3 ms·

I understand this. The only really interesting aspect is the Phoencians would appear to be similar to the Romans in having a cultural rather than a genetics bas

I understand this. The only really interesting aspect is the Phoencians would appear to be similar to the Romans in having a cultural rather than a genetics based hierarchy. Given their cosmopolitan culture this is really not that surprising.

douche 10y ago
I suppose that when everyone around is pretty much of the same genetic makeup, you've got to pick different factors to segment your populace. Modern conceptions of race would be profoundly weird to the ancients, I think. Between all the Greek and Phoenician colonies sprinkled all over the Mediterranean, there was a huge amount of admixture.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  The past is a really foreign land. We don't know too much how the Phonecians viewed race and culture, but the Romans had a very different view to us. To them the idea that being Roman had something to do with what you looked like rather than what you believed and what paperwork you had would have been crazy. This culture first view did have a downside in the way they viewed and supported slavery.
ryan_j_naughton 10y ago
I think there is an additional interesting aspect differentiating the Phoenicians from the Romans. The Romans didn't really start spreading out from central Italy until 300BC. In contrast, the Phoenicians hit their peak around 1200-800BC Thus, by the time the Romans are conquering places, other Indo-European or Middle Eastern civilizations have already done so. Thus, the Romans are taking less civilized (in terms of urbanism, technology, agriculture, etc) and making them more civilized. But "less" is still closer to the Romans terms of development than no civilization at all. For example, the Celts, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Phoenicians (the main areas Rome conquered to get their empire) were all true civilizations BC by the time the Romans got there (300-50BC) all those places had become part of the civilized world. In contrast, the Phoenicians where bringing civilization to places that were just barely coming out of being hunter gatherer or had minimal agriculture but no cities. They were the first one to bring writing to most of those places, while when Rome showed up, they already had it (BC of Phoenicians 800-1200 years earlier).
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Yes this is certainly true. Despite the Carthage being the mortal enemy of Rome, I suspect romans culturally appropriated more than they would like to admit from the Phoenicians. For all their bad points the Romans were not racists in the modern sense and I wonder how much this world view came down from the Phoenicians.
ralfd 10y ago
Makes sense when the men sailing around are taking local wives (slaves?)

douche 10y ago

I suppose that when everyone around is pretty much of the same genetic makeup, you've got to pick different factors to segment your populace. Modern conceptions of race would be profoundly weird to the ancients, I think. Between all the Greek and Phoenician colonies sprinkled all over the Mediterranean, there was a huge amount of admixture.

danieltillett 10y ago
The past is a really foreign land. We don't know too much how the Phonecians viewed race and culture, but the Romans had a very different view to us. To them the idea that being Roman had something to do with what you looked like rather than what you believed and what paperwork you had would have been crazy. This culture first view did have a downside in the way they viewed and supported slavery.

ryan_j_naughton 10y ago

I think there is an additional interesting aspect differentiating the Phoenicians from the Romans. The Romans didn't really start spreading out from central Italy until 300BC. In contrast, the Phoenicians hit their peak around 1200-800BC Thus, by the time the Romans are conquering places, other Indo-European or Middle Eastern civilizations have already done so. Thus, the Romans are taking less civilized (in terms of urbanism, technology, agriculture, etc) and making them more civilized. But "less" is still closer to the Romans terms of development than no civilization at all. For example, the Celts, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Phoenicians (the main areas Rome conquered to get their empire) were all true civilizations BC by the time the Romans got there (300-50BC) all those places had become part of the civilized world. In contrast, the Phoenicians where bringing civilization to places that were just barely coming out of being hunter gatherer or had minimal agriculture but no cities. They were the first one to bring writing to most of those places, while when Rome showed up, they already had it (BC of Phoenicians 800-1200 years earlier).

danieltillett 10y ago
Yes this is certainly true. Despite the Carthage being the mortal enemy of Rome, I suspect romans culturally appropriated more than they would like to admit from the Phoenicians. For all their bad points the Romans were not racists in the modern sense and I wonder how much this world view came down from the Phoenicians.

ralfd 10y ago

Makes sense when the men sailing around are taking local wives (slaves?)