- Joined
- Aug 4, 2026
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 73
- Awards
- 1
So, to get straight to the point, my conclusions after some months of research is that The Roman Empire did fall mostly.due to immigration. The historical, political decision to encourage open immigration into all aspects of the Roman bureaucratic system falls on Claudius. That is, the same Claudius who conquered Britain (or parts of it).
There had actually been heated opposition from senators over Claudius's assertion that unrestricted immigration would create a stronger Empire. So, the decision was taken.
We ought to now be curious as to what exactly happened. Does history prove Claudius right?
Here is what happened: First, over a century or so, the Roman army had become ethnically.divided, so you had German legions, Gallic legions, Syrian legions, Parthian legions, African legions. As a natural consequence, some of these legions would come to elect an emperor of their choice. In some cases, civil wars broke out that would see at least four would-be emperors fighting for power. As you get deeper into later Roman history, there is a pattern where you see the Roman Senate lose control. That is, they were losing the ability to elect an emperor through legal processes.
So, the military became very divided into factions. That led to countless civil wars.
Then, in the area of culture and religion, immigration at vast levels created a variety of cults, faiths, rites and ideologies. The problem here was the traditional Roman, pagan beliefs became eclipsed and, in some cases, even prohibited. This was a factor in the gradual loss of Roman cultural identity. Christianity also severely weakened the Roman State and gave rise to a Church that inevitably tried to squash paganism.
Then, it seems Latin, as a language, by the third century A.D. was hardly heard in urban areas. In most Roman cities and towns you would hear Punic, Gallic, Germanic languages as well as Greek.
I concluded it would be fair to suggest that by the 4th century A.D. the Roman State per se existed almost in a way similar to the order of the Catholic Church. The Senate remained in Rome but power lay with the army, which was no longer Roman in identity. Many later emperors set up governments that mirrored traditions of their own countries.
Conclusion? Mass immigration did not result in a more powerful Empire but gradually led to it's ruin.
Implications? In a sense, I think Trump and Vance are right to seriously question the impact of open borders. This isn't an easy policy to put forward because, since the late 1970s, universities have rubbished ideas that immigration was a factor in Rome's decline. Yet, through the 1950s, 1960s to the end of the 70s that had been the prevailing view.
There had actually been heated opposition from senators over Claudius's assertion that unrestricted immigration would create a stronger Empire. So, the decision was taken.
We ought to now be curious as to what exactly happened. Does history prove Claudius right?
Here is what happened: First, over a century or so, the Roman army had become ethnically.divided, so you had German legions, Gallic legions, Syrian legions, Parthian legions, African legions. As a natural consequence, some of these legions would come to elect an emperor of their choice. In some cases, civil wars broke out that would see at least four would-be emperors fighting for power. As you get deeper into later Roman history, there is a pattern where you see the Roman Senate lose control. That is, they were losing the ability to elect an emperor through legal processes.
So, the military became very divided into factions. That led to countless civil wars.
Then, in the area of culture and religion, immigration at vast levels created a variety of cults, faiths, rites and ideologies. The problem here was the traditional Roman, pagan beliefs became eclipsed and, in some cases, even prohibited. This was a factor in the gradual loss of Roman cultural identity. Christianity also severely weakened the Roman State and gave rise to a Church that inevitably tried to squash paganism.
Then, it seems Latin, as a language, by the third century A.D. was hardly heard in urban areas. In most Roman cities and towns you would hear Punic, Gallic, Germanic languages as well as Greek.
I concluded it would be fair to suggest that by the 4th century A.D. the Roman State per se existed almost in a way similar to the order of the Catholic Church. The Senate remained in Rome but power lay with the army, which was no longer Roman in identity. Many later emperors set up governments that mirrored traditions of their own countries.
Conclusion? Mass immigration did not result in a more powerful Empire but gradually led to it's ruin.
Implications? In a sense, I think Trump and Vance are right to seriously question the impact of open borders. This isn't an easy policy to put forward because, since the late 1970s, universities have rubbished ideas that immigration was a factor in Rome's decline. Yet, through the 1950s, 1960s to the end of the 70s that had been the prevailing view.