What is "Europe" in EB's timeframe?

The Glory of Persepolis thread, before it turned from a farce into a total farce, got me thinking about how the concept of Europe should be viewed in different eras. It's a tough enough a question to ask what is and isn't a part of Europe in modern times. Not to mention tied to contemporary politics, so let's avoid that question here. Instead, I'm asking about Europe in EB's timeframe.

How do you define Europe? Based on geography? Culture? Language? Something else? Is it even possible to come up with a definition that is not arbitrary? I personally can't think of any good way to draw a line on map and say "this is where Europe ends in EB's timeframe".

I'd like to read of other people's views on the matter. And let's keep the discussion on topic and polite, please.

The ancient borders of Europe are the same you know: to the east up to the Dnieper in the north and up to the Hellespont (Byzantium) in the south.

Good question.

Well, geographically it's the same as before and after. The interesting point would be the cultural borders/zones of influence. Which inevitably - as you already pointed out - leads to the need of a definition of "Europe".
I can't give one, honestly. Whatever comes to my mind also applies to asiatic and north african regions and nationalities of that timeframe.
I mean, they all had some sort of writing, some sort of pantheon, rituals, cultic acts, beliefs, traditions, trade etc., that didn't differ much in principle, only in content.

:dizzy2:

After meditating this, I'd be cautious and stick with the geographical definition and borders.
E.g. there was too much hellenism going around in the world in the EB timeframe to make a distinction possible between Europe and Asia Minor.

Europe is just a geographical boundary, it doesn't say anything about its inhabitants, ethnically or culturally, until very modern times with emerging ideas of "europeanism" vs whatever else.

The geography draws obvious enough borders with seas for the most part, but it does get a little tricky north of the Black Sea. That steppe/forest zone between the Urals and the western terminus of the Great Steppe Belt was always a little fuzzy question in this regard. I'd regard it as a sort of transition zone.

The thing with geographical definitions is that they tend to be arbitrary. Why should the Dnieper mark the boundary rather than some other geographical feature(s)? If there is no reason to setting the border at a particular place, is there any point in trying to define "Europe" to begin with?

Another interesting thing is that if "european" simply refers to any inhabitant of an arbitrarily defined geographical area, then it must follow that for exmple greeks who settle on the Anatolian coast will cease to be europeans, while the huns will become europeans after they've migrated far enough west.

It might in the end result in the ontological impossibility to acknowledge the existence of a thing called "Europe" beyond arbitrarily defined spaces...

:sad:

Now I'm depressed. Philosophy always depresses me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conqueror

The thing with geographical definitions is that they tend to be arbitrary. Why should the Dnieper mark the boundary rather than some other geographical feature(s)? If there is no reason to setting the border at a particular place, is there any point in trying to define "Europe" to begin with?

Another interesting thing is that if "european" simply refers to any inhabitant of an arbitrarily defined geographical area, then it must follow that for exmple greeks who settle on the Anatolian coast will cease to be europeans, while the huns will become europeans after they've migrated far enough west.

---

Well to take your example, Hellanism was about 50% self definition and 50% being let into the club. The Ancient Greeks invented Europe and they simple defined it as everything on the other side of the Hellespont. Europe was an area while Hellenism was a state of being. Later Outremer was never considered part of Europe but it was still part of Chrisendom.

You know, I would imagine both the "europeans" and "asians" at the time regarded the northern steppe with its strange and dangerous horse barbarians as sui generis and not part of either, rendering the question moot. The border of the steppe proper is clearly enough demarcated on the Asian side of the Black Sea by the Caucasus range, but extends quite far into Eastern Europe (as the Hungarian plain) and down the western coast.

I would say, during this time period, that the Mediterranian was a more important geographic structure than the continent of Europe.

Depends on what exactly you mean by "important", I'd say. And then there's the thing that Europe around the Med is rather a bit different in many ways from the Europe north of those mountain ranges ringing it...

However, this discussion is about the contemporary perception of where the division between "Europe" and "Asia" went - and I'm pretty sure the only folks in Europe that cared about the matter were the around the Med, and even there probably only near the actual border zone. Your average Briton, Gaul or German could hardly have cared less, after all, and I rather doubt if the question was particularly central to the average Latin either.

Wouldn't the devision of East and West be the division of Greeks/Hellenistics and Romans/Celts? (IMO)

Nah. That'd be the Mediterranean/North division.

How are we 100% certain that "Europe" in the sense that we think of it today even existed 2000 years ago...I'd imagine anything away from the mediterranean was probably considered barbaric.

In fact, I think most Romans would have probably felt closer to the Ptolemies of Egypt, or even the Carthaginians or Seleucids (none of which were "european" although many were of hellenistic descent) than they did with their fellow "europeans", the gallic and germanic tribes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

How are we 100% certain that "Europe" in the sense that we think of it today even existed 2000 years ago...I'd imagine anything away from the mediterranean was probably considered barbaric.

In fact, I think most Romans would have probably felt closer to the Ptolemies of Egypt, or even the Carthaginians or Seleucids (none of which were "european" although many were of hellenistic descent) than they did with their fellow "europeans", the gallic and germanic tribes.

---

The place is called explicitly "Europe" in ancient sources. It doesn't matter it is full of "barbarians" or what have you, it is called Europe, simple as that. A place doesn't need to be barbarian free to be called Europe, what is so astonishing about this anyway?

Why did I always think of the Urals as the terminus of eastern europe?
IMO that's as good a choice as any. If you're going to geographically/ecologically make the distinct entity known as Europe, which, as mentioned, was already referred to as such in acncient times, than looking for obvious termini are your best choice, since they will be the best barriers to ecological/cultural mixing. To the north, south, and west you have large bodies of water that, with the exception of the British Isles, pretty much isolate continental Europe. Its the east that is tricky, and since mountains are better than rivers at dividing ecologies and peoples I would have to say that the Urals and Cauacasus mountain ranges serve as good termini. Though I prefer to think of it primarily as Eurasia rather than Europe and Asia. No need to add Africa in since its climate is so much different from much of Eurasia as to make ecological mixing moot, even if cultural mixing obviously occured.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Ok, I'm going to say it again. Europe/Asia is defined by the Hellespont, West is Europe East is Asia. Africa was considered seperate completely and Egypt was a grey area. There was no Northern boundary because no one with Europe as an idea really weant that far, remember that even in the time of Augustus they were measuring the world in terms of a square, ex miles long by ex miles wide.

Not entirely sure, but I think Herodotos defines the northern boundary as well. As for Africa, I don't know if they had a name for it whole, or for the known part. The word "Africa" is used by the Romans to refer only to the immediate region of Carthage.

There were Greek trade colonies all around the damn Black Sea, and Skythian mercs and other travelers weren't all that unusual in Hellas, so presumably there was at least some thought expended on the question where "Europe" stops in the north as well.

Dunno if that ever mattered too much to anyone though. I find it difficult to imagine most cared much about that sea of grass in that regard.

Well, they knew something was north but, to be honest, it was mostly just woolly barbarians up ther and if you wear trousers you're not that important, unless you need killing/subjugating.

That's why I never wear trousers.