Hum. I never said the Julii was not part of the Republic, but the time period of Roman existence goes back to the kingdom does it not? My point was more like, at the founding of Rome, Juli wasn't part of it, but eventually towards the latter part of the Roman history in its kingdom stage did many famous families join the kingdom. Since the Roman kingdom was supposed to be founded at 1000 B.C, and the first [I assumed?] Juli consul was in 489 B.C, I don't see what I said contradicts this.
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.
How is the example of many American learn Chinese even close to the many upper class Roman learn Greek? It is more like many upper class Europeans learn French during certain period during the history of Europe.
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.
And I did noted that Greece was only acquired by Rome after Rome acquired Italy, and like I said, my 'Roman speak Greeks thus Greeks could be Romans' came only after 'Romans speak Latin thus Italians could be Romans;' it wasn't an academic statement, since I am no historians and I don't keep history books on any civilization at my book shelf, but rather doubt on the 'b/c Romans speak Latin, and Italians speak Latin, thus Italians are direct decedent of Romans.'
It would only make sense if Roma was the inheritor of Greece, and that were Italy to be inheritor of Roma then and only then could Italy be inheritor of Greece.
It would make more sense that Italy be the inheritor of Greece rather than Greece be the inheritor of Rome.
But nevertheless, in my understanding, inheritances goes both way, if A could inherit B, then B could also inherit A; if Italy is inheritor of Greece then Greece is also inheritor of Italy [which.... really doesn't work if I think very hard, if.]
I read yours. Did you read mine? I asked a general question, then I went on stating that your points were based on genetic and cultural, and I posed other questions such as 'are Romans really an ethnic group' and then continue on with 'Romans are no more an ethnic group anymore then HRE was' and that was my point.
That is most certainly not my claim. Read it again if you're still interested.
I can't read either Greek or Latin.
If you can read Greek or Latin:
...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.
However, I do know of the granting of citizenship of Italians after the Social War [it would be silly of me to not know and argue about Italian allies] and I want to point out a key fact, perhaps my understanding of history wasn't clear, but the citizenship was only granted to any clan who did not revolt. But certainly, my understanding of Lex Plautia Papiria is close to neil, and if this law actually did change something about how citizenship was granted, please enlighten me.
Hum. Did not know that.
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.
I suppose I should rephrase.
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 don't think there are much time in Roman history that could surpass Pax Romona, nor do I think Constantine was the greatest Emperor, but I do think he is a great Emperor and under him there was a rejuvenation into Roman Empire. So I would disagree that during Constantine's reign, the condition was worse then Constantius and Galerius' reign. In fact, it was to my understanding [and some google research that should amount to nothing in the academic world but its easily accessed.] that Constantine recapture many lost parts of the Empire and have reunited the Empire under one Emperor [which I believe is better then having co-emperors].
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.
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.
Wait. That is not fair. I brought up an example of Byzantine, the capital of Roman Empire after Constantine, was closer to Greece and you said that was only b/c the whim of one emperor, and then you go on saying the whim of one man doesn't change historic past; so b/c Rome was capital for 1000 years Byzantine amounts to nothing?
B/c Luo Yang and Chang An were capitals since long long ago and had been for maybe majority of Chinese history [well at least longer then most cities], Bian Liang, Da Du/Yan Jing/ Pei King/ Bei Jing meant nothing?
Very well. My face turned blue. [I also said Obama will become President alone with it.]
You can say it until your face turns blue, but the difference are far too profound to include under one homogenous label.
I have asked for a while now, how do we define Romans in this thread. [Maybe I did.] Are we talking about Romans from the Republic to the fall of the Western Empire? Are we talking about the Republic? Are we talking about the Empire?
The topic began with a giant homogeneous label, like who are the decedents of Han. Are those who stayed in the northern plain and intermarried with the nomads, or those who fled to the southern plain and intermarried with the locals. Was Southern Song any less of Song then Northern Song? Did Ming end when the Emperor hang himself on the mountain or did it end when the last Emperor was hunted down?
For that you might actually have to read what I actually wrote.
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.
So, we are clear. This topic will ignore Byzantine Empire.
But funny how you could say Italians were decedents of Romans but Byzantine was not.
Believe it or not. I was actually serious. Since no one was [key word, WAS] interested in any real conversation but instead are all interested in demanding on why Romans speak Greek or demand my acceptance of Romans do not speak Greek.
This isn't doing you any good. And on top of the condescending and sarcastic attitude, it's full of strawmen.