How did the ancient Romans turn into Italians ?

there were 2 Habsburg branches, a Spanish and an Austrian
I don't know exactly how far the Austrian branch reached, but I don't see an immeadiate connection with the map provided

you're right, it was private intitiative and trade that created wealth, not some central government in favor of a few priviliged
 
bicicleur said:
there were 2 Habsburg branches, a Spanish and an Austrian
I don't know exactly how far the Austrian branch reached, but I don't see an immeadiate connection with the map provided

you're right, it was private intitiative and trade that created wealth, not some central government in favor of a few priviliged
Click to expand...

Exactly. Some of the people commenting on the Razib Khan blog post seem to have an imperfect understanding of the relevant history and geographical spread of the "Holy Roman Empire". To wit, many of the relevant areas actually weren't in the Empire; people were safe on the roads in Spain, too; the Spanish Golden Age was based on New World silver, and once that was gone there was no large mercantile class in place (especially since they had expelled all their Jews) and policies were oriented toward the interests of the large landowner; the same was true in the southern Italy they ruled.

Given the orientation of many amateur geneticists there's also the reflexive Nordicism, to which I can only point out that East Germany, despite these supposedly superior genes, was a mess economically when under communism and the Soviet Union. Also, southern Germany and Austria, more "southern" areas of Germany, are actually more prosperous. Amalfi didn't have much "Germanic" ancestry, I might add. As I said, history and governance matter. (Oh, most of the prosperity of southern Ireland is because it's a tax haven, and that in the North is because of drilling.)
 
Tomenable said:
It seems that the difference between North Germans and South Germans is also large, check for example these PCA graphs. It looks like the average difference is almost as large as between North and South Italians, but there is more overlap on individual level:

north-south.png


In some GEDmatch calculators I'm much closer to North Germans than to South Germans. In PuntDNAL K15 North Germans are my 4th population and South Germans only 20th (this indirectly implies that there is a large difference between these two groups):

Single Population Sharing:

# Population(source) Distance

1 Polish 2.06
(...)
4 North_German 6.79
5 Belarusian 7.58
6 Slovenian 7.94
(...)
8 Austrian 8.36
(...)
12 Hungarian 9.25
(...)
20 South_German 13.53
Click to expand...

since south-germans border north- Italians ( austrians are south-germans ) why don't you plot their PCA and see how close they match or not
 
Angela said:
Exactly. Some of the people commenting on the Razib Khan blog post seem to have an imperfect understanding of the relevant history and geographical spread of the "Holy Roman Empire". To wit, many of the relevant areas actually weren't in the Empire; people were safe on the roads in Spain, too; the Spanish Golden Age was based on New World silver, and once that was gone there was no large mercantile class in place (especially since they had expelled all their Jews) and policies were oriented toward the interests of the large landowner; the same was true in the southern Italy they ruled.

Given the orientation of many amateur geneticists there's also the reflexive Nordicism, to which I can only point out that East Germany, despite these supposedly superior genes, was a mess economically when under communism and the Soviet Union. Also, southern Germany and Austria, more "southern" areas of Germany, are actually more prosperous. Amalfi didn't have much "Germanic" ancestry, I might add. As I said, history and governance matter. (Oh, most of the prosperity of southern Ireland is because it's a tax haven, and that in the North is because of drilling.)
Click to expand...

Venice was never under holy roman lands and even conquests by venetians into holy roman lands removed these lands from the HRE ................same happened in netherlands and france.

The genetic difference between north and south italy is evident by migration, but rich and poor division in Italy was due to the fact that central and north italy areas where ruled by themselves and became rich while the south became poor sitting under Iberian rule ......be it Aragon, Navaresse, Catalan, Castilian or Boubon rulers ...........the south was bled by the iberians
 
Italians descend from the Pre-Roman peoples rather than from the ancient Romans. At best people from certain parts of Latium could be the descendants of the Latins but in Rome today most the the inhabitants are or the sons or the grandsons of people who came from the Marche, Abruzzo, Calabria, Campania etc. Since the 1870 there has been an huge internal migration from Central-Southern Italy and to a lesser degree from the North toward the capital..already in the antiquity Rome was full of people from all over Italy and beyond
 
Speak for yourself.

You're apparently forgetting all the colonies of Roman soldiers and others which were established all over northern Italy. Or aren't they teaching Roman history in Italian schools anymore?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/colony-ancient-Roman-settlement

https://www.academia.edu/4752147/Soldiers_Roman_citizens_and_Latin_colonists_in_Mid-Republican_Italy

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Colonia.html

Some examples from Rome north: Ostia, Rimini, Modena, Parma, Luni.

You're also being far too literal. What definition of Roman are you using? Does it include only the inhabitants of "Rome" itself? How about the Etruscans and Sabines whom they incorporated very early on?

The people who "built" Rome probably had as much ancestry from the Etruscans and from related tribes of central and central Northern Italy as from the people who lived on the seven hills originally.
 
Roman colonies:
500px-Romancoloniae.jpg


Once all of Italy was unified, there would have been admixture all up and down the peninsula.
 
I am referring only to the inhabitants of ancient Rome, the original Romans to be precise (Archaic-Republican period)...Etruscans and the other Italic peoples were Socii Foederati they can't be considered ethnic Romans IMO

Anyway i'm not Anti-Roman at all..my username is Cato (!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder
 
Just want to add many great inventions were created by Italians during and after the Roman era.

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

In this list many inventions were created during the medieval ages and the early modern era. The Etruscans were definitely not part the original Roman Patrician families, but the very least to say the Etruscans had an influence on Roman culture and were Italian peoples, they were Socii as Cato stated.
 
The earliest Romans were Latins, Sabines and Etruscans, according to Livy and others.
The Claudii and Valerii among others were Sabine "gentes".

An area near the Forum in Rome was called the Vicus Tuscus (Etruscan Quarter) while there was a Latin town called Tusculum (near modern Frascati).

The great Tarquin dynasty of monarchical Rome was part Etruscan from Tarquinii and part Corinthian (Demaratus) Greek.

Lucius Junius Brutus, founder of the Roman Republic, was the nephew of the last King of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus.
 
Indeed.

The precise genetic profile of the first shepherds living in their miserable, thatched huts on the seven hills above the Tiber is rather irrelevant, in my opinion. What did they ever accomplish?

Already by the time they appeared in the annals of history they were probably a mixed group.

" Rome lay 12 miles inland from the sea on the Tiber River, the border between Latium and Etruria. Because the site commanded a convenient river crossing and lay on a land route from the Apennines to the sea, it formed the meeting point of three distinct peoples: Latins, Etruscans, and Sabines. Though Latin in speech and culture, the Roman population must have been somewhat diverse from earliest times, a circumstance that may help to account for the openness of Roman society in historical times."

"Romulus, Rome’s first king according to tradition, was the invention of later ancient historians. His name, which is not even proper Latin, was designed to explain the origin of Rome’s name. His fictitious reign was filled with deeds expected of an ancient city founder and the son of awargod. Thus he was described as having established Rome’s early political, military, and social institutions and as having waged war against neighbouring states. Romulus was also thought to have shared his royal power for a time with a Sabine namedTitus Tatius. The name may be that of an authentic ruler of early Rome, perhaps Rome’s first real king; nothing, however, was known about him in later centuries, and his reign was therefore lumped together with that of Romulus.The names of the other six kings are authentic and were remembered by the Romans."

"According to ancient tradition, the warlike founder Romulus was succeeded by the Sabine Numa Pompilius, whose reign was characterized by complete tranquility and peace. Numa was supposed to have created virtually all of Rome’s religious institutions and practices."

"Rome’s urban transformation was carried out by its last three kings: LuciusTarquinius Priscus (Tarquin the Elder), Servius Tullius, and Lucius TarquiniusSuperbus (Tarquin the Proud). According to ancient tradition, the two Tarquins were father and son and came from Etruria. One tradition madeServius Tullius a Latin; another described him as an Etruscan named Mastarna. All three kings were supposed to have been great city planners and organizers (a tradition that has been confirmed by archaeology)."

https://www.britannica.com/place/ancient-Rome

The Etruscans didn't disappear. They were absorbed by the Romans.

The following gens are all Etruscan: Lartia, Herminia, Caecina, and I could go on and on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lartia_(gens)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herminia_(gens)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caecina_(gens)

In the time of the four emperors between the Julio/Claudians and the Flavians, Otho, one of the four emperors, was descended from an Etruscan family.

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

As to the Sabines, if the event known to us as "The Rape of the Sabines" has any historical accuracy at all, there was admixture between the "Romans" and the "Sabines.

The initial Roman imperial family was, after the death of Augustus, more Claudii than Julii, and the Claudii were a Sabine family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_(gens)

After them, we have another Sabine family, the Flavians...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian

Cicero was from a Sabine family southeast of Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero

Livy was born near modern Padua, and given the inclusive nature of the "Romans", he might have had some "local" ancestry.

Anyway, if the Flavians and Cicero and Otho weren't "Roman", then nobody was "Roman."

I'm aware that the line has to be drawn at a certain point, but that point is certainly not with some shepherds living in thatched huts on the Palatine. Nor can it be drawn before the first century AD had even ended.
 
Horatius Cocles who defended the bridge over the Tiber against the Etruscans of Lars Porsenna of Clusium had with him 2 companions with Etruscan names, Spurius Larcius and Titus Herminius.
 
Vallicanus said:
The earliest Romans were Latins, Sabines and Etruscans, according to Livy and others.
The Claudii and Valerii among others were Sabine "gentes".

An area near the Forum in Rome was called the Vicus Tuscus (Etruscan Quarter) while there was a Latin town called Tusculum (near modern Frascati).

The great Tarquin dynasty of monarchical Rome was part Etruscan from Tarquinii and part Corinthian (Demaratus) Greek.

Lucius Junius Brutus, founder of the Roman Republic, was the nephew of the last King of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus.
Click to expand...

I know that early Rome had a Sabine and a southern Etruscan component in its population, obviously i include them in the "ethnic Romans" label since they were there since the beginning and contributed to the expansion of Rome.
 
There is big span of time discussed here,to the general question how Romans turned into Italians?
Roman empire expanded greatly in size,the same question can be asked about many today nations that emerged on it's former territory.
However not all people were soldiers and emperors there as to what we have in mind,there was majority of simple people among them,soldiers were going anywhere where they were required.The soldiers,nobility would have been from the area they started to expanded from.Later on with many "Romans" from the conquered territories.
Locations of Roman legions, 80 CE
Roman_Legions_camps_-_AD_80.png


When Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople(new Rome) i guess Rome lost it's significance,everything shifted in Constantinople,there were the courts,the nobles etc,simply the capital was there.
Map of all the territories once occupied by the Roman Empire, along with locations of limes
Limes_and_borders.gif


for example when Justinian was sending troops against "Goths" in Italy they were gathering in Serdica(Sofia) present Bulgaria.Yes Romans.
Roman was proffesion,common goal,politics bound by Romaness.

Yes ancient Romans somehow turned into Italians and are credited with creation of that empire.
 
For example Constans II (641 to 668) wanted to move the capital yet again from Constantinople to Syracuse in Sicily,so obviosly that would have been the most prosperous part of the empire,it was smaller empire at the time and with internal as well many external conflicts but still rich and powerful empire,i don't think it is genetics or anything like that,to brought those things in question has to do with one own bias,"behavior" of ancient people vs modern,north better than south,to the contrary culture shift was going opposite in our own perception we call Europe.

In 663 Constans visited Rome for twelve days—the only emperor to set foot in Rome for two centuries—and was received with great honor by Pope Vitalian (657–672)

Rumours that he was going to move the capital of the Empire to Syracuse were probably fatal for Constans. On September 15, 668, he was assassinated in his bath by his chamberlain, according to Theophilus of Edessa, with a bucket.
 
Or, we could use fst. The closest similarity is not to Germany.

North Italy to France(langue d'oïl not langue d'oc): .003
North Italy to Spain: .003
North Italy to Switzerland: .003
North Italy to southern Germany: .004
North Italy to northern Germany: .005

I don't remember if North Italy on this study included TSI Tuscans from near Florence.

In your PCA, the three major groupings in Switzerland are included: the Ticino, Italian speaking, which plots right next to northern Italians, French speaking Swiss, who are overlapping with the French, and then German speaking Swiss who start overlapping with the southern Germans.

It's congruent with what the fst show.
 
Thank you, Angela, but my intention was to show that northern italians do not cluster with germans.
 
Yes, I know. Thank-you for finding those PCAs. I was merely trying to approach it from a different angle. Clearly, two groups with an FST of .004, on a PCA with any reasonable amount of resolution, are not going to cluster together.

My main point is that as we wait for some Roman era dna from Italy, we should start to define our terms. Are the "Romans" only the shepherds on the Palatine from the earliest period, if in fact we're able to get dna from that period, which I doubt? Are they the people under the rule of the Etruscan kings who first organize and build their city? The Republican era Romans? The early empire Romans? If we're interested in the people who organized the first legions and fought in them, who learned how to improve on Greek architecture, who designed and built the aqueducts, put together the legal system, and on and on, I think we have to include all those people.

Nor should we be including only "Patricians" in that discussion. I highly doubt the architects and master builders and lawyers and writers and artists, or even the majority of the commanders of the legions were of the highest patrician class. Even when discussing that class, the Romans were pragmatic and there was a constant flow of people from the "bottom" as they accumulated wealth and importance.

Plus, I think there is some degree of misunderstanding of the nature of the entire patrician/plebian divide, but that's a topic for another thread.

See:
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-04-24.html

In addition to all of that, given the recent discoveries showing how mobile people were, the vast distances that merchants traveled, I think that archaeologists are going to have to be very careful about getting the "context" of the burials right.
 
Maciamo said:
One of the great mysteries of European history in my eyes is the complete reversal in character between the ancient Romans and medieval or modern Italians.

The Romans were very organised, disciplined, serious, rather stern and stoic, military-minded, cared little about family ties (they frequently adopted people unrelated to them or murdered their blood relatives), and were unusually ready to sacrifice themselves for the common good of their nation (as legionaries).

The Italians are just the opposite in all these respects. They are possibly the least organised Europeans, among the least disciplined. They are fun-loving hedonists. They have made terrible soldiers ever since the Middle Ages (Italians haven't won a single foreign battle in history, except in Libya and Ethiopia where their army far outnumbered the locals in number and fire power). Italians attach a lot of importance to family relations, and often place loyalty to family and friends above that of society or the whole nation. One of the main problems of modern Italy is tax fraud, because people don't feel enough solidarity with other Italians.

Many character traits are highly inheritable. Cats don't make dogs or vice versa. So how is it possible that modern Italians descend from ancient Romans ?

The character traits of modern Italians listed above are far more exacerbated in the southern half of Italy. This is all the more surprising since the ancient Latins originated in the coastal area between Rome and Naples. Since Rome was flooded with immigrants from all over the empire, chances are that the Roman genes survived better in Neapolitans. The region was heavily settled by rich Romans, who had holiday homes in what they called the Campania Felix. Campania was even part of the same province as Rome, the Regio I Latium et Campania. Some Roman emperors were more often in Capri than in Rome itself.

This made me wonder how much DNA from the ancient Latins, the patricians of the Roman Republic, survive in modern Italians. Ironically the temperament and values of the ancient Romans were closer to that of modern Swiss or Germans than to that of Italians. Yet it is hard to think of two European cultures more diametrically opposite as the Swiss/Germans and the Italians, especially if we look only at the Neapolitans or southern Italians.

EDIT:

In his book The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, the American political scientist Edward Banfield employed the phrase 'amoral familism' to describe the inability of modern (mostly southern) Italian villagers to 'act together for the common good, or indeed for any good transcending the immediate material interest of the family'. Interestingly this complete lack of attachment to the state and lack of identification to the wider community is found nowadays in societies that I would qualify of 'short-ranged collectivist' (in which the collectivity is the family or village) of the Balkans and southern Italy, as opposed to the 'wide-range collectivism' (where the collectivity is the whole nation) of East Asia.
Click to expand...

evolution ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 233311 times.

Back
Top