Has there every been an empire that handed out full citizenship

The Roman Empire

The United States

>>2897101
That sounds like such a liberal question. But to answer it to the best of my ability and historical knowledge: no.

>>2897101
Rome sorta did and it wasn't such a thriving thing but more of a "we are desperate to keep the empire alive" and it worked for a little while.

The US uses to give it out in batches to people and let them integrate slowly. Now we just let in hundreds of thousands if not a million a year thinking nothing will go wrong.

>>2897108
>The Roman Empire
Crumbled shortly after Caracalla opened up citizenship to all.

>The United States
Always had relatively rigorous citizenship rules, even based on race at various times.

It's only very recently that illegal immigration has gained a positive image for some reason among liberals.

>>2897112
>That sounds like such a liberal question.
The "like candy" bit was supposed to indicate otherwise.

>>2897120
>Rome sorta did
At the very end, so not for long.

>>2897126
>crumbled shortly after

> the western half of the empire existed for another 250 years after Caracalla

ok

>>2897131
The Roman empire was losing ground and literally fell apart long before WRE actually fell.

>>2897126
>even based on race at various times.
up until 1965 it was pretty race based, then LBJ made the 1965 immigration act saying it would not change demographics and that it was just a sign of solidarity.

Well the empire survived for another 1200 years after the Antonine edict so

>>2897137
>fell apart long before WRE actually fell.
It was still around in 1400 though.

File: 1404836238130.gif (2MB, 209x213px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 209x213px

>>2897240
>"""the""" empire

>>2897249
What was?

>>2897200
>>2897195
And yet the guys you imported as slave chatel make the biggest problems

Really makes you think

>>2897252
Romans

>>2897254
riiiiiiight

>>2897256
The empire of the Romans wasn't a thing then?

>>2897263
The WRE fell, you didn't hear?

And the Antonine edict fell with it. In the ERE, you were a foreigner even if you lived in the empire and were considered "different" enough from the norm.

File: 76534248945.png (583KB, 566x423px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 566x423px

>>2897101
Join or Empire Yi Scum

To to be fair, the Chinese Dynasties did not have citizenship, only subjects. The closer you get was being Hua, that happened when you made a family grave in China

>>2897272
Justinian's laws cover citizenship buddy

File: caesar.jpg (25KB, 626x469px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 626x469px

>>2897272
The decadence of the empire started from the birth of the Dominatus, and actually the civil war after the death of commodus. It cannot at all be considered a consequence of Caracalla's giving out citizenship to all.
Still, the Roman Empire officially survived til 1453, that is more than 1000 years after Caracalla's ruling on the subject matter. ERE was, as the name suggest, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, therefore it is Roman: same rules, same leaders, historical and cultural continuity.

Still, since its birth Rome has probably been the most inclusive society in history. Just look at the subject of adoption: for them race and blood lines were nothing compared to culture and the "mos maiorum". Caesar gave Roman citizenship to all Italians, that was already a huge step for any standard, ancient or modern. And at the time, Rome did not reach its peak yet. However, those who were NOT Roman citizens were still fully included in the society, as they could serve the army, they could work and travel and decide with autonomy how to live their lives. They were only precluded participation to the political activity.

>>2897101
So, to answer your question: YES. The Roman Empire

>>2897126
>It's only very recently that illegal immigration
It's only very recently that immigration is truly illegal. Before it was always a formality enforced mostly on opinion.

>>2897322
>It cannot at all be considered a consequence of Caracalla's giving out citizenship to all.
Nobody said it was "all" because of Caracalla.

>since its birth Rome has probably been the most inclusive society in history
Not for citizenship.

>for them race and blood lines were nothing compared to culture and the "mos maiorum"
Meaning citizenship wasn't given out like candy.

In the modern West, the more the culture is different, the more welcome you are.

>They were only precluded participation to the political activity.
Which is huge.

>So, to answer your question: YES. The Roman Empire
Only after Caracalla; which just happened to coincide with the turning point in Rome's fortunes.

>>2897331
What matters for immigration are citizenship laws, which have been legally codified since the very first years of US independence.

>>2897344

>Not for citizenship

citizenship for the Romans had a completely different meaning than it has today. Most of the rights granted to citizens today were granted to any subject of the Republic/Empire even without official recognition. Non citizen subjects could take any job, were protected by the law, could marry Romans, could travel or relocate anywhere. Basically anything that a citizen would be able to do nowadays.

>Which is huge (not participating to political life)
It is not huge: no society in ancient world geve the plebs as much power as the Romans did. Gallic plebs or Syrian plebs did not participate in political life before Roman occupation, therefore life didn"t change for them.
Ruling classes of foreign origins, however, were very soon granted citizenships. Under the late Republic it was well known that the conservatives didn't very much approve the introduction in the Senate of "trousers wearing Gauls".

>Meaning citizenship wasn't given out like candy.
As said, the only thing non-citizens couldn't do, was running for the Senate. They had the right to do whatever they wanted and relocating wherever they wanted

>Only after Caracalla; which just happened to coincide with the turning point in Rome's fortunes.
As said multiple times, no, Caracalla's rule ddoes not coincide with the turning point of Romans fortunes, by any standards.

>>2897375
>being barred from political life
>not huge

I'm done with you.

>>2897380
>anon writes a nice, detailed response going point by point on why Caracalla's ruling is not to blame.
>Responds with a single shitty "NO UR DUM" sentence.

/his/ is a good board.

>>2897380
have you read what I wrote you fucking cunt?
These people kept the same rights as before: if they were ruling class, they were not barred from political life (like aristocracy or shit). If they were plebeians, it depended where they came from: plebs from greek colonies were still granted the vote to elect their leaders, while the subjects of, say, the ex Seleucid empire were to just be subjects as before. They didn' t vote before, and they didn't vote then.

However, even for them, there was a potential for having a political carreer by first succeeding in their military carreer.*

>>2897400
Non-citizens were barred from political life, which is huge. Contrary to what you said.

File: trumpcaesar.png (1MB, 863x855px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 863x855px

>>2897403
you either have a troubles at understanding written texts, as I specifically said that they were not completely barred from political life, or you are so idiotic as to think that a Germanic tribe of the year 100 CE or an Egyptian peasant of the year 30 BCE lived in a democratic society, and had an active political life.

Now I'm really done, I require people I debate with to have a minimum of notions of the subject matter, as well as being decently able at exposing their thoughts. Either you fail at both, or you're here just to shitpost.

>>2897423
If you were a non-citizen, you didn't engage in political life.
This is a huge factor, regardless of what you are claiming.

>if they were ruling class, they were not barred from political life
If they were citizens.

>Gallic plebs or Syrian plebs did not participate in political life before Roman occupation, therefore life didn"t change for them.
This is meaningless.
If you were whipped every day in your home country, and move to another country where you are also whipped every day, nothing changes for you either.

>>2897438
>If you were a non-citizen, you didn't engage in political life.
If you were a citizen pleb you wouldn't either for the most part

>if they were ruling class, they were not barred from political life
>If they were citizens
Romans went out of their way to make them citizens more easily

>This is meaningless.
If you were whipped every day in your home country, and move to another country where you are also whipped every day, nothing changes for you either
Citizens paid taxes, non citizens did not pay as much taxes

One could argue that the citizens are whipped harder than the non-citizens

>>2897423
>idiotic as to think that a Germanic tribe of the year 100 CE or an Egyptian peasant of the year 30 BCE lived in a democratic society, and had an active political life.
Germanic tribesmen did have active political lives.
Kings were elected for instance by the commoners.

And besides, keeping non-citizens away from politics may indeed not necessarily be "huge" on an individual level, but it's enormously significant for the Roman empire as a whole, since masses of foreigners were kept from deciding Roman policy.

>>2897462
>since masses of foreigners
Policy was either controlled by the republican elite, or the emperor and his elite. The citizen masses did not factor into this a whole lot.

>>2897459
>Romans went out of their way to make them citizens more easily
We're talking about elites here.
Not only exceptional, but also eminently suitable.

>Citizens paid taxes, non citizens did not pay as much taxes
That's irrelevant to this point.

>>2897475
>The citizen masses did not factor into this a whole lot.
More than the non-citizen masses.

>>2897476
>We're talking about elites here.
>Not only exceptional, but also eminently suitable.
Yes and?

>>2897484
Read the OP.
It reinforces the point that citizenship wasn't handed out like candy.

>>2897438
>>2897462
>Kings were elected for instance by the commoners.

this was little more than a formality, and definitely voting didn't involve the average joe. But I agree, they had a richer political life than a peasant from Egypt


However, are you guys aware of the fact that more than half of all Roman Emperors didn't come from Italy, right?

Are you also aware of the fact that Rome was a so-called "soft power". That means than the local government of a Gallic tribe or a Numidian kingdom were not automatically replaced, but were maintained and controlled by Roman governors? This is one of the secrets of their success. Local populations kept their costums, their political structure, on the surface. However Roman laws was applied, Roman taxes were paid and a Governor and some bureaucrats would supervise these local governments.
So again, yes. The Roman Empire was very inclusive.

>>2897101

Modern Germany, aka the new leader of the free world.

>>2897487
>Foreign elites were given it
>All italians were given it
>Ex-Soldiers were given it
> Influential roman friend could give it
>Caracalla gave it to all free males

>>2897500
>this was little more than a formality, and definitely voting didn't involve the average joe
They had their own versions of citizens, freedmen.

>However, are you guys aware of the fact that more than half of all Roman Emperors didn't come from Italy, right?
Nobody said anything to the contrary.
The thread is about giving out citizenship like candy.

>So again, yes. The Roman Empire was very inclusive.
All empires were when they got large enough.

>>2897510
Until Caracalla, citizenship was very exclusive.

>>2897532
>Until Caracalla, citizenship was very exclusive.
Join the army for two decades and you become a citizen.

>>2897534
... is that supposed to mean it's not exclusive?

>>2897547
read anon's sentence slowly:
>Ex-Soldiers were given it

Litterally anyone could earn it as long as it served the army for two decades. Also, citizenship was granted to all close relatives and descendents: wife, sons, daughters.

You could be German or Nubian and Roman just because your grand father served 20 years the army.

Yes, that means that it is NOT exclusive

>>2897592
>as long as it served the army for two decades
How the fuck is this not exclusive?

>>2897596
>How the fuck is this not exclusive?

*sigh* Rome was a militaristic society, it was constantly at war, and at some point its standing army counted about 500.000 individuals.

That number is huge. It means that you were very likely, even if you were a foreigner, that within 2 generations at most you had someone in your close family serving in the Roman army. Moreover, survival rates were not so low as to bar a high number of soldier to reach the 20 years mark.

>>2897606
>have to serve 20 years in the military to gain citizenship in the empire of which you are already part
>not exclusive

wew lad

>>2897596
Again, by ancient standards, it was easily the most inclusive society prior to the contemporary age.
By more recent standards, you would still regard it as an inclusive society. Consider that most European countries (in theory the most inclusive) still apply "IUS SANGUINIS" instead of "IUS SOLI" like in the USA.

>>2897613
>Again, by ancient standards, it was easily the most inclusive society prior to the contemporary age.
No.

Alexander dressed himself like a Persian and prostrated before the people he subjugated.
The Franks started speaking the vulgar Latin of "France" as soon as they started conquering it.
The Turkic tribes assumed the religion of the people they conquered.
etc. etc. etc.

>>2897610

You can't be this stupid. It was perfectly normal for someone who joined the military to be a soldier for a life time. Since Marius it was a standing army, a professional army. You entered the army and you served it for 20 years at least. Period.

Let's make a quick calculation together:
>assuming a standing army of 500.000
>we can consider about 25.000 individuals were retiring assuming noone died.
>assuming 40% died or quit before retiring
>about 15.000 individuals retiring each year from the army
>assuming that all these people had one wife and 2 kids (although it is likely that many had more)
>around 60.000 people were granted Roman Citizenship

>600.000 naturalized Romans in 10 years

>>2897625
>Alexander
nothing more than a general and a conqueror, but his "empire" was, in theory inclusive. In practice there was never a Macedon empire, as he died so young. Hellenistic kingdoms were just monarchies with Macedonian/Greek elites whose culture mixed. It is not comparable to a stable empire like Rome

>Franks
it is not surprising that the franks started speaking latin. They were conquerors, but still a minority. They were not "inclusive" just because of that. And as a matter of fact, they acted way more dispotic against non Christian peoples, while Romans were known not to care much about other peoples'religions.

>Turks
again, assuming language, religion of concquered people does not make you inclusive, just like the Franks. However, I agree that the Otomans were known to include non etnic turks in their government, and to leadership posts.

>>2897638
>nothing more than a general and a conqueror
>In practice there was never a Macedon empire, as he died so young
Alexander dressed himself like a Persian and prostrated before the people he subjugated.
He was being extremely inclusive towards the people he conquered. To the chagrin of his peers.

>They were conquerors, but still a minority
The Romans were also very VERY much a minority in their empire.

>again, assuming language, religion of concquered people does not make you inclusive
Haha, what?

>>2897632
Having to go through 20 years of military service before you become a citizen of the empire you were born in is very much "exclusive".

>>2897722
Nice broadening of your statement to make it sound worse then it actually is.

>I can participate in politics because my great-uncle sat around getting drunk in Britain, collecting easy pay, and occasionally threw spears at naked, shitcaked lunatics.

Waow

>>2897738
That is only if you were Limitanei. Even if you were one raids into roman terriotry was common place. Also weather sucked in england .

>>2897738
What statement of mine did I broaden?

>sat around getting drunk in Britain, collecting easy pay, and occasionally threw spears at naked, shitcaked lunatics
Yeah, that totally makes 20 years of military service sound like a breeze.

>>2897718

>Franks were inclusive

Yes, they were, to some extent, at least more than the avarage barbarian tribes. That is maybe why they were the most successful of all. However, that was not comparable to the Roman system, who was able to include all peoples (except for the Jews) from a much more extended land.

Moreover, being inclusive assumes accepting customs of conquered people, not making them your own. By the time the Franks carved their own kingdom in Northern France, they had been in contact with the Romans, served under their armies for over 300 years.
The Franks were already "romanized". And again, a semi-nomadic people that leaves its mud houses behind to rule over a much more advanced and rich land, it is very common that it is the conquerors that take on the customs of the conquered and not the other way around.

>Alexander dressed himself like a Persian

His idea was that of creating a hellenistic empire, a multicultural empire led by Greek values. However he failed because he died far too young. This one again is not comparable to a 2000 years old empire like the Roman

>>2897754
In 14 AD there were 3 legions in spain, 2 in egypt 2 on the Adriatic coast and 1 in Carthage. Pretty safe if you ask me

>>2897765

I am confident that a great amount of men at the time preferred the safe pay of a professional soldier, combined with the adventures, potential plunders, travels and the opportunity of fucking hoes from all over the world rather than work in a farm for their whole shitty life, which was the main occupation at the time.
You must not see the military service as a punishment or a sacrifice: it was rather a honorous, virtuous and, above all, exciting path to follow.
At the time, almost any culture considered war more honourable than farming.

>>2897754
>>2897765

this >>2897870

plus, roman armies were not fighting the whole time. Their day to day duty was the construction of infrastructures to improve living standards of that determined province: building roads and bridges especially, but also aqueducts, baths, theaters and so on.

>>2897126
>Crumbled shortly after Caracalla opened up citizenship to all.
+1200 years is not usually considered a short period.

>Has there every been an empire that handed out full citizenship like candy, and thrived?
Regarding the roman empire a more accurate rephrasing of the question would be
>Has there every been an empire that increased their tax revenue and thrived?
The answer to which is yes. Most societies tend to prefer more cash in their coffers.

>>2897846
>it is very common that it is the conquerors that take on the customs of the conquered and not the other way around.

Give some examples

>>2897914
Are you including Byzantine? Are you stupid?

>>2897922
Franks, Vikings, Normans, Huns, Turks, Mongols etc

>/pol/tard thinly claims edict of Caracalla and expansion of Citizenship led to the downfall of the Roman Empire and that somehow has any bearing on 21st century Western Politics
>Gets repeatedly told that not only did the Edict have a negligible effect on the decline of Rome, but that Roman Citizenship was historically given to many non-Romans before the edict
>Whaaa but that doesn't count! I need to justify my hatred of spics and mudslimes with a misunderstanding of history! Stop ruining this for me!

>>2897929
Why wouldn't I? Would you argue that England seized to be after the Hundred Years' War?

>>2897929
Why wouldn't he, the Byzantine Empire was the exact same state as the Roman Empire

>>2897965
Not to mention the romans. They were huge hellenophiles.

>>2897322
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DOMITIAN DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG

>>2897972
Because half the empire crumbled, thats why.

>>2897914
>+1200 years is not usually considered a short period.
Because the WRE didn't fritter away and collapse meanwhile, right?

>>2897875
They were auxiliaries, not legionaries. They didn't live the comfy life or enjoy the pay of the legions.
If they wanted to be soldiers, then the citizenship was a bonus.
If they just wanted the citizenship, life was hell for them.

>>2897971

unfortunately these are the sad consequences of /pol/tard cancer

>>2898223
>Less cultural
>Less rich
>Less fortified
>Less urbanised
>Less population alltogether
>Less spiritual

Nah ERE is fine

>>2897846
>However, that was not comparable to the Roman system, who was able to include all peoples (except for the Jews) from a much more extended land.
Yes, the Romans held more land than the Franks.

But the Franks were also much more inclusive.
They adopted the language of their subjugated peoples for instance, not the other way around.

>being inclusive assumes accepting customs of conquered people, not making them your own
Making a foreign custom/language your own is the ultimate form of acceptance.

>>2897870
>>2897912
The auxiliaries weren't in the legions. The auxiliaries went wherever the actual fighting was.

>>2897914
>Has there every been an empire that increased their tax revenue and thrived?
>The answer to which is yes.
Except non-citizens paid higher taxes.

>>2898261
?

>>2897971
>>2898260
You don't have to be a /pol/tard to realize that you need people of the same culture to keep that culture alive.

>>2898289
if the romans would have stuck to their own culture, they would have fucked goats until some smarter people would have subjugated them. They were strong because they were culturally enriched, above all, by the Greeks and the Etruscans.

>>2898346
There's a difference between cultural enrichment and pretending that foreigners are the same as non-foreigners.

File: karolus.jpg (237KB, 957x1300px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 957x1300px

>>2898265

Dude, ok, I've already said that the Franks were also inclusive. I don't believe to the extent of the Romans, but that is just a matter of opinion.

However you are just making my point. The Franks were without any doubt the most successful German tribe, they created the greatest and most powerful kingdom of the high middle ages, the Holy Roman Empire, and they set the base for two of the most successful nations of all time, France and Germany.

>>2898346
And there is some Celt and Iberian there aswell.

>>2898367
>However you are just making my point
Except that I was the one who brought them up in the first place to illustrate that all major empires were very inclusive to a large degree.
But that very few opened up citizenship to anyone who wanted it, and thrived.

>>2897126
>Always had relatively rigorous citizenship rules, even based on race at various times.
Are you shitting me, all you have to do is to be born in the country to be considered a citizen. I can't think of another western country with equally lax rules.

>>2898359

>You don't have to be a /pol/tard to realize that you need people of the same culture to keep that culture aliv

that was, I assume, your post 10 minutes ago. Stop switching the focus of the conversation when you are proven wrong.

>you need people of the same culture
>you don't need people of the same culture, but you don't need foreigners

stop contraddicting yourself

>>2898378
Anchor babies are a late 20th century phenomenon.
The very first US citizenship laws were about white people only, and it was like that for a long time.

>>2898368
I don't think the Iberian had that much influence on the Romans, but certainly the Celts did, and to a lesser extenct the Phoenicians.

But what it is interesting is that they never stopped learning throughout their existance.

>>2898381
What the fuck are you talking about?

Cultural exchange is a very good thing, but simply importing massive amounts of people from different cultures, and immediately placing them on equal footing with people from the native culture isn't.

You seem to have trouble with moderation and nuance.

>>2898381
Thank you for pointing this out. He shifted goal posts from legal designations of citizenship to culture, and after he gets btfo quickly shifts the goalposts back and acts like that's never what he was arguing

>>2898376
The Franks did just that: you, as a foreigner, only had to work withi the feudal system, serving the lord as a farmer, and the army as infantry in time of war.

>>2898389
>literal strawman

You seem to be the one with nuance problems. No one in this thread has advocated for anything like what you are talking about. And no one has discussed any point in history when what you are talking about has happened.This thread isn't about modern politics. If you want to talk about that shit go to /pol/

>>2898390
I never changed a thing you idiot.

It was always about granting citizenship to anyone who wanted it vs largely restricting citizenship to natives.

>>2898401
>No one in this thread has advocated for anything like what you are talking about.
Wait, what was I "proven wrong" on then?

>>2898391
Yes, as a peasant with zero power.

Positions of power were largely hereditary under feudalism, and thus very difficult to come by.

File: serenissima.png (18KB, 313x161px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 313x161px

>>2898389

That is simply not the subject of this thread.

>Has there every been an empire that handed out full citizenship like candy, and thrived?

Obviously no successful empire can hand out citizenship "like candy". Nobody does it today either. But usually the most successful and LASTING empires were quite inclusive.

Do you need another exemple that may be more similar to the current state of things?

>The Republic of Venice.

Rather a merchant empire than a land empire, but it lasted around 800 years.
It was a very well known "terra franca" or "sanctuary city" for all Europeans suffering from religious persecution.

Throughout the centuries, it gave reguge to:
>Spanish Jews (after the end of La Reconquista, 1492)
>excommunicated catholics
>East Roman and Greek orthodox (after the fall of Constantinople, 1453)
>French Ugonots
>Catalan, Aragonian, and Provenzal catars

>>2898432
>Positions of power were largely hereditary under feudalism, and thus very difficult to come by.

But that just depends on the political and social system feudalism was based on! It was true even for the purest Frank white catholic peasant of the time, who lived under near slavery

>>2898443
>That is simply not the subject of this thread.
Oh but it is.

>Nobody does it today either.
They certainly do in Europe and the US.

>But usually the most successful and LASTING empires were quite inclusive.
Absolutely, and I myself have brought up numerous examples, see >>2897625
The point was about citizenship.
In virtually all historical empires, you could be a subject but "citizenship" (or equivalent) was very exclusive.

>>2898449
All Franks weren't powerful, just like all Roman citizens weren't powerful, absolutely.

But the actual positions of power were very difficult to come by if you weren't born into them, which means that largely only natives can hold those positions.

The Franks were so good at this that even today, most royalty in Europe has links with actual Frankish bloodlines.

>>2898443
Same goes for the Dutch, loads of minorities fled here.

>Jews
>Hugenots & Other Protestants
>Germans during the 30 years war
>More Jews
>Royalist Englishmen during Cromwell
>Jacobins before the french revolution

>>2898454
Under feudal system the concept of citizenship didn't really exist. Your life simply depended over the choice of the local noble who you were fighting or working the land for.
Therefore it is useless to bring up the Franks.

The turks gave the citizenship like candies, raising a specialist army (janisseries) of foreigners much like the Romans did with the auxiliaries.

Alexander, again didn't build a lasting empire. The kingdoms that sprang from Alexander's conquest kept their original customs and traditions, to which the conquerors adapted (think of Tolomeian Egypt or Seleucid Syria).

And finally I gave you two perfect exemples of thriving empires who actually gave citizenship easily: Rome and Venice.

The case of Rome is the most interesting, because they literally gave citizenship like candy and it was arguably the most important and successful empire of the West.

>>2898470
Well yeah but the Frankish Empire was heavily segmented into different cultures.

You have:
Franks
Aquitanians
Frisians
Saxons (Yes a lot of them died, some converted though)
Bavarians
Lombars
Other Italians

And some smaller cultures.

>>2898485
And, I forgot to add, the Franks did not rule directly over all these cultures as nobles. The Aquitanians and Frisians supplied their own nobility. So did the Lombards,

>>2898470
Duh! I'd guess aristocracy was all Frankish, but that it accounted for 1-2% of the total population. Most Franks weren't aristocrats.

>>2898443
Dude you're confused. Just because people could get into Venice easily (just like they could get into pretty much everywhere bigger than a village) doesn't mean they became citizens of Venice.
The Serenissima required a foreigner to demonstrably having resided and paid taxes for 25 years before becoming eligible for citizenship, with no allowances for marriage and shit (unless the foreigner is the bride). That's way fucking harsher than it was pretty much everywhere else in Europe. Paris for example only required you to live there a year and a day. Amsterdam let you buy citizenship.
t. Anna Bellavitis, Identité, mariage, mobilité sociale. Citoyennes et citoyens à Venise au XVIe siècle

>>2898492
>I'd guess aristocracy was all Frankish
You guess wrong. Some local nobility remained.

>>2898494
so it used to accept refugees, but didn't hand them citizenship?
Fair enough, I'll look into it.

The two exemples you give though, are even better than Venice then. Two of the most powerful cities of the world, Amsterdam and Paris.

>>2898484
>Under feudal system the concept of citizenship didn't really exist.
Hence the "or equivalent".

>Therefore it is useless to bring up the Franks.
The Franks didn't have minor positions of power that were hereditary and granted some measure of political influence, similar to "citizenship" in Rome?

>Turks/Alexander
I know.

>Rome gave out citizenship easily
After Caracalla, yes.

>Venice
A city state.

>>2898500
yea whatever, that is what the guy I was replying to said. Anyways it depends on what area you are looking at. However the important part was the second: most Franks were not aristocrats

>>2898488
>the Franks did not rule directly over all these cultures as nobles
The Franks most certainly did rule over them, and unless I'm mistaken the King/Emperor and his court were nobles.

>The Aquitanians and Frisians supplied their own nobility. So did the Lombards,
Sure. Although Franks were inserted throughout the empire too.

>>2898502

>After Caracalla, yes.

Before Caracalla, too. Look up the previous posts.

>>2898516
Oh yeah, I forgot.
Making people do military service for 25 years was an "easy" path to citizenship.

>>2898513
>The Franks most certainly did rule over them, and unless I'm mistaken the King/Emperor and his court were nobles.

not rule directly was an important part of that sentence, especially the directly part.

>>2898522
The Frankish court did rule directly.

Although not in the sense that the king/emperor went to everyone in person to give him orders, of course lol.

>>2898501
>so it used to accept refugees, but didn't hand them citizenship?
Pretty much.

I'd be wary of considering my examples any better tho. Amsterdam's financial requirements basically meant that only wealthy traders could effectively gain citizenship, and parisian citizenship meant pretty much jackfuckingshit from a political rights standpoint.
In fact, this whole thread is pretty pointless, because citizenship meant completely different things to different places and times, so the comparisons are rather meaningless.

>>2898521
exactly. It wouldn't be considered easy today, but at the time societies were highly dependant on warfare, and most poor families would invest at least one male kid in the military.

>>2898521
In Athens both of your parents needed to be citizens to become one.

That's a whole lot harder then 25 years of service

>>2898529
OP here, "citizenship" or equivalent has always existed in some form throughout history.

>>2898533
You're an idiot.

>>2898534
>being born is harder than 25 years of military service
You sure?

>>2898543
If you were already born being born again is pretty fucking hard bro

>>2898529
>>2898535

what I'd argue is that empires that were particularly strict and less inclusive, in comparison, weren't able to capitalize over their military strength at a given time, and never really thrived

>Spartans
>Assyrians

>>2898535
Sure, but the rights it implied varied extremely.
Just look at your own example: yes Caracalla extended roman citizenship to all peregrines, but at that point such status wasn't worth dicks compared to roman citizenship in the 2nd century BC. It wasn't a tax exemption. It didn't guarantee you further legal protection. It didn't give you any sort of political rights unless you actually lived in a roman municipium. It was just a way to widen the recruitment pool and tax citizens further.
In effect, you could almost say that Caracalla made all citizens peregrines, and all peregrines enlistable.

>>2898543
>You're an idiot.

kek nice argument, mate

>>2898549
The whole point of the thread is that citizenship is hard to come by if you're not born a citizen.

>>2898555
>In effect, you could almost say that Caracalla made all citizens peregrines, and all peregrines enlistable.
Either way, citizenship is cheapened.

>>2898560
So is "25 years of military service as a second-rate solider is easy".

>>2898551
Inclusivity is a good trait, but simply handing out citizenship not so much.

If you aren't born into the native/dominant culture, you need to prove in some way that you merit becoming part of it.

>>2898565
Yes, so if you compare 25 years of service to: 'No you can only become a citizen through birth' that's pretty easy to attain/

>>2898572
Is there a culture that does that though?

Even European countries still have citizenship tests to get through.

>>2898565
I am just arguing that it wasn't rare for professional soldiers to serve 25 years before retiring. If it wasn't rare, it was not impossible te earn citizenship for oneself and one's own family.

But it"s useless to argue on this, as it is just a matter of opinion.

>>2898565
Can you actually please go take your modern politics somewhere else?
The subject of this thread is
>Has there every been an empire that handed out full citizenship like candy, and thrived?
Then every time someone posts a point in history where that was the case you say
>Nuh-uh that doesn't count
What is the point if you just don't accept contrary information? The way you baselessly refute anything I don't think that there was a point in history ever that would fit your definition of handing it out "like candy"
>The whole point of the thread is that citizenship is hard to come by if you're not born a citizen.
Oh wait you've already admitted that you'll never accept it ever happened

>>2898575
Yes, 25 years of military service is less "hard" than winning the lottery.
But only if you take "hard" to mean "unlikely" here.

>>2898579
The modern Western world.

>>2898581
Citizenship was certainly not impossible to attain, no.
But sacrificing 25 years of your life as a second-rate solider is by no means an "easy" path to citizenship.

>>2898588
>personal attack, the post

Stay on topic pls.

>>2898594
>The modern Western world.
less than 20 years ago, go back to /pol/

>>2898604
The man asked the question, take it up with him.

>>2898601
>Don't address anything, the post

This thread has no topic. It's just you self stroking your politics

>>2898594
Everybody can serve 25 years (of course there are exceptions)

Not everybody can win the lottery, because if you win, some other people don't

>>2898634
Yes, everybody can (try to) do things that are hard.

>>2898616
You were warned, stay on topic.

>>2898641
What is the topic?

>>2898588
>Then every time someone posts a point in history where that was the case you say

Not him, but not a single example of an empire with open citizenship has been given itt.

>>2898646
See >>2897101

>>2898639
If you compare 25 years of hard work as 25 years of hard labour as a farmer I don't think one is harder then the other.

Yes soldiering can get you killed easier (Although ancient farming has it's risks aswell)but soldiering also gets you richer. Not all legions fought constantly and Auxiliaries were regionally based. So an Auxiliary soldier in Southern France would be fighting pirates sometimes but hardly ever face a real threat. Same goes for Africa and Egypt. Spain also was a pretty comfy theater to be based in.

>>2898654
The Roman Empire after Caracalla. The /pol/tard OP himself even gave that one

>>2898665
>and thrived

>>2898662
If you liked the idea of soldiering for Rome, then those 25 years were probably great.
But in and of itself it's still a mighty significant prerequisite.

>>2898665
Even that wasn't truly open because foreigners that arrived after the edict were still foreigners weren't they?

>>2898670
>dismisses that the Roman Empire continued to exist for hundreds of years and that the Edict of Caracalla had no overall negative effects

>>2898670
ERE was richer than all surrounding nations in the 5th century. Same probably goes for the 8th century aswell.

>>2898673
What does that even mean? What do you mean by foreigner? Somene not from the city of Rome? a non-italian? Someone outside the Empire?

What do you mean by "open"

>>2898662
>Auxiliaries were regionally based
Not really. Allied troops were regionally based, but those only gave out citizenship to the officers. The auxilia moved around as much as the legion they were attached to did, if not even more due to cohorts routinely being detached to supplement needy fronts.

>>2898680
ERE didn't have open citizenship.

>>2898675
It started declining after Caracalla.

>>2898120
And exactly how does that differ?

>>2898690
Sources for those claims?

>>2898686
What would I mean with "foreigner in after
the edict of caracalla"?

>>2898689
This.
Legions were sometimes simply present, while auxiliaries were of little use for occupation. They went where the fighting was.

>>2898223
WRE was the backwater of the Dual-Empire. The rich and prosperous eastern provinces were the culturally and economically important parts of the empire while the city of Rome became less and less important.

>>2898265
>Except non-citizens paid higher taxes.
Not at the time of Caracalla.

>>2897929
Why wouldn't you count the Byzantine Empire? All the Hellenes, at the very least, were considered citizens, and you also had Bulgarians, Armenians etc.

It did okay really.

>>2898692
1) If you weren't Greek and Christian, you were a barbarian in ERE. The Christian requirement was even codified as law by Justinian.
2) See any timeline of the Roman empire

>>2898700
Yup.

>>2898718
Because half the Roman empire collapsed.

>>2898689
>>2898694
>During the early Julio-Claudian period, many auxiliary regiments raised in frontier provinces were stationed in or near their home provinces

>>2898751
Don't forget that during the julioclaudian period most auxiliaries came from Spain and Gaul. Your southern french enlisted are gonna go help the Belgae auxiliaries fight the germs off their lawn.

>>2897126
>14th amendment gives citizenship to all people born in the US
>rigorous

not to mention that America became one of the richest countries on Earth at a time where immigrants just had to come here by boat to get citizenship (all the immigration laws happened after that).

>>2898810
This was written in the supposition that illegal immigration would be prevented.
"Anchor babies" are the result of loophole abuse, and only became an issue in the late 20th century, and a real issue in the 21st century.

>>2897101
questions like this kinda makes me ask the question

has there been an empire that immediately fell after they open citizenship?
I mean you seem to be using Rome an an example but they lasted 2 centuries or a thousand after full citizenship depending on whether you think the ERE is a meme or not. Do not count either as "immediate"

>>2898835
You think 2 centuries of decline is "thriving"?

>>2898838
don't really count it as declining

I mean most present day countries have only lived for 2 centuries (like America)

>>2897396
Its just the /pol/ tard running back to his board when his tricks didn't work

>>2897344
>citizenship laws
>no birth certificates of value
>no picture ID's
>no SSN's

All that mattered for citizen rights in most cases was word of mouth (anon was so totes born here, me and my cousin and his friend say so) and opinion of local officials. This has been true for most of history. Hell in 3rd world countries where birth records are less than stellar they still do this shit.

>>2898873
>don't really count it as declining
Tons of historians do.

>>2899205
Stop shitposting and name an empire that gave out citizenship like candy and thrived.

>>2899230
This kind of thing is common wherever immigration isn't really a problem.
In olden days, when gibsmedats were mostly absent and travel was much more difficult, even first-world countries tended not to have immigration problems.

File: Queen.jpg (122KB, 666x1024px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 666x1024px

>>2897101
>Has there every been an empire that handed out full citizenship like candy
Most Empires didn't even have a concept of "Citizenship" dumbass.

As far as most were concerned, you're all subjects who ought to serve the state when needed.

>>2900023
>Most Empires didn't even have a concept of "Citizenship" dumbass.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Next you're going to tell me "most" empires didn't have slaves.

>>2900053
CItizenship was very specific Greco-Roman thing. Outside Rome, the only places where you can find "citizenship" were chartered cities and city states. Citizenship as a statewide thing wont be a thing until meming French Revolutionaries and 19th Century Nationalists will make it so.

As far as monarchies, who tend to build empires, were concerned: everyone was subjects.

>>2900081
Citizenship or similar.

Distinct from slaves, serfs, and other lowly scum.

>>2900081
Don't be a semantic faggot. That shit your posting is like saying that only the Roman Empire and its professed successor-states have had emperors.

>>2897126
>Always had relatively rigorous citizenship rules,

You literally just had to land in the USA in the 19th century to become a citizen. There were no restrictions at all. Modern-day requirements are actually much more strict.

>It's only very recently that illegal immigration has gained a positive image

There was never such a thing as "illegal" immigration prior to the 20th century, it's just a loaded term invented to keep brown people out of the country.

>>2897126
>Always had relatively rigorous citizenship rules, even based on race at various times.

Nigga, up until 1921 there were still states that allowed free non-citizens to vote.

>>2899967
tons of historians count Byzantine empire as Rome

historians shitstorms about "the fall of Rome" as much as /his/

>>2900325
>>2900520
This kind of thing is common wherever immigration isn't really a problem.
In olden days, when gibsmedats were mostly absent and travel was much more difficult, even first-world countries tended not to have immigration problems.

US citizenship laws have at various times explicitly excluded various races, and initially only included whites.

These days, gaining US citizenship is in theory a very stringent process, except for the idiotic exceptions they keep making regarding anchor babies, dreamers, sanctuary cities, etc. Which is all designed to increase the democratic voter base.

>>2901273
Yeah, but ALL historians recognize the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

>>2897126
>/pol/: the post

>>2902095
How so?

>>2902106
He's shitposting.

>>2902106
Because you've linked the granting of citizenship to the destruction of a culture and society, which is a patently /pol/ position to take. As someone who studied the period in great depth and knows that the link between the two is minimal at best I gave up reading your post at that point.

t. a /pol/ack

>>2902484
There is zero doubt that simply importing masses of people of a foreign culture harms the native culture.
That's what cultures do; they occupy space.

Whether this actually destroys societies is something else, hence my question in OP.
And so far, there have been zero examples of societies with truly open citizenship that lasted or thrived for very long thereafter.

File: considerthefollowing.png (293KB, 800x424px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 800x424px

>>2902491
You seem to be under the misinformed belief that Roman citizenship was the same thing as "importing masses of people". Most of the peoples of the Roman Empire had gained citizenship by that point and most of the Roman army had been made up of non-citizen auxiliaries. The Edict of Caracella was literally a formality that merely had the effect of opening up lots more people to taxation and wiping out the last vestiges of customary law in much of the Empire.

You seem to be under the belief that they mass-imported people from outside the Empire and gave them citizenship which isn't true at all. Few of the barbarians that came in from the outside became citizens and the ones that did were nobles and exiled aristocrats who were made citizens to become officers in the Roman army. For instance, Stilicho and Aetius, the two greatest generals of Late Antiquity were both of barbarian ancestry.

If the Romans actually had imported people and given them citizenship your point might be right, but it isn't.

I'm not even going to get onto the mass-use of foederati and laeti in the later Empire but i'm telling you now it had nothing to do with the Edict of Caracella or "citizenship", which isn't the nebulous concept that you seem to think it is.

>>2902506
>You seem to be under the misinformed belief that Roman citizenship was the same thing as "importing masses of people".
Lol.

The vast majority of the subjects of the Roman empire were not citizens. Suddenly the vast majority did become citizens because of Caracalla.

No need to import them, those conquests did that already.

>Most of the peoples of the Roman Empire had gained citizenship by that point
Citation desperately needed.

>>2902518
>The vast majority of the subjects of the Roman empire were not citizens

You're incorrect there. By the start of the 3rd century a majority of the population of the Empire were citizens due to military diplomas, mass-granting by individual emperors etc.

>No need to import them, those conquests did that already.

So i'm confused. Are you suggesting that Gauls and Berbers were less loyal to the empire than Italians had been?

>>2902518
>Citation desperately needed.

A couple of books I read back in uni. I distinctly recall A.H.M Jones mentioning it off-hand. Cannot recall the specifics though. This is /his/ though, so i'll happily ask you for your citations linking citizenship with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. This isn't a place where people can demand someone cite something when they can't cite anything themselves.

>>2902543
>You're incorrect there.
Like I said, citation desperately needed.

>So i'm confused. Are you suggesting that Gauls and Berbers were less loyal to the empire than Italians had been?
If they were thoroughly Romanized, no problem.
Goes back to the culture clash argument.

I'm suggesting large amounts of Roman subjects weren't thoroughly Romanized.

>A couple of books I read back in uni. I distinctly recall A.H.M Jones mentioning it off-hand. Cannot recall the specifics though.
That's what I thought.

Even using the (extremely unlikely) calculation method that most fits your baseless claim, only about 20-30% of the total Roman population was a citizen in the 1st century.

The more likely figure at this time was about 9%.

Source: https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/040604.pdf
Paragraph starts on p.8 and goes to p.9.

File: decline_and_patrick.png (107KB, 354x264px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 354x264px

>>2902572
>only about 20-30% of the total Roman population was a citizen in the 1st century.

I'm not talking about the 1st century. I've been talking about the year 212 AD.

Your source seems to be talking specifically about the enfranchisement of the Latin socii and not about the imperial period when citizenship was less important as a demarcate of identity. The entire reason the honestiores and humiliores distinction came about was because citizenship became increasingly irrelevant.

>If they were thoroughly Romanized, no problem.

This has always been a pretty contentious issue and probably isn't worth getting into right now. A sizeable percentage of the imperial population right down to the 5th century lived virtually the same lives their ancestors had prior to the Roman arrival aside from a more peaceful way of life and easier access to certain foodstuffs. A large number, especially in the countryside, were never really Romanised at all. The most important thing to make clear though, is the degree of Romanisation you had been subject to never made you more loyal to the Empire. The most disloyal people to the Empire were the heavily Romanised aristocracies starting at Civilis and Boudicca and reaching right down to the Bacaudae and senatorial elite of the 5th century. It's a Gibbonian meme that loyalty to Roman values meant loyalty to the Roman state. In the fact its pretty easy to argue that the more Romanised you were, the more you were exposed to a culture that encouraged backstabbing, corruption and promotion at all costs.

>citation desperately needed.

If the thread stays up (which it probably will since we're on /his/) i'll try and get back to you with something from my shelf. Currently doing law coursework and procrasting like a shitter on here.

>>2897331
[Citation needed]

>>2902602
>I'm not talking about the 1st century. I've been talking about the year 212 AD
You say that like you ever posted a source.

According to you, the percentage of Roman citizenship boosted from 15-20% to over 50% in the span of 150 years.

This desperately requires a citation.

>Your source seems to be talking specifically about the enfranchisement of the Latin socii and not about the imperial period when citizenship was less important as a demarcate of identity. The entire reason the honestiores and humiliores distinction came about was because citizenship became increasingly irrelevant.
Stop.
My source is simply talking about citizenship, the topic of the thread.

And the numbers used are based on Roman censuses taken at the time specifically dealing with citizenship.

>This has always been a pretty contentious issue and probably isn't worth getting into right now.
My point is simply that importing/conquering people from different cultures, and then making them the political equivalents of the natives, will dramatically alter the culture of the society.
It is a form of cultural suicide on the part of the natives.
Whether this actually harms societal function is pretty hard to assess, but it very much seems like it doesn't help.

>>2897101
Kublai khan. If you would kowtow to him and recognize his new Chinese title as "son of heaven" and his disputed title as the Khan of Khans, he would do almost anything to integrate other peoples of varying races and religions that could improve his diplomatic, economic, technological, or military strength in the empire.

He would take all comers into his legitimate dominions; like his east asian dominions, mongolian dominions, south Asia dominions, and all the other Russian, Indian, levantene, Persian, Kievan, polish, Central asain, and European, "dominions", though (I use quotations because lands not within his direct control often went at odds with him or held civil wars, but ultimately saw him as the most powerful Khan on earth and usually paid tribute).

God help you though if you didn't accept his parties of ambassadors seeking peace, trade, and tribute.

I know that he eventually started to inflate Chinese currency by over printing cash against his actual reserves of physical wealth and the Mongols were driven from China a century and some change after his establishment of the yuan dynasty, but he deserves credit as being a tolerant and fair despot, paradoxical as that sounds.
He was a conqueror that gave no quarter to any place not in submission to his authority, but he lived up to realize a serious and greatly sought after goal his grandfather Genghis Khan used to muse and ponder over while his Generals and armies rampaged across the known world. Genghis said it's easy to conquer, pillage, and destroy while on the March as nomads, but it is far more difficult to permanently draw your conquered enemies into a peaceful submission and govern them.

Given the Mongols completely crude technology, barbarism, and lack of scholarship and culture in the days of Genghis, Kublai gets very high marks for making use of any creed of man he could use to improve his empire in these areas

>>2902714
"Citizenship" would imply that any of the various people could (as a general rule rather than exception) reach the level of the ruling people (Mongols), was this the case under the Mongols?

>>2898045
>DOMITIAN DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG
this meme has to end

>>2901956
>Yeah, but ALL historians recognize the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

yeah but "when" and "what caused" is always going to cause a flamewar in their community

>>2902933
The point is that the WRE collapsed. Regardless of the extent to which the ERE is considered a continuation of "Rome".

>>2902961
yeah but for a 2 century decline?

also if they didn't give full citizenship then wouldn't the Illyrian emperors and Constantinople not exist? Keep in mind that it wasn't "full-blooded" Romans that saved Rome from the crisis period.

>>2898383
Doesn't contradict what I said.

>>2902986
>yeah but for a 2 century decline?
It certainly seems like the vast majority of scholars puts the start of the decline a few centuries before the actual fall.

>also if they didn't give full citizenship then wouldn't the Illyrian emperors and Constantinople not exist?
The point is not about giving citizenship to non-Romans/non-Italians, but giving out wholesale citizenship.

>>2902991
It does when you look at the entire history and not very recent history.

>>2903023
>The point is not about giving citizenship to non-Romans/non-Italians, but giving out wholesale citizenship.

what's the difference? they both happened at the same time

>>2902798
Yes, particularly in regard to the oversight and governance of China, the Khan preferred to use Saracens, Jews, Nestorians, Slavs, Latins like the polo family, or pretty much anyone but the Chinese because he didn't trust them as governors while they were a people that felt they were under foreign occupation.

His dominions were well regarded as being meritocratic and multicultural where people of little or no noble bearing or mongol blood could rise to positions high in his court or services.

Marco Polo thought that Kublai preferred Christianity as his personal religion as he would kiss and revere a Christian bible on both Easter and Christmas, but Kublai was more of a pragmatic man when it came to spirituality because he would also observe and revere holy days and texts from Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism.

When asked why he partook in all four major religions, he replied that he was hoping to win favor with Jesus, moses, Mohammed, or the Buddha, as he could never be certain which religion was the correct one

>>2897250
Basil II never happened amirite?

>>2903023

What do you regard as "giving out wholesale citizenship"? That's something you've been decrying the entire thread, but never gave a specific example other than "le cucked west".

Of course, it's /pol/ MO to be intentionally vague, because specifics inevitably leads to getting BTFO.

>>2903094
Before Caracalla, Roman citizenship was not given out wholesale.

>>2903097
>particularly in regard to the oversight and governance of China
So conquered areas.
It would seem to me that the Khans would be loath to allow non-Mongols to rule the Mongol heartland for instance, which conflicts with the premise of "political equivalence", as afforded by citizenship.

>>2903266
>What do you regard as "giving out wholesale citizenship"?
What Caracalla did.

>never gave a specific example other than "le cucked west".
I repeatedly specified this: people of foreign cultures (unassimilated of course) being made equivalent to native/conquering populations.
Meaning citizens, or similar.

>>2904009
You forget that Khanbaliq, kublai's new capital, was in a location near modern day Beijing. He had made the plains of north China a land of mongol control. Not to mention that kublai's dominions under his direct control included parts of the Mongolian heartland, in which he often employed foreigners as courtiers and officials for the same reason he did in China; his title as the Khan of Khans was disputed by other Mongol hordes and chieftains and he didn't trust the locals to obvserve his authority as absolute ruler. So yes, he did employ foreigners as high officials even over Mongolia

>>2904584
>Khanbaliq, kublai's new capital, was in a location near modern day Beijing

Because that's where his territory was.
The Mongol empire was divided, and he got China.
Putting his capital there was just common sense considering the situation in China.
Only lasted 100 years too.

And having foreign courtiers was common in any kingdom or empire, but even Kublai with his famed meritocracy and outsourcing greatly upheld Mongolian elitism; see for instance Kublai's election by tribal Mongolian counsels. And the fact that the true positions of leadership were passed down from Mongol to Mongol.

Even the very last Khans around 1900 from Russia still had chinky eyes.

>>2904841
I mentioned about everything you said in my above posts, and it's not like I ever made the claim that a tattooed cannibal negrito from Sumatra could diligently rise through the ranks to a position of supreme importance like, say, becoming a Khan himself.

Aslo, as for the reason that the empire was indeed divided, he held his own kulurtai election in China, a place he knew nearly every other Khan or chieftain would not travel to, and had his own mongol AND foreign dignitaries, goverors, and chieftains elect him in a pretty crooked but cunning fashion.

>>2897126
Pre 1920s all you had to be was not Chinese and you automatically became a citizen

>>2905555
Naturalization was for whites only until the 50s.