Rome 410AD - Lessons For Today

On Wednesday morning the BBC Radio 4 news programme 'Today' did a feature on the sacking of Rome in 410, the event that started the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, an event that would have repercussions down the Centuries.

Right: Alaric the King of the Visigoths.

It has long been accepted that the "barbarians" were in fact Christians and Roman-allies, but it was interesting to hear the view of a German historian based in Rome on the events of 1600 years ago.

Furthermore when he related the events, I couldn't help think of events closer to home, in relation to both Zionist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recent internal events in the BNP.

Some people aren't aware that the Visigoths, led by Alaric I, were Roman allies and Christians, nor that they had fought many battles against the "Western Romans" on behalf of the "Eastern Romans" nor that they ran a virtually autonomous region of the Roman Empire.

The German historian on Today said that the reason the Visigoths sacked Rome was that the Roman Emperor had not paid them. They had earlier besieged Rome, only to leave once paid. But this time they sacked it. The German historian (whose name I forget!) said the sacking could well have been taking treasure, as opposed to burning the city to the ground.

As virtual-Romans we might think the Visigoths wouldn't destroy Rome, but then Medieval armies would often burn down towns in their own country and often even attack churches, when you might think their sensibilities would dictate otherwise.

Anyway, back to the Visigoths.

Did the Roman Emperor at the time think that by not paying an army that was essential to the security of the Empire (it's frontier against other Germanic tribes) he was doing something that would go unnoticed? Clearly his eye was taken off the "bigger picture" -- perhaps he was greedy, perhaps he was a betrayer, or maybe he was just careless and stupid.

Either way, a people that he should have ensured were looked after and kept (to use the quaint analogy) in the tent "piddling" out, were forced out of the tent, "piddling" in.

As Captain Alberto Bertorelli might have said in the 80's TV series 'Allo 'Allo: "What a mistake-a to make-a."

So why the relevance to Zionist Wars and the BNP.

Zionist Wars:

In Iraq it wasn't until the Americans learnt to employ (pay) former insurgent enemies that relative peace happened. Should the pay stop - which some now hint at - the violence could easily start again.

In Afghanistan, many pundits are now admitting that relative peace will not come until the Taliban are brought into talks, ultimately to share power, run swathes of the country and suchlike, which will mean giving them either semi-autonomy (like the Visigoths) or paying their wages.

To those who rant that we cant work with Islamists, others point to Northern Ireland and the example of former IRA people being paid by the British State - i.e. employed by the Stormont devolved government. I suppose if these positions et al were withdrawn the small band.

All this teaches us that one-time enemies (Germans to the Romans) can become allies, and one-time close allies doing an important job in keeping the peace, the machinery, running smoothly (Visigoths to the Romans) can become the very force that brings the whole structure crumbling to the ground.

If the Americans and their puppet regimes try to assert their power against the new allies, the whole power structure of Iraq could unravel very rapidly. At the moment they are still trying to assert their power in Afghanistan, ignoring the elephant in the room, i.e. that the Taliban will either win via long term erosion, or will have to be brought on board a la Iraq.

BNP:

Well, nationalism per se down the decades has been awash with similar examples, yet if we are to believe reports, the Nu-BNP recent fractures and fratricides have had more to do with finances and the changing of stipends, the way wages flow etc. It makes the accusations in the 1989 NF split in which the scourge of political wages were raised (ironically by Nick Griffin) look like child's play.

All this seems to have begun when Nick Griffin and Mark Collett fell out, the latter having once been presented to the world as the person who would be the next BNP leader. Collett accused Griffin of financial skulduggery, and griffin went to the media with a story of Collett plotting murder (the police later dropped its investigation for lack of admissible proof).

Despite many councillors, and power-bases come and gone, and even two MEPs, might the BNP's Rome be sacked by former loyalists initially riled by Collett's accusation of misappropriation of funds?

If Collett were kept loyal and paid his wages, he would have stayed in place and not, like Alaric, let vent to his feelings of injustice, opening the flood gates for all the other "barbarians" and the downfall of the BNP?