In the Roman Empire were there sympathizers trying to help or let in the barbarians on proto-Humanist grounds?

>Saruman's army
>Beacons
>Aragorn and Legolas lighting said beacons
Fucking hell did they even read the books or watch the movies?

Germanic foederati actually did their fair share in keeping Rome safe. A Roman army that defeated the Huns in 451 on Catalaunian fields was almost entirely Visigothic. Visigothic leader Theodoric laid his life in that battle.

Even when Alaric started plundering around the Empire (mainly because the Romans fucked him over by not granting him the position of magister militum) The only guy on the Roman side who actually came after him was a Germanic commander called Stilicho.

No, but he's sure the content of them are an allegory that totally justify his hatred of muzzies and spics

>a bishop speaking for seven hours straight about why they must repel these foreign heretics
Who's this bishop. He sounds interesting.

Germanics were never a majority of the Roman army. In the fifth century a plurality of Roman soldiers were Illyricans and the next biggest amount were north Africans.

The decentralisation of Roman army structure wasn't some kind of degradation or mistake. It was a deliberate decision which first gained traction under Gallienus and was fully realised under Diocletian and Constantine.

reddit army is out in force today

kinda sad that people only want to learn history to confirm their biases

>The Protocols of the Elders of Reddit

Topkek

It covered the majority of the Northern divisions at least. And soldiers from all over the Roman Empire were spread throughout the empire. I'm not saying it was a mistake, but ended up in an army with poorer communication and efficiency.

Also, they didn't fight identically to the Roman empire. They had gained the same weaponry through trade or conquest and attempted to create similar weaponry themselves. They might have been inspired by their military strategies but never completely copied them. And it was under a few decades that Germanic tribes took the Italian peninsula, Frankia, and Iberia. That was through war though, but I would argue that it was because the Roman army was weakened through decentralisation and the majority of the Roman army consisting of soldiers from the districts.

>australian familiy in their natural habitat.jpg

Dude this is like 19th century historiography, when's the last time you read a history book about the Late army?

>They're Christians like me and you so just them in and accept what happens.
They were dirty heretics though.

>It covered the majority of the Northern divisions at least
But going by names found on monuments and memorials and stuff most soldiers of the mobile field armies stationed on the northern frontiers were Thracians.

>poorer communication
sure
>efficiency
I don't think this is true. Going by their track record and the hard numbers in terms of wins and losses the Late army seems to have been much more effective than its predecessors.

this guy

>Sacking of Rome in 410 was done by the Visigoths
>Visigoths converted to Arianism while still outside Rome.

>Comes over to the history board to shitpost in a thinly veiled immigration thread, supposedly about Rome.
>Posts le ebin LOTR memes drawing parallels to modern issues like Trudeau's rhetoric, Europe and the media.
>boooo reddit go away
And an abloo to you sir.

hello r*ddit

> here in Veeky Forums, we don't tolerate people correcting our factual inaccuracies

No, kiddo, you're thinking of r/the_Donald. Perhaps you should go back there.

>Libcucks are so stupid, they compare everything to pop fiction like Harry Potter and Star Wars
>Check this out, it's just like Lord of the Rings!

lotr isn't pop culture, it's high culture.

It's a linguistic textbook with a story hacked in at the edges, don't lie.

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.

Ever heard about Barbarian kingdoms carved out of Roman Empire? Did they teach you this in Lesbian and Feminism degree studies?

they put Germans everywhere besides germany and gauls everywhere besides gaul and so forth, they did this for obvious reasons

t. reddit

Can we establish the point that integration with Barbarians, if better/properly handled would have been good. If the Goths had been allowed into the upper echelon of imperial power, if Genseric had been allowed to marry into the Western empire, it would have been a good thing for the empire. I get the whole anti-immigration thing, but for Rome the situation was almost entirely different.

>would have been good.
> would have

It was good. The whole history of Rome is successfully integrating culture after culture.

You're a child and nobody respects you.

t. gaia

t.redtumbleftydit

...

>shift more from legionns to relying on barbarians armies
>run out of privileges and land on which they can settle in exchange for military service
>they create uprising and destroy entire country

>shift more from legionns to relying on barbarians armies
Where does this meme come from? The Roman army was at its height in the 5th century.

They weren't called "legions" anymore but they were still employed and equipped by the state.

The "barbarian armies" that guarded the borders more often than not were veterans of the army proper.

I'm pretty sure he has read more on the subject than you.

...

Not to mention that the economy was already screwed up from the start, barbarian army or otherwise.

>Barbarians caused the fall of the roman empire!

Barbarians were being integrated into the roman empire for centuries before the fall. Barbarian armies only rebelled when the Romans failed to pay them.

A century before that roman armies were slaughtering each other in pointless civil wars all while the states economic system slowly decayed.

So Rome's fall was triggered by its failing/neglected economy?

This is a really poor analogy as we have actively been at war with muslim radicals for over a decade now.

I've really never understood what these kinds of things are trying to suggest.

Obviously there are a lot of contributing factors but to put it succinctly I'd say that the western Empire fell because it lacked the ability to enforce itself. You can't really claim to have a government if the various mechanisms of that government have completely fallen apart. The army was as effective as ever, but lacked the means to properly communicate its macrostrategy. There were plenty of tax monies, but nobody to collect them, and if they were collected, nobody to ensure that they reached imperial coffers. Things like that cause the state to eventually cease to function, contributing to the rise of more tangible but arguably more primitive successor states. A state can survive a bad economy, but it can't survive having no economy.

Of course this was only a problem in the western Empire, the Roman Empire as a whole would continue to survive for another 1000 years give or take.

They're just saying that the hordes of refugees running away from their hellhole countries are no different the invading armies.

I'm against taking in all the refugees, but that's just fucking stupid

So a failure of bureaucracy