Who are the Romans today?

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

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 Am�rica 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

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 Am�rica (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

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?

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).

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...

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.

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.

Gretings to all of you!

How mutch for it?