How did the ancient Romans turn into Italians ?

It's just all doom, at this point on that first pic...zoom in on it
 
Last edited:
jon-stewart-popcorn.gif




Thank you;
But its not from me its from the User Angela;


Right - I was stuffing my mouth with popcorn and I got distracted. Sorry, Angela
 
Apart from the change in attitude towards the loyalty to the state, I don't see how it could have affected the Italian character.



How can you judge a nation's talent for military strategy or discipline if they are fighting between themselves ?

As for fighting Austro-Hungary, Italy never won a single battle, even when they were fighting at 10 against one . It is either the Prussians and especially the French (thanks to Napoleon III's dream of unifying Italy) who defeated the Austrians and gave Austrian possessions to Piedmont.

The same happened in WWII. Italy lost on every front. They lost in Greece and needed to be rescued by the Germans. They lost in Egypt against the Brits and needed to be rescued by the Germans. Etcetera.

of course the fact that Italy hadnt been unified sine roman time allows for new ideas of ethnicity and differences cultures to apeare. Napolean is essentially the descendant of ancient romans as well. its all culture the mixing of ethnicities has nothing to do with it, as the biggest contribution to the Italian gene pool after roman times came from germanics who are now organized.
 
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?

ridiculous? Rome was not like the U.S people still mixed far less and only rome had foreigners the rest of Italy didn't
 
hes racist against southern euros and predjudice against the Catholic church. Yes Popes and the papal states did do bad things but they did try and hold themselves to a higher standard. While all of western Europe was enslaving Africans for economic benefit the papacy issued multiple bulls condemning it.
The Papacy did nothing PRACTICAL about slavery.

The Catholic church did nothing to stop the purchase of young Muslim girls as servants for rich Italian households.

Italy is a mess largely because the Papal lands in central Italy prevented unity for over a thousand years.

The Papacy set a bad example of hypocrisy and corruption and amorality to the whole of Italy.

No wonder a Protestant Reformation took place.
 
The Papacy did nothing PRACTICAL about slavery.

The Catholic church did nothing to stop the purchase of young Muslim girls as servants for rich Italian households.

Italy is a mess largely because the Papal lands in central Italy prevented unity for over a thousand years.

The Papacy set a bad example of hypocrisy and corruption and amorality to the whole of Italy.

No wonder a Protestant Reformation took place.

what a ridiculous statement. Slavery was outlawed in the early middle ages, and when western Europeans were enslaving Africans like crazy The church issued multiple papal bulls specifically condemning slavery. The papal states were not a super power at the time and had no military influence on other countries back then. all they could do is condemn it which was still very brave as European monarchs could have easly left the catholic church or turned on the papal states. They didn't, they just ingored them. You believe in one of the biggest fallacies of history that somehow the Catholic church was the most evil example of government in the middle ages. The Catholic was always more fair than secular governments at the time, and the inquisition killed far less people than secular governments of the time. That's why when the inquisition was gotten rid of in Spain, there were riots in the street. Charities, hospitals, and hospices all came out of the Catholic church in Italy and Europe at that time. Modern health care, science, and all sorts of other good stuff came out of the Catholic church at that time. Your Scottish. the Anglican church was founded by a guy who wanted to divorce his wife, and murdered a lot of people the protestant churches were not founded on morals and martin luther specifically caused one of the longest wars in Eurpean History. The Catholic church would have happily unified all of Italy under itself. it wasn't unified because certain powerful families didn't want to give up power, and that's it
 
What Catholic propaganda.

What would you call purchased Muslim girls in rich households other than SLAVES?

The Catholic Inquisition and the Papal-backed Crusades against Muslims, Cathars in southern France and the Fourth Crusade's attacks on Christian Constantinople in 1204 show up the Catholic Church as an organisation which would wade through blood to retain and extend its power.

A united Italy under the Papacy would have been a den of hypocrites, perverts and thieves.

Science came to the benighted Catholic West out of Islam through Islamic Spain not the Papacy!
 
The Papacy did nothing PRACTICAL about slavery.

The Catholic church did nothing to stop the purchase of young Muslim girls as servants for rich Italian households.

Italy is a mess largely because the Papal lands in central Italy prevented unity for over a thousand years.

The Papacy set a bad example of hypocrisy and corruption and amorality to the whole of Italy.

No wonder a Protestant Reformation took place.

I wondered how long it would be before you showed up...predictably, any time Italians are mentioned, you can be counted on to add your superficial, denigrating comments.

I could write a book pointing out the gross simplifications and fundamental misunderstanding of Italian history, the history of the papacy and the history of Christianity, including Protestantism revealed by your posts...but this isn't the place. Besides, the books have been written; you just haven't read them. Just enroll in some history courses so you have some basic understanding of the topic.

Ed. @Silkyslovan...you're wasting your time, I'm afraid. This is not like having a reasoned, nuanced debate with someone with an academic background. This is mud wrestling with bigots-it's demeaning just acknowledging their comments.
 
Ed. @Silkyslovan...you're wasting your time, I'm afraid. This is not like having a reasoned, nuanced debate with someone with an academic background. This is mud wrestling with bigots-it's demeaning just acknowledging their comments.
It is hard to side with someone who responds to other's point of view with his customary "It's ridiculous!".
 
Last edited:
I wondered how long it would be before you showed up...predictably, any time Italians are mentioned, you can be counted on to add your superficial, denigrating comments.

I could write a book pointing out the gross simplifications and fundamental misunderstanding of Italian history, the history of the papacy and the history of Christianity, including Protestantism revealed by your posts...but this isn't the place. Besides, the books have been written; you just haven't read them. Just enroll in some history courses so you have some basic understanding of the topic.

Ed. @Silkyslovan...you're wasting your time, I'm afraid. This is not like having a reasoned, nuanced debate with someone with an academic background. This is mud wrestling with bigots-it's demeaning just acknowledging their comments.


I do have an academic background unlike yourself so any book written by you would have no value.

A Catholic apologist calls ME bigoted!

I'm entitled to my own opinions and a proper reading of history PAST and PRESENT places the Papacy on very thin ice when it comes to human rights, scientific progress, bloodshed, forgery and immorality.
 
I personally don't think that either catholics or protestants have too much to boast about in terms of their past histories. But I also don't think anyone in this argument is going to convince anyone else to change their mind about who did what to who and who's a hero or who's a monster. When people have strongly entrenched views, they see all the evidence through the filter of their own particular lense.
 
Deleted for breaking Eupedia rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Being Roman was never bound to ethnicity, being Roman was a way of life, being a citizen of Rome and conforming to Rome, therefore you had Italian Romans, Greek Romans, Gaullic Romans, British Romans, Berber Romans, Jewish Romans, Egyptian Romans, Arab Romans, Syriac Romans, Anatolian Romans etc etc. The story goes that at it's earliest days, Rome was a safe haven for the outcasts of society, the outsiders, further emphasizing Rome's diverse origin, Italians were simply one of many ethnic groups inside this multi-ethnic empire, however what tied them all together was conformity to Rome, cultural, linguistic and by allegiance.
 
Hahahahahaha

Funny thread. What can I say? The catholic church completely f*cked up the Italians and turned them in to Orientals. Do not forget that Christianity was born in the Middle East.

Just compare the Roman myths with the Christian ones. Bring Paganism back please!

Even before Christianity gained dominance throughout the Roman empire, other traditions that hailed from western Asia were adopted by the Romans, Mithras for example was a god that hailed from Persia, and was popular among Roman soldiers.
 
Being Roman was never bound to ethnicity, being Roman was a way of life, being a citizen of Rome and conforming to Rome, therefore you had Italian Romans, Greek Romans, Gaullic Romans, British Romans, Berber Romans, Jewish Romans, Egyptian Romans, Arab Romans, Syriac Romans, Anatolian Romans etc etc. The story goes that at it's earliest days, Rome was a safe haven for the outcasts of society, the outsiders, further emphasizing Rome's diverse origin, Italians were simply one of many ethnic groups inside this multi-ethnic empire, however what tied them all together was conformity to Rome, cultural, linguistic and by allegiance.
Exactly this. Being Roman was something you could become and many were drawn to Rome. Many Romans were descended from some-one who had came as an immigrant and Rome welcomed immigrants, even needed them just to keep the city going. It was truly a cosmopolitan city, and everything and everyone got tossed into a big pot, stirred round and came out Roman.
 
Exactly this. Being Roman was something you could become and many were drawn to Rome. Many Romans were descended from some-one who had came there as an immigrant and Rome welcomed immigrants, even needed them just to keep the city going. It was truly a cosmopolitan city, and everything and everyone got tossed into a big pot, stirred round and came out Roman.

Indeed. And this was the case throughout the empire, conquered peoples would be gradually assimilated and turned into Romans, and when that stopped happening, the empire collapsed.
 
I still blame the barbarians for the collapse, giving them too much power and freedom. Making commanders in the army from barbarian slaves etc.
 
I still blame the barbarians for the collapse, giving them too much power and freedom. Making commanders in the army from barbarian slaves etc.

And not making an effort to Romanise them. The Celts were Romanised, the Tharcians and Illyrians were Romanised, Rome didn't fall due to these peoples, it fell due to the Germanic peoples who were pushed from their homes by nomadic peoples from the east, those peoples (the Germanic peoples) were therefore pushed west and south into and settled in Roman lands, the Romans then made the mistake of not Romanising them, this caused them to fight and live not for Rome and Roman civilisation, but for gold and their generals, a fatal mistake.
 
I still blame the barbarians for the collapse, giving them too much power and freedom. Making commanders in the army from barbarian slaves etc.
Yes..but we can add to this other reasons also I think.
Such as financial problems, helped along by constant wars.
Decrease in slave labour due to halt in expansion [ Rome relied heavily on slave labour]
Political instability, civil war and corruption within the government.
And the division of the empire into West and East, which did ultimately lead to the two halves drifting somewhat apart. It also left the Western half weaker I feel and more vulnerable to attack.
Add all these to-gether and I think we get a fuller picture for Romes final collapse.
 
Yes..but we can add to this other reasons also I think.
Such as financial problems, helped along by constant wars.
Decrease in slave labour due to halt in expansion [ Rome relied heavily on slave labour]
Political instability, civil war and corruption within the government.
And the division of the empire into West and East, which did ultimately lead to the two halves drifting somewhat apart. It also left the Western half weaker I feel and more vulnerable to attack.
Add all these to-gether and I think we get a fuller picture for Romes final collapse.

Indeed, nothing is ever simple or generalised, one has to dig in and be specific, otherwise the picture gets distorted.
 

This thread has been viewed 233506 times.

Back
Top