Are the Phoenicians still around?

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,840
San Antonio, Tx
#23
I thought that the Lebanese are the modern day descendants of the Phoenicians.
A sizable proportion of them moved to Tunisia and established the city of Carthage. The Roman pretty much destroyed Carthage in an act of revenge after Hannibal failed to sack Rome. I’ll just bet there are plenty of Carthaginian genes floating around the country to this day, to join with the genetic residue of the Crusaders who also built (much later) impressive (Crusader castles) forts in Tunisia. Don’t know about the Phoenicians elsewhere.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,840
San Antonio, Tx
#24
No, the Phoenecians were a cultural group that died out over two thousand years ago. Lebanon is where they were primarily located - but to say “The Lebanese are the Phoenecians people” would not be accurate.

As well, the Phoenician culture originated on the Arabian peninsula according ancient historians; it prospered most in Lebanon and Israel, and reached at least as far as Spain.
Well Carthage is in Tunisia
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,539
Slovenia
#25
Utica went over to Romans and was spared and a capital of African province until rebuilding of Carhage, now a Roman city. I suppose that also other cities were spared by Romans. I suppose that Utica was ten times smaller than Carthage but it was still having tens of thousands of people.

I suppose that Phoenicians were mixing with Berbers before Roman conquest and after new setttlers came in from Italy also with them. In my opinion there were very mixed multi national communities in Tunisia (same as in Syria and in most places in Mediterranean). Antiquity was more open to multiculturalism as Middle ages in my opinion but even in Middle ages they were mostly separated on religious borders, not so much on national ones. Nationalism was a product of 19th century.
 
Nov 2010
7,332
Cornwall
#26
Utica went over to Romans and was spared and a capital of African province until rebuilding of Carhage, now a Roman city. I suppose that also other cities were spared by Romans. I suppose that Utica was ten times smaller than Carthage but it was still having tens of thousands of people.

I suppose that Phoenicians were mixing with Berbers before Roman conquest and after new setttlers came in from Italy also with them. In my opinion there were very mixed multi national communities in Tunisia (same as in Syria and in most places in Mediterranean). Antiquity was more open to multiculturalism as Middle ages in my opinion but even in Middle ages they were mostly separated on religious borders, not so much on national ones. Nationalism was a product of 19th century.
Both Romans and Carthaginians were dictatorial Empire builders. They wouldn't be mixing with Berbers, they would be employing (or fighting ) them, just like the Vandals and everybody else who has passed through North Africa. Thinking of some ancient multi-cultural society is a bit 21st century idealistic.

Also have you ever been in a roman city like Baelo Claudia, Segobriga or Ampurias? Even Roman Tarragona and Merida. There can't have been that many people inside the walls, it's just not possible. I think all the hangers-on, soldiers and traders would live in surrounding shanties if anything.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,539
Slovenia
#27
I don't think that Carthage would rise to such numbers without mixing of people.Starting settlers would be in lower thousands in my opinion and all kinds of people needed to settle in to make a megacity in 200 years or so after it's founding. Maybe they were living in their national quarters of city but also mixing. I can't say to which degree or how common it was but I don't think they were strictly separating. Also social climbing was connected to joining a ruling nationality.
 
Nov 2010
7,332
Cornwall
#28
I don't think that Carthage would rise to such numbers without mixing of people.Starting settlers would be in lower thousands in my opinion and all kinds of people needed to settle in to make a megacity in 200 years or so after it's founding. Maybe they were living in their national quarters of city but also mixing. I can't say to which degree or how common it was but I don't think they were strictly separating. Also social climbing was connected to joining a ruling nationality.
You have a far more charitable view of Roman, Carthaginian, Vandal and Arab elites than I do.
 
Nov 2010
7,332
Cornwall
#30
I don't mean elites, I mean lower classes. Of course elites were always the most closed part of a society.
Yes but in those days conquering people were the elites. So for example that means ALL the Visigoths, all the Vandals and all the Romans and Carthaginians. Native populations started below the bottom of their socieies. Crudely speaking it's why these people took over countries - so they could settle somewhere and have people to boss around. The Upper Class Hispano-Romans and Afro-Romans would intereact as they made the places tick - farms, economies, infrastructure etc etc - but these invaders just did not have lower classes to equate with locals. Just different layers of importance!!
 

Similar History Discussions