The Melting Pot?

[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.

[mini]

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 of the Storm]

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...

[mini]

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)

[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.

[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.

[Ibrahim]

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 for it.

[artavazd]

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

[Tiberius Nero]

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"?

[Long lost Caesar]

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

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.

[artavazd]

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

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.

[Ibrahim]

indeed.

[J.Alco]

[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.

[Cambyses]

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.