Why are the Italians so underrated?

#41
That wasn't mentioned though, was it? There was talk about Romans, under which I understand all citizens of the Empire or Republic, not just the inhabitants of the city of Rome. A lot of Englishmen can probably trace their line back to Celtic or Anglo-Saxon tribes or the Normans or the Danes. That doesn't make them Saxons, Normans or Scandinavians nor does that make Celtic tribes, the Angles or the Vikings English.

It's not like the original Romans identified as Italian or spoke Italian. Italy meant something different back then. A part of modern Italy was reffered to as Gaul back then. Part of it was settled by Greeks. Later on various Germanic tribes invaded it, some established kingdoms in it, stayed and got assimilated. Muslim conquest of the very South, then Normans, the Spanish etc. The whole conglomerate of various peoples influencing and assimilating each other, the evolution in language and lastly the national idea from the 19th century that brought the unification - only after this very complex and longlasting process over several centuries you can speak about Italy and Italians since all of this was needed to create an Italian identity, culture and state. Saying Roman=Italian is simply BS. Teutons are not Germans, Gauls are not the French, the Iceni are not Englishmen. Having an ancestor or sharing historic ties does not automatically make you that thing or peoples. Otherwise we'd still all be Proto-Indoeuropeans or something even older.
Italy is the land, original inhabitants of that land are what today we would call Italians, yes, in Romes day just like in Greece, people identified with their City state rather than a country, the Iceni would say they were of that tribe not Celts or Britons but racially that is exactly what they are.

Romans racially were the exact same as the Etruscan's.

Your using false narratives to prove a point of identity over race, unlike the Greeks of Taranto which I assume your referring to, Romans were racially of the Italian peninsula they were not foreign invaders.

The Lombards, the Goths and any other groups were all invaders to Italy.

Gauls are not French, because Gauls were Gallic / Celts and the French are Franks (Germans).

As per that last example yes they are TODAY all assimilated, but when people say Romans they are talking about the inhabitants of Rome as in the original people, the ones the Celts found in Rome when they invaded it, the ones prior to the Carthaginian wars.

If you want to use assimilation and migration as a point of saying "they're not Italians" then no one is from anywhere, because everyone migrated and assimilated, but racially we see that Bronze age to Classical age is where in the world as we know it, the bulk of racial profile exists.

Britain is mostly white Celtic / Saxon
China is mostly Chinese
As is Japan, India and practically every country in the world today as we know it, Classical and Bronze era's established the majority race for each country today bar a few exceptions.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,151
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#42
Italy is the land, original inhabitants of that land are what today we would call Italians, yes, in Romes day just like in Greece, people identified with their City state rather than a country, the Iceni would say they were of that tribe not Celts or Britons but racially that is exactly what they are.

Romans racially were the exact same as the Etruscan's.

Your using false narratives to prove a point of identity over race, unlike the Greeks of Taranto which I assume your referring to, Romans were racially of the Italian peninsula they were not foreign invaders.

The Lombards, the Goths and any other groups were all invaders to Italy.

Gauls are not French, because Gauls were Gallic / Celts and the French are Franks (Germans).

As per that last example yes they are TODAY all assimilated, but when people say Romans they are talking about the inhabitants of Rome as in the original people, the ones the Celts found in Rome when they invaded it, the ones prior to the Carthaginian wars.

If you want to use assimilation and migration as a point of saying "they're not Italians" then no one is from anywhere, because everyone migrated and assimilated, but racially we see that Bronze age to Classical age is where in the world as we know it, the bulk of racial profile exists.

Britain is mostly white Celtic / Saxon
China is mostly Chinese
As is Japan, India and practically every country in the world today as we know it, Classical and Bronze era's established the majority race for each country today bar a few exceptions.
You can't be Italian before a concept of being Italian exists. Italic tribes and languages are something different.

People mostly aren't thinking about the inhabitants of Rome proper (the city alone) when they're speaking about Romans unless they reffer to the period when it still was a city state or when they mean just the city folks and not the whole Empire. I don't see where you're going with this. By your logic most of the Romans weren't Romans because they didn't live in Rome.

Greeks had a different concept, of a common "we" vs barbarians (non-Greeks). "Italian" is something that evolved through the middle ages and modernity.

I won't talk about race, because you know, the rules. I wasn't going to adress this anyway.

The French are descendant of Romanised Gauls more than from the Franks. Some of the Franks evolved into the Dutch and part of the Germans.
 
#43
You can't be Italian before a concept of being Italian exists. Italic tribes and languages are something different.

People mostly aren't thinking about the inhabitants of Rome proper (the city alone) when they're speaking about Romans unless they reffer to the period when it still was a city state or when they mean just the city folks and not the whole Empire. I don't see where you're going with this. By your logic most of the Romans weren't Romans because they didn't live in Rome.

Greeks had a different concept, of a common "we" vs barbarians (non-Greeks). "Italian" is something that evolved through the middle ages and modernity.

I won't talk about race, because you know, the rules. I wasn't going to adress this anyway.

The French are descendant of Romanised Gauls more than from the Franks. Some of the Franks evolved into the Dutch and part of the Germans.
When I talk about a Roman, I mean a Roman i.e by blood, not a Roman citizen who is a citizen of the Empire through being conquered, I mean those Romans who did the conquering.

Again, yes I've said Romans as did almost every City state or tribe back then identified as per their City state but DNA wise, they were likely identical to their surrounding neighbours of the Italian peninsula.

The French are Franks mixed with Gauls, Franks made mass migrations in more than several waves into Gaul over hundreds of years to make it Francia, unlike the Normans who brought an army only, the Franks moved Frankish tribes and fellow Germans all from West of the Rhine.

............... but again you've just proved my point, DNA wise Romanised Gauls may very well make up the majority as per the Romans, they were the Classical and Bronze age inhabitants.

The reason why Classical and Bronze age peoples make up each countries majority geneology even today is because in their times wars were tribal level, so that mean't wars didn't reach a scale where a victory would result in wiping out the original inhabitants, it was taking a tribal area, not a country, only later in the Dark ages onward's were migrations and wars of Imperial scale would see major displacement ............ but even then the core DNA would usually stay majority the classical / bronze age inhabitants.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,151
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#44
When I talk about a Roman, I mean a Roman i.e by blood, not a Roman citizen who is a citizen of the Empire through being conquered, I mean those Romans who did the conquering.

Again, yes I've said Romans as did almost every City state or tribe back then identified as per their City state but DNA wise, they were likely identical to their surrounding neighbours of the Italian peninsula.

The French are Franks mixed with Gauls, Franks made mass migrations in more than several waves into Gaul over hundreds of years to make it Francia, unlike the Normans who brought an army only, the Franks moved Frankish tribes and fellow Germans all from West of the Rhine.

............... but again you've just proved my point, DNA wise Romanised Gauls may very well make up the majority as per the Romans, they were the Classical and Bronze age inhabitants.

The reason why Classical and Bronze age peoples make up each countries majority geneology even today is because in their times wars were tribal level, so that mean't wars didn't reach a scale where a victory would result in wiping out the original inhabitants, it was taking a tribal area, not a country, only later in the Dark ages onward's were migrations and wars of Imperial scale would see major displacement ............ but even then the core DNA would usually stay majority the classical / bronze age inhabitants.
I don't dispute that the core genetic makeup stays the same after a conquest if there is no mass killings, expulsions or migrstions of new people. I refuse to discuss it further though because genetics is prohibited here. I am disputing your claim that Romans were Italians because the identity and culture formed only through the centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That doesn't mean that the people of Italy aren't descendants of the Romans and other Italic tribes. Italians are their descendants. But neither are Italians Romans nor are Romans Italians. There's a whole ethnogenesis in between.
 
Likes: notgivenaway
Jun 2015
5,477
UK
#45
you're claiming the works of a people you're not entirely descended from as your own. Your shared the same landmass, and have a similar sounding language (well to me Italian sounds like Latin when spoken) But that's it. Modern Italians are no more the same people as modern French are exactly the same people as ancient Gauls, or English Romano-Britons.

Italy is a respected country in many ways - culturally certainly. People don't prize Ferrari cars for nothing. And Italy leads the way in fashion, and has some of the best wines in the world. Most people eat pizza and pasta, and whilst economically it's not as powerful as it used to be, it's still a G20 economy. It's football league is similarly not as strong as before, but who can knock Juve, Ac Milan, and Inter?

But peple have a point when they mock Italy's poor war record. In WWI, they were part of the winning side, but the British and French made more telling contributions. And in WWII, enough said. They couldn't even fully invade Ethiopia, when other European countries easily conquered African empires. The British alone conquered many of the most prominent pre-colonial empires (Asante, Benin, Zuly, Buganda, Mamluks, Sudan)
 
Jun 2015
5,477
UK
#46
I don't dispute that the core genetic makeup stays the same after a conquest if there is no mass killings, expulsions or migrstions of new people. I refuse to discuss it further though because genetics is prohibited here. I am disputing your claim that Romans were Italians because the identity and culture formed only through the centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That doesn't mean that the people of Italy aren't descendants of the Romans and other Italic tribes. Italians are their descendants. But neither are Italians Romans nor are Romans Italians. There's a whole ethnogenesis in between.
Agreed. If anything it was the Germanic kings after Romulus Augustulus abdicated that made the Italian culture. And the Muslim and Norman conquests of Sicily.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,083
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#47
Agreed. If anything it was the Germanic kings after Romulus Augustulus abdicated that made the Italian culture. And the Muslim and Norman conquests of Sicily.
I do agree: Romans didn't define themselves "Italians", so to say that Romans were Italians and that Italians are the descendants of the Romans is anti-historical. In Italy someone could underline that here I'm following my Celtic Anti-Roman roots, but personally I think this is historically accurate.

The first conceptualization of "Italian" is late medieval. We can discuss about "Italic", but it would be a different matter.
 
Nov 2018
23
Montenegro
#48
Italy was conqured first by Ostrogoths, than Vandals, after that Lombards and finaly Normans came and settled southern Italy (previously inhbaited by Orthodox Christian Romans- most of them were ethnic greeks but called themseves Romanoi- romans. Territories gained and lost by Eastern Roman Empire. Italians bacame mix of all ethnic groups that had inhabited the peninsula. Some of them such as Lombards migrated there entire population to Italy. Modern Italians have Roman blood, but I would also say that many of them dont have roman blood at all.
In the save way Spanish are not homogene ethnic gropu they are a mix of roman, ostrogoth, ibeiran tibes, berber and arabs.