QuoteReplyTopic: Invasions and Foreign Immigration to Europe Posted: 04-Mar-2010 at 09:13
I'm about to open a controversial topic. But beware: remember that we are talking about history here, not politics. With this I mean that the discussion of current immigration to Europe should be left out (I'm not even European for that matter).
Very well. We all know about the moorish invasions to Spain, the Reconquista, Don Pelayo, and so on (being from partial Asturian ancestry my grandfather won't get tired of telling me those stories). But what about the rest of the invasions?
You know, the north and east was invaded time to time too, it wasn't just the south. Many people take genetic tests and, being from fully European ancestry, they discover a non-European one hundreeds or thousands of years ago. Well, that means that it hapenned at least sometimes, non-European influence to Europe indeed existed.
Is there any one who already worked on this? I looked for books and articles and wasn't lucky finding something that included all of them, so what I want now is to list them and then research them one by one.
By the way, remember that invasions such as the Viking or German one do not count because that's about Europeans invading other Europeans (and we could be ages listing all of that, Europe was historically quite a violent continent).
Just thinking about some reminds me of the Arab conquests, the Persian invasion of Greece, the Magyar invasions, the Mongol ones, the Ottomans, but I'm sure there are more, especially in the ancient times, am I wrong?
And as for normal immigration, well, we have the Gypsies for example, that cannot be called an invasions because they did not atack Europe, they just entered in the continent; though they are indeed non-European. The Jews could be added too, though most Ashkenazi and Sephardic (not Mizrahi) Jews are descended from Europeans converts.
And one more thing: is my question historically correct? Because I mean, I doubt the Romans and Greeks considered themselves "Europeans", but since later Europeans inspired on them some historians include them in European history.
For the sake of argument let's just consider European as any civilization whose people came from Europe and was developed mainly, if not solely, here.
Just thinking about some reminds me of the Arab conquests, the Persian invasion of Greece, the Magyar invasions, the Mongol ones, the Ottomans, but I'm sure there are more, especially in the ancient times, am I wrong?
I can think of only a few other possible ones and even these are "stretched". Prior to Greece, Europe was a culturally remote area that was unlikely to be the targets of mass migrations / invasions.
Possibility number one:
Migration / Invasion of Finns, Sa'ami and Estonians to Europe. Their languages are Finno Ugaric and originated in the southeren Ural mountains. This migration / invasion must have happened in very early times because all three peoples have inhabited their current countries for a very long time.
Possibility number two: Arrival of anatomically modern humans in Europe. Their migration / invasion led to the extinction of the Neandertals.
Thank you. Of course, Cro-Magnons arrived much later that Neanderthals. You could even say that Neanderthals are the "original Europeans", though it would be sort of weird, because they were not exactly humans. Cro-Magnons were the first modern humans to arrive Europe.
And as for normal immigration, well, we have the Gypsies for example, that cannot be called an invasions because they did not atack Europe, they just entered in the continent; though they are indeed non-European. The Jews could be added too, though most Ashkenazi and Sephardic (not Mizrahi) Jews are descended from Europeans converts
Check out K.S. Lal in his essay about the Islamic Invasion of India. This was the origins of the gypsies who fled rather than die or convert. Being largely Hindu they were not given the choice to pay the Jiyza tax until later, like people of the book were permitted. They had only two choices convert, die, or flee.
Check out K.S. Lal in his essay about the Islamic Invasion of India. This was the origins of the gypsies who fled rather than die or convert. Being largely Hindu they were not given the choice to pay the Jiyza tax until later, like people of the book were permitted. They had only two choices convert, die, or flee.
That book may not be entirely objective. Gypsies who left India seem to have quickly converted to either Islam or Christianity (both Orthodox and Catholic) with out alot of pressure.
Rather than being fervent Hindus, Muslims etc, Gypsies seem relaxed about religion. They simply convert to the dominate religion in the area. In Kosovo, the local gypsy families can have both Christian Orthodox and Muslim members.
This relaxed attitude about religion is shared by other nomadic cultures. Nomads come into contact with different religions and nomadic culture gives individuals a high degree of personal freedom. That can lead to religion being a relative concept.
Eperom, wrote a long time ago; "Just thinking about some reminds me of the Arab conquests, the Persian invasion of Greece, the Magyar invasions, the Mongol ones, the Ottomans, but I'm sure there are more, especially in the ancient times, am I wrong?"
You appear to be quite correct! There has to be some major events which led to the mixing of different peoples in Europe, and you indeed mentioned some of them.
So, since the origin and nationality of some of these invaders is still to this day disputed, I will suggest some others both mentioned above and some not.
The so called "Saracen" and "Arabic" invasions!
It is little known that some of these invasions and occupations occured as far inland in Europe as Switzerland, and other parts of France! Even Rome was reportedly looted by the Arabs in a sea-born invasion!
The invasions of the Goths and/or the Visi-Goths!
The invasion(s) of the Heruli/Heruls!
Invasions by Huns, who might not be connected to the Mongols?
Invasions by peoples variously called Vandals?
Invasions by peoples variously called Alans or Alani?
Invasions by people from Spain, I.e. the Catalans and Navarresse!
Just thinking about some reminds me of the Arab conquests, the Persian invasion of Greece, the Magyar invasions, the Mongol ones, the Ottomans, but I'm sure there are more, especially in the ancient times, am I wrong?
You are trying to bundle a few items together that may not necessarily fit. Many if not most ancient wars had finical motives behind them. Either an empire was trying to expand or protect its tax base or source of income by adding to territory and number of subject, or nomads and less affluent states next to empires would go on raids on empires in search money and better life. Typically if you see the capital is moved to the newly conquered land after the invasion that is the second kind where the conquered land in more affluent. In this type of warfare the warrior types and the elite usually moved (migrated) to the new territories, but eventually were absorbed by the larger number locals. The examples you have are mixed of the first and second type. I don’t think Persians intended to move their capital to Athens. Although the reverse was probably true Macedonians made Babylon the center of their entity for the little while it existed Similar to Arab and Mongol and Ottomans conquest where the warriors and elite moved to the new territories
Thanks to everybody (nice list Opus), and Miller: while it's true that there are several types of invasions, what I'm trying to do is to list them all (whether they want to expand, loot, or whatever) to check foreign influence in Europe through invasions or immigration.
For example, I know pretty well all the European, African and Asian influence that the Americas recieved, either through European colonization, African slavery or general immigration. So why shouldn't we do the same with Europe?
Obviously some American countries are based on immigration like the USA, Canada, Argentina or Uruguay, and Europeans are not, but the non-European influence in Europe indeed exists and I want to research it.
It is important to know who are considered as Europeans, from the ancient times some Iranian-speaking peoples lived in the different regions of Europe and some of them are still there, like Jassic people who live in Hungary in Central Europe, but I think there are more ancient sources to prove there were mostly Iranian-speaking peoples in the central and eastern Europe, than Germanic, Slavic, Baltic and other modern European peoples.
Check out K.S. Lal in his essay about the Islamic Invasion of India. This was the origins of the gypsies who fled rather than die or convert. Being largely Hindu they were not given the choice to pay the Jiyza tax until later, like people of the book were permitted. They had only two choices convert, die, or flee.
That book may not be entirely objective. Gypsies who left India seem to have quickly converted to either Islam or Christianity (both Orthodox and Catholic) with out alot of pressure.
Rather than being fervent Hindus, Muslims etc, Gypsies seem relaxed about religion. They simply convert to the dominate religion in the area. In Kosovo, the local gypsy families can have both Christian Orthodox and Muslim members.
This relaxed attitude about religion is shared by other nomadic cultures. Nomads come into contact with different religions and nomadic culture gives individuals a high degree of personal freedom. That can lead to religion being a relative concept.
what you state might have merit but the fact is Red Clay hit the nail on the head, Convert, die or flee!! What would you do if you really believed in your faith? I am not sure what the circumstances were that opened them to Christianity or Islam but yes is true they have a relaxed attitude. I saw this in Turkiye and Greece when I was there.
They were not people of the book and not given the choice to pay the poll tax until later. I did a research paper about the Islamic Invasions of India.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Thanks to everybody (nice list Opus), and Miller: while it's true that there are several types of invasions, what I'm trying to do is to list them all (whether they want to expand, loot, or whatever) to check foreign influence in Europe through invasions or immigration.For example, I know pretty well all the European, African and Asian influence that the Americas recieved, either through European colonization, African slavery or general immigration. So why shouldn't we do the same with Europe?Obviously some American countries are based on immigration like the USA, Canada, Argentina or Uruguay, and Europeans are not, but the non-European influence in Europe indeed exists and I want to research it.
Tacitus in Agricola and Germania mentions an unusual looking people in the Baltic region that lived between the Iron Age Baltic tribes. The foot notes state that they were a Stone-Age Asiatic race that lived in remote regions of the Baltics Sea. I am not sure what happened to them but they were most likely absorbed by the European Baltic Tribes.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Originally from the Lebanon area they spread through the Mediterrenean . They made settlements in Southern Spain (e.g. Cadiz ), Cyprus , Sicily and other places ( usual dates for the oldest settlements circa 1000-700 BC )
Dear Sander! Did you ever notice as strange that all of their outposts were supposedly in the Western part of the Med.? Why have none of their remains ever been found in the East? Or maybe I should have said in the North East of the Med. area?
Dear Sander! Did you ever notice as strange that all of their outposts were supposedly in the Western part of the Med.? Why have none of their remains ever been found in the East? Or maybe I should have said in the North East of the Med. area?
regards,
Because that part of the world was already inhabited by strong city-states and empires... the there were no major powers in the Western Mediterranean, thats why the Greeks and Phoenocians were able to colonize those areas...
Dear Sander! Did you ever notice as strange that all of their outposts were supposedly in the Western part of the Med.? Why have none of their remains ever been found in the East? Or maybe I should have said in the North East of the Med. area?
regards,
Because that part of the world was already inhabited by strong city-states and empires... the there were no major powers in the Western Mediterranean, thats why the Greeks and Phoenocians were able to colonize those areas...Come on Opuslola, basic history here!
Dear TGS, besides Egypt, and possibly Phrygia and the mysterious Hittites, just what other "major powers" existed in the period of 1200 BCE to 1000BCE, that could have competed with or interferred with the trading mission of Phoenicia?
Years later, various Greek city states, and later Italian city states actually fought each other for outposts in the Black Sea area! But, as far as I know, there have never any Phoenician outposts found!
and Miller: while it's true that there are several types of invasions, what I'm trying to do is to list them all (whether they want to expand, loot, or whatever) to check foreign influence in Europe through invasions or immigration.
For example, I know pretty well all the European, African and Asian influence that the Americas recieved, either through European colonization, African slavery or general immigration. So why shouldn't we do the same with Europe?
Obviously some American countries are based on immigration like the USA, Canada, Argentina or Uruguay, and Europeans are not, but the non-European influence in Europe indeed exists and I want to research it.
The examples you had listed were during the classical period or little after. The changes in demographics because of invasions were very limited during this time. The reason for that is if a nomadic group or smaller state attacked or conquered an empire the empire would have been the center of population and the few invader that who moved to the new area were absorbed by the locals (Arab, Mongol, Macedonians). If an empire conquered new lands there were typically very little reason to move the newly conquered less desirable area, hence, very little change in demographics. The overall economic and need for resources in that period was very different than the one in last few centuries which created the current demographics of the Americas and Australia
You can list the entire invasions during this period but if your interest is change in demographics the invasions probably had very limited effect on that. Most of the changes in demographics happened during ancient time or before that or more recently in the past few centuries. There is very limited amount of historical documentation on pre ancient time invasions and because of that most invasion theories are derived from linguistics or other possible effect invasion could have had, such as, the Aryan invasion theory.
Dear TGS, besides Egypt, and possibly Phrygia and the mysterious Hittites, just what other "major powers" existed in the period of 1200 BCE to 1000BCE, that could have competed with or interferred with the trading mission of Phoenicia?
Years later, various Greek city states, and later Italian city states actually fought each other for outposts in the Black Sea area! But, as far as I know, there have never any Phoenician outposts found!
Sorry my "basic history" is so confused.
Regards,
Mycenae for example. My point is that these areas were already inhabited by sophisticated peoples. Just like you said, the Hittites were to the north, Mesopotamia was off limits, Egypt was to the south, the Greeks to the north east etc...
So this answers your question as to why the Phoenicians did not settle in other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean. The Western Mediterranean was open for the taking, and the Phoenicians and Greeks took advantage of this.
Also, you seem to have this misconception that the Phoenician city states were a military power, they werent. They had a significant navy, but not very powerful on land, therefore, they couldnt force the Greeks or Hittites or Egyptians off their land in order to settle. The "uncivilized" peoples of the Western Mediterranean were a different story.
Although there is one Phoenician settlement in southern Turkey:
Dear TGS, besides Egypt, and possibly Phrygia and the mysterious Hittites, just what other "major powers" existed in the period of 1200 BCE to 1000BCE, that could have competed with or interferred with the trading mission of Phoenicia?
Years later, various Greek city states, and later Italian city states actually fought each other for outposts in the Black Sea area! But, as far as I know, there have never any Phoenician outposts found!
Sorry my "basic history" is so confused.
Regards,
Mycenae for example. My point is that these areas were already inhabited by sophisticated peoples. Just like you said, the Hittites were to the north, Mesopotamia was off limits, Egypt was to the south, the Greeks to the north east etc... So this answers your question as to why the Phoenicians did not settle in other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean. The Western Mediterranean was open for the taking, and the Phoenicians and Greeks took advantage of this. Also, you seem to have this misconception that the Phoenician city states were a military power, they werent. They had a significant navy, but not very powerful on land, therefore, they couldnt force the Greeks or Hittites or Egyptians off their land in order to settle. The "uncivilized" peoples of the Western Mediterranean were a different story.Although there is one Phoenician settlement in southern Turkey:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finike
I agree with you here TGS- good points!!! We can agree at times!
My very first research paper was about the site of Troy, disapeared while moving and the floppy went bad.
Part of our study in the program discovering Greece, Evergreen State College, was about the Mykenaen Greeks. I have seen the Lions Gate and other Mykenaen ruins in Greece. I have also been to the Trojan ruins in Turkiye.
The Italic cultures, in present day Italy, were easily conquered by the invading Greeks. Donald Kagan writes about this in his book about the Peloponnesian War. If you enjoy this period I suggest his book.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum