> Well, in Tolkien's case it was meant to be proto European mythology.

Unsupportable. Tolkien was only concerned with giving England a distinct history. He probably didn't care about Europe and hated everything French.

Almost everyone assumes Middle-Earth is Europe. Try holding Tolkien's famous map of Middle-Earth up to a mirror to see that it is really strikingly similar to North America, too similar to be a coincidence. In fact, he got a lot of his Hobbit surnames from actual family surnames in, iirc, Kentucky; Baggins included.

> Unsupportable

I'd say it's more of a nitpick. You're right, he was more concerned about an English mythology rather than a European one. But I'm not sure where you're going by bringing up North America...

I thought OP was saying that Middle-Earth was Europe. Apparently, that wasn't his argument. But I wasn't going further than what I said: view Tolkien's map of Middle-Earth in a mirror and you will recognize the coastline and mountain ranges of North America. It is not exact, but it is too similar to be a coincidence. Tolkien did not randomly draw Middle-Earth in that shape, he used a mirror image of North America as a starting point to create the map of Middle-Earth.

If it's an English mythology it should be fine to have English actors in it, like Idris Elba, John Boyega, and Roadman Shaq.

Actually, European and Asian characters are definitely going to be relevant to a lot of African mythologies. The Middle East and Europe were right there and there was a lot of interactions.

The same goes for early europe. Plenty of people from either. There were Roman emperors who were indigenous to (Northern) Africa.

>>There were Roman emperors who were indigenous to (Northern) Africa.

They were decedents of Roman people living there and not sub Saharan Africans.

Rome was a multiethnic empire. I don't see what being Roman or not has to do with ethnicity.

The Roman people living there being ethically Berber, that is, African. The name Africa itself probably coming from the Afri Berber tribe. They were both Roman people and also ethnically African.

And Berber tribes despite not being from subsaharan Africa did, through thousands of years of contact, have significant ethnic and cultural admixture with various subsaharan African peoples. Not that North Africa is less African than subsaharan Africa.

By Roman I meant having Italic roots. It is a bit disingenuous to call them them indigenous or ethnically African. Especially because his father was of Punic origin and not a Berber as you are implying.

There were multiple Roman emperors born in North Africa. One had mixed Punic and Italic origins, one was a mix between Punic, Berber, and Syrian ancestry, and Caracalla had only Berber ancestry.

Caracalla could not possible be only of Berber ancestry, since neither of his parents were Berber. His father (Septimius Severus, the first "African emperor") was of Punic and Italic origins. Caracalla's mother (Julia Domna) was of Arab origins. The third Roman emperor was his brother Geta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracalla

You are correct on that detail - I mixed up Caracalla and Macrinus, the second of which was of Berber origin and also a Roman emperor. Which is an ironic error from part since Macrinus conspired to kill Caracalla. My original point still stands, however, and I believe you are still mistaken in that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrinus

> Macrinus was born in Caesarea (modern Cherchell, Algeria) in the Roman province of Mauretania Caesariensis to an equestrian family of Berber origins. According to David Potter, his family traced its origins to the Berber tribes of the region and his pierced ear was an indication of his Berber heritage.

You are right, I did forget about Macrinus (mixed Geta's timeline). Though I don't agree with your point still standing. Him being an emperor for a short time was more of a fluke rather than an indicator of something common. Rome was in possession of North Africa for 2 centuries or more by than. He is the only Emperor for who you could claim to be indigenous (as far as we know) North African. And he ruled for only 1 year.

A lot of Romans (i.e. inhabitants of Rome) did not have Italic roots. Most inhabitants of Rome came from conquered regions, either as slaves, as wives, or as traders.

Sure, but this is not what we are discussing here in this thread.

Empires that are large are usually cool like that.

Many of the top people in large empires aren't the same race or culture of the original people.

The caliphates had many groups not from the ruling elite's ethnic groups gaining high positions.

The romans had warriors and leaders of many different origins.

The mongol empire had and frequently used different ethnic groups in their armies and their leaders race-mixed with the locals.

Empires tend to be more colorful in order to control more land, its a natural effect of owning a lot of land.

The north africans of roman times have almost nothing in common with the modern arab north africans. The Carthaginians in north africa during roman times were more similar to modern Portuguese.

https://www.heritagedaily.com/2016/05/ancient-dna-study-find...

You are completely and utterly wrong. That DNA was sampled by a Phoenician settler into North Africa of the Phoenician ruling class or Carthage. The vast minority of North Africans at that time had predominant Phoenician ancestry or lived in Phoenician culture.

North Africans are and always were the same people genetically. The North African emperors I am referring to specifically had Berber, not Punic or Phoenician ancestry. Which is still the dominant ancestry in North Africa today, and the Berber culture and language still lives on today.

Unfortunately it seems you are not knowledgeable of the history either of late Rome, of Carthage or of (North) Africa in general, and the authors of that website either did an incredibly poor job at it or are as well.