PDA

View Full Version : Mediterrenean Rome?


RedEgosyntonicSun
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 09:47 PM
The Roman Empire wasn't Med only.
Point us an Empire that belongs to one and only subracial type?!

Scoob
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 09:50 PM
Obviously I know that, but it was started by meds and the meds basically kept it alive and running, granted they did incorporate other peoples into it.
Lots of upper class Roman statues I've seen look very Alpine, including Julius Caesar. Others look more Med - and the type depicted in fresco paintings is usually quite Med. Maybe they were Med-Alpine with a Med aesthetic ideal?

RedEgosyntonicSun
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 09:55 PM
Where's the proof of that?
In the books.
In Rome and Italy also.

cosmocreator
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 09:55 PM
Lots of upper class Roman statues I've seen look very Alpine, including Julius Caesar. Others look more Med - and the type depicted in fresco paintings is usually quite Med. Maybe they were Med-Alpine with a Med aesthetic ideal?


I don't see how these small, short, small brained Southern Meds could build an Empire on their own.

Awar
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 10:14 PM
Julius Caesar and a lot of other Romans looked Dinaric ( sort of ).
Nero was probably more of an Alpine.

Frans_Jozef
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 10:16 PM
I don't see how these small, short, small brained Southern Meds could build an Empire on their own.

Southern Mediterreneans are Saharid, the Mediterrenean population in Italy was mostly Atlanto-mediterrenean and in some parts(Liguria, etc...) and in the pile dwellings more Danubian.
Between Etruscans and Romans were also differences in which I suspect that they contained a Med.strain that points to an older mesolithic but native stock, while Etruscans are more refined but cling closer to their Near Eastern cousins.

Awar
Monday, May 3rd, 2004, 10:18 PM
I don't see how these small, short, small brained Southern Meds could build an Empire on their own.

Well, all the proof of their 'superiority' can be found in the fertile crescent.
These neolithic types built the foundation of what we know as civilization.

In any case, Neanderthals had much larger brains than any modern humans, but that didn't work for them. :)

nemo
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 01:50 AM
I don't see how these small, short, small brained Southern Meds could build an Empire on their own.

The Romans(Italians) were not small and short, why don't you educate yourself and read about the greatness of the Romans(Italians) instead of making ignorant statments and proving to everyone how ignorant you really are.

Scoob
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 02:11 AM
The Romans(Italians) were not small and short, why don't you educate yourself and read about the greatness of the Romans(Italians) instead of making ignorant statments and proving to everyone how ignorant you really are.
Body proportions of Roman statues ("Classical Canon") are what I'd expect to see on someone 5'5" - 5'9" at most on a man. I'm not sure about this, but I think the Greeks and Romans weren't very big people - they'd look "short" walking around in the USA.

Northern Europeans have different proportions, since they are more adapted to hunting big animals in the cold north. Most animals in the ice ages were big and beefed-up. Of course many modern Italians and Greeks here in the USA get quite big at times with an American (Anglo-Saxon influenced) diet heavy in meat and dairy - quite unlike the Mediterranean diet.

Smaller, gracile people make better city dwellers. Big, muscular people require bigger chairs, bigger doors, more food, usually want more personal space, etc etc. Compare Siberian huskies with domestic house dogs for a good analogy.

I'd love to see neurological studies on human variation in various mental processes.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 04:55 AM
Southern Mediterreneans are Saharid, the Mediterrenean population in Italy was mostly Atlanto-mediterrenean and in some parts(Liguria, etc...) and in the pile dwellings more Danubian.
Between Etruscans and Romans were also differences in which I suspect that they contained a Med.strain that points to an older mesolithic but native stock, while Etruscans are more refined but cling closer to their Near Eastern cousins.


I was talking about these guys:

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=54855&postcount=27

They are Southern European, not North African I believe.

Gesta Bellica
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Southern Mediterreneans are Saharid, the Mediterrenean population in Italy was mostly Atlanto-mediterrenean and in some parts(Liguria, etc...) and in the pile dwellings more Danubian.
Between Etruscans and Romans were also differences in which I suspect that they contained a Med.strain that points to an older mesolithic but native stock, while Etruscans are more refined but cling closer to their Near Eastern cousins.

Still u can find many Southern Italians that don't look like Saharid at all, and this si not totally related with the post-roman influx..a they had a quite significative gene flow from Greece in ancient times for example.

The supposed Mediterranean subrace is far from being homogeneous, as it's probably a mix between mesolithic settlers and various waves of indo-europeans immigrants.
To claim that the ancient Romans were substantially very different from the actual Italians it's an hazard, we didn't have mass migrations after the fall of the Roman Empire.
If we exclude Lombards ans Ostorgoths all the other landlords didn't settle here but just send some armies or attendants in order to control their dominions.

goidelicwarrior
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 09:51 AM
Still u can find many Southern Italians that don't look like Saharid at all, and this si not totally related with the post-roman influx..a they had a quite significative gene flow from Greece in ancient times for example.

The supposed Mediterranean subrace is far from being homogeneous, as it's probably a mix between mesolithic settlers and various waves of indo-europeans immigrants.
To claim that the ancient Romans were substantially very different from the actual Italians it's an hazard, we didn't have mass migrations after the fall of the Roman Empire.
If we exclude Lombards ans Ostorgoths all the other landlords didn't settle here but just send some armies or attendants in order to control their dominions.
Gesta Bellica... very well described.. Rome have set the standard for the whole western civilization.. and apparently there are many who are envious... as stated before, its obvious that " Meds " arent a homogeneous group..this fact doesent however seem to "sink in" with some memebers here... The Romans where off course a fusion betwen the Indo European Latini tribe and Etruscan, so there would have existed wholly Nordic types, Alpine Types, Med types e.t.c. btw... the busts of greek and Roman faces and bodies are also the perfect harmony of a white western man.. very simple..

cosmocreator
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 11:37 AM
The reason I mention stature is because Rome expanded by force. I don't think, a short, gracile Med would be able to build a empire by force by themselves.

Awar
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 11:54 AM
Here's much info about longevity and height of peoples through history.

Graeme
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 01:21 PM
People of the time of Coon's pictorial examples were a lot smaller than today; that was about 70 years ago when someone of 170 cm was described as being tall. Now we are referring to the ancient Romans, the people of the Latin states, the Etruscans and so on of over 2000 years ago. Of course they were short by modern standards and probably narrow chested as well. And I am sure the "tall" people of the Keltic and Germanic North would be considered both puny and stunted by today's standards. The Roman legends of the creation of the Roman State says that Romulus gathered all the rabble to provide the town with inhabitants. Why would they be any more homogenous than the populations of any country whether Russian Federation, Denmark or France.

nemo
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004, 01:59 PM
What the hell makes the difference if the Romans or Greeks were 5'5 or 6'5, their accomplishments and cultures were the greatest of their time then any other european tribes of that time, they introduced a culture to the the european continent which still today still has a big influence on the world today.

A mans height has nothing to do with his intelligents, his brain does, I will take a 5ft intelligent and social stable man any time over some 6ft social misfit drunk.

the height of a populace whether 5' or 6' has nothing to do with the intellectual ability of that populace.

Get out of your 18th centry frame of mine which is composed of ignorance and it does not work any more in the 21st centry, you can't change history by trying to discredit the great accomplishments of people because your to jealous to accept it.

Bringing up data that was written by people like coon and his elk prove nothing, their opinions were narrow minded and bigoted, and were based on their own perceptions.

Euclides
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004, 12:40 AM
To claim that the ancient Romans were substantially very different from the actual Italians it's an hazard, we didn't have mass migrations after the fall of the Roman Empire.
If we exclude Lombards ans Ostorgoths all the other landlords didn't settle here but just send some armies or attendants in order to control their dominions.


Many actual Italians and their descents are very similar to ancient Romans...

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=4924

Strengthandhonour
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004, 12:43 AM
I don't really believe the Roman empire was 100% med, But I Believe that the majority of Roman citizens(and I mean REAL romans, Not the ones that became mixed throughout Europe,northern Africa,etc) where Meds. Most Meds aren't very tall, that is true, In fact, I tried to find this sketches I had on my computer about why romans had smaller horses than most other people in the world at that time.
Either way, I believe that the Romans of the past probably resemble the cental Italians of today and the non-saharan looking Southern Italians.

Scoob
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004, 12:57 AM
I don't really believe the Roman empire was 100% med, But I Believe that the majority of Roman citizens(and I mean REAL romans, Not the ones that became mixed throughout Europe,northern Africa,etc) where Meds. Most Meds aren't very tall, that is true, In fact, I tried to find this sketches I had on my computer about why romans had smaller horses than most other people in the world at that time.
Either way, I believe that the Romans of the past probably resemble the cental Italians of today and the non-saharan looking Southern Italians.
I tend to agree. There have been migrations to Italy since Roman times, but I think most of these migration patterns are due to climate zones and periodic political and economic (environmental) changes - so the types of people (SE European/Levantine; N African; Alpine/C European in the case of Italy) that invade are somewhat consistent.

I think Julius Caesar, dressed in modern clothes, walking down the streets of NYC would probably look "Italian" to the common observer. His bust, if I remember correctly, doesn't look too dissimilar to the actor Joe Pesci.

As for N African types, these exist in Italy now and probably did in ancient times too. There were also small numbers of Negrids, Near Eastern types, and even British Celtic types living in Rome as slaves or merchants.

Awar
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004, 01:11 AM
In Roman times, the inhabitants of southern Italy and Sicily were mostly Greeks.
The todays southern Italians have the most 'Greek' DNA.

nemo
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004, 01:27 AM
The Romans(Italians) were not small and short, why don't you educate yourself and read about the greatness of the Romans(Italians) instead of making ignorant statments and proving to everyone how ignorant you really are.

cosmocreator the sore loser stole 5 points from me because of this post I put up.:eyes


I got to prepare for war :onfire

Strengthandhonour
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004, 03:02 AM
In Roman times, the inhabitants of southern Italy and Sicily were mostly Greeks.
The todays southern Italians have the most 'Greek' DNA.
I completely forgot about the Greek colonies. Thank you for the reminder.

cosmocreator
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004, 03:13 AM
cosmocreator the sore loser stole 5 points from me because of this post I put up.:eyes



Only 5 points?

goidelicwarrior
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004, 09:40 AM
I don't see how these small, short, small brained Southern Meds could build an Empire on their own. and I dont see how the short 2 inch mongols ( Attila ) could make the mighty Germanic teutons running all the way from the black sea to Gaul to seek the help of the Romans.. :P

Heinz
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010, 02:49 PM
how much territory did the greeks take up?

BlessedGoddess
Thursday, June 23rd, 2011, 10:28 AM
I have roots to Julius Caesar. I am related to him on his mother's side. The Cotta family. I look a lot like Julius' daughter, Julia Caesaris, and also a mixture of the personification of Germania and other European countries.

I think I have the nose(it's a very pointed nose) and the large shaped eyes that are seen in countless of old Italian art and even Germanic art.

I am average height for a woman..But that can be the other bloodlines there.

I doubt the rulers of Rome were short though, for their time; judging by my ancestors on that side of the family and my own height. They all seemed very average in height, fair skinned, some had fair hair and eyes.
I am unable to tan(I just burn! lol!) but I recall a few of my Roman(Italian) ancestors could.

I hope this info fixed any confusion!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Julia_caesaris.jpg
Julia Caesaris

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Aurelia_Cotta.jpg
Aurelia Cotta. Mother of Julius Caesar.