What is "Europe" in EB's timeframe?

**Watchman** · 05-16-2007, 20:30

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.

**MarcusAureliusAntoninus** · 05-16-2007, 20:48

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

**Watchman** · 05-16-2007, 21:32

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

**Bootsiuv** · 05-16-2007, 23:34

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.

**Tiberius Nero** · 05-17-2007, 02:46

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?

**LordCurlyton** · 05-17-2007, 03:52

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.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 05-17-2007, 11:22

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.