# Ancient Emigration



## Laurence (Feb 8, 2015)

My question is:

In ancient Europe and Asia, how much freedom would 'citizens' have in travelling between countries to live and work? I'm interested in around 1200BC-1200AD mostly.


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 8, 2015)

Citizen is a problematic term in that time frame. Most international travel would be done by merchants and both over land and by sea, the danger of pirates was very real.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 8, 2015)

What would you like the title changed to?


----------



## Laurence (Feb 8, 2015)

2WayParadox said:


> Citizen is a problematic term in that time frame. Most international travel would be done by merchants and both over land and by sea, the danger of pirates was very real.



I see! Who would these merchants align themselves to, if anyone? How likely would it have been to be allowed to legally emigrate?



T.Allen.Smith said:


> What would you like the title changed to?



'Ancient Emigration' please!


----------



## ThinkerX (Feb 8, 2015)

> I see! Who would these merchants align themselves to, if anyone? How likely would it have been to be allowed to legally emigrate?



Some things you need to take into account:

1) Your time period and locations are very broad, covering a wide range of societies with different approaches.  It includes the sophisticated civilizations of ancient Rome and China, middle age feudalism, and tribalism.  You need to be more specific.

2) People do not emigrate without cause, be it poverty, disease or famine, or being hauled away somewhere else against their will (slavery).  

3) Much emigration in ancient times was collective, rather than individual: entire tribes moving into new areas (which contributed to the collapse of the Roman Empire), or entire nations being enslaved and transported elsewhere.  Collective concerns trumped individual ones.  

4) Most of these societies were highly restrictive by todays standards: effectively ruled by strongmen.  Ordinary people had very little freedom; indeed the ruling castes tended to equate 'freedom' with 'rebellion,' and acted accordingly.  That said, a freedman in Rome probably would have had the most leeway in emigration.


----------



## Laurence (Feb 8, 2015)

ThinkerX said:


> Some things you need to take into account:
> 
> 1) Your time period and locations are very broad, covering a wide range of societies with different approaches.  It includes the sophisticated civilizations of ancient Rome and China, middle age feudalism, and tribalism.  You need to be more specific.
> 
> ...



1) Sorry for being vague; my world contains a mix iron age civilisations and tribal-like civilistations. 

2) I don't necessarily mean mass-emigration, but what you see in many fantasy novels, where the protagonist and possibly a group travels from country to country during his or his quest. By what year would this not need to be done in secret or as some mission from a ruler?

Thanks dude!


----------



## ThinkerX (Feb 8, 2015)

> 2) I don't necessarily mean mass-emigration, but what you see in many fantasy novels, where the protagonist and possibly a group travels from country to country during his or his quest. By what year would this not need to be done in secret or as some mission from a ruler?



That would depend on the MC's social status.  Serf or a bondsman taking off on a long journey?  Probably get declared an outlaw...unless he or she was part of the retinue of a caste that could travel.  Again, a lot of this depends on the type of society the MC hails from, as well as his exact nominal status.  Entertainer?  Probably not a problem.  Caravan guard, wagon driver or mule skinner...that would work.  Petty trader, official envoy, or some such?  Again no issue.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 9, 2015)

ThinkerX has it. Travel was not restricted (mainly because doing so would have required the machinery of modern governments). Practical matters tended to weigh more heavily.

For example, you did not have to travel very far before you began to have problems with the language. Travel a bit further and diet also could be an issue. You could easily transgress local customs, getting you into various forms of hot water. Which brings up one of the more significant travel issues: if you got into legal trouble, you'd probably not be tried according to your own laws. All this made travel a rather unattractive proposition, which in turn meant the people who did travel--and by "travel" here I mean leave your own region of language/custom/diet--did so only out of necessity. 

The big exception to all this is the Roman Empire. Maybe also the Chinese Empire, and maybe other empires as well. I only know Europe. Anyway, a Roman citizen could travel anywhere in the Empire. The diet might change, local customs could vary, but the citizen would always know he would by tried by Roman law, and he'd always be able to find someone who spoke Latin. In the cities, anyway. In the time frame you give, I know of no other than the Roman where that was true.

To answer your specific question, you could easily create a group of adventurers who traveled without molestation, certainly without secrecy, from most anywhere to most anywhere, any time in the centuries you give. The fun will come in creating awkward moments or even outright hostility based on those things I mentioned above--diet, customs, laws, language.

After all, Conan went all over the place. He ran into all sorts of adventures, but not merely because he was a foreigner.


----------



## CupofJoe (Feb 9, 2015)

Religion would also be a reason for travel, at least toward the end of the time period you describe. A pilgrimage to a holy site may be the only chance someone without rank and/or money could get more than a few days away from where they were born.
At least in Christianity [I don't know about Islam but there was probably something similar] the churches had the organisation to transport - house - feed - protect people over hundreds and even thousands of miles...
I can imagine that not all those pilgrims were utterly devout... and just wanted a way out if only for a while.
For many societies [and even recently] "travel" is a very modern concept. As a child I knew a man that had only once been to a city 25 miles away and never seen the sea that was 35 miles away. He had lived and worked on a farm for 70+ years...


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 9, 2015)

Islam has the Hadj, a pilgrimage to Mekka that should be done at least once in life.

But it's true that travel was a foreign concept. It makes sense. Over 70% of the population were farmers and for most of our history, agriculture has been laborious and inefficient. Farmers had to stay close to their lands to take care of everything that needed doing. Planting, plowing, weeding, harvesting. Add to that the slow travel speeds, and you start to see why a quest-like journey is actually something that likely has never happened. I really wonder if the solitary adventurer or the band of adventurers ever existed in reality.


----------



## Laurence (Feb 9, 2015)

Thanks for the great responses, everyone. 

I wasn't planning on incorporating religion into my story but disguising my protagonist's mission as some sort of pilgrimage is very tempting.


----------



## Shreddies (Feb 9, 2015)

Laurence said:


> I wasn't planning on incorporating religion into my story but disguising my protagonist's mission as some sort of pilgrimage is very tempting.



You do not necessarily need religion for a pilgrimage. You could have an old tradition that requires apprentices of a certain trade to visit notable locations and landmarks related to a legendary historical figure or saga.

Maybe something like a skald?


----------



## Jabrosky (Feb 9, 2015)

In the case of Conan, I would place him and several of Robert E. Howard's other heroes in the genre of white male protagonists visiting far-off, commonly tropical parts of the world in pursuit of adventure. They had their literary heyday once Europeans and their colonists were still exploring the rest of the planet, though there were precedents before then. For example, Perseus's love interest was a princess of "Aethiopia" (aka Kush in Sudanese Nubia) whom he rescued from a sea monster, whereas Saint George fought that dragon in "Lybia" (which in ancient usage meant all of Africa west of the Nile). Whether or not most people could have afforded it, there have always been stories about heroes adventuring in exotic lands.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 10, 2015)

Routiers. They were mercenary bands all over southern France during the Hundred Years War, cut loose on those unfortunate occasions when peace broke out. 

Another example would be the Normans in Apulia. There were also plenty of bandit bands that were not entirely sedentary. Along the lines of a more quest-like journey, I think of the _Reisen_ (crusades) to Lithuania that were very nearly an annual affair during the early 1300s, with knights coming from as far as England.

Then there were society's original bad boys, musicians. Think troubadors or minnensingers.

My point is, there were plenty of people traveling. They did not travel for pleasure; there was no tourism, although the crusades did open up a form of that. We have complaints from clerics that some "pilgrims" paid little attention to religion, took in many sights along the way, and in general behaved as if they were going to a picnic. I always think of these as the first tourists.

The issue was not could or did people travel. They could and did. The interesting part comes in investigating the difficulties entailed and how these varied by condition and chance.


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 10, 2015)

A caveat to this would be wealthy people going for adventure/prospect/travel. Or people sponsored by wealthy people to perform a task like that.


----------



## Laurence (Feb 11, 2015)

Would people on an errand from a noble generally have to have had some kind of paper stating that they're allowed to be in said country?


----------



## X Equestris (Feb 11, 2015)

Laurence said:


> Would people on an errand from a noble generally have to have had some kind of paper stating that they're allowed to be in said country?



They might have some document with the noble's seal on it as proof they are indeed working for said noble.


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 11, 2015)

That would depend on the country and the areas that they have to access. If they're going into heavily guarded areas or regions that are under tight control, then they might need border documents etc. 

I mostly had scientifically minded travel in mind when I stated that comment, like Columbus or Darwin. Since they travelled on boats, they might've needed documents to be allowed to dock in certain places. It would obviously help al ot if there's a naval empire that the noble is connected to, so that his name can be used in any harbor affiliated to the empire (think Britain).


----------



## Jabrosky (Feb 11, 2015)

Wait a minute...a handsome discussion about pre-industrial long-distance travel woefully underpopulated by Vikings?






Those guys sure got around in search of new raiding grounds. It's almost common knowledge they made it all the way to North America. Of course it helped that their ships were designed for speed and could sail across even the shallowest water, but they do provide a classic historical precedent for warlike raiders traveling vast distances in pursuit of plunder.


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 11, 2015)

Their raiding only lasted that long before they discovered that trade and later settling was more lucrative.
And I think the topic speaks more of travel in smaller groups or by individuals, that's not of a seasonal nature.


----------



## Tom (Feb 11, 2015)

I just wanted to interject with a random comment.

Yesssssss, my ancestors were so awesome! Even though they liked killing people.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 11, 2015)

Here's another one: hit men.

Well, sort of. I'm reading a biography of John Calvin. While he was at Basle, along with many other reformers who fled France after 1534, the refugees had to be careful when leaving the city. Once outside the walls there were hired men waiting. Hired by King Francis I to hunt down said refugees and bring them back, dead or alive.

I can only imagine what it would have been like as a rural innkeeper to have a few of those yahoos staying in my place!


----------



## Russ (Feb 17, 2015)

The idea of a "country" did not exist for the vast majority of the period you are discussing.  Travel documents were not needed.

The kind of documents people might use while travelling in that period were more like "Letters of Introduction" to help them get co-operation from people in the areas they were travelling to.  In the Roman empire they might well carry documents to prove they were citizens of the Empire so they could get their full legal rights wherever they went.  Would need to double check that though.

Except during times of plague or war travellers were generally very welcome because they brought stories, news, wealth or wares with them.  Many cultures during that period had pretty generous rules about offering hospitality to strangers.

Despite all that the vast majority of people in that period would likely be born, work and die without travelling more than 20 miles from their home.

If it is not the real world you are dealing with you have plenty of room to do what helps your plot or characters develop the way you would like.


----------



## Laurence (Feb 17, 2015)

I wonder, would the people which travelled between nations often have known many languages or did many clusters of countries have common languages?


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 18, 2015)

i'd say no, nobles might know a standard language (think french or english in europe), but for regular people, i think local dialects were the norm


----------



## CupofJoe (Feb 18, 2015)

2WayParadox said:


> i'd say no, nobles might know a standard language (think french or english in europe), but for regular people, i think local dialects were the norm


I would add Latin to the mix within Europe... It was the language of the Church, at least in the Catholic/Western end of Europe - I guess some form of Greek would be the the same for the Orthodox Church at the Eastern End. 
[English was a niche language until fairly recently [even some Kings of England didn't speak it...]
I would guess that there was a common-ish trading language around the Med - maybe Latin or Greek [and Arabic [or it precursors?]] as possibilities. Sailors/Traders/Pirates could probably get by in dozen ports/languages...


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 18, 2015)

sailors and the like could get around because each trading state established a kind of base/trading post in the ports they trade with, thus overcoming any language issues.


----------



## Laurence (Feb 18, 2015)

Almost like embassies? 

This is really interesting, will research tonight. I'm going to make my story focus heavily on the relationships between countries so language will be a large part of it.


----------



## 2WayParadox (Feb 18, 2015)

similar to that, but it doesn't have to be a government initiative. Large trade companies or trade families did this to have someone trusted and connected in places they wanted to trade with. It's very possible that some amount of cash or political favor was needed to establish this kind of foothold, it might even be forbidden for traders from state X


----------



## Russ (Feb 18, 2015)

Language is a great subject and can be a lot of fun in a book.  Europe at various periods has almost always had a lingua franca (Greek, Latin, French, English) that was used for common communication between groups.  Sometimes it would also vary by the purpose of the communication, for example academics in different countries might write to each other in Latin, while nobles would gossip across borders in French.

Also don't forget that there are huge variations within a language as you travel.  For instance my mother is from Austria and her Great Aunt was born and raised in Prussia.  They find it much easier to speak to each other in English due to the fact that their versions of German as so different they can barely understand each other in their native tongue.


----------

