This was not the Vandals, it was the Visigoths led by Alaric I. The sacking of Rome followed years of rights being stripped away from tribal peoples as a new Cesar transitioned from a period of equality where the tribes enjoyed Roman status, to Emporer Honorius who stripped all that away. This also led to a period of famine and terrible treatment where they were viewed as barbarians, when in fact many left their Pagan ways behind to become Christians.

Alaric I himself was denied a generalship in the regular Roman army, an accomplishment that would have been granted before Horonius.

So, no, comparing this sniveling group of Trump Terds to the Visigoths is wholly inaccurate. It would be more correct to compare it to Native A.erican wars that followed the Trail of Tears, or any of the many atrocities we committed against native peoples.

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1449/sack-of-rome-410-ce/#:~:text=In%20August%20of%20410%20CE,Rome%20and%20sacked%20the%20city.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd been generally aware that Rome had it coming, but I didn't realize exactly how bad the "Rome fell because it incorporated non-Romans into the military" revisionism was. That puts a very, very different spin both on the sack of Rome and the revisionism itself.

[–] Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

There is an excellent book called "Alaric the Goth" by Douglas Boin that goes into a great amount of detail into the cultural shift. A big shift was when Honorius stripped freedom of religion away, this served to move Roman society towards Christianity and reinforced the view of the tribes as barbarians.

And correct, actually incorporating non-Romans into the military was a great way for those tribes to attain a stable life after since they enjoyed the same benefits as Roman soldiers for their service. When that was stripped away, they also would be subjected to terrible treatment and often had poor provisions.