Skip to comments.The Second Fall of Rome? (A bit sensationalized, but a good read)
Posted on 06/13/2006 12:55:08 PM PDT by The Blitherer
The Second Fall of Rome?
Beware: the new goths are coming
ONE of Britain's most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire. In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "barbary" pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries a "reverse colonisation" as Parry described it.
The result for Britain and Europe, Parry warned, could be "like the 5th century Roman empire facing the Goths and the Vandals". Parry pointed to the mass migration which disaster in the Third World could unleash. "The diaspora issue is one of my biggest current concerns," he said. "Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned . . . [the process] acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet." Third World instability would lick at the edges of the West as pirates attacked holidaymakers from fast boats. "At some time in the next 10 years it may not be safe to sail a yacht between Gibraltar and Malta," said the admiral. He pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble. Rising nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran will challenge America's sole superpower status. This will come as "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organised crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeon in lawless areas. The effects will be magnified as borders become more porous and some areas sink beyond effective government control.
It's interesting, although not exactly encouraging, that leading Western military strategists agree with Fjordman:
The Second Fall of Rome
The Jihad-riots in France look more like the fall of the Roman Empire several centuries later, when the barbarians immigrated in huge numbers and caused the now weakened civilization to collapse in large parts of Western Europe. The population movements we are witnessing now are the largest and fastest in human history. In Europe, they can only be compared to the period often referred to as the Great Migrations, following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. However, during the 4th and 5th centuries, the total human population of the world was in the order of 200 million. Today, it is 30 times larger than that, and still growing fast. We also have communications that can transport people anywhere on earth within hours, and media that show ordinary people how much better life is in other countries. On top of that, the Romans didn't have human rights lawyers advocating that millions of barbarians be let into their lands. Is it a coincidence that the last time we had migrations like this was when large parts of the European continent suffered a complete civilizational breakdown? Is that what we are witnessing now? The second fall of Rome?
If Muslim immigration continues, the impending fall of France could mark the starting point of the Balkanization of much of Europe, perhaps later even North America. I fear this is a world war. Maybe future historians will dub it the Multicultural World War. Just as WW1 was caused by Imperialism, WW2 by Fascism and the Cold War by Communism, this one will be caused by Multiculturalism. The term "the Multicultural World War" has been coined by Fjordman. I find this to be more accurate than "The Islamic World War" because what will cause this world war is Western cultural weakness, through Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, rather than Islamic strength. As poster DP111 says, this world war may very well be in the form of a global civil war, where you get a succession of civil wars instead of countries invading other countries. Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West, which will slowly fall apart as it has lost the will to defend itself and the belief in its own culture. The wars in the Balkans in the 1990s will in hindsight be seen as a prelude to the Multicultural World War. Rather than a Westernization of the Balkans, we get a Balkanization of the West.
Given the tensions we are now seeing caused by Multiculturalism and massive immigration, the next major war in Europe could well be triggered in part due to aggressive anti-nationalism, not aggressive nationalism. The downfall of the nation state, if it happens, will not bring us into a brave new world of global peace and brotherhood or the Age of Aquarius. It will be chaotic, painful and quite possibly bloody. More a throwback to the Middle Ages, the period before the rise of the nation states, complete with feudalism and tribalism, Muslim raids and people retreating into their own little fortresses while a few islands of sanity, similar to the monasteries a thousand years ago, will try to keep something of our cultural heritage alive.
I think it is getting out there.
we know that some of the greatest civilizations fell to multiculturalism.. they fewll apart from within. a culture can only absoorb so much before it loses its identity.
Rising nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran will challenge America's sole superpower status.
The Barbarians are at the gates.
Migration is definately going on all over the world. Fortunately, we are producing reverse migration in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I don't mind the Goths so much. It's the Visigoths and the Vandals I'm afraid of.
No we're not. I don't know anybody who is planning to leave the US and go live in either country. We've got some military troops on the ground, but that's hardly a "migration." The natives are still in control in both countries.
Not in Mexico. They kick you out if you cross their border illegally. In contrast, George Bush has said, through his policies about immigrants, bring em on! So migration is happening in US, but not "all over the world."
As my old pal from long vanished, long dead other forums, ALOHA RONNIE likes to say
Terror Strike Toronto ( Aborted! )-- Click the picture:
is a subset of this:
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? ( links, blogs, quips, quotes, aggravating pictures ) is located here- click the Pic, and scroll backwards:
And then, there is this little problem:
"Thunder on the Border," click the picture:
Work backwards on my links to see all the shady left-wing and terrorist-enabling organizations backing this rubbish.
This is exactly what it would be. It's hard to imagine that it could happen, but I do think it's possible, alas.
Free Republic is such a fortress/monastery.
You're afraid of Visigoths? You haven't BEEN afraid until you've gone up against an Ostrogoth. They eat Visigoths for breakfast!
Yeah, we all know we're in deep s**t now but when are we going to do something about it?
I never liked the Ostrogoths. Auslanders.
I'm an American in a German-language school for the summer in Germany. It's been fascinating for me to see some of Europe's Muslims first hand. Probably 1/3 of the school are Middle-Eastern--Westernized in dress and other things, but also, not Westernized. About 1/3 are American or Canadian (actually hard to tell the difference, eh) and 1/3 miscellaneous Asian. Of the Arabs, these guys (almost all guys) stick together like glue, talk only in their own languages, and of the cultural events offered by the study center (an we are in a VERY cultured city)...seem to have absolutely no interest. They are ENTIRELY different than Europeans.
It seems only American and Canadians seem interested in what most involves the Germans here, the highlights of their culture, music, architecture and the arts... Not to be racist in generalizing, but almost all those of color seem to show no interest in things German other than learning the language (for business or school). It is very revealing.
I really hate to think what will happen to the treasures of Europe--it's art, architecture, music, choirs, churches, etc, if/when Muslims make up a majority here. It really is pretty scary. Yet Germans are so afraid of being racist...the general attitude is, "isn't all this multi-culturalism wonderful!" It is a strange situation, but, I wonder if the General in this article is right...you can't have one people with two sets of values. The minorities in Europe now could care less for the things here that made Western Civilization great...
And remember fellow Americans, yes, our ancestors left, but it was the attitudes, religion and culture they brought from old Europe that helped establish America and make her great.
If Europe falls, we won't be far behind.
Thank you. Its always very interesting to hear from somebody with first-hand experience. People can have statistics and charts, but its not the same as seeing it for yourself.
All these comparisons to ancient Rome ignore a few realities. The Roman Empire thrived when it assimilated the peoples of conquered territories. Those who served the army for a specified period of time became Roman citizens. Many Imperial generals were not Italian. The Emperors Trajan, Hadrian, and Flavius Theodosius was born in Spain (though some were from families originally from Italy) and Constantine was born in Serbia.
The real troubles with foreigners coming into the Empire began with the treatment of the Goths, who were fleeing the Huns and pushing to move West. They were mistreated by by the Emperor, and shunned by Roman society. Instead of assimilating them, the Romans bred an enemy within their own ranks.
As much a factor in Rome's decline was their own internal decay and infighting. Finally, the Eastern Roman Empire survived another thousand years after the fall of Rome, and the peoples of the West, even the Germanic tribes, tried to live as Romans, or revive the Roman Empire in different forms for hundreds of years to come.
Those are all very valid points. Like I said, this article is a bit alarmist, but it does present a very interesting point of view.
Is that also why black Africans are scaling razor wire to get into Spain and the canary islands? A lot of it is have/havenots with the havenots having seen what the haves have and wanting some.
You really ought to reread your convoluted analysis and try to prove you are not a liberal. You argue that the people who actually destroyed Rome were not responsibile. They had bad childhoods due to imperial policy.
No, you should go and reread history. Here's a little for you:
In the summer and fall of 376, tens of thousands of displaced Goths and other tribes arrived on the Danube border of the Roman Empire, requesting asylum from the Huns. Goth leader Fritigern appealed to the Roman emperor Valens to be allowed to settle with his people on the south bank of the Danube, where they hoped to find refuge from the Huns who lacked the ability to cross the wide river in force. Valens permitted this, and even helped the Goths cross the river, probably at the fortress of Durostorum.
Valens promised the Goths farming land, grain rations, and protection under the Roman armies as foederati. His major reasons for quickly accepting the Goths into Roman territory were to increase the size of his army, and to gain a new tax base to increase his treasury. The selection of Goths that were allowed to cross the Danube was unforgiving: the weak, old, and sickly were left on the far bank to fend for themselves against the Huns. The ones that crossed were supposed to have their weapons confiscated; however, the Romans in charge accepted bribes to allow the Goths to retain their weapons.
With so many people in such a small area a famine quickly broke out among the Goths, and Rome was unable to supply them with either the food they were promised nor the land; they herded the Goths into a temporary holding area surrounded by an armed Roman garrison. There was only enough grain left for the Roman garrison, and so they simply let the Goths starve. The Romans provided a grim alternative: the trade of slaves (often children and young women) for dog meat. When Fritigern appealed to Valens for help, he was told that his people would find food and trade in the markets of the distant city of Marcianople. Having no alternative, some of the Goths trekked south in a death march, losing the sickly and old along the path.
When they finally reached Marcianople's gates, they were barred out by the city's military garrison and denied entry, and to add insult to injury the Romans unsuccessfully tried to assassinate the Goth leaders during a banquet. Open revolt began. The main body of Goths spent the rest of 376 and early 377 near the Danube plundering food from the immediate region. Roman garrisons were able to defend isolated forts but most of the country was vulnerable to Gothic plunder.
In late winter 377 war began in earnest and would last for six years before peace would be restored in 382. The remaining Goths moved south from the Danube to Marcianople, and next appear near Adrianople. The Roman response was to send a force under Valens to meet and defeat the Goths. In 378 Valens moved north from Constantinople and was defeated (and himself killed) at the Battle of Adrianople (modern Edirne in western Turkey). The victory gave the Goths freedom to roam at will, plundering throughout Thrace for the rest of 378. In 379 the Goths met only light Roman resistance and advanced north-west into Dacia, plundering that region.
In 380 the Goths divided into the Tervingi (Visigoth) and Greuthungi (Ostrogoth) tribes, in part because of the difficulty of keeping such a large number supplied. The Greuthungi moved north into Pannonia where they were defeated by western emperor Gratian. The Tervingi under Fritigern moved south and east to Macedonia, where they took "protection money" from towns and cities rather than sacking them outright. In 381, forces of the western Empire drove the Goths back to Thrace, where finally in 382, peace was made on October 3.
By the end of the war, the Goths had killed a Roman emperor, destroyed a Roman army and laid waste large tracts of the Roman Balkans, much of which never recovered. The Roman Empire had for the first time negotiated a peace settlement with an autonomous barbarian tribe inside the borders of the Empire, a situation that a generation before would have been unthinkable.
The lesson was not lost on other tribes, as well as the Goths themselves, who would not remain peaceful for long. Within a hundred years the Western Empire would collapse under the pressure of continued invasions as the Empire was carved up into barbarian kingdoms.
A fundamental parallel remains. Just as the Romans had colonized Gaul for 400 years, so also did Europeans colonize Africa, the Middle East and South America. In spite of much contact over centuries, however, huge gaps in development remained. Then migrations overwhelmed the developed world and destroyed civilization. Can it and will it happen again?
The Second Fall of Rome will be followed by the Winter of Our Discontent and a Silent Spring before we reach the Summer Place. Or maybe I'm thinking of Vivaldi.
The question I posed is why they didn't learn civilized ways in all that time, after hundreds of years of opportunity. They didn't want to. They did not respect civilization. We have a similar problem with Muslims.
Do I think different policies might have had different results? Maybe, although most have thought that the barbarian forces were too great to have been withstood. Similar thing happened in 1454 when Byzantium yielded to the Turks.
Both the Western and Eastern Roman Empires fell by losing conventional military campaigns.
That is a pretty narrow view. Both were overwhelmed by barbarian hordes who did not value or respect the level of civilization, after hundreds of years of contact. You seems to think that some level of appeasement would have changed that. But I do not think so. When cultures that are generally compatible share borders they become more and more alike through contact. However, some cultures are not compatible. Like oil and water, they don't mix. Only if you just look at policies right before the end would you try to make the argument you are making. Think your way back to Julius Caesar, Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est.
Or, take the author on and see what you think history tells us would be better. After all, the French, English, and Dutch are facing hostile minorities even though they are not fighting them militarily. I think you entered this arena without your body armor.
"I really hate to think what will happen to the treasures of Europe--it's art, architecture, music, choirs, churches, etc, if/when Muslims make up a majority here."
I guess we kinda got a preview from the Taliban's stay in Afghanistan.