What do Italians think of Romans?

Also, do you guys see yourselves as the continuation of their civilization, or something different, that came after their fall?

Attached: 1132-lec13-1536x865.jpg (1536x865, 437K)

Far worse than that, they believe they're whites.

my ancestors :)

sneaky wh*te subhuman in netherlands

romans nowadays are all a bunch of lazy motherfuckers who speak an annoying dialect

are you genetically close to them though?

Are you retarded though?

Ancient Romans were Nordic so in a sense, I guess you could say that us Nords have to carry on the legacy of Roma.

my ancestors fought the romans, then they were romans themselves.

For mine it was the opposite, they were the Romans ( the REAL romans, emperors and so on) and they fought the people who would later become romans ( modern day italians).

Sometimes we like to play the game of muh ancestors, but a lot less of what french or brits would have done if the empire originated there.
In reality our real forefathers are the middle ages.
"genetically" is a Jow Forums meme, but mostly yes, we are the descendants mixed with some invaders after the fall, mostly germanic lol.
The substrate remained the original celtic-latins in the north and greek-latin in the south.
Even latin anyway is just a name, all those populations were latinized at some time, like etruscans.

there's no ancient Roman DNA available yet, but all the evidence points to strong level of continuity when you look at nearby areas where DNA is available, as well as ancient DNA from pre-Roman Italy and Y-DNA/mtDNA structure in Italy
you won't find a single professional geneticist saying anything less than Italian genetic structure essentially dates to the iron age more or less, bar perhaps some exceptions at the extremes

The "original and real" romans were just a tiny part of the italian peninsula, pic related. The rest of the peninsula just got romanized like the rest of the mediteranean world.

By the time the Roman empire existed and when Rome had 1 million people, the OG romans were already nonexistent/an extremly tiny minority of few families that could trace their origins to the original romans.
Then rome went from 1 million to 50,000 people, so...

Debating if modern day italian are "roman" or not is just extremly stupid. They never were roman in the first place, they were for the majority of them etruscans, umbrians, greeks, italiots etc. And even etruscans were actually just estrucanized native that got etruscanned by some anatolian people.

Attached: 2000px-Italy_400bC_en.svg.png (2000x2383, 458K)

it's both, the whole risorgimento movement that led to the creation of Italy, as the name itself hints, was based essentially on the resurgence of Roman Italy as a political entity as advocated/wished by various medieval personalities anyway

How would you define "roman dna"? What's even a "roman"? The dark red part? The red? Orange? Yellow? Green?

It's very arbitrary.

Attached: 2470.png (1100x1200, 111K)

"Romans" themselves were a mix of one of the very similar Italic tribes that populated the majority of the peninsula by that time(including in likelihood Etruscans), they weren't some special snowflake foreigners that conquered foreigners. It's like saying the French have nothing to do with France since the original Franks that founded the kingdom probably don't exist anymore as a single group.

We are all romans for we live in a roman world. The USA is a legit sucessor of Rome.

The original Romans were literally rabble, Rome in its early days was known for taking in people(men) that other places didn't want, for fucks sake their "nobility" were overwhelmingly Etruscan after all.

"Roman" ~= iron age Italic, bar few areas like the extreme south
if we assume the varied genetic structure of modern Italy reflects diversity present already in iron age Italy, which is likely, then I would say "Romans" probably clustered similarly to Tuscans DNA-wise

I don't see why would you assume they cluster similar to the tuscans and not to the romans

mostly because of possible southern influences in Latium since those days as well as perhaps higher Etrurian presence back in the day, but central Italians cluster so closely to Tuscans that the difference is super small anyway

Attached: Italyy.jpg (1200x672, 79K)

Look a "bridge" that still stands.

>Then rome went from 1 million to 50,000 people, so...

This is why the Roman Empire failed. They had a huge population explosion of "foreigners" that didn't really care if Rome crashed (like we will see soon in the western world again).

It's like if you... move to China... you won't REALLY care if China crashes. You will just move. Only the native population can prevent a civilization from being destroyed.

They're cool.
>continuation
Not in terms of civilization, as it's an ancient civilization you study alongside ancient Greece at school. We *know* we're the same bunch of people that inhabited the peninsula, but it's evident that our daily lives and identity is more influenced by the days of the city states, the duchies and the communes prior the unification.

Caesar looked like an italian mobster in an American movie.

You're just linking the two things because nowadays the US is the egemonic power in the West. Rome still exists, it went beyond the definition of "empire", it has no "citizens" but "members" (around a billion and half).

romans cluster exactly where would you expect them though, between tuscany and the south. or is it unexpected?

more like north-center I would say, which is also how the peninsula is generally split genetically, considering Italic speakers ultimately entered and settled from the north-east of Italy, and considering again the Etruscan impact, those are the little elements one can work on
south was always more Greek/non-Indo-Euro for obvious geographic reasons

I don't really understand the trouble in sequencing some ancient DNA from Italy, there's so little available to draw conclusions, there's like at best 15 ancient samples available and they are mostly too old, with youngest being like 3 bell beakers from Parma and 2 poor quality ones from Sicily, all from around 2000BC

meanwhile, by the end of this year, Iberia will probably reach 400 samples
hell, there is even a full skull that has been attributed to Pliny the Elder yet nobody has done anything about it, would be quite interesting

Umbrian-Samnites and Latins were the same group, just divided by history and then remerged. The "celts" in that map are a meme. There were some tribes there but they were a minority, Ligurians, Veneti, Liceni and Raethi were not Celts.
In Tuscany they are obv more Etruscan than Latin by blood, same similar people that mixed a lot.
Most of the Italian nobles of the middle ages had written their whole three and they were direct descenders of some patrician or equites families.

>Look a "bridge" that still stands.
It's in France, that's why.

>iron age Italic
What? What's this ''''''italic'''''' DNA?

DNA of the people who spoke some Italic language(Latin, Venetic, Umbrian, etc...) in the iron age and/or were part of archeological cultures associated with them
more broadly including also seemingly non-IE speakers like Etruscans

>Talks about Italian
>Posts a French aqueduc