by Paolo von Schirach–
WASHINGTON – This may surprise some. It is true that the Roman Empire was overcome by the barbarian invasions. However, it is also true that for several centuries the barbarians asked to be admitted into the Empire as immigrants. And the Romans welcomed them. To facilitate this “immigration” process, the Roman Empire developed a fairly well structured immigration policy. Following fairly detailed procedures, the “Barbarians” were allowed in. They came peacefully, with the goal of assimilation. not conquest or domination. Note that in Greek “Barbaros” meant someone who speaks an incomprehensible language, therefore a “non Greek”, or foreigner. The Romans borrowed the term from the Greek language. However, for the Romans the term acquired a pejorative meaning. Something like: “backward”, “uncivilized”, “violent”.
Welcoming the barbarians
Still –and here is the interesting part– even though they looked at the barbarians as uncivilized, for centuries the Romans made immigration deals with barbarian (mostly Germanic) tribes. They welcomed them into their Empire. For this purpose, the Romans created binding legal procedures for integration and assimilation of foreign tribes that were implemented by the imperials authorities and adhered to by the new immigrants. The goal of those foreigners was not conquest. It was assimilation. Forget about wild barbarian invaders slashing, killing, burning and pillaging. On the contrary, the uncivilized barbarians wanted to become peaceful subjects of Rome. And in most cases the Romans welcomed them –for at least three centuries!
The accepted narrative
But this is not the history of Romans and barbarians as most school children learn it. An oversimplified version of the history of the rise an then inglorious decline and fall of the Roman Empire runs more or less like this.
In their glory days, relying on efficient and well organized armed forces, over many centuries the Romans conquered most of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. In the period of its maximum territorial extension, (around the first century AD), the Roman Empire had subjugated many different peoples and civilizations. Their power went from Northern England to Western Europe, the Iberian Peninsula, North Africa and the Balkans, all the way to Egypt and the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula.
With the aid of a fairly efficient imperial bureaucracy, so goes the narrative, the Romans built roads, aqueducts, temples, and theaters in the vast territories they controlled. To this day, one can visit impressive Roman ruins, sometimes very well preserved, scattered all over Europe, the Mediterranean, Anatolia and the Middle East.
The central authorities in Rome and in the provinces of the empire issued and applied fairly well conceived laws. Coherent administrative procedures regulated commerce within the Empire. Imperial functionaries and their agents extracted the taxes necessary to keep the vast state machinery going. On balance, the Romans were tough, sometimes ruthless rulers, but generally within reason. As long as the subjected peoples fully accepted their subordinate condition and paid their taxes and tributes, the Roman authorities would not interfere in their daily lives, religious practices, and customs.
Inglorious, sudden end
However, the simplified history books tell us, this fine-tuned mechanism, the mighty Roman Empire, came to an almost sudden end. And here is what happened. The Romans had not pushed their conquests into what would be today’s Baltic Regions, Eastern Europe and Ukraine. Their vast Empire had no natural, easily defensible eastern borders. This meant that a very long frontier needed to be protected from barbarian incursions with fortifications, and large, permanent (and therefore very expensive) troops deployments.
The Romans knew that on the other side of the long border there were many different tribes, generally defined by them as “barbarians”. (See above). On various occasions, so goes the narrative, the barbarians tried to push into Roman controlled territories. But the disciplined Roman legions, strategically stationed along the border, were always capable of repelling those would be invaders.
Except that, at some point, they could not do this any more. They were overwhelmed by the very large numbers. And so the whole thing –the mighty Roman Empire– collapsed, almost suddenly. Unchecked at the borders, the barbarians invaded. And this was the end of Rome.
How so? The same history books tell us that the Roman treasury was exhausted. The cost of a large, permanent military force to defend the long eastern frontiers had become too high, while over the years the hordes of barbarians trying to cross the frontiers had become too large, and therefore unstoppable.
And so, the civilized, sophisticated Romans were overwhelmed by the larger numbers of uncivilized, violent and ruthless warriors. Those invaders swept into the far more advanced Empire and destroyed everything, plunging Europe into what later on became known as the long “Dark Ages” characterized by lawlessness, destruction of ancient cities, economic collapse, and total misery.
So, this was the quick, inglorious end of the mighty Western Roman Empire. In the year 476 AD, Romulus Augustulus was deposed by the Germanic barbarian Odoacer. He was the last Western Roman Emperor. The Eastern Roman Empire managed to contain the massive onslaught. With Constantinople (the city of Emperor Constantin) as its capital, it endured for almost another 1,000 years. It continued to rule on part of the Balkans, Anatolia and part of the Middle East, until the final Ottoman conquest in 1453.
The real story
Well, here is the simplified story. Except for one thing: It is not true. It did not really go this way. The truth is that the Germanic tribes that lived close to the Empire’s borders for centuries wanted to immigrate into the Roman Empire which they admired. And the Romans were not opposed. In fact, they created a complex legal process whereby various tribes, over a period of more than three hundred years, were allowed into the Empire following tried an tested orderly “immigration” procedures.
The most important mechanism was a foedus, a formal treaty between Rome and a foreign people. Under its terms, the “barbarian” group was allowed to settle inside the Empire with specific rights and obligations that usually included providing military service (in auxilia, or allied contingents), and an obligation of loyalty to Rome and its Emperor. Rights under a foedus typically included land to settle on (not private ownership, but allocation for use) and autonomy in internal affairs (they often kept their own leaders, laws, and tribal organization). Beyond the foedera the Romans created other modalities to integrate foreign tribes, such as land-sharing systems (hospitium), submission agreements (deditio), and military colonization (laeti, foederati). Whatever the instrument used, the aim was always the same: to transform outsiders into loyal subjects many of whom agreed to enlist in the Roman armed forces. In return they would get the relative stability offered by the Empire. The Romans demanded loyalty. However they allowed a high degree of autonomy to the newcomers.
As a result of these arrangements, many barbarians became soldiers attached to the Roman Legions. They were known as auxiliaries. Many years of military service for Rome would open the door to Roman citizenship, a highly coveted and for a long time restricted honor. Other barbarians were employed as farm laborers. (See above). While the system probably was not totally smooth, it created a reliable immigration process that served Rome’s interest (more soldiers, more farmers) while it gave to the new immigrants the opportunity to join a much more developed society.
Barbarians as Roman generals
It should be noted that many barbarians had illustrious military careers while serving in the Roman armed forces. They became loyal defenders of an order created by the Roman civilization that they or their fathers had joined. Here are some notable examples of officers of Gothic and Germanic origin who were promoted to magistri militum, senior generals. Flavius Stilicho (c. 359–408). He was of mixed Vandal and Roman heritage, he was magister utriusque militiae (commander of infantry and cavalry) under Emperor Honorius and effectively ruled the Western Roman Empire for years. Flavius Aetius. He was born to a Scythian or Gothic father (sources differ) and a Roman mother, he became magister militum and defeated Attila the Hun at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. Ricimer was of Suebi/Gothic descent, a magister militum who was the real power behind several Western emperors. Bauto was a Frankish commander who became magister militum in the West. And this is only a small sample within a very long list of senior Roman commanders of barbarian origin.
Regarding the barbarians who were allowed to immigrate, we know of debates among the Roman elites regarding the wisdom of this practice. Some conservative patricians argued that allowing peoples who appeared backward, uncivilized and too different physically from the Romans (and the other Italians and the inhabitants of provinces in western Europe who had become subjects of Rome long before) was a bad idea. Allowing such people into the Empire, most likely would pollute or at least lower the standards of the Roman society. The barbarians would bring with them their odd customs and laws, and their more primitive cultures. Besides, they were too different. Many of them were blond, with blue eyes. Too different from the Romans and the Italians.
Immigrants were evidence of the superiority of Rome
But others within the Roman elites differed. They affirmed that the opposite was true. The fact that backward people wanted to immigrate into the Empire was clear evidence of the superiority of the Roman civilization, with its complex institutions and laws. They argued that Rome should welcome others who wanted to be assimilated. Foreigners who wanted to become like the Romans should be welcomed. In the end, the argument in favor of regulated immigration prevailed. For a few centuries, various Germanic tribes were allowed into the Empire. They settled peacefully.
Roman citizenship to all
Regarding Roman citizenship, for a long time it was granted only to rich and notable individuals within the many conquered territories, and to some non Roman veterans, as noted above. However, at some point, there was an extraordinary change.
In 212 AD Emperor Antoninus Caracalla issued an Edict that bears his name. Also known as the Constitutio Antoniniana, the Edict of Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all free men living within the Roman Empire, while it also expanded the rights of free women. Roman citizenship, up to that point restricted to the peoples of the Italian Peninsula, to Romans living in the Provinces, to few high ranking individuals in conquered territories, and some veterans, all of a sudden became a universal right.
Unfortunately, while we know of the Edict of Caracalla because it was reported by many contemporary commentators, scholars and jurists, we do not have the complete text, and we do not know anything about the debates that must have preceded such an extraordinary extension of citizenship rights. By the same token, the total extent of the new citizenship law is not entirely clear. The Edict said that Roman citizenship would be granted to all those who resided within the Empire at that point. But what about newcomers? Would they also be granted Roman citizenship? Not clear.
What is clear is that this Edict was celebrated in the Provinces. Innumerable children were named Antoninus, or Aurelius, after the name of the Emperor (Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus) who had granted Roman citizenship to all subjects of Rome. Entire families (for instance in Egypt) adopted Aurelii and Antonini as their new family name.
Modern historians debate the actual reasons for the Edict and its real impact. Some have argued that there was nothing magnanimous in this action by Emperor Caracalla. In fact, most likely his real goal was to expand the tax base. Indeed, by becoming citizens, all the inhabitants of the Empire could be hit by certain taxes that only Roman citizens had to pay. While we do not know for sure what the aims of the new law on citizenship could have been, there seems to a consensus that for a while at least it created a stronger sense of belonging. The Empire gained in cohesion. The immigrant aliens had become Roman citizens.
And so, here we have the true and far more interesting narrative about the relations between the Romans and neighboring barbarians. The most important point is that the outsiders wanted to become part of the Empire. And they wanted to do so peacefully. The Romans, on their part, in a very pragmatic way recognized that they could benefit from immigrants who wanted to be assimilated. From this perspective, the Edict of Caracalla of 212 AD, that is the granting of Roman citizenship to all the inhabitants of the Empire, regardless of origin, ethnicity, religion or status seemed to be an inspired move. From that moment on all men could declare: “Civis Romanus Sum”, “I am a Roman citizen”. All this paints a positive picture of an enlightened Roman leadership. A mixture of pragmatism and magnanimity.
What happened?
But then, what happened? What did go wrong? Why did this developed society capable of absorbing and assimilating so many foreign tribes collapse? Probably for multiple reasons, ranging from corruption within the imperial administration to the inability to finance the enormous costs associated with maintaining the Roman Legions.
But here is the main reason. Something changed dramatically among the barbarians who lived in regions bordering the Empire. They began to feel the increasing threats to their physical security coming from other, most bellicose tribes that had pushed west, coming all the way from Central Asia. The Huns, arriving from Central Asia around 370 AD, were the decisive factor. They created an immense pressure on Germanic peoples (especially Goths) who had settled along the Danube frontier. The Goths who lived close to the Roman Empire felt squeezed, with cause. Their desire to cross the border and get into the relative safety of the Roman Empire very quickly became an urgent need. A matter of survival. As a result, the numbers of the would-be immigrants grew exponentially, in a relatively short span of time. As a result, the complex assimilation systems created by the Romans that had worked so well for centuries of gradual and incremental immigration was overwhelmed by this new situation. Too many people arriving, all at the same time.
Battle of Adrianople
An important episode, in hindsight viewed by many historians as the inflection point, illustrates the collapse of the tried and tested assimilation policies. This was the Battle of Adrianople, also known as Battle of Hadrianopolis. It took place on August 9, 378 AD. It was fought between the Roman army led the Eastern Roman Emperor Valens, and Gothic and non Gothic tribes. The military clash took place in a location close to the city of Adrianople in what was known at the time as Tracia. (In contemporary geography this would be in the vicinity of the city of Edirne, in the European region of modern Turkey.)
The battle’s incredible outcome was that the barbarians defeated the Romans, on Roman Empire soil. Emperor Valens who had taken personal charge of the Roman forces was killed in the battle. According to many historians, this crushing defeat was the turning point. The beginning of the end. The Romans, fighting on their own soil, had been beaten by a superior barbarian military force. The orderly immigration and assimilation process that had transformed so many barbarian tribes into loyal Roman subjects was over. The Roman authorities had lost control of the border and of the well crafted immigration and assimilation procedures. What followed was a series of uncontainable invasions.
(That said, we should note that Valens was the Eastern Roman Emperor, and the battle took place in the Eastern Empire. We also know that the Eastern Empire did not collapse on account of this military debacle. In fact it went on for another thousand years, until the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. And yet many historians look at this Roman defeat as a major inflection point, because it was the very first time in which the Roman Legions were soundly beaten by barbarians within the borders of the Empire.)
Immigrants who turned hostile invaders
A detailed contemporary account (from a Roman perspective) of the lead-up to the battle was written by Ammianus Marcellinus. If the ancient chronicler was correct, the barbarians who initially wanted to enter the Empire peacefully became hostile and violent because they had been tricked by dishonest Roman officials. It all began in the familiar way. Emissaries of large barbarian tribes expressed the desire to cross the river Danube and settle in the Roman Empire. The permission was granted. But soon thereafter, things went wrong. First of all, the number of barbarians who wanted to immigrate was particularly large. The Romans had only a small military force to supervise this entry. Furthermore, promises were made but not kept by the Romans in terms of land to be allocated to the newcomers, and modalities of settlement. And finally there was resistance among local people within the Empire. They did not want to have so many foreign newcomers as immediate neighbors.
The barbarian leaders saw the Roman treachery and realized that they had been duped. Counting on their large numbers, they rebelled and engaged in armed combat against the Romans. Due to bad planning and poor coordination with military reinforcements coming from the Western Empire, the army fielded by the Eastern Roman Emperor Valens was soundly beaten. Emperor Valens himself was killed in combat. From that point on, the barbarians were no longer would-be peaceful immigrants. They had become successful invaders. While this reconstruction may be a bit oversimplified, the battle of Adrianople was indeed a turning point.
The orderly system collapsed
Let’s try to make sense of all this. It is undisputable that the Romans were open to accepting immigrants. They were not racist. They had created various modalities aimed at the peaceful integration and eventual assimilation of would-be immigrants. The system worked, for centuries. While many Romans were unhappy with a policy favoring the immigration of barbarians, most of the leaders favored it. The Romans created special military units for the newcomers. At the same time they welcomed them as farm laborers.
More broadly, as the Edict of Caracalla clearly demonstrates, the Romans were neither xenophobic nor religious fanatics suspicious of peoples holding different religious beliefs. Granting Roman citizenship to all those who lived within the Empire, regardless of ethnicity, culture, language or religion, most likely reinforced the allegiance to the institutions and the laws of Rome on the part of so many disparate peoples.
The problem is that the Roman Empire’s well crafted orderly system of peaceful immigration and progressive assimilation eventually failed because of unprecedented volumes of would-be immigrants literally crashing the gates. What had been a manageable inflow of foreigners, at some point became an uncontrollable stampede.
The orderly assimilation process was swept away. There were just too many Gothic tribes that wanted to move west, into the Empire as soon as possible, because they felt the threat of other bellicose tribes, primarily the Huns, that had moved west from Central Asia, this way squeezing them. On account of these radically changed circumstances, the immigrants had turned into invaders.
Is there a lesson for us?
Is there a lesson to be learnt here? Probably there is. Today the western world is confronted with a major immigration issue. Millions of people from poorer countries try to get in, some of them escaping from conflicts, while most of the others are running away from poverty. They try to gain access to developed countries in which life is better.
When it comes to the United States and its historic attractiveness for immigrants, the wise policy should be to have a controlled system in which immigration flows are properly managed. For most of its history, (with notable exceptions), the United States had exactly that: fairly liberal immigration policies . It is not just a figure of speech to say that “America is a country of immigrants”. It was and it is.
However, in recent years, things got out of hand. Indeed, the Biden administration failed miserably in this most achievable task of managing immigration flows. The Federal Immigration authorities overseeing the borders, especially the U.S.-Mexico border, seemed to be captive of absurdly broad interpretations of asylum and refugees norms, whereby anybody seeking asylum would be allowed into the United States. This approach turned into massive abuse on the part of would-be immigrants who falsely claimed to be asylum seekers, creating complete chaos at the southern border with Mexico. This chaos was caused by an incompetent Federal Government that seemed to implicitly encourage anybody who so desired to call themselves asylum seekers or refugees, when in reality they were just economic immigrants.
The evidence that border chaos was an inexcusable self-inflicted wound, rests in the almost instant success of the new Trump administration in stopping –almost overnight– the quasi invasion of literally hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. Indeed, stringent, no nonsense enforcement of the laws created a powerful deterrent for illegal immigrants. Here was and is the simple message: “Do not try to enter the U.S. illegally. You will be caught, and deported. Period”.
Once the would-be immigrants realized that the music had changed, they simply stopped trying. Border apprehension numbers literally collapsed: from more than 100,000 a month to just a few thousands. For example, in May 2025 the number of southwest border encounters was 8,725, marking a 93% decrease from May 2024 (117,905). This example shows that, unlike the Romans who had become unable to defend the borders of their Empire, the U.S. authorities retain both the means and the will to deter those who until recently had believed that entering America illegally was a low risk operation, with excellent chances of success.
Europe is different
That said, Europe offers a very different scenario. Today it is not necessarily a crisis situation that could resemble the above described loss of control of the borders in the Roman Empire. But, within a few years it may become a real crisis.
Let me explain. We know that European Union member states are the desired destination for many would-be immigrants. Many have fled wars and the consequent devastations that made it almost impossible to have a normal life. I am referring to refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and more recently Ukraine.
That said, Europe’s real problem is and will be African immigrants running away from poverty and lack of economic opportunity. This is already an ongoing phenomenon that can be contained, but not stopped. According to some estimates, just in Italy about 700,000 illegal immigrants arrived since 2015. Cumulatively, in the same time frame about 11 million Africans came to Europe through legal channels. An estimated 1.5 to 2 million entered illegally. There are European plans and ideas to prevent illegal immigration by investing in Africa. The idea is that, with good employment prospects at home, young Africans will not be tempted to emigrate to Europe. This sounds like a good idea. The problem is that the funds to implement such investment programs (see for instance the “Mattei Plan”, elaborated in Italy) are minimal. Literally drops in the ocean.
Europe needs immigrants
Given Europe’s extremely low fertility rates, well below replacement levels in most EU countries. an injection of new working age population via regulated immigration could be construed as a blessing. In principle, this is true. In practice, it is not so. To begin with, in many instances it is difficult to assimilate so many newcomers. Most of them are illiterate or semi-literate. They have few valuable skills. Besides, many of them are dark skinned and Muslim. These are additional layers of complexity in countries where most people are white, and at least nominally Christian. Furthermore, in European countries already struggling to provide quality public services (health care, education) to their indigenous population, adding another segment of poor people (the immigrants) who need special care to help them settle, ends up stretching scarce budgetary resources to a point of semi-collapse.
We have seen that these presumably manageable numbers of immigrants, coupled with flows from the Middle East and other parts of the world, have already caused a major political backlash. Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, often openly racist and xenophobic political parties have sprouted all over Europe. In some countries like Italy, France, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Germany they have become major political forces. And this is now, at a time in which the immigration numbers, while significant, are not dramatic.
The upcoming African population explosion
And here we come to the real issue. It is estimated that the issue of waves of African immigration into Europe will become larger, much larger, within about 25 years. All observers project that around 2050 Africa, current population 1.5 billion, will have 2.5 billion people, an enormous population increase in a relatively short time span. Nigeria alone will have more than 400 million inhabitants. At the same time, climate change consequences will have caused massive migrations within Africa. Millions will flee from region that have become uninhabitable. Some have already done so. They are running away from drought stricken regions in East Africa. In all this, with just a few exceptions, most of Africa will continue to be poor and underdeveloped. If today poverty in Africa is already the major factor in encouraging hundreds of thousands to undertake risky and expensive journeys to Europe, imagine the picture in a still poor but truly overpopulated Africa in which young people will have close to zero chances to make a decent living. Where will the new tens of millions seeking a better life go? Given relative geographic proximity, they will go to Europe, the most obvious alternative to a life of misery.
The analogy with the collapse of the Roman Empire immigration system
And this where an analogy between the collapse of the orderly immigration process within the Roman Empire and the likely stampede from Africa to Europe becomes plausible. The Romans managed immigration from the east quite well when the numbers of immigrants were relatively small. When the Goths, harassed and threatened by the Huns, started arriving in massive numbers, the orderly Roman immigration system was overwhelmed by this pressure, and then collapsed.
The coming demographic explosion in Africa, combined with the economic devastation caused by the impact of climate change, are the equivalent for today’s Europe of the Huns pressing the Goths who lived close to the eastern borders of the Roman Empire. The efforts to emigrate from Africa to Europe, already evident today, will become an urgency involving a much larger number of would-be immigrants.
It is reasonable to assume that hundreds of thousands, and soon millions of young Africans, facing a life of perpetual poverty, will try anything. Therefore, given the demographic explosion outlined above, it is reasonable to expect a massive growth of immigration flows from Africa into Europe; some of it legal, but most likely predominantly illegal immigration.
At the present moment, there is no reason for panic. It will take a few years for this pressure to build up. However, keeping these African demographic and climate change impact trends in mind, it would be foolish on the part of Europe’s leaders not to think about ways to handle a new, massive wave of immigration from the Continent that is likely to go on for many years.
True, it is a well known fact that most leaders across the political spectrum have a hard time planning and setting aside very large funds to deal with probable crises that will explode well after their time in office. “Not my problem. Let someone else deal with it.” While this approach is understandable, the likely magnitude of the future immigration floods from Africa is so huge that lack of planning to face this almost certain contingency will have extremely bad consequences.
Paolo von Schirach is the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC. He is also the Editor of the Schirach Report