59 replies to this topic

[scottbajie]

Just a few caveats - the fall semester has started so I am being lazy and going from memory. Two ideas that are being muddled - genetic descendents vs. cultural descendents. In many ways, all of Western Europe is a cultural descendent of the Roman culture.

But, I am assuming the question is about genetics.

Before the Roman Empire, Northern Italy was Celtic, Southern Italy and Sicily were Greek (they still speak a form of Greek in parts of the "boot"). At the time of the Roman Empire, Rome had a large slave population (estimates 10-40%, recall how hard it was to put down Spartacus). At the later part of the Western Empire, many Emperors were not even born in Rome (of course they did not last long anyway). At the height of Rome, many people migrated to the city of Rome.

At the end of the Western Roman Empire,an influx of various barbarians changed the genetic makeup further - some by travelling through (killing, raping, changing the power structure - freeing slaves) or in the case of Lombards by staying and mixing with the population.

As far as the Byzantine Empire goes - it was genetically mostly Greek (Anatolia and Greece were mainly Greek). Culturally it started out Roman but changed to mostly Greek (they adopted Greek customs, language and had little in common with Rome except for the name). Invasions of Slavs were devastating (I recall reading that the modern Greeks are genetically Slavic not Greek) and of course the Turks took over Anatolia.

So talk of genetic purity must be taken with a grain of salt. Personally, I cannot tell much difference between Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and other Mediterranean people - until they open their mouth to speak.

I am not sure if anyone has studied or even found genetic markers for these ancient populations but that would be an interesting contribution.

[Wan Ren aka Danny]

Before there were Rome, there were also many other things. I don't see what this has ANYTHING to do with my arguments on the time line of control and influence. I don't care if the Greeks were more Greeks then Romans, my arguments was not who was more Roman, the Romans or the Greeks. My comparison was b/w two different group of people under influence of a civilization that ceased, and these two groups were Italians and the Greeks.

Are Italians the direct descendents of Romans?, What do ancient romans look like?

Italians are Romans and Romans are Italians that is the simple explanation now if we want to go deeper than we can say that Romans as stated by scot and others have stated that ancient Romans are a mixed of other races that would rise up to form Rome or Romans, their culture is influence by the Greeks. The Greek civilization never ceased to exist it reach its peak during Alexander the Great period in which at that time Rome ha snot yet been form or founded.

As far as saying that Greeks are more Romans is wrong because Greece had a longer history than Rome, the Greeks influence in that region is evident with Alexander's conquest and Greeks before him of the ancient Italian region that was before the City or Empire of Rome rosed up.

With the rise to power of Rome and the falling of the Greek power, Rome absorbing many Greek philosophy would expand it by reformatting it to give it their own Roman identity. Roman politics IMO is influence from ancient Athens philosophy including their religion & military philosophy.

That is why in many degree there are similarities in culture and history between Greece and Italy.

So talk of genetic purity must be taken with a grain of salt. Personally, I cannot tell much difference between Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and other Mediterranean people - until they open their mouth to speak.

I would agree on that.

Edited by Wan Ren aka Danny, 23 August 2008 - 10:49 AM.

[mariusj]

Italians are Romans and Romans are Italians that is the simple explanation now if we want to go deeper than we can say that Romans as stated by scot and others have stated that ancient Romans are a mixed of other races that would rise up to form Rome or Romans, their culture is influence by the Greeks. The Greek civilization never ceased to exist it reach its peak during Alexander the Great period in which at that time Rome ha snot yet been form or founded.

As far as saying that Greeks are more Romans is wrong because Greece had a longer history than Rome, the Greeks influence in that region is evident with Alexander's conquest and Greeks before him of the ancient Italian region that was before the City or Empire of Rome rosed up.

With the rise to power of Rome and the falling of the Greek power, Rome absorbing many Greek philosophy would expand it by reformatting it to give it their own Roman identity. Roman politics IMO is influence from ancient Athens philosophy including their religion & military philosophy.

That is why in many degree there are similarities in culture and history between Greece and Italy.

OK. So go back to my 'I don't care if the Romans were more Romans then Greeks were Romans, that wasn't my arguments. My arguments was why is that Italians were more Romans then Greeks were Roman BASED ON whatever arguments you use.' So please stop the Greece was there for a long time as it has NOTHING TO DO in here.


I don't want to keep on repeating myself. Let me just summarize the argument here.

Question was addressed by the General, Claims and Justification addressed by someone else, I present the hypothesis and the CHALLENGE that demand answer.

Question proposed:
Who are direct decedents of Rome?

Claim:
Italians

Justification:
Geological proximity, language similarity, and political influence.

Claim 1) Geological proximity

Hypothesis 1)
If the Italians were geologically close to the Romans during the Republic, could it not be said the same of the Greeks during the Empire?

Counter claim 1) Italians are not Romans and Romans are not Italians. Italians are mostly Latin Rights holder. I can find Pro-consul of Gaul, Pro-consul of Spain [minor/major] and Pro-consul of Greece, but are there Pro-Consul of Italy? During the prime of the Empire, the Emperor decided to move the capital to Byzontion, b/c Rome was simply to far away from the rest of the Empire. Is Greece not closer to Byzontion then Italy was?

Challenge 1 base on Hypothesis 1) If Italy is the direct decedents of Rome, b/c of the logic used to defend such claim, it could be said the same for Greece who were also close to the Empire.



Claim 2) Language

Hypothesis 2) If Italians were speaking a form of Latin, then they must be decedents of Rome.

Counter claim 2) If by speaking a form of Latin implies you are direct decedents of Rome, then so should France, and Spain be direct decedents of Rome; Spain was Roman colony ever since victory over Catherage, and multiple famous Roman view Spain as their home base, and they speak Spanish while the Gaul was also part of the Republic and the Empire, they speak French a member of Latin family. At the same time, if Roman speak some other language, would that not qualify that group of people to also be direct decedents of Rome? Romans during time of Republic consider speaking Greek a sign of education, its going to be very difficult to find anyone who do not speak Greek and that you will might most signs of New Man are they do not speak PROPER Greek thus they were ridiculed upon b/c they can't speak PROPER Greek [but they could speak Greek], let alone that Greek was one of the official language of the Empire and that after the West has fallen, East was mostly Greco-Roman and they all can speak Greek.

Challenge 2) base on Hypothesis 2) If Italy is direct decedents of Rome base on the logic use to defend such claim, it could be said the same for Greece whose language was also part of the official Empire language let alone almost every noble during Republic [and scholars and perhaps anyone above 4th class] are bilingual and can speak Greek.

Claim 3) Political and cultural Influence

Hypothesis 3) If Italians were under Roman control thus they are direct decedents of Rome, then what of other places that were under control far longer the the Italians?

Counter Claim 3) The timeline from the time Roman beating everyone and extract tribute and service from the Italians [and Remember, Italians are a term we gave them, they are not Italians but Samurians and etc etc etc ]to the time Italy was lost during the collapse of the Western Empire is far SHORTER then the time b/w Romans beating Macedonians and take control of Greece and install their governors upon the Greeks and make the Greeks a part of the Republic to the time of the fall of Eastern Empire, Greece was still under control even in 1450.

Challenge 3) If Italians were decedents of Rome, why can it not be the same to say that Greeks were also direct decedents of Rome?

[ShingenT]

i think the link was severed during the dark ages. the only thing sort of linking them together is the church.

[Chris Weimer]

Mariusj's comment on Latin is, of course, pure untrue. Many Romans considered Greek to be inferior or even corrupt, all the way until the Scipionic (Aemlian) circle which promulgated Greek heritage among the Romans. Then Greek was taught to the upper classes along with Latin. All official Roman documents were in Latin, all the best Roman writers wrote in Latin (unless they were from Greece, then they wrote in Greek).

Also, Sulla and Caesar's heritage goes back all the way to the Etruscan times - how is that "not Roman"? If you want to continue in this conversation, mariusj, you'll have to back up your wild assertions far more than you have now (which is not at all).

[Chris Weimer]

OK, here are some more factually inaccurate/untrue statements corrected. I couldn't really tell from mariusj's post who said what, so I'm responding to everything.

Justification:
Geological proximity, language similarity, and political influence.

Actually, genetic and cultural influence covers the two big ones. And Italians are genetically similar to the Romans. Then again, the Romans were Latins, and the Latins were Italic, and many Italians still have Italic blood in them.

Counter claim 1) Italians are not Romans and Romans are not Italians. Italians are mostly Latin Rights holder.

Italy became fully Roman under Sulla. Besides, Romans shared ethnicity with many Italic groups.

I can find Pro-consul of Gaul, Pro-consul of Spain [minor/major] and Pro-consul of Greece, but are there Pro-Consul of Italy?

No need to. The consuls took care of it. The Italians before Caesar weren't allowed to have standing armies.

During the prime of the Empire, the Emperor decided to move the capital to Byzontion, b/c Rome was simply to far away from the rest of the Empire.

The prime of the Empire? No, that was much, much earlier during the Antonines (perhaps Hadrian instead). By Constantine, the empire was in somewhat of a decline. It only lived longer due to the terror of Christianity's newfound power. But Constantine also moved the capital to Byazantium not because Rome was too far away, but because he wanted a city all for himself. Which is why he renamed it Constantinople. But still, even afterwards, Rome was never forgotten as the true capital. The gov't didn't all move there, and it was the sacking of Rome, not Byzantium, that made Jerome and Augustine lament the death of the empire.

Is Greece not closer to Byzontion then Italy was?

For 1000 years Rome was the capital. The Roman empire began in Italy. It was only on the whim of one emperor that it changed.

Counter Claim 3) The timeline from the time Roman beating everyone and extract tribute and service from the Italians [and Remember, Italians are a term we gave them, they are not Italians but Samurians and etc etc etc ]to the time Italy was lost during the collapse of the Western Empire is far SHORTER then the time b/w Romans beating Macedonians and take control of Greece and install their governors upon the Greeks and make the Greeks a part of the Republic to the time of the fall of Eastern Empire, Greece was still under control even in 1450.

That's really unfair to compare the later Byzantine empire with the Roman Republic. You're comparing apples and oranges. Calling yourself Roman doesn't make you one. Who was ruling in the later Byzantine empire? They were Greek rulers, and the subjects were Greeks, not Romans. Rome isn't a mere appellation. It actually meant something ethnically.

[ShingenT]

I would just like to add to Chris's point.

HRE, Holy Roman Empire.

"neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire"
-Voltaire

Byzantine were not really romans anymore.
They had their own of everything, culture to politics to military.
they broke off from the legionary system and praetorian system that romans were using. they fielded Kataphraktoi, Clibanarii, Pronoiars, forgein militias, mecenaries.
they started speaking greek after 600s, and culturely they are very "eastern"

the only thing i see somewhat similiar is the Eastern Senate, but it held no importance

[mariusj]

Mariusj's comment on Latin is, of course, pure untrue. Many Romans considered Greek to be inferior or even corrupt, all the way until the Scipionic (Aemlian) circle which promulgated Greek heritage among the Romans. Then Greek was taught to the upper classes along with Latin. All official Roman documents were in Latin, all the best Roman writers wrote in Latin (unless they were from Greece, then they wrote in Greek).

Also, Sulla and Caesar's heritage goes back all the way to the Etruscan times - how is that "not Roman"? If you want to continue in this conversation, mariusj, you'll have to back up your wild assertions far more than you have now (which is not at all).

I already lost interest in discussing this thread, but I will at least respond to your question on why my claim of Caesars and others.

The Caesars were part of the gens Julia, originated from Alba Longa, a city south east of Rome. Thus, my claim of at one point, the Julii were not Roman was true.

We only know the gens Cornelii were extremely important to the Republic, but there are no claims of their origin of Rome.

As for Greek, I simply made the observation that Romans speak Greek and that Greek was a cultured language; I receive the impression of importance of Greek to Roman life when Marius entering the race for Senate and there were attacks of his Greek been impure- if the Romans have a disdain that Greek was low and inferior or corrupt, why attack him on the concept of Greek?

And as I have repeated numerous, NUMEROUS times, and I will repeat one final time: NO where in my posts would you find me saying Romans do not speak Latin, my only comment was they also speak Greek. If we disagree, fine. If you want me to shut up, I will. If you want to prove to me that Romans do not speak Greek, then I BEG YOU, SHOW ME YOUR SOURCE ON WHY ROMANS DON'T SPEAK GREEK.

[mariusj]

Actually, genetic and cultural influence covers the two big ones. And Italians are genetically similar to the Romans. Then again, the Romans were Latins, and the Latins were Italic, and many Italians still have Italic blood in them.

I want to pose several questions.

If the Romans were Romans b/c they reside in Rome, and the Italians were similar to Romans b/c they resides within the Republic [I assume that is your claim] then why are Romans under the Empire any less Romans then Italians under the Republic?

All of your argument on Romans was that Roman was an ethnic group, while to me Roman is not an ethnic group any more then HRE was an ethnic group.

I believe there is a strong distinction b/w Italians and Romans- for example, Cato the Censor, was an Roman born in Italy, while Quintus Poppaedius Silo was an Italian. There was a clear distinction b/w who were Romans and who were Italians.
Then you make claims that somehow Italians were Romans, and I made a similar counter argument, if Italians who were not Roman during majority of the Republic time were Roman due to their convergence after the Republic time, why is it the Greeks could not be said of the same thing? NO one answer my question. I use the exact same argument you people used, but instead you brow beat me on Greek. Fine. Fine. Romans do not speak Greek; Greek was uncultured and uncivilized, Latin is superior. But tell me why is it that Italians who were not Romans Romans and Greeks who were also not Romans cannot be Romans while your Italians were Romans?

I think people are jumping on my head when we have one big difference in our understanding.

When I think of Romans, not only do I think of the accomplishment of the Republic [and believe me, I like the Republic more then I like the Empire] but also of the Empire; the idea of Romans were somehow Italians and Greco-Romans were not Romans is just beyond me. But if you want to use Romans as in Romans from Roma, then fine, I will concede my points. Greeks are less Romans then Italians.

Italy became fully Roman under Sulla. Besides, Romans shared ethnicity with many Italic groups.

Why is Italy fully Roman under Sulla. I was not aware that mass citizenship was granted after the Social War, but if you can point me to where does it say Italy became fully Roman under Sulla I would be very glad to apologizes in this forum to everyone I have offended.

No need to. The consuls took care of it. The Italians before Caesar weren't allowed to have standing armies.

I am confused. The Consuls of Rome took care of Italy? Italy was rule by mostly Italian allies and their own communities while small Roman communities were ruled by Roman law.
I was unaware of standing armies. Nor am I aware that standing armies was common of that time among anyone. However, Italians did have armies, else how could they supply Roma's war with Italian troops and isn't this one of the biggest reason why the Social War occur?

The prime of the Empire? No, that was much, much earlier during the Antonines (perhaps Hadrian instead). By Constantine, the empire was in somewhat of a decline. It only lived longer due to the terror of Christianity's newfound power. But Constantine also moved the capital to Byazantium not because Rome was too far away, but because he wanted a city all for himself. Which is why he renamed it Constantinople. But still, even afterwards, Rome was never forgotten as the true capital. The gov't didn't all move there, and it was the sacking of Rome, not Byzantium, that made Jerome and Augustine lament the death of the empire.

Very well. If you believe the Empire is in decline, and you point out why, then I respect your opinion, and they might even be right. I speak what I was taught. If you have books or sources to back your theory up, I would be happy to apologize for my faulty mistakes/comments.

For 1000 years Rome was the capital. The Roman empire began in Italy. It was only on the whim of one emperor that it changed.

I am sorry, but isn't history sort of like that? B/c of the whim of one man, Caesar marched and ended the Republic [or b/c the whim of several man, Roma was out of soldier and Marius have to recruit soldiers from the head count and mark the end of the Republic] or b/c of the whim of one man nationalism was spread throughout Europe. I don't see how the whim of one man somehow change my theory.

That's really unfair to compare the later Byzantine empire with the Roman Republic. You're comparing apples and oranges. Calling yourself Roman doesn't make you one. Who was ruling in the later Byzantine empire? They were Greek rulers, and the subjects were Greeks, not Romans. Rome isn't a mere appellation. It actually meant something ethnically.

I am sorry. We call it the Byzantine Empire. People of later day call it the Byzantine Empire, that doesn't make them the Byzantine Empire. Certainly calling yourself Roman doesn't make you one, at the same time calling someone Byzantine Empire doesn't make them the Byzantine Empire either. I believe they are the Eastern Roman Empire, a part of the Roman Empire.

What of Italy after the fall of Roman Empire? They were ruled by Italians, the subjects were Italians, not Romans. I could say the very same thing. Then I realize you will then again repeat constantly about how Italians are Romans and etc etc.

[mariusj]

But yes. You know what. Here we go.

I am sorry about my comments.

I am sorry that I thought Romans speak Greek.

I am sorry that I dare to think Greeks were somehow as Romans as the Italians were.

I am terribly sorry that I somehow unimaginably dare to believe the Easter Roman Empire was part of Roman Empire.

I am terribly sorry that I somehow stupidly [and I believe I can comment about myself without offending the mods. Or are mods offended by every comment?] unimaginable dare to believe Caesars and Sulla and all the 32 tribes of Rome were not Romans at all time.

I am truly sorry to actually think the Italian allies were not under Roman rule while believing the Province of Greece was under Roman rule.

Mods, try not to delete this. I am sorry. So forgave me.

[Richard Lim]

The Caesars were part of the gens Julia, originated from Alba Longa, a city south east of Rome. Thus, my claim of at one point, the Julii were not Roman was true.

ahem... Alba Longa was the city from which - in Roman tradition - Romulus and Remus hailed. It existed before Rome was founded - again in Roman tradition - by Romulus. But by your logic Romulus himself was not Roman either, which somewhat begs the question....

Unless you were simply saying that no one could be Roman before Rome itself had been founded, which would be logical. But I don't see how that particular argument would have any relevance in the present discussion.

[liuzg150181]

And as I have repeated numerous, NUMEROUS times, and I will repeat one final time: NO where in my posts would you find me saying Romans do not speak Latin, my only comment was they also speak Greek. If we disagree, fine. If you want me to shut up, I will. If you want to prove to me that Romans do not speak Greek, then I BEG YOU, SHOW ME YOUR SOURCE ON WHY ROMANS DON'T SPEAK GREEK.

I think beginning of the contestation of your statement lies not in whether the Romans spoke Latin or not,but whether the upper-class Romans spoke Greek at the expense of Latin, which start from post #10 by you in this thread:

"Then on language, I must remind EVERYONE that the ROMANS speak GREEK. GREEK was the cultured language, much like French when France kicked a** [well... I actually don't know when it began or when it will end, but since I think it is still in Olympic, I assume French will be there for a long time to come that have nothing to do with their military might or cultural strength.] Latin was considered the uncultured form of language and everyone in Italy speaks it, except for the Romans - if you speak Latin you were considered uneducated, when Marius entered the Senate, people try to fight him by claiming his Greek has a hint of Asian accent [Persians] and that attack worked.

So I don't think the Italians have any better claim when Romans just straight up speaks Greek."

Do you mean that there was at least one time upper-class Roman citizens despised Latin and used Greek amongst themselves instead as much as possible? Or even the whole Roman population thought so?(especially the part on "Latin was considered the uncultured form of language and everyone in Italy speaks it, except for the Romans - if you speak Latin you were considered uneducated, when Marius entered the Senate, people try to fight him by claiming his Greek has a hint of Asian accent [Persians] and that attack worked.")

There was already evidence that there was already one time upper-class Roman citizens could appreciate Latin(though classical Latin,and not the 'vulgur' form),even this might not be the case throughout Roman history. Therefore if you can clarify your statement more,backing with evidence there's at least a period whereby the Romans,or at least the upper-class one despised Latin in favour of Greek, then the discussion would be moving in a more beneficial directionl~~~

Edited by liuzg150181, 31 August 2008 - 11:29 AM.

[mariusj]

Wait. People are still jumping me. Is my post not clear?



I am sorry about my comments.

I am sorry that I thought Romans speak Greek.

I am sorry that I dare to think Greeks were somehow as Romans as the Italians were.

I am terribly sorry that I somehow unimaginably dare to believe the Easter Roman Empire was part of Roman Empire.

I am terribly sorry that I somehow stupidly [and I believe I can comment about myself without offending the mods. Or are mods offended by every comment?] unimaginable dare to believe Caesars and Sulla and all the 32 tribes of Rome were not Romans at all time.

I am truly sorry to actually think the Italian allies were not under Roman rule while believing the Province of Greece was under Roman rule.

Mods, try not to delete this. I am sorry. So forgave me.

I think from now on you want to talk just send a PM after you read my post. I am done when people jump me for comments I DID NOT MAKE and for logic I DID NOT DEDUCE, AND since no one bother answering my question and didn't seem to care WHETHER OR NOT I apologize or defend my argument, I don't see why people still even quote me and jump me.

[liuzg150181]

Wait. People are still jumping me. Is my post not clear?



I am sorry about my comments.

I am sorry that I thought Romans speak Greek.

I am sorry that I dare to think Greeks were somehow as Romans as the Italians were.

I am terribly sorry that I somehow unimaginably dare to believe the Easter Roman Empire was part of Roman Empire.

I am terribly sorry that I somehow stupidly [and I believe I can comment about myself without offending the mods. Or are mods offended by every comment?] unimaginable dare to believe Caesars and Sulla and all the 32 tribes of Rome were not Romans at all time.

I am truly sorry to actually think the Italian allies were not under Roman rule while believing the Province of Greece was under Roman rule.

Mods, try not to delete this. I am sorry. So forgave me.

I think from now on you want to talk just send a PM after you read my post. I am done when people jump me for comments I DID NOT MAKE and for logic I DID NOT DEDUCE, AND since no one bother answering my question and didn't seem to care WHETHER OR NOT I apologize or defend my argument, I don't see why people still even quote me and jump me.

I admit that I didnt finish reading all your posts, I am just referring to the particular instance that was the beginning of dispute regarding Greek and Latin language,I dont really care about the tussle in between.
Relax, I am not here to jump on you,and I dont think others are doing so intentionally unless they have some axe to grind with you previously.
Also,I had received your PM and replied.

[Chris Weimer]

Well, I'm sorry for not responding sooner. My life forbids me to post as often as I would like, especially on topics with which I'm familiar, and which are my expertise. First, continue on with all capitals and "dares" and what have you and I will shut you up, only because you are acting out of decorum and pursuing a hostile argumentation.

First things first: read what I wrote. It will do you no good to counter my views if you cannot correctly comprehend them, or refuse to read what has been written. After that in importance, and this I'm only going to repeat once: back up your sources for your positive claims. I let slide those which are well known, but when challenged, you need to provide sources. Finally, before digging into the bulk of the matter, don't ask to prove a negative. "Prove me wrong" is a sure sign of someone who does not know what they're talking about, or are totally unfamiliar with historical-critical models/basic logic.

The Caesars were part of the gens Julia, originated from Alba Longa, a city south east of Rome. Thus, my claim of at one point, the Julii were not Roman was true.

That'd be true for every single family in Rome, then, since Rome has a date of foundation, and before that it was not populated. But the Julian and Cornelian family has been at Rome since the earliest times immemorable (C. Iulius Iullus was consul at 489; Ser. Cornelius Maluginensis at 485). You're right about Pompey, however, and that the Pompeians were descended from the Gauls which settled in Italy at Picenum.

As for Greek, I simply made the observation that Romans speak Greek and that Greek was a cultured language; I receive the impression of importance of Greek to Roman life when Marius entering the race for Senate and there were attacks of his Greek been impure- if the Romans have a disdain that Greek was low and inferior or corrupt, why attack him on the concept of Greek?

I never said that no Romans spoke Greek. But you're conflating the "upper class" with all Romans, and this is not true. Many Americans learn Chinese, and that is just as irrelevant to inheritance as it is that educated Romans spoke Greek. And Romans only started learning Greek en masse after the acquisition of Greece. And that was just among certain elite. Cato the Elder staunchly opposed Greek, and he himself educated his children so that they wouldn't be "corrupted" by Greek teachers.

It would make more sense that Italy be the inheritor of Greece rather than Greece be the inheritor of Rome.

If the Romans were Romans b/c they reside in Rome, and the Italians were similar to Romans b/c they resides within the Republic [I assume that is your claim] then why are Romans under the Empire any less Romans then Italians under the Republic?

That is most certainly not my claim. Read it again if you're still interested.

Why is Italy fully Roman under Sulla. I was not aware that mass citizenship was granted after the Social War, but if you can point me to where does it say Italy became fully Roman under Sulla I would be very glad to apologizes in this forum to everyone I have offended.

If you can read Greek or Latin:

http://web.upmf-gren...ivitate.gr.html for the Lex Iulia de civitate and
http://web.upmf-gren...tia_papiria.htm for the Lex Plautia Papiria de civitate

...both of which deal with granting citizenship to the Italians after the Social War. You can read about in Wikipedia as well for a primer.

http://en.wikipedia....s_to_the_Allies

I was unaware of standing armies. Nor am I aware that standing armies was common of that time among anyone. However, Italians did have armies, else how could they supply Roma's war with Italian troops and isn't this one of the biggest reason why the Social War occur?

The Italians supplied citizens to fight in Rome's army. They were not allowed to have actual armies or troops, nor make any alliances with foreign nations, etc. Read Livy to get a better grasp on the situation.

Very well. If you believe the Empire is in decline, and you point out why, then I respect your opinion, and they might even be right. I speak what I was taught. If you have books or sources to back your theory up, I would be happy to apologize for my faulty mistakes/comments.

I could go on about the extent of the empire under Trajan (largest in Roman history), the civil wars of Constantine (ruining Domitian's vision), the sound economic policies starting from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius (most sources would attest). I will instead quote the foremost author of the 19th century on the fall of Rome, Edward Gibbon. If you are not convinced, I'll track down statistics and others to attest:

"If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."

I am sorry, but isn't history sort of like that? B/c of the whim of one man, Caesar marched and ended the Republic [or b/c the whim of several man, Roma was out of soldier and Marius have to recruit soldiers from the head count and mark the end of the Republic] or b/c of the whim of one man nationalism was spread throughout Europe. I don't see how the whim of one man somehow change my theory.

The whim of one man does not alter history past. Constantine's shift of Rome (which, mind you, remained an important center of civic services) does not alter the fact that for over 1000 years Rome was the capital of the Roman empire. Besides, the capital shift was done for many reasons, and Byzantium was always understood to be although a part of the Roman empire actually part of Greece.

I believe they are the Eastern Roman Empire, a part of the Roman Empire.

You can say it until your face turns blue, but the difference are far too profound to include under one homogenous label.

What of Italy after the fall of Roman Empire? They were ruled by Italians, the subjects were Italians, not Romans. I could say the very same thing. Then I realize you will then again repeat constantly about how Italians are Romans and etc etc.

For that you might actually have to read what I actually wrote.

But yes. You know what. Here we go.

I am sorry about my comments.

I am sorry that I thought Romans speak Greek.

I am sorry that I dare to think Greeks were somehow as Romans as the Italians were.

I am terribly sorry that I somehow unimaginably dare to believe the Easter Roman Empire was part of Roman Empire.

I am terribly sorry that I somehow stupidly [and I believe I can comment about myself without offending the mods. Or are mods offended by every comment?] unimaginable dare to believe Caesars and Sulla and all the 32 tribes of Rome were not Romans at all time.

I am truly sorry to actually think the Italian allies were not under Roman rule while believing the Province of Greece was under Roman rule.

Mods, try not to delete this. I am sorry. So forgave me.

This isn't doing you any good. And on top of the condescending and sarcastic attitude, it's full of strawmen.