How did the ancient Romans turn into Italians ?

[Wilhelm]

Ancient Rome was a civilization, with a state, a citizenship, a capital, laws, and so on. Germanic and Celtic tribes had not yet reached the development stage of civilization. You cannot compare the two anymore than you could compare the maturity of a child and an adult. Celtic and Germanic societies have since reached adulthood, so now we can compare them more fairly with Italy.



There is little relation between wealth and organisation. The ancient Celts were utterly disorganised and tribal, yet extremely rich (far richer than the Romans until the conquest of Gaul by Caesar). In contrast the Chinese have always been a very organised nation, but that did not prevent them to face the most abject poverty and starvation of millions under Mao Zedong.

Like most Italians I do not regard Italy as a united culture or nation. Italy became a country by accident. Lombards and Venetians share precious little in common with Campanians or Sicilans. Even Tuscans contrast harply with the people of the Marches just across the Apennines.

If North Italy (or Padania as the Lega Nord calls it) were an independent country it would be the richest country in the EU after Luxembourg. So there is no denying that at least half of Italy is very rich. That doesn't make Italians, even Northerners, organised, disciplined, self-restrained and punctual people. How can you not see that wealth has nothing to do with organisation ?

When did I say that ?? I said ancient germanics were chaotic and barbarian (not mentioned their wealth) and that modern Italians are rich AND still a organised country (not relating the two, it's a conjuction...). A disorganised country would be Zimbabwe (to say somthing) but not ITALY..

 

[Vallicanus]

When did I say that ?? I said ancient germanics were chaotic and barbarian (not mentioned their wealth) and that modern Italians are rich AND still a organised country (not relating the two, it's a conjuction...). A disorganised country would be Zimbabwe (to say somthing) but not ITALY..

You jest.
Italy has a shrinking economy, 40pc youth unemployment and the most incompetent politicians outside Zimbabwe.

 

[Maciamo]

When did I say that ?? I said ancient germanics were chaotic and barbarian (not mentioned their wealth) and that modern Italians are rich AND still a organised country (not relating the two, it's a conjuction...).

Then why do you say that Italy is "still an organized and rich country." Why mention the "rich" ? I never said they were poor.

A disorganised country would be Zimbabwe (to say somthing) but not ITALY..

I am not just talking about the political system (which is disorganised), but society in general. Just look at the way traffic is in Italy. It's not organised by any northern European standard.

 

[Fire Haired]

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).

in the USA Most Italians i think are Sicilian. Also their most known for the mafia. One of my teachers half Italian says in school 1950's he was a trouble maker and teachers saw him as another crazy Italian. Italians in urban areas of america i think are most know for crime. I always thought the Italian mafias where like ancient Rome they where disciplined, professional, violent, and cold. Unlike street gangs their connected to high places so they don't exactly fit the idea of Italians being wild and unorganized. I dont know i always saw Italian Mafi's being like ancient Rome but of course their probably are no culturally connection just random they turned out similar.

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.

i think u kind of exaggerated the character of modern Italians and ancient Romans. I dont think we can explain it look how different the american character today it to what it was 100 years ago. alot of stuff can change in a people group culturally so quickly it is very hard to understand why when there are not alot of records. When Rome was constantly invaded by Germans and Huns then finally conquered on the western area where Italy is Italy i think just lost their power and roman pride.

Italy was no longer the most powerful or advanced area in Europe. The Germans in a way took there spot they started most of the kingdoms in medieval western Europe after conquering the western roman empire. The Germans left their old culture and started very advanced civilization that dominated Europe till like the 1400's. Then the Spanish and Portuguese became powerful in the 1400-1700's England became powerful, Russia, Germany Italy was left out. I think so much has changed in Italy today culturally and politically from ancient Rome of course there going to be almost nothing like the Romans by the way they act.

well i dont know how true this is or what its history is. But i have noticed a romance type of charcter in Spain, Portugal, France, and Italy i dont know how to explain it but all those areas speak a Latin language and where apart of the roman empire. I have always noticed bug similates between them maybe it goes back to Rome but character and culture in people changes alot after 2,000 years. I dont think Rome was as serious as u say. I agree that the traditional roman going back to Italic tribes tradition like in 700bc was suppose to be serious, tough, discplined, good moral's, and live a simple life unlike Greeks. I was looking at these books written by Romans saying the Germanic tribes fit alot of their ideas of a good roman because they where not influenced by Greek civilization.

Cato the elder is probably the best example of a traditional Roman he fit almost every single one of the traits and he absolutely hated Greece. The fact that Romans said they did not like Greek influence and their idea of a real roman was a simple farmer shows they still had Italic tribe traditions going back to Villnovaen culture.

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

there is no doubt modern Italians descend from Romans i guarantee u the ones in the city Rome today are mainly descended of the first people to make the city. They defintley dont descend from Germans who migrated there not enough I1a1, I1a3, I1a4, I1b or R1b S21 also they have extremely low amounts of light hair and eyes which is and was very popular in Germans. They don't descend from Gauls will i guess u can make an argument about the 40% R1b S28 in Italy which gauls had but so did the first Italic speakers. They dont come from mid eastern u can make the argument about the over 30% mid eastern and north African y DNA E1b1b, J1, and j2 but their white so u know their not 100% mid eastern.

Italians in my opinion mainly descend from a Neolithic people who brought G2a who where a mix of Paloithic Italians who brought I2a1a more from Otzie farmer people. Otzie people brought Med aust DNA (i am talking about the globe13 test) the Paleolithic Italians had north Euro aust DNA. modern sardine people are the last full blooded Neolithic Italians that is why i think they are the closest relatives to Otzie (5,300 year old farmer from alps Italy). Then the next gene flow into Italo came from iron age Italic speakers who brought R1b S28 the most popular Y DNa haplogroup in Italy today. They would have been generically identical to southern Gauls and probably to modern southern Germans, Swiss, and eastern French or alps people. the Italics probably brought more north euro aust DNA they also would have brought red hair which explains why cato the elder was a redhead. at some point there was a huge mid eastern input into Italy mainly south Italy which means it probably came form the Mediterranean and from around Syria and isreal. I am guessing it came with Greek influnce. south Italiens in the globe13 test have about 35-45% southwest asian and west asian north Italians about 25% and central are in between so i guess the western Mediterranean is also a big part of italiens and romans ancestry.

modern north Italians probably mainly descended from early Italic speakers that i think why R1b 28 is centered in northern Italy. The Romans came out of those Italic tribes but of course they had tons of Greek influence but i still think they kept Italic tradtions which is where the stern military part of Rome comes from.

 

[Fire Haired]

Italy has changed alot since Rome it has been 2,000 years. Look how much different the world is than it was 200 years ago i doubt personality traits are passed down so much in people group like maciamo said. it was not in romans dna to be stern they had that ability but it became more of a part of their culture.

it is not in the dna of blacks to be loud and like hip hop that just became a part of their culture white people have the same natural ability to be like that. all humans races or ethnic groups have the same personality traits some choose to use certain ones differently. also almost no one in the world is purely from one race or ethnic group.

all of us are a mix for example of two group that mixed 20,000ybp then formed a new group that mixed with another group that was a mix of 5 groups and so on and so on. so i doubt that idea that certain ethnic groups naturally have certain natural personality's is true

 

[Fire Haired]

Do modern English who are a mix of Insular Celtic and Germanic tribes from northern Germany. Do they feel in their instinct to go raid a town and act all barbaric . Modern German's personality is far more different from ancient Germanic tribes. Germans and British today are like the most organized and smart Europeans they used to be the most primitive. Alot changes in 2,000 years how many people do u see living in tribal society or fighting with iron swords in Europe anymore.

Look at king louis XVI at the right king of France from 1754-1793) most of his ancestors where Gauls i guess there was some mid eastern input during the roman age. now compare him to this Gaul the type that where lead by Cheif Brennus sacked Rome in 387bc.

Looks like Alot changed in France from Gaulic times to the 1700's. By blood louis was a Gaul but that does not mean he had to act like one. I think every people group has the same human personalty traits we just choose to use them a little differently some times.

 

[Boss]

some very very silly remarks about the military from some.
Just to let you know Venice defeated the mighty germanic habsburgs in 1508 and never lost a war against them. The best the habsburg got was a drawn out war of Gradisca 1614-1618.
In 1508
In 1507, Julius (Pope) returned to the question of the cities in Venetian hands; once again rebuffed by the Senate, he encouraged the recently elected Emperor Maximilian I to attack the Republic. Maximilian, using his journey to Rome for the Imperial coronation as a pretext, entered Venetian territory with a large army in February 1508 and advanced on Vicenza, but was defeated by a Venetian army under Bartolomeo d'Alviano. A second assault by a Tyrolean force several weeks later was an even greater failure; Alviano not only routed the Imperial army but also proceeded to seize Trieste and Fiume, forcing Maximilian to conclude a truce with Venice.^[8]
The peace was signed for 3 years, a pact that Maximilian broke in 1509............you cannot even trust the HRE!!

Another......war of Lepanto against the Ottomans
208 Christian ships of which 110 where Venetian ships ( 55% ) , ONLY 12 Spanish ships and the rest other Italians defeated the mighty Ottomans


do I need to give more......maybe Francesco Morosini or Girolamo Cornaro adventures

The issue is Italians never fought for each other and never will fight for each other...........its far better if the country became a confederation of Italian states.........it WILL work better

Was that the guy who lost Crete to the Ottomans and then essentially made a ruin out of the Parthenon by bombing the crap out of it?

 

[zanipolo]

Was that the guy who lost Crete to the Ottomans and then essentially made a ruin out of the Parthenon by bombing the crap out of it?

yes after the longest siege in military history 22 years for a "drawn" result where you left crete with your army intact, all artillery taken with you, all money and possessions and any Greek citizen that wanted to leave seems like a good result against the might of the ottomans.

He got his revenge 20 years later with the capture of the whole of the Peloponnese and Athens. Pity his army got the plague and he had to cease operations.
The bombing of the pantheon was not a highlight , but the ottomans filled it with gunpowder and arms. If the ottomans cared about history they would have vacated Athens.......like the Germans vacate Rome in WWII and did not contest it .

Then again, the Americans bombed a POW in southern Germany and killed my uncle ( was a POW ) with 8 days of the war remaining. The Americans bombed the camp because the Germans had tanks and artillery in the camp. ..........whose fault is this?

 

[Maciamo]

there is no doubt modern Italians descend from Romans i guarantee u the ones in the city Rome today are mainly descended of the first people to make the city.

Really ? You guarantee it. Then you obviously don't know much about history. Rome had a population of approximately 1.5 million (some claim even more) in the first century. Its population gradually fell during the late Empire and the Middle Ages. In the early 15th century Rome had barely 17,000 inhabitants. In other words it lost 99% of its "golden age" population. Nowadays Rome has over 3.5 million inhabitants, many of whom came from all over Italy (and abroad) over the last few centuries. So please explain again how can modern Romans are descended from the ancient population of the city.

 

[Maciamo]

Italy has changed alot since Rome it has been 2,000 years. Look how much different the world is than it was 200 years ago i doubt personality traits are passed down so much in people group like maciamo said. it was not in romans dna to be stern they had that ability but it became more of a part of their culture.

I didn't say that personality traits are inherited. I said character traits. That's very different. Character is the innate, non-acquired part of personality. To make it easier to understand, let's take dogs as an example. Each breed of dog has its own character, although each individual dog has its own personality. Regarding character, Golden Retrievers have a very sociable and kind nature. Pitbulls are mean and aggressive. Newfoundlands and St. Bernards are impassible, while poodle and many other small dogs are excitable and bark all the time. German Shepherds make excellent watchdogs, while Dachshunds are far too playful and immature to be of any use in that regard. All these character traits are set in their genes.

Its the same for humans except that we are not so clearly divided into breeds. But some traits do apply to whole ethnic groups. Germanic and East Asian people can be considered diligent and disciplined. Celtic people are far more individualistic than any Asian or African people. Arabs are proud and confident people, while East Asians often lack self-confidence. Greeks and Italians are outgoing and talkative, while Finns and Siberians are far more reserved, shy and taciturn. I could continue for hours, but you get the idea.

Personality is by definition the traits associated with a person, and therefore vary between individuals even within the same ethnic group. Actually even identical twins have different personalities, while their genetic character/temperament is identical. If one twin is an extrovert by nature, the other will be too.

 

[Vallicanus]

Really ? You guarantee it. Then you obviously don't know much about history. Rome had a population of approximately 1.5 million (some claim even more) in the first century. Its population gradually fell during the late Empire and the Middle Ages. In the early 15th century Rome had barely 17,000 inhabitants. In other words it lost 99% of its "golden age" population. Nowadays Rome has over 3.5 million inhabitants, many of whom came from all over Italy (and abroad) over the last few centuries. So please explain again how can modern Romans are descended from the ancient population of the city.

Indeed.

Also at one point during the Gothic-Byzantine Wars Rome was completely depopulated.

 

[Vallicanus]

Was that the guy who lost Crete to the Ottomans and then essentially made a ruin out of the Parthenon by bombing the crap out of it?

Venice needed German mercenaries to re-capture the Morea.

 

[Fire Haired]

I didn't say that personality traits are inherited. I said character traits. That's very different. Character is the innate, non-acquired part of personality. To make it easier to understand, let's take dogs as an example. Each breed of dog has its own character, although each individual dog has its own personality. Regarding character, Golden Retrievers have a very sociable and kind nature. Pitbulls are mean and aggressive. Newfoundlands and St. Bernards are impassible, while poodle and many other small dogs are excitable and bark all the time. German Shepherds make excellent watchdogs, while Dachshunds are far too playful and immature to be of any use in that regard. All these character traits are set in their genes.

Its the same for humans except that we are not so clearly divided into breeds. But some traits do apply to whole ethnic groups. Germanic and East Asian people can be considered diligent and disciplined. Celtic people are far more individualistic than any Asian or African people. Arabs are proud and confident people, while East Asians often lack self-confidence. Greeks and Italians are outgoing and talkative, while Finns and Siberians are far more reserved, shy and taciturn. I could continue for hours, but you get the idea.

Personality is by definition the traits associated with a person, and therefore vary between individuals even within the same ethnic group. Actually even identical twins have different personalities, while their genetic character/temperament is identical. If one twin is an extrovert by nature, the other will be too.

that is what i thought u meant i defintley dont think it is in Germans DNA to be disciplined and diligent. Those are just traits formed from modern German culture. Just because Romans where so stern does not mean modern Italians need to be too. Humans are so related to each other unlike breeds of dogs that we dont have diff character traits. A good example is modern French and ancient Gauls two completely diff characters. It is not in blacks DNA to be more violent just because they are in modern western culture. it is because the place they have been put in ancient west African tribes where less or as violent as ancient Europeans.

i think we are born knowing what human nature is and human character. people are born with diff characters but i defintley don't think diff ethnic groups have their own characters. If u think about in the whole Human family tree. Italians and Germans are extremely related they both mainly descend from the same group of people that came to Europe over 35,000ybp they both have some R1b L11/P310 Indo European in them. They should have the same character traits according to what u are saying.

what about eskomes are they diligent like east Asians and what about the ancient Huns or Mongolian tribes they dont fit the idea of a typical east Asian. we mainly only hear about Chinese Japanese but their are tons of east Asian looking people all over Asia and Canada and almost all of them are tribal some still stone age. Their character is nothing like civilized east asians. Native Americans are in the same Mongloid family as Chinese do they have the same character traits.

Also what genetic evidence is there that Italians and Greeks are related at all ancient Greece and Rome does not been they are close relatives. Their only similarity is both have very high amounts of mid eastern which came in greco roman age. Their European side is almost completely unrelated. The west Mediterranean I2a1a split from east European I2a1b about 15,000-20,000ybp i think and that is where Italians and Greeks get their European side from. I know like 2% of Italians have I2a1a but that is just a direct paternal lineage they get their european blood from those people who lived in Paloithic Itay. Then later migrations with non European farmers came. Greeks European side is in the same family as Ukrainians it is eastern European. There is no such thing as the Mediterranean race or anything like that people in the Mediterranean have not been able to have alot of contact till just 3,000-4,000ybp. The Mediterranean is just full of unrelated people from Europe, mid east, and north Africa who have mixed like in the last 3,000 years but orignalley unrelated.

 

[zanipolo]

Venice needed German mercenaries to re-capture the Morea.

yes, they employed brunswickers , you can read the full campaign
Venice, Austria and the Turks in the seventeenth century....by Setton

Every state employed "mercenaries"

 

[zanipolo]

Really ? You guarantee it. Then you obviously don't know much about history. Rome had a population of approximately 1.5 million (some claim even more) in the first century. Its population gradually fell during the late Empire and the Middle Ages. In the early 15th century Rome had barely 17,000 inhabitants. In other words it lost 99% of its "golden age" population. Nowadays Rome has over 3.5 million inhabitants, many of whom came from all over Italy (and abroad) over the last few centuries. So please explain again how can modern Romans are descended from the ancient population of the city.

I agree, then the question is

What was ancient Roman haplotypes ..........it must have been a marker which is still diluted
I have seen that it was E , but I am unsure.

I have also seen, that the Romans branched out of Etruscan and was ruled by etruscans for a very long time.

 

[Wilhelm]

Really ? You guarantee it. Then you obviously don't know much about history. Rome had a population of approximately 1.5 million (some claim even more) in the first century. Its population gradually fell during the late Empire and the Middle Ages. In the early 15th century Rome had barely 17,000 inhabitants. In other words it lost 99% of its "golden age" population. Nowadays Rome has over 3.5 million inhabitants, many of whom came from all over Italy (and abroad) over the last few centuries. So please explain again how can modern Romans are descended from the ancient population of the city.

ancient Romans was not a population restricted to Rome, but the whole of the Italic peninsula, also in times of ancient Romans the city of Rome attracted people from all over "Italy". You are too simplistic minded I think.

 

[Maciamo]

ancient Romans was not a population restricted to Rome, but the whole of the Italic peninsula, also in times of ancient Romans the city of Rome attracted people from all over "Italy". You are too simplistic minded I think.

Based on what grounds ? If you include the Italian peninsula you might as well include the whole Roman Empire.

What I mean by ancient Romans are only the descendants of Latins and Etruscans who lived in Rome and the Latium during the kingdom and early republic (until about 300 BCE), before the state started its policy of conquests and expansion. Even at the time of Caesar most Roman patricians descended from these old families. With the empire the Roman state became very cosmopolitan and power progressively slid away from the old Roman families. The senate and administration became increasingly cosmopolitan in the 1st century, and by the 2nd century non-Romans were elected as emperors.

 

[Fire Haired]

Based on what grounds ? If you include the Italian peninsula you might as well include the whole Roman Empire.

What I mean by ancient Romans are only the descendants of Latins and Etruscans who lived in Rome and the Latium during the kingdom and early republic (until about 300 BCE), before the state started its policy of conquests and expansion. Even at the time of Caesar most Roman patricians descended from these old families. With the empire the Roman state became very cosmopolitan and power progressively slid away from the old Roman families. The senate and administration became increasingly cosmopolitan in the 1st century, and by the 2nd century non-Romans were elected as emperors.

the high ranking people dont exactly change the genetics of the whole population. U know alot about the genetics of all of Europe including Italy because u made that article about it. Dont u know that Italiens are without a doubt descended from Italians in the Roman period and that Romans would be classified as most like Italian people based on their Y DNA and aust dna. Only major source of ancestry in iTaly that came in Greco Roman age was mid eastern that is why south Italy has way more southwest asian and west asian in globe13 test than north italy it did not come in the Neolithic it came from the meditreaen boat people like Phoenicians.

I cant believe where even debating this. Romans where the same as modern central Italiens. Also i think Sardine people are Italian but they dont have Indo European iron age mix which brought more north euro aust dna or mid eastern mix that came in greco roman age. they do have some mid eastern that came in Neolithic. I think that is also why Sardine are closest relatives to Otzie who was a farmer in alps Italy 5,300ybp.

What I mean by ancient Romans are only the descendants of Latins and Etruscans who lived in Rome and the Latium during the kingdom and early republic (until about 300 BCE)

just like modern Italians well i gues many modern Italians descend from other italic tribes.

 

[Maciamo]

I cant believe where even debating this. Romans where the same as modern central Italiens.

So you are saying that five centuries immigration to ancient Rome, foreign invaders (Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, Byzantines, Germans), then the repopulation of Rome from the 15th century onwards had absolutely no effect on the genetic make-up of modern Rome ?

Also i think Sardine people are Italian but they dont have Indo European iron age mix which brought more north euro aust dna or mid eastern mix that came in greco roman age. they do have some mid eastern that came in Neolithic. I think that is also why Sardine are closest relatives to Otzie who was a farmer in alps Italy 5,300ybp.

I told you before that sardines are a species of fish. Anyway what does that have to do with our discussion ?

 

[Wilhelm]

So you are saying that five centuries immigration to ancient Rome, foreign invaders (Goths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, Byzantines, Germans), then the repopulation of Rome from the 15th century onwards had absolutely no effect on the genetic make-up of modern Rome ?

These invaders were a small minority. And the repopulations were made by people genetically similar (ie. surrounding regions of Rome).