Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Our modern Theodosius I and his Foederati (i.e. Bush and illegal immigrants)

Another manner in which the fall of Rome is applicable to modern America also involves illegal immigration. In this case it is the post-Adrianople settlement by the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius I. His decision to allow barbarians to settle as foederati within the Roman Empire as cohesive autonomous groups allowed the barbarians a foothold in the empire. Combined with the weakness caused by continual Roman civil wars (as late as AD 394 Romans fought against each other with over 180,000 crack soldiers at the Frigid River) this allowed the barbarians the freedom they needed to ravage vast parts of the empire leading to its eventual demise.

The first Goths had been allowed to settle in the empire by the Eastern Emperor Valens in the 370's AD. He quickly changed his mind and tried to fight the Goths at Adrianople in 378. The result was a disaster for Rome as the bulk of the army was destroyed and Valens was killed. He was suceeded by Theodosius I. Theodosius ended the Gothic wars by allowing the Goths to settle in Thrace and govern themselves as foederati. Foederati were tribes allied to Rome who provided soldiers but were not subject to Roman laws, taxes, or discipline.

The foederati for their part did not believe they owed the Roman Empire anything, rather the Roman Empire owed them for protecting it. In fact, not surprisingly, some Romans agreed with the barbarians. The rhetorician Themistius (also the chief tutor for the imperial family) noted that since the barbarians cannot be stopped, and since they are in effect doing jobs Romans won't do (farming barren land), the great strength of Rome lies not in power or people but in the ability to reason with the barbarians. Theodosius believed that by being fair to the barbarians the barbarians would be fair to Rome.

Theodosius' decision was not especially popular. A Roman populist party soon formed and advocated the expulsion of the barbarians. Theodosius would not waver and continued to support and use foederati as an easier way to fix the shattered eastern army after Adrianople than trying to inspire, recruit, and train new Roman legions. After Theodosius' death, the foederati began to unfairly treat the state that had been so fair to them. As the barbarians demanded more and more land and money, Theodosius' policy grew more unpopular. Friction increased between Romans and the foederati culminating in anti-barbarian pogroms and a peasant uprising in Anatolia against foederati who had recently been settled there in the first decade of the 5th Century AD. Holding to Theodosius' policy, the army was dispatched to rescue the trapped foederati.

Despite this continued support the foederati further increased their demands. Eventually Constantinople realized it could not fight the number of foederati Theodosius had allowed into the empire; so they paid them to go west. The west lacked the financial resources to copy the east and attempted to fight for a time. Unfortunately, continued dynastic squabbles and civil wars made resisting the foederati impossible. In AD 410 Alaric, king of the Visigoths, led the first foreign army to enter Rome in 800 years. The signal was clear. While an emperor would continue ruling as a figurehead from Ravenna for another 66 years, the City had fallen. She was betrayed, raped, and despoiled by the very people her emperor had allowed to settle in the empire to protect her. 11 centuries of Roman history in Western Europe were over.

As before with the latifundia, this is not an exact comparison to President Bush and illegal immigration. However, again the general trends are a useful guide to our situation today. Bush is pushing the kind of deal Theodosius gave the foederati, apparently on the same idea. He appears to believe, like many others, that illegal immigration cannot be stopped, it is required for "jobs Americans won't do", and it is the moral or reasoned thing to do. Similarly, a large section of the American public does not seem to be as willing to allow this mass immigration into our country. Although it is in the early stages, should Bush's policies continue we can expect a similar reaction from the illegals and the American people.

Like the foederati the illegals, in general, do not respect us for allowing them the opportunity to live in our country. They believe it is Americans who owe them for supporting the economy or some such nonsense that was proffered at the recent illegal- immigrant protests. They expect everything to be done for them in Spanish, they expect to be given things like free health care and in-state tuition, and they expect to be given tax refunds and social security despite not paying significant taxes. Like with the Romans, the American people will form an American Populist Party (already polls suggest a single issue anti-illegal immigration candidate would receive 1/3 of the vote for president), and then begin to take action into their own hands as the Roman people did.

There are some advantages for us compared the Romans. The illegals are not soldiers like the foederati. They do not represent as great a number of people. We are not facing massive pressures elsewhere on our borders and we do not suffer from massive civil strife. Like the latifundia comparison though, even if the problem is not as severe as Rome's they are still problems that need to be dealt with. Not only do we not need to make problems for ourselves, the world cannot afford an introverted America. The world is greatly changing with the fall of Europe and the rise of China, Russia, and India. This is a major shift of power that requires our utmost attention. We do not need to be distracted by illegal immigrants.

Primary source: The Fall of the Roman Empire by Arther Ferrill

1 comment:

  1. The foederati received land, gold, titles, and protection within Roman borders. It must have been a good deal for the foederati because it was popular with them while it was not popular with many of the Roman people. Admittedly the foederati would later increase their price, but that was more a reflection of their oppurtunism than the value of the original deal.

    ReplyDelete