Romans and modern day italians

[Last Roman]

Definitely NOT.

Italians showed their skill in battle, in ww1 and ww2.

that has nothing to do with genetics

No question about origins of North Italians though. Lombard, Frank etc - Germanic through and through. Just influenced by other cultures, notably Roman.

er, no. It's been established that the German invasions had very little impact on the genetic make up of the local population.

[ivan_the_terrible]

that has nothing to do with genetics



er, no. It's been established that the German invasions had very little impact on the genetic make up of the local population.

Fine. I'm no expert. I just assumed that whole tribes migrating, children and everything, and settling in an area, combined with major Roman centres being largely deserted, would have significant impact on the local population.

In France the Gallic and Roman population was displaced or assimilated by Franks. Why would Italy be any different? (seriously asking, not being sarcastic or anything).

Same with England and the Anglo-Saxons (+Jutes and others), and Spain with the Goths (+Vandals).

[antares24]

Fine. I'm no expert. I just assumed that whole tribes migrating, children and everything, and settling in an area, combined with major Roman centres being largely deserted, would have significant impact on the local population.

In France the Gallic and Roman population was displaced or assimilated by Franks. Why would Italy be any different? (seriously asking, not being sarcastic or anything).

Same with England and the Anglo-Saxons (+Jutes and others), and Spain with the Goths (+Vandals).

go to my post at the start of the page and also read the link provided by last roman.

Also, the tribes that migrated were fairly little compared to the rest of the population, and it's not like the previous population of the roman empire disappeared.
In france the gallo romans have not disappeared, the mingled with the franks, same in Spain with the roman times population and the vandals, while in britain you don't really think that the romano britons and the celts disappeared when the saxon arrived?
In all these invasion the new arrived tended to form the nobility of the society, think for a more recent example of the french (normans) invasion of england under William the conqueror, the normans formed the nobility, and the english population carried on with lives.

[Quinctilius Varus]

go to my post at the start of the page and also read the link provided by last roman.

Also, the tribes that migrated were fairly little compared to the rest of the population, and it's not like the previous population of the roman empire disappeared.
.

The Lombards (but there were also Saxons,Bavarians and Gepidi) were about 350.000 (some say 500.000)..the whole Italy after the Gothic-Byzantine war was populated by no more than 2-3 milions of people..that war had been catastropich..plague,exterminations of mass,famine etc... the Lombards settled predominatly in the North particualry Veneto,Friuli and Lombardy (of course ) but also in Tuscany...so their descendants are many..

I've found that most Romans and Neopolitans have a particular "been there, done that" attitude. They've had Empire and started the Renaissance (as well as the first time around :wink and have a good outlook on life. Going there over the years has affected my personality, and realized the three things most important in the world: love your mother, love your woman, and most importantly--love good food.

don't forget that Rome is populated by people from all Italy...in 1861 Rome could count 200.000 people now 2,700,000...1.000.000 are real romans but most are people immigrated during the last century..particulary during the Fasciscm many Venetians settled in Rome and the zone near the city..after the war many people from the south migrated in the north but also many in Rome...there are about 150.000 Neapolitans in Rome today..

[Last Roman]

In France the Gallic and Roman population was displaced or assimilated by Franks. Why would Italy be any different? (seriously asking, not being sarcastic or anything).

well, that's not really the case. There were (and I am guessing here but...) probably around 70,000-100,000 Franks, as opposed to several million Romano-Gauls. In either case, the natives heavily outnumbered the newcomers.

As was the case with Italy, the previous population absorbed the incoming Franks, with the elite being the exception.

[ivan_the_terrible]

well, that's not really the case. There were (and I am guessing here but...) probably around 70,000-100,000 Franks, as opposed to several million Romano-Gauls. In either case, the natives heavily outnumbered the newcomers.

As was the case with Italy, the previous population absorbed the incoming Franks, with the elite being the exception.

OK, I did some (basic) reading, it appears you are correct. Thanks for letting me know.

I just assumed it was the same as in Rus, where the Slavic population nearly completely displaced the Sarmatian and Scythian tribes in the south and the Finno-Urgic tribes in the north. I forgot the obvious factor of level of population before and during the invasions/settlements. ie, Gallo-Roman populations in N Italy and France would have been much, much larger than Sarmatian populations in Russia&Ukraine.

Thanks for informing me

On this topic,
I understood that Northern France & Germany was mainly Frankish in culture, with the kingdoms of Neustria and Austrasia, while the Occitanian south was still quite Gallo-Roman. Was this also confined to mostly the nobility?

[Quinctilius Varus]

Definitely NOT.

Italians showed their skill in battle, in ww1 and ww2.

Edit:And roman was anyone that had a roman citizenship...

Edit2:The roman legions were formed out of many different people.

we won the ww1..open a book..

btw the romans were already a mixture of various people..

"Historically, the Romans should have been a mixture of Villanovan Italic northeners with Etruscans and Neolithic and Bronze Age predecessors. The little crania material at hand points entirely in the northern direction, and confirms the relationship between Kelts and Italici, insofar as it may be used. On the other hand, the addition of Etruscan mesocephals with Dinaric and Mediterranean elements would not greatly alter the early Kelt-like Italic metrical form."

http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/06-04.htm

[Dodge]

Does it matter? No...

[antaeus]

there is no period in the history of italy where the population has been exclusive of external influences in its gene pool.

it has always been in transition, thus all the major 'italian' genetic markers overflow into neighbouring regions and visa versa.. they always have done.

[mileslegionis]

I've found that most Romans and Neopolitans have a particular "been there, done that" attitude. They've had Empire and started the Renaissance (as well as the first time around ) and have a good outlook on life. Going there over the years has affected my personality, and realized the three things most important in the world: love your mother, love your woman, and most importantly--love good food.

On my last trip I befriended our guide, who happens to live in Rome (bonus! ) and she has a very...Roman...way about her, for lack of being clear...lol. They are tolerant of all people (except gypsies and the cheap pan handlers who disrupt the bella figura of the City).

No county will be ethnically pure from ancient times, but perhaps similar. To me, that's not what's important...

Live...

Love...

Eat..

(then love some more...)

[ivan_the_terrible]

Northern Italians are predominantly Germanic (Lombard, Frank etc), with some other influences.

Southern Italians probably are more mixed, with more genetic influence from Roman and pre-Roman times, but also with Greek, Norman and possibly some North African influence.

[antaeus]

Northern Italians are predominantly Germanic (Lombard, Frank etc), with some other influences.

Southern Italians probably are more mixed, with more genetic influence from Roman and pre-Roman times, but also with Greek, Norman and possibly some North African influence.

in many cases, i would suggest that some of these influences are more cultural than genetic.

kind of in the same way that there is very little difference between turks and greeks genetically, but they are worlds appart culturally.

[ivan_the_terrible]

in many cases, i would suggest that some of these influences are more cultural than genetic.

Possibly to an extent. No question about origins of North Italians though. Lombard, Frank etc - Germanic through and through. Just influenced by other cultures, notably Roman.

kind of in the same way that there is very little difference between turks and greeks genetically, but they are worlds appart culturally.

Hmm, never came accross any conclusive genetic evidence. Could you tell me where I could find it?

[antaeus]

there's a whole section on it in the turkish page on wikipedia with plenty of references.. also a quick google search pulls up articles in national geographic and news sites such as bbc and cnn.

but it basically rests upon the theory that many of the so called old world migrations were generally little more than cultural assimilations of an existing settled people.

eg, the turks arrived in anatolia, where there was a fairly well established peasant population speaking greek.. they simply replaced the greek aristocracy with their own, turkish became the language of governance, therefore peasants who wanted to become something took on turkish language and custom over generations.. as well as this, invading turkish soldiers and aristocracy took local wives, had half breed children, 1/4 breed grandchildren 1/8th breed great grandchildren, all of whom are brought up speaking turkish.

the same theories work with the franks in gaul, the goths all over.. etc. its by no means a theory that has 100% approval, but it has a lot of logic in my opinion.

i am fairly sure there's a dozen or more large threads about it on the VV as well..

[mileslegionis]

Understood...I wasn't stating that those persons living in Rome are direct descendants of antiquity. Different peoples over time have adopted the ways of living in the City. It is an attitude that transcends ethnic diversity.

there are about 150.000 Neapolitans in Rome today..

If you had to drive in the Napoli traffic, wouldn't you wish to move?

[clandestino]

If you had to drive in the Napoli traffic, wouldn't you wish to move?

And all that garbage on the streets, I guess it's pretty difficult to walk too!!!

[St Naffatun]

Recent genetic studies have thrown up surprises regarding the origins of certain peoples - it seems many are still operating under late medieval scholastic conjecture that through time became entrenched - but that's beside the point.

The point is that there seems more to gene pools than simple records of migrations and the conquering of a nation by another.

I'm sure it's just a matter of time before ancient skeletons are genetically analysed directly or indirectly - and this is what's needed to answer the questions, but debating ideas is always good.

One thing is for sure, if I was a Roman of note I'd have quite a collection of slave girls from within and outside of the empire, I can only imagine most Roman men of the time would the ones that preferred the "active role" of course

[iksterminator]

and me roman in all of my blood reads it and feels all the humiliation for all the people claim it now.

Principe!

[Sh3rpa]

and me roman in all of my blood reads it and feels all the humiliation for all the people claim it now.

Principe!

Yes!!! I knew I'd come in this thread and find someone claiming to be pure Roman


is that you maximus? go to them.

[clandestino]

I remember reading somewhere that Russians and Ukrainians living close to the Black Sea have significant similarities in DNA with Mediterrainian people.

Could it be the climate that perpotrates development in a certain direction? If so, then how quickly does it manifest itself?

I don't think that climate can affect genetics in the period of several thousand years, it takes more time to environmental variables start to affect on humane genom. Similarity with Mediterranean people, if atested, could be explained with common pre-indeouropean ethnic substratum who inhabited wast regions of Europe, but all of that is quite hypotetical.
As far as I know Russians did assimilated numerous Finnic tribes like Vesi, Chudi,Meri etc. on the north as well as Sarmats and Skyths at south so it's normal that there are regional genetic differences between them.