The impact of Asian "barbarism" in the European continent: thoughts

[Echetlaeus]

European history is strongly related to that of Asia. Numerous times in the past there was a clash of civilizations and many people lost their lives during these conflicts.
Many have been referring to these events as the "barbarism" of Asia.

What do you think about it? Has this contact between the two diametrically opposite civilizations benefited somehow both people?

 

[LeBrok]

Many have been referring to these events as the "barbarism" of Asia.

Never heard this term. Maybe it is only use in Greece?
It is mostly known as barbarians of north Europe against Greeks and Romans.

 

[Echetlaeus]

The term "βάρβαρος" = barbarian is a Greek word and used firstly for those people living in the other part of the Aegean sea. Later it was utilized to refer to all non-Greeks, that is why we have the well known: Πας μη Έλλην βάρβαρος = Whoever [is] not Greek, [is] barbarian.

 

[LeBrok]

The term "βάρβαρος" = barbarian is a Greek word and used firstly for those people living in the other part of the Aegean sea. Later it was utilized to refer to all non-Greeks, that is why we have the well known: Πας μη Έλλην βάρβαρος = Whoever [is] not Greek, [is] barbarian.

I know. Is "Barbarism of Asia" used by Greeks too?

 

[Echetlaeus]

I know. Is "Barbarism of Asia" used by Greeks too?

Yes, it is/was used as well, but in the very beginning it did not have the meaning that is has today. It just meant those people not speaking Greek.

Pay attention to what Alexander the Great said:
"Αλέξανδρος Φιλίππου και οι Έλληνες πλην Λακεδαιμονίων από των βαρβάρων των την Ασίαν κατοικούντων", that is: Alexander, the son of Phillip and the Greeks, except the Spartans, [send this] from the barbarians who live in Asia.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Well I think rather Italy and Western Europe was considering Asians barbarians.
North Europe,not really.
As for East and South-East Europe,they used to be in very good relations to barbarians from Asia.
Even the fact that Alexander Macedon took as wife an Asian woman (Roxana,which was some kind of Persian woman) shows this.

 

[Taranis]

Technically, before the Migration Period, "Western" civilization did not exist. The most sensible starting date for "Western" civilization is the demise of the Western Roman Empire and the adoption of Christianity by the "barbarian" (to pick up that term) peoples that seized upon formerly Roman lands. I should specific "western" Christianity, ie. that was later to become the Catholic Church, as opposed to the church of the Byzantine Empire.

Before the Migration Period, "European" civilization was essentially a Mediterranean civilization (Romans, Greeks, Etruscans and Phoenicians), and the distinction between the north and south side of the Mediterranean that occured much later by the distinct between Christianity and Islam did not exist yet.

Greece itself was heavily influenced by the ancient Near East, as the Greeks adopted their alphabet from the Phoenicians, and even before that, during the Bronze Age, the Mycenaean civilization of Greece was part of a trade network that spanned the eastern Mediterranean, connecting them with Egypt, Anatolia and the Near East.

Conversely, Classical Greece also heavily influenced Asia: Alexander's short-lived empire was mostly located in Asia (as was the first Persian Empire that he had conquered), and Greeks language and culture spread as far east as the Hindukush. When the Indian emperor Ashoka conquered the land that is now Afghanistan (about a century after Alexander), he had his edicts translated into Greek and Aramaic.

Then I would like to ask you something, Echetlaeus? Which "Asian" civilization do you think of, because there is clearly not "one" Asian civilization? Do you mean China, India (or more broadly, the Hindu-Buddhist culture of the Classical period), the Islamic-Arabic world of the Medieval Ages (which also encompassed northern Africa), or maybe ancient Persia, do you mean the ancient (Sumero-Babylonian) civilizations of Mesopotamia, or what?

 

[Aberdeen]

Actually, there was a complex and highly developed Celtic civilization in western Europe before the rise of the Roman empire, and although the Romans conquered and destroyed much of it, the Celts, particularly those in northern Italy and Gaul, influenced the Mediterranean civilization quite a bit. And after the Roman empire collapsed during the Migration Period, the Irish did a lot to keep literacy and "civilization" alive during the Dark Ages. So I don't think you can really say that "Western" civilization didn't exist before the Migration Period.

I'm not sure what Asian barbarians are being referred to. The Huns, perhaps, since they migrated in from the east some time before they invaded the Roman empire. I wouldn't call the Germanic tribes Asian, and I think they were the the second most important agents of the collapse of the Roman Empire (the first being its own citizens).

 

[Taranis]

Actually, there was a complex and highly developed Celtic civilization in western Europe before the rise of the Roman empire, and although the Romans conquered and destroyed much of it, the Celts, particularly those in northern Italy and Gaul, influenced the Mediterranean civilization quite a bit. And after the Roman empire collapsed during the Migration Period, the Irish did a lot to keep literacy and "civilization" alive during the Dark Ages. So I don't think you can really say that "Western" civilization didn't exist before the Migration Period.

I would like to politely disagree here, Aberdeen. While I will agree that the iron age Celtic culture of western Europe had many traits of a civilization (including literacy, at least towards its rims), the crucial point is that it was obviously not the ancestor of later Western civilization. The iron age Celtic civilization was essentially destroyed by the Roman Empire and most of it was absorbed by the Roman Empire, or absorbed by Germanic tribes. As far as religion (Christianity), languages (Romance languages), literature (Greek, Latin, and by extension, Jewish, via the Old Testament) goes, the West has its origin in the Mediterranean, not northwestern Europe. While obviously Celtic languages survived on the British Isles, these people were (Britain in particular) heavily influenced by the Roman Empire: the formation and initial dissemination of Christianity took place entirely within a Mediterranean and mostly Greek- and Latin-speaking context (remember: the New Testament was originally written in Greek). It is only with the advent of Christianity that the former "barbarian" peoples (ie. Insular Celtic, Germanic, Slavic) also started to produce their own literature. And you know how the Irish-Americans these days rever one Romano-British guy named Patricius (hint-hint) who supposedly converted Ireland to Christianity during the Dark Ages...

So while I would agree that something that might be called a "civilization" existed in northwestern Europe before the rise of the Roman Empire, it certainly wasn't "Western" in any practical way.

 

[Echetlaeus]

Technically, before the Migration Period, "Western" civilization did not exist. The most sensible starting date for "Western" civilization is the demise of the Western Roman Empire and the adoption of Christianity by the "barbarian" (to pick up that term) peoples that seized upon formerly Roman lands. I should specific "western" Christianity, ie. that was later to become the Catholic Church, as opposed to the church of the Byzantine Empire.

Before the Migration Period, "European" civilization was essentially a Mediterranean civilization (Romans, Greeks, Etruscans and Phoenicians), and the distinction between the north and south side of the Mediterranean that occured much later by the distinct between Christianity and Islam did not exist yet.

Greece itself was heavily influenced by the ancient Near East, as the Greeks adopted their alphabet from the Phoenicians, and even before that, during the Bronze Age, the Mycenaean civilization of Greece was part of a trade network that spanned the eastern Mediterranean, connecting them with Egypt, Anatolia and the Near East.

Conversely, Classical Greece also heavily influenced Asia: Alexander's short-lived empire was mostly located in Asia (as was the first Persian Empire that he had conquered), and Greeks language and culture spread as far east as the Hindukush. When the Indian emperor Ashoka conquered the land that is now Afghanistan (about a century after Alexander), he had his edicts translated into Greek and Aramaic.

Then I would like to ask you something, Echetlaeus? Which "Asian" civilization do you think of, because there is clearly not "one" Asian civilization? Do you mean China, India (or more broadly, the Hindu-Buddhist culture of the Classical period), the Islamic-Arabic world of the Medieval Ages (which also encompassed northern Africa), or maybe ancient Persia, do you mean the ancient (Sumero-Babylonian) civilizations of Mesopotamia, or what?

Let me be clear here, I use use the word barbarism in " " (its use is metaphorical here), therefore my point is not to insult someone. The point of this poll is for Europeans to speak their beliefs about the impact of the Asian culture in the Old Continent.

 

[Aberdeen]

I would like to politely disagree here, Aberdeen. While I will agree that the iron age Celtic culture of western Europe had many traits of a civilization (including literacy, at least towards its rims), the crucial point is that it was obviously not the ancestor of later Western civilization. The iron age Celtic civilization was essentially destroyed by the Roman Empire and most of it was absorbed by the Roman Empire, or absorbed by Germanic tribes. As far as religion (Christianity), languages (Romance languages), literature (Greek, Latin, and by extension, Jewish, via the Old Testament) goes, the West has its origin in the Mediterranean, not northwestern Europe. While obviously Celtic languages survived on the British Isles, these people were (Britain in particular) heavily influenced by the Roman Empire: the formation and initial dissemination of Christianity took place entirely within a Mediterranean and mostly Greek- and Latin-speaking context (remember: the New Testament was originally written in Greek). It is only with the advent of Christianity that the former "barbarian" peoples (ie. Insular Celtic, Germanic, Slavic) also started to produce their own literature. And you know how the Irish-Americans these days rever one Romano-British guy named Patricius (hint-hint) who supposedly converted Ireland to Christianity during the Dark Ages...

So while I would agree that something that might be called a "civilization" existed in northwestern Europe before the rise of the Roman Empire, it certainly wasn't "Western" in any practical way.

Okay, I can see your point. Although I do think the Celts influenced Roman culture more than has generally been acknowledged.

 

[Aberdeen]

Let me be clear here, I use use the word barbarism in " " (its use is metaphorical here), therefore my point is not to insult someone. The point of this poll is for Europeans to speak their beliefs about the impact of the Asian culture in the Old Continent.

Maybe you can clarify exactly what impact of Asian culture on Europe you're referring to. IMO, your comment is vague enough that you could be referring to anything from hunter gathers from central Asia bringing the Paleolithic to Europe, curry being popular in modern Britain because of British activities in India during the colonial era, or anything in between.

 

[Echetlaeus]

Maybe you can clarify exactly what impact of Asian culture on Europe you're referring to. IMO, your comment is vague enough that you could be referring to anything from hunter gathers from central Asia bringing the Paleolithic to Europe, curry being popular in modern Britain because of British activities in India during the colonial era, or anything in between.

I am talking up to the period of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Aberdeen]

I am talking up to the period of the Ottoman Empire.

Okay, the Turks migrated from central Asia into the Middle East, conquered it and set up an empire that became a place for medieval knights from western Europe to try to get their Crusader freak on. And the lengthy sack of Constantinople by the west, which likely never would have happened without the Crusades, sent a lot of Byzantium art and knowledge to western Europe, as did the subsequent conquest of Constantinople by the Turks. Then the Turks conquered much of the Balkans and even seriously threatened Vienna a couple of times, making Johnny Turk a popular bogeyman in Europe. But Europe never united against the Turk because of religious and political divisions among the christians. And I suppose we could talk about the damaging affect that moslem raiders from North Africa had on western Europe for centuries after North Africa became part of the Turkish empire. But in this context, the Turks are functioning more as Middle Eastern emissaries of islam than as Asians. So I'm still not quite sure what you're asking. Unless you're using the Bosphorus as the dividing line between Europe and Asia. Many people consider the Middle East to be its own entity, rather than a part of Asia.

I guess when I typed the above comments I was misreading what you said. But if you're talking about the period prior to the Turkish empire, that's a huge swath of time, and a lot of different things happened in different centuries.

 

[kamani]

Kostandinople was the richest and most advanced city in the world at its peak, hence it attracted many sharks from east and west. It was taken by the turks but the biggest blow to it was given by the Crusaders who were manipulated by the Republic of Venice and possibly Rome, who had commercial interest in the destruction of Kostandinople. So the longest lived empire in history, Byzant, ended up with no friends and only enemies at the end of its days. Only later after Kostandinople had fallen, and the Turks started to control the trade in the East Mediteranean, did Venice realize that the Byzantines were not so bad after all.
When the Albanian Skanderbeg was revolting against the Turks, Venice showed up...
taken from wikipedia:
The Venetians sought by every means to overthrow Skanderbeg or bring about his death, even offering a life pension of 100 golden ducats annually for the person who would kill him.^[51][53] During the Albanian-Venetian War of 1447–1448, Venice invited the Ottomans to attack Skanderbeg simultaneously from the east, facing the Albanians with a two-front conflict.

 

[Nobody1]

So the longest lived empire in history, Byzant, ended up with no friends and only enemies at the end of its days.

Apart from the Republic of Genoa who were the masters of the colony of Pera (Galata) north of the Golden Horn; And if it wouldnt have been for the Venetians (Gallipoli 1416) the Turks would have conquered much earlier; Byzantium was largely self fault for creating that many enemies especially amongst its own former mercenaries i.e. Normans (Olivento 1041 / Montepeloso 1041 /Dyrrhachium 1081 / Thessalonica 1185) and of course the Turks (Manzikert 1071);

As for the OP: Has Asian civilization benefited Europe?
Why not; The Hun invasion and all its consequences played an important/vital part in European history;

 

[Sile]

I am talking up to the period of the Ottoman Empire.

Since there where no Turks in anatolia prior to ~600AD, was the people of anatolia noted as asians pre 600AD or simply eastern european/levant/caucasian people?

IIRC, the macedonians of Alexander stated the asians began after the gordian knot area. But aeolian greeks where sometimes referred to as asiatic Greeks or Pontic Greeks

 

[Aberdeen]

Okay, but I'm still not sure what the initial question is all about. Echetlaeus asked about the impact of Asian "barbarism" on Europe, but he also asked whether contact between "the two diametrically opposite civilizations" benefited both Europeans and Asians. I think it's impossible to answer those two different questions when we're talking about periods of centuries. His reference to "barbarism" made me think he was asking about wars and invasions, but centuries separate such different events as the Persian invasions of Greece, the Hunnish invasion of Europe and the Battle of Lake Van that perhaps could be considered the beginning of the Turkish empire. And I doubt if you'd find universal agreement among historians about the impact of those events. IMO, it's even more complex when talking about how Europe and Asia may have benefited by contact with one another. It's not always clear what technological change first started in Europe versus Asia, for example, and tracing the impact of ideas is even more complex, I think.

 

[LeBrok]

Since there where no Turks in anatolia prior to ~600AD, was the people of anatolia noted as asians pre 600AD or simply eastern european/levant/caucasian people?

IIRC, the macedonians of Alexander stated the asians began after the gordian knot area. But aeolian greeks where sometimes referred to as asiatic Greeks or Pontic Greeks

Middle East was always more "civilized" (judging by development of civilization) than Europe, till I believe Renaissance when thanks to science, inventions and capital/first banking Europe got finally ahead.

Central Asiatic Nomads the Huns are a different story.

 

[Angela]

Middle East was always more "civilized" (judging by development of civilization) than Europe, till I believe Renaissance when thanks to science, inventions and capital/first banking Europe got finally ahead.

Central Asiatic Nomads the Huns are a different story.

Well, I think you might get an argument in terms of the classical world. I'm pretty sure that while the Greeks and Romans certainly didn't view the inhabitants of Anatolia and the Levant the way they did the peoples north of the Black Sea, for example, they did consider themselves more "civilized" than the peoples of the " inner Asia" of that time, and I would tend to agree, especially as time went on.

Just in terms of this use of the word "Asia"... As Aberdeen has pointed out, the specific focus wasn't made clear by the OP.

I probably shouldn't be speaking for him, but I think the OP may be looking at this from the point of view of the Greco-Roman world.

To the classical Greeks and Romans, the only "continents" of which they were aware were Europe and "Asia". "Asia" was everything to the east of the Aegean and the Mediterranean in general. Anatolia, or the area between the Aegean, Mediterranean and Black Seas, was Asia Minor., whose eastern boundary was formed by the mountains of western Mesopotamia. This was the "Orient" to them. The term sort of hung on...Oriental studies isn't just the study of the far east; it's, or at least was, also the study of Anatolia, the Levant etc.

Asia Major was east of the Don and Black Sea, including Sarmatica Asiatica, Colchis, Iberia, Armenia, Syria, Arabia, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Media, Susiana, Persis, Ariana, Hyrcania, Margiana, Bactriana, Sogdiana, India, the land of the Sinae and Serica.

All of these areas were "the other" to them, or the lands of the "barbarians", and they were in conflict with them, although it's certainly true that they also borrowed from them, especially, of course, from the peoples of the ancient Near East, whom, as I pointed out above, they certainly viewed differently than the people of Sarmatica, for example.

In terms of influence, I think it could be said that after the Persians were turned back by Greece, the pendulum swung decidedly in the other direction, and the classical civilization of Greece prevailed in Asia Minor and the Levant, with Greek culture, albeit mixed with "Asian" influences, dominating most of the east.

The ascendancy of Rome replaced Greek rulers with Roman administrators. While the Roman West fell, the Roman-Greek East held on, and maintained control of the area until the invasions from what might be called, I suppose, Asia Major.

In terms of influence East-West from that point on, a lot of it consisted of classical era learning preserved and transmitted both by the Byzantines and the Muslim empires that co-existed with, and then largely replaced them.

As for the fall of Constantinople, I don't see how it can be viewed as anything but an unmitigated tragedy. There's an excellent, not too long book about it called The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople by Jonathan Phillips. It's very enlightening.

It may seem a long time ago to some people, but the implications were huge. Just one consequence is the lasting suspicion on the part of the Eastern Orthodox Christians of the bona fides of the Latin Christian west.