Statues of Hannibal, who was Carthagranian, looks white. On the other hand, the empire was in North Africa, and in modern times there are very little white people living there. I heard somewhere the people that made of the empire were Phenocian? I'm really not sure, what there race is, and I'm quite curious. Anyone know?

I assume Hannibal would be Phonecian, who I think are Semitic.

I assume Hannibal would be Phonecian, who I think are Semitic.

So they were Jewish? (racially speaking, I know there religion was different)

So they were Jewish? (racially speaking, I know there religion was different)
They would be related to the Jews and the Arabs.

They would be related to the Jews and the Arabs.

This is what I don't understand. Most Jewish people I know, look white. However, I also have some Arabic friends, and they look different. If the Jewish and Arabic people are so genetically simular, why do they look so different? Which would they have been more likely to look like? Jewish, or Arabic? I know Hannibal himself must have been white, because I've seen roman statues of him that make him appear white.

He would be a lot like the modern Lebanese who are largely descended from the Phonecians.

The Phoenecians lived in the Holy Land and traded the clam (or whatever) that made Purple extensively.
They eventually set sail and made a small colony in modern day Tunisia.
Known to the Romans as Carthage.
That's why the Punic wars are named such.
Punic (I think) means Phoenician in Latin.

This is what I don't understand. Most Jewish people I know, look white. However, I also have some Arabic friends, and they look different. If the Jewish and Arabic people are so genetically simular, why do they look so different?

That's because Judaism is not a race but a religion (or, perhaps more broadly, a culture). After all, you can become Jewish by marrying one, but you can't change your race. There are Jews of various races - some are white, some are black, and some are semitic. The Hebrews of course are or were semitic, so presumably they would have looked much like the Arabs.

Their Punic.

Punic (I think) means Phoenician in Latin.

Carthaginian is Poenus in Latin, I'm not sure if Phoenician is just Phoenician or something like that, but Punic is (as far as I know) some twisted version of the latin name. I guess it's similar to English speakers' habit of writing Virgil instead of Vergilius of Horace instead of Horatius and so on. Can some English speaker actually enlighten me, why do you have such habit?

Carthaginians were descendants of Phoenician colonists, who came from what is now Lebanon. However, they were a minority in their own empire. Their army, for example, included large number of foreign people such as Celts, Numidians, Iberians, Greeks, etc.

Why did the Romans make him white? Why did European Middle Age artists draw Saladin as a Christian king?

Carthaginian is Poenus in Latin, I'm not sure if Phoenician is just Phoenician or something like that, but Punic is (as far as I know) some twisted version of the latin name. I guess it's similar to English speakers' habit of writing Virgil instead of Vergilius of Horace instead of Horatius and so on. Can some English speaker actually enlighten me, why do you have such habit?

Every language changes names to suit its own conventions; the Latinisation of Greek names is an obvious example. The Greek Plotinos became the Latin Plotinus, which became the French Plotin, and so on. As this example suggests, English tends to do it less than some other languages do, perhaps in part because in English names don't decline so it doesn't really matter what endings they have. It is usual to anglicise names that actually appear in English - so "Horace" and "Virgil" are both names in English (although you're not likely to encounter anyone called Virgil), so they are conventionally anglicised. No-one in the English-speaking world is called Lactantius or Valentinus, so names like that are not anglicised.

Latin, by contrast, had to alter names to fit its own conventions - Plotinos would have looked like a second declension accusative plural rather than a nominative singular.

Horacio
Platón
Aristótoles
Plotino
Virgilio
César
Tácito

Half the fun hearing these guys' names in history classes in this country has been working out who the hell they're talking about.

He would be a lot like the modern Lebanese who are largely descended from the Phonecians.

Modern Lebanese are half french :lol:

White. Simply as that. Not scandinavian-like white, but white

Every language changes names to suit its own conventions; the Latinisation of Greek names is an obvious example.

Now that you mentioned, the anglicization I can understand, but that you use at the same time just about always Latin forms of Greek names is just weird.

Now that you mentioned, the anglicization I can understand, but that you use at the same time just about always Latin forms of Greek names is just weird.

That is just because Latin has always been a more familiar language in the English-speaking world than Greek. Classicists in the past knew Greek authors and others primarily via Latin. Even when it became common for classicists and others to know Greek, the Latin forms of names were still the most familiar, and so it was usual to use them in English. Even today most people who learn ancient Greek will probably have learned Latin first.

There is a strong movement among scholars today to cite Greek names in the Greek form rather than use Latinisations, rather akin to the now-usual practice of using feminine pronouns in preference to male ones when the gender of the individual makes no difference. However, it's not universal, at least not yet. So in contemporary scholarly literature you might find one author talking about "Athanasius" and another talking about "Athanasios". And as is usually the case with scholarly practices, it has yet to filter down to the popular level - not that these topics are particularly popular anyway, of course!

Well it goes with out saying which name usage i would support. And it feels better also. Plotinos sounds much better than Plotinus. It seems the popularity of Latinization goes along with the language (English) as that phenomenon is uncommon in Greek witting.

Modern Lebanese are half french :lol:

I highly doubt that. They weren't under French rule that long.

It has already been said correctly that were were a colony of Phoenicians.

Modern Lebanese are half french :lol:In most cases when a people are conquered it is only the elite that changes.

There was a show on PBS a few years ago (Nova?) on the Phonecians and Carthaginians. Apparently the people of Lebanon share the same genetic markers as some populations on the Lybian coast. Their hypothesis was that the modern Lebanese and those populations in Lybia were descendents of the Phonecians.

There was a lot of interbreeding between the Phoenician colonists and the native Lybians and Numidians (ie. Berbers). I think the Carthaginians would have been physically indistinguishable from the Arabs and Berbers who live in north africa today, although their way of life was definitely more Bevantine than North African. They wouldn't have looked particularly different from the ancient Italians or Greeks either except slightly more tanned. Carthaginians would have varied somewhat from place to place across their empire through interbreeding with the locals, but the Tunisian core of the empire would be as above.

It should be pointed out that Hannibal's mother was an Iberian princess, who would have been a Celt. He probably looked more "European" than the Romans did but he was not a typical Carthaginian.

I'm not sure the ancient Iberians were all Celts, actually. Remember, the Basques' ancestors were there before the Celts and it's widely argued that there were other people speaking related languages in the rest of Iberia who got assimilated culturally by the Celts, Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Goths, Arabs, etc. Genetically speaking, there's some evidence that populations all through Iberia and in the British have some genetic relation to the Basques, which would make all those populations genetic remnants of the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Europe, with the Basques somewhat bizarrely managing to resist at least a half dozen waves of assimilation enough to retain the old language.

You're still right he woulda looked more "European" though.

I think the Carthaginians would have been physically indistinguishable from the Arabs and Berbers who live in north africa today...
IIRC, the Berbers are distinguishable from Arabs, generally having more Caucasian features and sometimes even paler skin or typically Caucasian hair coluring (red, blone, etc). They tend to look more like Southern Europeans than they do like Arabs.

I've never actually seen a berber or an arab so I wouldn't really know.

We only know that the Phoenician language was Semitic.

Phoenicians tend to be associated as the descendants of the invading "sea peoples" of the Mediterranean. Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#Hypotheses_about_the_Sea_Peoples) All the hypotheses link to the sea people as being Greek or Italian or Anatolian. If the Phoenicians are descendant from the sea people, then they would've looked like Greeks, or Romans, and thus the Carthaginians would've been Greek or Roman.

Of course only the people of the city Carthage were true Carthaginians. The rest, in particular there army were Greek, Celtic, German, Roman, Berber, Egyptian and Garamantian(is it Garamantian or Garamantian?).

most likely the Phoenicians were not the "purest" of whites or blacks. at least i think we all can agree on that.

They were white meditterenean, there is also very references in roman historians that carthaginian soldiers and people were taller then most roman. Despite the colonies in north africa they did not mingle that much with the local people, one of the reasons of their downfall unlike the romans.

http://www.phoenician.org/hannibal_bust_enhanced-wide.JPG

Punic (I think) means Phoenician in Latin.

My history teacher would say you are correct, and i would say that the rulers of Carthage were of Phoenician decent so they would be white and the average Carthaginian would be black since they just happened to be where the Phoenicians colonized there lands and become there "subjects" i guess you could say

My history teacher would say you are correct, and i would say that the rulers of Carthage were of Phoenician decent so they would be white and the average Carthaginian would be black since they just happened to be where the Phoenicians colonized there lands and become there "subjects" i guess you could say
Native North Africans are not "black", they are typically Caucasian, appearing far closer to Southern Europeans than to sub-Saharans. These days they tend to look a bit more Arabic, because, like much of the Islamic world, they interbred with the Arabic invaders during the Islamic conquests, but they are still distinct from the black populations of Africa.

This Ancient Egyptian image shows how the Egyptians, at least, identified the ethnicities of Africa.
http://www.north-of-africa.com/IMG/jpg/setis1_grave.jpg
The paleness of the Lybians, as well as the Syriac, is no doubt exagerated in contrast to the Egyptian, but at least shows a clear distinction from the black Nubian (albeit a similarly exagerated representation). This seems to indicate that the pre-Phoenecian natives of the North African coast were likely to be Caucasian, as many of their Berber descendants are today.

Native North Africans are not "black", they are typically Caucasian, appearing far closer to Southern Europeans than to sub-Saharans. These days they tend to look a bit more Arabic, because, like much of the Islamic world, they interbred with the Arabic invaders during the Islamic conquests, but they are still distinct from the black populations of Africa.

This Ancient Egyptian image shows how the Egyptians, at least, identified the ethnicities of Africa.
http://www.north-of-africa.com/IMG/jpg/setis1_grave.jpg
The paleness of the Lybians, as well as the Syriac, is no doubt exagerated in contrast to the Egyptian, but at least shows a clear distinction from the black Nubian (albeit a similarly exagerated representation). This seems to indicate that the pre-Phoenecian natives of the North African coast were likely to be Caucasian, as many of their Berber descendants are today.


wow i would have never imagined that there were people that white in Africa then, i guess you learn something every day though

People from Europe, the Middle East, Iran, and Central Asia are white.

Thus, Carthaginians were technically white.

wow i would have never imagined that there were people that white in Africa then, i guess you learn something every day though

How could you honestly not know that?

why do i have a feeling he's a 13 year old? but even then i think most people that old would no that...

Anyway back on topic, is the OP question answered?

How could you honestly not know that?

why do i have a feeling he's a 13 year old? but even then i think most people that old would no that...

Bit of a troll, there. Classics aren't taught at all in the United States below university level, you know.

It's not classics, it's just a matter of knowing that North Africans are Caucasians.

Though I'd wager europeans are more aware of that than Americans. Or Australians.

It's not classics, it's just a matter of knowing that North Africans are Caucasians.

Though I'd wager europeans are more aware of that than Americans. Or Australians.

well, i do know how mexicans look like...

Actually, it's perfectly possible that you don't. I've found a lot of people have inaccurate perceptions of the appearance and genetic make-up of Latin American countries. Europeans tend to overestimate the amount of European blood and Americans tend to underestimate it.

Actually, it's perfectly possible that you don't. I've found a lot of people have inaccurate perceptions of the appearance and genetic make-up of Latin American countries. Europeans tend to overestimate the amount of European blood and Americans tend to underestimate it.

I've seen Latin Americans of all colors. :) From a Cuban girl that was white white (probably would be as white as me if she didn't stay in the tropical sun for a few months) to many completely black people, and all the shades in between. From my observations, Argentinians, Peruvians and many times Mexicans tend to be whiter than Brazilians or Bolivians. But then again although I've been in contact with lots of them (being a guitarist, and guitar being so amazingly popular around there) I've never been there for myself so I could be wrong.

I love the mix in that area of the world. :) And I love really dark-haired Latin American girls with green or blue eyes too. ;)

I have met white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Native American Hispanics, and even Chinese Hispanics. I think it is more cultural than racial.

Latin America is the perfect example of an extremely racially mixed society.

Actually, it's perfectly possible that you don't. I've found a lot of people have inaccurate perceptions of the appearance and genetic make-up of Latin American countries. Europeans tend to overestimate the amount of European blood and Americans tend to underestimate it.

they dont look like this:?

http://mitarbeiter.dvd-forum.at/ronnie/kino-news/diverse/machete.jpg

Qu'est-ce que c'est? (I dunno, I just wanted to say that in French, but, I digress)

What is that?

machete!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8cCzltPD6Y

I have met white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Native American Hispanics, and even Chinese Hispanics. I think it is more cultural than racial.
Are they really Hispanics, or the inhabitants of Central and South America?

What do you mean, how are you defining "Hispanic"?

Really really badly, I should think.

What do you mean, how are you defining "Hispanic"?
Hispanic= a person from Hispania (so it's modern Spain, Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar).

Oh I see . . . you are using an uncommon definition, though, so it is irrelevant to my use of the term to describe people who are more likely to be called Hispanic by more people.

Oh I see . . . you are using an uncommon definition, though, so it is irrelevant to my use of the term to describe people who are more likely to be called Hispanic by more people.

By more people, you mean only Americans right?

Why can't the americans just get it right?

It's Called Football not Soccer... :mad::mad::mad:

I mean North and South Americans, many of whom use the term to describe themselves.

Oh I see . . . you are using an uncommon definition, though, so it is irrelevant to my use of the term to describe people who are more likely to be called Hispanic by more people.
But in Europe, Hispanic means a person from Hispania.

No, it doesn't.

No, it doesn't.

It does in Poland, why wouldn't it be like with the rest of europe?

It does in Poland, why wouldn't it be like with the rest of europe?

You mean, "I am shocked - shocked - to hear that the way they do things in Poland isn't the way they do things in the entire rest of Europe?" :mischief:

:lol:

in german the term hispanic isnt used at all, it's either "latin american" for people from latin america or "iberian" for people from the iberian peninsula. (more commonly called....


taataaam: "portuguese" and "spaniards" )

It does in Poland, why wouldn't it be like with the rest of europe?

Because I guess in countries with actual hispanic people or more contact with them, they have a more nuanced interpretation of the term. It refers to the cultures and the countries which are associated with Spain and sometimes Portugal, not just ethnicity. You can be Hispanic whether you're black, white, asian, indian or any combination of those.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Because I guess in countries with actual hispanic people or more contact with them, they have a more nuanced interpretation of the term. It refers to the cultures and the countries which are associated with Spain and sometimes Portugal, not just ethnicity. You can be Hispanic whether you're black, white, asian, indian or any combination of those.

I think he and Panonious mean being from Iberia . I don't think either of them said anything against that person being black , white ,asian or indian.

Um. How many blacks or indians are from the Iberian peninsular? It means the same thing, they're associating "Hispanic" only with people of European descent, which is at odds with how it gets self-applied and used in actual Hispanic countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanosphere

Um. How many blacks or indians are from the Iberian peninsular? It means the same thing, they're associating "Hispanic" only with people of European descent, which is at odds with how it gets self-applied and used in actual Hispanic countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanosphere

I think they are associating Hispanic in how they think is used in Europe and not what it may mean in people with Hispanic cultures. I agree with them i heard that term being used for people from the iberia penicula in Europe. I don't see actually where you disagree. That is the term that i heard being used in Europe , in other places it could have a different meaning. Your's may be the "correct " one if you wish to anounce it correct but that is irrelevant of the question which was it's meaning in Europe. And i do think that , the meaning i described also exists how wrong that may be.

Um. How many blacks or indians are from the Iberian peninsular?

This is a strawman . None ever said anything about blacks or Indians not existing in the Iberian penicula or existing or anything at all.

Maybe the term "Hispanic" has other meanings in Polish or Greek but in English and Spanish, "Hispanic" hasn't been primarily or solely associated with the ancient Roman province nor the Iberian peninsula for a very, very, long time. Hispanic means what those wiki pages describe. Kinda like how I'm anglo but not from England.

Also, last time I checked Spain and England are in Europe, and I bet the French do it the same way. So the claim that "in Europe it means this" is also wrong. You'd have to refine it to "far-flung bits of Europe" or something.

This was started by Pannonius objecting to Eran referring to "white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Native American Hispanics, and even Chinese Hispanics" so forgive me if I see a race-based definition in play here.

Um. How many blacks or indians are from the Iberian peninsular? It means the same thing, they're associating "Hispanic" only with people of European descent, which is at odds with how it gets self-applied and used in actual Hispanic countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanosphere
I'm using the natural meaning of the word. Hispanic= someone from Hispania (Iberian peninsula). I don't care for other, inaccurate definitions.

Language is determined by common usage.

ok there is a little of confusion here

Hispanic = every spanish speaking people indifferently of own ethnic background

Spaniard = people ethnically spanish = white people with spanish origin

All spaniards are hispanic, but not all hispanics are spaniard

Returning to thread: ancient punics were whites but not ethnically semitic

I'm using the natural meaning of the word. Hispanic= someone from Hispania (Iberian peninsula). I don't care for other, inaccurate definitions.
The Iberian peninsula is no longer referred to as "Hispania" anymore than England is referred to as "Anglia". It's use as a geographical term "Hispanic" is archaic; in modern usage it is a purely linguistic term, just as "Anglic" is.

I think a lot of the confusion about these terms comes from poster's native languages. :)

For example, just to use your example above, Anglia is exactly the word for England in my language, and "hispanic" has a pretty different meaning from the English word too. I was confused by many of these "false friends" before getting a better idea about what they are generally used to express.

Exactly! And therefore the English and Spanish uses are right!

The Iberian peninsula is no longer referred to as "Hispania" anymore than England is referred to as "Anglia". It's use as a geographical term "Hispanic" is archaic; in modern usage it is a purely linguistic term, just as "Anglic" is.
It is archaic, but it's still more correctly used for the Iberian peninsula then for South & Central America.

It is archaic, but it's still more correctly used for the Iberian peninsula then for South & Central America.

Indeed, South and central america have stolen the name "hispanic" from Spain.

How does that square to the fact that people in SPAIN use it that way?

How does that square to the fact that people in SPAIN use it that way?
But it is not correct, it's the same as calling ERE "Byzantium".

But it is not correct, it's the same as calling ERE "Byzantium".

it's its second name, commonly used.

calling spaniards hispanic is very uncommon.

now tell me, what defines what is right or wrong in language?

is it "common usage" or "you"?

it's its second name, commonly used.
Just as someone who's not actually trying to talk about the original point but instead quibbling here: incorrectly, commonly used. The only thing that could be called a "Byzantine Empire" was when a certain city-state on the Bosphorus took over another nearby city-state with the help of the Ptolemaioi.

What did the Eastern Roman Empire call themselves? It is perfectly reasonable to call them that (or rather, the English translation).

What did the Eastern Roman Empire call themselves? It is perfectly reasonable to call them that (or rather, the English translation).

They just called it "roman empire" because they believed to be the only true romans.

Well, we need something to distinguish them from the Western Roman Empire, right?

Well, we need something to distinguish them from the Western Roman Empire, right?

Nah, they also were romans. It was only a question of geography

They were eventually separate, and as such need to be distinguished. I mean, really.

They were eventually separate, and as such need to be distinguished. I mean, really.

I don't see this necessity, but if you want one you call them eastern romans :mischief:

it's its second name, commonly used.

calling spaniards hispanic is very uncommon.

now tell me, what defines what is right or wrong in language?

is it "common usage" or "you"?
It is the matter of common sense. Hispanic = a person from Hispania.

As there is not currently a locale commonly called "Hispania", common sense as you define it dictates that the term "Hispanic" be applied to no one.

What did the Eastern Roman Empire call themselves? It is perfectly reasonable to call them that (or rather, the English translation).

They called themselves Romania. Yes, I'm serious. :p

So we can't use that name, because it's already used... It would make the mess connected to this name an even bigger terrible mess. I mean, we would have Rome (the city), Rome (the empire) Romania (the modern nation-state), Romania (the Eastern Roman Empire), Romani (Roma ethnicity, aka gypsies)... And each of those means something different.

The best name, IMO, is the Eastern Roman Empire.

They called themselves Romania. Yes, I'm serious. :p



Why did you steal their name?

Why did you steal their name?

We didn't. Rather, both Byzantium and (modern) Romania "inherited" it from Rome.

The southern principate of Romania (which is known in English as Wallachia) was called in Romanian, in the same time as Byzantium, "Teara Romaneasca", meaning "Roman Land" (teara being derived from Latin "terra" - land, country). In fact, if you are interested, even the name "Wallachia" comes from a Slavic version of a Germanic noun meaning "Roman". Read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach). In fact, the same word (or variations of it) are used in Slavic languages to signify not only Romanians, but also Italians (Czech "Vlach", Polish "Włoch", all mean "Italian", while in Old Russian волохъ - "voloh" used to mean any person speaking any Romance - so including also Spaniards, Frenchmen, Portuguese, etc). The name of the Italian region "Romagna" also comes from the same root word as Romania, which is, guess what - Rome.

And even more, in Romanian, the words Roman and Romanian are... one single word. Until the XIXth century there was absolutely no way to distinguish between the two words, and then the word "roman" got imported from Italian in order to make the distinction, so now in our language "român" - Romanian and "roman" - Roman, but until the (re)introduction of the term "roman", they were both "român".

Actually, the Byzantine historian I. Kynnamos writes that Leon Vatatzes, in preparing for an attack on the Magyars, mobilized many Romanians from the coastline of the Pontus Euxinus. He then also writes of Romanians from the north of Danube taking part, alongside the Imperial commander Leon Vatatzes, in the campaign, in the year of 1167, adding his remark about the the Romanians: "it is said they are colonists arrived a long time ago from Italy". And the Armenian cartographer Chorenatsi writes in the 9th century of a "the country which is called Balak” (in reference to Blachs/Vlachs) North of the Danube. Likewise, Filippo Buonaccorsi Callimaco calls Romanians with the same word as Italians.


Thus, we can conclude that none of those two "stole" the name from another, but rather the name was assigned to them both during the time of the Empire they are called after, the surviving name simply giving us an idea about the might of an earlier empire which, even after having most of its territory lost, divided and conquered, and all its western cities pillaged and at least partially destroyed, still managed to pass along its heritage to people in the most distant corners of its territory.

And I don't mean heritage from a purely genetical point of view, not at all, especially since the Roman Empire had quite a heterogenous population. I don't support bullcrap like "the Balkanic peoples today are the descendants of [insert ethnic group], thus are superior and thus deserve to treat anyone like crap", but rather, I'm just trying to give credit where it is due - in this case, to the Roman Empire.

It is the matter of common sense. Hispanic = a person from Hispania.
Only in archaic geographical usage, not in the cultural or linguistic senses. "Hispanic" is a term indicating language or ethnicity, just as "Germanic" or "Celtic" are. Those terms do not necessarily indicate someone from Germania or Celticia (equally archaic terms roughly equivalent to Germany and France*), merely someone who's ethnic or linguistic origins can be tace to those regions.

We didn't. Rather, both Byzantium and (modern) Romania "inherited" it from Rome.

The southern principate of Romania (which is known in English as Wallachia) was called in Romanian, in the same time as Byzantium, "Teara Romaneasca", meaning "Roman Land" (teara being derived from Latin "terra" - land, country). In fact, if you are interested, even the name "Wallachia" comes from a Slavic version of a Germanic noun meaning "Roman". Read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach). In fact, the same word (or variations of it) are used in Slavic languages to signify not only Romanians, but also Italians (Czech "Vlach", Polish "Włoch", all mean "Italian", while in Old Russian волохъ - "voloh" used to mean any person speaking any Romance - so including also Spaniards, Frenchmen, Portuguese, etc). The name of the Italian region "Romagna" also comes from the same root word as Romania, which is, guess what - Rome.

And even more, in Romanian, the words Roman and Romanian are... one single word. Until the XIXth century there was absolutely no way to distinguish between the two words, and then the word "roman" got imported from Italian in order to make the distinction, so now in our language "român" - Romanian and "roman" - Roman, but until the (re)introduction of the term "roman", they were both "român".

Actually, the Byzantine historian I. Kynnamos writes that Leon Vatatzes, in preparing for an attack on the Magyars, mobilized many Romanians from the coastline of the Pontus Euxinus. He then also writes of Romanians from the north of Danube taking part, alongside the Imperial commander Leon Vatatzes, in the campaign, in the year of 1167, adding his remark about the the Romanians: "it is said they are colonists arrived a long time ago from Italy". And the Armenian cartographer Chorenatsi writes in the 9th century of a "the country which is called Balak” (in reference to Blachs/Vlachs) North of the Danube. Likewise, Filippo Buonaccorsi Callimaco calls Romanians with the same word as Italians.


Thus, we can conclude that none of those two "stole" the name from another, but rather the name was assigned to them both during the time of the Empire they are called after, the surviving name simply giving us an idea about the might of an earlier empire which, even after having most of its territory lost, divided and conquered, and all its western cities pillaged and at least partially destroyed, still managed to pass along its heritage to people in the most distant corners of its territory.

And I don't mean heritage from a purely genetical point of view, not at all, especially since the Roman Empire had quite a heterogenous population. I don't support bullcrap like "the Balkanic peoples today are the descendants of [insert ethnic group], thus are superior and thus deserve to treat anyone like crap", but rather, I'm just trying to give credit where it is due - in this case, to the Roman Empire.

I have to agree both are rightful owners of the right of being named Romaioi.

And i have to say that right continued even in the 19th century in Greece when the name Romaioi became totally replaced by the name Hellene. In some vilages they still caled themselfs such and they did not even distinquish the difference between the two , usually because they aligned it with Religion.

BTW romanians and greeks aren't ethnically romans.

BTW romanians and greeks aren't ethnically romans.

Did you even read my post? Especially the last paragraph?

Did you even read my post? Especially the last paragraph?

Your post simply say everyone living under roman rule was roman. I agree with this but they simply took a foreign name, which doesn't make them roman ethnically.

Your post simply say everyone living under roman rule was roman. I agree with this but they simply took a foreign name, which doesn't make them roman ethnically.

Well, sorry, but in case you didn't understand the post right above yours, read it again.

I clearly said the last paragraph of my post. Did you read that?

The only people that were Roman ethnically were a small group of people which lived in the Latium region thousands of years ago. There's no such thing as a pure roman ethnicity, and it wouldn't matter even if it was. As I said in that paragraph, I obviously didn't mean the great-great-[great*100] grandson of Romulus and Remus, which we might all - or nobody alive today be.

And let's stop derailing this thread, shall we?

I'm just trying to give credit where it is due - in this case, to the Roman Empire.
:hatsoff: Everybody needs to give credit to the Roman Empire. Except for my avatar. :p

The only people that were Roman ethnically were a small group of people which lived in the Latium region thousands of years ago. There's no such thing as a pure roman ethnicity, and it wouldn't matter even if it was. As I said in that paragraph, I obviously didn't mean the great-great-[great*100] grandson of Romulus and Remus, which we might all - or nobody alive today be.


Please can you tell me where i disagree with what you are saying? Both i and you are saying the same thing, but you still tell me i don't understand
what? :confused:

BTW romanians and greeks aren't ethnically romans.

Well after the Eastern Roman empire fell ,to the Ottoman empire what nationality did the citizens of that empire , now Ottoman empire believe themselfs to be ? (Answer Roman first , but the Greek national term was also used.)

Greeks of the 19th century considered themselves Romans as a national characterization. One could argue that they where more Romans than Greeks but either way at the time both terms where used but the one which in the end eventually won in characterization was the Greek one. Today you can't name any Greek as Roman as none accepts it. So today Greeks are not romans but 200 years ago they considered themselfs So.
As the modern Greek state was not the Eastern roman empire naturally the Roman name as a characterization died.

But at several vilages even in mid20th century the name was still used.

Take from what i said any conclusions you wish.

Well after the Eastern Roman empire fell ,to the Ottoman empire what nationality did the citizens of that empire , now Ottoman empire believe themselfs to be ? (Answer Roman first , but the Greek national term was also used.)

Greeks of the 19th century considered themselves Romans as a national characterization. One could argue that they where more Romans than Greeks but either way at the time both terms where used but the one which in the end eventually won in characterization was the Greek one. Today you can't name any Greek as Roman as none accepts it. So today Greeks are not romans but 200 years ago they considered themselfs So.
As the modern Greek state was not the Eastern roman empire naturally the Roman name as a characterization died.

But at several vilages even in mid20th century the name was still used.

Take from what i said any conclusions you wish.

Considering to be someone =/= being someone

I consider myself a cat, but i am not a cat :(

Considering to be someone =/= being someone

I consider myself a cat, but i am not a cat :(

Quite an arguement. In this case we have the people who where part of the Eastern Roman empire , calling themselfs Romans after being conquered by a foreign power. Unless you consider the Eastern Romans as not Eastern Romans , in which case i would like to see why you do so , i am wondering WTF are you talking about.

Pls mind language. Thanks. - KD

Though i have said that in time Greeks had stopped to consider themselves Romans after they where liberated from a foreign power and their state was no longer a Roman one. Both where a necessity to happen as when one is conquered by a foreign power he will align himself with the past states he was part of , but when he creates one , on himself he has no choice but to allign himself with that one.

Please update your arguement to a superior level.

Quite an arguement. In this case we have the people who where part of the Eastern Roman empire , calling themselfs Romans after being conquered by a foreign power. Unless you consider the Eastern Romans as not Eastern Romans , in which case i would like to see why you do so , i am wondering WTF are you talking about.

Though i have said that in time Greeks had stopped to consider themselves Romans after they where liberated from a foreign power and their state was no longer a Roman one. Both where a necessity to happen as when one is conquered by a foreign power he will align himself with the past states he was part of , but when he creates one , on himself he has no choice but to allign himself with that one.

Do you know what ethnically means?
Greeks and romanians (as MIRC said before) are not the direct genetic descendants of ancient romans, indefferently on what they think or consider themself. Period. End of discussion.

Please update your arguement to a superior level.

Was it a menace?

Do you know what ethnically means?
Greeks and romanians (as MIRC said before) are not the direct genetic descendants of ancient romans, indefferently on what they think or consider themself. Period. End of discussion.



Was it a menace?

They are the direct descendants of Eastern Romans not matter what you think. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. They calling themselves Romans is not in relation to the western Roman empire but to the eastern Roman empire. Is it clear ? If you are totally ignorant on the subject you better not discuss it.

Although they are also descendants of more ancient Romans before the Eastern Roman empire since they had the Roman identity even before the Roman empire was divided and they had Roman citizenship. Which i must remind you was given to almost all parts of the Roman empire.
It seems you are totally clueless on the subject matter.

Pls refrain from personal comments. Thx. - KD

How could you call the descendants of legally Romans who keep calling themselves Romans as did their Roman fathers , but at some point at the 19th century for some reasons they start a trend of distancing themselves from it (Although many still keep using it and it is often synonynous with Greek to them after a point in history but not previously )?

Greeks and romanians (as MIRC said before) are not the direct genetic descendants of ancient romans, indefferently on what they think or consider themself.
No. You misunderstood. I said that they are not descendants of the ancient Romans because the ancient Romans were quite heterogenous themselves, just like the ancient Slavs, Germanics, etc, perhaps even more thanks to the huge level of communication they achieved..

BUT my MAIN point was whether they are or not is completely irrelevant, since we have no way to know if anyone is the direct genetic descendant of the ancient Romans. I don't have to be genetically something to be something. Because if that was true, very few people today would have the right to call themselves "Americans", for example. Maybe a couple of millions in total, in both continents. And if that was true, it would suddenly become pointless - since a human needs two parents to reproduce, he would soon be a true descendant of too many ethnicities to keep track of.

My point was also that if we apply your logic, neither the citizens of the Roman Empire were Romans, since they had parents from all over the Empire and beyond, where nobody was Roman at all.

BUT my MAIN point was whether they are or not is completely irrelevant, since we have no way to know if anyone is the direct genetic descendant of the ancient Romans. I don't have to be genetically something to be something. Because if that was true, very few people today would have the right to call themselves "Americans", for example. Maybe a couple of millions in total, in both continents. And if that was true, it would suddenly become pointless - since a human needs two parents to reproduce, he would soon be a true descendant of too many ethnicities to keep track of.

My point was also that if we apply your logic, neither the citizens of the Roman Empire were Romans, since they had parents from all over the Empire and beyond, where nobody was Roman at all.

True but he even ignores that , a part of the group i am talking about was actually genetically descendant those who where called Romans by law.

But i do have to say that genetics play a far less important role than all other parameters when we need to reach a conclusion over anything.

True but he even ignores that , a part of the group i am talking about was actually genetically descendant those who where called Romans by law.

But i do have to say that genetics play a far less important role than all other parameters when we need to reach a conclusion over anything.

I agree. :)

Can we get back on topic? :please:

The Carthaginians looked like modern Lebanese

We prefer to be called Latinos.

Seeing as how the people and historians of the middle ages in Western Europe called the ERE the Greek Empire I too like to call it the Greek Empire, Roman though they were.

Well , they where both.