How were MENA people treated in Ancient Greece and Rome?

>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

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.

>not wanting to fuck hot Persian women

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

Rhinoplasty didn't exist back then

...

>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.

>

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

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

Septimius Severus was Syrian.

Septimus Severus was Punic. His wife was Syrian

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.

top fucking kek

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

[citation needed]

>all those Italian girls getting rid of their Roman noses

Bitches don't know the history it carries.

Also do you know where the Aquiline nose comes from?

>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.

>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?

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

Egyptians bow down to the aenids

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

Why did the Romans hate the based Carthaginians so much?

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.

They were competition.

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).

>tfw the bad guys won

Who is Maximinus Thrax(gothic+thracian)?

youtube.com/watch?v=oHDyw6tboyg

>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".

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

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

They would crucify em

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.

I'd do her desu senpaitachi

>Greeks bleach their skin and hair
Phew.

Wow, the guy looks better in marble

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

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

The Carthaginians were loathed for their frequent child sacrifices.

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

lmao

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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).

I am red piled now and racially conscious

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Isocrates*

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".

>half-Carthaginian

Agreed.

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

>all peoples of the same race

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.

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

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

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?

>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

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.

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.

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.

>Another libtard BTFO'd

Sad!

>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.

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.

>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.

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

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.

>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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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 post are objectively speaking intra-racial and not actually objectively based on race, but on culture and socially meaningful factors.

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.

>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 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.

That's incredibly problematic

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

>ethnic hatreds
Yeah, exactly.

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

>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.

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

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

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.

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

I agree.

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