Vallicanus
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,189
- Reaction score
- 455
- Points
- 83
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b Z36
This is probably going to upset you but the anger you display through your comments on the Steppe people reveals that you were kinda traumatized by Nordicism. Rest assured I don't claim the Romans nor the Etruscans since I'm not ashamed of my "Barbarian" ancestors and respect other people's heritage. However, I give credit where credit is due, regardless of whether the people are "civilized" or so-called "Barbarians".
Here's the thing these unskilled savages as you "affectionally" call them, are important and do matter to the extent that scholars are invested in searching out their origin and homeland. The truth of the matter is, that those steppe pastoralists spread out over much of Eurasia, and wherever they went – basically all of Europe, India, and plenty of the lands in between they conquered and assimilated the local populations. Whilst the customs, languages, and worldviews of the pre-Indo-European populations definitely exerted an influence on the hybrid societies that formed after this conquest, the basic template of these societies was solidly Indo-European.
Furthermore, language is essential and immanent to the expression of culture. Language is a fundamental aspect of cultural identity. It is the means by which we convey our innermost self from generation to generation. It is through language that we transmit and express our culture and its values. So, not only bloodline, DNA but language as well plays a very crucial role in human identity. The fact that the Etruscans didn't speak an Indo-European language in spite of being majority R1b-boys and having as much Steppe ancestry as the Romans indicates that they didn't have a firm Indo-European culture or society. In contrast, the Latins/Romans were solidly Indo-European culturally speaking which is reflected by their language. Maybe the Etruscans were mama’s boys and the Latins/Romans the daddy's boys. Who knows? Anyway, in contrast to the Romans, Etruscan women retained their maiden names and were not considered their father or husband’s possession. The Etruscan women, unlike Greek or Roman women, were able to participate in banquets as diners. According to the Greeks and the Romans this custom was not only strange but outright barbaric.
You don't make me angry.
Your archaic thin propaganda makes me laugh.
Etruscans and Latins shared the same Orientalised city-state culture from the East Med.
No language, IE or otherwise, makes a society any the more or less macho and fit for war.
It was the King of Rome, Servius Tullius in the 6th century, probably an Etruscan from Vulci also named Mastarna/Macstarna, who carried out crucial reforms.
All free residents in Rome were made liable to military service and were granted political rights.
This was the Centuriate where residents were divided into 6 classes according to wealth.
Instead of a system based on an existing hierarchy based on authority or clan or belief, Servius Tullius established a dynamic principle by which each man ranked according to his property.
True, all power still lay with the upper classes who provided the cavalry and could afford to supply themselves with the best equipment but everybody was free to get into a higher class if he could and gain greater voting rights.