I think we know where you stand now Kuge.

You seem determined to crash the party, so I'll indulge you a little.

Your thought on Rome are rather predictable. We all see things including history through the lens of our own prejudices and biases. That is accepted.
Current trends also influence thinking.

Let us take for example your assertion that climate change was a more significant factor and better compared to today than migration in the downfall of Rome.

Firstly, you appear to have all but ruled out migrants as a factor altogether. That gives us a big clue as to your mindset.
Then you introduce climate change as a significant factor, which any reasonable person knows is a constant throughout human history. You might as well blame the air. They tried to make the same argument about the extinction of ice age mammals, when it is now clear that humans played a big part in their demise.
To summarise. Dismissing one factor because it is uncomfortable and replacing it with another which is more in keeping with the current Zeitgeist is the height of short sightedness. It is not logic. Climate change might well have played a part, as it does in virtually everything, but to hold it up while rejecting far more significant factors is really clutching at straws. I think it is fairly clear what your motives are for this stretch of reasoning.

There are clearly a set of complex interwoven factors and events that bring about any circumstance, and removing any one of them might cause events to play out differently. It is widely accepted that migrants, namely Visigoths, driven from their homelands into the Roman Empire were a key factor in the final collapse of Rome, just as the use of foreign mercenaries in the Legions lead to large numbers of them actually going across to the enemy when Rome was eventually invaded.

You seem to want to dismiss these factors because you are clear yet another one of those people who wish to promote immigration in modern Britain. You want to down play anything from history that draws a negative comparison. This is age old tactics that have been employed many times by various people. Another age old tactic is to accuse your accuser of the same tactics.

We have seen it all before.

Now, as discussed, there certainly were a range of interwoven reasons why Rome fell, and I drew a comparison to modern Britain. Climate change and all the rest are all valid to one degree or another and applicable to today, I'm sure, but all people have to do is a bit of their own research and draw their own conclusions. They don't need to take my word or yours. If they can read or even watch TV, they can see what they need to see.

I stand by my comparison and would ask you to provide evidence to disprove it. All you have done so far is reference one book and tell us all that I'm wrong.

Let's see you prove it.

Crash the party? I was under the impression that this forum was open for anyone to contribute to. If you want to debate alone or just with Stirlingsays perhaps you could do that in your own WhatsApp group?

You say that I only site one source as if the source I am citing is someone's blog. The primary source for this period has to be Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It is six volumes and whilst it is problematic in many areas it is universally recognised as being the point of reference.

Beyond Gibbon, there is plenty of other material that supports Gibbon. Henri Pirenne a notable writer on this period directly challenges the idea that the Goths were instrumental in the fall and more recently Kyle Harper in his book The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire identifies climate and disease as the central factors. Mary Beard’s SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, also supports my assertion that the causes were many.

As you say the climate is in constant flux and that these changes have been a contributory factor in global history. This was certainly true in relation to Rome.

Rome prospered and grew under the Roman Climatic Optimum. This was a period of warm weather in Europe that lasted from 250 BC to 350 AD. The ending of this period caused problems in the largely agricultural economy of the Roman Empire. There was a succession of crop failures across Europe resulting in famine and insurrection. As we know the Roman method to control was ‘bread and circuses’, once you can’t feed people they get angry very quickly.

A little after the fall of the Western Roman Empire the onset of the Late Antique Little Ice Age in the 6th century caused the even more extreme weather events of 535 – 536. The dramatic cooling of the climate is thought to be related to volcanic eruptions that ejected large quantities of dust into the atmosphere. This again causes crop failures etc. around the world.

I think that where you have become unstuck is in your assumptions about why I am suggesting that many other factors were more significant than immigration to the fall of the Roman Empire. Coupled with your view that any analogy between the fall and present geopolitics has some merit in supporting your agenda.

There is in this argument some confusion regarding terms used. Who are the migrants? When the Romans invaded Britain in 43 AD their forces were made up of soldiers from many parts of the empire. After Britain had been conquered many migrants arrived to exploit the new opportunities that had arisen. Perhaps the Romans saw themselves as ex-pats? In general, it was Roman practice over a couple of generations to absorb local tribes into the empire. After a few decades, any British natives had become Citizens of Rome.

The Roman Empire like all other empires fell for multiple reasons. I think that it is of little value to lift up one above the others. Gibbon placed Christianity at the centre but he was less aware of factors such as climate that have only relatively recently been identified. Everything passes in time, it is rarely possible to identify decline toward oblivion while it is happening. Nietzsche said that the nature of things is to be found in their end.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

As I said Luton is very far from perfect. The deprivation that is prevalent in the town is not the fault of the residents. It is clear that employment has been a problem since the early 20th century. The men of the town burned down the town hall in 1919 because they wanted jobs and homes. The local economy has declined a few times first through changes in fashion, people stopped wearing hats, and then later through changes in the car industry etc. Not because of immigration. The first waves of immigrants came from Ireland in the 50s and 60 to construct the M! And other infrastructure. Without them, such projects would have been impossible.

Poverty and deprivation breeds crime, we see this everywhere in the world. Societies that are more equal have less crime. As you have pointed out Japan has a relatively low level of crime and a narrow band between to economic top and bottom of society. Have you read The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett? It contains some very interesting insights in relation to this.

The reasons behind Japan's low levels of crime are, however, much more complex than that and perhaps would be a distraction to go into here. It’s worth noting though that crime in Japan has risen in the past couple of decades as employment has become less secure and the economy has stagnated.

Luton’s problems are a manifestation of deeper problems in the economy that have their roots decades ago. They are not unique to Luton or even to Britain. Solving them will require political action at a local and national level. The people of the town themselves other than via the ballot box can do little to resolve them.

Whomever is correct the whole issue over immigrants has been muddied with the posts about Romans etc. Let's park that and go back a few pages for the benefit of the thread if nothing else.
Now imo there are 3 types of immigrants.
1/ skilled professional people who want to live,work and prosper alongside the indigenous brits.
2/ people escaping harm and persecution.
3/ people wanting money,houses and basically a free life (yes some prosper) but initially just want things.

It's obvious that even these have sub sets but broadly how it is.
I can get alongside no 1 and 2 as would many posters on here.
No 3 is the issue and I think what the animosity around immigration is.
Just my simple take really.

Luton's stats on crime and wealth are worst since modern mass immigration...It's not honest to relate them to the past like it was ever thus....the numbers aren't comparable and you seem to confuse the past's immigration with modern mass immigration and regional with global treating them as no different.

I would agree with you though that other factors play parts. I think all serious discussions realise that....but what gets me here is the denialism.

Sure, it's the same in Japan, it would be reductionist to explain social realities under just one banner....but it's delusionary to think that homogeneity/ethnicity plays no part in social cohesion and hence crime.

Egalitarianism is not honesty.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Sep 2021 12.48pm)

The implication that immigration is linked to crime or social cohesion is as I expect you are aware a questionable cause fallacy, as correlation does not imply causation. The other problem with this argument is that crime in the UK has over the past 40 years fallen quite dramatically.

Edited by kuge (13 Sep 2021 3.05pm)