Is Rome the biggest argument for multiculturalism? >almost

>collapsed largely due to a migrant crisis

>>1495096
No it's the biggest argument for a single culture that borrows from other cultures and integrates all citizens into the idea of one nation.

>>1495096
>>almost all of their culture was stolen from their neighbors
>>weapons and tactics for their military were likewise stolen and adapted from all over the Mediterranean
What does this have to do with multiculturalism? Japan for example is one of the most homogenous countries in the world, despite taking almost all their cutlure from China and America

>>1495096
So long as all people identify themselves with the country first and their race/ethnicity second, it doesn't matter how many cultures exist within the same country. Problems only start to crop up when this stops being the case.

>>1495096
>almost all of their culture was stolen from their neighbors
Rome had its own culture to begin with and they were picky when it came to adopting other beliefs. The Celtic Druids were all killed and some Romans such as Cato the Elder despised Hellenistic culture and described it as "social degeneracy".

>weapons and tactics for their military were likewise stolen and adapted from all over the Mediterranean
Using something because it's useful doesn't mean embracing the culture itself.

>empire consisted of dozens of different cultures and religions
They all assimilated into Roman culture which is why we have stuff like Spain and Romania today.

>all peoples striving towards a roman ideal that was itself an amalgamation of different cultures
Literally what?

>still formed one of the largest and most successful empires in history
It got maimed by Jewish/Christians with in its own borders and got killed by mass migrations of barbarians.

>>1495096
Not an argument.

>>1495096
>Is Rome the biggest argument for multiculturalism?
no, but it is the biggest argument for imperialism

File: 1415972279584.jpg (112KB, 579x527px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 579x527px

>>1495096
>almost all of their culture was stolen from their neighbors
>weapons and tactics for their military were likewise stolen and adapted from all over the Mediterranean
That's simply a civilization looking at what other civilizations are doing and copying what works. It's more comparable to the Norman upper class frenchifying their Anglo-Celtic peasants, or Europe taking over French courtly culture and military vocabulary, or the French themselves copying the military staff system of the Prussians after the Franco-Prussian war, or how nowadays the Nordic model is held in high esteem, or how Obamacare faggots look to France, Britain and the Netherlands for three different ways to regulate health care, or how the American constitution was inspired by Locke, Montesquieu and the Dutch Republic.

>empire consisted of dozens of different cultures and religions
And despite that, until the 3rd century Roman citizenship was limited to those born in Italia or who could claim descendance from Italia (or earned it through some other way like St. Paul). Even the Sicilians, Sardinians and Corsicans weren't considered "true" Romans.

>all peoples striving towards a roman ideal that was itself an amalgamation of different cultures
That's objectively wrong. The Romans had, until the 3rd century, "ius gentium" or "people's law". Every different people in their realm was ruled by a different set of laws. The Romans (who, as I said earlier, were those from Italia and a few special cases who 'earned' Roman citizenship) were ruled by Roman law, but the Gauls and Spaniards and Britons ruled by their own sets of laws. A Roman convicted of a crime in Britannia would be judged by Roman law, but a Briton by Britannic law.

>still formed one of the largest and most successful empires in history
That collapsed afte the military Germanized, in the West (after Honorius) creating a class of Germanic generals who ruled Rome by proxy.