How did Roman solve immigration crisis in their time?

They definitely had hand it but certainly weren't solely responsible for it. Check our the 'Laeti' (which I am doing my Thesis on) and believe were an excellent policy in settling migrants. Variety of factors eventually negated their use.

Goths are like a plague then?

I don't know much about the laeti, can you summarise them?

he got a (you) out of it, isn't that good?

Essentially they are brought into service during the re-structuring of the Roman Empire during the Tetrarchy (our first example is 284 with the Franks!), and were settling in 'deserti agri' (deserted land) and had a hereditary obligation to serve in the army. The catch is they appear to have been allowed to maintain their own social structures, but to counter this they were settled near settled near large urban centers to integrate. The situation appears to be relatively prosperous for both sides as they Laeti served in elite units and consistently were loyal to the Roman state (they also took Roman names, etc). It's pretty ambiguous overall due to lack of evidence but I'm pretty convinced that this settlement style was mutually beneficial for both sides - my proposal was their position was undermined by the local aristocracy was threaten by their status and privilege (conjecture).

Decent post but you failed to mention Honorius' role in instigating the Goths with the murder of their families and then refusing to accept any kind of compromise when Alaric came to the table.

IIRC when they did it right, the split the number of incoming migrants evenly, distributing a group in each province of the empire

That way they were too scattered to maintain their own ethnic identity and risk rebellion. They then had no choice but to adopt Greco-Roman language and culture over time.

The idea that the romans pursued a policy of endless immigration to bolster their armies is a meme. Though they did enlist immigrants into the legions, they also heavily regulated their immigrant communities and where they could live

The maintained a stark distinction between a Roman Citizen and a non-Roman Citizen.

I wasn't going into much depth. To give any substance to the points would be to drag it out into ten word-limit posts. You are absolutely right though. Honorius was a total dipshit. To be fair, the same policy he tried worked in the eastern empire. I don't think he quite realised how much weaker the west was by comparison, and barbarians were much more present by that point. Their growing influence basically couldn't be stopped by that point.

>my proposal was their position was undermined by the local aristocracy was threaten by their status and privilege (conjecture)

What sort of evidence are you using for this theory? It does not really sound like the kind of thing the sources would really talk about much

It is conjecture. Well the sources are generally very hostile to any Germanic tribe (except Marcellinus), the 'deserti agri' was taken from large land owners for re-use (it is argued by Geoffrey Kron and Cam Gery that is land is not actually abandoned but rather a-part of ley-farming and thus directly harming the aristocracy). A major reason that the Empire splintered was that the provincial landholding elite were disillusioned with central government. This new military aristocracy that is being created by settlements such as this is alienating them. I mean, I like to read the Gothic uprising that the earlier poster mentioned as a deliberate undermining of a previously arranged agreement.

"Accordingly, having by the emperor's permission obtained the privilege of crossing the Danube and settling in parts of Thrace, they were ferried over for some nights and days embarked by companies in boats, on rafts, and in hollowed tree-trunks;40 and because the river is by far the most dangerous of all and was then swollen by frequent rains, some who, because of the great crowd, struggled against the force of the waves and tried to swim were drowned; and they were a good many." (16.4.1)

> they were ferried over for some nights and days embarked by companies in boats, on rafts, and in hollowed tree-trunks;40 and because the river is by far the most dangerous of all and was then swollen by frequent rains, some who, because of the great crowd, struggled against the force of the waves and tried to swim were drowned; and they were a good many.

Damn. Really makes you think.

It really is a harrowing tale. I recommend Ammianus Marcellinus, hes a great read. Part of my project is investigating the ideological factors of the Classics and how they are employed in today's society. This is a prefect example, as there having been plenty of articles written in popular media using this passage. OP is likely looking back to the Classics to reinforce is worldview, and many people are constantly doing the same.

I've read Ammianus. It was a few years back though. I did not care for the Julian ass kissing so much, but he's definitely up there with Tacitus and co.

>many people are constantly doing the same.

I remember reading a letter in the Times from a distinguished scholar saying about how poor treatment of the Goths led to their revolt and the catastrophe of Adrianopolis, so by extension we should treat migrants well. This was back in mid-2015 when the refugees welcome zeitgeist was in full swing.

I expect now the letter would read "we shouldn't have let those filthy snowniggers across the river to begin with".

You can't win nowadays.

I mean I'm not fully on board either side. I agree with Zizek in the fact that we just treat refuges's like humans and not projecting either left-wing feels or right-wing racism onto them. I don't have to love them but we should acknowledge that they are suffering.

Here is a decent article that likely mirrors the one you mentioned. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/24/roman-refugees-battle-adrianople
I don't like the rhetoric used in it as 'a warning', but the point is decent. Both sides employ the classics for their ideological purposes.

They didn't hence why they fell.

I would say I definitely fit more into the camp of pic related, but at the same time it was almost certainly impossible for the Romans to have done anything militarily to stop the Goth from crossing into the empire. The best thing they could have done was to break them up and deposit them all over the empire. It was the fools down on the ground that bought the Goths' boys as slaves and raped them in exchange for food that fucked everything up.

Definitely, but I believe those lower officers intended to incite that rebellion to crush them and distribute the slaves, etc. There was already a plan in plan mediated by Valens directly with the Gothic leaders - very similar to Laetic settlement. I suspect it might have to do with the fact they didn't enter as defeated peoples (can't remember the latin term), and had some other arranged status. Their numbers were less than many other reported migrations (Constantine settled 200,000 Sarmatians).

>Rome collapsed because of muh immigration

When will this meme die

When Rome returns.

the Romans fell because they stopped being a republic with client states and became an empire with regions. They fell by virtue of no longer being roman.

Oh please no. Not this again.

>muh degeneracy

>the republic definitely wasn't a rotting shitheap when caesar killed it

well memed

more that Romans treated the goths like shit and eventually they'd had enough

Which Roman Republic? The one that ended in 27 BC or the current one created by Ataturk?

...

They left it to Marius to sort it out.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(376–382)

they didn't

They didn't.

>The Gothic migrants that massed on the Danube were allowed to cross in a massive group instead of in small individual dribs and drabs like previously.
The Romans had not really a choice in the matter as the gothic migrants panicked and started crossing in mass when they feared that only a small section would be let into the empire.

>Usually the "barbarians" would be allowed to serve in the army for a 20 year stint, allowing them to assimilate culturally into the empire to a greater or lesser extent.

A vital part of this was that the gothic soldiers served under their own leaders and not roman designated ones which was the ordinary way. As such they weren't assimiliated into the army which was key for also assimilating into the roman culture and way of life. They basically got to maintain their military inside the empire.

>Within weeks, after some local Roman officers fucked about them,massive gathering rebelled and trashed the Balkans, killing one of the emperors and wiping out his army.

The romans mishandled the whole ordeal but the management of the gothic immigrants after they crossed the Danube was atrocious. Some corrupt leaders basically decided that the crisis were a good opportunity to make a fortune and ripped off the desperate germans to the extent that they were after a couple of weeks were selling their children as slaves for a piece of moldy bread.

The Goths were also supposed to be disarmed but a great deal of bribery and oversight occurred and they all basically kept their weapons, the force that were to escort them was tiny as well.

slavery

I like the book too, boyo, but culture and elan count only as much as personal specifics and geo-economics.

Awww that's Rome's answer to everything.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it

Did they welcome refugees?

The Christians certainly did

This is an anachronistic question and therefore completely nonsensical.

Rome was a multicultural center and there were no enforced border crossings; all countries were only concerned with war and bandits.

If they were useful and would fight for them. There are plenty of examples otherwise of Emperors just baiting and slaughtering unsuspecting tribes trying to flee war. Caesar used the defence of native Gauls from incoming refugees as his excuse to invade Gaul and exterminate quite a few of them.