the Roman empire got divided and split up among a lot of heirs. even if you take the metaphor seriously (which you shouldn\u2019t) it\u2019s a partible inheritance type situation and anyone claiming primogeniture is being bigheaded about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
i know what this is referring to and I don\u2019t like it btw because it\u2019s stupidly reactionary, even compared to how reactionary a sentiment \u201cROMANEE FWEEMUS\u201d is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cthe Romans thought Germans were barbarians!\u201d is true and irrelevant because that was 2000 years ago. families and nations change a lot in 2000 years, poor men become rich when they come into their inheritance, lowly children are adopted into high families etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
it\u2019s even a particularly narrowly time-bound sense of roman snobbery to pretend to hold. Sure, I expect the average Roman senator of the Principiate was very snobby about Germans. 300 years later when, to pick one example among several, Clovis was running around I would also expect the snobbier element of the Roman senate to be prejudiced against the Franks, but Clovis was literally heir to several Roman provinces – or rather he was heir to provinces granted somehow to Chlodio and he took it upon himself to gain more. How sincere could anti-German snobbery be when all the high positions in the Western Empire were taken by Germans?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cYou German tinka da you da heirs to da ROMAN EMPIRE. ohhhh, i eata da garum an makeada da laffa\u201d was a silly and basic racist wop take *1500 years ago*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
the Roman empire got divided and split up among a lot of heirs. even if you take the metaphor seriously (which you shouldn\u2019t) it\u2019s a partible inheritance type situation and anyone claiming primogeniture is being bigheaded about it. i know … Continue reading