Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Who has the most Ancient Roman ancestry outside of Italy?
Romanians I suppose? However, I'm also aware that "Roman" ceased to necessarily mean Italian as the Roman Empire expanded over time and began to incorporate and assimilate other peoples into the Roman identity through granting of citizenship and adoption of the Latin language and culture.
I say Romanians though because many Roman citizens were sent to colonize Dacia after being conquered by the empire, hence the Latin-based language that took root there and the name "Romania." The Roman soldiers and colonists who settled the land are one of the main groups of ancestors of modern Romanians.
In the other provinces of the empire where Roman civilization became firmly entrenched, such as in Spain and Gaul (France), it seemed that it was mainly a question of local people assimilating into Roman culture rather than there being a large influx of Roman citizens into those provinces, largely because these other provinces were occupied for much longer periods than Dacia. However, I could be wrong there, especially with respect to Spain, which may have experienced a migration of Italic Roman citizens in the earlier years of the empire, hence the emperor Trajan (conqueror of Dacia) was born in Spain.
@Hucipher: Interesting point. I don't think it had to do with any sort of ingrained racial superiority however, that's not what I'm trying to say. Rather, the knowledge and advances that the inheritance of Roman civilization bestowed on all of those countries probably played a role in equipping them with the tools necessary to come out of the abyss that was the Middle Ages in a faster manner. Other nations in Europe simply did not have the knowledge or skills that Roman influence gave and therefore as a result, feudalism and other medieval practices persisted longer there.
@Ann: Regarding Sicily, I don't believe Romans migrated there in very large numbers at all. However, the ancient Siculi (one of the indigenous groups of Sicily who lived there before the arrival of the Greeks, long before the Roman Empire), were said to have been of Italic origin and hence would've been ethnically similar to the original Ancient Romans (of the Latin Italic tribe). Also of course, the Greeks greatly contributed to the gene pool of Sicilians. Normans migrated to Sicily but I doubt they had that nearly as much impact on Sicilian genetics when compared with Greeks or mainland Italians in general (ditto for Arabs, Spaniards, and other later conquerors). BTW, I'm one of those Sicilian-Americans you're talking about heh...1/2 Sicilian to be exact, with roots in Palermo.
With respect to northern Italy, I agree, good point, however pretty early on the Romans would've assimilated the Gauls (Celts) of northern Italy such that they were mostly Latin-speak
*Latin-speaking Roman citizens before the birth of Christ. Hence they became "Romans" themselves. But I see your point, there's less actual Italic ancestry in northern Italy and more of the Gallic/Celtic and even Lombard, Gothic and other subsequent ancestry. Romanians are "Roman" in a similar manner, being partially descended from Latin-speaking Roman citizens, but of varied ethnic roots from all around the Roman Empire, including Italy but also Spain, Gaul, Greece, etc.
7 Answers
- ?Lv 78 years ago
You are correct. There were precious metal deposits in Romania and Romans move there to reap the rewards. That is the only country they actively move to in droves to get the resources... and Roman citizens profited most from Romania. Most Italians that came to America were Sicilian... and the Romans went to Sicily when the empire failed, but not enough to justify saying the US has the most... especially since the Normans invaded Sicily and mixed with them. Romans didn't even really live in northern Italy much at all. However, yeah, Romania was a second home. They did not live much in the countries they invaded. One general would have people working under him that were recruited from the local population. So, Romania had a lot of Romans move there and bring Latin with them.
- ?Lv 68 years ago
Spain and Gaul ( France) then Briton would be your third best bet for the presence of Italian Roman blood. Notice that after the dark ages the next European powers to rise after the fall of Rome were Spain & Portugal(Iberia) France than Great Briton. Just a coincidence? or did the seeds planted by Roman culture take fruit in the most places they left the most influence in. The 1st to rise had the most Roman influence and onward to the least. Germany rose last out of the big European four.
Its an interesting point I think.
EDIT: @Quag
Agreed . I didn’t mean to imply a racial superiority. Just as you said the cultural and technological legacy was stronger in these countries thus resulting in their rise to dominance
- Anonymous8 years ago
Romans as in born in the city and location of Rome were a tiny fraction of the people of the area
there are some great TV histories of the Roman empire. BUt they were deeply evil by modern standards
culture evolves.
Source(s): lots to learn. lots of history because they dominated the Mediterranian world from 200 BC to 500 AD - How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ?Lv 45 years ago
The middle theory-approximately relatives tree is tracing ancestry by way of valid documentation/ records. i do no longer doubt which you will have Roman ancestry. i do no longer think you may have the skill to come across evidence of this, using frequent relatives tree routes. some persons declare they hint their lineage to Adam and Eve. To be as polite as achievable, i do no longer think of their documentation is sturdy.
