How much of a genetic impact did Roman colonias have on local populations?
>>947488
r/AskHistorians
>>947498
No, I'm not going to reddit
>>947519
Why not?
>>947769
Because I don't want to make an account, 4chan is much faster, and there tends to be at least one or two reliable replies to a question being asked here.
>>947488
I'd say not that much, not even as much influence as the germanic settlers had in britain
>>947488
interesting how the Romans colonized the same part of iberia that the muslims did.
>>947488
How come there were so many Roman colonies in Greece yet Greece remained Greek-speaking throughout ages?
>>948933
Romans were major Grecoboos
>>947488
pretty much nil.
>>947488
the impact of rome was much more cultural than genetic, realize that there never was a "Pure" Roman, Romans generally considered being roman to be almost like a title rather than a trait. Roman society was very accepting of adoption to the point that adopted children were basically considered blood heirs. They had similar views on foreign populations, as long as they integrated, they were full Romans.
>>948933
Romans really had a hard-on for Hellenic culture, they didn't suppress it. Tbh Greek culture had a much larger impact on Roman culture than vica versa.
>>947488
Not that much. Much of the regions with significant Roman colonies were later overrun during the migration period by people who were more efficient in spreading their genes - or so to say.
Great Britain was heavily affected by Saxons and Normanns, Southern Iberia was swarmed with Berbers and Arabs after the Visigothic kingdom fell.
Besides, the Roman colonies had more cultural than genetic impact. This means that though they were more-or-less effective in exporting their culture, they didn't mix with the locals enough to make a significant change in their genepool.
There were the Romano-British.
Basically civilized barbarians.
After Rome fell, you had the legends of Arthur and Roman pockets in Britain surviving.
