A more racially diverse Europe in the middle ages?

I was thinking what if during the Roman Empire and its far flung territories there was perhaps a greater exchange of peoples than IOTL?

With perhaps large groups of peoples from the middle-east and north africa and through trade even beyond such as from south asia and sub-saharan africa were to find themselves arriving and settling in europe proper.

Assuming the Empire falls as IOTL what would the repercussions and results of various diverse ethnic and racial groups being in europe during the middle-ages be?
 
The problem is that unless you are talking about a serious influx from sub-Saharan Africa, people would probably not notice. The concept of 'race' in the middle ages was fairly fluid. THe Eastern European population included large numbers of people of Central Asian descent and the Mediterranean saw migration both ways with not much not taken. The physical features of phenotypes from anywhere between Morocco and Western China would simply be subsumed as 'normal' by the time ATL-Europe defines what is 'white'.
 
I was thinking what if during the Roman Empire and its far flung territories there was perhaps a greater exchange of peoples than IOTL?

With perhaps large groups of peoples from the middle-east and north africa and through trade even beyond such as from south asia and sub-saharan africa were to find themselves arriving and settling in europe proper.

Assuming the Empire falls as IOTL what would the repercussions and results of various diverse ethnic and racial groups being in europe during the middle-ages be?

The term "race" is not a valid scientific term, as race as a biological category doesn´t exists.

Maybe A Byzanz-Ethiopia trade developes earley and leads to ethiopian merchants ending up in Western Europe through Venice etc. ? Christians from the Middle East settle in Centarl Europe to take refuge? ? It would be interesting to see Yazidi and zorotrastrian communities in the early Middle ages in European cities and Konstantinopel , too (How would they be treated by the church and majorety Christian populations ? )
 
I agree with a prior response.

I was thinking what if during the Roman Empire and its far flung territories there was perhaps a greater exchange of peoples than IOTL?

With perhaps large groups of peoples from the middle-east and north africa and through trade even beyond such as from south asia and sub-saharan africa were to find themselves arriving and settling in europe proper.

Assuming the Empire falls as IOTL what would the repercussions and results of various diverse ethnic and racial groups being in europe during the middle-ages be?

To wit, bar mass steppe, Far Eastern, and Sub-Saharan immigration, you can't really get much more ethnically diverse than was actually the case.

Genetics tell us there are descendants of Mongolians in Lerwick. There are persons with West African Y haplogroup A1 in the Yorkshire Dales, and with Balkan genetics in Clwyd, and, also in Wales, with East African / Near Eastern DNA. Military records show that the Roman Army served to shuffle things around to the point at which there were Alans and Sarmatians on the Wall and at Ribchester, and Britons in North Africa. There were Romans in Karachi, trading, surely (factors and agents are all very well, as per the Periplus, but a shrewd merchant sends his own supercargo), and contrariwise; there were at least indirect contacts with China, and once those are made, unofficial population exchange almost certainly follows. There were emperors from Syria, Libya, and Lebanon. Populations from beyond the formal borders not infrequently found their way into Roman ranks, sometimes by the ala.

Absent a more precise and restricted definition of terms (e.g., "large groups" and the period meant by "the Roman Empire"), I don't really see how much more one could conceive in terms of population exchange.
 
To wit, bar mass steppe, Far Eastern, and Sub-Saharan immigration, you can't really get much more ethnically diverse than was actually the case.

Genetics tell us there are descendants of Mongolians in Lerwick. There are persons with West African Y haplogroup A1 in the Yorkshire Dales, and with Balkan genetics in Clwyd, and, also in Wales, with East African / Near Eastern DNA. Military records show that the Roman Army served to shuffle things around to the point at which there were Alans and Sarmatians on the Wall and at Ribchester, and Britons in North Africa. There were Romans in Karachi, trading, surely (factors and agents are all very well, as per the Periplus, but a shrewd merchant sends his own supercargo), and contrariwise; there were at least indirect contacts with China, and once those are made, unofficial population exchange almost certainly follows. There were emperors from Syria, Libya, and Lebanon. Populations from beyond the formal borders not infrequently found their way into Roman ranks, sometimes by the ala.

Absent a more precise and restricted definition of terms (e.g., "large groups" and the period meant by "the Roman Empire"), I don't really see how much more one could conceive in terms of population exchange.

It seems to me what you describe are smaller groups that found themselves absorbed into the larger surrounding groups. Thus their genetic signature still remains but little else. There indeed was population exchanges during the Roman Empire but I guess in my scenario it was on a greater scale.

I suppose I'm thinking of actual whole communities of middle-easterners, Indians, Africans and their cultures intermingling with the various european groups in Europe.
 
It seems to me what you describe are smaller groups that found themselves absorbed into the larger surrounding groups. Thus their genetic signature still remains but little else. There indeed was population exchanges during the Roman Empire but I guess in my scenario it was on a greater scale.

I suppose I'm thinking of actual whole communities of middle-easterners, Indians, Africans and their cultures intermingling with the various european groups in Europe.

I think that the problem with what you are describing is that a Europe that allows this type of movement/settlement will intrinsically be better at integrating/assimilating migrants, especially before people can be concretely divided along religious lines. There's no real reason for the people from these communities to be excluded from their new home, so there would be less need for migrants sharing the same land of origin to band together tightly.
 
Ogadei lives, Mongols invade and sack more of Europe. Venice does a dirty deal and becomes a vassal with a sea trade monopoly (they had this deal OTL it just never got carried out when the invasion aborted) and a Khanate is established. As usual, the Mongols allow people from other parts of their empire in, try to hold on to nomadism or impose Buddhism or Islam before later Khans convert to Christianity, and they bring in people from other regions to administer Europe, not trusting the natives. Maybe they give jobs to Cathars or Moors or something.

Long term result, leftover communities from this period and more ethnic and religious diversity and the Mongols would weaken or outright gut the Church, leaving these communities less under threat.
 
Al-Andalus employs a Mameluk style slave soldier/administration class of either Tuarags or a Sub-Saharan African group. If/When Al-Andalus falls, this sizeable group converts to Catholicism and retain a distinct culture within Iberia, or (quite far fetched) those who stay Muslim move to the Ottoman Balkans and replace the Timariots as the governors of the Region.
If it's early on enough this trend can be expanded to Islamic S icily as well.
 
Well, but...

It seems to me what you describe are smaller groups that found themselves absorbed into the larger surrounding groups. Thus their genetic signature still remains but little else. There indeed was population exchanges during the Roman Empire but I guess in my scenario it was on a greater scale.

I suppose I'm thinking of actual whole communities of middle-easterners, Indians, Africans and their cultures intermingling with the various european groups in Europe.

But surely that - absorption, I mean - is what must happen? Even if whole alae, say, are recruited, the time-expired veterani in the coloniae will (a) be a smaller group within a larger and (b) be assimilated and absorbed. Hrvatskiwi is quite right: a peaceful settlement on whatever scale tends at this time to end in assimilation, absorption, and dispersion, not in the emergence of discrete ur-nationalist communities. Such migrants, settling and assimilating, will tend instead to regard their highest boast as being "Civis romanus sum."

Alternatively, if the idea is to allow everyone a Völkerwanderung, as it were en masse, then either they are stopped forcibly at the border, the limes; they are allowed in as foederati; or they invade and stay, tearing off a chunk of the Empire. The Empire would not "fall as it fell in OTL," as you first phrased it; it will most likely fall, but differently, and quite possibly early, with an earlier emergence of ethno-linguistic and ethno-religious or confessional proto-nations. Which, depending on the ethos of the ethnicity, language, and creed, could either be very good, or absolutely dreadful.
 

Benevolent

Banned
It was racially diverse, there was a black governor in Italy, blacks were in various kingdoms throughout Europe, Roma, Jews, pre-assimilated Sami, Hun groups, north Africans of various sorts, etc....
 
But surely that - absorption, I mean - is what must happen? Even if whole alae, say, are recruited, the time-expired veterani in the coloniae will (a) be a smaller group within a larger and (b) be assimilated and absorbed. Hrvatskiwi is quite right: a peaceful settlement on whatever scale tends at this time to end in assimilation, absorption, and dispersion, not in the emergence of discrete ur-nationalist communities. Such migrants, settling and assimilating, will tend instead to regard their highest boast as being "Civis romanus sum."

Alternatively, if the idea is to allow everyone a Völkerwanderung, as it were en masse, then either they are stopped forcibly at the border, the limes; they are allowed in as foederati; or they invade and stay, tearing off a chunk of the Empire. The Empire would not "fall as it fell in OTL," as you first phrased it; it will most likely fall, but differently, and quite possibly early, with an earlier emergence of ethno-linguistic and ethno-religious or confessional proto-nations. Which, depending on the ethos of the ethnicity, language, and creed, could either be very good, or absolutely dreadful.

To be fair assimilation is not an ineivatibility, look at the Jewish communities across the world, Parsi's in Gujurat, the various African descended groups in both modern India and Pakistan...Their name escapes me though. (Siddhis IIRC?), as well as Hui Muslims in China, the Cham Muslims in Cambodia, etc.
If a ruler allows a certain level of autonomy, relies on certain minorities etc it is more than likely the group will survive in some fashion.
 

Benevolent

Banned
To be fair assimilation is not an ineivatibility, look at the Jewish communities across the world, Parsi's in Gujurat, the various African descended groups in both modern India and Pakistan...Their name escapes me though. (Siddhis IIRC?), as well as Hui Muslims in China, the Cham Muslims in Cambodia, etc.
If a ruler allows a certain level of autonomy, relies on certain minorities etc it is more than likely the group will survive in some fashion.

Siddis are one group, Habshi are the group that became rulers of Janjira and were high ranking officials elsewhere.

Though don't be fooled habshi were not Habesha, they were tribal Oromo.
 
Last edited:
To be fair assimilation is not an ineivatibility, look at the Jewish communities across the world, Parsi's in Gujurat, the various African descended groups in both modern India and Pakistan...Their name escapes me though. (Siddhis IIRC?), as well as Hui Muslims in China, the Cham Muslims in Cambodia, etc.
If a ruler allows a certain level of autonomy, relies on certain minorities etc it is more than likely the group will survive in some fashion.

These are all (with the possible exception of African descendants in India, even though they are mostly Muslim, IIRC) maintained as separate identities due to religious differences. Islam teaches that a Muslim's primate identifier is that they are a member of the umma. Thus the Islamic identity of say, the Hui, trumps their national origin (Chinese).

If we're talking about the Roman Empires height, Islam doesn't yet exist. Christianity is embryonic and could have easily slid into historical irrelevance, whilst Judaism is essentially an ethnic religion a la Zoroastrianism. Thus only Jews are less likely to be assimilated, and even then they will likely pick up a lot of Roman cultural practices, even if they do maintain their own. The level of distinctiveness of Jews is largely dependent on how harsh the government's treatment of them is.
 
Well, yes and no.

To be fair assimilation is not an ineivatibility, look at the Jewish communities across the world, Parsi's in Gujurat, the various African descended groups in both modern India and Pakistan...Their name escapes me though. (Siddhis IIRC?), as well as Hui Muslims in China, the Cham Muslims in Cambodia, etc.
If a ruler allows a certain level of autonomy, relies on certain minorities etc it is more than likely the group will survive in some fashion.

Yes to "in some fashion;" but that's the point at issue, isn't it. And cultural and political assimilation are not quite the same thing. By way of example (and at the time in question, at that) I advert your attention to Hellenized Jews in the late Republic and early Empire (i.e., the Principate to the time of the Jewish Rebellion and the rise of Vespasian).
 
Perhaps if the Huns led by Attila Flagellum Deum (The Scourge of God ")", and Their allies had managed to win The Battle of the Plains Catalaunian (or Fields) in AD 451 against the coalition led by the Roman General Flavius Aetius and the Visigothic king Theodoric I.
 
Perhaps if the Huns led by Attila Flagellum Deum (The Scourge of God ")", and Their allies had managed to win The Battle of the Plains Catalaunian (or Fields) in AD 451 against the coalition led by the Roman General Flavius Aetius and the Visigothic king Theodoric I.

That really does just go back to the time old ethnic debate on the Huns, regardless I believe within a few hundred years, much like the Mongols, they would have integrated and assimilated into wider society (and that's considering that the Mongols were much more homogenous than the Huns of Attila's age).
 
Top