What happened to the Romans

[Kayser]

So, this topic was something I've always wondered about and since we have a couple of Italians as members maybe they can bring some insight to this question. So, are modern Italians the closest to the Italian Romans that lived under the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire and how exactly did that transition from Roman to Italian go?

 

[Smith]

So basically, even in modern day Italy there wasn't really a central "ethnicity" in the empire/republic. The basis of the Republic was unifying all the different tribes and different groups. Think of it maybe like modern day UK with a united nation but strong cultural identity among different groups. Being a Roman was just a mark of citizenship and not of background

 

[Micchan]

Genetically the population is the same.

After the Roman Empire we splitted in many small nations and focused on the economy, the original jews    Italy remained the richest region in the world until 1600 when the colonial expansion did enrich many european nations that were big enough to create an empire.

In the Roman Empire only people from Rome where romans, and at the same time everyone was roman because the main goal of the Romans was to expand the empire by unifying people giving them a reason to want to be Roman, the living conditions improved because the Romans brought technology and infrastructure, and the people were happy to be Roman, but still maintained their identity (the european union did well), when the Roman Empire dissolved they are just back to being what they were before.

 

[Kayser]

So it was more of an idea of Romaness as a unifying culture rather than an actual ethnic people.

I guess thats why so many non latins still considered themselves sucessors of Rome. If classical Italy was a group of different people living in the same region. At what point do modern day Italians go back before they consider those people ethnically Italian. When the country was founded? Or some point before that?

 

[Micchan]

So it was more of an idea of Romaness as a unifying culture rather than an actual ethnic people.

I guess thats why so many non latins still considered themselves sucessors of Rome. If classical Italy was a group of different people living in the same region. At what point do modern day Italians go back before they consider those people ethnically Italian. When the country was founded? Or some point before that?

Italy now is like the Roman Empire, we're all italians but we are also *insert region/province/city*, there are so many cultural differences.

And it's something that never changed, we were italians even before the unification, there was rivalry between the states but why those small states survived for 1500 years? Because when there was a threat they united to fight, that and a lot of politics helped a lot. Italian states = The Syndicate

 

[Kayser]

Hmm, so do you consider your cultural identity more closely tied to your region or Italy? Is is I am "insert city/state/province"nese first and Italian second or vice versa?

 

[Smith]

So it was more of an idea of Romaness as a unifying culture rather than an actual ethnic people.

I guess thats why so many non latins still considered themselves sucessors of Rome. If classical Italy was a group of different people living in the same region. At what point do modern day Italians go back before they consider those people ethnically Italian. When the country was founded? Or some point before that?

I don't know much about Italian History post Roman Empire, so Micchan will have to give you that. But you're right many states considered themself successor of Rome like the Holy Roman Empire. Also when the Western Roman Empire collapsed the Eastern half (which we call the Byzantine Empire) lived on for another 1000 years. They never stopped calling themself Roman even though they controlled no Italian territory. Even Russia tried taking some of Rome's shine by labeling themselves as successors through the Orthodox Church (which was the church of the byzantine empire) and by calling their leader Tsar (Ceasar). Note: Germany did this too with Kaiser. 

More on this idea of a "Third Rome" can be found on this wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome

 

[Micchan]

Hmm, so do you consider your cultural identity more closely tied to your region or Italy? Is is I am "insert city/state/province"nese first and Italian second or vice versa?

My town > my province > my region > my country

Italians, just as in the past, forget the differences when there is a threat that affects all, in the past was WWI, now is the football national team

I don't know much about Italian History post Roman Empire, so Micchan will have to give you that. But you're right many states considered themself successor of Rome like the Holy Roman Empire. Also when the Western Roman Empire collapsed the Eastern half (which we call the Byzantine Empire) lived on for another 1000 years. They never stopped calling themself Roman even though they controlled no Italian territory. Even Russia tried taking some of Rome's shine by labeling themselves as successors through the Orthodox Church (which was the church of the byzantine empire) and by calling their leader Tsar (Ceasar). Note: Germany did this too with Kaiser. 

More on this idea of a "Third Rome" can be found on this wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome

Yeah, everyone wanted to be the king of Rome because the king of Rome is also the king of christianity, no one was but if you have power you can call yourself as you want.