Italy

[Dumanios]

Rome = Italy in the same way that Native America = USA and Aztecs = Mexico.

 

[corovanrobber]

What can be assumed for certain is that italian (referring to the italian peninsula) racial makeup has not changed. In other words, there aren't blondes amongst italians and there never were amongst the romans.

 

[Linkman226]

What can be assumed for certain is that italian (referring to the italian peninsula) racial makeup has not changed. In other words, there aren't blondes amongst italians and there never were amongst the romans.

Eh... the genetic makeup hasn't VISIBLY changed too much, but it has, beneath the skin.

Rome = Italy in the same way that Native America = USA and Aztecs = Mexico.

The first is a stretch, the second less so. European colonists in what is now America didn't really breed with the Native Americas too much. In Mexico and Latin America, though, they did. Almost every is mezclado there.

Which brings me to my point- that Romans+Various Germanic Tribes= the modern Italians. This is largely the case in many parts of the former Roman Empire (substitute 'German' for whatever 'barbarian' tribe happened to invade there, and substitute 'Italians' for whomever lives there now), although to varying degrees. England, not so much. France, a lot more so, same in Spain, Italy.

Just like Latin America is Spain+Natives.

 

[Leoreth]

The subject of the previous post was “what people believe”. This was brought up by Rhye when he said that all Italians share his belief on the matter.

As to “what is fact”, I don't think there is a clear fact of the matter as to whether ancient Romans were Italians. It is, however, a *fact* that many contemporary Italians believe that, say, Scipio was Italian. That, of course, is not to say that opinions are more “important” that facts.

Obviously Rhye wanted to say "everyone who knows something about history agrees that Romans != Italians". That you know cling to the beliefs of uninformed people only shows how lost your argument already is.

 

[fireclaw722]

Although I agree that the Italians are not Roman(maybe the same could be said backwards), but I think the best/easiest way to show the Italians late game would be a respawn. And I think that was the original point...

Edit: I remember one game where Rome respawned in 1870(1.186, I think), and it just happened in my game as America. I laughed so hard at that.

 

[Rhye]

The subject of the previous post was “what people believe”. This was brought up by Rhye when he said that all Italians share his belief on the matter.

As to “what is fact”, I don't think there is a clear fact of the matter as to whether ancient Romans were Italians. It is, however, a *fact* that many contemporary Italians believe that, say, Scipio was Italian. That, of course, is not to say that opinions are more “important” that facts.

No, it's actually both belief and facts.
When we (Italians) study ancient history at school, we say "them" (the Romans) "bla bla bla conquered Carthage". and when we study modern history, we say "we" (Italians) "bla bla bla lost the war".
Then, fascists and nationalists try to force a connection with silly reasons as the pure italian race and such. Many others (and me too) think that it would be cool if we were "modern Romans" more than we are now. But that's just not based on facts.

 

[Bonci]

What can be assumed for certain is that italian (referring to the italian peninsula) racial makeup has not changed. In other words, there aren't blondes amongst italians and there never were amongst the romans.

I'm italian and I'm blond

(but i admit that i live in northern italy near austria )

 

[corovanrobber]

Then you are a germanic barbarian

 

[Leoreth]

The point is, the Italians ARE part Germanic barbarians

 

[Charles Martel]

No, it's actually both belief and facts.
When we (Italians) study ancient history at school, we say "them" (the Romans) "bla bla bla conquered Carthage". and when we study modern history, we say "we" (Italians) "bla bla bla lost the war".
Then, fascists and nationalists try to force a connection with silly reasons as the pure italian race and such. Many others (and me too) think that it would be cool if we were "modern Romans" more than we are now. But that's just not based on facts.

Three comments:

(1) “We” vs. “Them”: you point out that your history book doesn’t say “we” when referring to ancient Romans. But you read too much into this, it's just a matter of style. Most contemporary Italian historians wouldn’t use the first person when referring to Risorgimento Italians either. (By the way, my anecdotal evidence doesn’t match yours. I’ve asked a friend of mine who used to teach in scuola media: she says that it’s not uncommon for kids to say or write things like “we won the Punic war”, and that this wouldn’t be marked a mistake).

(2) The identity claim: Your use of the identity sign in “Ancient Rome = Italy” turns the argument into a straw man. The “is” in “Ancient Rome is Italy” is not the “is” of identity. For starters, no ancient Roman can be literally identical to a contemporary Italian, for the simple reason that no dead person can be one and the same as a living person. But, clearly, this is not what is meant. When continuity historians say or imply that Ancient Romans were Italians they don’t make a literal identity claim, but imply something like “Italians are ancient Romans’ successors/closest continuers”.

(3) Nationalism/fascism: You object that “Ancient Romans are Italians” is something that only a nationalist or fascist would say. This is not so. That claim is commonplace both in popular culture and high culture. Recent examples from popular culture include Roberto Benigni, whose speech on Ancient Rome/Italy has been praised by the head of state, Napolitano, and by influential intellectuals such as Eugenio Scalfari. (By the way, a cursory glance to the youtube comments to Benigni’s video shows that none of the viewers has felt the urge to object to the claim that "Scipio was Italian&#8221. Examples form higher culture abound: Petrarch, Leopardi, Macchiavelli, Muratori, and Cavour, to name a few, all believed that Italians are Ancient Romans' direct descendants and that, e.g., Scipio was Italian. These people are neither fascists nor “nationalists” in a derogatory sense. They are first-rate intellectuals and historians.

 

[Leoreth]

Petrarch. Funny.

 

[onedreamer]

What can be assumed for certain is that italian (referring to the italian peninsula) racial makeup has not changed. In other words, there aren't blondes amongst italians and there never were amongst the romans.

OMG NO, not again the american stereotype that italians are black haired dark skinned people. HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??????????? Invasions from Goths, Germanic Tribes, Vikings (Normans), just to mention the ones after the fall of the WRE... can you really be that stubborn to believe this BS and call it "assumed for CERTAIN"? Have you even been in Italy to assume something for certain?

 

[onedreamer]

Do we really have to continue such nonsense?


Guess so...

No you don't have to. Others are interested in the argument though.

The other day Roberto Benigni gave an "exegesis" of the Italian anthem on national TV. Apparently, this was watched by 20 million viewers. While commenting on the anthem's beginning ("Brothers of Italy, Italy has awoken, with Scipio's helmet binding her head") Benigni said that "Scipio was an Italian general" and that the battle of Zama was won by the "Italians".

So, there you go: at least one contemporary Italian doesn't share your opinion on the matter. Benigni thinks that ancient Romans were Italians. Moreover, it doesn't seem that his viewers have taken that claim to be eccentric or unhistorical. It looks like Benigni's view is a commonplace one.

No, Benigni explained in a very fantasious and spectacular way the national hymn, which is a national poem written during the Nationalism age to incite people to go die for a not yet existant nation. To make a comparison, the British national hymn says "God save the Queen". Does this prove the existance of God? So to sum up it was a 1) a TV show and 2) an artistic representation of a nationalistic poem, it wasn't an History essay. The predominant theme was dignity, something the italian people as a whole has long lost, Benigni has long talked of past deeds of past people, from Scipio to Cavour, because that's what the hymn does, but in the end he talked about ITALIANS, the people who presently live in Italy, Scipio was Italic not Italian, he said we aren't all to trash away as those who supposedly represent us in the world (but I don't agree that the politician class is the only one representative of italians, there's more, starting from Benigni himself) and that we should start to be proud of us and act accordingly, instead of spending our days on the last news about Bunga Bunga. I share his opinion and like I said previously here, contrary to you, I do not believe that to be proud to be called Italian I should go look to what another people -the Romans- did in the world and in Italy. Once again I think you are looking at things upside down and Benigni isn't support your thesis at all. Until some Italians look and live with what Scipio has done, their dignity as Italians will be mortified.

 

[Leoreth]

Agreed. This also shows in the list of "supporters" Charles Martel cites, who are motivated either by the Renaissance, Romanticism or Risorgimento, all movements that liked to play up their continuity with previous eras (in this case Rome) for different reasons.

 

[Úmarth]

Three comments:

(1) “We” vs. “Them”: you point out that your history book doesn’t say “we” when referring to ancient Romans. But you read too much into this, it's just a matter of style. Most contemporary Italian historians wouldn’t use the first person when referring to Risorgimento Italians either. (By the way, my anecdotal evidence doesn’t match yours. I’ve asked a friend of mine who used to teach in scuola media: she says that it’s not uncommon for kids to say or write things like “we won the Punic war”, and that this wouldn’t be marked a mistake).

(2) The identity claim: Your use of the identity sign in “Ancient Rome = Italy” turns the argument into a straw man. The “is” in “Ancient Rome is Italy” is not the “is” of identity. For starters, no ancient Roman can be literally identical to a contemporary Italian, for the simple reason that no dead person can be one and the same as a living person. But, clearly, this is not what is meant. When continuity historians say or imply that Ancient Romans were Italians they don’t make a literal identity claim, but imply something like “Italians are ancient Romans’ successors/closest continuers”.

(3) Nationalism/fascism: You object that “Ancient Romans are Italians” is something that only a nationalist or fascist would say. This is not so. That claim is commonplace both in popular culture and high culture. Recent examples from popular culture include Roberto Benigni, whose speech on Ancient Rome/Italy has been praised by the head of state, Napolitano, and by influential intellectuals such as Eugenio Scalfari. (By the way, a cursory glance to the youtube comments to Benigni’s video shows that none of the viewers has felt the urge to object to the claim that "Scipio was Italian”). Examples form higher culture abound: Petrarch, Leopardi, Macchiavelli, Muratori, and Cavour, to name a few, all believed that Italians are Ancient Romans' direct descendants and that, e.g., Scipio was Italian. These people are neither fascists nor “nationalists” in a derogatory sense. They are first-rate intellectuals and historians.

I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree that modern-day Italians are, at least partly, descended from the Romans (genetically, culturally, linguistically, etc). That's really all you can say: it's nonsense to claim that a modern group are a people from the distant past, and thankfully most of us no longer follow the kind of fallacious ideologies that once led people to make such claims. Languages are constantly changing, as are cultural and political forms, and "racial descent" is a meaningless phrase based on 19th century pseudoscience. The most you could claim is transmitted relatively unchanged throughout the centuries is self-applied identity. But that's a really fuzzy and subjective thing. Italians today could plausibly claim continuity with the Italia of antiquity (Metternich probably would have disagreed), but if because of the fascists' abuse of their classical heritage they don't, then they don't - you can't magic a link into existence. I'd be inclined to go with the (living, I presume) Italians we have here on the question of modern Italian identity over classical scholars and 19th century romantic nationalists.

I do find it highly ironic though that after 1500 years of everyone and his brother's sister's uncle's nephew claiming to be the Romans, now even the Italians don't want the job

 

[Rhye]

I think onedreamer and umarth got what I wanted to say.

 

[Charles Martel]

I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree that modern-day Italians are, at least partly, descended from the Romans (genetically, culturally, linguistically, etc). That's really all you can say: it's nonsense to claim that a modern group are a people from the distant past

But I don’t see why anyone should interpret “Ancient Romans are Italians” in the strongest possible sense, as a claim of identity between groups of people from different ages. (Not even the fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile would have made such a strong claim). To put it that way is to misrepresent the claim and attack a straw man.

The real disagreement turns on whether modern Italians are, culturally speaking, the direct descendants of the Romans, or their closest successors – closer, say, than the French or the Spaniards.

We have three options:

(1) Culturally speaking, ancient Romans have no successors at all: Roman culture is extinct.

(2) There are several different cultures that are equally close descendants of the Romans: anyone, say, who speaks a Romance language.

(3) Modern Italians are Ancient Romans' closest descendants – and, in that sense, we can say things like “Scipio was Italian”.​

I take it that Rhye and OneDreamer would go for (2), and would object to (3) on the grounds that it smacks of nationalism and is reminiscent of fascism.

It seems to me that neither (1) or (2) represent the majority opinion amongst Italians, even if we count only living Italians, and discount Romanticism, Risorgimento and all that. The widespread consensus surrounding Benigni’s speech makes me suspect that most Italians would be inclined to agree with (3), and I don’t think that this makes them “nationalists”, “fascists”, or ignorant about history.

That is not to say that Benigni’s speech gives any good historical evidence for (3). I do think, however, that it gives a good indication of what most contemporary Italians actually believe.

 

[Linkman226]

Do you guys realize that the last common human ancestor lived around 2000 years ago (barring pure 100% Native Americans), according to geneticists and anthropologists?

That renders any racial argument moot.

 

[Rhye]

The real disagreement turns on whether modern Italians are, culturally speaking, the direct descendants of the Romans, or their closest successors – closer, say, than the French or the Spaniards.

wait, wait. You are changing the topic of the discussion here.
In fact, I DO believe that Italians are the closest successors of the Romans.
I am arguing against your claim that ancient Romans are Italians, that is, Italy and ancient Rome are the same civilization.

 

[Úmarth]

The real disagreement turns on whether modern Italians are, culturally speaking, the direct descendants of the Romans, or their closest successors – closer, say, than the French or the Spaniards.

Is that the real disagreement here? I don't see how the statement "Modern Italians are Ancient Romans' closest descendants" (I don't know about Rhye and onedreamer, but I find that reasonable enough) justifies the statement "Scipio was Italian". As you seem to agree, if you take that in the strongest sense then it's incoherent. If you take it in the weak sense your advocating though--simply implying some sort of continuity--there is no reason to privilege the closest genetic/cultural/linguistic descendent and therefore we can say that Scipio was French, British and Turkish with just as much validity. In which case, isn't it easier to just say "the Italians are descended from the Romans, among others" and leave it at that?

As to which is the most common sentiment among Italians, well, I'm afraid we'd have to start breaking out the statistics to get to the bottom of that one. As I've said, I find the anecdotal from our Italian contingent slightly more convincing than your interpretations of this guy's speech. But in the end they're both completely unsatisfactory ways of answering the question.

Edit: or tl;dr: what Leoreth said