Where are the Roman people now?

Who are the descendants of Romans?

Italians? or Latinos?

I have always wanted to ask this question.

There was never a Roman race. Italy was filled with various different populations. The Gauls to the north, the Greeks to the South, the Etruscans in the north west, and the Latins in the center. All of these blended to form Rome. But the Romans themselves called Italy the homeland of the Roman Empire, so I'd give it to Italy. Certainly, I'm not saying anything racially. Because then the modern Greeks are not the same as the ancient Greeks, the Iraqis, etc. But basically, the Romans called Italy their home. Alarmingly though, Italians have a more shared genetic make up with the Ancient Romans than popularly believed.Even the story of Rome's beginnings are not of a "pure" place. Like Virgil and the Aneneid story.

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.

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.

Umm did you not see what I typed above? I DID say that it wasn't only Latins.

How could the Greeks, British, and Americans be other contestants? Since when did the Romans land in America? Since when did the Greeks even look upon the Romans as equal? They've never liked the Romans, and the English? They've developed a Franco-Norman-English culture.

Imperatore, I think you have misread what I have written, so I won't call you on your peculiary rude behaviour. Since you are not native English speaker, you probably didn't understand the fine implications (or the obvious ones, for that matter) of my writing and assumed wrongly that I was attacking you in some way.

Point one: I only said "bravo" to you for what you said - ie. I said you are right.

Point two: I wrote that the Roman culture 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). . What excactly did you misunderstand about that?  Roman culture was one of the four most widely accepted western cultures. In their days, Greek, English and American were equally (more or less) widely accepted. What excactly did you misunderstand? What has liking each other got to do with that?

Friends?

I'm sorry, I assumed you said that Greece, England, and America were also contestants of being the "Romans today." I was wrong, I apologize.

As an Italian American let jump into this fray.

 First there is no such thing as an Italian race except as those of us who are called Italians but still highly mongrelized. This is bad? No not really. The most vigoriuos tribes invaded almost on a daily basis for thousands of years and it produced a most interesting people. The myriad races and groups are easily seen even today. In fact I have an excellant example.  All one has to do is look at our club photo of 1945 when 35 of us 16 year old guys formed a youth group at the local Sons Of Italy when they were having a membership drive hoping to attract some younger souls. 

 chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />>>

If you look at this photo you will realize why three of our friends were called Gook, Jap and Hawaiian Sam, I  mean slant eyes, straight black air and no shaving! Two had red hair, were tall  yet were  from Sicily. Some had a pure Roman face, just like the busts from those ancient day, straight nose etc. You could see in every face a different distinct type yet we were all first generation Italians whose parents all came form Rome south. My closets buddy Babe was a real handsome guy whose mother was a tall fairly large broom Hilda type with blue eyes and his  father a dark "Turk" which happened to be his knick name.  If any one  would like to discuss this further I'm at dkjons@yahoo.com, Rico.

 >>

 >>

How can you even call Italians 'mongrelized'? Mongols are peoples of Asia, to this date,  there has been no Mongolic invasions of Italy (except of the Huns, whose army collapsed). There were no Asian influence on Italian geneology. In fact, most researches say that the blood of the Italian population remained the same over the past thousands of years.

Strange things, and they all claimed to be "Italian?" In what century? I hightly doubt it at all. I AM from Sicily, I'm pure Sicilian, and there hasn't been any Asians or anything. Why do I highly, highly, discard you're comments as ludicrous? And I also have a hard time believing that you're Italian. HA! Hawaiian and Turkish looking people in Sicily, (I wonder how that could have happen, if neither the Turks, nor any Mongolic race ever occupied Sicily).

-------------

�Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.�- Virgil's Aeneid

Yes, you're right, I've gotten it confused. 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.

The Carthaginians? Yes, they occupied a slice of Western Sicily, but it's hard to believe that centuries after their occupation of the west that they didn't disappear. Plus the Normans don't count as another race, and they didn't put Germans in SIcily. In fact, they took Italians from the penninsula into the island, and then they themselves assimilated into the Sicilian population. The French occupation was pretty short, and they were overthrown by the Vespers, and the Spaniards, I don't recall any migration from Spain to Sicily (nor from France).

Goths migrated to Italy en masse. Something between 300 and 500K of Goths migrated into Italy during the 5th century AD only. Along with a great number of Lombardians (those where many) Franks and various other Germanic people. Also, you can't underestimate the Gallic influece, and surely the Arabic mix in the southern Italy was huge. And large bodies of Greeks and many, many more people from all over the Roman empire, migrated in ITaly (especially in Rome, but not only) during the existence of the unified Imperium Romanum.

I find the Italians a fascinating mix of people, and quite diverse too. In the North you find a lot of Germanic looking people, in the middle a mixture of typical mediteranean types and in Sicily you can find even demi-Semitic types... Fascinating.

On a relevant note, I've read an article somewhere about a few villages in mountainous Sicily, who still speak a form of Greek... a language called "Graeco" I think, or something like that...  

I didn't say "they stayed" in Italy, I said they  migrated in. It's not a number I've found in any source, it's more an estimation of mine, based on the size of the Gothic armies and of the buildup of the Gothic power structure and society, as described in Byzantine sources.

Apparently the Gothic armies at their best numbered anything between 80 and 140K men in total, spreadout in the center and northern mostly part of Italy, but also in the south (in the southern cities we could mostly talk about Gothic garissons in the local cities, the garissons in the cities of the North were quite large and in Ravenna and Rome huge). Since all adult males of some social status became fighters in the Gothic society, it is safe to multiply these numbers by 4 to get the size of the total Gothic population (ie. for each adult male in "fighting" age, there were at least 3 non-adult and/or non-male and/or not eligible for fighting, persons). I even rounded down the numbers I got. And I think the numbers could be even larger, because not all Goths were supposed to fight.

Most of the Goths dispersed in the country after the Byzantines destroyed their power, and few fled the country. But most got asimilated into the local population. So did the large Lombardian (Longobardian) populations and several elements of other Germanic people (Franks, Vandals and many others). The demographic impact of those was quite more stunning than the (very small) demographic impact of, let's say, the Normas, who only settled in southern Italy as a strong ruling class (and lots of them got massacred anyway).

Italians are Italians, of course. But claiming genetical purity is really a ludicrus thing to say. No pure blood exists throughout Europe. Only the Basques could claim that they got by 60 or 70% the same blood they had a thousand years ago - claiming 90% Italic for the Italians is definitely utterly unscientific.

Try 30-35% maybe even 40% at best - and that's a better percentage than many other European "nations" of today.

We are all mixtures... only the purists claim otherwise (and we all know "why").

I don't believe you. The Goths were spread over France, and settled in SPAIN, how did they find time to settle 500,000 Goths in Italy? As for the Lombards, they were driven out by the Franks (who did NOT settle), and the Gauls, they were Romanized. The Arabs were massacred by the native population and by the Normans. THe Greeks, they didn't migrate to Rome, where the hell did you get that information?

How funny....Sine it's all incorrect.

Imperatore,

You find yourself obliged to defend your genetical purity and I find that silly. Both the Goths and the Lombards (Longobards) devoted a huge part of the genetic make-up of the modern Italian population and no one in his right mind could disagree with that.

The Arabic and even more Greek influences and additions to the gene pool are rather obvious.

It is impressive what you can find on the Internet, if you are willing to devote a few minutes searching.

Here is the definition of the Griko language from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_language

http://www.molossia.org/griko.html

http://www.sternatia.com/grec%C3%ACa_e_griko.htm

no, it's rather the opposite. Muslim soldiers where highly regarded and formed the bodyguards of both Norman and German rulers of sicily.

Don't try to lie and twist things. In NO WAY, have I ever said that the Italians are genetically pure, I ask that you point out where I have said that. If you can't, then please refrain from making up such trash. The Goths yes, occupied Italy after the overthrow of Romulus Augustulus, however, there intermixing with the Roman population was insignificant as only Odoacer's Gothic army settled in Italy.

As for the Lombards, they totally assimilated into the Italian population, and according to Valerio Lintner (A Traveller's History of Italy): �It is however important to note that we are here discussing an invasion of what was essentially a ruling elite. The majority of the population of Italy was and remained Roman in origin, and there was a limit to the extent to which the Lombards, or for that matter, any other invader, could change Italian ways: it was an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary set of influences.�

It's amazing how someone can refer the Greeks as a seperate race from the Italians. They were basically of the same type of people, Romano. As for the Arabs, remember that 10,000 troops invaded Sicily, from 843-902. They couldn't even totally control the population until 902. Then, when the Normans occupied the island, not only did they bring large numbers of Italians from Naples, but the Arabs fled from Sicily as well.

�Despite the good conditions offered by the Normans many Arabs emigrated respecting the obligation, provided for by their law, not to be able to live in a state dominated by an infidel.

As far as I am concerned, I didn't call anyone a liar. I could call a particular individual "a spoiled brat", in dire need of some manners, but I didn't.

Case closed, there is no use argueing with those who have walled ears. Moving on.

Oh please, fine, whatever. But you have still failed to prove your point.

The invasions of the Longobards had a more permanent effect than previous barbaric invasions. Claims of assimilation of invaders by Italians in the peninsular is very hard to claim. The reason is the depopulation of Italy during the Ostrogothic-Eastern Roman wars. From top to the bottom of the peninsula, it was utterly devastated. The population lacked the will to resist the invaders. I'd say the invaders brought a fresh influx of settlers. Dario is right in saying that the Longobards were small in numbers, but I disagree that they were assimilated. In terms of language, yes, but in everything else, it was the reverse. Until the 19th century, the Italians of the peninsular defined themselves by their religion and city-state rather than nationalist polity or identity. The region of Lombardy and the defunct province of Longobardia (now Apulia) suggests that the populace in those regions thought of themselves as Longobards first and foremost rather than as Italians. Its a case of a very strong minority imposing its will. Just look at the Franks, the Romans there eventually assimilated with the ruling class and thought of themselves as Franks, not Romans.

You've missed something. I haven't said that the Lombards considered themselves Italians, I said they were assimilated, which is true. The term "Lombard" thereafter became associated with the Duchy centered in Milan. Just like in Venice, the population considered themselves Venetian, but we consider them Italians today. There's a difference with the Frankish assimilation and the Langobard assimilation.

Ah, so it's true. I have heard that many Italian immigrated to Puerto Rico, I didn't know it was actually true.

no, europes largest city is Moscow, followed by London, don't know where Paris is, but it's aroudn the same with Berlin and most other european capitals.

If you include Paris's greater metropolitan area, than Paris is bigger.

Well, Temujin, it really depends on your definition of "city".

If you mean city in the strict sense, with historical and/or officially defined borders, you are right.

The rank of European cities is:

In this sense, the largest city in the World is Seoul, South Korea, with 10,231,000 inhabitants.

However, if you would consider (as I did), not only the people official borders, but,  also the Urban areas (also known as "urban agglomerates" or "great cities" etc.), Paris becomes the largest European city,, with 9,319,000 inhabitants, followed by Moscow (8,538,000) and then London.

In this sense, the world largest city is New York, USA, with 21,199,000 people.

My data come from this UN related site:

http://www.citymayors.com/features/largest_cities.html - http://www.citymayors.com/features/largest_cities.html

Frankish and Longobardic assimilation are the same!

We are talking about a strong minority group imposing their will over devastating Roman territories. The Franks and Longobards assimilated my cultural characteristics of their host country but the host populace adopt the identity of their elite.

Italy was a damn mess of small kingdoms. the nation didn't even exist! How the hell do you expect them to identify themselves as "Italians"?

Italian in the nominal demographic sense rather than the MODERN national sense.

as far as i understand most people live in italy, syria and lebanon were Romans

and BTW i always thought Tokyo is the largest city in the world with a population more than 27 000 000 

Saturday, 30 December, 2000, 05:54 GMT

Bombay is set to replace Tokyo as the world's most populous city by 2020, according to a study released in the US.

Bombay, home to about 18 million people, will over the next two decades see its population grow to about 28.5 million, according to the Washington-based Population Institute, in its annual overview of world population trends.

but look at this

Tuesday, January 27, 2004

S�o Paulo Brazil, world's second-biggest city, celebrates its 450th birthday!

off topic i know, but go back to you all later of the Romans 

It's rubbish. Are you sure you're not getting Southern Italians mixed up with the Etruscans to the north?

"In this sense, the largest city in the World is Seoul, South Korea, with 10,231,000 inhabitants."

This is not accurate. As far as I know, the population of Shanghai, China is over 13,000,000, and if I am not mistaken, it is not the largest city in China by population but by size.

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 S? Paulo Brazil, world's second-biggest city, celebrates its 450th birthday!

Yay!  In fact, Sao Paulo was founded by Italian immigrants-making a good portion of the city with Roman Origin!

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.

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

chemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />

You are joking right? Aren�t 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.  Let�s 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). It�s good logic. If by your definition, that the Romans imported too many slaves from other areas, and that doesn�t make Italy Roman, then modern lace>Spainlace> is definitely not related to medieval lace>Spainlace>.>>

You�re so ignorant.  The Romans weren�t even from an original ethnic group themselves. They were from a mix of tribes around the region. Haven�t 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>)>>

Did I say that? Absolutely not!>>

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"

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.

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.

I think the Welsh have a big Roman background

Gretings to all of you!

How mutch for it?

By the use of Anthropology and Genetics. I just find it too hard for lets say a British or a German having ancient Italian ancestors, its just too silly colonies are allways much smaller then the ‘native’ population. You would have to be very very lucky.

Well America and Rome are both very very different  considering ones a modern invention and they span over a millenia in difference. Also are you sure that these people where not Romanized? We all know the power of culture. Lets not forget the plagues that hit Europe during the 'Middle Ages' and the various Barbaric German hoards that invaded and basically ended the 'Western Roman Empire'. I can see maybe the French and Spaniards having a bit of Roman Lineage but the British i sinserly doubt such a thing, after all the Celts above Hadrians Wall where basically running around free.