Textkit Logo

First Romans Ethnicity

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

First Romans Ethnicity

Postby gerases » Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:03 pm

Hi everybody,

I've been wondering about this. If there's any truth to Virgil's Aeneid, does it follow from that the first Romans were actually Turks? Of course, there was no modern Turkey then and today's Turks are very different from those of that time. I guess my question is: what were the people inhabiting Troy were physiognomically / ethnically like at the time of Aeneid?

Thanks!
gerases
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: First Romans Ethnicity

Postby adrianus » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:23 am

gerases wrote:If there's any truth to Virgil's Aeneid, does it follow from that the first Romans were actually Turks?
I would say that there's no truth to that aspect of it and it's fiction and propaganda on that count.
De istâ re, veritas caret, et fictio atque res ad animos hominum adducendos obtinent.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: First Romans Ethnicity

Postby dlb » Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:16 am

Gibbons, in "The Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire", provides no information in my reading thus far reagarding where the Romans came from. There is a high possibility that some were from Greece but if anyone else has any further info, I would welcome their input.
Deus me ducet, non ratio.
Observito Quam Educatio Melius Est.
dlb
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 1:43 am
Location: Lilburn, Ga.

Re: First Romans Ethnicity

Postby Polyfloisbos » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:07 am

The Aeneid cannot be understood as a historical book, and Gibbon, even if it's an excelent achievement in modern historiography, has been widely outdated. According to the modern theories of indoeuropean migrations, Romans came from the Italic indoeuropeans.
There are also two cultures which scholars use to connect with the indoeuropean migrations: the Terramare and the Villanovan culture. Some scholars believe in the unity of these cultures (V. G. Childe for instance), and some do not.
When discussing the origins of Roman people lots of problems appear, basically because of the unity of these Italic people. I'll give you one of the interpretations, that of G. Devoto: the indoeuropean people who went down to Italy are infinite in its variety, but we can differentiate three groups: one in the Padan plain, one in Puglia and the last one in the Appennine Umbro-Marchigiano. These three focus are caracterized for the treatment of the ide. aspirations: for example, you have the ide. root *rudh- (red), which derives into ruber (Padan plain), rutilius (Puglia) and rufus (the Apennine). Note that this division is based on the treatment of the voiced aspirate: b/t/f.
The Puglia culture was probably the oldest ide. culture in Italy, to which also belong other archaisms such as rex. The other ones came in little migrations and invasions, not necessarily with violence, and surely without any political system, and they were gradually put together, both politically and culturally, by the Roman people -which should be understood as some "mix" of them, culturally speaking.
User avatar
Polyfloisbos
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 11:08 am


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 46 guests