How did the ancient Romans turn into Italians ?

Well at least the Greeks are consistent. They were disorganized then and disorganized now. Fun loving then, fun loving now. Tax avoiders, tax avoiders now. But I think of it as nurture passed down from generation to generation driven by the need to survive and thrive in difficult times. Survival of the fittest edicts and attitudes. Distrust the state, it's there so the people in power can enrich themselves and those around them, avoid paying taxes because they will rob you of your hard work to give them to their friends, don't work too hard because they will steal your hard work by taxing you to death. You better have fun instead, etc. Witness what happened when Greeks immigrated to the US or Germany or Scandinavia. They worked very hard, changed their attitudes about the state because the state was not out to get them. Yep the exact same Greeks that were so suspicious of the state.
 
Maciamo take a look at the paternal lines of Ladin people.
Just out of curiosity.
What do you think are they Celtic people, Celto-Germanic, Celto-Italic-Germanic or Celto-Italic?
A strange paternal line found in Ladin people and also found in some few parts of Italy is L.
A simple thing:
South Tyrol which is currently under the administration of Italy is the richest area of the EU and one of the most civilized.
There are lots of Ladin people in South Tyrol.
Also what if current Swiss people are rather related to Old Romans?
In some parts of Italy R1B-U152 was found as high as 75%.

Italy got a lot of migration during Roman Empire times, I suppose the soldiers that were doing great services for the Empire were receiving land into Italy.
Also, is known lots of Goths settled in Italy. Goths assimilated various people before settling in Italy.
In Lombardia, lots of Langobards settled.
Maybe Ladin people are actually related to the Romans.
They tell the name of their language comes from Latin - and Latin was the mother tongue of Romans.

 
Maciamo take a look at the paternal lines of Ladin people.
Just out of curiosity.
What do you think are they Celtic people, Celto-Germanic, Celto-Italic-Germanic or Celto-Italic?
A strange paternal line found in Ladin people and also found in some few parts of Italy is L.
A simple thing:
South Tyrol which is currently under the administration of Italy is the richest area of the EU and one of the most civilized.
There are lots of Ladin people in South Tyrol.
Also what if current Swiss people are rather related to Old Romans?
In some parts of Italy R1B-U152 was found as high as 75%.
Italy got a lot of migration during Roman Empire times, I suppose the soldiers that were doing great services for the Empire were receiving land into Italy.
Also, is known lots of Goths settled in Italy. Goths assimilated various people before settling in Italy.
In Lombardia, lots of Langobards settled.
Maybe Ladin people are actually related to the Romans.
They tell the name of their language comes from Latin - and Latin was the mother tongue of Romans.
the first paper I recall of the Ladin DNA was by Thomas in 2008, he split the german speakers and italian speakers and below is the ydna split
GV (German, n=102): ~R1b 42%, ~G+I 25%, J 14%, R1a 9% , ~E 8%, L 2%
ITA (Ital.speakers BZ, n=59): ~R1b 37%, ~G+I 25%, J 15%, ~E 12%, ~T 5%, R1a 3%, L 2%
.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17712356
New genetic evidence supports isolation and drift in the Ladin communities of the South Tyrolean Alps but not an ancient origin in the Middle East.
Thomas MG1, Barnes I, Weale ME, Jones AL, Forster P, Bradman N, Pramstaller PP.
 
Wow I accidentally stumbled upon this thread, truly baffled by the servile attitudes of certain North Italian subgroups
 
I really don't believe that moderns italians, should we compare them to the great ancient romans and patricians.
 
I came across a video on this topic, I haven't run into any Italians that refer to themselves as Romans, but I have run into Iranians that refer to themselves as Persian...

 
… most Italians don’t feel the need to compare themselves to the Romans. We take it for granted!
 
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.

First of all i doubt you can find some modern people close to Romans. Romans were the yardstick of discipline and military organization, stocism and whatnot. Maybe Nazis were as disciplined as Romans but they lasted as a candle in the wind compared to them and we also have some interesting stuff reports about the Nervitin drug they took to be so "heroic" , so big deal. Second, Italians have won several battles abroad, included the Italo-Turkish war before WW1 and many battles in North Africa. Some of those battles in N.Africas were accounted to Germans by Brits but historians are now shedding light on. Also in Russian campaign we have won some battles in desperate conditions and with little to no weapons . Take a look at Tridentina Battalion. In a bullettin of Supreme Russian Command they called those Alpine soldiers "the only Army Corp that went undefeated on Russian soil ". That if we don't consider the importance of Venetian, Genoese, Pisan and Amalfitan soldiers all over the mediterranean fighting Muslims and rejecting them back and Italian merceneries who were basically the backbone of many armies everywhere in Europe since the middle age. We could also talk how Italy was well present in Lepanto with Venice, Genoa, Florence etc for that matter.
Obviously we were not a united Nation like France or Spain in the middle age, but saying that we have never won a battle abroad is pure fantasy not supported by any historical source.
 
Last edited:
Yes and No, against the Celts who practiced disorganized rushing yes, against Macedonians they were inferior in terms of military technique, but had more man-power and resources to sustain a long-term war.
Hannibal completely out-smarted them in almost every battle wining consistently with inferior numbers and resources, when they were at their military peak. He would have gotten into the city of Rome, if it wasn't for the crazy gamble idea the Romans had to go around him straight for Carthage.

Rome wasn't at all its peak during punic wars. 🤣
 
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.

Placing too much importance on family relations is Germanic Cultural corruption. Don't forget the Gothic war, most deaths from this war went unrecorded, land conflicts between Gothic settlers and native Italians. 1.5 million Germanics were killed (likely not 15 million like the troll historian Jew Josephus says). Still, it could have been 15 million if you had hordes of insufferable idiots that are like Varg Vikernes entering Italy to settle on land with massive birth rates, I can imagine Italians having genocidal tendencies at that point. This was a time after the Lynch mobs of the Western Roman Empire where they would try to kill many Germanics. I disagree with any Italian thinking they are Germanic, under 10% of Italian men overall have a Germanic R or I lineage, Germans only have 4-5% Roman Italian lineages since Italian men don't like German women and they see them as sadistic degenerate scumbags who are only good for pump and dump. Don't forget, the Romans are still around, waging war in deep space. This Galaxy will be ours, as will the Universe and Lizard men won't stop us. Germanics are the Barbarians who love to take risks, Italians prop them up to sell their souls for technology while Italians don't need help from aliens.

I shouldn't be bias, the were Arian Christians so likely not as insufferable, cringe and idiot as Vargling Vickers. Louis Cachet.

“For these Romans I set no bounds in space and time; but have given empire without end.” Pronouncement of Jupiter in Virgils "Aeneid"

These are terrestrial craft, Pyramids and silver metallic objects were made in Italy. The metallic object is very similar to a video I saw long ago of a UFO appearing from a lake, a Colorado video expert did an analysis and said it was real.


F6fb3SEX0AAXduy


p0FnjhK.jpg
 
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.

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.

You are just another self hating North Italian. Our ancestral kill death ratio is very high on the Germanics.
 
Last edited:
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).

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.

While this post is now ten years old it strikes me as very generalized, condescending and also simply outright false on all or at least most accounts. I can only assume at the time of this being written the author had constructed some sort of personal bias against Italians becuase these statements contrast almost all historical data we have to draw from. It is my hope that with all the time that has passed, along with the more recent genetic data that has come out on Romans he has now reconsidered his thoughts by this point, but nonetheless I will address these claims because I don't find it fair to make such accusations without actually investigating as to if they have any factual basis.

First of all, to be clear, the Romans are Italians, considered themselves as such and no person educated on the topic of Roman history would debate this. I'm not sure if that much is understood by the above post but I simply want to make this clear for those who are not aware. The Romans referred to themselves as ethnic Italians countless times and routinely lauded this sense of identity above all others. Secondly "Roman Italia" was legally defined by the Romans as their respective nation and the only Roman homeland within all lands encompassed by Roman Empire. It was governed under a special set of laws called "Imperium Domi" (Literally translated as: Rule at Home), which was separate from all foreign lands which were ruled under "Imperium Militae" (Military Rule). Italy was furthermore the only area which was not considered a province. Thus, even the geography of Italy by the first emperor Augustus was considered a sacred homeland to the Roman people. Italy was also commonly termed "Rectrix Mundi" (Governor of the World), if that still wasn't clear enough to establish how the Romans viewed Italia compared to respectively foreign provinces.

As far as a Roman ethnic identity goes, let's take a look at the words written on the the topic from Vitruvius who had served in the Gallic wars under Julius Caesar, and afterwards as a Civil Engineer to Augustus:

“But although southern nations have the keenest wits, and are infinitely clever in forming schemes, yet the moment it comes to displaying valour, they succumb because all manliness of spirit is sucked out of them by the sun. On the other hand, men born in cold countries are indeed readier to meet the shock of arms with great courage and wihout timidity, but their wits are so slow that they will rush to the charge incosiderately and inexpertly, thus defeating their own devices.

Such being nature’s arrangement of the universe, and all these nations being allotted temperaments which are lacking in due moderation, the truly perfect territory, situated under the middle of heaven, and having on each side the entire extent of the world and its countries, is that which is occupied by the Roman people. In fact, the races of Italy are the most perfectly constituted in both respects - in bodily form and in mental activity to correspond to their valour. Exactly as the planet Jupiter is itself temperate, its course, lying midway between Mars, which is very hot, and Saturn, which is very cold, so Italy, lying between the north and the south is a combination of what is found on each side, and her preeminence is well regulated and indisputible.

And so, by her wisdom she breaks the courageous onsets of the barbarians, and by her strength of hand thwarts the devices of the southerners. Hence it was the divine intelligence that set the city of the Roman people in a peerless and temperate country, in order that it might acquire the right to command the whole world.”

- Vitruvius, De Architectura, Book VI


Again, the same mode of logic is applied and reflects the popular thought at the time. To the Romans the Italian people as a racial group are "peerless" and "perfectly constituted in mental and physical activity". The "preminence" of Italy is is guided by "divine Intelligence" for the purpose of world conquest. Foreign races found both north and south of Italy lack aspects of these good qualities and are deemed inferior in either intellect or courage which is why they are defeated by the Italics. There is a balatant sense of Italian supremacy in these statements which was not at all dissimilar to how the Greeks thought of themselves as well. Nevertheless, we can say with certainty that the Romans of Italy characteristically thought very highly of their Italian race and homeland and they most definitely were not conflicted about who they were as Italians.

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.


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.

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 ?
I don't see any data whatsoever back up these demeaning statements. This sounds like nothing more than a negative stereotype constructed from personal bias. I'm not aware of any serious metric for cross comparing discipline on a national level, nor that of hedonism or organizational skill so if you'd like to enlighten us as to where you get these strong opinions from I'd be more than open to looking at it. Most people value their families and smaller communities above that of larger groups for pretty obvious reasons. There is nothing wrong with this contrary to what your post indicates. Human reason dictates that we prioritize those which we have closest relations to and the Romans were no different or less reasonable. Your perception of the Romans being quick to butcher their families stems from a survivorship bias found in recorded power struggles concerning immensely powerful aristocratic families which is an extraordinary problem that only concerned families of extraordinary power and wealth. Your typical Roman family reasonably prioritized themselves over the state, no different than any other culture in the past or now. I would actually counter argue that it's almost impossible to find a country in which one's family is typically prioritized less than that of serving the state. If you can think of any, I'm open to suggestion.

On the topic of Italy failing to win any "foreign battles", I'm not sure where you get this idea from. Have you not heard of the Venetian Empire? It was an entity which stretched from Lombardy to Cyprus and Crimea. It by necessity involved countless military victories on foreign soil and waters. We're speaking of dozens of victories which spanned from Lebanon, Israel, Albania, Croatia, Greece, Spain, Tunisia, Anatolia and Ukraine. The famous battle of Lepanto should already be well known and it's also well known that it was the Venetian Italians who conquered Constantinople not long after their own merchants had been Genocided in Greece. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_the_Republic_of_Venice

755px-Repubblica_di_Venezia.png
What's more is that Italy has always been a particularly advanced military power and even as a fractured entity we know that 15th century northern Italy was a dominating manufacturer of plated armor. Not only was Milanese white armor highly prized for its craftmanship and excellence in quality, but it was favored by all european powers outside of the German HRE sphere. Northern Italy and Bavaria were in fact the two most significant centers of armor production during the 15th century and competed regularly in this regard. https://suggestionbox.communityflavorpack.com/posts/235/milanese-plate-armor-1420s-1450s-roughly

milanese-plate-armor.PNG

We also have the Tracce Italienne Bastion "Star" Forts which were originated in Italy as a developed response to France's 15th century invasion of the peninsula. The construction of these forts were so effective and difficult to besiege that Italian military engineers were sought after in high demand throughout the whole of Europe immediately following this conflict. These style of forts were later widely used to slow down and halt Ottoman expansion. Many such examples continue to survive to this day.

Ciudadela_Jaca_Vista_Aerea.jpg


And this is before we even get into the enormous victories of the first world war. Need I remind you that the Austrian Hungrian empire was defeated by an unassisted Italy during the white war of the alps? In this conflict let's remember that Italy was outnumbered, outgunned, was using more dated equipment and yet still won the final battle of Vittorio Veneto inficting an enormous 13 to 1 casualty ratio on Austria Hungary, thus forcing the conclusion of the war and subsequent dissolution of the Austro Hungarian empire. For all the amount of consistent ragging and complaining I hear about how bad Italy supposedly was during the Second World war, I never hear even the slightest peep about Italy's performance during the Great War. I'm sure we can all only wonder why that is.

We could also go on about how highly the German command spoke of the bravery and discipline of the Italian forces in WWII. Or the fact that the British refused to acknowledge any of their losses to Italy in North Africa and would instead simply record them as losses to Germans forces. What of the G55 Centauro, which was considered by the German Luftwaffe to be the best fighter plane in the entirety of the Axis forces? It was regarded so highly that the Germans wanted to standardize it amongst their own forces. It was designed by Giuseppe Gabrielli, a Sicilian.

Fiat_G55.jpg



Suffice it to say, I think I've made my point. Italy may not be "Rectrix Mundi" as it had been 2000 years ago but it has consistantly performed very well militarily and has produced extraordinarily competent military engineers and soldiers throughout all ages. It does not at all deserve the negative stereotype this post applies whatsoever and anyone decently educated on the topic should be aware of this.

As far as how much dna in modern Italians originates from the ancient Romans, I think it's quite fair to say that if we're defining ancient Rome as "Roman Italy" and not specifically just Latium or the city of Rome, the answer is going to be all of it. Modern Italians are quite simply descended from Iron age populations living in Italy and that's really it. It is no longer 2013 and we already know the modern southern Italian profile was fully standardized amongst central Italy by Augustinian age of the early empire. At bare minimum southern Italians already definitively had full continuity with the ancient Romans. We have no samples from Roman era/Iron age Northern Italy yet, but I think the Protovillanovan sample found in C. Italy is indicative that we will find continuity there as well.

G25_Iron_Age_Proto-Villanovan.png


G25_Imperial_Roman.png
 
Last edited:
What about immigration?
If Rome was the economic super power of its day it would have been a mecca for economic migrates, just as the US is today.
Also is there not a massive north/south divide in culture and genetics in Italy?


Immigration surely changed completely the population of Rome and most of the Latium. But it wouldn't have changed all Italy. Perhaps the problem is that the ancient Roman patricians really were different from the other ancient peoples of Italy, and that their DNA became diluted in the huge mass of immigrants already towards the end of the Roman Empire.
Dna are not people, easy
My dna, i'm more relax person, I am from southern Italy, yet both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Romans were very different from what I am now
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2023-12-27-10-25-29-087_com.miui.gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_2023-12-27-10-25-29-087_com.miui.gallery.jpg
    703.9 KB · Views: 36
  • IMG_20231227_102021.jpg
    IMG_20231227_102021.jpg
    40.7 KB · Views: 38
  • Screenshot_2023-12-27-10-18-32-078_com.miui.gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_2023-12-27-10-18-32-078_com.miui.gallery.jpg
    71.8 KB · Views: 37
  • Screenshot_2023-12-27-10-18-22-891_com.miui.gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_2023-12-27-10-18-22-891_com.miui.gallery.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 34

This thread has been viewed 231647 times.

Back
Top