How were MENA people treated in Ancient Greece and Rome?

Carthage got carthaged
rest of north africa was the wheat supplier, local populace was either submitting or into banditry/piracy

>>2562625

They didn't exist as a category.

File: dumb_snowniggers.jpg (395KB, 2348x1154px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 2348x1154px

They were considered intelligent and civilized unlike snowniggers.

File: septimus-and-marcus.png (2MB, 1185x797px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1185x797px

While the Roman Empire did have a couple of foreign emperors, we can say that it was never ruled by a non-Mediterranean. They were all either Iberians, Punic-Berbers, Balkan people or descendants of Roman colonists, so it's clear that they were more respected than the rest of the subjects.

>>2562646
Cause they were born in chains, like the dogs they are.

>>2562646
African = North-African for Romans.

File: Illustrerad_Verldshistoria_band_I_Ill_107.jpg (1MB, 1541x2345px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1541x2345px

Was Thales treated with respect?

>Thales of Miletus (/ˈθeJliːz/; Greek: Θαλῆς (ὁ Μῑλήσιος), Thalēs; c. 624 – c. 546 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek/Phoenician philosopher, mathematician and astronomer from Miletus in Asia Minor (present-day Milet in Turkey). He was one of the Seven Sages of Greece. Many, most notably Aristotle, regard him as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition,[1][2] and he is otherwise historically recognized as the first individual in Western civilization known to have entertained and engaged in scientific philosophy

>The current historical consensus is that Thales was born in the city of Miletus around the mid 620s BC from Phoenician parents, although some historians say he was a Phoenician who emigrated to Miletus with his parents

>>2562625
People of Greece and Rome look up to Egyptians and Babylonians the same way we look up to ancient Greece and Rome today

Greeks in Alexander era consider Persians the only ethnic outside hellas as equal to themself, and the only one worth marrying, they're later considered the main rival of Romans and Byzantine

Coasts of anatolia consist part of the wider hellenic world, the Romans considered themselves descendant of ancient Trojans

>>2562625
Different but not "badly."

>>2562739
>Greeks in Alexander era consider Persians the only ethnic outside hellas as equal to themself, and the only one worth marrying

Actually only Alexander was obsessed with mixing with Persians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susa_weddings

>Alexander intended to symbolically unite the Persian and Macedonian cultures, by taking a Persian wife himself and celebrating a mass wedding with Persian ceremony along with his officers, for whom he arranged marriages with noble Persian wives.[2] The union was not only symbolic, as the new offspring were to be the children of both civilizations.

>What the Macedonians thought of these marriages is evident from the fact that the nobles all divorced their wives after Alexander's death, except Hephaestion, who died before Alexander, and Seleucus. So in spite of Alexander's precedent, the Macedonians were no more inclined to share equally with the Persians than before.

File: beautiful-Iranian-eyes-women-03.jpg (102KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 640x640px

>>2562786
>not wanting to fuck hot Persian women

Holy shit, how can they be gayer than Alexander himself?

>>2562817
Rhinoplasty didn't exist back then

File: article-2271134-1743E26F000005DC-20_634x670.jpg (105KB, 634x670px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 634x670px

>>2562835

>>2562625
>MENA
So Egyptians, Carthaginians, phoenicians, Parthians etc.?
The Mediterranean was "The civilized world" at the time. Egypt's history and civilization was admired by all, the Carthaginians were a military powerhouse, the eastern coast of the Mediterranean was inhabited by various seafaring cultures and trading peoples and the Parthian Empire was a notable Roman adversary.

File: cleopatra.jpg (53KB, 680x691px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 680x691px

>>2562835
>

>>2562625
Fine. There were Syrian men fucking Celtic British woman at Hadrian's Wall so clearly the locals didn't have an issue with it.

>>2563034
Marcus Aurelius married his daughter off to a Syrian man

>As an unattached link to Emperor Aurelius and to the late co-Emperor Verus and because of her royal-born offspring, Lucilla was not destined for a long widowhood, and thus, a short time later, in 169, her father arranged a second marriage for her with Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus from Antioch. He was a Syrian Roman who was twice consul and a political ally to her father, but Lucilla and her mother were against the marriage as a less than ideal match, partly because Quintianus was at least twice Lucilla's age

>>2563098
Septimius Severus was Syrian.

>>2563253
Septimus Severus was Punic. His wife was Syrian

File: Zeno_of_Citium_pushkin.jpg (946KB, 791x1518px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 791x1518px

The early Romans were assholes to the Phoenicians but the Greeks were buddies with them. Figures such as Thales and Zeno of Citium had great impact on Greek culture and civilization and the Greek alphabet is derived from the Phoenician one.

>>2562835
top fucking kek

>>2562835
That's funny considering Greeks and Italians are among the biggest nationalities obsessed with corrective surgery.

>>2563345
[citation needed]

File: tumblr_n53v9emmD71rl2xsfo1_1280.jpg (182KB, 987x911px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 987x911px

>>2562912
>>2563345
>all those Italian girls getting rid of their Roman noses

Bitches don't know the history it carries.

>>2562912
>>2563359
Also do you know where the Aquiline nose comes from?

>>2562817
>face so covered in makeup and instagram filters that you can't even see the nose anymore

I wonder just how fugly she must be.

File: 1457928173436.jpg (17KB, 270x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 270x320px

>>2562625
>Caracalla kept his beard trimmed shorter than his predecessors but wore his curly black hair fairly long; he seems to have had Syrian or Arab features like his mother. During his campaigns in Germania he wore a blond wig and Celtic clothing.

>blond wig and Celtic clothing

What did he mean by this?

>>2563376
Post an Italian or Greek woman who hasn't had any cosmetic surgery, make up on, or photoshoopin done.

>>2562625
Egyptians bow down to the aenids

File: muh heritage.jpg (1MB, 1920x1210px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1210px

>>2563383
He also had some Gallic ancestry. He was pretty much an ancient Murrican "muh heritaging".

File: Hannibal-Barca.jpg (17KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x300px

Why did the Romans hate the based Carthaginians so much?

>>2563367
>>2563373
>>2562912
Skin and Hair probably has to do with Baldness and moles. Moles can morph into cancer btw, so not all mole removal is superficial in nature.

File: 1481881312359.png (98KB, 748x1052px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 748x1052px

>>2564150
They were competition.

>>2562625
Fine. As noted in the third post the Romans considered North Africans and Levantines to be civilized peoples, unlike e.g. Germanic tribes. Aegyptus was the wealthiest and most developed province of the empire, and there were several Roman emperors of Middle Eastern or North African descent (Severus for example was half-Punic).

>>2564382
>tfw the bad guys won

>>2562684
Who is Maximinus Thrax(gothic+thracian)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHDyw6tboyg

>>2564428
>he was born in Thrace or Moesia to a Gothic father and an Alanic mother,[5] an Iranian people of the Scythian-Sarmatian branch; however, the supposed parentage is highly unlikely, as the presence of the Goths in the Danubian area is first attested after the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century. British historian Ronald Syme, writing that "the word 'Gothia' should have sufficed for condemnation" of the passage in the Augustan History, felt that the burden of evidence from Herodian, Syncellus and elsewhere pointed to Maximinus having been born in Moesia.[6] The references to his "Gothic" ancestry might refer to a Thracian Getae origin (the two populations were often confused by later writers, most notably by Jordanes in his Getica), as suggested by the paragraphs describing how "he was singularly beloved by the Getae, moreover, as if he were one of themselves" and how he spoke "almost pure Thracian".

>>2564363
Good thing that chart isn't citing anything but aesthetic corrective surgery.

>>2563293
Oh, that's right. That was dumb of me.

They would crucify em

>>2562737

The ancient Greeks were the most non-racist people of the ancient world.

The designation of barbarian was entirely cultural.

If they wanted to separate themselves along racial lines, they would have distinguished themselves from the others as "non-Greeks". But barbarian was someone who did not speak Greek. In fact the Ionian Greeks did not have a problem living together with the Anatolian peoples in Asia Minor, or the Dorian Greeks living together with Italics.

The elitist racism found sometimes in Plato and Aristotle was entirely borrowed from the Spartan eugenic and oligarchic way of life and outlook. Yet this idea was entirely absent in the personality of Alexander or in the Hellenistic era.

>>2563023
I'd do her desu senpaitachi

>>2562912
>Greeks bleach their skin and hair
Phew.

>>2562625
Wow, the guy looks better in marble

>>2565039
You don't understand. That includes things like removing moles that have a chance of developing into cancer.

>>2566227
If you keep talking like that, you're not doing anyone buddy.

>>2564390
The Carthaginians were loathed for their frequent child sacrifices.

>>2567022
I don't think you understand. That chart lists corrective physical surgery for people getting facejobs, nosejobs, breast implants, tummy tucks, all cosmetic stuff.

>>2562835
lmao

>>2562646
Greek here.

My understanding is that Aristotle and Plato considered Asiatics smarter but vastly more subservient, and considered people to the West dumber but said they valued their freedom/liberty a lot more, which the Greeks and later Romans (See Tacitus) admired a lot.

And of course, North Africa to them was a land populated by Greco-Roman settlements, Berbers, Numidians, Phoenicians etc, it was vastly different to what it was today.

>>2562941
Yes and no, Phoenicians were considered smart but duplicitous and cunning (see Livy) and the same held true for attitudes towards the Jews, which were remarkably similar to Medieval European views (see Cicero on this).

Romans had a lot of contempt for Asiatic ways and manners, part of the propaganda against Antonius was that he had become bewitched by an "Eastern" woman. And if I recall correct, Actium was framed in some Augustan propaganda as not just a defense of Rome, but a defense of classical Greek culture against Easterners in the same way the Greco-Persian wars had been seen.

>>2568229
I think the non-invasive procedures listed are mostly bleaching.
At the top are mostly countries with lots of dark features.
I agree you probably wouldn't seek out a plastic surgeon if you wanted to remove a mole, but a dermatologist.

>>2562912
Greece has some of the lowest priced, best quality plastic surgery in Europe, so a lot of foreigners come here for it too. Especially since our economy went to shit.

>>2563034
>so clearly the locals didn't have an issue with it.

We don't know this for sure since the testimony of the average Briton of that time is essentially obscured.

Bear in mind that there were what, two or three legions in Britain plus auxilliaries? Compared to a total population of a couple of million, it's a drop in the water.

>>2566095
Untrue, Isocrates also identifies preservation of racial stock as an advisable goal for a state to follow.

The cities of classical Greece had a comparatively large number of metics, but very few were ever given citizenship or allowed to participate in the body politic in a meaningful way - that was by design (and modern European nations could do a lot to learn from that more conservative attitude to who should be given citizenship).

>>2568610
>>2568578
I am red piled now and racially conscious

>>2568615
Good, be sure to act as a double agent for us by continuing to attend your local antifa meetings at the nearest gloryhole.

>>2568620
and you be sure to nitpick more details that don't represent the overall spirit of the times

i bet you'll find SOMETHING about how the greeks were pale blonds protecting themselves from the vastly different (racially) middle easterners

>>2562684
B-b-but Rome was a multicultural society free of hate!!!

File: Septimius_Severus_busto-Musei_Capitolini.jpg (234KB, 1109x1600px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1109x1600px

>>2568578
That was only in the beginning. Rome was literally ruled by a Carthaginian a few hundred years later.

>>2568610

From wiki

"Our city has so far surpassed other men in thought and speech that students of Athens have become the teachers of others, and the city has made the name “Greek” seem to be not that of a people but of a way of thinking; and people are called Greeks because they share in our education (paideusis) rather than in our birth" -Isocrates

What Socrates is saying here is that Athenian culture extends beyond Athens and affects all of Greece despite birth.

Also citizenship in the Ancient Greek city state system had nothing racial about it. It was more tribal. Athenians still considered other Ionians closer to them than Dorians, or Aeolians. And because citizenship came with responsibilities, duties, and participation in the commons, metics who participated only in the economic life could not be granted citizenship for these obvious reasons.

For the reasons that outlined above there is no reason to beleive Greeks with the exception of Sparta, had any "racial" consciousness, and the proof is all the extension and mingling during the colonization period and the Hellenistic age.

>>2568657
I am a swarthy Greek nigger (not really, I have green eyes, but you get the idea - I'm not some nordicist).

My point is that there has always been a concept of "race" (i.e. groups based on common ancestral descent as opposed to other groups who derive identity based on common descent) and that this has usually been the biggest factor in group formation alongside (and perhaps in tandem with) religion, as well as group conflict.

The reason they were sort of crude about defining this concept ("uhh, we're different from those guys over there because we look different and descend from a different demi-god/hero-figure") is because they didn't understand the concept of divergent evolution, you mug.

Ethnic conflict is all over Roman History, the massacre of the Italians at the behest of Mithridates in Asia Minor (they were despised by the Greeks and other Anatolians), the endless violent outbursts between Greeks and Jews and Italians (the Jews engaged in Hutu/Tutsi style massacres upon the outbreak of the Bar Kochba rebellion in places like Cyprus) and so on.

Of course, the Roman Empire became more universal as it went along (Caracalla's decree being a good illustration of this) - whether this was a net benefit or not is a topic for debate.

>>2568673

Isocrates*

>>2568673
I think you are confusing Isocrates and Socrates, they are two different people. The passage you quoted is Isocrates, and he's saying it's a matter of common culture rather than common birth because for him and his contemporaries, the idea of all of Greece uniting under a single banner was in itself a sort of mini-universalism - their own respective ancestries and identities tended to supersede that of a common Hellenic identity unless they actually had to face an existential threat (e.g. Persia).

Isocrates also says in another fragment that term "best" should not be applied to a city on account of whom it attracts from outside, but on account of how well it "preserves the race of the original inhabitants".

>>2568670
>half-Carthaginian

Agreed.

The increasing universalism of Rome from about the third century onwards is not what I'm disputing though.

>>2568674
>all peoples of the same race

>>2568674

It is my understanding that the Greek/Jew conflict during the Jewish revolts against Rome was more religious than ethnic.

Once the rebellions died down Jews were accepted once more into the Empire, with relatively little inter-faith conflict until the middle-ages. So the Romans did not have a problem with the Jews themselves per se, but with their religion denying the divine authority of the Emperor and the co-habitation with other polytheistic religions.

File: Bust_Hadrian_Musei_Capitolini_MC817_cropped.jpg (72KB, 683x768px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 683x768px

>>2568691
>The increasing universalism of Rome from about the third century onwards

It started with Hadrian. He was the first non-Italic emperor.

>>2568673

confirmed for never actually reading the panegyricus, Isocrates here is urging the Greeks to unite against the Persians after the "King's Peace" had broken down - he goes on to say that Athenians are the purest Greeks around - he verbatim says it is best placed to lead the Greeks because 'it does not contain a mixed collection of races' but instead can trace descent back to its founder among all citizens.

you are an absolute fucking moron, go back and read the things you're randomly spitting out with no context.

did you find that on a fucking government website about multiculturalism or something?

>>2568715
>this lashing out at a quote from the very guy
>confounding multiculturalism with races
>doesn't even know who is what race
>insults people
you tried at least

>>2568697
Jews were even more of a cohesive ethnic group back then than they are now.

>Once the rebellions died down Jews were accepted once more into the Empire, with relatively little inter-faith conflict until the middle-ages

No, the conflicts in areas with close proximity between Jew and non-Jew continued for centuries, Alexandria's various riots being the best example.

>>2568702
He was from an Italian colony in Spain, his paternal line was almost assuredly Italian, his maternal line is more unclear as Italian colonists often took foreign wives which probably made him an outsider in Rome to some degree - that being said Roman identity, much like Han Chinese, was staunchly patrilineal and I doubt anyone would dispute the hyper ethnocentric nature of most Chinese.

>>2568722
nice non-argument, like I said, go and read the panegyricus before you start quoting from it - it means the opposite of what you think it does when you're quoting a guy who very clearly had a racial consciousness to assert ancient greeks had no such thing.

>>2568715
>Another libtard BTFO'd

Sad!

File: comfy med.jpg (53KB, 642x579px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 642x579px

>>2568657
>i bet you'll find SOMETHING about how the greeks were pale blonds protecting themselves from the vastly different (racially) middle easterners

The only thing you'll find is Greeks differentiating themselves from both the piss haired nordcucks of the north and the darker Egyptians of the south. The same is true today.

>>2568715

The piece is pro-Athenian, but not against the unification of Greece under the Athenian intellectual culture and military power.

I don't understand why you are so triggered, the justifications why Isocrates considered the Athenians to be better than everyone else matter little. What matters is that the Athenians already considered their achievements as extending beyond their particular way of life or genus. I think this is obvious, and Socrates says the same thing in the Republic.

The previous point I was making is that Ionian culture itself, was extending itself beyond the Greek city states, even before the Persian wars.

>>2568673
>Also citizenship in the Ancient Greek city state system had nothing racial about it.

Yes it did. They conceptualized themselves as distinct racial groups coming from distinct founder populations embodied by heroic figures or demi-Gods. That's why it was restrictive even to other Greeks, although certain ius sanguinus esque provisions were made in Athenian law (if your father was an Athenian by your mother was X, then you could provided you fulfilled criteria Y and Z).

>metics who participated only in the economic life could not be granted citizenship for these obvious reasons.

You're confusing the egg and the chicken here. The metics were refused citizenship not because they didn't fulfill such responsibilities but because the Greeks didn't WANT them to fulfill such responsibilities. There were 4th/5th generation metics living in 5th century Athens who had zero legal rights beyond those afforded to resident foreigners.

>>2568743
And interestingly enough all these 3 peoples belong to the same race.
>>2568735
You don't understand your own arguments and what they point to. Better think a little, OK?

>>2568743
Most of us actually get mad if you say we aren't white, honestly. But you're right.

I do respect Nordic history though, I can't stand leftists of any stripe however. My country has been fucked by them for decades.

>>2568754
>And interestingly enough all these 3 peoples belong to the same race.

In the broadest possible sense, yes. Caucasoids constitute a racial group, but it's not really socially meaningful despite being biologically meaningful (cluster together on PCA, similar anthropological features like skull shape/size etc).

To get socially meaningful groups, you have to drill down further.

>>2568728

>Jews were even more of a cohesive ethnic group back then than they are now.

To the Romans, whose subjects included the Celts, the Egyptians and the Iberians it mattered little what the Jews were.

For the Jews what mattered was precisely the persecution of their religion and the messiah question that went hand in hand with the previous issue. The Jews did not revolt under the Persian empire. Historical bad luck had the Romans facing the Jewish religious war due to the circumstances and particularities of the previous Greek polytheistic and Jewish mutual antipathy for each other after the Maccabean Revolt .

>No, the conflicts in areas with close proximity between Jew and non-Jew continued for centuries, Alexandria's various riots being the best example.

The Alexandrian riots were motivated by Christian-Jewish religious conflict, they were not ethnic in nature.

I am not aware of any other riots in Alexandria other than those that got Hypatia killed. The revolts prior to that were concurrent with the First Jewish–Roman War.

>>2568744

i don't understand what point you are trying to make here, the simple fact is that isocrates advocates athens leading the other greeks on account of their racial purity.

this isn't some corruption of language, you can jump on wikisource or lacus curtius or whatever has the translation in question and read it for yourself.

you are using a man who quite clearly had a racial consciousness to assert that racial consciousness was alien to ancient greece, and that's all that matters here.

just read the damn thing instead of reading your own contemporary political sympathies into it.

>>2568770
>To the Romans, whose subjects included the Celts, the Egyptians and the Iberians it mattered little what the Jews were.
>For the Jews what mattered was precisely the persecution of their religion and the messiah question that went hand in hand with the previous issue. The Jews did not revolt under the Persian empire. Historical bad luck had the Romans facing the Jewish religious war due to the circumstances and particularities of the previous Greek polytheistic and Jewish mutual antipathy for each other after the Maccabean Revolt .

This doesn't really relate to my original point.

The Jews were and are an ethnic group, and back then they would have appeared even more homogeneous to classical contemporaries because the diaspora and ensuing mixing was not as pronounced as it became in late antiquity and the middle ages.

>The Alexandrian riots were motivated by Christian-Jewish religious conflict, they were not ethnic in nature.

You can't seriously be this historically illiterate, the first two centuries AD saw numerous large and small scale riots, most prominent in the 30s and 60s. This had nothing to do with Christianity...

You strike me as an extraordinarily arrogant person to make all these naked assertions when continually being proven wrong.

>>2568765
I just made you say that race is often a social construct.
How do you feel about the fact that the things described in this >>2568674 post are objectively speaking intra-racial and not actually objectively based on race, but on culture and socially meaningful factors.

>>2568772
This. Isocrates' whole argument is the autochtony of Athenian supremacy and he leverages racial purity and lineage as part of this argument. Using him as an argument against the notion Greeks were a racially conscious people seems self-defeating.

>>2568779
>I just made you say that race is often a social construct.

It is both a social and a biological construct, yes. I've never denied this.

Do you have some strawman in your head about what I believe concerning race?

Let me guess, anyone who doesn't believe the notion of racial consciousness was made up by a group of nefarious western european pseudo-scientists in the 19th century is some sort of caricature of a person from a certain imageboard on this site in your mind?

>How do you feel about the fact that the things described in this >>2568674 post are objectively speaking intra-racial and not actually objectively based on race, but on culture and socially meaningful factors.

I am that poster and I relate you back to my initial point. Race is both social and biological. Why is this such a matter of ideological purity to you? You can just admit when you're wrong sometimes you know, this isn't some sort of dialectical struggle session with the comrades.

>>2568610
That's incredibly problematic

>>2568751

>You're confusing the egg and the chicken here. The metics were refused citizenship not because they didn't fulfill such responsibilities but because the Greeks didn't WANT them to fulfill such responsibilities. There were 4th/5th generation metics living in 5th century Athens who had zero legal rights beyond those afforded to resident foreigners.

Its not a problem of origin or ideological justification why they did not give metics representation, but precisely what was at risk if they did.

The Greeks did not preserve the tribal "blood" origin by the time the Peloponnesian war ended. Of course prior mutual antipathy forced the Athenians to describe Dorians for example as "lesser", ut the educated Athenian elite, like Plato, knew better.

It is almost certain that what Plato illustrates in the Republic as the "noble lie" is what most sophistic thought accepted as an evident political truth at the time, namely that myth had to justify ideologically the existing system. Furthermore it was evident to Plato in the Republic that the Peloponnesian war was a terrible mistake and that Greece should have united under the political system he proposed.

The fundamental problem was that if metics were accepted into the democratic system then democracy itself would erode. This is evident as metics had only circumstantial and mostly economic interest in the city state, and when things got bad. The Athenians obviously accounted for the integrated metics which had patrilineal descendants from Athens, since property passes from father to son, and had this rule not being in place, then the property of that Athenian man would pass out of the city-state.

>>2568793
How exactly was their consciousness racial when it actually had nothing to do with what race they belonged to or their enemies.
The way they saw race was completely unlike what our view of race is today. "Racial consciousness" is simply incorrect to use as a term.

You are just contradicting yourself very fundamentally.

>>2568813
>How exactly was their consciousness racial when it actually had nothing to do with what race they belonged to or their enemies.

But it did. The Greeks conceptualized the Poleis as having independent identities not just because of titular independence but because they _claimed descent from common founder populations_.

That is literally what race is by definition: Group identity based on common ancestry.

>The way they saw race was completely unlike what our view of race is today.

Of course it is. Because we understand the reason we look different to each other today is not because I'm descended from Jason while you're descended from Theseus, but because of a thing called "divergent evolution" and "mendelian inheritance".

>"Racial consciousness" is simply incorrect to use as a term.

I honestly think the very term "race" causes you some sort of psychic pain because of the things it is commonly associated with. I've spoken to liberals before who visibly wince when terms like "race" are mentioned explicitly and openly in a neutral way. It is a matter of psychological programming.

>>2568812
This is mostly waffle and doesn't relate to my initial point, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the last part:

>This is evident as metics had only circumstantial and mostly economic interest in the city state, and when things got bad.

Many metics lived in Athens, they had lived their, their grandfathers have lived there and so on. If you think this doesn't constitute an interest in the state, then you're far more "right-wing" than you realize, since contemporary citizenship laws are established as little more than a formality to give someone who has spent a few years in a western country a perfunctory travel document.

What I mean by this is that the classical idea of citizenship was vastly more exclusionary, even to people who would by default be considered worth including in the body politic by modern liberal standards.

>>2568777

>The Jews were and are an ethnic group, and back then they would have appeared even more homogeneous to classical contemporaries because the diaspora and ensuing mixing was not as pronounced as it became in late antiquity and the middle ages.

The point was that Jews were an ethnic group like all others the Romans encountered and eventually crushed. The differences lie in the motivations that moved the Jews to revolt. And of course they are both religious and political, more specifically the question of the Herodian Dynasty, which the Jews mostly regarded as being foreign in nature.

>You can't seriously be this historically illiterate, the first two centuries AD saw numerous large and small scale riots, most prominent in the 30s and 60s. This had nothing to do with Christianity...

I am not referring to those revolts, the 30s and 60's revolts happened almost concurrently with the First Jewish Roman war, was my point. So they did not happen after the Jewish revolts ended.

What I was referring to was the riots motivated by the patriarch Cyril of Alexandria that targeted both pagans and Jews and got Hypatia killed in 415, and were the first signs of Jewish-Christian religious conflict.

>>2568841
Anyway, got to go to bed. If you believe the ancient world was some sort of raceless one and that ethnic hatreds are a modern thing, then you seriously need to kill yourself - or at the very least study the Tang Dynasty and its breakup. The oldest anti-miscegenation laws on earth come from Imperial China incidentally. Well before those nefarious Europeans "invented" racism.

File: task.png (4KB, 510x265px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 510x265px

>>2568841
When greeks said race, they meant ethnicity.
They had no racial consciousness.

Again, your attempts at genetics, I will sate them. The numbers are X chromosome markers. This is a trivial genetics problem which everybody who claims they know anything about genetics should be able to solve. What's the issue there.

Then I'll discuss genetics with you.

>>2568854
>ethnic hatreds
Yeah, exactly.

Sleep well then, can't say you got off easy.

>>2568862
>When greeks said race, they meant ethnicity.
Race was used interchangeable with ethnicity for most of history ya dingus. The Greek Race is the Greek Race. Separate from the Persians, Syrians, Celts and Sythians. They knew this. Just because ancient Greeks didn't try to shoehorn the entire world into 5 colors like modern sjws do doesn't mean they were a raceless society.

>>2568878
>5 colors like modern sjws
>he thinks this is an sjw idea
Go to bed if that's you, you need it.

>>2568779
Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't meaningful. Language, law and morality are all social constructs.

>>2568883
It's true. sjw's seek to divide the world between "Whites" and "people of color" even though it's complete retarded to treat the whole European race as if they had the same history and experiences. To the average sjw some immigrant from Moldova is no different from an Anglo-Saxon who's been in New England since the mayflower.

>>2568862
Even if that was true (and it isn't) what exactly is the differences between "racism" and "ethnicism?"

>>2568886
I agree.

The term 'racial consciousness' nowadays doesn't attempt to refer to such things though.
>>2568891
>5 categories
>now it's just two
well, k
I agree with you too, SJW's are retarded.

>>2568897
>>now it's just two
I misspoke. It's usually given sjw's consider Asians to be a separate race. They believe in 3 races. White, Asian, Brown and Black.

>>2568841
>I honestly think the very term "race" causes you some sort of psychic pain because of the things it is commonly associated with. I've spoken to liberals before who visibly wince when terms like "race" are mentioned explicitly and openly in a neutral way. It is a matter of psychological programming.
Have you ever considered that you might just be using the term wrong, as everybody in here is trying to tell you, too?

>>2568862
Whatever it was, it was biological. Isocrates defines purity of the ethnos in exactly the same way as Hitler would have defined purity of the volk: Maintenance of the original stock. So you can't spin it around as some sort of muh civic identity thing.

>>2568841

>Many metics lived in Athens, they had lived their, their grandfathers have lived there and so on. If you think this doesn't constitute an interest in the state, then you're far more "right-wing" than you realize, since contemporary citizenship laws are established as little more than a formality to give someone who has spent a few years in a western country a perfunctory travel document.

The "interest of the state" is a very hard thing to define in scope, size and function.

My counterpoint to you before was that instead saying "yes, the Greek city states were exclusionary because they believed in different genuses" precisely ignores the underlying reason why they did it and preserved up until Alexander. The first as I said was the problem of preserving democracy, which had to be exclusionary to preserve its precarious nature as I said before, the other was the question of geo-politics and economy.

Concerning the second question, one will never find out that the answer if he only studies the ideological pretences. My argument is that ancient democracy was exclusionary because the Athenians already had settled both question of citizenship and the economy by the time of Solon. The economy was to be a maritime economy dependent on Mediterranean Ionian colonies. Yet the question never arose in them whether those very Ionian colonists who were of the same genus as them should be granted citizenship rights. This would be an affront to the city state system and would render it pointless.

Most people forget that the ancient Greeks even after the Persian wars had an immensely limited scope. Neither Ancient Athens nor Sparta were meant to become empires like Rome, the whole purpose of the Peloponnesian war was to redraw the lines of economic/political influence within Greece, not outside it.

>cont.

>>2568907
>everybody in here

I agree with him. Not you. Don't try and insinuate some false consensus here libfag.

>>2568906
Usually Social Jewish Warriors place chinks under the PoC banner these days which makes for amusement when you're forced to listen to some gook from a wealthy upper middle class family complain about "systematic institutional racism" because a blonde girl in school wouldn't date him.

File: 1480478959763.jpg (55KB, 641x578px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 641x578px

>>2568567
>and considered people to the West dumber but said they valued their freedom/liberty a lot more

Well, no shit, they were savages.

>which the Greeks and later Romans (See Tacitus) admired a lot

You're falling for G*rman propaganda. The equivalent of Tacitus view of Germanics is pretty much the "noble savage" Romanticized view that some people had of the Native Americans. In the end, both of them were dumb violent uncivilized savages (I'm talking about the Northern Amerindians only).

>>2568914

Furthermore despite the fact that most modern academia likes to ramble on about the Athenian golden age of democracy. It selectively "chooses" to forget how after the death of Alexander during the Hellenistic era, city state democracy was completely phased out in favor of in favor of confederacies and oligarchic and tyrannical decision making.

Historians tend to focus entirely on one specific age and forget that it bears within the fruit of the next era. That the city state system was phased out in favour of empires and confederacies is uninteresting to historians because it lacks that "democratic" character. Yet are perfectly willing to argue on the level of ideology rather than objectivity, on "how democratic or liberal ancient Athens was" during Pericles's time. An entirely useless question if you ask me.

>>2568928
It's not German propaganda. Read Tacitus' Germanica. It's debatable about how much of it is true but what's important is that tacitus felt the Germans embodied a lot of what was good about old roman values as they hadn't been corrupted by wealth. In this sense it differs to the noble savage concept as that's a commentary or interpretation on agriculture versus nomadic existence whereas this is more about the degeneration of virtues and values as a result of a rotten social and political system.

And the Greeks and Romans despised asiatic servility. Don't kid yourself.

>>2568915
Alright then, one more person disagrees, out of the 37 posters.

Still, multiple people ITT disagreeing with him and him, as he reports himself, keeping getting negative responses should at least make him consider the possibility.

>>2568908
>it was biological
aah I see, but is it racial

>>2562912
Thats weird because most Chinese girls have surgery. I guess we mostly meet the rich ones and then theres just millions of peasant farm girls with slit eyes who never meet anyone.

>>2568943
Tacitus is just one person. He's not representative of how Romans viewed Germanics and other barbarian people of Europe in general. Julius Caesar criticizes Germanics exactly for the things Tacitus praises them for.

Well I hope next time you use buzzwords like 'mendelian inheritance' you think twice
>>2568862
>>2568841

>>2568943
Whats with that meme about asian servility and weakness? Their land was way harsher than the roman or greek lands which were paradise on earth. Im pretty sure some sogdian or daylamite warriors can tell decadent romans what sturdiness truly means.

>>2563440
Do the retards who make these images realize that the racial mix isn't evenly distributed across the entire population?

>>2568970
Eh? Greece is materially poor as fuck. It is mostly mountains and roughly analogous to the Korean peninsula in that sense. That's precisely why Greek civilization was so unique in the first place. It wasn't a river civilization.

Fertile crescent and anatolia were also immensely fertile and wealthy back them.

Italy was pretty comfy though.

And the reputation comes from the differences in government and politics in Europe as compared to Asia. Eg greco Roman republicanism or Macedonian monarchy as compared to Persian.

>>2568943
>what was good about old roman values as they hadn't been corrupted by wealth.
Bitching about wealth and Romans being corrupted by it has been Roman writers' pastime in all of its ages, right from the beginning.

>>2568982
Also Greece only really has two fertile parts. Macedonia and a part of Attica.

Are you a chink?

Chinks aren't welcome here. You spy for the PRC.

File: top laff.jpg (40KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 375x375px

>>2568958
>Julius Caesar criticizes Germanics exactly for the things Tacitus praises them for.

This. It's hilarious how much shit he talks about them in Caesar's de Bello Gallico, while German nationalists prefer to turn a blind eye to it and only look at Tacitus going full "muh noble savage" over them.

>>2568984
>right from the beginning

Wrong. It happened after the second punic war as a result of a mass infusion of gold and silver into the city.

Degeneration happens incrementally and gradually. How do you think the Italians went from being a group capable of weathering defeats like cannae and producing some of the finest soldiery on earth to not even putting up a fight against invading goth?

Too much comfort brings weakness. This isn't some hypothesis it's a fact.

>>2568995
> to not even putting up a fight against invading goth?
That conveniently ignores that while Western Rome was falling to the Goths, the equally "degenerate" Eastern Roman Empire was doing just fine.

>>2568995
>comfort brings weakness
yes

What are some other parallels I can draw between rome and the US, oh mighty and original intellectual

>>2569005
>doing just fine
>relying on mercenary foreigners lime goths

It's a miracle someone like belisarius was able to do what he did with what he had available. Honestly.

>>2569007
That isn't just true of the US. Why single them out?

>>2569012
*like huns

>>2569012
Yes, just fine.

And they kept on doing it for a millennium. Couldn't have been that bad then.

>>2562625
>you will never visit pre-islam MENA
kill me now

>>2569023
After losing North Africa and the near East and very nearly all of Asia minor to a vastly more dynamic and hardy race, yes. Only after the theme system was formed and started to cultivate an anatolian peasantry accustomed to conflict again did they manage to strike back.

>>2568982
Outside the fertile crescent life was pretty hard. The iranian highlands and all those deserts were no joke.

>>2568977
Those are natgeos future faces of America.

>>2568992
>how much shit he talks about them
wasn't his cavalry bodyguard made up of Germans?

>>2569382
VIPs hired foreign bodyguards not because of their excellent virtues, but because they'd be fucked in a land where they have no allies without their sponsor, and because they're not interested in local power struggles and just want their coin to keep on flowing. Killing their sponsor would thus be double against their own interest.

>>2567027
Is there any evidence that the Carthaginians did practice child sacrifice? I always heard about it but every time I've read into but never found any credible recorded cases of it.

>>2567027
Roman lies

>>2569026
We all know that feel

>>2568580
Exactly.

>>2568578
With Octavian's smear campaign against Antony, what got the latter damned in the eyes of everyday Romans was Octavian's ability to indicate that Antony like Cleopatra were entirely "enamored" with themselves and were falling by the way side of "Eastern decadence" which interestingly in their times was seen as including Greeks more debacherous beliefs with vanity and gods.

File: dead babies are buried here.gif (227KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 600x401px

>>2570440
Tons of evidence. We've found skeletal remains, grave markers, and inscriptions of votive offerings in Punic. Just google "Carthaginian tophets".

>>2570440
>>2570656
It's not 100% verified, but archeological findings tend to favour the Roman accounts.
>Several apparent "Tophets" have been identified, chiefly a large one in Carthage, dubbed the "Tophet of Salammbô" after the neighbourhood where it was unearthed in 1921.[15] Soil in the Tophet of Salammbó was found to be full of olive wood charcoal, probably from the sacrificial pyres. It was the location of the temple of the goddess Tanit and the necropolis. Animal remains, mostly sheep and goats, found inside some of the Tophet urns strongly suggest that this was not a burial ground for children who died prematurely. The animals were sacrificed to the gods, presumably in place of children (one surviving inscription refers to the animal as "a substitute"). It is conjectured that the children unlucky enough not to have substitutes were also sacrificed and then buried in the Tophet. The remains include the bodies of both very young children and small animals, and those who argue in favor of child sacrifice have argued that if the animals were sacrificed, then so too were the children.[16] The area covered by the Tophet in Carthage was probably over an acre and a half by the fourth century BCE,[17] with nine different levels of burials. About 20,000 urns were deposited between 400 BCE and 200 BCE,[17] with the practice continuing until the early years of the Christian period. The urns contained the charred bones of newborns and in some cases the bones of fetuses and 2-year-olds. These double remains have been interpreted to mean that in the cases of stillborn babies, the parents would sacrifice their youngest child.[18]

>>2572999
>>2573016
They stopped doing that shit when the Persians advised them to do so.

>>2562684
Phillip the Arab, Pannonian Emperors, Maximinus Thrax?

What is a good place to start learning about Roman history? Considering there isn't much information on the Kingdom would the start of the Republic be an obvious one? Any good material I should read?

>>2568567
>And of course, North Africa to them was a land populated by Greco-Roman settlements, Berbers, Numidians, Phoenicians etc, it was vastly different to what it was today.
Genetically it's pretty much similar to today. Culturally, the people of MENA region are far closer to Ancient Romans than Westerners.

This is a tough pill to swallow but it's true.

>>2573073
>Phillip the Arab

Descended from Roman colonists most likely. The city he was from was uninhabited before the Romans. He was called "Arab" just because he was born in the Roman province of Arabia Petraea.

>Pannonian Emperors
>Maximinus Thrax

Pre-Slavic invasion Balkans were closer to Meds.

>>2562625
Far more favorably than they treated Northern Europeans.

>>2573073
Arabs are part of the "Mediterranean race".

>>2568854
ethnicity =/= race

>>2574385
That's possible but its' not like Arabic Petraea would be that much of an attractive place for Roman colonists. The number of them would be low.

>>2574274
>Culturally, the people of MENA region are far closer to Ancient Romans than Westerners.

Complete horseshit. They follow an iconoclastic religion that precludes classical naturalism in art, follow completely different architectural styles, never used Latin as a lingua franca past the seventh century, made no serious contributions to Western philosophy, nor do they have a continuous use of roman law like the West has. Nor did it influence North African statecraft to the same degree it did western statecraft.

And that's not even counting the fact Christianity became the imperial religion of Rome. A religion they don't follow.

Where did this meme of the middle east being the true successors of Rome even come from? Leftists?

>>2572984
It included Greeks but that was because Greeks were seen as being corrupted by asiatic ways. Not because they were intrinsically a bad race.

File: Roman_Empire_-_Arabia_Petraea_(125_AD).svg.png (1MB, 2186x1817px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2186x1817px

>>2574402
Nigga, Arabia Petraea wasn't a shithole desert. It's not even part of the Arabian peninsula today. He was born in modern Syria.

File: Arabian_peninsula_definition.png (7KB, 250x196px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x196px

>>2574425

>>2574412
>Where did this meme of the middle east being the true successors of Rome even come from? Leftists?

Like most bad things, yes.

>>2574412
The post doesn't say they are successors of Rome. Rather, the people are closer to Ancient Rome than Westerners. Resemblance doesn't just have to do with succession but also sharing similar origins. Westerners aren't successors of Rome except in some traditions and law has nothing to do with culture.

>A religion they don't follow.
Most Westerners today are Christian in name only. I'd say the percentage of Mid East Christians who take their religion seriously is far higher than Western one.

>follow completely different architectural styles
The style was not that different from Byzantine empire (who were Roman).

>made no serious contributions to Western philosophy,

Romans and Greeks were not Western. Whether people of MENA contributed significantly to Western philosophy or not isn't relevant.

Anyway, Aquinas was clearly heavily influenced by Avicenna.

Here are many cultural similarities:
>Public baths are fought throughout MENA and in some countries are very common
>Veiling of women, greater emphasis on married women in Rome but there is also an emphasis in MENA
>this goes with previous point but modesty is a key in people's mentality
>differences of gender norms are ingrained in people
>slavery more common in mid east than the west, Rome was known for having slaves
>open markets in rome more similar to souks or bazaars of MENA region
>loose clothings worn by people of MENA. Even the toga is similar to what pilgrims in Mecca wear. Stola is similar to jellebas than anything Western women typically wear.
>Romans ate with their fingers like people of MENA. Use utensils for soups.
>oratory is more important in MENA than it is in the West as orated tasks are more regularly imposed on students, like it was in ancient Rome
>poetry is the most treasured piece of literature in Ancient Rome. This is the same in MENA. In the West, prose is more treasured than verse.
etc...

>>2574412
To add more:

>Music of Byzantine is more similar to Mid East
>class affiliation is much more pronounced in certain mid east countries like Yemen where men wear daggers that signify their position in society. In Morocco, individuals of certain ancestry are more privileged.
>virginity is very prized in North Africa, even more so than West Asia. Likewise in Ancient rome.
>roman society is much more patriarchal than the West. MENA is closer than Rome on this issue

The list is very long.

If you analyze how the average Roman and person of MENA today behaves, the similarities are far greater than with a Westerner.

>>2574736
>values

Classical roman values are completely antithetical to MENA ones Abdul. A woman in the roman republic could divorce her husband on the grounds of domestic abuse. Cato said that men who beat women were sacrilegious whereas Mo mandated it.

And public baths were common in the west until, you know, this thing called indoor plumbing and heating came around?

>architecture
>byzantine

So we not only wuz Romans. We wuz Greeks too? Does the heritage of all people belong solely to mudghrebis? Anyway byzantine architecture is fairly distinct from classical roman architecture, as distinct as romanesque was anyway.

>open markets

Go to literally any Italian town and they'll have these. Jesus Christ you're stupid.

>>Music of Byzantine is more similar to Mid East

Secular byzantine music is more similar to Greek folk for obvious reasons. Same instruments like the tambouras/bouzouki. If you mean liturgical music then again it's more similar to slavonic/Greek stuff.

>oratory

The system of roman education, the trivium and quadrivium, has an almost unbroken tradition in the west. It is where the concept of liberal arts comes from.

I can go on if you want.

>>2574385
Roman=/=Italian

>>2574412
>Christianity
>No serious contribution to western philosophy

The Byzantine empire was a MENA empire

>>2575436
Please do, it's funny seeing you Romaboos get so butthurt.

Didn't Southern Italy and Sicily have a large Phoenician presence? Especially in the early history of Rome?