How did the ancient Romans turn into Italians ?
- Thread starter Maciamo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- italy roman history
LeBrok
Elite member
- Messages
- 10,249
- Reaction score
- 1,618
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Calgary
- Ethnic group
- Citizen of the world
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b Z2109
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1c
West Roman Empire collapsed mainly due to climate cooling, failed crops and couple of plagues. Mind you that in agricultural societies 90% of people are employed on farms producing food. Rome experienced deep economic crisis lasting couple of hundreds of years. When there is no food even for villagers, during decades of terrible crops, how can the cities survive? Not taking much from hard working farmers, but the schools, libraries, trades, and power centers were located in the cities. If they didn't survive, Roman civilization collapsed.
As you can see from chart below, cold weather lasted till 700 hundreds. Consequent warming meant end of Dark Ages and Medieval revival of Europe.
As you can see from chart below, cold weather lasted till 700 hundreds. Consequent warming meant end of Dark Ages and Medieval revival of Europe.
Yetos
Active member
- Messages
- 5,955
- Reaction score
- 520
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Makedonia
- Ethnic group
- Makedonian original
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- G2a3a
- mtDNA haplogroup
- X2b
West Roman Empire collapsed mainly due to climate cooling, failed crops and couple of plagues. Mind you that in agricultural societies 90% of people are employed on farms producing food. Rome experienced deep economic crisis lasting couple of hundreds of years. When there is no food even for villagers, during decades of terrible crops, how can the cities survive? Not taking much from hard working farmers, but the schools, libraries, trades, and power centers were located in the cities. If they didn't survive, Roman civilization collapsed.
As you can see from chart below, cold weather lasted till 700 hundreds. Consequent warming meant end of Dark Ages and Medieval revival of Europe.
and I thought it was the Christians who slain all paysants as pagans, and all scintists as mages
hope
Elite member
- Messages
- 709
- Reaction score
- 152
- Points
- 0
Yes, that`s true. The decline of the empire did of course also coincide with climate cooling.West Roman Empire collapsed mainly due to climate cooling, failed crops and couple of plagues. Mind you that in agricultural societies 90% of people are employed on farms producing food. Rome experienced deep economic crisis lasting couple of hundreds of years. When there is no food even for villagers, during decades of terrible crops, how can the cities survive? Not taking much from hard working farmers, but the schools, libraries, trades, and power centers were located in the cities. If they didn't survive, Roman civilization collapsed.
As you can see from chart below, cold weather lasted till 700 hundreds. Consequent warming meant end of Dark Ages and Medieval revival of Europe.
John Doe
Regular Member
- Messages
- 598
- Reaction score
- 81
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Earth
- Ethnic group
- Ashkenazi Jewish
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-PF1975
- mtDNA haplogroup
- K1a9
West Roman Empire collapsed mainly due to climate cooling, failed crops and couple of plagues. Mind you that in agricultural societies 90% of people are employed on farms producing food. Rome experienced deep economic crisis lasting couple of hundreds of years. When there is no food even for villagers, during decades of terrible crops, how can the cities survive? Not taking much from hard working farmers, but the schools, libraries, trades, and power centers were located in the cities. If they didn't survive, Roman civilization collapsed.
As you can see from chart below, cold weather lasted till 700 hundreds. Consequent warming meant end of Dark Ages and Medieval revival of Europe.
Yeah, that's also true, let's forget that provinces such as Egypt were the bread basket of the empire, the east supplied the west, and when the empires divided, the west was going to either stand or fall on it's own, and it fell. This coincided with many reasons for the fall of the western empire, also the fact that the east was less targeted as was the west, the east also had a richer land, and more manpower, the east didn't have to fill all the migratory peoples as did the west, because the east wasn't targeted as much. The west also didn't really make an effort to Romanise these immigrants, thus leaving a large population that was used in the army, but the soldiers weren't fighting for Rome or Roman civilisation, but for gold and their generals, therefore as soon as the money ran out or as soon as the generals (who themselves weren't quite Roman either) decided to rebel, that was it, then to persuade them, the Romans gave them more land and in return again granted the soldiers, that was a never ending story, if the Romans would have Romanised them, the western Roman empire might have survived for longer.
The Western Roman Empire collapsed because they grew too rich and too famous in a world full of organized aggressive barbarian tribes. It became 1 old lion against 10 hyenas...and then 10 more. However, if we don't consider the Celts, all Roman victories have been against people who were more civilized than them.
Yes, also the Illyrians (the ones close to Greece for sure).
mihaitzateo
Regular Member
- Messages
- 942
- Reaction score
- 98
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Bucharest
- Ethnic group
- Romanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- proly R1B
I think ancient Italians/Romans were conquering other states by very superior military technique and also,by far superior organization in their military.
Remember that they were trained from a young age to be good soldiers.
You can see that today Central Italians and North Italians retained their genius at inventing things.
Remember that they were trained from a young age to be good soldiers.
You can see that today Central Italians and North Italians retained their genius at inventing things.
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.
Enlightenup Awaken
Junior Member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Bravo! This is one of the most intelligent forum discussions I have had the pleasure to read
SuperStalin
Regular Member
- Messages
- 17
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 3
- Ethnic group
- Serb ( Montenegro )
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E1b V13
I think this is just a comparison between roman and italian stereotypes given to us by movies, literature, culture... but not necessarily realistic.
People who killed their relatives were mostly the high ranking politicians and power-people, you know, the kind that get books, and novels and plays written about them,
these are people who are more similar to today's mafioso families ( who may kill family members for power gains, or adopt people as 'made men' )
Regular ancient peasants mostly lived like peasants have lived for millenia - and they couldn't easily own slaves, or get away with murder like rich people do even today.
Roman empire is an example of how a state with institutions can be a superior force, especially in a world where rarely anyone else has a complex and branching governing system.
Everyone in Europe wanted to be Rome, they copied Rome, and when they clashed with Roman culture and institutions, the barbarians would learn the lessons that it's smarter to emulate Roman institutions and settle down.
As for the military power - Italy as a province couldn't compete with other Roman provinces. Even when it comes to commerce and development, they were hogging resources from the rest of the empire for several centuries,
until they became essentially a backwater to some more geographically advantageous cities like Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch... ( Constantine was just one of 17 Roman emperors born in the Balkans, this doesn't account for emperors and powerful men born on other locations, Romans who conquered Italy by political or military force, not because Italy was an essential part of the empire, but because of its traditional role. Constantine for example didn't really care about the city of Rome, and didn't even meet with the senate, thus displaying how insignificant these old places were in a new Roman world which gravitated towards the east ).
Even in the fabled days of Caesar, the riches and military power of Pompei lay in the east. Pompei just got outmanouvered by Caesar several times, but if history went some other route, and Pompei was at full force of his eastern legions, he'd have won ).
So, my point is that Italy, even in Roman times wasn't a geographically important location for building an empire around the rich parts of the mediterranean. Even before the barbarians it was invaded and laid waste several times by Hannibal, soon after that Rome almost succumbed to Cimbri and the Teutones ( a barbarian invasion 600 years before the fall of western Rome ), and then a series of generals, would-be emperors and emperors succesfully conquered italy.
On the other hand, you forgot about Venetians and their dominant role throughout the medieval era and the mediterranean. They were a sort of empire in a new world where trade was more lucrative than outright conquest and occupation.
People who killed their relatives were mostly the high ranking politicians and power-people, you know, the kind that get books, and novels and plays written about them,
these are people who are more similar to today's mafioso families ( who may kill family members for power gains, or adopt people as 'made men' )
Regular ancient peasants mostly lived like peasants have lived for millenia - and they couldn't easily own slaves, or get away with murder like rich people do even today.
Roman empire is an example of how a state with institutions can be a superior force, especially in a world where rarely anyone else has a complex and branching governing system.
Everyone in Europe wanted to be Rome, they copied Rome, and when they clashed with Roman culture and institutions, the barbarians would learn the lessons that it's smarter to emulate Roman institutions and settle down.
As for the military power - Italy as a province couldn't compete with other Roman provinces. Even when it comes to commerce and development, they were hogging resources from the rest of the empire for several centuries,
until they became essentially a backwater to some more geographically advantageous cities like Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch... ( Constantine was just one of 17 Roman emperors born in the Balkans, this doesn't account for emperors and powerful men born on other locations, Romans who conquered Italy by political or military force, not because Italy was an essential part of the empire, but because of its traditional role. Constantine for example didn't really care about the city of Rome, and didn't even meet with the senate, thus displaying how insignificant these old places were in a new Roman world which gravitated towards the east ).
Even in the fabled days of Caesar, the riches and military power of Pompei lay in the east. Pompei just got outmanouvered by Caesar several times, but if history went some other route, and Pompei was at full force of his eastern legions, he'd have won ).
So, my point is that Italy, even in Roman times wasn't a geographically important location for building an empire around the rich parts of the mediterranean. Even before the barbarians it was invaded and laid waste several times by Hannibal, soon after that Rome almost succumbed to Cimbri and the Teutones ( a barbarian invasion 600 years before the fall of western Rome ), and then a series of generals, would-be emperors and emperors succesfully conquered italy.
On the other hand, you forgot about Venetians and their dominant role throughout the medieval era and the mediterranean. They were a sort of empire in a new world where trade was more lucrative than outright conquest and occupation.
ROFL
What have Belgians done in history?
They never won a single foreign battle on their own (apart from Congo, which have no merit as they greatly outnumbered the locals and defeated them using vastly superior weapons).
The same happened in WWI and WWII. Belgium lost on every front. They lost in WWI and needed to be rescued by the Brits and the French. They lost again in the WWII and needed to be rescued by the Americans. Etcetera.
Anyway when will Belgium split up in various pieces and start a huge civil war between Wallons, Flemish and Arab/Turkish islamic immigrants?
What have Belgians done in history?
They never won a single foreign battle on their own (apart from Congo, which have no merit as they greatly outnumbered the locals and defeated them using vastly superior weapons).
The same happened in WWI and WWII. Belgium lost on every front. They lost in WWI and needed to be rescued by the Brits and the French. They lost again in the WWII and needed to be rescued by the Americans. Etcetera.
Anyway when will Belgium split up in various pieces and start a huge civil war between Wallons, Flemish and Arab/Turkish islamic immigrants?
RE:The Romans were very organised, disciplined, serious, rather stern and stoic, military-minded, cared little about family ties.
Those are not the characters the rulers of big empire should have first. The first one for the ruler to have is charismatic character. It seems to me that current italians have that one from the ancient Rome people. Not nowadays, but it was so usual that latin people swept the head position of international organizations.
Those are not the characters the rulers of big empire should have first. The first one for the ruler to have is charismatic character. It seems to me that current italians have that one from the ancient Rome people. Not nowadays, but it was so usual that latin people swept the head position of international organizations.