Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Infidel
Colonel
Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Who are the Romans today? Posted: 25-Dec-2004 at 08:25 |
Really? I thought it was founded by the portuguese settlers, taking in account the city's name: So Paulo, not San Paolo....
Edited by Infidel
|
An nescite quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 18:50 |
Imperatore Dario I, i have very serious doubtless about the continuity since ancien romans to modern italians.
If you want know the most important foreign blood that arrive to Italy, don't look to Medieval Age, you must look to the Republic and Empire times.
At I century BC, with a slave population of 1/3 or 1/2 (2-4 millions of 7-8 millions), the roman Italy was a immense mixture of persons: many many syrians and other asiatic peoples, many celts and germans, a few hispanian and berberes... The continuity about you talk is impossible...
Only one possibility: the genetic studies compare romans of IV century AC with actual italians; the medieval blood of germans were relatevelly small, and the continuity is possible. Sorry, i can't read the links that you put in second page (error, error...), but i think that is impossible that the blood of population from iron age survive today.
bye
|
|
Imperatore Dario I
Shogun
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 204
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jan-2005 at 12:12 |
Originally posted by Ikki
Imperatore Dario I, i have very serious doubtless about the continuity since ancien romans to modern italians.
If you want know the most important foreign blood that arrive to Italy, don't look to Medieval Age, you must look to the Republic and Empire times.
At I century BC, with a slave population of 1/3 or 1/2 (2-4 millions of 7-8 millions), the roman Italy was a immense mixture of persons: many many syrians and other asiatic peoples, many celts and germans, a few hispanian and berberes... The continuity about you talk is impossible...
Only one possibility: the genetic studies compare romans of IV century AC with actual italians; the medieval blood of germans were relatevelly small, and the continuity is possible. Sorry, i can't read the links that you put in second page (error, error...), but i think that is impossible that the blood of population from iron age survive today.
bye
|
By your logic, I can't say that you being Spanish is the same as the Spanish that conquered the New World. Therefore, your country is not carried from the medieval Spain.
|
Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.- Virgil's Aeneid
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jan-2005 at 18:59 |
umm your logic is illogical Spain don't receive new blood since 1100-1300, when many franks come here. A conqueror that come back from Amrica in 1550, for example, surelly don't have descents with foreign blood today.
A roman legionary from Tusculum at 250 BC had a long line of generations in the past only italic or etruscans, native italians since VIII century BP, and many more if we think that the italic people perhaps was a conquer minority. If that roman has descents today, surelly this have blood from: hispanian (S. II BC), greeks (middle II century BC), berberers and germans (late II century BC), asians from Anatolia and Syria (early I BC), gauls (middle I BC), germans again since 50 BC to 200 AC, and dacians (early I AC). The slave population of Italy was inmense, their bloods were mixed in that time, and for IV century AC was a only population (more or less, there were a few slaves). That is my logic.
You say that the italians of today are the same that classical times, how is possible? I think that is impossible, with all my respect.
bye
Edited by Ikki
|
|
Imperatore Dario I
Shogun
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 204
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 13:04 |
chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />
You are joking right? Arent you forgetting that after the Spanish army plundered the Indian civilizations, that they brought some of the women home? Did you also not forget that there were significant numbers of Moors, Jews, and Visigoths left in lace>Spainlace> since the barbarian invasions? How about all the other invasions lace>Spainlace> has had? They left a deep mark on Spanish blood. Lets also not forget the millions of immigrants the Spanish parliament has welcomed in (who now constitute more than 7% of the Spanish population and growing). Its good logic. If by your definition, that the Romans imported too many slaves from other areas, and that doesnt make Italy Roman, then modern lace>Spainlace> is definitely not related to medieval lace>Spainlace>.>>
A Roman legionary from Tusculum at 250 BC had a long line of generation in the past only italic or etruscans, native italians since VIII century BP, and many more if we think that the italic people perhaps was a conquer minority. If that roman has descents today, surelly this have blood from: hispanian (S. II BC), greeks (middle II century BC), berberers and germans (late II century BC), asians from Anatolia and Syria (early I BC), gauls (middle I BC), germans again since 50 BC to 200 AC, and dacians (early I AC). The slave population of Italy was inmense, their bloods were mixed in that time, and for IV century AC was a only population (more or less, there were a few slaves). That is my logic. |
Youre so ignorant. The Romans werent even from an original ethnic group themselves. They were from a mix of tribes around the region. Havent you ever heard of the rapture of the Sabine women? The Romans themselves described lace>Italylace> as their homeland, which is also why lace>Italylace> was never a Roman province. chemas-microsoft-comfficemarttags" />lace>Cicerolace> once quoted, after the granting of citizenship to non-Roman Italians: Everyone in a corporate town [Italian city annexed by lace>Romelace>] has, I see it, two fatherlands. I will never forget that lace>Romelace> is my greater fatherland, and I will never forget my beloved native city which is but a part of lace>Romelace>. (World History Series The Decline and Fall of the lace>Roman Empirelace>)>>
You say that the italians of today are the same that classical times, how is possible? I think that is impossible, with all my respect. |
Did I say that? Absolutely not!>>
|
Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.- Virgil's Aeneid
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jan-2005 at 15:47 |
I: "You say that the italians of today are the same that classical times, how is possible?..."
You:"Did I say that? Absolutely not!"
About Italy:
Imperatore Dario I said, page 1: "The ancient Italics were not the only people who were living in Italy. There were also the Greeks, Gauls, and Etruscans as well. But basically, it didn't change drastically through all the invasions that occured in Italy."
Yes, the slave "migration"
Imperatore Dario I said, page 1 too: "But there has been no mix of many races in Italy, perhaps the Arab invasion in Sicily is the only exception (and the Arabs were wiped out later on). Unless you count the Latin, Etruscan, and Greek migrations well before Rome existed (which, BTW, certainly do not count, since those are not races, they're ethnicities), then there has been no racial mixing."
Yes, the slave mixture from II BC to II AC. Latin, Etruscan, Greek + hispanians+berberers+germans+syrians+gauls+dacians...
You must think and then write please.
About Spain. Any women from Amrica (natives) came to Spain; jews was a small minority in Spain and they was mixed with the native population, at 1492 they were expeled. There are only three great migrations to Spain since Roman times: 1. Goths, 150.000 of 5 millions of hispanians 2. The berberer migration at VIII and IX century; and 3. the european migrations at 1100-1300. Anymore, and they was a minority, perhaps 5% at the moment of migration. When the conquerors went to America, the spanish population was very uniform with the only exception of muslims: they wasn't arabs, not berberers, they was iberic peoples. There aren't any foreign peoples in Spain since 1300 to 2000. Please, I can see the recent migration, they are not our grandfathers... Perhaps in Future, now, no.
Edited by Ikki
|
|
Qnzkid711
Knight
Joined: 10-Jan-2005
Location: Albania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 00:55 |
Originally posted by Romano Nero
Very good imperatore. Yes, the ancient Romans
were predominantly Latin, but not only. Etruscan and Greek elements
blended in the mix from very early - even in the times of the creation
of the city. Later and especially in the imperial years, the population
of Rome (1 mi. people at a point) literally was an amalgam from all
over the empire. At least a hundred "races" ("ethnic groupings"?)
blended in the grandioso melting pot of Rome. The "fine Roman familiae"
became only a footnote in the history, while merchants, upstarters and
even ex slaves from all over the empire (a 200 million people empire,
at its best) became members of the ruling class of Rome.
Roman culture was dilluted all over, and became one of the most
widely accepted western cultures of all times (the Greek, English and
American should be the other contestants for that prize). It wasn't
uncommon for Gauls, Greeks, Germanics or anyone else for that matter,
to define their status as "Roman citizen". Because "Roman" wasn't a
race; it was a status. |
I love the last sentence there Imperatore. Rome was't a race; it was a status.
I couldnt agree with you more. Not to mention for a short period of
time, very short the equivalent of a US presiental term, the Roman
Emperor was not white. He was of arabic decent. I forgot his name, his
was murdered though. *Sarcastically* Big surprise....
|
|
Qnzkid711
Knight
Joined: 10-Jan-2005
Location: Albania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 60
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jan-2005 at 01:00 |
Originally posted by roman1244
Everyone of you has a wonderful point of view. But in
all aspects we all came from one Holy Father. You can argue all that
you want, but that is the plan and simple truth. The Romans were a
breed of human race as were all of us. |
Why can't everybody think like that?
|
|
J.Caesar
Janissary
Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Apr-2006 at 23:27 |
There si no way modern Italians can claim to be the only decedants of Roman genes. No way. Italy was more etnically mixed up than the USA. Rome was just a city state and needed many others to poulate its army. Also, the amount of slaves from the Middleast,Germany,Gaul and other areas were amazing. Rome had moe slaves than Romans! Italy was long settled by Celts,etrucans,Greeks and others before Rome grew! They are not in the Italian gene pool? Goths(perhpas Baltic),Germans and Celts througout the empire migratedand lived in Italy and became Roman citizens, not jus slaves. After the fall of Rome mas migrations occured. Of course they stayed in Italy. Who wouldn`t want that climate over the drab German. My guess would be there could be more Roman genes in someone from Romania, Britain,Germany,Spain or elswhere than in Italy!(they are justbeen so mixed for so long) We will find this out when DNA testing on ancients gets more reliable. An American may have more Roman blood in him than an Italian:0 The Ital chap....may have more German blood in him than any other
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 05:04 |
I think that you commit a major error stating that Italy changed its population drastically in Roman times. I can't deny that some admixture due to slavery and provincial inmigration must have happened but only up to a point.
When we look at the genetics of Italy we see a majority of "western" lineages with a big deal of "mediterranean" ones. These last are usually attributed to Greece and the Aegean, but not just in times of Rome but in more ancient times, as southern and central Italy had recieved always apportations from that area, specially in the metallic ages but also in the very process of neolithization.
Also, I would suspect that most slaves in Rome had a short life and scarce descendance and were not from "Africa" but from the North. They were usually the byproduct of the Roman wars of expansion and later of unclear trading networks that fed on the barbarian countries, such as Germania or Scythia. While we know mostly about the Thracian slaves, due to the fact that Thrace was the latest province to be incorporated and the Spartacus-led revolt, we have no reason to think that this was the main or only source of Roman slaves.
Also these slaves weren't sent only to Italy but rather to the agriculturally-producing provinces such as Sicily, Africa or Spain.
But it's difficult to imagine that, apart of some regions, their genetic imprint would be massive - specially for the short life expectancy of Roman slaves and the lack of a "reproductive slavery" as it was developed later in America.
Regarding Spain, I'd say that it's too far fetched to claim that native americans were brought in any significative number to the metropolis. True that in Southern Spain there was a good deal of African slavery but, with the formal abolition of it in metropolitan Spain, slaveowners sent all them to Cuba early in the 19th century. So the biggest non-European input in Spanish genetics is of Mediterranean origin, coming since at least neolithic times from either SE Europe, SW Asia or North Africa. But it is small anyhow (not comparable to Italy for instance - even lower than in the Netherlands).
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 05:16 |
Originally posted by Cywr
Mexico city is the largest city in the world, though that takes into
account the whole urban area, and not just the admistrative region.
Tokyo is second again considering full urban area.
But you'll get different lists using different criteria, so meh.
|
Full urban area is most correct: municipalities and other administrative divisions are too arbitrary.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Theodore Felix
General
Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 769
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 15:05 |
Who are the Romans? Every single European today. From the laws to social and cultural aspects. I would say European countries(France, Spain and England especially) are more Roman today then they were when they were in the empire...
|
|
RomiosArktos
Consul
Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Apr-2006 at 16:46 |
Romans today == the inhabitants of the city of Rome.
|
|
J.Caesar
Janissary
Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 00:12 |
I have an Italian american friend who says that there is even sub saharan Afriacn genes in the Rome gene pool. Rome was a center for all at the time and very international. He said he traced his roots to sub sahran Roamn legionairs. Supposedly there are much art seen in Pompei to back this. He does not look Black(has dirty blond hair and fair skin tone) but has something called Keloid skin (produces too much scar tissue) and sickle cell trait. So...who knows. He tells me the story of the sub saharan legionaires...one famous one named after a saint ..that carried the 'spear of christ' into battle,who was later executed because he would not worship the emperor as a God.
|
|
J.Caesar
Janissary
Joined: 23-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Apr-2006 at 01:08 |
Another point: Looking ar ancient Roman portaits they seem very different than modern Italians. The Romans looked like a very muscaular lot to be sure but very ugly in facial appereance, remarkedly so. Modern Italians are anything but ugly.(especially the women)
|
|
Aster Thrax Eupator
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 21:35 |
Frankly, it's a bit of a meaningless question - we can't say who was a Roman anymore than we can say who was a carolingian Frank or a Saxon - it's very hard and perhaps too hard to give a logical answer. We also have to consider the role of the "great migrations" into Italy after the collapse of Rome in the late antiquity period.
|
|
Sun Tzu
Consul
Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 16:52 |
I think the Welsh have a big Roman background
|
Sun Tzu
All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
|
|
Antonivs
Immortal Guard
Joined: 29-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 17:42 |
Gretings to all of you!
Its silly talking about Romans as a race.
Romans are a mixture of several peoples, because dont exist any racial rquirement to became a roman. Even a former barbarian can be a roman, not to talk of a greek, a syrian or a phoenician (yes, even from the ancient territory of Carthage....), if the respect some requirements: fidelity to Rome, a roman patron and pray for the sake of the Empire and the Emperor, speak latin was optional.
About the today descendants of the Romans...
There arent any actual political descendents of the Romans, if you see them as a part of a continuous Roman state.
But in Europe, since centuries, there are a dream of reviving the Roman Empire, as the empire for excelence...
And today EU and USA are very inspired in the roman state!
If you want to talk about cultural heritage you must see the Ocidental Civilization as the heir of several cultures, and the culture that make the union of all are the roman culture.
Believe me: if you live in Europe, or America, or in any place with a strong ocidental cultural influence you are living in a place with a strong roman influence, and so deep that pass unnoticed often...
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 19:41 |
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 19:42 |
|
|