The Melting Pot?

One of the things I'll forever thank EB for is teaching me that Europe, North Africa, and central Asia was a melting pot of races and peoples when the American continent was being populated by nomadic tribes (no offence meant to any N.American users of EB).

The Europe and Central-Asia of nowadays, and its peoples, are the results of the intermingling of Romans, Greeks, N.Africans, Franks, Visigoths, Huns, Celts, Vikings, Indo-Europeans, Euro-Asians, Indo-Asians, and anything else you can think of. However, what I'd like to know is this: During EB's timeframe, to what extent was the world a melting pot? Did cultures and ideas freely merge and mix with relative harmony, or was there more tension between peoples than would at first appear? Did the rulers of the great empires (Hellenic, Roman, etc) encourage assimilation with the people they conquered, or were there already ideas of keeping their own race 'pure'? When a conquering power (like for instance, Alexander's empire) settled in an area, where the conquerors encouraged to mingle with the local populations, or was there already forms of segregation then? Were local religions encouraged, or where they replaced by the conqueror's beliefs?

Basically: How easily did the peoples of this time-period co-exist with one another?

NOTE: This is NOT a spam/flame/insult thread. I'm bringing this up so that good, thought-provoking debate can take place. Because of the subject matter, I'll ask people to PLEASE keep things civilized.

afaik Romans looked down even on Italians.

That lasted until the Socii wars where a large part were turned into Romans, and eventually Caesar enfranchising the last part above the padus.

But still and all, Romans looked down on non-romans, and you could not be born roman if both parents were not roman etc.

Rome didn't mind other cultures and beliefs, but of the Roman identity, they guarded it well.

I recently read a book about ancient Antioch and from what can be said from the results of the 1930's excavations and written sources, there was a quarter for greeks and a quarter for local syrians. Both communities, as far as we can tell, did business but didn't mix well and instead seem to have preferred to remain for themselves. In roman times there was a large jewish community that liked to remain for themselves too.

But that's only Antioch, I think the cities further east (Seleuceia and others) are more interesting in this context. But I don't know about them.

Edit: forgot the ubiquitous Cretans. But I think they were staying with the greeks...

In Alexandria stratification reigned supreme aswel if i'm not mistaken

With full blooded macedons eating all the cookies, and proper egyptians from down the nile at the base of the pyramid (hehe, word plays)

As far as melting pot goes, it's pretty much true that from the Neolithic up to the Bronze Age, the whole of "Barbarian" Europe was interlinked. That is one theory of how Neolithic inovations and the Bronze Works spread. (Tribe/Village A transmits it's recently acquired knowledge to Tribe/Village B, which would in turn cause the Tribe/Village B to transmit Tribe/Village C and so forth.), that one of the theories at least.


On another subject, it's thought that Alexander planned to merge the Hellenic and Persian people into one, by forced migrations from the Hellenic people into the East and Vice-Versa. But I suppose it was his desire that Macedonians would remain at the top. That would explain:

1. Why in the collective marriages of his Hellenic Generals, they were all married to Eastern Princesses while no Persian prince was allowed to marry any Hellenic women.

2. Why at the reconciliation banquet at Opis (After a mutiny) the Macedonians were at the center (But yes, one can argue that the Macedonian position was to appease the Macedonian soldiers and Generals)

I suppose Alexandria would be a bit like present-day Jerusalem for the many religion radicals. Muslims passing through Jewish crowded streets would recieve many ankward looks from the Jewish and vice-versa, but they were allowed to be in the Jewish neighbourhoods, just like in Alexandria. I suppose.

There was certainly a lot of mixing of peoples (all those people with Macedonian and Greek heritage as a result of Alexander, mixed Phoenician blood in Carthaginian holdings), but generally only the full-blooded received all the benefits of empire.

Rome was unique in extending it's citizenship beyond the original citizen body (even if it wasn't until after the Social Wars that all of Italy actually gained parity with Latium), with most other cultures citizenship was jealously guarded.

Later on particularly, regardless of your birth, if you were a Roman citizen, you enjoyed all the rights that entailed. Which included not paying taxation after 167BC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

As far as melting pot goes, it's pretty much true that from the Neolithic up to the Bronze Age, the whole of "Barbarian" Europe was interlinked. That is one theory of how Neolithic inovations and the Bronze Works spread. (Tribe/Village A transmits it's recently acquired knowledge to Tribe/Village B, which would in turn cause the Tribe/Village B to transmit Tribe/Village C and so forth.), that one of the theories at least.


On another subject, it's thought that Alexander planned to merge the Hellenic and Persian people into one, by forced migrations from the Hellenic people into the East and Vice-Versa. But I suppose it was his desire that Macedonians would remain at the top. That would explain:

1. Why in the collective marriages of his Hellenic Generals, they were all married to Eastern Princesses while no Persian prince was allowed to marry any Hellenic women.

2. Why at the reconciliation banquet at Opis (After a mutiny) the Macedonians were at the center (But yes, one can argue that the Macedonian position was to appease the Macedonian soldiers and Generals)

I suppose Alexandria would be a bit like present-day Jerusalem for the many religion radicals. Muslims passing through Jewish crowded streets would recieve many ankward looks from the Jewish and vice-versa, but they were allowed to be in the Jewish neighbourhoods, just like in Alexandria. I suppose.

---

I think that Alexanderos did plan on merging them as you said, and as you said, it would clearly imply a political motive. I'm only to add that all his wives (and a eunuch) were persian/sogdian in ethnicity. apparently, only one guy caught the idea and kept his wife (seleukos with Apame)

but what I also wonder is this: how "racist" were poeple in ancient times? were they like mississipians or the KKK, or like caste system?

this thread is deep. I give you :balloon2: for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

There was certainly a lot of mixing of peoples (all those people with Macedonian and Greek heritage as a result of Alexander, mixed Phoenician blood in Carthaginian holdings), but generally only the full-blooded received all the benefits of empire.

Rome was unique in extending it's citizenship beyond the original citizen body (even if it wasn't until after the Social Wars that all of Italy actually gained parity with Latium), with most other cultures citizenship was jealously guarded.

Later on particularly, regardless of your birth, if you were a Roman citizen, you enjoyed all the rights that entailed. Which included not paying taxation after 167BC.

---

actually, they did pay a really nasty inheritance tax from the Augustan period onwards.

I suppose the racism of the day depended on how that region had been affected by foreigners. For instance, it's thought that modern day Russian xenophobia is due, in part, to the Mongol invasion, where Russia was completely ransacked by the horde. As I said, it would totally depend on experience with foreigners, since the tribes of distant cultures were (generally) kind enough to strangers to at least offer food or shelter if they needed it.

The Romans were not really as xenophobic as it is thought, one could become a Roman citizen after all without his ancestry being originally Roman; take the Claudian family, who were Sabines in origin, to which belonged practically all members (save Augustus) of the first imperial dynasty; or how a man like Apuleius later on was considered a Roman, being by origin a Numidian; I also remember a couple of people Caesar mentions who had become Romans and served with him in Gaul, being themselves Gauls originally, judging by their names. Examples are naturally more frequent in the imperial period but the Claudii were a politically prominent family in Rome from very early on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

but what I also wonder is this: how "racist" were poeple in ancient times? were they like mississipians or the KKK, or like caste system?

---

Dude, did you seriously just imply that people from Mississippi are inherently racist? Making broad sweeping generalizations like that is exactly what racism is all about. :dizzy2:

no, I wasn't; just the KKK is (or was) very strong there. I should have been clearer about this. my bad. I know it's not really like that anymore.

*cough* it is *cough*
Anyway, let´s try not to take offense people, racism is one thing, prejudice is something else, and is very enjoyable and always correct. For example I have proof that all Gothenburgers are wierdos and all Norrlänningar dumb-witted idiots. Really, I have proof, right here, not kidding.

and as soon as I find out what Gothenburgers and....things are, I'll have to see that evidence :laugh4:

Spam, spam, lovely spam. AGAIN.~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J.Alco

One of the things I'll forever thank EB for is teaching me that Europe, North Africa, and central Asia was a melting pot of races and peoples when the American continent was being populated by nomadic tribes (no offence meant to any N.American users of EB).

The Europe and Central-Asia of nowadays, and its peoples, are the results of the intermingling of Romans, Greeks, N.Africans, Franks, Visigoths, Huns, Celts, Vikings, Indo-Europeans, Euro-Asians, Indo-Asians, and anything else you can think of. However, what I'd like to know is this: During EB's timeframe, to what extent was the world a melting pot? Did cultures and ideas freely merge and mix with relative harmony, or was there more tension between peoples than would at first appear? Did the rulers of the great empires (Hellenic, Roman, etc) encourage assimilation with the people they conquered, or were there already ideas of keeping their own race 'pure'? When a conquering power (like for instance, Alexander's empire) settled in an area, where the conquerors encouraged to mingle with the local populations, or was there already forms of segregation then? Were local religions encouraged, or where they replaced by the conqueror's beliefs?

Basically: How easily did the peoples of this time-period co-exist with one another?

NOTE: This is NOT a spam/flame/insult thread. I'm bringing this up so that good, thought-provoking debate can take place. Because of the subject matter, I'll ask people to PLEASE keep things civilized.

---

Dont generalize. Moden idea of melting pot or should i say american idea of melting pot can not be carelessly applied to every culture and ethnicity in the world. You are wrong in your assumptions. You are bein close minded and just applying american ideas of the 'melting pot' to the entire world, and you should know that there are people on this world who take pride in who they are and have millenia old traditions and cultures which ofcourse predate the "melting pot" theory.



Have a good day

I wouldn't say that the situation in Imperial Rome is very remote from the "melting pot" metaphore; people learning Latin everywhere, non "pure-Romans" becoming citizens and assuming various offices, dynasties of non Roman emperors (like the Punic Severans), massive influx of eastern religions and cults, well what more do you want for a "melting pot"?

You're right, this is becoming a bit spammed up, bad me :furious3:

But back to the subject at hand, it is true that Rome was a melting pot, when we consider how immigrants came to the city for work, how a lot of Roman technology originated from Greece and how religions (particularly the Cult of Mithras) spread from conquered regions throughout Rome like wildfire. All the same, I imagine Romans tried to keep their own identities, even if they were tied in with one or more other cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long lost Caesar

You're right, this is becoming a bit spammed up, bad me :furious3:

But back to the subject at hand, it is true that Rome was a melting pot, when we consider how immigrants came to the city for work, how a lot of Roman technology originated from Greece and how religions (particularly the Cult of Mithras) spread from conquered regions throughout Rome like wildfire. All the same, I imagine Romans tried to keep their own identities, even if they were tied in with one or more other cultures.

---

Rome is one thing, but the original poster put the entire world under the term of melting pot. Read his first post. He talks about the whole world being a melting pot. Im sorry but that is not true. Empires could be looked at as being melting pots, but smaller kingdoms based on one ethnicity were not. Also depends on an ethnic groups history. For example if a people have always been under attack from foriegn powers, they have a tendency of "sticking with their own" That is how ancient peoples such as Greeks Armenians ect. have survived to this day. If one examines the history of these people you will see if they did infact coopetate with the melting pot idea those people will not exist today as a unique ehtnicity but will have mixed in with the greater Iranian, or Turkish groups.

indeed.

[QUOTE=artavazd]Rome is one thing, but the original poster put the entire world under the term of melting pot. Read his first post. He talks about the whole world being a melting pot. Im sorry but that is not true. QUOTE]

You will note, if you read my post, that I did not say the whole world being a melting pot. I said EUROPE and CENTRAL ASIA. That is not the world. When I mentioned 'the world', given what I'd written previously written it should have been inferred that I meant 'EB's world', as in the places I just mentioned. Please point out in my post where I say that the whole world , and not EB's world, was a melting pot, and you'll find I did not say that. You will also note that in my OP I wasn't asserting anything but rather asking a question.

You are implying I said 'The world was a melting pot long long before the U.S existed'. My post says 'It seems that Europe and Central Asia was a melting pot long before the U.S. Was this really the case?'

Also, you talked of the Greeks and Armenians being seperate ehtnicities. I'm sorry but I do not believe that to be so. Greeks nowadays probably have a good dose of Italian, Turkish, and Western and North-Eastern European blood in their veins (from the Romans, Persians, Celts, Macedonians, and any other peoples from Eastern Europe). Armenians probably mixed with peoples from neighbouring regions and empires as well, given their proximity to the Seleucid, Pontic, and Parthian empires, not to mention they were once part of the Persian empire and the Alexandrian empire. Could there honestly nto have been any kind of intermingling of races in all that time?

So, sorry to say, I'm not wrong, and in the context of Eb's world, I'm not generalizing, but describing the majority of cases.

Good day to you too.

P.S
To other posters, please don't spam up this thread, otherwise you know what'll happen:dancinglock:.

I think what is necessary here is to differentiate between race and ethnicity. The two are not the same. I'm sure Greeks have blood from many different people in their veins, but this is true of every culture. If there are two things humans are good at, it’s moving around and reproducing. Hence, genes are constantly being shared between populations.

But ethnicity is a separate thing all together. It is a social construct, something particular groups adapt to differentiate themselves from others. I’m sure there were third century BC Celts who spoke Greek, dressed like Greeks, and thought of themselves as Greeks. And I’m sure there were Greeks who became, ethnically, Celtic.

So the "melting pot" is two-fold. There was definitely people migrating and mixing genetic material with groups from very different population, but there would have also been people who would change their cultures and how they identified themselves. One of the great accomplishments of Rome, after all, was that by 167 AD, many, if not most, people in their empire saw themselves as Romans, even if many of them had never been to Rome and had no Italians anywhere in their families.

Uh, "race" is a social construct just like ethnicity.

True, race wasn't the exact word I was looking for. But I was using it in the context J.Alco was.

Well I suppose that 'Race' and 'Ethnicity' should be more clearly defined in this discussion. For me, I always thought that the two terms were essentially interchangeable. Perhaps I'm wrong there. How do others here define those terms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uticensis

True, race wasn't the exact word I was looking for. But I was using it in the context J.Alco was.

---

Could the concepts you were trying to explain be named as culture and ethnicity. The culture of a people is all the things they do that define them, such as architecture, mythology, religion, language, customs and all the other things that make a culture unique in respect to other cultures. Ethnicity of a people, on the other hand, could be defined as the blood ties and the genetics they possess that differ them from another ethnic groups. For example romans and karthaginians would be from a different ethnic group.

Of course, these definitions are my own devices and might be impractical. But I must say, that every definition of a race, ethnicity or culture are man made social constructs, in other words theoretical approximations and definitions to discuss and process a real life things that are infinitely too complex to handle.

I think we should maybe get our terms defined and in order before we start using them. Or that's what they teach to me in my uni. And I have to say it's horrible to read some academic texts that don't define and explain the weird terms they use. It is like reading a academic porn or something.... but I digress...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puupertti Ruma

Could the concepts you were trying to explain be named as culture and ethnicity. The culture of a people is all the things they do that define them, such as architecture, mythology, religion, language, customs and all the other things that make a culture unique in respect to other cultures.

---

Trueness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puupertti Ruma

Ethnicity of a people, on the other hand, could be defined as the blood ties and the genetics they possess that differ them from another ethnic groups. For example romans and karthaginians would be from a different ethnic group.

---

Indeed, and not just so. Different ethnicities produce different skins, noses, eyes, etc. To classify a Roman familly in ethnicity I believe it is quite hard, since Romans were Italians by all means. Greeks were...Greeks. Then comes the merging ones, just as Carthaginian which mixed blood (Thus, aspects) of Phoenicians and Native African pre-Berbers, among others (I suppose the Pre-Carthaginian inhabitants in Modern-day Tunisia were like the Numidians?). I suppose ethnicity was born in the tribal period, to differentiate which ones were born into a certain tribe (therefore, of the tribe's ethnicity), from other tribes.
But ultimately, the ethnical groups use the very same concepts culture uses to differentiate one from the others (name, language, history, and religion, etc.) with the addition of a defining differentiating physical appearance and common ancestry.

A common example of how Culture and Ethnicity was interconnected in the minds of everyone is the ideas of the German Empire and Hitler to create a Pan-German Empire (German Culture and German Ethnicity were connected)

Its difficult to easily answer a question like "was the ancient world 0- as per EB - a cultural melting pot?"

As others have pointed out, different civiliaztions (for want of a better turn) would be vastly more or less closed minded to others. For example the Greeks famously refer to everyone foreign as a "barbarian" - barbaros if Im not mistaken. And that term, while not meaning all that we mean in English by barbaric etc, does contain a perjorative sense. ie barbarian peoples are less worthy than Greeks in Greek minds. Just read some Herodotus if you doubt me.

To an extent the Romans appear to have adopted a similar mentality, although ancient scholars always took on the idea that they looked up to the Greeks in some ways and therefore classed the world as civilized and barbarian - rather than Roman and Barbarian. Although I understand this idea is beginning to fall out of fashion in historical circles. Don't forget the Romans used to bury alive random people from "an ethnic group" just to appease the gods on occassion. Not really the behaviour of a people who respect foreign cultures! Of course they were always a practical people however, so would always steal a good idea or two if they spotted one. (ie, Scipio at Zama - or more generally Spanish swords...). And lastly don't forget that once an area had been sufficiently "romanised" it did usually get the franchise. This could be a long hard process and was met with some resentment - but I think Im right in saying that eventually virtually all people who lived within the boundaries of the Empire were granted citizenship?

On the other hand the constant mass migrations of the more northerly tribes must have had a great effect in keeping those people mingled. Areas where a cultual elite from a different ethnic background were in control of a more numerous but less advantaged populace probably had the greatest "melting pot" effect. But then again, this is how to control an empire and prevent the local people from resenting you. Alexander knew this because he had seen the Achaemenid struture previously. But it was unpopular with his more xenophobic countrymen. The Romans found out the hard way (Social wars, Mithridates' initial success in Greece etc etc). The classical hellenes never learnt - which IMO is one major reason why none of them ever became more than powerful city states.

Anyway, my short answer is no. It was not a melting pot. Peoples mingled and there was cultural interaction, but a social hierachy in most situations prevented any true mixing.

[QUOTE=J.Alco]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

Rome is one thing, but the original poster put the entire world under the term of melting pot. Read his first post. He talks about the whole world being a melting pot. Im sorry but that is not true. QUOTE]

You will note, if you read my post, that I did not say the whole world being a melting pot. I said EUROPE and CENTRAL ASIA. That is not the world. When I mentioned 'the world', given what I'd written previously written it should have been inferred that I meant 'EB's world', as in the places I just mentioned. Please point out in my post where I say that the whole world , and not EB's world, was a melting pot, and you'll find I did not say that. You will also note that in my OP I wasn't asserting anything but rather asking a question.

You are implying I said 'The world was a melting pot long long before the U.S existed'. My post says 'It seems that Europe and Central Asia was a melting pot long before the U.S. Was this really the case?'

Also, you talked of the Greeks and Armenians being seperate ehtnicities. I'm sorry but I do not believe that to be so. Greeks nowadays probably have a good dose of Italian, Turkish, and Western and North-Eastern European blood in their veins (from the Romans, Persians, Celts, Macedonians, and any other peoples from Eastern Europe). Armenians probably mixed with peoples from neighbouring regions and empires as well, given their proximity to the Seleucid, Pontic, and Parthian empires, not to mention they were once part of the Persian empire and the Alexandrian empire. Could there honestly nto have been any kind of intermingling of races in all that time?
So, sorry to say, I'm not wrong, and in the context of Eb's world, I'm not generalizing, but describing the majority of cases.

Good day to you too.

P.S
To other posters, please don't spam up this thread, otherwise you know what'll happen:dancinglock:.

---

Just because a people lived under an empire doesnt mean they mixed. There are no records whatsoever of mass populations of Iranians coming into armenia and mixing with armenians. Your logic is very primitive when you think becuase a people were under an empire there were mass population shifts where people mixed. YOU need to study the history of these two peope before making false, and offensive remarks. A Greek mixing with a Turk???? are you seriouse??? you would not make that coment if you had even an once of background in that part of the world. You are looking at history through the eyes of a modern american. STOP. Let me give you a simple fact even to this day an Armenian or a Greek would not marry a Turk. THis is the simple fact of it. There was gene flow, but the gene flow was from the conquered people (Greeks Armenians, Serbs ect) to Turks. If Greeks are mixed with Turks, Greeks would look Asiatic today like the poeple of modern Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan do.


I will agree with you in the case of Armenians and Iranians, there was mixture in amongst the nobility, however the majortiy of the masses never mixed. I can give you an example of this today. THere are large populations of Armenians in Iran today who have been their for atleast 5 CENTURIES and they have not mixed. They speak Armenian and have Armenian churches and Armenian schools. It is just the psyche of Armenians to "stick with their own kind" there is even a word for non-Armenians they are called Otars (similar to the english Other) and if youi think that is "racist" then you can not be so far from the truth, becuase just if you talk to people who have dealth with armenians, they will say they are one of the most hospitable people they have ever seen.


History shapes the conduct and traditions of people. That is why you can not look at everyone with the same eye.

Ok. Mate, I'll tell you this right out now: What you're saying is far more offensive, hurtful, and downright racist than anything I've said in my posts, particularly your comment about 'A greek mixing with a turk'. Be careful of what you're saying as it can be taken the wrong way very very quickly, as what you've written is basically the forum equivalent of a massive bulls-eye.

Perhaps it's you who has a primitive logic concerning history and race relations.

Oh, and I'm not an American, I'm spanish, and I know for a fact that I have Judeo-Arabic ancestry, and that I am probably a distant descendant of Romans and Visigoths. Chances are there is not one smattering of native Iberian blood in my veins, because I very much doubt that any of that remains at all.

I'm still not wrong.

Ok, this has gotten sufficiently racist to warrant a lock.