What happened in the rest of the Roman Empire? The provinces way out on the edges of the maps. I know about all the slave revolts and the invasions and the battles and all that, but were they actually living the Roman life in the meantime? Was the ruling class ethnic Roman or ethnic Dacian/Illyrian/Gaul/whatever? Did they have more to do with Rome or with their barbarian bros outside the empire? Did everyone in the empire's borders actually speak Latin, or just the government?
>>400858
>barbarian
Rome was barbarian. They were brutal murderers, they brought nothing to Europe but a Dark Age.
They were the destroyers of Civilization.
>>400858
The big lot of them spoke some manner of Vulgar Latin.
>>400893
Buttmad
> Greek
> Epirote
> Syrian
> Celt
> Carthaginian
> Samnite
> Goth
You name any people, Rome exploited, murdered, and enslaved all.
Rome was not a civilizing force, they were the epitome of stagnation, they were destroyers of peoples and innovation.
>>400858
Non ethnic "Romans" were fully integrated and spoke some form of Latin.
>>400930
>Ordered to be captured alive
>One dude goes nuts and kills him
>FUCKING ROME
>>400985
In 167 BC the Senate ordered the ensl;avement of 150,000 Epirote slaves.
> 150,000 Greek slaves
> Civilized
>>400985
Romans sack Athens, killing 200,000 Greeks.
The Jewel of the Athenians was Piraeus, a port town directly connected to Athens, Sulla demolished it.
> Romans
> Civilized
>>400985
TOTAL AND UTTER DESTRUCTION OF CORINTH
I actually read a book that has a whole chapter devoted to it, let me get it, it may take a while to type.
>>400985
Were did the Romans get their Naval technology from? Carthage. What happened to the people who evolved the Naval technology? Utterly destroyed and sold into slavery.
>>400873
>>400914
>>401048
>>401110
>>401152
>>401211
>>400985
Celts built COBBLED ROADS.
Celts used advanced geometry to build roads.
Romans used their roads to invade them.
> pic related
>>401176
Fuck it, I am not typing three pages.
Just read Peter Heather's Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 9.
>>401211
Hannibal pls go
>>401246
>we wuz roads n shit
>>401297
Nice Celtic helmet.
>>401297
The Ligurians were Celtic like the Irish were Celtic, but they were not Gauls.
>be Celtic
>stop existing
Everyone was romanised and Roman citizen, there were no ethnic differences. And yes of course everyone spoke Latin.
>>401355
Scotland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany?
>There are people in this thread that believe that adapting and upgrading foreign weapons and technology is a bad thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Soissons
>>401355
>be Roman
stop existing
>>401899
Are any of them really "Celtic" though? I might give you some parts of Wales and Ireland possibly, the rest have been by and large assimilated into the majority groups of their respective countries. "Celtic" is a token culture. Might as well throw in Northwestern Spain in there while you're at it.
>>401943
>Are any of them really "Celtic" though?
How would you determine this?
>>401110
>support a man who coordinated the murder of 100,000 Roman and Italian men, women, and slaves
>"YOLO no consequences lol"
>>400858
Read some of the Vindolanda Tablets and Egyptian letters from Oxyrynchus if you get the time OP, they're very illuminating on how things were out in the provinces for the lives of relatively average people (not totally indigent like 50% of the population but still).
So now we have it
Anti-Rome hipsters
i suppose this is a natural outcome for a /his/ board
but really
>>403255
> allow a foreign people to enslave you
The policies of Rome in Bithynia and Pergamon showed was evil. When the Romans started looking for conscripts, they couldn't provide any because all of the young had been sold into slavery.
The Romans were evil, and evil deeds were taken to combat evil.
The Romans destroyed the Greek world and wore it has a piece of clothing after slaughter the majority of them, or enslaving them.
>>403976
>The policies of Rome in Bithynia and Pergamon showed was evil.
The policies of Rome in Bithynia and Pergamon showed Rome was evil.
Also, the Romans hated Greeks, when Cato addressed Ptolemy, he squatted on a toilet while meeting him.
>>400914
I like to see Rome as the final act of the classical era.
You know, like when a story is about to end and there is a last grand finale that is both a climax to the old story and a premise of the new one to come?
I wouldn't say that was already postclassical, I like to see it as the final great classical civilisation that marked the end of an era.
>>404210
The Roman legions are long dead, there is no reason to fear them now you spineless charlatan.
>COME WITH ME
>uhh not now
>AAARGHEUUGHHHH
>stabittystab
Why were Romans so mentally unstable?
What I find strange is that there seemed to be no strong Roman identity in Italy, like in Byzantium, after the fall of Rome. It just vanished like that.
>>404322
The West fell much sooner. Italy, united no more, became a chessboard for foreign powers.
>>401246
>muh conquerors
>>404322
There was no strong central power to take the mantle, just conquering Germanic tribes. The original inhabitants still thought of themselves as romans, or at least carrying the Roman inheritance.
>>404353
Why didn't they produce a post-Roman kingdom eventually? The Persians were trampled by all kinds of people but it never stopped them.
>>404350
Celtic peoples were developing the Train before the barbarous savages called romans came.
At the end of the late republic a flareup of Herpes hit the Romans, all of the Roman Elite men were covered in it due to kissing each other.
> sodomites
> civilized
The Romans wrote some laws prohibiting kissing each other to prevent the spread.
>>404322
If Justinian didn't fuck Italy's shit up with his campaigns, maybe Italy would've gone the way of France, unifying soon and proceeding from there instead, maybe with another republic.
>buttdevastated pedophiles and baby killers ITT
>>405012
ugh, disgusting pedophobic bigot
>>401048
And in their own time, Greeks kept plenty of slaves. Slavery was just a matter of fact back in those times. You can't use that as a measure of civilization.
>>400930
Apparently the meathead who killed him didn't end up too good afterwards.
>>400858
My understanding is that the peoples who lived in Roman areas like in Britain tried to live a shell of the Roman life but without the
Roman professional army, Roman government officials and bean counters, all their stuff went into disrepair and a few generations later, people would marvel at the ruins of aquaducts and wonder what sort of demigods could build those things.
>>405072
and Rome itself remained mostly functional under the Ostrogoths until Justinian fucked it up in his invasion of Italy.
>>405088
Actually someone else on here told me the city of Rome reverted to basically a gigantic village. People would be herding their cattle through the old Senate buildings and palaces, living like farmers without much of a central government.
Do you happen to have anything I could read about it? I've actually always wondered what happened to Rome itself. Most of my history learning pretty much stops talking about the city of Rome after it was a sacked, and doesn't mention it again until the Vatican really rises.
>>405115
Rome hadn't been the city it was for a long time. The capital had been moved to Milan centuries earlier, and then to Ravenna sometime closer to the end of the WRE.
>>401048
It's called Karma.
>this whole thread is one anti-roman guy screaming about rome while romanboos egg him on
Jesus christ it's just like pro-American threads on /int/
>>401211
Actually, the Romans devised their own form of sea combat during the first Punic War in order to complement their skill with infantry, rather than seamanship.
>What is a corvus?
>>405429
how did people even fight before boarding?
>>405469
Ramming.
>>405469
Boarding and arrow exchanges are actually the oldest form of naval combat.
>>404363
because there was constant fighting over Italy then HRE happened. basically they really never got a chance
>>405321
> romanboos
I only troll them as they see the Roman Empire as contiguous wit the American Empire, when they praise Rome, it is really their own egos that the rub in the face of all the nations.
>>406316
>implying i'm not a spic of Italian descent
>implying Spain wasn't the true successor of Rome
>>406660
>implying i'm not a spic of Italian descent
I have an Italian Grandparent, so can I criticize now?
>implying Spain wasn't the true successor of Rome
The Roman's only interest in Spain was plundering its wealth, which was in minerals.
Romans were vampires who cared not for the welfare of their victims.
>>406793
>The Roman's only interest in Spain was plundering its wealth, which was in minerals.
and the Iberian province was among the most Romanized, civilized and sophisticated during the height of it's power. The Roman law and administrative prowess was fully adopted by the Iberians and preserved all the way to the expulsion of the Muslims.
>>406855
>civilized
bleeding a province of its wealth and people isn't civilized to me, we have different ideas as to what civilized is.
>>406888
What is civilization if not what the people who coined the word say it is? Get mad all you want, it's undeniable that life under Rome was always better and their creations moved the world forward.
>>406955
>their creations moved the world forward.
They created a Dark Age.
>>406965
Dark ages? That thing exclusively defined as the world WITHOUT Rome? You just contradicted yourself pretty badly.
>>406967
>Civilization is evil.
It is not inherently evil, what is evil is Empires that enslave peoples and nations. Empires take from all the people that contributed to them and destroy their innovative spirit through colonization.
Rome destroyed the peoples of Europe and Asia (Anatolia) under its yolk.
Synergy brings about a whole that is greater than the constituent parts, synergy comes from diversity of peoples. Rome destroyed the synergy of the world and led it into stagnation, just as America does today.
>>406986
>what is evil is Empires that enslave peoples and nations. Empires take from all the people that contributed to them and destroy their innovative spirit through colonization.
so literally everyone the Romans conquered too, but who they treated better in the end due to their habit of political consessions
>Rome destroyed the peoples of Europe and Asia (Anatolia) under its yolk.
wonder how all these people seem to have kept their genetic make up for thousands of years anyway then, if they destroyed them. Must be because they fucking didn't, they incorporated every city, state and tribe they could peacefully and through cunning negotiation, only getting their swords out to stomp out stragglers and actual threats.
>>406986
>Synergy brings about a whole that is greater than the constituent parts, synergy comes from diversity of peoples
>Rome destroyed the synergy of the world and led it into stagnation, just as America does today.
no nation in history had ever been as encouraging of diversity as Rome before it's rise. Rome FOUNDED diversity and multiculturalism. The idea of an Empire that trascends a single culture, a single group of people, a rule that groups all men under one banner in the pursuit of progress and peace is the ideal that justified it.
>>407096
>>407096
> thinks diversity equates to multiculturalism
> being that retarded
>>407116
>thinks Rome wasn't both
you ignorant bumkin go read a book
Rome is in the end was always just a city with a lot of good friends
>>407122
You're a retard, you just misquoted me and wrote several paragraphs based upon fallacy, die you fallacious retard.
>>407132
explain yourself then, you slimy fuck
>>407139
You are too dim to understand, or just a fail troll.
>>400858
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0Hr0RLHxnI&list=PL966B5BE4DC18D06C
Faulty basis for Civilization.
>>401211
They had their own style in the first punic war which was enhanced upon over the years but they took a lot from Carthage when they committed genocide upon the population and "liberated" the naval technology and methods. It was justifiable though.
I've been to the last remaining ruins(not much left) of Carthage the dry blood,indentations from sword slashes and scorch marks from the burning buildings is still deeply embedded in the ancient stones. It's very eerie. To know what happened there and actually being there.
It was so brutal with the fires that the Romans actually used thick planks to cross the upper tier rooftops as they moved deeper into the city burning,killing,raping and looting.
>>401939
Romanians actually are more the most likely to be ethnic Roman descendants still around, more so then actual Italians.
>>401926
That's what we did with national socialist Germany and their prototypes and schematics and by doing so advanced 50 years in a span of 15.
>>407164
>fucking bullshit
>Latin langauge
>high probability of being Romanized Dacians who intermixed with Roman colonials and frontier settlements in Dacia
>"bullshit"
What's your counter, senpai?
>>407180
He's an imbecile who can't even troll correctly.
>>407159
Romanians were bred by Arabs.
In fact there's more Roman men in Britain today than Romania with a little over 1.5million men being direct descendants of the original invading legions which consisted of:
137,000 Romans
72,000 Spanish
28,000 Syrians
and 16,000 Gauls.
>>407180
>high probability of being Romanized Dacians who intermixed with Roman colonials and frontier settlements in Dacia
Even if that's true, the Italic boot, which is much more protected in terms of heavy migrations, especially in the past, by the med sea and the alps, hasn't undergone any radical change from the times it was the centre of the Roman Empire, so why would Italy be less ethnically Roman than Romanians?
Also, some linguists think that overall Italian is still closer to Latin than Romanian, with Sardinian being the overall closest one.
>>407196
>Romanians were bred by Arabs
>In fact there's more Roman men in Britain today than Romania
>>407197
Except Italy was populated more by Italics then Latins, and Romans were only one small portion of the overall ethnic Latin community. Also Italy has been intermixed, invaded, assimilated, and admixed by many invaders; Germanics like the Goths, Vandals, as well as Huns, Gaulics, Celtics, and later people like the Lombards and Normans.
Italy is a melting pot of European mixings compared to Romanians. I'm almost certain though more Italians are related to their Italic predecessors then actual ethnic Latins or Romans in particular.
>>407152
It wasn't the fires that caused that.
They did that because people with no weapons and women were hurling shit at them from the rooftops as they fough through the streets.
As for the fires?
The children, elderly, and invalid were hidden in hollow walls.
Then the city burned down. Buildings collapsed with smoldering survivors in the wreckage...
and the romans would literally rake them into a ditch and march on.
Eyewitness accounts of the fall of the city are fucking brutal.
>>407216
By Romans I meant all Italic peoples, not just Latins.
Second of all, there is no evidence those little invasions left any significant trace in the overall population.
Conquering some territory != changing the ethnicity of its inhabitants.
>>407167
nazi germany's technological advances were nothing special and overrating them to the point of mythification is a history channel tier meme.
you can't really call the reception of external culture into Rome 'adapting', because Roman culture had already had a lot of Hellenic and Phoenician in it from it's very origins, Etruscans and Latins of all kinds were the ones who were absorbing all those elements before there was a Rome proper. People usually refer to the Roman Pantheon as lifted directly from the Greek one, but in fact it was very different in the begining, with deities being closer to nebulous concepts instead of fully anthropomorphized characters. It was later on that Roman intellectuals, fawning over the Greek splendor, began pushing for syncretism between them.
Christianity advantage of this later on, pagan deities were interpreted as aspects of the one god's values.
>>407216
>Also Italy has been intermixed, invaded, assimilated, and admixed by many invaders; Germanics like the Goths, Vandals, as well as Huns, Gaulics, Celtics, and later people like the Lombards and Normans.
And Romania hasn't? it was the first stop of the Goths, after all.
>>407192
Or you're just some asinine Carthaginian who's pissed off that, not only was your argument COMPLETELY destroyed, but your capital was burned to the fucking ground and removed entirely from the map out of spite.
inb4
>no ur just a troll111!
>an imbecile troll
>>407225
Romans were part of the Latin tribes.
Italics were part of the Italic tribes.
They spoke different languages and even Sicilian and Italian anthropologists, so no that isn't even accepted by the academic community back in Italy itself.
>By Romans I meant all Italic peoples, not just Latins.
And by Romans, I meant actual ethnic Latins. Not Italic language speakers.
>conquering some territory ! = changing the ethnicity of its inhabitants.
Then why are there such sharp differences in complexion, skin tone, and clear Greek influences in Southern Italy compared to Northern Italy? Italy has mixed with invaders for over a thousand years since the Western Roman Empire fell.
The physical evidence is there.
>>407230
>And Romania hasn't?
Romania has been less exposed to foreign assimilation or intermixing then Italy. And the Romanian language itself is more closely related to Latin then modern Italian is, what with branching directly off of Vulgar Latin by Roman colonizers in Dacia.
>>407240
We aren't talking about pre-Roman Italy though, of course they spoke different languages.
>Then why are there such sharp differences in complexion, skin tone, and clear Greek influences in Southern Italy compared to Northern Italy?
Different pre-Roman colonizers obviously.
Southern Italy for instance was colonized by Greeks, the north by Celtic-like peoples, thus differences, no need to make up mass post WRE genetic shifts.
>>407267
>Pre-Roman Italy though
Italics persisted throughout "Roman" Italy, so what is the point of this? Latin and Italic languages are branches from the Indo-European family.
You don't seem to understand, Italic speakers did not magically disappear after Rome had taken complete control of Italy.
>>407240
>They spoke different languages and even Sicilian and Italian anthropologists, so no that isn't even accepted by the academic community back in Italy itself.
during the classic Roman era people stopped using those languages in favor of Latin to the point they were practically lost forever, even Emperor Claudius' attempt to rescue Etruscan was in vain. The distinction between Romans and Latinii was, at that point, nonexistant, and by the time Caracalla's edict did away with it, it was only as an economical meassure to suckle more taxes because people outside the city were getting a pretty sweet cut in comparison.
>>407267
this too, Naples = Nea Polis.
>>407277
That's fine, but that has nothing to do with the statement that native Italics were the same as native Latin speakers in terms of ethnicity.
>>407273
Italics persisted to the biggest extent from an ethnic point of view, but culturally they got Latinized. Their Italic languages persisted as a local substratum I suppose, what are we talking about?
>>407290
Dacians/modern day Romanians be more closely related to Romans then modern day Italians given their language is more directly a branch of Vulgar Latin unlike Italian.
>>407263
Romanians, along with other South-Eastern European nations, are defined by culture, not by blood. We all are a mixture of mostly Thracians, Turanics(Cumans, Pechenegs, Magyars, Bulgars etc) and Slavs. The main difference between a Romanian and, say, a Bulgarian is that one is the result of the Romanized Thracians assimilating the Slavic migrators and the other is the result of the Slavic migrators assimilating the Romanized Thracians.
>inb4 Trajan killed all Dacian men
Also, keep in mind that Romanians are not only the Daco-Romanians north of the Danube, so identifying Romanians with this or that tribe or union of tribes of Thracians or what not is silly. A Romanian is the descendant of the culturally romanized population of the eastern half of the Empire whose tongue, although heavily degenerated, still maintained its Latin character.
>>407288
>the statement that native Italics were the same as native Latin speakers in terms of ethnicity
No one is saying this though, Latins and other Italics were indeed different, but by the beginning of the empire they were probably vastly homogenized in certain parts, especially Latium I guess.
>>407303
This is disputed as I said earlier though. There isn't an universal "vulgar latin", every region had their local variation, and according to some, Italian is overall closer to classical latin than Romanian.
>>407315
>This is disputed as I said earlier though.
Declensions, Neuter Gender, etc...nothing that the Italian has as common with either Vulgar or Classical Latin. In fact, just based off Declensions, one could say French isn't even a true Romance Language but that'd be silly.
So I don't buy those "disputes."
>>407263
>Romania has been less exposed to foreign assimilation or intermixing then Italy.
which... still means they aren't literally Romans. People from the Italian peninsula didn't pack up and go there, even if the modern Spaghetti bastard is a mutt, he's still closer in blood to Romans than people living next to the black sea.
>>407306
guy whom he replied to here, my point was that there must be a distinction between Roman from Rome the city and Roman from Rome the empire. People who's ancestors herded animals among the seven hills and actually founded that city might still live there, but the majority of people in Italy right now most certainly come from people who had lived there before, during and after the empire. The invaders that occupied it were all in the hundreds of thousands, while native populations were in the millions.
>>407352
He never said they were literally Romans, he said they were more closely related to Romans.
>>407339
Verbs and vocabulary are also important things. It's true Romanian is closer on certain aspects, but it's also further in others(the slavic influence is there).
>>407363
Don't forget that our 19th century intelighentsia replaced chunks of our vocabulary with a shitload of French words because of
>muh Latin heritage
>>407352
>People who's ancestors herded animals among the seven hills and actually founded that city might still live there, but the majority of people in Italy right now most certainly come from people who had lived there before, during and after the empire. The invaders that occupied it were all in the hundreds of thousands, while native populations were in the millions.
Oh sure, this isn't disputed I think.
>>407372
>self-depreciating yourself as being a Slav
>>407433
More like Balkanic, m8. Defining yourself as Slavic or Latin from an ethnic perspective is retarded. Certainly, from a linguistic perspective, I might be closer to a Portuguese, but ethnically I have way more in common with a Bulgarian or an Albanian.
>>400985
>Guy who was shooting laser beams at the roman navy and invented the first Claw Crane game
>who basically made the seige of syracuse take two fucking years
>Gets sarcastic when the romans finally take the city
He was literally asking to be shanked.
>>407445
Speak for yourself. I don't identify with a "pan" Balkan or Slavic culture.
>>406660
>True successor state of rome
>Not the ottoman empire
>>407460
>implying anyone accepts Turkish shit
>>407459
Esti romin, jupine?
Well, it's your problem, not mine. We should be proud of our language and Roman heritage, certainly, but we should see it through the lense of Orthodoxy, just as the South Slavs should put their Roman('Byzantine') heritage above their national mythos. We are the heirs of the Orthodox Roman Empire along with the rest of the Balkanic nations and we are linked in blood, faith and culture. Our authentic culture(before the instauration of the Phanariote rule and/or the cultural suicide following 1848) is the best preserved variant of the Byzantine tradition, but it is certainly not the only one.
Manifest Destiny - Pax Balcanica, m8. :^)
>>407460
>not a word of latin
>no Roman law
>no Roman institutions
>no Roman traditions
>not ethnically western
>>401943
But northwestern Spain is p. Celt
Pic related is a galician
>>400858
It depends on which part of the empire you're talking about. Obviously the 'collapse' of the Roman Empire was mostly the collapse of the western provinces, so we'll ignore the east for now.
In Britain, one of the furthest outposts of Roman civilisation, there seems to have been a Romano-British elite ruling over still largely celtic peasants. It's hard to say how long that elite held things together, but Roman society was heavily city-based and once the economy started failing and city sizes shrunk it's likely that Roman influence shrunk with them. You can see a similar pattern in Ireland in the 14th century - when the black death destroyed most of the cities, where English culture was based, English authority collapsed and the surviving English settlers quite quickly became gaelicized. It's hard to say whether the Romano-British elite started assimilating back into the celtic population before or after the saxon invasions, but either way centralisation (and hence the Roman culture that had provided unity) was weak enough that the Saxon raiders didn't have too much difficultly overrunning whatever local despots had set themselves up on England's east coast in the century after the withdrawal of the legions. From there the situation stabilised into Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the east and Briton kingdoms in the west, with the Anglo-Saxons slowly pushing the Britons back over the next few centuries.
In the rest of the western Empire the population was thoroughly Romanised; every level of society spoke Latin and thought of themselves as Romans (in case you didn't know, Brittany's celtic culture is not a remnant of pre-Roman gaul but a British colony founded by Romano-Britons in the early dark ages). When the empire collapsed these Romans found themselves ruled by Germanic kings - Franks in Gaul, Visigoths in Hispania, Vandals in North Africa.
>>407655
By and large the Germanics were happy to rule and let the local Roman elites continue the day-to-day tasks of administration; although the land was ruled by barbarians they still found ways of keeping their power. Local Roman elites dominated the Catholic priesthood, for instance (this was before the ban on priests marrying, which was probably brought in to disperse the entrenched power of local dynasties). Remember that the Germanic rulers were not invaders, as such. Peoples like the Franks had been slowly integrated into the machinery of government in the late Empire as the central Roman state tried to shore up its authority by making use of barbarians (foederati, 'allies'). They hadn't so much overthrown Roman government as taken the reigns as it collapsed. Even Alaric, the barbarian who sacked Rome herself, was more a Roman general who had been made discontent by the scheming of the imperial court than a rampaging invader.
In some ways life continued much as it had before, but the economic degradation caused by the collapse in trade routes and the weaker central government slowly took its toll. Again, as the economy collapsed the cities collapsed and as the cities collapsed so did Roman culture. It was a slower process than in Britain, though, and even as what we would consider Roman culture ('classical culture') faded away the people, all Latin speakers, still referred to themselves as Romans. This gradually got replaced by more regional identities over the course of the dark ages. To give you some sense of the staying power of Roman identity, it wasn't until the 13th century that Portugal replaced Latin as the official language with Portuguese; a lot of places considered their language to simply be a local dialect of Latin for centuries after the fall of Roman authority.
>>407666
In Italy itself life continued pretty much as it had in the late imperial period, at least in the immediate aftermath of the so called 'collapse'. True, the Empire was gone and the place was ruled by barbarians, but the great estates (latifunda) still produced huge harvests, the city of Rome was still a metropolis, and the senate still met just as it had since the founding of the Republic. Here more than anywhere you could say 'what dark age?'. The Empire was gone, yes, but is modern day post-imperial Britain in a dark age? Then, about two or three generations after the abdication of the last western Emperor, came the Byzantine general Belisarius, who, with the best of intentions, completely trashed North Africa and Italy in his quest to reunite the Empire. The destruction of the gothic kingdoms in North Africa and Italy and the subsequent fallout (Berber raids in North Africa, invasion of Italy by Franks and Lombards) economically destroyed the two remaining wealthy parts of the former western Empire. Rome in particular suffered, with repeated sieges of the city forcing most of the population to flee. What had been a city of several hundred thousand people dropped to a population of 30-40 thousand. The economic chaos caused by the repeated looting of the countryside ensured that what was lost could never be rebuilt. And thus with the core of the western empire burnt to ash the continuing cultural collapse of the west became irreversible.
>>401943
The majority groups of their respective countries are celtic though.
>>407669
As for Romania, who knows? It was abandoned as a Roman province two centuries before the official collapse of the Empire, after which point the historical record becomes somewhat sketchy. There is some debate as to whether Romanian is a remnant of the original Roman legions who conquered the area, or due to the influence of the Latin speakers who lived in the Balkans before the slavs started migrating into the area. It's probably a mixture of both, but what seems certain is that apart from the language there wasn't really much left of Roman lifestyles after the initial abandonment of the province; most likely the language only persisted in the area because the Romans had so thoroughly destroyed the original Dacian culture that there were no locals for the Roman colonists to assimilate into. And then after two centuries of surviving on their own the proto-Romanians weren't as vulnerable to the collapse in central authority and the influx of barbarians as people in the rest of the Empire.
>>407655
>In the rest of the western Empire the population was thoroughly Romanised; every level of society spoke Latin and thought of themselves as Romans (in case you didn't know, Brittany's celtic culture is not a remnant of pre-Roman gaul but a British colony founded by Romano-Britons in the early dark ages). When the empire collapsed these Romans found themselves ruled by Germanic kings - Franks in Gaul, Visigoths in Hispania, Vandals in North Africa.
Bullshit, the whole premise of Caesar invading Britain was due to their alliance with the Veneti, the Britons and Veneti were of the same people.
The ancient Bretons are related to the British genetically still today not through Amorican colonization.
noice
>>407666
>>407709
a short read through of the wikipedia page might have prevented you from making an idiot out of yourself. Remember that in future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany#Immigration_of_Britons
also, the fact that there were celts on both sides of the channel in caesar's time makes no difference to the fact that there were only celts on one side half a millennium later.
>>407755
I'm well aware of the Armoricans and the history you stupid faggot. The original veneti were of the same stock as the Britons and Irish.
>>407822
>The original veneti were of the same stock as the Britons and Irish.
>Irish.
Firstly, no. The veneti may have had close cousins immediately across the channel but the Gaels in Ireland are an entirely different sub-family of celts.
And again, what's the difference? They were gone by the 5th century.
>>407853
> the Gaels in Ireland are an entirely different sub-family of celts.
Go fuck yourself you stupid faggot.
> pic related
>>407924
>he thinks the term 'celtic' has a genetic basis
celtic is a relatively recent import into western Europe. It's probably only about three thousand years old; the genetic groups meanwhile were broadly established at the end of the last ice age. The prevalence of genetic markers has nothing to do with the spread of celtic culture.
The languages spoken by the people of what is now southern england were part of the Brythonic family. Irish language meanwhile belong the the Goidelic family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic_languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittonic_languages
>>407924
they are you fucking retard. Irish are gaelic, bretons are brittonic. These are cultural terms and have fuck all to do with your haplo-autism.
>>407954
The Veneti literally brought coins and artifacts from North Africa to Britain. They were of the same genetic and culturally group as the British and Irish.
See pic related, it is a map of all the different North African coins found around Britain.
- cont
>>407989
Go fuck yourself and your matriarchy.
>>407994
>The Veneti literally brought coins and artifacts from North Africa to Britain.
irrelevant
>They were of the same genetic
irrelevant
>and culturally group as the British and Irish.
no, they weren't
>>407994
cont -
In Northern Ireland this Barabry Ape skeleton was found, dated to the 4th century BC.
It is indigenous to North Africa.
How do you think the R1B's got to Britain and Ireland? they were sailor's from Brittany.
They migrated to Ireland and Wales from Brittany.
>>407995
>Go fuck yourself and your matriarchy.
that was picts you mongoloid, and it wasn't even matriarchy, just matrilineal descent.
>>408014
Are you 12 years old? Seriously, everything I say seems to scrape the exosphere going over your head.
>>407994
for the last fucking time, I am not trying to say that the Veneti that Caesar fought did not have close cultural ties to their immediate neighbours across the channel. I am simply saying that five goddamn centuries later the situation was different: the celtic culture of Gaul had been assimilated into Roman culture and the fact that there was a celtic presence in Brittany is solely due to immigration from Britain in the dark age. The point I was trying to emphasise was that the peoples of the western Roman Empire, apart from Britain, were very thoroughly Romanised.
>>408029
Then everything you're saying is a moot point. You're such an intellectually dishonest piece of crap.
>>408027
You said the Britons, Gaels and Veneti were the same people, which is retarded, then you said this.
"Go fuck yourself and your matriarchy."
I'm well within my rights to call you a retard, because what you are saying is retarded.
>>408043
You started the argument claiming that they presence of Celtic culture in Brittany came from Britain, but it's the the exact opposite. The map here >>407924 shows how they migrated into Ireland and Wales and spread Eastwards, never fully settling in the East coast.
This is not conjecture, the R1b group I'm talking about literally migrated from Ireland into the main island (England). They also migrated into Wales and spread eastwards from there.
>>408065
>This is not conjecture, the R1b group I'm talking about literally migrated from Ireland into the main island (England). They also migrated into Wales and spread eastwards from there.
now i get it: you're trolling
>>408071
No, this is the history, which seems to go over your head.
pic related is a Veneti coin
cont-
>>408076
>>408065
Why are you making this Rome thread about Celts
>>407924
>>407994
>>408152
We took the BULL by the HORNS.
He was a good friend.
>>408157
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7RNSecaI_4
>>408189
>take over
I'm going take you over and inside out, when stare inside you'll see me staring back at you forever.
Imagine your future, its me stamping on your neck forever.
>>406660
>not Moscovy
>>408065
>R1b group I'm talking about literally migrated from Ireland into the main island (England).
They can from Iberia mate like all the native of the British Isles.
>>408215
That is a theory that though all R1B originated in Spain and spread out from there. That theory also states that Spain was a glacial refugium.
>>408237
The data does back up the theory, the top five places with R1b being dominant is Brittany, Ireland, Spain and Wales.
>>407159
fuck off
>>404322
the Italian peninsula has always been a mixture of a ton of different ethnicities and cultures
>>407159
>Romanians actually are more the most likely to be ethnic Roman descendants still around
I keep hearing romanian people say, truth is I think you're just an insecure population (just like the poles) that's too self conscious and ashamed about its gypsie roots.
Moder romanian are more likely to be similar to the people living at the time on the coast of the black sea, but the
>hurr romanian are romans
is pretty fucking stupid if you consider that the romans used those populations pretty much as a breeding factory for slaves.
>>409295
Are you fucking retarded? The gypsies were slaves of the Voivodeship, the Boyardom and the Church, not just another population that settled in these parts. There was no intermixing during medieval times and after they gained their freedom during Cuza's rule, the only mixing worth mentioning would be in the mahalas(poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods of cities), for a middle/upper classed Romanian or a Romanian peasant it would've been a great dishonor to have his son or daughter married to a gypsy.
>>409705
Culturally they are more similar to gypsies than romans.
>>404363
the pope
>>405088
Justinian didn't realize that everyone for the most part loved the ostrogoths since they got rid of the old nobles and the new tax structure they adopted was much better than romes "let the senators decide whos taxed and then do nothing when they don't tax themselves at all" system, plus they married into roman blood so they had a claim and they adopted the language. Ostrogoths were probably the best shot at a second WRE or itleast early unified italy.
>>410061
>similar to gypsies than romans
FUCKING RETARD
>>409295
>used those populations pretty much as a breeding factory for slaves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerius
Read something before you say shit like this,
>>410061
Explain to me how our culture is similar to that of casteless Indian nomads?
>>403991
>Also, the Romans hated Greeks, when Cato addressed Ptolemy
I dunno if that's out of hatered of proper greeks, or disdain for those inbred sybarites who ruled over Egypt. Cato the younger was an incorruptible old school Roman and Ptolemy XXX-teenth represented the epitome of 'the cancer that's killing Rome'. Romans like Cato admired the Spartans, Philospohers and core of greek civilization, but with good reason looked down their noses at the remnants of the Diodachi (IMHO).
>>410061
Romanian nationhood is defined by two things, our Latin tongue and Orthodox faith. Whether you like it or not, both the Vlach pastors(with their 'Jus Valachorum') and the Romanian Voivodates followed Byzantine law. Voivodes were even crowned in the same manner as Roman Emperors and some of them were recognized as Caesars by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the only institution which can name a successor when the Imperial throne is vacant according to the Justinian Code. So stop spouting the ''romanians r gyps'' meme, you filthy barbar.
>>406855
>The Roman law and administrative prowess was fully adopted by the Iberians and preserved all the way to the expulsion of the Muslims.
so you're saying that the Roman institutions and legal codes survived the Visigoths, Moors, Reconquita but somehow vaporated when the darkies got kicked out of Spain? What's your basis for this claim?
>>410969
>>411075
