Are modern day Italians descendants of the Roman's?

Comeon guys, no fighting.
We all know the japanese are the real romans.

Yes user the plague of Justinian and the Germanic invasions wiped out 10 million people and replaced all of them, you're a goddamned genius

I'm sure you've heard of them but I suspect you don't know very much about them, if you think they entirely depopulated Italy.

Why are leftycucks always so adamant on insisting that there have been no population shifts, ever? Is it because the concept of race struggle doesn't fit their marxist worldview?

For the sake of comparison

In the 17th century, in the Irish province of Ulster, 1/3rd of the population were British colonists. And yet, in the 21st century, 88% of people in Ulster have no or only a negligible amount of British admixture.

The Italian peninsula was very densely populated by a minimum of 4 million people and a maximum of 10 million, and Germanic invasions were never more than a few thousand.

Of course modern Italians are descendants of the Romans. People who don't think so are just as bad as WE WUZ KANGZ types.

I'm saying there was no massive population shift in Italy because there is no literary, archaeological or genetic evidence to suggest one.

>leftycuck
What did you mean by this?

For the most part, yes. Not sure what cuck agenda people who say otherwise are trying to push.

Where did I claim that they DEPOPULATED the empire, of course they were remnants, but the modern italian shares as much roman heritage as does the average mexican share aztec heritage

>but the modern italian shares as much roman heritage as does the average mexican share aztec heritage
what is your evidence for this claim my dude

No, the Germans are. All great Romans had blonde hair and/or blue eyes

>
In the 17th century, in the Irish province of Ulster, 1/3rd of the population were British colonists. And yet, in the 21st century, 88% of people in Ulster have no or only a negligible amount of British admixture.
So you're saying that it's possible for there to be very rapid demographics shifts? Really makes you think.

>he modern italian shares as much roman heritage as does the average mexican share aztec heritage
Where are the proofs?

Nice meme you have there Hans Muller.
Your ancestors lived in cabins made from cow's dung and never showered and had NO \WRITTEN LANGUAGE while the Romans lived in organized cities of marble with bath houses.
Muh ancestors...

Are you retarded? Nobody exterminated the romans. Barbarians just became new rulers.

I'll post mine if your post yours first ;^)

I know right? And George Washington was a native american.

Kys first tho

Again, you keep comparing cases where the invaders exterminated the native population with a situation where this just didn't happen.

Go watch the new blacked episodes instead of pushing your race-mixing narrative here.

America is a different case entirely because of disease wiping out basically the entire continent on top of having a low population density to begin with.

Modern Britons and Egyptians are still genetically the same as their ancient forebears despite having shifted culturally, why wouldn't the same be true of Italy?

That is an old hag

>Alexander was blind with a blue eye
>Caesar was blond
>Augustus was blond
>Trajan was blond
Stay mad Luigi

Yes, 2000 years is next to nothing in terms of population genetics

It's well documented that the Romans dyed their hair blonde all the time.

>no source

Not at all, it would be more prudent to say that the legacy of rome fell to the greek people as they were carrying eastern roman tradition up until the 19th century while the italian peninsula were repeatedly invaded and assimilated by germanics

>Chiara Ferragni was born on 7 May 1987 in Cremona to Marco Ferragni, a Lombard dentist,[49] and Marina Di Guardo, a writer born in North Italy of Sicilian origin;

She is Mediterranean.

>Board is made for the discussion of humanities
>A bunch of fucking retards take this as an opportunity to discuss unimportant, boring conjecture about what skin tone people in X looked like in the Y'th century.

Just look at their art and make that judgement yourself, you boring cunts. This isn't even history, it's fucking science.

I am terrone- American, there are plenty of women who look like that from Italy

Prove it.

Nah, The original Romans were replaced by The Germanic tribes Who invaded Italy en mass, The only Romans alive today are Sardinians

North Italy is Ostrogoths and sheeeit
South Italy is moor shitbloods

>The only Romans alive today are Sardinians
fucking boat-proof island saved them

1 million lombards and 400,000 goths absolutely changed The genetics of mainland Italians (They were only 8 millions)

You can definitely see the big nose of the Romans in them.

Indeed, Sardinians still speak a language close to Latin and were known as Rum (Romans) by The saracens

They look Greek.

They have nothing to do with Indo-European people though. They just speak the language but don't have admixture from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

So like Romans?

Not sure where you're getting that idea from. Mainland Italy has old enough R1b-M269 subclades that they can't be linked with Celtic or Germanic invaders.
Meanwhile, Sardinian I2 is completely absent.

I2 is from hunter gatherers so I don't know how' that relevant, central Italians have a lot of g2a in them like Sards

G is not nearly as common as R1b there.

Since we be certain that ancient Italian mainlanders had high rates of R1b we can be certain they had admixture from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
Before you say Basques, they also have admixture from Pontic-Caspian steppe just a more dilluted with local women that they got their meme language from.

Sardinians have admixture too from The steppe

Yeah sure some do but the purest Sardinians from the highland towns have none.

>haplogroup faggotry now

Well this thread is about genetics isn't it?

>Its this fucking thread again

Haplogroup faggotry doesn't prove anything except where the oldest paternal lineage of someone originated on one side of their family. Its a fucking meme.

Haplogroups are indeed not ideal but there are no autosomal genetic studies on Italians between Remedello culture and present day so there's nothing else to work with except haplos.

It's the same people each time. Imagine being so boring that you obsess over what race inhabited an ancient civilisation - as if it matters. Instead of learning about the interesting aspects of a civilisation, such as its religion, literature, culture, politics, etc they sperg over haplogroups without a proper understanding of genealogy.

Its still a meme and one that is abused. Just like how most bullshitters on this board claim northern Italians are genetically more "germanic" then their southern kin even though direct lineage and autosomal DNA show germanic influence in both areas of Italy are less than 10%.

North African populations are the closest living relatives to ancient Romans.

The origins of cultures are interesting on their own.

Haplogroups are just a tool to help figure out migrations.

I think it's very interesting that Ancient Romans and Greeks inherited their Indo-European cultures from their direct ancestors in the steppe, although having also Pelasgian and Etruscan influence from their other, non-Indo-European ancestors who were subdued.

Yes.
This seems like one of those threads we wuzErs try to post to try and normalize their flawed belief that the tan skinned people living in Egypt today aren't the real Egyptians because of "invasions".

>>Actually believing this lie.

This

>Revisionism.

The Egyptian we wuz zen just seek to correct the implication that upper Egyptians are not real Egyptians or are not representative of ancient Egyptian continuity, when in fact they are easily the closest living relatives to and most representative of the vast majority of the ancient population.

I still think it's nogs trying to in their minds wittingly try and push the we wuz meme for Egyptians by creating this myth that entire empires had their entire populations removed.

>Upper Egypt

You mean the Nubians aka Sudanese.

Nah i think this user took this idea from the fact both roman and berbers were seen as descendantsnof trojans during antiquity.

Let's keep in mind though that Berbers before the slave trade were considerably more like Neolithic Europeans, at least near the coast.

No, I mean the real Egyptians. The ones who are the most ancient and indigenous to the land aka upper Egyptians. Nubian is a modern concept designed to artificially divide and seperate Egyptians from their heritage because they are not white enough for white academia's sensibilities.

So if you had a time machine and went back to Giza when they were hard at working building the pyramids, would you tell the Mediterranean locals that they are phony and not real Egyptians?

No

It is entirely possible that they were less white, and subsequently were whitened by the white slave trade.

The opposite, middle easterners got BLACKED because of the slave trade.

They would agree they were Greek or Levantine. Now the ones actually doing the labor would definitely say they were Egyptian, some may even say they were aetheopian, that being their ancestral home and all.

The populations living in former Roman territories (Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Egypt) are the living descendants of ancient Romans, because Roman wasn't an ethnic group you dense fucking retard.

You don't know that for sure. The moors enslaved countless white women post Rome.

>They would agree they were Greek or Levantine.

?

>Now the ones actually doing the labor would definitely say they were Egyptian

They were all Egyptian

>some may even say they were aetheopian, that being their ancestral home and all.

????

>You don't know that for sure.
Yes we do.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4555292/Study-mummies-reveals-Turkish-European.html

BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

WE

That shield is so tiny

That study is not of native Egyptians, and it is all from one site. Not at all scientific.

>That study is not of native Egyptians,
Wut, yes it is.

>and it is all from one site. Not at all scientific.
I eagerly await the mountains of scientific evidence you surely possess which proves the contrary.

Not on Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums for that matter. The only people who WE WUZ on this board are /poll/acks claiming that the ancient Mesopotamians, Egyptians, etc were white.

It's the same claim as you mentioned though, in that they say the original population of Egypt and other countries was supposedly removed by Arab conquest.

One site but over a span of 1300 years.
What exactly are the odds that not a single actual Black King was buried there if such existed?

Arab conquest led to an increase in SSA admixture as Arab slave traders brought new genetics to Egypt from faraway lands.
Copt people can still be proud of being descended from Pharaohs and shit.

Yes. There was no appreciable admixture introduced at any time.

desu anywhere you can find the remains of ancient roman city walls, you can expect that veterans settled down and took local women, so effectively most populations within the borders of the ancient roman empire at the height of its expansion have a little roman in them genetically

It's simple. That study is not science. It is confirmation bias masquerading as science. It would be like future Chinese researchers digging up a gravesite of a former American Chinatown, and then using their findings as the genetic basis for Americans claiming they were chinese.

Anyway if Egyptians were Turkish why wouldn't they portray themselves as such? See.Pic related is a native Egyptian mummie. Taking cultural continuity concerning mummification and practices like circumcision into consideration, ancient Egyptians clearly have their roots in East African Nile cultures. That's not to say there was a prevalent northern influence from a very early stage, but a mountain of archeological evidence points to upper Egypt and upper Egyptians being the point of origin for the majority of the ancient Egyptian populace.

There is no proof that the Arab slave trade was responsible for the increase in southern DNA, considering slavery stemming from deeper in Africa had always been a thing.

Keeping with how unscientific this study is, they jumped to this conclusion rather than even considering the more likely reason for the discrepancy. The sample base for the ancient population they used was not representative of the population at large becaus it only came from one site.

>there are actual wewuzzers browsing Veeky Forums right now
kys nigger.

Would you find Obama buried in a Jewish graveyard?

Ancient Egyptians were not "Turkish". They were a mixture of Neolithic farmers from the Levant and indigenous Natufian related people.
If you were smarter maybe you would be able to understand that Afrocentism is dead now.

It's not Afrocentrism, it is anthropologic objectivity. Trying to seperate and African derived culture from Africa is white we wuzzing. Ancient Egypt was settled from souh to north, that is a fact.

>that is a fact.
It's not a fact, it's afrocentrist delusions. Egypt was settled by middle eastern farmers.

>Armies of thousands are able to obliterate millions of ethnic populace and breed with the remainder to almost completely replace the original inhabitants in the time of late antiquity.

Ok.

Jews have never succeeded at staying unmixed anywhere.
In this hypothetical scenario where the el-Fayum people are alien invaders with fully local culture, among a black people they pretty much have to kill all blacks they see KKK style to stay pure for 1300 years.
Very nonsensical hypothesis.

The fact that it is closer to the point of human origin alone(the timescales I know) makes that impossible.

The ancient Greeks said that Egyptians were Ethiopian colonists, and the ancient Egyptians themselves say they came from the south.