History questions not worth their own thread II

[Chukchi Husky]

I guess this question fits here.

What group of people, if any, are the closest living descendants of the Romans?

About a week ago, I was told is that most ancient people, like the Persians and the Egyptians, have modern descendants who are alive today, but for some reason the Romans don't have any. I didn't think a group of people like the Romans could simply disappear.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Of course there is plenty of people (living nowadays) who have Roman ancestors. Do you think that all Romans were wiped out when Empire fell or stopped marrying and breeding for some reason? For many years Romans and "conquerors" lived peacefully and coexisted. It is absolutely normal that they married each other and after few centuries there were no "pure" Romans - only for example certain Franks with Roman ancestors. I think that many people in modern Spain, France, Italy etc. are descendants of the ancient Romans.

And closest? I don't know, but I assume that Italians. After all the greatest "concentration" of Romans was in Italy IMO (Romans, not Roman citizens - because later almost all people in the RE became citizens). Though modern Italians in my opinion do not share many Roman... virtues and have more in common with germanic barbarians than Romans

 

[say1988]

I doubt there are many that can trace a lineage back to ancient Egyptians and Persians. Also, with all the groups that have conquered and inhabited Egypt, it is likely that few modern Egyptians don't have plenty of foreign blood from one group or another. Just like Italy and the Romans.
Since these weren't really ethnic groups to begin with and have had so many groups of people pass through the area, I doubt many can truly claim to be "modern descendents" of ancient peoples. But there is a benefit for people to do so, as it generally gives them more legitimacy.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Of course there is plenty of people (living nowadays) who have Roman ancestors. Do you think that all Romans were wiped out when Empire fell or stopped marrying and breeding for some reason?

I think that was one of things that was assumed. I think it might have to do with how history is taught in Britain, how the barbarians came when the empire fell and completely destroyed everything and killed everyone in their way.

For many years Romans and "conquerors" lived peacefully and coexisted. It is absolutely normal that they married each other and after few centuries there were no "pure" Romans - only for example certain Franks with Roman ancestors. I think that many people in modern Spain, France, Italy etc. are descendants of the ancient Romans.

I'm not sure if that would work as an answer.

I doubt there are many that can trace a lineage back to ancient Egyptians and Persians.

I was told the Coptics are the modern descendants of the Egyptians, and that the Iranians are the modern descendants of the Persians. There was another group I was told were the modern descendants of the Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar.

 

[Karalysia]

The Romanians are.

 

[say1988]

For relatively small and isolated groups, it is quite possible, but for teh average Iranian or Egyptian I would put money on it not being true. Think of the number of groups that have moved through Iran over the centuries. There will almost certainly be some Greek, Arab, Mongol, Turkish, or many other influences for the majority. In addition to ancient Persia encompassing many different peoples, making a definition of Persian very hard to determine. As far as I am aware, ethnicity wasn't a big thing with them (much like with the Romans) and there were people from various parts of the empire, plus migrants and people captured during various wars, etc.

But being able to claim as such is likely considered a good thing, like many Americans who claim the descent from the earliest settlers.

 

[madviking]

How close were the English to conquering France during the 100 Years' War?

 

[LightSpectra]

How close were the English to conquering France during the 100 Years' War?

Less close than we'd like to imagine from a literary epic standpoint; France is a rather large country and England didn't have the resources to occupy all of it. There was, however, a high likelihood of a union between the two thrones; the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 recognized Henry V of England as the legitimate successor to the House of Valois, but that fell apart when Charles VI outlived Henry and then re-inherited his son (who became Charles VII) to the throne.

 

[Dachs]

I guess this question fits here.

What group of people, if any, are the closest living descendants of the Romans?

About a week ago, I was told is that most ancient people, like the Persians and the Egyptians, have modern descendants who are alive today, but for some reason the Romans don't have any. I didn't think a group of people like the Romans could simply disappear.

Well, the first thing is that "Roman" is a political identifier. It describes people from the Roman Empire. If there is any ethnic connotation, it's only having to do with the Latin language. The "Romans" themselves weren't a genetic community. A random Roman in Eburacum (York) in 200 almost certainly had no familial or "blood" links to Romans in, say, Carthage, or Antioch. This is of course true for virtually all states and other assorted political organizations, from the Huns to the Iranians to the Americans to the English. Furthermore, and even more confusingly, "Roman" and "barbarian" aren't mutually exclusive even from a Roman standpoint, which is something awfully difficult to wrap one's head around, especially given the tropetastic affair that is secondary schooling.

So really, there's no "Roman" genetic information that you can find that gives somebody a clear, provable "blood link" to the Romans of old. But that descendants of Romans walk among us, well, that's quite certain. A hundred million-odd people lived in the Roman Empire at its height, and it covered the entire Mediterranean littoral. Indeed, I'd say that a very large percentage of modern Europeans and North Africans could theoretically trace their family trees back to somebody who lived in the Roman Empire. Maybe even the vast majority, though as it's rather speculative one can't say for sure. But it's certain that when the Roman Empire ceased to exist, the Romans didn't simply just die; they mostly just changed hats. And it took centuries for that to happen.

I think that was one of things that was assumed. I think it might have to do with how history is taught in Britain, how the barbarians came when the empire fell and completely destroyed everything and killed everyone in their way.

It's the way history is taught to non-historians and to historians who are not late antique specialists, not just Brits.

I'm not sure if that would work as an answer.

Why not? It's the most likely to have been true out of all of his.

How close were the English to conquering France during the 100 Years' War?

Very. They didn't really want to conquer it, though, so much as co-opt it. Well, at that point, anyway. Henry V considered it to be a civil war between the rightful contender to the throne and Charles VI.

 

[bombshoo]

How seriously is Hitler having syphilis considered? A book I picked up about the disease and those afflicted with it seems to seriously consider it, but since its sort of a "pop history" of the subject I am curious as to how seriously I should take the author on this. When it comes to the actual spread of the disease, and those who are known to have syphilis, the book seems pretty accurate, but I'm wary of trusting them completely when discussing a case where the evidence may not be clear cut and it may be put in simply to make their book a more exciting read.

 

[Dachs]

I expect you'd look at what Ian Kershaw has to say on the subject and go from there.

Biography in general seems to be something of a red-headed stepchild in the estimation of many modern historians, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if people just haven't been that interested in this save the pop historians and hobby historian types.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Ian Kershaw would likely say (I don't remember that specific part of his Biography, but he said this about nearly everything) that if he did have it, we have no evidence of it, and it's entirely unimportant anyway, because it explains nothing.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Why not? It's the most likely to have been true out of all of his.

It could be turned to say they completely disappeared, by being bred out of existence or something like that.

What I don't understand is if the Romans don't have any clear modern descendants, how can every single ancient civilization apart from the Romans apparently have them?

 

[Samez]

I was thinking about border fortifications recently. It is often mentioned that the Chinese Great Wall never served it's original purpose a the empire grew too fast and or it was outdated when it was finished. So was there ever a historical border fortification which was worth it's afford? Obviously Maginot line wasn't, but what about the more ancient Limes Germanicus?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Actually the Maginot line did exactly what it was supposed to.

 

[Samez]

Well that's true but the basic idea of keeping the Germans out of France didn't work at all.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well that's true but the basic idea of keeping the Germans out of France didn't work at all.

But that wasn't the basic idea of the Maginot Line.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

So was there ever a historical border fortification which was worth it's afford?

Maybe Hadrian's Wall? I think it was pretty useful for some time.

 

[say1988]

What I don't understand is if the Romans don't have any clear modern descendants, how can every single ancient civilization apart from the Romans apparently have them?

Because most parts of the Roman Empire (France, England, Spain, Egypt, Greece, etc..) adopted, and maintain, different identities after the fall. So there is less reason claim lineage to Rome. These people draw their connections through their history, not that of being a province of Rome.
Others seek to establish their legitimacy by connecting themselves with ancient civilizations (much as many Euroean aristocrats trace themselves back to teh founding of their coutnries, though they did often trace themselves back to Rome when it was still a symbol of power). As such Iran purports direct connections with Ancient Persia.

Beyond that, you cannot have someone genetically Roman, that would be the equivalen of having someone genetically American. Romans, like Americans, comprised people from all over the world of many ethnicities.

 

[Traitorfish]

Less close than we'd like to imagine from a literary epic standpoint; France is a rather large country and England didn't have the resources to occupy all of it. There was, however, a high likelihood of a union between the two thrones; the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 recognized Henry V of England as the legitimate successor to the House of Valois, but that fell apart when Charles VI outlived Henry and then re-inherited his son (who became Charles VII) to the throne.

Isn't the idea of the Hundred Years War as a conflict between nations something of a later invention anyway? I'm given to understand that it's better viewed as a dynastic war within France itself, with one of the claimants happening to hold the English crown, in much the same way that the Hapsburg Emperors happened to hold additional crowns elsewhere in Europe.