"SPQR by Mary Beard is a fantastic introduction to Rome."

BASED fat bald Arab man

also, the point was that BBC tried to push the black man + white woman family as a typical roman family, which is what they were implying

I don't see why anyone would actually assume that was correct, even the most stupid of laymen, let alone an academic

...

She's right though. York had a lot of North African Romans.

It's like America/those raised on the internet get upset Europe might have discovered African people before the US came up with the idea of black people.

>basically we were ALWAYS race mixing and diverse, so nothing is wrong today
this is the reality. the evidence speaks for itself.

>he thinks the shilling ends at "typical Roman family"

If you only knew how bad things really were

>Tampons, pads, and ironclads: Stonewall Jackson and Freebleeding
>Einstein contra Bergson: Who rapes me more by having existed?
Holy fuck i'm crying

yeah man, europeans have always lived with blacks and mixed with them, and black guys always married women all the way up to britan and scandinavia!....

...that is why they wouldn't even believe blacks were human when they first encountered them and actually thought they were beastly and stupid...because you know, that's what happens after millennia of living together with them and mixing

North Africans were whiter than Italians or Greeks, you mongoloid mental retard.

Picrelated: the left dude is a Lybian.

It wouldn't be strange. Septimus is mixed because of that. Even Caesar mentions the recruitment of a large set of North African "hybridae" by Labienus. It's kind of impossible to have a Mediterranean empire without blacks.

classical and pre-history society is not the same as middle-ages/early-mod society. you think culture or history is a linear line? the arabs had to bring classicism back into europe after ancient languages died out.

>whites and blacks haven't lived alongside one another since the literal stone age

umm try again sweetie

>Even Caesar mentions the recruitment of a large set of North African "hybridae" by Labienus.
Isn't Caesar referring to the post-Hellenistic people who were half Greek and half Semitic?

North Africans were whiter than Italians or Greeks, you mongoloid mental retard.

See here:

>he hasn't read Homer
>he hadn't read Caesar
So when Homer describes Eurbyrates, what he actually meant to say was white skinned and straight haired? Gotcha, I'll let my local association for the blind know.

>the arabs had to bring classicism back into europe after ancient languages died out.
Nice meme. Not true, by the way.

Ancient languages never died out. In fact, the Arabs had to hire Greek-speaking Byzantines to translate classical works for them into Arabic.

Also the only reason why Western Europe had no access to classical learning in the first place was Islamic piracy, which made travel and communication between the two halves of the post-Roman empire difficult.

>Eurbyrates
Who the fuck is this? I've read the Iliad and the Odyssey. Don't remember this fucker.

>classical and pre-history society is not the same as middle-ages/early-mod society
and one did not grow from the other? lmao

>you think culture or history is a linear line?
no man it's a spiral and non whites somehow disappeared from europe once the classical times were over

>the arabs had to bring classicism back into europe after ancient languages died out.
so by classicism you mean slavery and conquest? well shiet

> citing an obscure literally who as ""evidence"" of large-scale population trends
I hope to God you're actually trolling, I don't want to feel like I suddenly woke up in idiocracy.

>user says North Africans were whiter than Greeks
>you cite the physical appearance of a dark-skinned Greek character to disprove him

Are you literally retarded?

So to recap, the truth is that there was 'ethnic diversity' or at least North Africans in Roman Britain, but not the Sub-Saharan Africans depicted?

It's time you learned the true history of Rome.

No, he's referring to part Roman merchant, part black north African. They're a left over from the civil war. Most of the other hybrids he encounters are the Hispanic ones, not the Greek-Semites since his campaigns move the opposite direction to those territories.
And if you want to go that route, you'd know a lot of black Etruscan lines would still become Roman lines.
There's black people even further north in the Etruscans, user. Doesn't make for less black people in the Mediterranean.
He's the herald, the one who Odysseus trusts most.

Do none of you niggers read?

>every single person mentioned as having dark skin or curly hair is a sub-sarahan african and therefore it's racist to not portray vikings as black

>No, he's referring to part Roman merchant, part black north African.
Where's your evidence for this? North Africans aren't black.

no, one did not grow from the other. history is not linear. non-white didn't disappear. skin hues get darker the closer you get to the old med empires and asiatic the closer you get to the old steppe empires. by classicism I mean greek and roman texts. its the reason why averroes is depicted in the school of athens.

I should have hidden this thread the moment I read the phrase "black Etruscans" but for some reason I can't stop replying to you

The one about female sexuality in weimar rebublic could be intresting. Can anyone recomend books on the subject?

She is a respected historian who's done research in the field for years. You're a nobody pissed off because she said something you don't like

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Eurybates is described as having tan skin and curly hair. I.e. not much different from a modern Southern Greek like pic related. Suggesting that he was black is politically-correct revisionist history.

whats so funny

His future

There's a huge blindspot in modern academia when it comes to race and ancient societies. No matter how much Alexander is described as a light-eyed ruddy blond in primary sources, PhDs on Quora will all say that he had brown skin when asked because he was "Mediterranean." You can't be honest about race in the 21st century; it's heretical.

Where the hell is he described as blond? The Alexander mosaic shows him as brown haired and brown eyed

I'm a historian and I can tell you unequivocally that roman skeletons are often found in the UK from all sorts of different backgrounds.

In fact recently a Chinese skeleton was found astonishingly. But anyway, dont get angry because fact doesnt line up with your political opinions you retards, you are no different from the SJWs.

this, the roman empire being so big it was obvious that it was somehow diverse

>Apelles, however, in painting him as wielder of the thunder-bolt, did not reproduce his complexion, but made it too dark and swarthy. Whereas he was of a fair colour, as they say, and his fairness passed into ruddiness on his breast particularly, and in his face. - Plutarch

>T]he strong, handsome commander with one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky - Arrian

>hey affirm likewise that Alexander Son of Philip was of a neglectful handsomness: For his Hair curled naturally, and was yellow; yet they say there was something stern in his countenance. - Aelian

>For he had the hair of a lion and one eye was blue; the right one was heavy lidded and black, and the left one was blue - Callisthenes

But are they the exceptions that prove the rule, or evidence of a vibrant multi-culturalism?

>writing centuries after his life
>"""primary sources"""
They also say he smelled unnaturally sweet. The Alexander mosaic portrays him as typical med, which is based off a painting done in his life time.

The issue at hand wasn't whether or not non-white Romans existed, but about their prevalence and preponderance. There are black people living in Japan right now, but an accurate visual representation of contemporary Japan wouldn't have a black man in every shot.

Italy unironically had medis and moors around for a very long time

Stop projecting your creepy cuck fantasy on non-white supremacists

its an ongoing issue. most historians come down that he was most probably what we called strawberry blonde. it's a philological issue about how to interpret the classical texts. however, skin tone is a very naive way to determine genetic ancestry. people thought the kalash tribe in India were greek in origin because they were white/light skinned. dna tests didn't agree. yet greek dna is found in part of west asia were the populace is dark like the pashtun. unfortunately those who view race as a fixed, essential trait will always try to muddy the waters on these debates just like ptolemaic ancestors in africa.

>let's pretend that people with black skin aren't black
good luck
Because he says they're north African. That they're left over from the civil war is speculation, because it's the best way to explain how there were any such hybrids. To be a hybrid, they need features of both, so it's pretty self explanatory.
>being this upset by Etruscan coinage just before the Romans took over
should we get in the time machine and tell them to stop leaving awkward artifacts that challenge your view of history?
it's actually dark skin and hair like wool
>μελανόχροος
(can be translated as melanin enriched, as you'll see from the melano prefix, )
>οὐλοkάρηνος
(you can see the lamb/sheep reference at the end)

Are those 'we wuz' posters for real? What?

Callisthenes lived contemporaneously with Alexander.

This is silly. The mosaic shows a man with a ruddy/tanned face and with white hands and a white neck. It's also aged, which adds color. But trying to get an accurate representation of a man based on a 2400 year old, tattered mosaic is a bit absurd.

>typical med
He was from the northern hinterlands of Greece, which was constantly invaded by Gauls.

>academics are now arguing with shitposters on twitter

Social media was a mistake

This hurts my very soul... yet I'm not even racist...

This.
This thread wouldn't have lasted ten replies on Veeky Forums

It isn't the 50's any more senpai being a academic isn't a respectable position.

>ruddy/tanned fac

You know, most people who stay outdoors for extended periods, like warriors, will have tanned faces. Doesn't really say anything about the person's ethnicity, besides the fact that they're not black.

That's kind of dumb to get offended by the word redskins too. Indians had red skin because they were outside all day. White people's skin will turn red too, given enough exposure to the sun. Look at highway crews for example.

...

Fuck burgers are racist

In their minds the only society is western society and the only races are blacks and whites. Never see asians, indians, polynesians etc when to comes to "diversity".

This is a respected academic who's done research in the field of Beyonce studies for years.

>it's actually dark skin and hair like wool
I'm not going to pretend I read Homeric Greek, so I can't argue with you. My Greek "scholarship" consists of reading translated primary works. All I can say is that the lack of significant black admixture in modern Greek genetics makes me suspicious of your interpretation. My interpretation of the Fitzgerald translation is simply a curly-haired Mediterranean, which is fairly common.

red neck and red leg were both slurs against irish emigrants/deportees. unlike redskins, though, their skin actually turned red. though they're probably only pissed off about it because the english treated them as a subrace for a couple hundred years and starved half of them out the country/existence.
interestingly, a red neck would never be a hillbilly, because hill billies were protestant scottish people.
for alexander though, his skin was noted to be especially red, compared to his contemporaries. it's unlikely he spent more time in the sun than everyone else, so it's probably due to his skin tone.

Read Euripdes' "Hippolytus"

I’ll hate you women, hate and hate and hate you,
and never have enough of hating…
Some
say that I talk of this eternally,
yes, but eternal, too, is woman’s wickedness.
Either let someone teach them to be chaste,
or suffer me to trample on them forever.

This tbqh

>so it's probably due to his skin tone.
As in being fair. Olive-skinned people like me turn red initially then develop a brown hue. Fair-skinned people (Alexander could have been a redhead) tend to burn up and stay red.

modern greeks are not ancient greeks. trying to make that comparison is absurd.

>Fitzgerald translation
That just tells me you want to give me Fitzgerald's view of what race he was, which is obviously going to be subject to a much later appreciation of race and its biases. By that stage the word melanochroi was being used to mean "dark whites" which is everything from Indian Brahmin to Welsh and Irish pasty skin, but does not include AngloSaxons or Germans, even if those AngloSaxons are as tanned as the Brahmin.

I'm not. What i'm suggesting is that Hellenistic Greece didn't just die out and get replaced by an entirely new gene pool. If Greece had a significantly black population a couple thousand years ago, genetic traces of it would still be there today.

this. it's almost as if every generation projects their own society onto the past. which is why erring on the side of the physical evidence is always going to be the strongest position. currently the evidence suggests diversity. that might change but we can't know for now.

WE WUZ CAPUTTE MUNDI

So many missed opportunities here.

african dna is all over europe dude. the question has never been whether africans were there but where those markers came from. how much Iberian dna is from the theoried ice age migration and how much is from the moorish invasions? are classical africans the same as modern africans? is North Africa lighter because of turkic/arab invasion or has North Africans always been lighter than other africans? these aren't easy questions to answer and anybody who tells you that they know the truth is a political hack not interested in the truth.

I'm not qualified to argue this point. I'm still trying to get my Latin down. But the "whitification of the Irish" argument employed by modern sociologists to demonstrate how race is "constructed" is mostly bullshit revisionist history.

A modern projection of society onto the past is exactly what OP is arguing against. The BBC series features black Anglo-Saxons, black Celts, and black Normans. The evidence shows that Rome wasn't exclusively white, but that doesn't mean that including black characters in nearly every scene that depicts every period of European civilization is accurate.

Black genetic markers aren't synonymous with African genetic markers. North African DNA is all over Southern Europe for obvious reasons, but that's not what I'm referring to.

Can we not be sure that the current values of our society aren't being projected upon the physical evidence? Diversity is one of the central values of the academia. Can they be trusted not to inflict it upom every element of existence.

nor is this red-pilled view of race and especially classical race accurate either. I'm not agreeing with either position but with the evidence. reactionaries are projecting as much as any sjw ever did.

that's possible if every science used in enthnographic and anthropology and archeology are flawed and start with an axiom of diversity. considering these studies started before post-war liberalism, that'd be a pretty big claim to try and make.

Every field of human knowledge was fundamentally altered during the long march through the institutions. They way as well be entirely different sciences.

>nor is this red-pilled view of race and especially classical race accurate either.
Of course it isn't. But it's a fringe view. The SJW revisionism, on the other hand, made it onto the BBC. Black Egyptology is taken seriously to the point where I see black women wearing Egyptian jewelry on the subway, and black people on twitter using Ramesses II as their profile pics. No modern academic would dare correct that perception.

Fucking political correctness...

Yet having white characters play non-white historical figures is "white-washing."

>Black genetic markers aren't synonymous with African genetic markers.
yes but that's the point. current phenotypes that have been through thousands of years of migrations, invasions, political marriages, tribal slavery etc. are not synonymous with classical phenotypes. which is why a broader analysis must be taken. black skeleton found in europe...okay what does that mean? given that black people are depicted in art, even in middle-ages, and the philological evidence (the last name Blackmore), and such points to diversity. how diverse? who knows. are these skeletons and depictions of regular populations or of slaves or singular historical oddities? more research needed.

because those black people aren't making a historical statement. eygptian iconography comes from aesthetic movements like afrofuturism. you know, space is the place. you on the other hand have no idea what is going on in the academy and are in no position to m are sweeping statements about classics/anthropology departments.

I realize the hypocrisy of the left, friendo. Well-aware...

>I'm not qualified to argue this point. I'm still trying to get my Latin down. But the "whitification of the Irish" argument employed by modern sociologists to demonstrate how race is "constructed" is mostly bullshit revisionist history.
I don't know what you're talking about but there's an interesting case in the US for this where a high caste Indian argued he should be considered a "free white" as the law was meant to exclude Africans not Indians. Meanwhile in South Africa, Gandhi is contending he is above the South African blacks and due a better train carriage than them.

For more on melanochroi and xanthochroi whites, TH Huxley, the guy who invented those distinctions.

A lot of it is socially constructed, even all the way back to the Greeks. Aristotle, with his love of the middle ground and averages, thought the Greeks were the ideal race because they weren't as pale as the barbarian red heads to the north, and weren't as dark as others. Every society comes up with their own reasoning as to which skin tone gives you less pull.

While I'm sure the BBC are doing it for different reasons, black Romans or Celts aren't really that strange. It's no more strange than the Greek-Celts, or wearing Goth wolf skins in Constantinople. The ancient world was pretty connected and the reason why there aren't more stories of OMG BLACK SKINNED PEOPLE is because black skinned people aren't that much of a rarity until you get to the 1500s or so when owning one became a status symbol. Before that, most of the rarities that people wanted to buy for their human zoo collection were red heads, or the really exotic blondes, which is why those slaves went for higher auction prices in Roman times than black slaves: they were rarer and you could make a wig out of their hair that would show your far reaching status and connections.

DAE think white men are the most oppressed group in society?? upvote

>Respected historian
>Believes in "EREMUS REGES ET MERDA"

do you mean erebamus? it would keep the spelling error and the tense.

>"scientific evidence'"
- Mary Beard

>because those black people aren't making a historical statement.
Have you spoken to them? Have you read their tweets? This isn't purely an aesthetic movement, it's a movement that seeks to "reclaim" black civilizations and achievements from the revisionists Eurocentric scholars who appropriated them for their own racist, colonial purposes. It's a movement that makes falsifiable historical and scientific claims. This isn't just an art movement.

The mosaic is based off a painting contemporaneous with Alexander. Calisthenes only says his hair was like a lion's, which could mean many things. All statues show him with hair ringing his face like a mane.

She's correct, there were dark-skinned Roman soldiers stationed in Britain. It's not outside the realm of possibility.

The black celts, normans, etc. is pretty stupid though. But they're just short videos for children, why bust a blood vessel over it.

Eh, there's like one or two /pol/tards there and everyone else is pointing out that Beard is a respect historian while Watson is clearly a moron.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE