict that, he still separates it into tribes and uses terms like "non-Goths" in contrast to Goths when talking about the Visigothic invasion/migration

he even says in "The Creation of the Visigoths":
>How large a percentage of outsiders we might allow in "an essentially Gothic" force is itself a moot point. In my view, even if something like 25% of Visigothic manpower came from non-Gothic sources, it would still be perverse not to view it as an essentially Gothic unit.
>On the other hand, if non-Goths amounted to 25-50% (or even more) of Visigothic manpower, then we should clearly be thinking of some kind of Gothic dominated confederation. We know it was Gothic dominated, at least, from the fact that both outsiders and its own propaganda later understood it as a Gothic unit.

>I see, you're one of these "nations existed before modern nationalism" guys.
as Nationalists would agree yes, if you're going to use a definition use the Nationalist one

>And half of the article is a discussion of why this is a bad name given by nationalistic German historians in the 19th century.
just more semantics, a migration of people is just a movement from one environment to another, so it was a migration as well as an invasion if you're going by definition

So you don't object to the idea that up to 25% of Visigoth manpower wasn't even Germanic, yet you still think it's a good idea to call them "peoples"?
> as Nationalists would agree yes, if you're going to use a definition use the Nationalist one
Funny, I consider myself a nationalist, but I ascribe to the mainstream idea that nationality=self-identity, and there were no common self identity of Germanic tribes back at the time.
> just more semantics, a migration of people is just a movement from one environment to another, so it was a migration as well as an invasion if you're going by definition
So we're back to "1066 was a Norman migration" then, and it's totally useless to compare it to the modern situation since there is no "invasion" going on, unless you're misuse the word to further your agenda.

THIS

this
>good point, I'm not an expert on Romance languages though
You don't seem to be an expert on anything form the looks of it
>they both have immigration leading to destruction in some degree at its core
can this fucking meme die soon? I know this might be triggering news to everyone, but, make sure your sitting down for this one: Germany still exists. I KNOW. SHOCKING RIGHT? It's almost like 1 000 000 refugees don't automatically genocide 80 000 000 people when they enter their borders.

Keep telling yourself that britcuck

>So you don't object to the idea that up to 25% of Visigoth manpower wasn't even Germanic, yet you still think it's a good idea to call them "peoples"?
Why don't you read what I post or the book you yourself posted/got from wiki?
It's still Goths and non-Goths, the Gothic people and the Huns and Alans, all blanketed over with the term 'Visigoth'

> but I ascribe to the mainstream idea that nationality=self-identity
so you're a civic Nationalist?
alright fella, good for you

>and there were no common self identity of Germanic tribes back at the time.
they were still Germanic though, still a people even if they 'identified' moreso with their individual tribes rather than their fellow Germanics as a whole, which I never claimed they did
It doesn't matter what they identify with though, a Nation is its people as prominent Nationalists from my country always repeated

>So we're back to "1066 was a Norman migration" then
No? I don't know why you keep going back to that yourself, there wasn't any major movement of the people of Normandy to England, it was just an army conquering that territory and Normans expanding as they had done to all other parts of Europe. The Migration Period, as I've said again and again, was peoples with their families and other baggage moving to a new home to settle down.

Invasion is "infringement by intrusion" according to the dictionary so you could use that word if you wanted considering the people flooding into Europe with the migration crisis weren't invited and are currently causing unwanted trouble and dissension here.

Do you have an argument or just shitty quips while you leach on to the other lad who is wrong?
Bit of a parasite, lad.

>Germany still exists
with a low birth rate and its native people not having children while immigrants come in by the million per year, Germany won't exist anymore, because it won't be German
we'll just use it as some arbitrary geological term

>with a low birth rate and its native people not having children
You blame that on the immigrants?

> immigrants come in by the million per year
False

> Germany won't exist anymore, because it won't be German
we'll just use it as some arbitrary geological term
> one million syrians (at best) will change the ethnc make up of a nation of 90 million
Good old retardism
You realize half of germany isn't even ethnically german? the east is full of fucking slavic subhumans

>You blame that on the immigrants?
what in the name of jaysus are you on about fool, when did I do that?

>False
around 2 million arrived in Germany in 2015 and 860,000 of those 2 million left for other European countries, leaving around 1.14 million in Germany

>> one million syrians (at best) will change the ethnc make up of a nation of 90 million
they aren't Syrians for one, Germany's population is 80 million according to the 2011 census for another, and a 1% increase in population coming from sources in a single year not even on this continent isn't something to be scoffed at
With the senile population that it has as well, you'll have a decrease in the population of native Germans while the population of foreigners exceeds it in the coming decades should things remain the way they are

>You realize half of germany isn't even ethnically german?
rapebaby DNA doesn't matter a whole lot if they're not visibly ethnically different and don't identify with some alien creed or country because of their extraction