Live data from Hacker News

The last Romans are still around

signoregalilei.com

111–120 of 245 posts

Re: The last Romans are still around

#111
I think even in the Roman times anyone could be "Roman". The way I understand it being Roman was not a measure of your ethnicity but a measure of your devotion to the empire.

Rome was an extremely militaristic society so they needed soldiers and what I understand is that your status in the military largely dictated your status in society. They requited soldiers from all of their empire thus all backgrounds within (late period).

Re: The last Romans are still around

#112

This is strictly about linguistic similarity and not genetic similarity. On a genetic map, a PCA plot, Romans and Romanians simply don't overlap. Romanians cluster with their Balkan neighbors, (1) on account of massive Slavic migration from around the 7th century AD, and (2) on account of strong historical and genetic evidence to suggest that the Roman colonists sent to Dacia were largely recruited from neighboring B…

> Genetically, the nearest populations to Ancient Romans are Cypriots

I’ve often wondered what the ethnicity of ancient Romans actually was. Looking at pictures of Greek Cypriots on google was enlightening. The “Roman nose” is quite prominent for many people!

Re: The last Romans are still around

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every modern law system has its roots in Roman one.

Also lb for Pounds come directly from Rome And pre decimalisation. In the UK Pence was shortened to 'd' which I understood to refer to the Roman Dinari.

It's denarii, barbar.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#114
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are whatever, British ethnicity is a thing though

Ethnicity is hard to define and a term that spurs a lot of debate. Therefore I think it is best avoided in serious discussion. For America (and in extension the american continent) it is quite clear who is ethnically native, actually it is probably one of the clearest examples there is partly because it is near in history. And already it gets messy when you dig deeper because of limited record keeping etc. Broadly in…

You seem to be taking ethnicity pretty serious for a guy who says it should be avoided in serious debate.

Ethnicity is entirely arbitrary, that's why it should be avoided.

For example, the genetic line of what your calling the clearly Native Americans traces back to Asia. You've arbitrarily decided that their ethnicity is defined at a certain time in their lineage. Ehy aren't they Asians or even Africans?

There is culture that you can tie to a group of people at a certain time and that group frequently has similar lineage. That's usually what people mean by ethnicity. They're using physical characteristics due to lineage that is associated with a culture and they call that ethnicity.

In this context of of Romans, there is really no ethnicity that should map to the cultural identity of "Ancient Roman" as the empire had many subjects across it's empire.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#115
post #65
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Senatus Populus ... Que Romani! The senate and people of Rome. Italy, per se, is a modern construct but the capital is still Rome and I think it fair to draw associations to the old empire. I love seeing the SPQR logo and I think it is a really useful link to the past.

Fun fact: The -gh endings of many English words share a proto–Indo European root with that enclitic¹ -que in Senatus Populusque Romani. I remember being skeptical of this when I first heard it assuming that the person was arguing for a shared Latin heritage until I dug in and discovered that it actually went back to PIE.² ⸻ 1. For the non-linguists here, an enclitic is a suffix added to a word that either functions a…

This piqued my interest with the -gh endings, so I did a little investigation. What I found wasn't "many", apparently the only really attested example in Modern English is "through" and pretty much every other instance has died out. With a side note that the -kWe ending, also became "hw-" prefixes in English question words and possibly also the ge- prefix on collective nouns (also long since lost in English, but still present in German) which no survives only in the "i" in "handiwork", originally "hand geworc".

Of course, I only did a cursory examination, so there might be other examples not mentioned in the articles I found, but that's what I learned in about half an hour. Still, very cool fun fact, thanks!

Re: The last Romans are still around

#116

This is strictly about linguistic similarity and not genetic similarity. On a genetic map, a PCA plot, Romans and Romanians simply don't overlap. Romanians cluster with their Balkan neighbors, (1) on account of massive Slavic migration from around the 7th century AD, and (2) on account of strong historical and genetic evidence to suggest that the Roman colonists sent to Dacia were largely recruited from neighboring B…

Why is genetics more important than any other tie to the Roman empire?

It isn't, but OP doesn't say it is either. I think it's a worthwhile point to make that exceedingly few nations, cultures, ethnicites etc. correspond cleanly to equivalent groups that existed ~2000 years ago.

Identity-building projects need simple stories, genetics (or history generally) rarely gives them.

Re: The last Romans are still around

#117
post #63

My name is Roman (father was Italian born in Rome and identifies as a Roman) and I always find it interesting that people try to speak something that sounds like Russian to me. Never thought about the fact they might think I’m Romanian and are speaking Romanian!

Romanian sounds like Latin, not like Russian :)

Re: The last Romans are still around

#119
post #107
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither Holy nor Roman nor an empire

Voltaire gets quoted so often without ever mentioning that the German word "Reich" has a different meaning than the loose translation "empire". A "Reich" is not necessarily an empire, so no news here.

[deleted]

Re: The last Romans are still around

#120

This is strictly about linguistic similarity and not genetic similarity. On a genetic map, a PCA plot, Romans and Romanians simply don't overlap. Romanians cluster with their Balkan neighbors, (1) on account of massive Slavic migration from around the 7th century AD, and (2) on account of strong historical and genetic evidence to suggest that the Roman colonists sent to Dacia were largely recruited from neighboring B…

"On a genetic map, a PCA plot, Romans and Romanians simply don't overlap"

Can you help me understand how do I look for Romans on a PCA map? For contemporary nations I think I can manage but for Romans I don't

Post reply on HN