/lit/ - Literature

unconscious collective

>>10127495
a pretty good history of ancient rome written by someone who knows what they are on about

>>10127495
im getting dragged to a lecture by mary beard in like a month. i hope its good

A very sub-par summery of rome that focuses on very minor events and aspects of rome.

>>10127564
>subpar

Its obviously a general history created for the pleb public, and in that she was very successful. If you want her monographs they are available on libgen

It's a decent and broad introduction.

/leftypolhisy/

>>10127495
I'm pretty sure I saw her on Twitter defending the BBC with their we wuz romananz and shheeeit cartoon.

Taleb destroyed this idiot

>>10127737
explain plz

>>10127690

>Among her fiercest critics was a US-Lebanese economist, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who described Prof Beard as a member of the “politically correct Gestapo”. He claimed that “scholarship is dead in the UK”.

Shots fired

>>10127810
That's been Harold Bloom's stance for the past thirty years

>>10127690
>>10127737
This is literally all I know about her, but it does make me skeptical of her book

>>10127495
Modern Academia

>>10127863
there literally was ethnic diversity in roman britain though
elizabethan england was super white but 1000 years ago there were plenty of kangz running around

you /pol/ types need to pick the right battles if you want to actualyl get somewhere

>>10127865
lolno
Feel free to try and defend that stance, though, I enjoy watching people get btfo

>>10127865
great post

>>10127871
a side effect of a global empire, like the romans had, is that there's a lot more mobility between landmasses/regions/etc., plenty of africans were running around rome, and some of them ended up in britain
you saw the same thing in victorian england

>>10127889
There's no evidence that there was any widespread movement from Africa to Britain. They would have been an incredibly small minority, and there is certainly no evidence that they intermarried. And, most certainly of all, no Africans would have been recruited into the legion itself, making that picture a completely ridiculous fabrication.

>>10127904
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice
literally a kang who was sainted

>>10127926
THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING

>>10127926
>literally posting an egyptian
I thought it was just a meme that people thought egyptians were black

>>10127926
OK, now show me evidence that any of them were in Britain.

>>10127936
N U B I A N S

>>10127960
WE

>>10127926
>the existence of local cohorts means there were definitely inter-racial legions being sent to Britain
nigger please

>>10127964
it's a stale meme that was funny maybe one time and there actually was a short-lived Nubian dynasty of Egypt that adopted Egyptian religion and culture.

>>10127946
>Perhaps the most remarkable tale to survive is an episode in the Historia Augusta (Life of Severus 22) concerning the inspection of the Wall by the emperor Septimius Severus. The emperor, who was himself born in Libya, was confronted by a black soldier, part of the Wall garrison and a noted practical joker
https://blog.oup.com/2014/09/african-encounters-roman-britain/
That ball's heading straight through your goalposts. I imagine you'll want to move them.

>>10127904
>no Africans would have been recruited into the legion itself
See
>>10128008

>>10128008
>>10128012
Your own source calls the Historia Augusta "notoriously unreliable." The best you've got is a regiment of Moors who were, again, not actually black.

>>10128008
>>10128012
Also, even assuming I'm wrong on the legionnaires, you still haven't actually been able to prove that there was any significant presence, let alone intermarriage.

>>10128026
He's gonna accuse you of moving the goalposts.

>>10128039
Can't move goalposts that were outright stated in the initial post. He's just only addressed one part of the post.

>>10128039
Correct.

>>10128047
I'll just refer you to the original argument, shall I?
>>10127904
Feel free to actually answer all the points instead of the one you believe to be weakest.

I hate the whole Kangz argument with Egypt, but the lost legion was Legio IX Hispana. Black legionaries were not a stunning thing, fucking Nubian light horsemen were being used as auxiliaries in Syria during the middle republic and Libyans/Berbers were used throughout the imperial period. Not only that but using locals as military was not common, you used foreigners to hold soil. And considering how legions were stripped from Britain in 415(?) by Honorius it is reasonable to conclude that any local intermarriage was brought south and probably killed off during the collapse.

>>10128026
>significant presence
Not sure how you're defining that, but obviously there aren't any percentage breakdowns of the population- who can say? Point is you asked for evidence that there were 'any' Africans in Britain and denied that any could be in the army (although that could be another anon).

I'm sure there weren't many black Africans in Roman Britain- in fact, that story seems to hinge on them being rare. But who cares? All the Mary Beard post actually says is that there was 'ethnic diversity', which you'd have to be a special kind of idiot to dispute. It's literally implied in the words 'Roman Britain'.

North Africans were mostly Semites. The figure on the far left is how the Egyptians pictured Libyans. By today's standards the Berbers, Carthaginians, et al would probably be considered "diverse" but certainly not black like the officer in the cartoon.

>>10128052
1. Your 'most certainly of all' point is complete bollocks.
2. Who is claiming that there were 'widespread movements', intermarriage, or large numbers? I just spotted you saying some very obviously wrong things and pointed that out.

>>10128070
Carthaginians were definitely using black african mercenaries tho. And those people didnt just disappear. I would assume the second black was from Punt.

>>10128083

How would a black African mercenary employed by the Carthaginians end up achieving high rank in the Roman army?

Anything's possible I guess but presenting him as the head of a "normal" Roman family is a case of bending history to suit modern ideology.

I mean let's be honest, whatever the truth of Beard's claims, the BBC is clearly trying to normalize immigration and "diversity."

>>10128098
>high rank
Firstly, he wouldnt, but that doesnt mean he didnt find himself on Hadrian's Wall or sitting in some barracks in wessex. Secondly, I think the "diversity" of the Roman world was pretty impressive due to shifting military forces. Thirdly, I agree, but I dont care about modern post-structural racial outrage politics. Mary Beard is a respected academic and shitting on her because the BBC asked her to confirm racial diversity in the Roman military and trade is silly.

>>10128066
The point behind pushing Roman Britain as "ethnically diverse" is not to state that there were ethnic minorities present, but to give people the false idea that it was significantly "diverse" in the modern sense of the term. In terms of political correctness, a simple minority does not constitute "diversity", which is understood as a significant, combined "minority" population which borders on or actually constitutes an actual majority.

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=611EB66EB3A68821B79B669C837E6ADE

and

https://www.amazon.com/Race-Ethnicity-Classical-World-Translation/dp/1603849947

seem to be decent gotos for this subject

>>10128112
>Moving the goalpost

>>10127865
Just because skeletons of sub saharan africans and the occasional chinese was found doesn't mean it's realistic to portray a centurion in Britannia as one. While /pol/ oftentimes overreacts, I fail to see how they are wrong on this particular case.

>>10128112
>Mary Beard is a respected academic and shitting on her because the BBC asked her to confirm racial diversity in the Roman military and trade is silly.
OP is asking about a book by Mary Beard on the Romans. We have direct evidence here that Beard will politicize her views on the Romans to fit a certain narrative. How does that not call into question the veracity of this book then? What else could she be bending to fight her narrative?

>>10128198
And it's not like there's a shortage of other Roman history books to choose from.

>>10128198
But she isnt, the Roman world was highly diverse. The Illyrian legion was used literally everywhere.

>>10128155
Wut. I'm not the guy from above, and I dont understand your comment. The Roman world was diverse due to trade networks and the use of foreign legions. This included black africans, and it included Britain.

Furthermore, if you take Great Courses classes on Roman history, she is cited over and over again and praised for her work on Roman Social history. I have never seen, in any of the threads on her, any evidence from her work that is demonstrably false. It is all either an attack on her gender, or her work in gender (invaluable), or calling her an SJW for saying the roman world is diverse.

>>10128240
Picture in OP shows a a sub-Saharan high ranking officer, or something.
Nobody denies the possibility of there being cheap low quality soldiers imported to and from the edges of the empire.

>>10127863
If Paul Joseph Watson believes something, it's probably false.

the nigger worship in mainstream media is just weird at this point.

>>10127810
>>10127737
>Oxbridge Historian vs. meme author for right wing crybabies
who knows more about ancient rome I wonder?

>>10127964
WUZ

>>10128473
Evidently Taleb, unless you're retarded enough to believe that black centurions in ancient britain were typical likr Mary does.

>>10128473
>britsh female professor
you can make a girl the queen in that country and shell lose her empire, the prime minister and shell let acid be thrown in people faces. So its no wonder that the professor can't teach shit.

>>10127810
>Taleb

Hey look guys. Taleb is fighting with someone. Next he'll be bitching about NY liberals while sending his own kids to NY elite schools.

why do whitebois get so triggered over the idea that black people may have set foot in Britain 1000 years ago?

>>10128985
LMAO

>>10129092
>why does 1984 BLACKED edition make people so upset?
can't just lie to people you have to say you fucked their girl too?

>>10128296
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Lollius_Urbicus
He was the most powerful Roman in Britain and he was a Berber. Pic related shows how dark skinned Berbers can be. Roman was a very diverse empire that cared a lot less about skin colour that most people today. If there were powerful people in Roman Britain there is no reason to assume they couldn't have come from any of the major ethnic groups that made up positions of power.

>>10129476
berbers are nothing like subsaharan Africans.

>>10129669
It's almost like I never said they were. It's also almost you didn't address anything I did say.

>>10129669
>Orginal person complaining doesn't talk about subsaharan Africans
>Author doesn't talk about subsaharan Africans
>Person you are responding to was responding to someone saying "sub-Saharan high ranking officer, or something"
>or something
This really isn't about subsaharan Africans.

>>10129476
>that cherrypick

>>10129905
>Pic related shows how dark skinned Berbers can be
>can be
>hur dur cherry picking

>>10129905

So, if this is shit/sub-par/whatever, what alternatives are that are in the same vein, but, you know, better? Recommendations?

>>10127495
She was badly BTFOed by Taleb so I'm guessing not very good.

>>10131061
>Taleb
>No, it's the entirety of academia who is wrong
He sounded like /pol/ talking about how rigged academia is because the Holocaust is so well documented.

>>10131107
Taleb is right though.

>>10128484
KANGZ

>>10131117
>Find remains of blacks and Asians in Britain
>Roman Empire is known for it's lack of giving a shit about skin colour
>Legionnaires come from all corners of the empire
>All wealthy regions of the empire have aristocrats who are ethnically from local ethnicity as well as immigrant other ethnic aristocrats
>A governor of Britain was a Berber
All of what I have just said is true. In light of that I can't see how he is right.

>>10131037
What? Have you honestly read the 'criticisms' in this thread and concluded that the critics know anything about, or care about, Roman history?

>>10131172
>>Roman Empire is known for it's lack of giving a shit about skin colour
>literally genocided African cities

>>10131037
Just read the primary source

>>10132032
Raping and pillaging is as old as time and the Romans were pretty fucking good at it wherever they went.

>>10132032
They didn't destroy places for racist reasoning. It's not like they hated Carthage because of their ethnicity.

>>10127863
The weird thing is I seem to remember her writing in the TLS about the trap of thinking "omg they were just like us!"

>>10130989
>pic shows how there are modern berbers descended from sub-saharan slaves taken north during the middle ages and beyond*

>>10131172

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, what bugs me is the portrayal of a black African as the head of a "typical" Roman family at a time when 99.99% of people living in Britain were as white as the driven snow. The cartoon is clearly propaganda designed to normalize mass third world immigration and multiculturalism. I mean, there was a black general who served in the Russian army in the eighteenth century, does that mean that the "typical" Russian family was black? Of course not, it would be completely asinine to make that claim.

I don't like it when the past is bent and twisted to serve modern ideology, and it infuriates me when (supposedly) respected historians get involved in this nonsense.

>>10131172
>>Find remains of africans*

>>10133602
it should go beyond being bugged. uk police are jailing people for shit they say online, meanwhile the taxpayer funded tv network is trying to rewrite history in popular shows and educational programs for kids
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60QRkHPidQ4

>>10127960
MAGNUS NUBIAN PHALLUS

>>10127495
A good summary of Roman history and an inexplicable hatred of stoicism

>>10132017
Well, I'm giving em the benefit of the doubt, seeing alternatives can be illumination, either on history or their position.

>>10132017
>Have you honestly read the 'criticisms' in this thread and concluded that the critics know anything about, or care about, Roman history?
>Jumps on the first sensationalist tabloid page he can find to support his ideology

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2016/09/23/chinese-skeletons-in-roman-britain-not-so-fast/#2844cb245065
>The shortcomings of this method, however, are considerable and are outlined by Redfern and colleagues in their article. For example:

>The fact that many of the samples were fragmented means that 41% of the sample had only two traits to score. As the researchers write, "This degree of missing data can affect classification accuracies, particularly among the sample having two or less (sic) traits." cont.

>This article is a remarkable attempt to correlate three different isotopes and skeletal morphology to answer questions about the diversity of Roman Britain in the later Empire, and it succeeds in showcasing that diversity even in this small sample. But it does not show, as the tabloids have been crowing, that there were Chinese in Roman London. The statistical results are intriguing, but the oxygen data from the two so-called Asians seem to be within the range of others in the sample, and only one produced dietary isotope data. For a slam-dunk, they need DNA. If and when they produce this, though, establishing a solid correlation between DNA from the Roman era and the results of the statistical method on the Roman skulls and teeth has the potential to help other bioarchaeologists assess ancestry without doing expensive destructive analysis.

>>10128473
Pro-tip: it's not the individual with a vagina.

>>10127495
I'm reading this right now (almost done)
She spends way too much time trying to stay skeptical of certain accounts and trying not to be biased.
The unfortunate truth is that it is impossible to not be biased when it comes to history to some degree. She should instead simply make a skeptical statement and move on.

Also, she has a tendency to interject her comparisons of society back then and her interpretation of our modern society, which is unneeded for most bits (unless it is to highlight a remarkable similarity or underline a typical misconception).

Was expecting a lit of political correctness, and there is some present, but there isn't enough for it to be overbearing.

Overall: she's alright I guess. Best paired with a different modern historian and/or and ancient historian.

>>10133925
She keeps taking pot shots at Marcus Aurelius when he was just a good boy.
Mary Beard plz dnt blly!

>>10128473
Taleb actually brought up genetic data, Beard didn't even have an argument. Historians are generally retarded.

>>10127863
WEFTIST

PWOPAGUNDA

>>10128473
this.
taleb is just an idiot.

>>10127863
>/lit/ hates academia now.

this board is fucked

>>10133602
>the head of a "typical" Roman family at a time when 99.99% of people living in Britain were as white as the driven snow.
You aren't looking at a typical Roman family. You are looking at a very prestige one. Considering how the Roman empire is made up in a country like Britain the more power a family is the more likely they are to be non-white.

>>10134798
What does that make Beard if she can't even beat an 'idiot' in an argument?

>>10135018
You can't beat someone whose argument is merely academia is run the the PC police and so I can discount all evidence against my position while providing none of my own, I don't need to provide my own because I know I'm right.

>>10127889
You're fucking retarded. The ottoman empire was global but you don't see sub saharans en masse in Bulgaria do you? Obviously there were a few blacks who by chance wound up in Britain, just like some did in the medieval era I would imagine, but it would be incredibly rare, and certainly not what people mean by "diverse" in today's sense.

>>10134968
Science and logic says that sub Saharan blacks wouldn't have the intelligence or discipline to achieve a high rank. I could see semites doing so, but just not likely for the melanin privileged.

>>10135033
>so I can discount all evidence against my position while providing none of my own

This is literally the exact opposite of what happened. See this thread for example: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/892694339549351937

It's a well written book that will give you a broad overview of the Roman Republic. It's good for what it was intended for. Basically for interested non-historians

>>10135033
But that's not what happened at all, that's actually pretty close to the exact opposite of what happened. Taleb used evidence and Beard just sperged out and rage quit.

If anything
>I can discount all evidence against my position while providing none of my own, I don't need to provide my own because I know I'm right.
is exactly what Beard did.

>>10134968

The cartoon describes it as a "typical" Roman family. That's literally what people are mad about, nobody is denying that the odd black person could have ended up in Britain.

>>10135033
This is cancer.

Shes is the decendent of Gibbons; liberal historian, trying to write a peoples history of Rome. That is why, like someone mentioned, she is missing out large events. More precisely Mary thinks history is more driven by what we will call the "prolateriate" rather than Great Men; a Caesar, an Augustus or a Scipio. Being /lit/ Mary's work will appeal to this place abit more then /pol/ or /his/ as the "rightwing" history leans on Great Man to shift the wheel of the Tide-Ghost with others; petty men, scurry about these titans and too often find themselves dishonourable graves. From these ecents liberals give them charity through history telling apocryphal stories of the lives of no-name men.

tl;dr If you are liberal and or "leftwing" you will be fine it; in fact it will appeal to your very nature.

>>10136389
what are some good introductory Roman History books? (I'm a complete novice)

>>10136469
Start listening to mike duncan's history of rome podcast and reading the primary sources

>>10135049
Taleb is making up his own position that he thinks she should hold, and calls a liar when she says that is not her position. Let's break down what happened
>video showing a dark skinned roman family turns up
>someone says the race aspect is bullshit
>Beard turns up to say that there was ethnic diversity in Roman Britain
>Taleb from nothing assumes she must mean that large proportions of the Romano-British population were none white
>she denies that this is her position as nowhere has she said anything like it
>Taleb up right calls her a liar

>>10135730
I just re-watched the whole video. At no point does it say that the family is typical.

>Life in Roman Britain as seen through the eyes of one family nearly 2000 years ago.
This is exactly what it says under the video on the BBC website. Showing a single dark skinned powerful family is hardly stretching the truth for the Roman empire.
It's also not like they have armies of people fretting over every single word in relation to everything they do, so that even If at anytime it did describe that family as such anywhere in relation to the video it was probably more because of carelessness.

>>10135036
The Ottoman empire was ruled by Turks and heavily favoured Turks. Rome didn't give a shit about your ethnicity and had no racial understanding of itself allowing people to rise to all levels of that society. Rome integrated other peoples into their empire. Powerful people remained powerful after assimilation. It's why Rome was so successful. These allowed for massive amounts of movement for people that did not happen in the Ottoman empire.
Also slaves in Rome had upward mobility. So as slaves were taken from all corners of the empire and beyond they often became freemen in their new lands.

The problem with this whole thing is that people don't understand how ethnically diverse the Roman empire was in general in all strata from slave to aristocrat and didn't know that there has ever been many non-whites in Britain until recent centuries. So they see this video and assume it's left-wing PC gone mad which makes them so angry as evidence as fabricated lies. Taleb seems like an intelligent man, but it's so obvious that someone rustled him the wrong way and has blinded him to the fact that he is inferring things that were never said. I don't even think there is a real debate happening. I think it's people talking past each other who are so angry they don't realise there positions are pretty similar.

>>10136389
Gibbons is still right about what caused the fall of Rome to this day.

>>10137291
Yea, it had nothing to do with those barbarians, or the inability to secure secession, the power of the army, a very powerful rival to the east or the difficulty in governing regions that are extremely far away and difficult to get it. It was Jesus.

>>10137296
Socrates laid all of this out in 800BC bruh

>>10137282

But the video is describing a mixed couple as a "typical" family in Roman Britain. The typical family in Roman Britain was not composed of cosmopolitan soldiers, administrators, or merchants, it was composed of peasants. These peasants were white, and anyone arguing otherwise is not quite right in the head.

Even today, at the height of the immigration onslaught, the average British person is still white.

I think people are just being purposefully obtuse because they like goading conservatives.

>>10137309
>But the video is describing a mixed couple as a "typical" family in Roman Britain
I said I re-watched it just now and it never uses any language like that. You are doing the very thing I said the people angry at the video are doing. They are taking the information that has been presented and adding more things to it that are not in the original work nor in the words of its defenders. You are assuming that the claims being made are that some enormous amount of the population were none white. This is not something contained in the video nor is it anywhere said by Beard.

>>10137321
not anon, and I agree they aren't necessarily depicting a typical family in that particular video but if you look at the other videos they are trying to rewrite history to show that africans and arabs were always a significant part of british society so that brits will welcome their new overlords

see
>>10134175
look at the

>>10137342
look at the fucking saracen in the bottom left*

>>10137321

Beard is playing into the hands of people who would like to imagine the past as some sort of diversity paradise. She should have made a more qualified claim. Because when contemporary people hear the word "diversity" they picture London, not Londinium.

>>10134062
A fine idea, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for book recommendations from /pol/. They may be able to point you to some fascinating infographics and youtube videos, though.

>>10137282
Because I know far more about this dumbass debate than is healthy: the original caption to the video did actually call it a 'typical family', but this was subsequently changed.

Of course, the family is atypical in all kinds of ways, eg it looks pretty rich and is not knee-deep in cow dung. But obviously those things are of no concern to identity /pol/itics.

>>10137559
Do you actually have an argument anymore or are you just hiding behind smugness

Anyway
>>10134062
Caesar - Gallic war , Civil war
& Plutarch - parallel lives (particularly the penguin 'fall of the roman republic' abridgment) are good entry level
Sallust - jugurthine war, cataline
Polybius - the histories
Livy
Suetonius - 12 caesars
Tacitus
Josephus - the jewish war
History of rome podcast
pirate the Teaching Company History of ancient rome

>>10137659
Not sure which poster you think I am, anon. But >>10137282 summarises it pretty well and I haven't seen /pol/ types putting forward any argument against Beard which isn't based on completely misrepresenting what she said.

>>10137672
These threads start a shit fight every time because there are always actually two different arguments being fought by each respective side each time. One focused on the cartoon and one on the beard taleb fight.
But to try and put it straight, surely we all agree that A, all of the dark skinned characters in these bbc cartoons are meant to be sub-saharan africans and B there were berber legions stationed in Britain.

But this doesn't at all mean that there where sub-saharan african populations in the uk approaching anything at which you could call 'diverse' if there were any at all. Beard tries to say there was by citing african remains found in britain as if african means the same thing as sub-saharan african and besides that the method for testing the race of ancient remains is sensationalist non evidence used to drum up support for archeology. see: >>10134224 Following the bbc cartoons further you'll see that they are just writing history for pro immigration propaganda purposes see: >>10134175

Following points in anons post, Ancient people actually did have eyes and they did have notions of race and culture though not as developed as modern ones. It's a modern myth that ancients were colour blind, read any primary source and you'll see that when the describe a foreign people they often list the physical and cultural characteristics of a race and throw in some epithets like 'a barbarian people'. And I'm no Ottoman expert but to my understanding (ironically) the grand turk in istanbul often surrounded himself with a bureaucracy of converted christians who had their primary loyalties to him.

The Beard posts were a minor blunder, there were defiantly africans in Britain but they were north africans (in a world before the islamic slave trade) and their numbers would have been in the thousands following the number of legions stationed there.
The bbc cartoon is basically WE WUZ HANNIBAL tier, viewed alone its fine however if you step back and look at all the videos you'll see what they're pushing is malicious and subversive propaganda thats targeted at children also the animation is fuckin shit.

>>10137770
>But this doesn't at all mean that there where sub-saharan african populations in the uk approaching anything at which you could call 'diverse' if there were any at all. Beard tries to say there was by citing african remains found in britain as if african means the same thing as sub-saharan african
Can you show me where Beard said there was a large population of sub-Saharan Africans? As far as I can see all she said was that there was 'plenty of ethnic diversity', which isn't the same thing at all. Eg Zhou Dynasty China may have had plenty of ethnic diversity, but not a whole lot of Africans.

>>10137770
>malicious and subversive propaganda
Or, alternatively, they're aware that not all of the kids in Britain are white and they want to help those non-white kids feel more included.

But nah, I'm sure it's that they're the literal devil instead.

>>10137825
I wish non-whites didn't exist

>>10137813
Everyone agrees there was diversity but i'd love for someone to define 'plenty' and what sort it was. The dispute started over the cartoon which depicted a sub-saharan african and since that was catalyst for the argument i'm pretty sure its implicit that that's what she was arguing for. If its not what she meant then i have no major disagreement with her.

>>10137825
Imagine being so fucked that you think you should change facts to suit peoples feelings pic related

You guys know that Beard places the "Fall" squarely at 212 with Caracalla, right? I won't argue she's way into ordinary life of plebes, but at least her books, written for plebs, are straightforward and honest about that part.

I don't know about her twitter ramblings.

>>10137837
>The dispute started over the cartoon which depicted a sub-saharan african and since that was catalyst for the argument i'm pretty sure its implicit that that's what she was arguing for
I don't think so- she's responding to the text complaining about 'diversity', and pointing out that it was diverse. It's quite possible, given the cartoon, that the original poster was using 'diversity' as code for 'black people', but I don't see why Beard should assume that.

>change facts
That's the thing though. We literally don't know whether there were any dark-skinned African... centurions? There probably weren't, but we don't have hard facts either way.

The other videos may be demonstraby wrong- I'm not sure. On the face of it a dark-skinned priest in Norman Britain doesn't seem crazy, and a Saracen or whoever that is at Magna Carta may not be either (it doesn't say he's a noble- he's just standing near nobles). I'd think the black Celt would require an elaborate backstory, though...

>>10137871
You are so delusional, holy fuck.

It is Amazing how niggers who have no history will grasp for anything and everything.

>>10137871
m80 these population figures in britain would be so low that they wouldn't even merit the term diversity the handful of blacks would constitute a mere novelty. Again the black officer is fine if they're just showing a random guy theres nothing unusual (anon says they wern't >>10137571) but the others, particularly the muslim at the singing of the magna carta are some of the most absurd and shameless things ive seen in my life. many of these issues would be cleared up by looking at an atlas.
the path the uk has already been treading for a long time now is extremely dangerous. The media arm of the government acting as a propaganda outlet and the police surveillance state is locking up dissenters
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html
I would really love to know why you would want them to push all this, you're can reason at least but anons like >>10137825 are fully fuckin gone

>>10137902
>these population figures in britain would be so low that they wouldn't even merit the term diversity the handful of blacks would constitute a mere novelty
You're missing the point. Again, 'ethnic diversity' =/= 'has a lot of black Africans'. Nobody is actually saying Roman Britain was the latter, which makes it a weird thing to keep arguing about.

>>10137912
can you read?

>>10137925
Yup. You?

>>10137929
meet me at the caboolture traino ill knock you arse over tit m8

>>10127932
>I'm the one in charge here!

ITT a bunch of high school american white bois pretend to know more about rome than a Cambridge professor.

>>10128066
>But who cares?

>>10127690
Hadrian wasn't black
He was gay though

>>10141367
I know this is bait I dont care
The Romans didn't have the same concept of sexuality as us, applying modern labels to ancient lifestyles is bad historical practice and you know it.

That said, he did literally erect a city in his lovers name, Antinopolis. And he sired no natural heirs with his wife, (though that could have just been due to infertility?)
But yeah, bisexual at least.

>>10139647

All of those qualities you have listed well establish their credentials over this woman :^)

She is just another liberal pushing the diversity meme for her masters. If you cant see the obvious "we wus kangz" ideas then you are a cuck or a jew.

>>10137837

Is that a serious article, or is it some kind of satire? Nobody actually believes this, right?

>>10141382
>The Romans didn't have the same concept of sexuality as us, applying modern labels to ancient lifestyles is bad historical practice and you know it.
This is like saying that Romans weren't Pagan because they didn't have a word with anything like the same meaning and had a different conception of what religion is to us. It makes no difference they are pagan, and a gay person then is still a gay person, just one understood differently. All you are doing is arguing across definitions.

>>10137837
>>10143414
The image is a photoshop, you retards.

If you need fake pictures to keep your outrage alive you seriously need to reconsider your life choices.

>>10144106
retard of course i knew about hernandez posting i used it because it was relevant

>>10127975
Thank you anon for putting kangposterz in their place

>>10128473
History doesn't care about politics

SPQR difficult to spell on the keypad of old style phone buttons number 7