# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Fall of the Western Roman Empire

## mbw1986

This is an informed opinion question. 
Why, in your view, did the Western Roman Empire collapse? (3 main reasons)

For me, it was primarily:
1)over-reliance on auxiliary troops to defend an enormous frontier
2)loss of key grain-growing regions/ports to invaders 
3)lack of political will for martial, Roman glory, which continued in Byzantium

----------


## LeBrok

Economic collapse, mostly due to global cooling affecting food production with chain reaction over manufacturing.

----------


## zanipolo

Wine, Women and Song

----------


## Maciamo

> Economic collapse, mostly due to global cooling affecting food production with chain reaction over manufacturing.


I also think that this is a major reason.

The colder climate in the 4th and 5th centuries also prompted Germanic and Slavic tribes to seek more fertile land in warmer regions. So not only did the Romans produced less food, bringing the internal collapse of the economy, they had to fight harder against invaders with poorly fed and paid troops while at the same time try to control social upheaval brought by the declining economy. That's a pretty deadly cocktail.

----------


## Nobody1

None of the above;

Split between West and East; 
Countless Civil Wars, Uprisings and Usurpators
Hun Invasion;
Massive Sabotage by the East against the West;

----------


## LeBrok

> None of the above;
> 
> Split between West and East; 
> Countless Civil Wars, Uprisings and Usurpators
> Hun Invasion;
> Massive Sabotage by the East against the West;


Keep in mind that many uprisings, revolts and unhappiness of people starts with bad economy.

Europe was so peaceful, full of happy people, great place to live everywhere, till recession started. Now it is a mess.

----------


## Fire Haired

in my opinon Rome just became weaker they lost pride and tradtion. In the migration period starting around 300ad The Romans where contently invaded by Huns and Germans. The huns whopped on eastern and western Rome they also conquered the Germanic world. They destroyed Rome's military which had become alot weaker. Then after that the Germans who had become more civilized conquered western Rome and created kingdoms and even attempted to make new Rome's this is where the medieval age comes from. Rome in 300ad was very different than Rome in 50bc.

The Romans where very patriotic i think Cato the elder is a good example.The traditional Roman life a simple life(not fancy like Greeks), had a family, was discipline, tough, loyal to Rome. I think Romans lost their pride their military was full of Germans by the end of the empire because probably the everyday Roman went soft and other reasons. They had tons of forieg emperors almost all of the roman emperors from 200-400ad where non Roman they where from places like Illyria, Gaul, Syria, Hispania. The earlier Romans where very against foreign influence or letting foreign people have any rights. They only wanted real Romans to be their leaders if they where feeling tolerant they would allow some leaders from other Italic groups.

The Barbaric invasions where also a big part. Also every nation as to fall at some point. u should just look up fall of Rome it will probably give very good historical reasons.

----------


## Fire Haired

> I also think that this is a major reason.
> 
> The colder climate in the 4th and 5th centuries also prompted Germanic and Slavic tribes to seek more fertile land in warmer regions. So not only did the Romans produced less food, bringing the internal collapse of the economy, they had to fight harder against invaders with poorly fed and paid troops while at the same time try to control social upheaval brought by the declining economy. That's a pretty deadly cocktail.


didnt the Vandals and Goths rule pretty much all of eastern Europe(exceot baltic countries and far easten Europe) so i doubt they made migrations unless they where conquering roman terriotory. I guess the visagoths settled in eastern ROman terriotory then invaded Italy and Dalmatia. The HUns where probably another reason because the Huns destroyed eastern Roman and western Roman armies. They caused Visagoths to settle in eastern Rome then the eastern Romans did not give them food they said they would and the Visagoths eventulley sacked Rome in 410ad. Rome had to worry about Huns and Germans, Eventulley Rome was collapsing they left Britain, Gaul, and other areas like Iberia where conquered by Germans.

Saxons, Jutes, Angles conquered Britain. Visagoths conquered Iberia and southern Gaul and Italy and Dalmatia fro a little bit. Franks eventulley conquered all of Gaul. Vandals conquered i think Sicily and Roman territory in north Africa. I am asking do u agree that The German created medieval Europe by conquering the western Roman empire. I mean every single kingdom in the early middle ages was ruled by Germans. The Germans had become Christian which effected how their society worked they became more civilized based alot of stuff on Rome and created their own stuff. I think the knights, castles, dragons all comes from the Germans. also isn't the knight saving the princess from the Dragon or whatever go back to old Germanic mythology stories. because the Vikings where also in love with Dragons but i dont think Romans where.

----------


## Nobody1

> in my opinon Rome just became weaker they lost pride and tradtion. In the migration period starting around 300ad The Romans where contently invaded by Huns and Germans. The huns whopped on eastern and western Rome they also conquered the Germanic world. They destroyed Rome's military which had become alot weaker. Then after that the Germans who had become more civilized conquered western Rome and created kingdoms and even attempted to make new Rome's this is where the medieval age comes from. Rome in 300ad was very different than Rome in 50bc.
> 
> The Romans where very patriotic i think Cato the elder is a good example.The traditional Roman life a simple life(not fancy like Greeks), had a family, was discipline, tough, loyal to Rome. I think Romans lost their pride their military was full of Germans by the end of the empire because probably the everyday Roman went soft and other reasons. They had tons of forieg emperors almost all of the roman emperors from 200-400ad where non Roman they where from places like Illyria, Gaul, Syria, Hispania. The earlier Romans where very against foreign influence or letting foreign people have any rights. They only wanted real Romans to be their leaders if they where feeling tolerant they would allow some leaders from other Italic groups.
> 
> The Barbaric invasions where also a big part. Also every nation as to fall at some point. u should just look up fall of Rome it will probably give very good historical reasons.


Spot on;
(but the _Germanic/Roman_ *Stilicho* still defended the Empire like his own)

----------


## Fire Haired

> Spot on;
> (but the _Germanic/Roman_ *Stilicho* still defended the Empire like his own)


true but the rest of the Germans i dont think did that is why they conquered it.

----------


## Nobody1

> true but the rest of the Germans i dont think did that is why they conquered it.


Yup, 
as foederati they had the weapons and the authority (and other interests); 
GAME OVER

----------


## Maciamo

> None of the above;
> 
> Split between West and East; 
> Countless Civil Wars, Uprisings and Usurpators


That had been the case among the Romans already before the empire was founded. How did it survive for 500 years then ?




> Hun Invasion;
> Massive Sabotage by the East against the West;


It is also climatic change that caused the Huns to move west, pushing the Slavs and Germanics on their way.

----------


## Maciamo

> in my opinon Rome just became weaker they lost pride and tradtion. In the migration period starting around 300ad The Romans where contently invaded by Huns and Germans. The huns whopped on eastern and western Rome they also conquered the Germanic world. They destroyed Rome's military which had become alot weaker. Then after that the Germans who had become more civilized conquered western Rome and created kingdoms and even attempted to make new Rome's this is where the medieval age comes from. Rome in 300ad was very different than Rome in 50bc.
> ...
> The Barbaric invasions where also a big part. Also every nation as to fall at some point. u should just look up fall of Rome it will probably give very good historical reasons.


That is not the cause but the consequence. The Huns and Germanic tribes only sought to live in the Roman empire because they lacked food. They only succeeded because the Romans also lacked food, which led to internal revolts.

----------


## Maciamo

Another major reason is the change of perception of patriotism, and the gradual disappearance of patriotic self-sacrifice and military discipline. In the thread How did the ancient Romans turn into Italians ?, I pointed out that the character of the ancient Romans (of the Republic) was diametrically opposite to that of modern Italians in some regards. 

In his book The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, the American political scientist Edward Banfield employed the phrase '*amoral familism*' to describe the inability of modern (mostly southern) Italian villagers to 'act together for the common good, or indeed for any good transcending the immediate material interest of the family'. Interestingly this complete lack of attachment to the state and lack of identification to the wider community is found nowadays in societies that I would qualify of '*short-ranged collectivist*' (in which the collectivity is the family or village) of the Balkans and southern Italy, as opposed to the 'wide-range collectivism' (where the collectivity is the whole nation) of East Asia.

The ancient Romans of the republic were wide-range collectivists, true patriots dedicated to the common good of their state. I believe that the citizens of the empire progressively lost their patriotism for the following reasons:

- The empire became a huge cosmopolitan entity with which individuals couldn't identify anymore. *The state became too distant and artificial*. 

- The original Romans of the republic could feel like one big family with a common ancestry and homeland. Once the empire grew, immigration completely changed the ethnic landscape of Rome and of Italy. *Rome stopped being ethnically Roman.*

- *Solidarity works best for states with a homogeneous ethnicity.* Immigration to Western Europe since the 1950's has shown that citizens become increasingly reluctant to show social solidarity when ethnically and culturally different immigrants become the main beneficiary. The Romans would have felt the same way. It is one thing to fight for the _patria_, your ancestors' homeland, but quite another to fight for the protection of completely unrelated people in distant corners of the empire. As Italy became more of an ethnic mosaic, parochialism and familism rose to the detriment of patriotism.

----------


## Fire Haired

those are some very good points. i think the main reason the Roman ethnic identity disappeared is immigration by other Italians. I think u explained in many ways why Rome fell apart within which caused them to loose in wars. It will probably be impossible to figure out exactly the reasons Rome fell apart it is probably very complicated. The main part may be that they where not a a little city state in central Italy fighting off Other Italics, Estrucans and Celts. They where not as united and did not have the same ethnic back round anymore.

The Romans who where so proud of their military from what i know they only let Romans or Italians in their military or high ranks of any type. Many Romans where angry when Hadrian who was born in Spain became emperor even though he was a proud Roman and both his parents where born in Rome and this was in the end of the 1 century ad. from 200ad-400ad the western roman empire had mainly non Roman or even Italian emperors i cant believe they allowed that it shows how much Rome changed. There where so many Germans in their military later on that is like insulting the biggest part of Roman pride. I think by the 400-500's most of Romes military leaders maybe even soldiers where Germans i wonder if Romans where seen at that point as weaklings early Romans would in no way accept that.

Wherent the Romans at first very against Greek influence because it was all fancy and sinful. I read some stuff on Cato the elder he was so strict, tough, and hateful towards Greeks. He fought and had battle wounds from war with Hannibal when he was only 16-17 that is one of the most deadly and known wars in human history he was tough. It seems he says a real Roman is a simple farmer that makes me think Rome still knew who they where before Greek influence. Those idea of a real Roman may go back to Villnoaven culture and early Italic tribes. Traditional Romans where not suppose to be such a luxouris civilization. 

Cato the elder a real Roman

----------


## Boss

> *Wherent the Romans at first very against Greek influence* because it was all fancy and sinful. I read some stuff on Cato the elder he was so strict, tough, and hateful towards Greeks. He fought and had battle wounds from war with Hannibal when he was only 16-17 that is one of the most deadly and known wars in human history he was tough. It seems he says a real Roman is a simple farmer that makes me think Rome still knew who they where before Greek influence. Those idea of a real Roman may go back to Villnoaven culture and early Italic tribes. Traditional Romans where not suppose to be such a luxouris civilization. 
> 
> Cato the elder a real Roman


There was no collective attitude of *the* Romans towards Eastern influence. Some like Cato despised it. Others like Scipio, loved it. I am not sure whether Cato represented what the majority of the Roman elite thought at any time but his traditionalist faction ofc lost which means that he must have been in a minority or at the very least, in a weaker position. But why is Cato a "real" Roman? 

On another note, the author Maciamo cited also describes reasonably well the situation in Greece. Given the connection between Greece and Italy, I wonder whether there's a deeper cultural factor involved (I say deeper 'cos modern Greece and modern Italy have been developing in a different way for nearly a thousand years or so and therefore I do not think any modern/early modern reason should obviously exist to account for that cultural similarity). In any case, it is not very surprising as far as I am concerned.

----------


## Nobody1

Pre-Roman Italy was just as diverse as Roman Italy;
and no Celtic slave or Hellenic Anatolian Immigrant could greatly alter the already existing diversity any further;

----------


## Fire Haired

> There was no collective attitude of *the* Romans towards Eastern influence. Some like Cato despised it. Others like Scipio, loved it. I am not sure whether Cato represented what the majority of the Roman elite thought at any time but his traditionalist faction ofc lost which means that he must have been in a minority or at the very least, in a weaker position. But why is Cato a "real" Roman? 
> 
> On another note, the author Maciamo cited also describes reasonably well the situation in Greece. Given the connection between Greece and Italy, I wonder whether there's a deeper cultural factor involved (I say deeper 'cos modern Greece and modern Italy have been developing in a different way for nearly a thousand years or so and therefore I do not think any modern/early modern reason should obviously exist to account for that cultural similarity). In any case, it is not very surprising as far as I am concerned.


Cato believed in traditional Roman laws and life style. The Greeks had been influencing Italic tribes before Rome even existed in 900bc. Cato and other Roman writers mentioned real Roman traditions that had been passed down. Romans did try to life by their old traditions Romans military strength is based on their military tradition. Rome used to be a little city that had to defeat all the other people in Italy and war was very important to them.

older Romans would have had that attitude towards Greek influence or just Mediterranean civilized influence. Some Roman writer idealized Germanic tribes because they where less civilized and more like a old fashioned Roman for example they cared about sexual sins unlike Greeks and modern Rome. Julies Caesar said that Gauls in the past where tougher fighters because they where less civilized and not indulged in luxuries.

----------


## Fire Haired

> Pre-Roman Italy was just as diverse as Roman Italy;
> and no Celtic slave or Hellenic Anatolian Immigrant could greatly alter the already existing diversity any further;


Roman Italy genetically was just like modern Italy. But at somepoint passed 1,000bc in italy there was tons of mid eastern inter marraige. It is higher the more south u go into Italy. It is in Aust DNA which tells ur full ancestry i looked at the globe13 test Italy and Greece are way way way way higher than the rest of Europe total on average they have about 32-37% mid eastern aust DNA. Also J1 and J2 in Europe are centered in Italy and Greece both west Asian mid eastern haplogroups. I know it was not Neolithic because why is it centered in Greece and Italy obviously they where the only are's with civilization in Europe till the 300-400's and where connected to civilizations in the middle east. Plus it gets higher the more south u go it got to Italy through the Mediterranean the people they inter married with came from around Syria and Iraq.

So a pretty big portion of Italians ancestry mainly south Italians came in greco Roman age from mid east this could explain why traditionally south Italians are seen as darker skinned than north Italians(it is what i have herd real Italian people say). Also it seems there was a north European influence in aust DNA right before the mid eastern Influnce. It almost defintley came with the Italic language because it migrated from the alps., Austria, south Germany, south france area about 3,200-3,000ybp from very very very very early Iron workers.

Italians before Italic influence before civilization influence would have been genetically identical to Sardine people who in my opinon are the last true Neolithic Europeans and are Neolithic Italian. They have been genetically isolated in that island for over 5,000 years they are the closest living relatives to Otzie the iceman a guy who died in alps Italy 5,300ybp. The G2a farmers that migrated acroos Europe from 10,000-6,000ybp brought a aust DNA group most tests call Mediterranean. Before that all Europeans probably would have had north euro so before 10,000ybp that is what Italians would have had but in the Neolithic they would be like 100% med.

i know tons of people went through Italy since Roman times but that does not mean they left a genetic mark.

----------


## Nobody1

I agree; 
the Near East influx most likely comes from the Roman Times; 

---

I agree; 
Sardines are the benchmark for Neolithic admixture; 
Bronze-age Sardines cluster closest to/with ancient pre-Indo-European Minoans and 
so does Modern-day Sardines with Neolithic _Ötzi_;

_Hughey et al 2013_ - Minoans
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal...comms2871.html

---


Modern day Italians are genetically (_haplogroups and admixture_) *diverse* from each other;
_with Sardines clustering in a world of their own_


_DiGaetano et al 2012
_http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0043759


*Figure 2.* SNP-Based PC of 1,014 individuals from the Italian dataset. 
_A._ A Scatter Plot of the Italian population of the first two principal components obtained via R software (_prcomp_). 
Individuals included belong to:*
Northern Italy*: black dots / *Central Italy*: red dots* / Southern Italy*: green dots / *Sardinian*: blue dots. 
_B._ Italian population without the Sardinian-projected scatter plot of the first two principal components obtained via the R software (_prcomp_) 


_Nelis et al 2009_
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0005472





It is proven that Italians didnt greatly inter-mix with each other - over the last 1,500 years 
(_end of Roman Empire_)

_Coop & Ralph et al 2013_ 
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1001555

_Spain and Portugal showing very few common ancestors with other populations over the last 2,500 years. However, the rate of IBD sharing within the peninsula is much higher than within Italy—during the last 1,500 years the Iberian peninsula shares fewer than two genetic common ancestors with other populations, compared to roughly 30 per pair within the peninsula; Italians share on average only about eight with each other during this period._

----------


## Nobody1

Now if thats the case --- and that is the case; 

than Pre-Roman Italy - Roman Italy - Post-Roman Italy ---- was always diverse from eachother; 
as Historically and Archaeologically attested


with Post-Roman Italy (especially the South) being more Near East than before;


*Botigué et al 2013*

----------


## Boss

> Cato believed in traditional Roman laws and life style. The Greeks had been influencing Italic tribes before Rome even existed in 900bc. Cato and other Roman writers mentioned real Roman traditions that had been passed down. Romans did try to life by their old traditions Romans military strength is based on their military tradition. Rome used to be a little city that had to defeat all the other people in Italy and war was very important to them.
> 
> older Romans would have had that attitude towards Greek influence or just Mediterranean civilized influence. Some Roman writer idealized Germanic tribes because they where less civilized and more like a old fashioned Roman for example they cared about sexual sins unlike Greeks and modern Rome. Julies Caesar said that Gauls in the past where tougher fighters because they where less civilized and not indulged in luxuries.


I know what Cato believed. My problem is that according to this view, Scipio Africanus (a so-called "philhellene" and Cato's political adversary) who was in many respects the exemplary Roman and did far more for Rome than Cato in terms of war, political activity and so on, wasn't a "real" Roman. I'm mentioning Scipio but you can add Titus Flamininus to say nothing of Marcus Aurelius or Hadrian. If these people are considered less "Roman" than Cato and his friends then I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be.

If by "older Romans" you're referring to Tacitus, he was first of all not an older Roman at all - he was writing when Rome and Roman culture in general were already thoroughly "bastardised" (around 100 *AD*). If you meant by "older" as in holding that imaginary set of "older" Roman values, I don't really know tbh. 

Second, I do not have the text with me but Tacitus also wrote very negatively of what he thought was the Germanic addiction to gambling and drinking. I know all about his views on chastity but the whole picture Tacitus painted of Germanics is not particularly flattering and it is the whole picture that I am interested in. I do agree though (so I am not saying this to disagree with you, just to be more exact on what Tacitus believed) that in some respects he thought Germanic tribes were untainted by the corrupting influences of luxury and comforts (just like the early Latins).

----------


## zanipolo

> I agree; 
> the Near East influx most likely comes from the Roman Times; 
> 
> ---
> 
> I agree; 
> Sardines are the benchmark for Neolithic admixture; 
> Bronze-age Sardines cluster closest to/with ancient pre-Indo-European Minoans and 
> so does Modern-day Sardines with Neolithic _Ötzi_;
> ...


Italians never intermixed, they always saw themselves as different from each other. If it was not for Napoleon bringing down all the Italian states, there would have never been an italy. He ruined many nations/states. Turned all of Europe into nations of monarchs which led to the first world war.

Ancient Romans affiliated more closely with southerners instead of northers because the Northerners where classified as gallic people

----------


## Vallicanus

> Italians never intermixed, they always saw themselves as different from each other. If it was not for Napoleon bringing down all the Italian states, there would have never been an italy. He ruined many nations/states. Turned all of Europe into nations of monarchs which led to the first world war.
> 
> Ancient Romans affiliated more closely with southerners instead of northers because the Northerners where classified as gallic people


Roman skulls were closer to Etruscan skulls from central Italy than to Samnite skulls from the south.

Source: Rivista di Antropologia Volume LVI (1969).

----------


## Maciamo

> Pre-Roman Italy was just as diverse as Roman Italy;
> and no Celtic slave or Hellenic Anatolian Immigrant could greatly alter the already existing diversity any further;


Have you read my new article on the Genetic history of the Italians ?

----------


## zanipolo

> Roman skulls were closer to Etruscan skulls from central Italy  than to Samnite skulls from the south.
> 
> Source: Rivista di Antropologia Volume LVI (1969).


Because some historians state the romans branched out of a southern etruscan tribe

----------


## Fire Haired

the genetic history of Italy thing freaking awesome. All of the genetic parts of this website explain things in such a truthful and interesting way that relates to history wikpedia does not. I mean it really tells the history of Europe like with the migration maps. Please keep making more articles.

I really think u should do that for every country or region of Europe. Also maybe dont just do Y DNA's because that is not complete ancestry maybe also mention aust. DNA and mtDNA. Italians have a signficant amount of mid eastern only Greeks and sotheast Europeans have. Aust DNA shows that in the gobe 13 test 30-40% of their aust DNA is mid eastern.

this is my opinion on aust dna origin in Europe but specifically Italy in the globe13 test
_Paloithic and Mesloithic_

North Euro ancestor form came at some time in the Paleolithic age probably in between 30,000-55,000ybp through the caucus mountains or Anatolia was probably the only aust DNa group in Mesolithic and Paleolithic europe other could have existed but died out it aslo may be connected with Y DNa I and last glacial maximum migrations that repopulated europe. Defines being European aka family all Europeans trace back too. U can go on and say how it is related to other aust DNa like it iis in the Caucasin family which consts of South west asian- meditreaen and west asian - north euro also that west asian and north euro are very realted brothers west asian may repsent y dna J.

_Neloithic_

brought aust DNA med which was over 59% in two early pre Indo European farmers in Europe. Med was spread in Neolithic age and sardine have 71% which means they are probably very Neolithic and have been isolated genetically. 
Neloithci age also brought most of Europea's west asian and southwest asian but in Italy it is much higher and higher the more south u go most liley mainly came in Greco roman age.

_Bronze and Iron age_

Indo Europeans migrating out of the steppes most likley had over 70% paloithic north euro. Just like modern non slavic populations in that area. they have mainly brown eyes just like remains from yamna cuture they speak a urlaic language and i am pretty sure yamna was conquered by uralics at somepoint so they are possible decendnts. Also yamna where european population based on skin color and other DNA tests so basically i think that means they where full of north euro for example like udmurts. 

proto Germanic italo Celts made their way to western Europe from the steppe by 5,000-4,500ybp. Italo celts settle in Unetice culture then around austira ara Celts spread Italics form in the alps with urnfield culture become early Iron workers then conquer Italy from 3,200-2,800ybp. Most likley increased the amount of north euro in Italy which could explain why they have more than Sardine.

_Greco Roman civilized age or u can include it with iron and bronze age_

Italic tribes become connected with the civilized world in the meditreaen become Hellenized by Greeks. This puts them in connected with people from around syria and iraq. Which explains why west asian nd southwest asian is centered around italy and greece and why southern areas who also have high amunt of Y DNA J have the most. a very signifcant 30-40% in Italians according to globe13 test have west asian and southwest asian. based on percentages it most likey came from iraq syria area.

----------


## zanipolo

> Have you read my new article on the Genetic history of the Italians ?


Where it says at the bottom of your linked post about I, L and K*, most modern tests always place at least an idea of what definitely it was not by using a x in the bracket followed by a letter, at least this indicates they have done some testing.

Also, I note 15% of T in ibiza, followed by 18% of the latest G-L497( that I posted ) from ibiza, clearly indicates very ancient migrations

----------


## nordicwarrior

Autosomal distributions, haplogroup progressions, and the resulting phenotype values of what are now modern day Italy and Spain can all be neatly summed up by watching a few episodes of "Welcome Back, Kotter" from the 70's. Thank you and goodnight!

----------


## Fire Haired

> Autosomal distributions, haplogroup progressions, and the resulting phenotype values of what are now modern day Italy and Spain can all be neatly summed up by watching a few episodes of "Welcome Back, Kotter" from the 70's. Thank you and goodnight!


if ur talking about me i never mentioned Spain. I said south Italians are traditionally darker than north Italians because they have more Y DNA J, west Asian and southwest Asian in aust dna tests, and are closer to the Mediterranean. So better chance of inter marraige with mid easterns in greco roman age.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Wasn't singling you out F.H., only trying to impart some humor in what can be a dry subject. Your ideas here actually pan out when looking at a map so I don't have any problems with them. Now watch some old sit-coms from the golden age of T.V. and lighten up a tad.

----------


## Fire Haired

okay i will

----------


## Nobody1

> Have you read my new article on the Genetic history of the Italians ?

----------


## Nobody1

> Roman skulls were closer to Etruscan skulls from central Italy than to Samnite skulls from the south.
> 
> Source: Rivista di Antropologia Volume LVI (1969).


*Charles Loring Brace* - The Races of the Old World (1863)
_The common Roman type, still seen among the peasantry, according to Dr. Wiseman, is a large, flat head, a low wide forehead, a face broad and square, short thick neck, and a short broad figure, such as is found in many of the antique representations of the Roman soldier._ 


*Latium* (_Central Italy_) - *Alpinoid* - [_Rassengeschichte der Menschheit_]


*Marche* (_Central Italy_) -* Dinaric* - [_Rassengeschichte der Menschheit_]



---

Etruscans were a mix of Indo-European _Italics_ and non-Indo-European _Pelasgians_; to begin with
Both in Etruscan as well as Roman cemeteries - 
there are _Brachycephalic_ and _Dolichocephalic_ types; 
clearly displaying the internal (un-mixed) diversity; 


where as in the Po Valley (Ligurians - Umbrians) display a 
uniformed (inter-mixed) _Brachycephalic_ Alpinoid type;

*Anthropological Society of London* - Anthropological review: Vol.V (1867)
_when I look upon the delineations of the crania, the photographs and the figures given by M. Nicolucci himself, it appears to me that the difference between Ligurians and Umbrians, is about equal to the differences between Allemands and Germans._

----------


## Nobody1

Only _The Sopranos_ rule ! Best TV show ever ! all the rest than go eff themselves;



*RIP* James Gandolfini


even this is better than Kotter.......

----------


## Fire Haired

Nobody 1 i doubt we know if the romans had a specfic skull type or body type. they where caucasins which is any one in europe, mid est, and north africa south asians also have caucasin skull tye, facial features, hair texture, and body hair but they are not caucasin by dna. Romans where orignally afamily in one city whoo where from italic tribes they where just plain italian not any diff from other italians. they where also european i doubt they had any diff skull shapes or whatever from europeans or other caucasins. but i have noticed Italian look which repents ancient roman art but i dont know doubt there is any connection

----------


## giuseppe rossi

> Roman skulls were closer to Etruscan skulls from central Italy than to Samnite skulls from the south.
> 
> Source: Rivista di Antropologia Volume LVI (1969).


Etruscans had many colonies also in Campania and Samnites were Central Italians from Abruzzo who briefly occupied parts of Campania.

----------

