Hi all!

We are a panel of regular contributors to /r/askhistorians here to discuss and answer questions about multiculturalism and empire. The title is a paraphrasing of the Roman poet Martial's Liber De Spectacularis, in which he exalts the far reach of the Empire and its ability to draw diverse peoples from the furthest reaches of the world to its capital. The exact quote is: "Quae tam seposita est, quae gens tam barbara, Caesar, ex qua spectator non sit in urbe tua?"/"What nation is so distant that from it no spectator is present in thy city?"

The theme of this panel can be interpreted in a variety of ways but includes the cultural influences of imperialism, the cross-cultural exchanges that occur within and without empires, and the creation of cultural identity in relation to the influences of imperialism.

/u/drylaw has written an excellent introduction to the history of empire and how we study it:

In some ways, mankind's history can be understood as the history of empires. This may seem improbable in our time of nation states -- but as Frederick Cooper has argued, nations have only really started becoming predominant globally following World War II, with the British and French empires' increasing decolonization. For Cooper "imperial polities—“old” and “new”—constituted a system in which any serious competitor for geopolitical influence had to think and act like an empire" (Colonialism in Question, p. 154). The ubiquity of empires since antiquity makes a look into parallels and differences between imperial traditions in different periods and parts of the world -- inside and outside of Europe -- especially fascinating.

How did empires treat the manifold ethnic and religious groups they inevitably encompassed? According to C.A. Bayly, keeping native elites in power has long been the norm rather than the exception following imperial conquests. Often imperial control receded in varying degrees with increasing distance from the imperial centres, which could prove to be a key influence on the respective empires' longevity. What is more, the start of unprecedented colonial expansion since the 16th century necessitated new legitimisations from the European colonial powers. The frictions inherent in ruling over population groups living oceans away shaped negotiations between metropoles and their imperial peripheries, between the colonial ruling classes and indigenous populations -- leading to complex formations of racial and socio-economic exclusion that prove highly influential until today.

Imperialism does not have to be all about conquest either! Economic, religious, and cultural domination are just as relevant to the discourse on imperialism. For instance, we might talk about the impact that European colonialism had on interactions between Native American tribes, the economic and cultural facets of Sino-European warfare, the syncretism of foreign religious traditions, or the impact that Bronze Age trade had on the exchange of ideas in the ancient world.

Without further ado, here are the panelists:

I recently watched an interesting documentary about Scandinavians fighting in the 5.SS division on the eastern front during WW2.

Did they just not know what it was meant to look like? Was it meant to be more relatable this way?

When I was in Spain I visited several museums and tours which talked about all the gruesome torture practices of the Spanish Inquisition.