Has there every been an empire that handed out full citizenship like candy, and thrived?

>fell apart long before WRE actually fell.
It was still around in 1400 though.

>"""the""" empire

What was?

And yet the guys you imported as slave chatel make the biggest problems

Really makes you think

Romans

riiiiiiight

The empire of the Romans wasn't a thing then?

The WRE fell, you didn't hear?

And the Antonine edict fell with it. In the ERE, you were a foreigner even if you lived in the empire and were considered "different" enough from the norm.

Join or Empire Yi Scum

To to be fair, the Chinese Dynasties did not have citizenship, only subjects. The closer you get was being Hua, that happened when you made a family grave in China

Justinian's laws cover citizenship buddy

The decadence of the empire started from the birth of the Dominatus, and actually the civil war after the death of commodus. It cannot at all be considered a consequence of Caracalla's giving out citizenship to all.
Still, the Roman Empire officially survived til 1453, that is more than 1000 years after Caracalla's ruling on the subject matter. ERE was, as the name suggest, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, therefore it is Roman: same rules, same leaders, historical and cultural continuity.

Still, since its birth Rome has probably been the most inclusive society in history. Just look at the subject of adoption: for them race and blood lines were nothing compared to culture and the "mos maiorum". Caesar gave Roman citizenship to all Italians, that was already a huge step for any standard, ancient or modern. And at the time, Rome did not reach its peak yet. However, those who were NOT Roman citizens were still fully included in the society, as they could serve the army, they could work and travel and decide with autonomy how to live their lives. They were only precluded participation to the political activity.

So, to answer your question: YES. The Roman Empire

>It's only very recently that illegal immigration
It's only very recently that immigration is truly illegal. Before it was always a formality enforced mostly on opinion.

>It cannot at all be considered a consequence of Caracalla's giving out citizenship to all.
Nobody said it was "all" because of Caracalla.

>since its birth Rome has probably been the most inclusive society in history
Not for citizenship.

>for them race and blood lines were nothing compared to culture and the "mos maiorum"
Meaning citizenship wasn't given out like candy.

In the modern West, the more the culture is different, the more welcome you are.

>They were only precluded participation to the political activity.
Which is huge.

>So, to answer your question: YES. The Roman Empire
Only after Caracalla; which just happened to coincide with the turning point in Rome's fortunes.

What matters for immigration are citizenship laws, which have been legally codified since the very first years of US independence.

>Not for citizenship

citizenship for the Romans had a completely different meaning than it has today. Most of the rights granted to citizens today were granted to any subject of the Republic/Empire even without official recognition. Non citizen subjects could take any job, were protected by the law, could marry Romans, could travel or relocate anywhere. Basically anything that a citizen would be able to do nowadays.

>Which is huge (not participating to political life)
It is not huge: no society in ancient world geve the plebs as much power as the Romans did. Gallic plebs or Syrian plebs did not participate in political life before Roman occupation, therefore life didn"t change for them.
Ruling classes of foreign origins, however, were very soon granted citizenships. Under the late Republic it was well known that the conservatives didn't very much approve the introduction in the Senate of "trousers wearing Gauls".

>Meaning citizenship wasn't given out like candy.
As said, the only thing non-citizens couldn't do, was running for the Senate. They had the right to do whatever they wanted and relocating wherever they wanted

>Only after Caracalla; which just happened to coincide with the turning point in Rome's fortunes.
As said multiple times, no, Caracalla's rule ddoes not coincide with the turning point of Romans fortunes, by any standards.

>being barred from political life
>not huge

I'm done with you.

>user writes a nice, detailed response going point by point on why Caracalla's ruling is not to blame.
>Responds with a single shitty "NO UR DUM" sentence.

Veeky Forums is a good board.

have you read what I wrote you fucking cunt?
These people kept the same rights as before: if they were ruling class, they were not barred from political life (like aristocracy or shit). If they were plebeians, it depended where they came from: plebs from greek colonies were still granted the vote to elect their leaders, while the subjects of, say, the ex Seleucid empire were to just be subjects as before. They didn' t vote before, and they didn't vote then.

However, even for them, there was a potential for having a political carreer by first succeeding in their military carreer.*

Non-citizens were barred from political life, which is huge. Contrary to what you said.

you either have a troubles at understanding written texts, as I specifically said that they were not completely barred from political life, or you are so idiotic as to think that a Germanic tribe of the year 100 CE or an Egyptian peasant of the year 30 BCE lived in a democratic society, and had an active political life.

Now I'm really done, I require people I debate with to have a minimum of notions of the subject matter, as well as being decently able at exposing their thoughts. Either you fail at both, or you're here just to shitpost.

If you were a non-citizen, you didn't engage in political life.
This is a huge factor, regardless of what you are claiming.

>if they were ruling class, they were not barred from political life
If they were citizens.

>Gallic plebs or Syrian plebs did not participate in political life before Roman occupation, therefore life didn"t change for them.
This is meaningless.
If you were whipped every day in your home country, and move to another country where you are also whipped every day, nothing changes for you either.

>If you were a non-citizen, you didn't engage in political life.
If you were a citizen pleb you wouldn't either for the most part

>if they were ruling class, they were not barred from political life
>If they were citizens
Romans went out of their way to make them citizens more easily

>This is meaningless.
If you were whipped every day in your home country, and move to another country where you are also whipped every day, nothing changes for you either
Citizens paid taxes, non citizens did not pay as much taxes

One could argue that the citizens are whipped harder than the non-citizens

>idiotic as to think that a Germanic tribe of the year 100 CE or an Egyptian peasant of the year 30 BCE lived in a democratic society, and had an active political life.
Germanic tribesmen did have active political lives.
Kings were elected for instance by the commoners.

And besides, keeping non-citizens away from politics may indeed not necessarily be "huge" on an individual level, but it's enormously significant for the Roman empire as a whole, since masses of foreigners were kept from deciding Roman policy.

>since masses of foreigners
Policy was either controlled by the republican elite, or the emperor and his elite. The citizen masses did not factor into this a whole lot.

>Romans went out of their way to make them citizens more easily
We're talking about elites here.
Not only exceptional, but also eminently suitable.

>Citizens paid taxes, non citizens did not pay as much taxes
That's irrelevant to this point.

>The citizen masses did not factor into this a whole lot.
More than the non-citizen masses.

>We're talking about elites here.
>Not only exceptional, but also eminently suitable.
Yes and?

Read the OP.
It reinforces the point that citizenship wasn't handed out like candy.

>Kings were elected for instance by the commoners.

this was little more than a formality, and definitely voting didn't involve the average joe. But I agree, they had a richer political life than a peasant from Egypt

However, are you guys aware of the fact that more than half of all Roman Emperors didn't come from Italy, right?

Are you also aware of the fact that Rome was a so-called "soft power". That means than the local government of a Gallic tribe or a Numidian kingdom were not automatically replaced, but were maintained and controlled by Roman governors? This is one of the secrets of their success. Local populations kept their costums, their political structure, on the surface. However Roman laws was applied, Roman taxes were paid and a Governor and some bureaucrats would supervise these local governments.
So again, yes. The Roman Empire was very inclusive.

Modern Germany, aka the new leader of the free world.

>Foreign elites were given it
>All italians were given it
>Ex-Soldiers were given it
> Influential roman friend could give it
>Caracalla gave it to all free males

>this was little more than a formality, and definitely voting didn't involve the average joe
They had their own versions of citizens, freedmen.

>However, are you guys aware of the fact that more than half of all Roman Emperors didn't come from Italy, right?
Nobody said anything to the contrary.
The thread is about giving out citizenship like candy.

>So again, yes. The Roman Empire was very inclusive.
All empires were when they got large enough.

Until Caracalla, citizenship was very exclusive.

>Until Caracalla, citizenship was very exclusive.
Join the army for two decades and you become a citizen.

... is that supposed to mean it's not exclusive?

read user's sentence slowly:
>Ex-Soldiers were given it

Litterally anyone could earn it as long as it served the army for two decades. Also, citizenship was granted to all close relatives and descendents: wife, sons, daughters.

You could be German or Nubian and Roman just because your grand father served 20 years the army.

Yes, that means that it is NOT exclusive

>as long as it served the army for two decades
How the fuck is this not exclusive?

>How the fuck is this not exclusive?

*sigh* Rome was a militaristic society, it was constantly at war, and at some point its standing army counted about 500.000 individuals.

That number is huge. It means that you were very likely, even if you were a foreigner, that within 2 generations at most you had someone in your close family serving in the Roman army. Moreover, survival rates were not so low as to bar a high number of soldier to reach the 20 years mark.

>have to serve 20 years in the military to gain citizenship in the empire of which you are already part
>not exclusive

wew lad

Again, by ancient standards, it was easily the most inclusive society prior to the contemporary age.
By more recent standards, you would still regard it as an inclusive society. Consider that most European countries (in theory the most inclusive) still apply "IUS SANGUINIS" instead of "IUS SOLI" like in the USA.

>Again, by ancient standards, it was easily the most inclusive society prior to the contemporary age.
No.

Alexander dressed himself like a Persian and prostrated before the people he subjugated.
The Franks started speaking the vulgar Latin of "France" as soon as they started conquering it.
The Turkic tribes assumed the religion of the people they conquered.
etc. etc. etc.

You can't be this stupid. It was perfectly normal for someone who joined the military to be a soldier for a life time. Since Marius it was a standing army, a professional army. You entered the army and you served it for 20 years at least. Period.

Let's make a quick calculation together:
>assuming a standing army of 500.000
>we can consider about 25.000 individuals were retiring assuming noone died.
>assuming 40% died or quit before retiring
>about 15.000 individuals retiring each year from the army
>assuming that all these people had one wife and 2 kids (although it is likely that many had more)
>around 60.000 people were granted Roman Citizenship

>600.000 naturalized Romans in 10 years

>Alexander
nothing more than a general and a conqueror, but his "empire" was, in theory inclusive. In practice there was never a Macedon empire, as he died so young. Hellenistic kingdoms were just monarchies with Macedonian/Greek elites whose culture mixed. It is not comparable to a stable empire like Rome

>Franks
it is not surprising that the franks started speaking latin. They were conquerors, but still a minority. They were not "inclusive" just because of that. And as a matter of fact, they acted way more dispotic against non Christian peoples, while Romans were known not to care much about other peoples'religions.

>Turks
again, assuming language, religion of concquered people does not make you inclusive, just like the Franks. However, I agree that the Otomans were known to include non etnic turks in their government, and to leadership posts.

>nothing more than a general and a conqueror
>In practice there was never a Macedon empire, as he died so young
Alexander dressed himself like a Persian and prostrated before the people he subjugated.
He was being extremely inclusive towards the people he conquered. To the chagrin of his peers.

>They were conquerors, but still a minority
The Romans were also very VERY much a minority in their empire.

>again, assuming language, religion of concquered people does not make you inclusive
Haha, what?

Having to go through 20 years of military service before you become a citizen of the empire you were born in is very much "exclusive".

Nice broadening of your statement to make it sound worse then it actually is.

>I can participate in politics because my great-uncle sat around getting drunk in Britain, collecting easy pay, and occasionally threw spears at naked, shitcaked lunatics.

Waow

That is only if you were Limitanei. Even if you were one raids into roman terriotry was common place. Also weather sucked in england .

What statement of mine did I broaden?

>sat around getting drunk in Britain, collecting easy pay, and occasionally threw spears at naked, shitcaked lunatics
Yeah, that totally makes 20 years of military service sound like a breeze.

>Franks were inclusive

Yes, they were, to some extent, at least more than the avarage barbarian tribes. That is maybe why they were the most successful of all. However, that was not comparable to the Roman system, who was able to include all peoples (except for the Jews) from a much more extended land.

Moreover, being inclusive assumes accepting customs of conquered people, not making them your own. By the time the Franks carved their own kingdom in Northern France, they had been in contact with the Romans, served under their armies for over 300 years.
The Franks were already "romanized". And again, a semi-nomadic people that leaves its mud houses behind to rule over a much more advanced and rich land, it is very common that it is the conquerors that take on the customs of the conquered and not the other way around.

>Alexander dressed himself like a Persian

His idea was that of creating a hellenistic empire, a multicultural empire led by Greek values. However he failed because he died far too young. This one again is not comparable to a 2000 years old empire like the Roman

In 14 AD there were 3 legions in spain, 2 in egypt 2 on the Adriatic coast and 1 in Carthage. Pretty safe if you ask me

I am confident that a great amount of men at the time preferred the safe pay of a professional soldier, combined with the adventures, potential plunders, travels and the opportunity of fucking hoes from all over the world rather than work in a farm for their whole shitty life, which was the main occupation at the time.
You must not see the military service as a punishment or a sacrifice: it was rather a honorous, virtuous and, above all, exciting path to follow.
At the time, almost any culture considered war more honourable than farming.

this plus, roman armies were not fighting the whole time. Their day to day duty was the construction of infrastructures to improve living standards of that determined province: building roads and bridges especially, but also aqueducts, baths, theaters and so on.

>Crumbled shortly after Caracalla opened up citizenship to all.
+1200 years is not usually considered a short period.

>Has there every been an empire that handed out full citizenship like candy, and thrived?
Regarding the roman empire a more accurate rephrasing of the question would be
>Has there every been an empire that increased their tax revenue and thrived?
The answer to which is yes. Most societies tend to prefer more cash in their coffers.

>it is very common that it is the conquerors that take on the customs of the conquered and not the other way around.

Give some examples

Are you including Byzantine? Are you stupid?

Franks, Vikings, Normans, Huns, Turks, Mongols etc

>/pol/tard thinly claims edict of Caracalla and expansion of Citizenship led to the downfall of the Roman Empire and that somehow has any bearing on 21st century Western Politics
>Gets repeatedly told that not only did the Edict have a negligible effect on the decline of Rome, but that Roman Citizenship was historically given to many non-Romans before the edict
>Whaaa but that doesn't count! I need to justify my hatred of spics and mudslimes with a misunderstanding of history! Stop ruining this for me!

Why wouldn't I? Would you argue that England seized to be after the Hundred Years' War?

Why wouldn't he, the Byzantine Empire was the exact same state as the Roman Empire

Not to mention the romans. They were huge hellenophiles.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DOMITIAN DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG

Because half the empire crumbled, thats why.

>+1200 years is not usually considered a short period.
Because the WRE didn't fritter away and collapse meanwhile, right?

They were auxiliaries, not legionaries. They didn't live the comfy life or enjoy the pay of the legions.
If they wanted to be soldiers, then the citizenship was a bonus.
If they just wanted the citizenship, life was hell for them.

unfortunately these are the sad consequences of /pol/tard cancer

>Less cultural
>Less rich
>Less fortified
>Less urbanised
>Less population alltogether
>Less spiritual

Nah ERE is fine

>However, that was not comparable to the Roman system, who was able to include all peoples (except for the Jews) from a much more extended land.
Yes, the Romans held more land than the Franks.

But the Franks were also much more inclusive.
They adopted the language of their subjugated peoples for instance, not the other way around.

>being inclusive assumes accepting customs of conquered people, not making them your own
Making a foreign custom/language your own is the ultimate form of acceptance.

The auxiliaries weren't in the legions. The auxiliaries went wherever the actual fighting was.

>Has there every been an empire that increased their tax revenue and thrived?
>The answer to which is yes.
Except non-citizens paid higher taxes.

?

You don't have to be a /pol/tard to realize that you need people of the same culture to keep that culture alive.

if the romans would have stuck to their own culture, they would have fucked goats until some smarter people would have subjugated them. They were strong because they were culturally enriched, above all, by the Greeks and the Etruscans.

There's a difference between cultural enrichment and pretending that foreigners are the same as non-foreigners.

Dude, ok, I've already said that the Franks were also inclusive. I don't believe to the extent of the Romans, but that is just a matter of opinion.

However you are just making my point. The Franks were without any doubt the most successful German tribe, they created the greatest and most powerful kingdom of the high middle ages, the Holy Roman Empire, and they set the base for two of the most successful nations of all time, France and Germany.

And there is some Celt and Iberian there aswell.

>However you are just making my point
Except that I was the one who brought them up in the first place to illustrate that all major empires were very inclusive to a large degree.
But that very few opened up citizenship to anyone who wanted it, and thrived.

>Always had relatively rigorous citizenship rules, even based on race at various times.
Are you shitting me, all you have to do is to be born in the country to be considered a citizen. I can't think of another western country with equally lax rules.

>You don't have to be a /pol/tard to realize that you need people of the same culture to keep that culture aliv

that was, I assume, your post 10 minutes ago. Stop switching the focus of the conversation when you are proven wrong.

>you need people of the same culture
>you don't need people of the same culture, but you don't need foreigners

stop contraddicting yourself

Anchor babies are a late 20th century phenomenon.
The very first US citizenship laws were about white people only, and it was like that for a long time.

I don't think the Iberian had that much influence on the Romans, but certainly the Celts did, and to a lesser extenct the Phoenicians.

But what it is interesting is that they never stopped learning throughout their existance.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Cultural exchange is a very good thing, but simply importing massive amounts of people from different cultures, and immediately placing them on equal footing with people from the native culture isn't.

You seem to have trouble with moderation and nuance.

Thank you for pointing this out. He shifted goal posts from legal designations of citizenship to culture, and after he gets btfo quickly shifts the goalposts back and acts like that's never what he was arguing

The Franks did just that: you, as a foreigner, only had to work withi the feudal system, serving the lord as a farmer, and the army as infantry in time of war.

>literal strawman

You seem to be the one with nuance problems. No one in this thread has advocated for anything like what you are talking about. And no one has discussed any point in history when what you are talking about has happened.This thread isn't about modern politics. If you want to talk about that shit go to /pol/

I never changed a thing you idiot.

It was always about granting citizenship to anyone who wanted it vs largely restricting citizenship to natives.

>No one in this thread has advocated for anything like what you are talking about.
Wait, what was I "proven wrong" on then?

Yes, as a peasant with zero power.

Positions of power were largely hereditary under feudalism, and thus very difficult to come by.

That is simply not the subject of this thread.

>Has there every been an empire that handed out full citizenship like candy, and thrived?

Obviously no successful empire can hand out citizenship "like candy". Nobody does it today either. But usually the most successful and LASTING empires were quite inclusive.

Do you need another exemple that may be more similar to the current state of things?

>The Republic of Venice.

Rather a merchant empire than a land empire, but it lasted around 800 years.
It was a very well known "terra franca" or "sanctuary city" for all Europeans suffering from religious persecution.

Throughout the centuries, it gave reguge to:
>Spanish Jews (after the end of La Reconquista, 1492)
>excommunicated catholics
>East Roman and Greek orthodox (after the fall of Constantinople, 1453)
>French Ugonots
>Catalan, Aragonian, and Provenzal catars

>Positions of power were largely hereditary under feudalism, and thus very difficult to come by.

But that just depends on the political and social system feudalism was based on! It was true even for the purest Frank white catholic peasant of the time, who lived under near slavery

>That is simply not the subject of this thread.
Oh but it is.

>Nobody does it today either.
They certainly do in Europe and the US.

>But usually the most successful and LASTING empires were quite inclusive.
Absolutely, and I myself have brought up numerous examples, see The point was about citizenship.
In virtually all historical empires, you could be a subject but "citizenship" (or equivalent) was very exclusive.

All Franks weren't powerful, just like all Roman citizens weren't powerful, absolutely.

But the actual positions of power were very difficult to come by if you weren't born into them, which means that largely only natives can hold those positions.

The Franks were so good at this that even today, most royalty in Europe has links with actual Frankish bloodlines.

Same goes for the Dutch, loads of minorities fled here.

>Jews
>Hugenots & Other Protestants
>Germans during the 30 years war
>More Jews
>Royalist Englishmen during Cromwell
>Jacobins before the french revolution

Under feudal system the concept of citizenship didn't really exist. Your life simply depended over the choice of the local noble who you were fighting or working the land for.
Therefore it is useless to bring up the Franks.

The turks gave the citizenship like candies, raising a specialist army (janisseries) of foreigners much like the Romans did with the auxiliaries.

Alexander, again didn't build a lasting empire. The kingdoms that sprang from Alexander's conquest kept their original customs and traditions, to which the conquerors adapted (think of Tolomeian Egypt or Seleucid Syria).

And finally I gave you two perfect exemples of thriving empires who actually gave citizenship easily: Rome and Venice.

The case of Rome is the most interesting, because they literally gave citizenship like candy and it was arguably the most important and successful empire of the West.

Well yeah but the Frankish Empire was heavily segmented into different cultures.

You have:
Franks
Aquitanians
Frisians
Saxons (Yes a lot of them died, some converted though)
Bavarians
Lombars
Other Italians

And some smaller cultures.

And, I forgot to add, the Franks did not rule directly over all these cultures as nobles. The Aquitanians and Frisians supplied their own nobility. So did the Lombards,