4 ms·

The failure to integrate the barbarian Goth refugees is generally marked as the beginning of the fall - and absolutely changed the trajectory of the empire.

by shakna 4mo ago

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
rayiner 4mo ago
“Failure to integrate” is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome. But I agree the barbarians did them in at the end. My point was that the Iran fiasco is more like the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, where Rome backed off after taking a beating. That didn’t mark a transition away from Empire, simply a retreat after a military loss.
- shakna 4mo ago
  And my point, is the current administration is closer to Caligula and Nero, than they are to Varus. You see this as nothing more than another blip in a long history. I see unstable and dangerous individuals getting standing ovations for failure. "I don't care if they respect me so long as they fear me." - Caligula.
- rvba 4mo ago
  The Iran fiasco is Suez Canal 2.0
  - arethuza 4mo ago
    Did you mean the 1956 Suez Crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
- modo_mario 4mo ago
  >is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome To be fair they had been in the empire for a good amount of years at that time if i remember well. ...so when comparing to other previous influxes that did get integrated and/or assimilated it does seem apt.
- constantius 4mo ago
  Teutoburg wasn't a battle but an ambush, and Rome killed almost everyone involved in the next years. This didn't represent a retreat: Germans weren't conquered because they had nothing to conquer. Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    > Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium The Turks conquered Byzantium (and India, etc)?
  - ricree 4mo ago
    > Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium. An invading force that settles within it and ultimately destroys it before launching expansionist invasions to all of its neighbors?
    - constantius 4mo ago
      Haha I was only thinking on the level of "the people who ended the empire", but agree that the analogy is not perfect.
- bulbar 4mo ago
  Today's world is different. US just lost a lot of credibility in a very important region of the world. They were not able to keep the strait of hormuz open unilateral, nullifying most of their leverage in that region. Gulf States will now strategically look out for other partners. Just like Europe / EU and Canada. Trump tried to leverage a lot of influence in the most stupid way and failed over and over. Does the US even have relevant allies left at that point? Pretty sure they took notes.

The failure to integrate the barbarian Goth refugees is generally marked as the beginning of the fall - and absolutely changed the trajectory of the empire.

by shakna 4mo ago

The failure to integrate the barbarian Goth refugees is generally marked as the beginning of the fall - and absolutely changed the trajectory of the empire.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

rayiner 4mo ago

“Failure to integrate” is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome. But I agree the barbarians did them in at the end. My point was that the Iran fiasco is more like the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, where Rome backed off after taking a beating. That didn’t mark a transition away from Empire, simply a retreat after a military loss.

shakna 4mo ago
And my point, is the current administration is closer to Caligula and Nero, than they are to Varus. You see this as nothing more than another blip in a long history. I see unstable and dangerous individuals getting standing ovations for failure. "I don't care if they respect me so long as they fear me." - Caligula.
rvba 4mo ago
The Iran fiasco is Suez Canal 2.0
- arethuza 4mo ago
  Did you mean the 1956 Suez Crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
modo_mario 4mo ago
>is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome To be fair they had been in the empire for a good amount of years at that time if i remember well. ...so when comparing to other previous influxes that did get integrated and/or assimilated it does seem apt.
constantius 4mo ago
Teutoburg wasn't a battle but an ambush, and Rome killed almost everyone involved in the next years. This didn't represent a retreat: Germans weren't conquered because they had nothing to conquer. Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  > Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium The Turks conquered Byzantium (and India, etc)?
- ricree 4mo ago
  > Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium. An invading force that settles within it and ultimately destroys it before launching expansionist invasions to all of its neighbors?
  - constantius 4mo ago
    Haha I was only thinking on the level of "the people who ended the empire", but agree that the analogy is not perfect.
bulbar 4mo ago
Today's world is different. US just lost a lot of credibility in a very important region of the world. They were not able to keep the strait of hormuz open unilateral, nullifying most of their leverage in that region. Gulf States will now strategically look out for other partners. Just like Europe / EU and Canada. Trump tried to leverage a lot of influence in the most stupid way and failed over and over. Does the US even have relevant allies left at that point? Pretty sure they took notes.