Who Were The Ancient Romans?

This is an interesting question mostly because it would be academic and noncontroversial except that Nordicists have chosen to shove their hateful snouts into the matter and create a bunch of lies. The proto-Italics, later to become the Romans in part, came from Austria 2900 YBP. No quite knows who Austrians were at that point racially, as Germanics don’t show up in Austria until late in the Roman Empire near the Fall. A sector of the Nordicists have created a lie to disinherit the Italians of their claim to the Roman Empire. According to this lie, the ruling class of the Romans were pure Germanics, and the rabble/refuse were just a bunch of racially degenerated dagos. They enlist all sorts of nonsensical evidence in favor of this supposition, including looking at statues and paintings and whatnot. The Nordicist notion stems from their incredulity that a bunch of no good wops could have created one of the greatest empires known to mankind. It’s interesting that many Nazi racialist authors did not subscribe to the standard Nordicist lie of today. The Nazis were quite clear that the Italians of today were the descendants of the Romans. In fact, Nazi racial hierarchy placed Meds only slightly below Nordics on the racial scale. Both were seen as highly superior races, but the Nordics were seen as a bit better, as supremacists always have to put themselves on top. Nazi theory held that both Meds and Nords had a lot of good and bad racial tendencies, and held that Meds were superior to Nords in many ways. In particular, the Meds were seen as one of the most, if not the most, creative race in modern times, or possibly ever. The Nordicist distortion of today stems from the UK and the US. The US was settled by Northern Europeans and the Southern Europeans, including Italians, who immigrated starting 130 years ago were seen as highly inferior on a racial basis. Science has not born this claim out, but it remains a part of US founding stock culture, and it was a motivating factor being the restrictive 1925 Immigration Act. I don’t know the UK racially very well, but I suspect that they have always looked down on the Continent in general, and probably the Southern Europeans in particular. Not when it comes to partying in Mallorca though I guess. Anyway, the truth is that modern Nordicists have so distorted even Nazi Nordicism that most modern Nordicists would have probably been booted out of the Nazi Party at the time. I am not trying to romanticize the Nazis here, but in terms of racial science, they were correct in some ways. Contrary to popular nonsense, Nazis did not hold Jews to be inferior. Nazi racialism quite correctly recognized the superiority of the Jews. Instead, they just held that the Jews were evil. The Nazis employed racialist academics who followed the army on their gruesome deeds. Over by the Caucasus, these academics undertook deep scientific studies that concluded that certain Jewish groups in that area were not racially Jewish, but instead were culturally Jewish. The Nazis were not as insane as everyone says, and they held by the findings of their scientists and saved the lives of tens of thousands of Jews on that basis. The pro-Meds have been battling the Nordicists about this for nearly a century now, and I support the Meds’ side of the argument. From Roman sources we get reports describing Romans in quite the same way as the peoples of Abruzzo to the Po would be described today. Germanics were described as blond, blue and very different looking than Romans. The only difference between the Romans and the Abruzzo to Po Italians of today is that the people in this region are actually more Germanized today than they were under the Romans! To the South, there have been some changes, including a large injection of Arab, Phoenician, Spanish, Corsican, French (Norman), Greek and Albanian genes. This is most marked in Sicily. One lie is that the Abruzzo to Po Italians have lots of Black blood in them. To the South, yes, there is some Black blood, but it is minimal. It is most prominent in Sicily at around 5 Academics have stayed out of the debate only to say that the ancient Romans were the same people as modern day Italians. A similar lie was spread about Greece on the same basis. How could these dumb-ass Southern European inferiors have produced one of the greatest societies in history? It’s obviously not possible, so some mysterious Germanics must have infiltrated that rocky land to surreptitiously ruled over those swarthy inferiors. Once again, statues and whatnot are enlisted in support of this, and Nordicists study art and statues with magnifying glasses claiming to see secret Master Race features in Greek art. The Meds have gone at them again in this argument, and once again, I side with the Meds. The Nordicist argument is curious. If Romans and Greeks were secret Master Race types, then obviously the central Italians and Greeks, as largely racially unchanged folks, are their descendants anyway. The argument becomes circular. The Nords try to say that the Central Italians and Greeks underwent some massive racial degeneration after the Falls, but there is no evidence for this. As with Southern Italians, there seems to be some Black blood in the Greeks, but only about 5 Some Nordicists make a truly insane argument about Ancient Egypt which is almost as insane as the Afrocentric crap about Black Athena. According to this, some Master Race White types created Egypt, then Egypt underwent racial degeneration with an infusion of Black blood and collapsed into the Hellish Cairo of today, trash dumps everywhere, mangy stray dogs in the streets, and rats about as big as the dogs scurrying through the open air markets.

Garbage in Naples. Descendants of the great Romans? Afraid so. How so? A historian might say that down through time, shit happens.
Garbage in Naples. Descendants of the great Romans? Afraid so. How so? A historian might say that down through time, shit happens.
Not only that, but nothing works, and in order to get hooked up to the non-working system, you have to wait in line forever and pay off a bunch of lazy pricks. Academics once again stay out of this one, except to say that they think there was continuity between Ancient and modern Egyptians. I saw one piece in the Journal of Physical Anthropology that compared genes of ancient Egyptians with those of modern Egyptians. Amazingly, racially, they were about the same at 91 The truth is somewhat interesting. While the Afrocentrist notion must be discarded, it’s certainly true that at least historically, a bit of Black blood mixed with mostly White stock has produced some of the greatest societies the world has ever seen. At 90-95 It’s difficult to come up with a theory to explain why this stock did so well, but possibly mixing a bit of one stock to a lot of another produces an excellent genetic set. Anyway, this is how animal and plant breeders have been operating for centuries. It would be surprising if humans were different. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Please follow and like us:

85 thoughts on “Who Were The Ancient Romans?”

  1. If the Romans came from Austria and Dacia, then who was in the Roman centres of Italy before these Austrians/Dacians? Italy is after all a pleasant land, and I find it unlikely that is was not occupied.
    “I don’t know the UK racially very well, but I suspect that they have always looked down on the Continent in general, and probably the Southern Europeans in particular. ”
    I don’t think that’s quite true. The staid and stoic British often look at the continentals with envy and admiration – especially at those southern Europeans with their more relaxed attitudes, emotional development and stronger families.
    “a bit of Black blood mixed with mostly White stock has produced some of the greatest societies the world has ever seen. At 90-95% Med Caucasian and 5-10% Ethiopic Black, a mixing bowl for the greatest civilizations man produced was created.”
    It’s not necessarily the racial mix. , but the fact that during certain periods, the Med was swirling with cultures with civilisational aspirations which fed into and enriched each other. Americans see race through the binary notion of black and white because there a few north Africans in the US the illustrate the beige middle ground.

    1. We don’t know who was in Italy before the proto-Italics, I don’t think, and for sure we don’t know who they were racially.
      I agree with the rest of your comments.

      1. Sorry you are very wrong most modern day Greeks have 0% subsaharan African admixture. However some Greeks like some Sicilian people have Subsaharan African admixture between 0. 1%- and 0.5%. So extremely low. The study that tlaims that Greeks have 5% African admixture was debunked and refuted.

    2. “a bit of Black blood mixed with mostly White stock has produced some of the greatest societies the world has ever seen. At 90-95% Med Caucasian and 5-10% Ethiopic Black, a mixing bowl for the greatest civilizations man produced was created.”
      Oh god, gimme a break Sandra..
      Are you a stupid afrocentrist trying to praise about your “black blood”, you nig nog !

    3. I am Italian, born in Piemonte region. My mother has blonde and my sister. I know my ancestry back for centuries – the church has always kept records. My sister and I have DNA test for medical reason, and without doubt we match 85% Italian/ Greek. No Nordic. My family knows our ancestry also through passing from one to the next. We laugh to think northern people want to claim the politics, architects, music, art and science or our country. Anciently Italians (Rome and Greek) called blonde/blue eyes of the north “cowardly barbarians”.

  2. It makes no sense that southern Italians have black blood even if it is only 5%. Southern Italy was controlled for a time by the north African Arabs not black Africans. I can understand some Arab admixture but not black African.
    Black Africans couldn’t even get to islands like Madagascar, Cape Verde, or São Tomé and Príncipe. So how would they have managed to get to Greece or Italy?

    1. The admixture is apparently Ethiopian Black and came in during Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, etc. All European populations have some Black blood from this group. Germans have 1.7%.

    2. Ethiopians aren’t exactly the same as sub Saharan Africans.
      Ancient Ethiopians might not be exactly the same as modern day Ethiopians either.

    3. Indeed, Ethiopids are so dramatically different from SSA’s on some charts that I’m almost inclined to make a Major Race out of them. It’s as if they are partway between Blacks and Whites.

  3. “Nazi theory held that both Meds and Nords had a lot of good and bad racial tendencies, and held that Meds were superior to Nords in many ways. In particular, the Meds were seen as one of the most, if not the most, creative race in modern times, or possibly ever.”
    Not only National Socialists held these conceptions, but so too did American Racialists like Madison Grant.
    Most of the ‘older’ Racialists held Alpines in more contempt then anything else.
    Where the current contempt for Meds comes into contemporary Racialism is a good Question. My guess is it is based on too many Guidos siding with Negroes recently.
    ” I don’t know the UK racially very well, but I suspect that they have always looked down on the Continent in general, and probably the Southern Europeans in particular.”
    Huh? This comment is all over the place.
    The British Isles were first people by a semitic sea-faring Race similar to the Ancient Phoenicians: these are the Racial types who gave rise to what we today call ‘Black Irish’
    It is only later that Germanic tribes of Angles, Saxes, Normans and even Nordic Vikings (my Ancestors) would settle in the British Isles. My hunch is it is these later arrivals who you think look down on meds.
    “The Nazis employed racialist academics who followed the army on their gruesome deeds. ”
    What gruesome deeds?!?! Methinks you have been watching a few too many Jewish Hollywood movies.
    ” According to this, some Master Race White types created Egypt, then Egypt underwent racial degeneration with an infusion of Black blood and collapsed into the Hellish Cairo of today, trash dumps everywhere, mangy stray dogs in the streets, and rats about as big as the dogs scurrying through the open air markets.”
    Indeed once Egypt put into place the first Black Pharaoh it quickly collapsed, just as America will soon following the election of that mulatto Obama!
    Here is a link: Chapter 8: Egypt: Nordic Desert Empire

    1. It’s a Nordicist lie, Henry.
      The ancient Egyptians were 91% Med White and 9% Ethiopoid Black. This was the combination that created the pyramids and all that. Yes there were purer Black types around, but they were mostly slaves and entertainers.
      At some point, this empire just began to fall apart after existing for over 1000 years. No one really knows why, but no sane person thinks it has anything to do with race. As the Empire collapsed, Nubians (50% Ethiopid Black) moved into Egypt and ruled over it as it was collapsing. No, they were not able to turn it around, but they didn’t make it fall apart either. They just presided over the remains of it as it fell apart. Also in its weakened and decrepit state, Egypt was easy picking for the Nubian invaders.
      Collapse first – then Black rule of the crumbling empire after it had been falling apart for some time. In a similar vein, Germanics did not cause the collapse of Rome, but Rome began to fall apart, then Germanics moved in like scavengers to take over the pickings.
      It did NOT go Black rule first, then collapse.
      That’s a Nordicist lie!

      1. All empires fall because of greed. The fail due to the high concentration of wealth and the idea, myth, that money alone can rule people, can make people do what you want, can force people to accept the world you enjoy or profit from when people will ultimately get rid of you when they tire of subjugation under your whip.
        Sparta is a prime example about which much was written. They organized a three-political system society, much like the United States today, where oligarchies controlled the state backed by a brutal police force (the Spartan Warriors) who made the poor live under a rationed, Communist lifestyle, while the Oligarchs were the modern-day super-rich living a liberal carefree lifestyle of socialism with the soldiers being a landholding middle-class also enjoying socialism who banded together with the oligarchy under Fascism to attack and pillage neighboring states under a foreign policy designed to profit the oligarchs and rebalance the lower classes to a more manageable population, as those people were drafted, against their will, to be cannon fodder arrow men, missile men, stone throwers, and light infantry (if they were really tough).
        Invariably these lower classes always died on the battlefield.
        This is how Sparta, Rome, and now America, maintain control.
        We offer one guaranteed job in America, “soldier.” Anyone can be one and find a place and income here, though the weakest will never come home from wars that support defense company profits and multinational corporations, while those who prove to be stronger, in mind, will become the new Spartan slave-drivers overlording as higher-ranked soldiers or police officers back home.
        In ancient Sparta for a lessor human, slave or worker to even disrespect a Spartan warrior meant he would be beaten to death. Today, we taser them, beat them to death or shoot them as, “aggressors,” towards our military-trained police officers (Spartans).
        Henry is correct though, Egypt’s last Pharaohs were black Africans from Magen or Ethiopia and Egypt fell apart due to their constant need for more luxury and brutal treatment of their people to attain evermore largesse for the ruling caste. Then the Greeks took it from them. They took it because it was weak, they took it because it was a major trading power in the world and traditionally held roots as far back as Caucasian Phoenicia. The same, “roots,” as the Greco-Minoans.
        Solon talks about the Egyptian priests. They told him that both kingdoms, Greece and Egypt were, in the ancient past, one kingdom. Those priests, much to his shock, even spoke Greek. -circa 600 B.C.

    2. Harsh Henry
      I’m not sure that the “black Irish” were originally semetic. One look at the Welsh croner Tom Jones or Welsh goddess Catherine Zeta Jones and we know something is in the wood pile. It might very well have originated from with the Basque’s, but just who are the Basques?

    3. Indeed, the Black Irish are originally Basque types of some kind of inhabitants of “Old Europe” pre-Indo-European. They may indeed be related to the Basques.
      The Basques are mysterious, but I believe that their origins lie in the Caucasus. At one time, Basque types possibly were spread out over Europe.
      The origins of the Black Irish date from 9,000-11,000 years ago. Their languages are lost, but we know some of the names of these tribes.
      Check out Gimbutas on “Old Europe.” That’s Europe pre-Indo-Europeans. A very mysterious and little known place.

    4. Ok you guys can choose to disbelieve me but remember that History goes in cycles and there is a black in the White House right now who is presiding over our collapse…RIGHT NOW!
      Wake up! Whenever you put a Negro in charge things collapse.
      Happened in Egypt, happening right now.
      The unemployment rate in my neck of the woods is higher then in all Eastern European countries – you know the backwards commie ones. Look around, it is happening NOW!!

    5. Think about it for a second will you?
      If I have a peoples who are traveling on voyages to lands unknown for discovery in search of metals, England was famous for its tin mines needed during the Bronze Age to produce bronze, if I have laborers or lower-classes or even slaves, in order to produce the tin from mines I need to bring these workers, craftsmen, laborers with me.
      Hence African-faced Olmecs in Mexico and Egyptian or Aegean-style temples. Why build temples in the middle of nowhere?
      Answer; because the stars charts they used to map longitude and latitude would not work with plotting the star’s positions against the moon from THAT LOCATION first BEFORE setting sail. You would be insane to risk hundreds of lives, years worth of stored supplies, livestock, metal tonnage and a ship without having some idea where you were going.
      Now, once you had left, in order to have more raw material waiting when you come back, you have to leave the laborers there.
      Also, ship-sailing in ancient times was really dangerous. At our best days, under the British Empire, you could reasonably expect one in six ships to never return but in the early days I have read estimates of one out of two or the worst case; one out of fifteen makes the journey back or 7%.
      In time, if no one makes it back, the natives would begin worshiping the people left behind because they would have knowledge that was advanced. Those same natives, believing that the, “knowledgeable-ones,” will one day return might continue watching the heavens and plotting star positions using their rudimentary logo-grammic/pictorial sign language knowing that these, “gods,” desired the information and might reward them for having done so.

  4. I do think these kind of questions are kind of futile (a bit like trying to racially profile a typical American today) but for a bit of history..
    There was a major crash in both civilisation and populations around 1200bc in the Med/Near East.
    In Greece a collapsed “Minoan” culture was replaced by the Dorian Greeks, all we know is that they came from the North and spoke an Indo/European dialect. (Actually these Northerners took on the superior culture of the Med.)
    In Italy when Rome began to rise the Etruscans (non Indo european speakers) were the Dominant people of the area. Latin speakers really were only concentrated around Rome early on.
    (If anything it is the takeover of Indo European languages which I find interesting.)
    As for trying to work out the racial types of any of these people, it’s really not worth it and they mixed plenty over the time.
    Hitler wasn’t into denigrating the Italians claiming that they had built great stone buildings whilst the Germans still lived in mud huts.
    As for we Brits, well we are all very different but I can assure you, few look abroad with envy (apart from the weather) but we can’t resist travel.

  5. It’s too bad that Pliny the Elders writings have been lost. Tacitus drew heavily on them when he write “Germania”. Tacitus is very clear that Germans were distinctly different then Romans.
    Julius Caesar a prolific author also made this point.
    I’m basically a Nordicist, but have no desire to deny others there due. Truth is Disraeli was probably right, when he said that Northern Europeans were hunched over under oak trees munching on acorns wearing skins while others such as his were building storied civilizations.
    We know the Etruscans came from the Levant, and although gifted and advanced they were also cuckolded and licentious. They viewed the early Romans as we view Mexicans.
    The Romans took what they could from the Etruscans and the Greeks and made a pretty impressive run with it.
    I have an Italian gf with a fifty IQ who hails from Calabria, which is at the tip of the toe. I’d be hard pressed to see how one such as she could have built and empire, but her old man shows flashes of stoicism, and discipline which were the hallmarks of ancient Rome.

    1. LOL, yes, I’ve met quite a few Italians and it’s clear to me that they could have built a great civilization. Thx for the Disraeli quote, great stuff.
      I also never knew that the Etruscans came from the Levant and they saw themselves as more advanced than the Romans. Cool!
      Thx for the Tacitus and Caesar quotes too.
      I’m of Nordic stock myself, but I like Southern Europeans. We Nordics are so damned cold!

    2. Tacitus also said that Silures in Britain were darker than romans.
      Etruscans didn’t come from Levant, MAYBE they came from Western Anatolia in a place inhabited since time by Greeks.
      I say maybe cause the genetic test made few times ago to prove etruscans came from Anatolie has been largely dismounted lately.

  6. Robert forgive me for leading you to believe that these were quotes rather then paraphrases.
    It seems I was somewhat off the mark with Disraeli who replied to a taunt. “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.”
    It appears my memory serves me poorly about the Etruscans as well. I remember reading a study about their cattle’s DNA whereby researchers traced their origins, but after referencing it the study show that they came from asia minor which confirms Herodotus’ theories, although linguists have their doubts.
    Now that everything I write is suspect, I’ll just add that all accounts I have read describe the Etruscan women as absolutely gorgeous, and if they liked you they would bed you regardless of their marital status.
    I better go wrench on my truck now before I garble up anything else.

    1. Thought it was common knowledge. It’s a big deal with Romanians too. They hold that they are the ancestors of the Romans. Romanian is also one of the strangest and most archaic of Romance tongues. It’s also very close to Latin.

    1. Yes, this is true. The modern Romanians claim descent from Roman legionaries who settled in Dacia (Romania) after Trajan invaded it. The truth is that modern Romanians may be descended from the Romans, however there is no information indicating that Ancient Romans were descended from the Dacians.

  7. RL:“According to this lie, the ruling class of the Romans were pure Germanics, and the rabble/refuse were just a bunch of racially degenerated dagos. They enlist all sorts of nonsensical evidence in favor of this supposition, including looking at statues and paintings and whatnot.”
    The ruling class of both ancient Rome and ancient Greece, too) was primarily of Northern European descent. Maybe not completely, but likely with not much admixture from other groups (at least initially). As the elite/upper-classes became more mixed and the general populace became more Turkized/Arabized through immigration and the importation of slaves those empires decline (resulting in the Arabish and Turkishesque people who dominate in Greece, Southern Italy, etc today).
    Look again at the statues of ancient Roman elite; they certainly don’t look too ‘Med’ to me:
    – ETC, ETC
    Looking at the statues of the ancient Greek elite also reveals similarly Northern Euroish physiognomies.

    1. Northern Italian maybe, but they definitely do not look like modern middle or southern Italians who have become ‘Arabized’ to a great extent.

    2. “middle or southern Italians who have become ‘Arabized’ to a great extent.”
      What arabized means?
      History says that normans and longobards settled more in Southern Italy than muslims(who were for the most arabized berbers i.e Zidane)
      Central Italy has lower or similar % of J1B than Some place in Germany or Austria.
      J2 is 19% in Italy and almost all in Southern Italy only.
      J2 is not arab but from Balcans and probably greek in origin.
      J2 is 12% in Austria and more than 10% in France.
      France has also more subsaharan dna than Italy.
      “Look again at the statues of ancient Roman elite; they certainly don’t look too ‘Med’ to me:”
      you should stop to watch too Hollywood movies….
      Take a trip in Rome and you will wonder yourself to see how modern romans look similar to OUR roman emperor ancestors.
      If you hope to come in Rome and see people looking similar to maroccans you are out of your mind.
      Nordicists should only take an airplane in their life to have their theory dismounted, but i think it would not fit their agenda.
      I have an australian friend, that once in Rome told me how biased Hollywood and nordicists are about italians.

    3. If the “ruling class” in Rome was all “Nordic types” then why did the ancient Romans paint Alexander the Great with typical Mediterranean features in their fresco:
      They would have just ASSUMED Alexander was “Nordic” being that Romes “ruling elite” were “Nordic” (according to your dim ‘logic’)!
      Stop being jealous of dark Mediterranean peoples’ civilizations. We know the Germanic/Nordic tribes up north had nothing amazing in ancient times, even the Romans themselves proclaimed how uncivilized, dirty, illiterate, etc. the Germanic tribes up north were!
      History is against you, bud! Sorry, but you’ll have to walk away now with your tail between your legs.

      1. No, you lose, Anthrax. The mosaic is from Rome 1st century b.c. Alexander lived three hundred years before- IN GREECE. This is not a contemporary portrait from life, of Alexander.
        Greek biographer Plutarch (ca. 45–120 AD) describes Alexander appearance as: “Whereas he was of a fair colour, as they say, and his fairness passed into ruddiness on his breast particularly, and in his face. The outward appearance of Alexander is best represented by the statues of him which Lysippus made.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlexandreLouvre.jpg
        Fact is nobody knows how “Nordic” the Greeks or Romans were. Both tribes originally came from the North, however. It would be safe to say that they are both extinct races, and probably didn’t look like a typical modern Greek or Italian.
        Their paintings did not survive- look at their statues, make up our own mind…

        1. So you’re saying the Roman (they had clear contact with Greeks, btw, thus the GRECO-ROMAN Empire) Mosaic made in 100 B.C. is not accurate, whereas the quote from someone that lived in around 70 A.D. (his adulthood) is correct?
          The Greeks and Romans WERE NOT Nordic, you propagandist! There are ANCIENT GREEK FRESCOES from 540 B.C. and even 1500 B.C. showing GREEKS with BLACK HAIR, BROWN eyes, etc.
          Two Greek soldiers from around 1500 B.C.: http://dienekes.110mb.com/articles/hellenes/Image19.jpg
          Greek family from 540 B.C.: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Painting/Sacrifice.jpg
          Carving of Zeus: http://dienekes.110mb.com/articles/hellenes/zeus.jpg
          And I’ll post more if you’re yet again too scared or lazy to look them up for yourself.
          When you’re ready, go to Google Image search and type in “Ancient Greek frescoes” or “Minoan people” (closely related to Greeks – they look almost identical in their art). Minoans had amongst the first advanced civilization in Europe, by the way.
          Stop living in denial, and stop believing / spreading Nordicist lies, twisted quotes and propaganda.

        2. Northass- I never said the Ancient Greeks had blonde hair and blue eyes, and I never said they were 100% Nordic. I’m not one your straw-man Nordo- Bots that think everything good was Nordic. Stop putting words in my mouth, please.
          The lame links you gave show a 1. small ceramic staue of a mythical god- Zeus 2. Another typical portrayal of women as white and men as dark, and 3. More of the same. These prove what?
          Did I ever say your beloved Ancient Geeks weren’t dark-haired or swarthy, like their homo modern counterparts? No, I didn’t…I said that there was a lot of different stuff going on, from looking at the statues and other art. Alexander was a Macedonian- they are different from Southern Greeks to this day. There is a lot of resemblance between Ancient and modern Greeks- but it’s not exact either- they were composed of alot of different tribes, groups, that are extinct now. Like the Romans.
          Like the website you linked to (which is pretty good- but is blatantly very anti-Nordic in its bias) says- they were Alpines (lots of fairness-some blondeness), Dinarics, and Meds, with some Nordic thrown in.
          That’s closer to the truth- you are dead wrong if you think I have something against Meds- I don’t and no real Nordophile hates Meds or looks down on them- its a phony fight- only idiots who claim to be Nordos are down on Meds.
          Plutarch is “some guy”? I thought you were a Greco-phile?

        3. PALE SKIN and LIGHT HAIR were described as signs of BARBARISM by Polemon of Laodicea, an ancient GREEK man, in his book Physiognomica.
          Pseudo-Aristotle, another ancient GREEK man, noted differences between Greeks and the people of the north, believing that Greek superiority was visible in their MEDIUM SKIN TONE, as opposed to PALE NORTHERNERS and dark southerners (black Africans). He claimed that BLUE EYES were a SIGN OF COWARDLY NATURE, and that they indicated POOR EYESIGHT.
          Sorry, but you can keep believing that Nordicist made-up BS if you want. A Greek said that the GREEK (not different region of Greeks) altogether “medium” color was the best – not too pale / light as the northerners (Germanics / Nordics), and not too dark like the southerners (black Africans). They thought of blue eyes as cowardly and a sign of poor eyesight.
          But hey, if you want to continue believing BS lies, then that’s up to you. It looks like this will never end as a debate. I am just sick of Nordicist Nazis trying to claim ancient Mediterranean civilizations as their own, and putting down “dark, swarthy” Med people as if they were all just supposed slaves. Such BS.
          I’m not a “Greco-phile”, because I counter these stupid Nazis on forums and blogs where they sometimes try to claim that some “blonde hair, blue eyed people” came to central America in ancient times and built the Native American Mayan pyramids, as well. I am sick of these pathetic, desperate, jealous morons constantly trying to twist history, because I know some morons out there fall for it and spread their lies for them.

        4. Northax- Your heart is in the right place- defending your people, etc. from illogical claims. But- your arguments are so lame you are undermining your case. You are proving what you are refuting.
          You are a Greek of modern extraction who goes nuts when anyone dares question the innate greatness and unbroken lineage of your kind.
          You are just as bad as as your straw men- your hated Nordo that thinks they invented everything.
          Nords are inferior because some Greek guy says so? That’s an argument?
          Oh, wait, I agree with you now…all Nords are inferior because of their por eyesight caused by blue eyes, and I’m sure their pale skin is futher proof…
          You are an idiot. Is this proof that Meds are idiots? According to your logic, it would!
          P.S.- Meds are just the Southern version of Nords, according to my understanding- there is no fight here- your whole assertion is off base. Go find some wacko who thinks the Pyramids were built by Blue-Eyed Aryans and fight with them. No one here is saying such things. All we are asking here is: What was the racial makeup of the Greeks & Romans. That is not a crazy question, and there is no consensus.

        5. I’m not agreeing, word for word, with the two Greeks that I quoted. I don’t think Greeks are superior on a genetic basis; I personally know that all specific groups of humans are well-adapted to their indigenous environment on Earth.
          It’d be as stupid as a shark laughing at a human for not being able to swim nearly as good as the shark can; the shark not realizing that both shark and man are simply created for two very different environments.
          I just used the quotes to prove that Greeks were of different color than the supposed “light complexion” some of these Nordicists love trying to make everyone believe.
          I have friends of all colors and backgrounds – I do not believe anyone is superior or inferior based on the mere genetic makeup. I look at the individual when I talk to them, not the color of their skin, hair or eyes.
          I am not ignorant or desperate like these silly Nordicist Nazis.
          Anyway, good day.

  8. The statues,paintings do not look med or anything else it seems. An off shoot for sure it seems. They were not as attractive as Meds in facial appearances or of modern Italians(who are an extreme mixture of everything). They were a bit shorter than the German/Celts but were much more muscular. The few bones(ancient original Romans cremated) showed heavy muscularity ,much greater than moderns even.
    My premise is that the Roman style of fighting served the infantry well and their battles were of brute strength. Their sword the gladius was not as good as the Celt sword in many way. It has showed to be superior in computer tests. However, the Roman style was compact and using their superior strength it seems. They were even out numbered by great margins it just about all battles. Tjis fact seems to not to carry much weight but in hand to hand combat it does in reality.
    How the Romans one these battles was organization but in reality it was genetics. Where they came from is anybody’s guess. They do not appear to be like anyone but Romans.
    Of course in the later stages they were just a mix, sort of like modern day Italians.

    1. Ok this makes sense. They were a race of people that doesn’t even exist anymore. They were not like Meds or Italians or Nordics or anyone. They were a unique European race that is now extinct.

    2. “Ok this makes sense. They were a race of people that doesn’t even exist anymore. They were not like Meds or Italians or Nordics or anyone. They were a unique European race that is now extinct.”
      Italy still hold the alpine haplogroup R1b\Sn28 and it is the main haplogroup all over Italy.
      The R1b\sn28 is believed to be ancient italic alpine related to italo-celt languages and romans.
      So romans didn’t disappear at all.
      As for the “italians mixed”, i really doubt that,probably french and austrians are more mixed than italians especially more mixed than central-north Italy,that is where the higher % of western european R1b is.
      Tuscany,Emilia,Liguria,Marche,Umbria,Piedmont,Veneto and Lombardy.

  9. The Ancient Romans could almost be considered the first great melting pot of different peoples. In other words, anyone could become adopt Latin and become a Roman citizen, and hence a “Roman.”
    But as far the original Ancient Romans (i.e. the founders of the city of Rome), they were essentially a subgroup of the Latins, an Italic tribe native to central Italy. As Rome grew in power and wealth, it came to conquer the surrounding populations living in Italy, granting them Roman citizenship and Latinizing them along the way. Such neighboring conquered peoples included other Latins, other Italic tribes who spoke languages similar to Latin (i.e. Umbrians, Sabines, Oscans, etc.), Greeks in southern Italy and Sicily, Gauls (Celts) in northern Italy, and the mysterious Etruscans of the Tuscany region.
    Eventually over time, as these groups fell to Roman hegemony, they adopted the Latin language and were given Roman citizenship. This strategy of giving conquered peoples Roman citizenship would continue as Rome would go on to conquer people outside of Italy. One could argue that this was Rome’s greatest strength that would later on become a weakness, as the idea of incorporating newly subjugated peoples into your identity was good politics, but at the same time would later become costly as ethnic hostility between people from different parts of the empire grew (also the fact that Rome simply spread itself far too thin territorially).
    But anyway, outside of Italy, the inhabitants of the provinces of Gaul (modern France), Spain, and Dacia (modern Romania) would also adopt the Latin language and Roman culture, and would hence come to regard themselves as Romans as well, even if they were ultimately of different ethnic origins. The Latin language did not take root in other parts of the empire as it either failed to supplant the native languages (as in Britain, Greece and the Near East) or was simply swept away by later barbarian invaders who brought their own tongues (i.e. Germanic tribes, Slavs, etc.).
    Initially, only Italians could be Roman citizens. This later changed when the emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the empire in 212 AD, regardless of ethnicity. However, even before this edict, there had been many non-Italians who had attained Roman citizenship, often by serving in the Roman legions.
    So in conclusion, the concept of a Roman ethnicity is somewhat ambiguous as Roman citizenship and identity came to include a wide range of different peoples, but the actual founders of the city of Rome were members of the Italic Latin tribe. Furthermore, for several centuries, Roman citizenship was exclusive to those born on Italian soil, regardless of their own ethnic origin as prior to Roman conquest/unification, Italy itself was a patchwork of the different groups mentioned above (different Italic tribes, Greeks, Gauls, etc.). Interestingly, it would not be for another 1,400 years or so until Italy would be politically united again (going from the fall of Rome in 476 AD until 1860 or so).

  10. ^In conjunction to what I wrote above, many modern Italians are descended, at least in part, from Italic peoples such as the Latins who gave rise to the original Ancient Romans. Naturally Italy has undergone numerous invasions since the fall of Rome (not to mention having acquired a diverse mix of people from around the Roman Empire in earlier centuries), but just by looking at sculptures and paintings of Ancient Romans, many modern Italians look strikingly similar. The same is true of the continuity between the Ancient and modern Greeks.
    So modern Italians descend from Italic peoples (all kinsmen of Ancient Romans really), the Ancient Greek colonists of Magna Graecia in the deep south and Sicily, Celtic Gauls of the Po Valley (basically the same people as the Gauls who lived across the Alps in modern France), Etruscans in Tuscany (although I’ve come across studies that show discontinuity between Etruscans and modern Tuscans so I don’t know), people who flocked to Italy during the apex of the Roman Empire (Spaniards, Gauls, Britons, Germans, Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks, Syrians, Jews, Egyptians, etc.), Germanic Lombards/Goths/ Franks, Byzantine Greeks, Arabic Moors (mostly Sicily here), Normans (in the south and Sicily), and even Albanians (again mostly Sicily here).
    Phew! That was a mouthful, but I’d say of all the above groups, the Italic tribes, Greeks, Gauls, and the Lombards played the heaviest roles in contributing to the genetic composition of the modern Italian population when it comes to sheer numbers. With respect to the influx of people Italy received from the provinces during the days of the Roman Empire, many if not most were slaves. Some of these slaves were either freed by their masters or obtained enough money to purchase their freedom, but many also likely died in bondage without reproducing and blending into the Italian population, hence the contribution from this diverse group is probably less than it otherwise would be (the Romans were heavily dependent on slave labor).
    Also of importance is the fact that by the time Rome fell in 476 AD and into the Dark Ages, Italy had been severely depopulated courtesy of war, famine, and disease. At least in the case of northern Italy, much of the gap in the demographic void was filled in by the Lombards and other Germanic peoples, who intermarried with the descendants of the Italic tribes and Romanized Gauls, who had long since fused into a single Roman identity by that point. Central Italy was always the Italic “heartland” of Italy so this is probably where people are most closely related to the original Ancient Romans, and southern Italy was always historically a blend of Italic and Greek ancestry (with lesser admixture of Phoenician, Norman, and Arab bloodlines).
    The Greek ancestry is especially strong in lower Apulia, Calabria, and in Sicily. In fact, although most of the Ancient Greeks in southern Italy had been Romanized during the many centuries of Roman rule, a significant minority retained their Greek language and identity. This identity was later reinforced when southern Italy received Byzantine Greek immigrants who were fleeing Slavic invasions in the Balkans. After a brief interlude in Sicily during which time the Arabic Moors had conquered Sicily and were in control there, the Normans conquered and later Latinized the entire south, after which the vast majority of the population adopted Catholic Christianity and Latin speech. There was also some internal migration of northern Italians to the south in the wake of the Norman conquest there.
    By 1300 AD or so, Islam and the Arabic language were essentially extinguished in Sicily, as was Greek Orthodox Christianity and the Greek language by around 1400 AD (in both Sicily and the southern mainland). However, to this very day, small pockets of Greek-speakers still live in southern Italy, and they’re not recent immigrants, but a legacy of the south’s Ancient Greek and Byzantine heritage. Their numbers are probably in the tens of thousands at best.
    All modern European populations are mixed to a large degree, but I’d have to agree with those who claim that Italians are among the most genetically heterogeneous of all Europeans given Italy’s history.

  11. Proto-italic tribes might have moved to Italy from Romania (I simply don’t know; would they be “proto-italic” back then or “pre-proto-italic” or “proto-celto-italic” even?) but obviously Latin went *to* Romania from Italy and probably not even “directly” (it’s likely that it came from south of the Danube but still north of the “Jireček line”; perhaps Moesia Superior? Dalmatia?). It’s the latter point that (some) Romanians like to argue: “Latin is indigenous” – the old autochthonist argument(s) repeated by people all over the globe.

    1. Hi thx for this. My latest thinking is that the Romans did not come from Dacia, but that they were just an autochthonous Italian group from right around that area of Central Italy.
      Romanians are, well, Dacians. Dacians with some Roman input.

  12. Respectfully Robert, as a “half-Jew”, father was Jewish by blood, and as someone who has studied a great deal about the third Reich, it is important to add some nuance, and even possibly to correct something you said. You said:
    “Contrary to popular nonsense, Nazis did not hold Jews to be inferior. Nazi racialism quite correctly recognized the superiority of the Jews. Instead, they just held that the Jews were evil.”
    That is not entirely correct, and there must be a differentiation between the PUBLIC propaganda, and what leaders of the National Socialist Party thought privately about Jews. Germans of the Nazi era didn’t invent anti-semitism. In point of fact, there were attacks on Jews throughout history, particularly in the Middle Ages. Here’s an interesting link on persecution of Jewry.
    The historical persecution of Jews is interesting. Part of the superficial persecution is the nonsense that the Jews killed Jesus. Some of the Jewish religious officials and even the crowd, in choosing to set Barabbas free, obvious WANTED Jesus to be punished, but without question, it was the Romans who actually killed Jesus.

  13. More to the point though, Jews have a history of occupying professions that don’t require a lot of hard manual labor. Jewelers, lawyers, doctors, accountants, merchants, are associated with the individual being personally wealthy, and yet, not having to do hard, grinding, physical work to get it.
    The non-Jews (gentiles) who were the equivalent of the modern class called “blue collar” or as we call them “good ole boys” or “rednecks” often had resentment toward people who had more money than they, and didn’t have to work with their backs to make it.
    This caused not only resentment, but outright hatred, and they began to characterize Jews as parasites on society, taking money and not making anything in return.
    Because of the foregoing, the Jews have been an easy target for any disgruntled citizen wanting to point a finger at someone other than the guy in the mirror, for anyone wanting a scapegoat.
    Nazi Germany was perfectly ripe for this nasty racism. Let’s face it…if you coveted the goods of your Jewish neighbor, how easy to denounce him as an enemy and a traitor, have him locked up,
    and while he is confined, take his goods.
    Adolph Hitler knew that the quickest way to rally people behind him was to “identify the enemy and plan to get rid of the enemy”. Nazi propaganda, ala Josef Goebbels, tended to portray Jews as RATS in ads played at movie theaters, in pamphlets, in other publicans. In movie shorts, a cartoonish
    big nosed Jew, with small beady eyes and swarthy complexion, was actually morphed into a rat.

  14. Romans were pure Germanics ?? Italy the Center of Civilization ?? Whe did hear that —-476 A.D.–is often cited as the date for the “fall” of Rome when they were invaded by the Germans.

  15. Germanics invaded Roman lands around 300+ A.D.
    Some Germanic tribes were given permission to settle in lands just north of Rome before they invaded (around 200+ A.D.).
    Map of Germanic ‘barbarian’ invasions of Rome: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3tEMukql2aQ/ThoPWlhwFCI/AAAAAAAAAgM/ZHjoC4CK3Zs/s1600/Byzantine+map+Barbarian+invasions.png
    Remember, Germanics have rules many parts of southern Europe for the last 1500 years, so who knows what they created to make people believe that they’ve always ruled even in Roman times. People are proven deceptive, pathetic liars throughout history, making up false “facts” to try and sway the public to believe they’re the superiors and always have been. Hitler tried to steal all the artwork and other such things from different countries and then claim it as Germanic. This is nothing new. In order for “the ruling elite” to continue, they must brainwash the “slaves” in to thinking that the ruling elite has always been the superior, so now the slaves become mentally under their control, not just physically.
    In order for people to believe their “genetically superiority”, the people must also see a supposed continuity throughout history of said superiority. Without history on their side, their little brainwashing cannot work, and they will make up lies to keep this brainwashing going.
    Ancient frescoes clearly show Greeks/Minoans and Romans with dark complexions. Yes, the Etruscans had similar complexion to ancient Greeks from their frescoes, as well. These are Mediterranean peoples, the makers of Rome and Greece.
    Southern European Mediterraneans are cousins of people from the Middle East, so it’s no surprise they show similarities in complexion and facial structure. Not the same, but certainly cousins from distant past.

    1. Ancient frescoes clearly show Greeks/Minoans and Romans with dark complexions. Yes, the Etruscans had similar complexion to ancient Greeks from their frescoes, as well. These are Mediterranean peoples, the makers of Rome and Greece.
      Well, if you actually look at Minoan paintings, then yes, the men are painted brownish/red. At the same time, if you look at paintings of Minoan women, they’re pasty white.
      Just goes to show that looking at ancient paintings/frescoes to try to determine what people looked like in real life is a bad methodology.
      BTW, I’ve looked at images of Roman frescoes, and there are also people who are painted white, which, of course, again, is not a good methodology for determining what people looked like back then.
      You know, you’re sounding more and more like a Mediterraneanist. And hey, I’m half Med myself, so have at it.
      Still, you might want to chill a little bit when it comes to your anti-nordicist zeal. With the exception of a few people, you rarely hear anyone claiming that Germanic peoples somehow ruled the Roman Empire during its glory days. In fact, quite the opposite.
      The way I see it, we’re all just white. That’s why I’m a pan-Europeanist.

      1. The ancient frescoes did show the women with light skin, but it most likely was a light olive skin tone (they probably just did not feel like taking time to tint it slightly), because this is skin that easily tans. Women did not work outdoors all the time back then, thus they stayed light in complexion on their skin, but men in the Mediterranean sun, which is very strong, did do darken quite a bit. They tanned up a lot, thus their brownish skin in many of their frescoes.
        But they were not pale white like red-head Germanics – that’s TRUE “pasty white”, not light olive skin tone seen on Mediterraneans.
        My responses in anger is mainly toward propagandist idiots trying to brainwash people into believing “Nordics / Germanics” of light complexion were the makers of all ancient civilizations in southern Europe. I come at them hard; sorry. I personally do not look down on any single group of people in real life – I treat individuals with respect and kindness if they show me the same. If you knew me, you’d see this. One of my best friends is of “Germanic” stock. My other friend is bi-racial (half black, half white).
        And if people accept that we’re all just white, not looking at the differences in Europeans (there are quite a few obvious ones), then they will also be open-minded enough to acknowledge that so-called “Negroids”, “Mongoloids” and “Caucasoids” are all human, so let’s ignore the obvious differences in said groups and be “Pan-Humanist”? lol! 😉

        1. Northax- Saying “we’re all white” is real cool, but it is not an academic, intellectual inquiry. What’s wrong with talking about differences? As long as we’re not just “haters”, why can’t we discuss it?
          BAG already said what I was gonna say- you don’t know enough about art to say what the hell is going on in those ancient mosaics, pottery, etc.
          In ancient artistic convention (Style)- males are portrayed as dark or black, and females as white, so the viewer will not have to guess who’s what. Look at Egyptian art. Blacks think it proves something- not.
          Saying that every Nordo-phile hates “Meds” and wants to steal the credit for their accomplishments- not true. A few extremists/fanatics.
          I don’t think your knee-jerk brown-is-awesome Med-Supremo argument is any more sensible. The modern Meds and Nords really can’t be compared to the Ancients as equivalents. So much mixing has gone on, from ancient times onward.
          Oh, yeah- Peace, baby!

      2. The red used by Egyptians and Minoans has been shown to turn brown once oxidized over long periods of time.

  16. Indians and Egyptians for example at the beginning were wiled and uncivilized like the Germans or Celts latter on
    Who made their day were the people who conquered them
    And these people were those from Asia Minor and Balkans (Those who where there long ago, before the Trojan war, long before)
    So, going back to Noah, probably Black Sea

  17. By the way the conquers always kept by themselves, marriages ans stuff
    That’s available for the Celts and Germans
    Celts were conquered by the Thracian, latter on merged together
    Germanics didn’t know anything about metal working
    and living in the forests (the forests were their cities)
    Thracians and those in Asia Minor migrated North civilizing the Barbaric Germanic. They became their leaders, and it’s not by chance that their leaders chose to speak Latin instead of German

  18. Good writing, and I agree with most of what you are saying. – But you’ve got your facts possibly mixed up about the roman empire…
    – The ruling emperors of the (the roman) empire were predomenantly fairskinned and blond (and some even possibly with red hair colouring – according to ancient roman sources i.e. Suetonius and such – alldough sources are never to be trusted completly…) – so the pro-nordic-rascist clique here has a argument to cling to – conserning there rascist pro-nordic-master race-theory that is!
    And anotherthing… “egyptian black blood” is another thing then Middle to Southafrikan black blood, by blood I’m here talking about racial (and to some extent thereby cultural) evolution, – you have to look to the totalety of things, there are different sets of blackblood ofcourse as everybody understands.
    – Sorry for sometimes poor english spelling 🙂

  19. I agree with most of things you say. I do believe as you look further back into antiquity that groups that we assumed were one color were another. A good example are the Ancient Greeks, specifically Sparta and later Macedonia. The Spartans were Dorian and the Greeks owe the mix of brown and blond hair, blue, and green eyes peoples to the invasion of those Dorian’s many centuries before. Nearly every Greek painting before 500 BC shows black hair, not brown, not red unless it was colored, but black hair. Alexander being Macedonian and broadly Dorian would have been very white looking so him having blonde hair and blue or green eyes is certainly possible and likely. The only item I disagree with is Egypt. Saying Egypt is 91% Caucasian and 9% Black is something I can not even take serious. Modern Egyptians are not even 91% Caucasian as a whole and since the fall of Egypt to the Persians there has been a huge amount of lighter skinned immigration to the country. Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Arab, and others have come since that time. Someone once told me that if you want to know what the people of a country used to look like then look at the peasants. This is not exactly true anymore because of the movement of the working classes around the world in recent years but it was true 20 years ago when I was told this and if you take a look at the poor in Egypt they are very, very dark. Besides the Egyptians themselves painted many descriptions of themselves before their fall to the Persians and I have never once seen what I would describe as someone being even remotely Nordic or Anglo-Saxon as a Pharaoh or on any painting with the sole exception of Foreigners offering tribute to a Pharaoh and even they looked liked the darkest of white people, Greek looking actually.

  20. The Ancient Egyptians looked dark for two reasons: 1 They were non white Caucasoids who had dark skin but still places in the Caucasian section on genes. The 9% Black that they had also slightly darkened them. 2; Sexual Dimorphism. The Egyptian females are portrayed as more light skinned, because, in addition to males being naturally darker, they also had to work in the hot African sun.

  21. Romans were Latins which belongs to the Osco-Umbrian tribes, all those tribes that settled in central Italy 3000 years ago. Further north you had the Etruscans which ruled Rome for centuries. Many patricians were Etruscans which were surely NOT Germanics. Other inhabbitants of the Italic peninsula were Celtic Gauls in the north, Greek in the south and other prot-Europeans like Liguri, Reti and Messapi. Germanics have nothing to do with Italy, just study history.
    If you are still not sure go to Rome or pompei and look at the many mosaics, portrait or read the ancient writings.
    Julius Caius Caeser: Gauls are generally blonde or red haired, a rarity in Rome.
    Tacitus: Germanics are generally blonde unlike Italics and taller than Romans.
    ROman and Greeks..caucasic non germanic people, with alpine-dinaric influence

    1. Caesar was red hair with blue eyes? Where did you read that on Micky mouse? The only available source in history about Caesar futures is the twelve caesers of gaius suetonius tranquillus. And caeser is described as tall with grey hair and black eyes. Just study before writing bs next time,

  22. What a bunch of crap. Europeans got lighter 5,000 years ago get your facts right. Blacks have been on earth for 2.4 million years. The european race is nothing but albino mutations. The whole earth was black and will be again. I know its hard to hear, drop your white supremacy and accept the facts, humanity came from africa, to be human you have to be african, if your not full african you’ve got neanderthal cave beast genes in you.

      1. If they’ve been here for 2.4 MILLION years, they stagnated worse than I thought. Most historians believe they only stagnated for ~10,000 years!

      2. However, doesn’t he realize if Blacks have been here MILLIONS of years, that makes the gap in our IQ bigger than ANYONE ever thought possible?
        We invented wheels, medicine, computers, and space visits, abolished slavery and sadly, created the bullshit of equality–Pretty good for “Neanderthal Cave Beasts”!
        Meanwhile savages stayed savage, only now killing and enslaving each other with guns from their betters instead of pointy sticks, which would’ve minimized the obstacle/threat they posed to civilization!
        That doesn’t sound as pathetic if you think it’s only a few thousand years, rather than MILLIONS!

      3. Blacks are monkeys so??
        Again, albino is quasi to complete absence of pigmentation
        Northern Europeans, specially, are just a decanted depigmentation.
        Even if this sentence is right
        “whites are just albino mutation”
        Same sane people could to say
        “black are just older human beings”
        Some difference??
        This afro supremacists give no “humanity” value for albinos!! This explain why many them on africa like to predate albinos. What do you think jay?

  23. Re: “It’s difficult to come up with a theory to explain why this stock did so well, but possibly mixing a bit of one stock to a lot of another produces an excellent genetic set. Anyway, this is how animal and plant breeders have been operating for centuries. It would be surprising if humans were different”
    It’s probably not got as much to do with genetics as it has to do with sharing and spreading knowledge/information, if one group of people mixes with another they can also expand their knowledge by sharing what they know or have learnt with each other. We know the ancient Greeks and Romans had been to had be to Egypt to, so they were probably learning from each other and sharing information with each other…

  24. Bunch of spic-loving shitheads. Calling the real superior race inferior with groundless insults. Have fun dying from a heart attack by the pasta diet, dagos. Kikes, wogs, and spics are the same damned race if you ask me. All equally stupid, ugly, and filthy. Never have I seen a race that I have hated more than the ‘race’ of sub-humans who infest the mediterranean.
    If I had my way, I would have each one gutted on a pike.

      1. Sadly, they let in too many of the northern barbarians for cheap labor, who promptly rebelled against having to follow the laws, overthrew Rome, and led to 700 years under the Moslem Terrorists rule.
        Modern Europe is letting Moslem Terrorists in to overthrow us DIRECTLY, presumably to save the embarrassment of being overthrown by the cheap labor?
        Worse, we’re infested by a lot of SJWs who think WE have a rape culture, but when savages rape their hosts, it’s OK, because the savages are “oppressed” or something like that. They take the “They Were Dressed Provocatively” excuse from the savages, when they would not take it from non-SJW Civilized World people!
        How NOT to get raped by savages…Really?!

        1. that was not the reason for Roman decline. They empire become too vast there was not enough army, political power or rule to govern the whole. multiple invasions by multiple groups happened, not all from the north.

        2. What happened to their army? They had enough army to conquer it all, but not enough to maintain it? Or could it be they got complacent, and the soldiers were doing it for a paycheck instead of True Believers in “Kill The Savage, Save The World”?
          (And yes, the same could be said about the Civilized World’s army now, I am phrasing it in an intentionally temporally ambiguous way!)
          Multiple invasions did happen, by Druids, Moslem Cult, even the Mongol Hordes! The Mongols were particularly nasty, they didn’t get stopped by Force-Of-Arms, they got stopped by their leader dying.
          As to political power, that goes back to the military atrophy, doesn’t it?
          What makes lesser cultures obey Rome, if not fear of the Legions?
          What makes politicians NOT say anything bad about illegals or terrorists, if not fear of THEIR legions?

  25. What a bunch of crap this Nordicist bullshit is. Claiming other people’s accomplishments as your own since you didn’t do shit from 3300 BC till 1750 AD . That’s more than 5000 years since the Indus valley civilization. If we count the period after 1750 as that of Germanic peoples domination ( and it is . You have to give credit where it is due ) , it is still only a little over 5 percent of clearly recorded human history. Nothing gives them the right to basically rewrite and bastardize history.
    Don’t get me wrong , I admire the Germanic people. They are cunning , intelligent , hard working and have ballz and pretty much ” Run ” the modern world although it is fast changing. They settled and dominated parts of the world considered ” developed ” – U.S , Canada , Australia , Western Europe etc. They have contributed more to modern science and technology than any other group ..by far.
    But we seriously have to stop with this shit. It is embarrassing.
    Looking at Roman/greek statues –> ” hey , they look Nordic “—> Nordics ruled ancient Rome and Greece ( and Persia , Egypt , India , China , Genghis Khan was a nordic man etc etc ) … Just stop please.

  26. Italians benefited from transmission of knowledge from the Arabs who ruled Sicily, Phoenicians, Greeks.
    Sicily and Malta are in Europe but the people are Arabs. Not black, not white, Arabs. Plain and simple.
    England was a major player since 1200 AD.
    These days Northern Europe is the engine that drives the EU.

    1. Signore TRASH
      there is some Arab blood in Sicilians- perhaps elevated from other Europeans.
      BUT Arabs are White, or of similar ‘ancestral populations, relatively recent bottle necks, etc.’
      Arabs are “different” in SW Asia/North Africa because of “selection pressures” yet this may not be the case in Da Sicilia.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)