Tell me about the non-latin peoples of Italy

I may have some material.
Here is one of the few etruscan texts remaining (they had a huge litterature, before Romans supplanted them)

ITA TMIA ICAC HERAMAŠVA VATIECHE UNIALASTRES THEMIASA MECH THUTA THEFARIEI VELIANAS SAL [CL] CLUVENIAS TURUCE MUNISTAS THUVAS TAMERESCA ILACVE TULERASE NAC CI AVIL CHURVAR TEŠIAMEITALE ILACVE ALŠASE NAC ATRANES ZILACAL SELEITALA ACNAŠVERS ITANIM HERAMVE AVIL ENIACA PULUMCHVA

I translated it and analyzed it, when I had a seminar about the preroman peoples

Also, Thefarié Velianas is an epic name

The Romans beat the fuck out of everyone I think. Not only the Italic tribes either, they also booted the Greeks from Sicily.

Yes, but we are talking about the first years of the Republic, well before the punic wars

Rome was like America, he drew in people from the mountains, the Latins were mountain niggers.

I personally believe the location was scouted by Mesopotamian people in ancient times, they left a remainder of their presence in Northwest Sardinia (D'Accoddi).

ENKIDU AND GILGAMESH = City Dweller and Wildman uniting to conquer the world.

The Sumerians built their cities in the plains beneath the Zagros mountains and drew from the peoples of the mountains.

APENNINES = ZAGROS

cont

cont

Connected cultures

1. Cite your scientific references
2. Give a legend to your maps and pictures
3. Clearly state your point

I'm just browsing, couldn't be arsed, this is not an academic journal.

Egypt too was ruled by mountain people, the Shepherd's Crook, and by the people of the valley, the Flail.

Enkidu = Wildman from the mountains
Gilgamesh = City Dweller

Cain and Abel.

You spend a lot of your time on /x/, don't you ?

Your writing and your chaotic and preposterous train of thoughts look like theirs

This seems like a more realistic length for the chiton/pteruges combo desu. I feel like the ridiculously high mini-skirts depicted is stylistic.

The Latins were mudhut niggers who were civilized by the Etruscans. Latin alphabet is derived from the Etruscan one and Etruscans likely founded the Roman Kingdom as well. In a sense, Latins chimping out and overthrowing the Etruscan monarchy is no different from Ostrogoths doing the same to them later on. They got a taste of their own medicine.

Estrucans don't even speak an Indo European language which is what Latin is part of.

It's possible that indo European speakers weren't even native to the Italian peninsula. Etruscans could very well be the first ones.

>It's possible that indo European speakers weren't even native to the Italian peninsula

That's fucking obvious. They only came in 1200 BC. The latest ones to arrive in a major European region. For comparison, Etruscan culture/civilization developed around 800 BC, only 400 years after they migrated to the peninsula.

Etruscans and Rhetians were probably non indo-europeans, one likely place for their inception being western Anatolia due to language inscriptions found there.
The people closer linguistically and etnically to the romans were the Latins and the Sabinians, of which Romans are basically a mix with a sprinkle of Etruscan. Sicily and Sardinia were clusterfucks at the time: in Sicily you had areas of strong Greek civilization in the west, hellenized siceliots everywhere and phoenicians in the east.
Oscans and Faliscans fall into the broad category of italic speaking tribes, thus related to Romans at least in that way.
In the North you had celtic fucks all the way down the current region of Marche, with non-celt pockets of Ligurians in the west, Venetii in the east and a few etruscans here and there.
Samnites were another italic tribe that inhabited the south alongside with Lucanii and Brutii and greeks everywhere. In Apulia, besides Greeks, you'd find Daunians and Messapi, of likely Illyrian stock.

Can you stop with this Gallia Cisalpina meme. Iron Age Italy wasn't like that. Gauls expanded into those regions much later. They likely didn't replace the local population.

The overthrow of the Tarquins is probably just a mythologized retelling of some kind of actual revolt in Rome against proper Etruscan rule, right?

I mean looking at the maps, there's no way Rome could have retained true independence right smack in the middle of Etruscan clay. I'm just a little confused because Roman history according to Romans never mentions itself being ruled by a foreign Etruscan power, but whenever the Etruscans are brought up it's always as either an enemy or one of the three tribes situated in Rome.

Just butthurt Latin revisionism. They were too arrogant to admit their civilization derived mostly from the Etruscans. They lived in mudhuts and had no written language before them.

I really don't understand how Rome ever made anything of themselves. How they weren't completely Etruscanized within a century is a mystery to me, and how they were able to snowball themselves into a superpower is even crazier.

Well shaped temple from a sanctuary in Sardinia, 1100 bc

Funny that you say that, because Villanovians (Early Etruscans) had that exact type of huts that you posted , they even made hut shaped urns, until 700 bc

read about the greek colonies there for starters

samnites were latins though or atleast very very closely related to the latins

Redpill me on the ancient Venetians. Were they truly native to the Dalmatians

Was Corsica really Etruscan? I assumed a people related to the Sardinians lived there.

The natives were related to Sardinians, they even built similar structures and had similar weapons and armors, during Roman times a population known as "Corsi" lived both in Southern Corsica and North Eastern Sardinia.

Etruscans built some settlements in the Eastern coast of Corsica

There are some interesting parallels between the stelae statues of Southern Corsica and the sea peoples decpited in the Egyptian temple of Medinet Habu

Are the coastal sardinian populations still of Punic and Phoenicians origins or were they deported by the romans?

Good question.

First of all, the only Sardinian city which was destroyed by the Romans was Cornus (because the leader of the rebellion of the second Punic world was from there), which recent studies suggest was a native city without any Phoenician element.

So, no, the inhabitants of the other coastal cities were not deported, the main cities: Sulky, Calaris, Nora, Bithia and Olbia were allied with the Romans so were not destroyed nor their inhabitants were deported, Tharros rebelled too along with Cornus but was spared, pic related.

The reason why Sardinians are so genetically distant from Near Easterners despited having so many Phoenician cities is probably because said cities were inhabited mostly by the Natives+ a small percentage of Phoenician merchants.
Bartolini, an expert in Phoenicians, said that most likely those which were considered by historians as "Phoenician cities" in Sardinia were native settlements which adopted a Phoenician culture to better cooperate with the Levantines, there are also often native elements in these ancient cities, such as Nuragic weapons and objects, buried with the deads, mixed native/phoenician elements in burials etc, so most likely the aristocracy was Nuragic/Phoenician mixed and the rest of the population was just Nuragic.

what I had in mind by reading your post

Stubborn fucking Italians did it out of spite, thet build a gigantic empire and exported their culture and institutions nearly world-wide just to middle finger the greeks.

the romans always preferred the greeks

maybe because they were related(indo-euopean), maybe the romans were even a long lost greek tribe ?

both greeks and romans hated the etruscans equally

What the fuck am I reading...

Please, go back to /pol/ or some other autistic genetics forum

>mfw Rome even stole the mudhuts from glorious etruscan master race

or you could tell me in what way i was wrong?

or better yet in what way what i said was related to /pol/

romans were greek you retard have you never read the Homer?

Sure I can tell you wha't's wrong, Greek and Latin are extremely different, absolutely not intelligible, they both are part of the great Indoeuropean family but are extremely different, an ancient Latin would never understand an ancient Greek if he didn't study the langauge., Your retarded idea of Indoeuropean people being all the same stinks of retard tier misinterpretation of genetic studies about protoindoeuropean migrations that have gotten popular here and on /int/.

Greek and Latin are absolutely different langauges, separated by thousands of years, the closest langauge to Latin are other Italic languages, next there are Celtic languages, Greek is Indoeuropean but it's part of its own unique family, so saying that Romans were a "lost Greek tribe" is a retarded statement that reeks of stupidity and misunderstanding of how langauges and genetics work.

It's like saying

>hurr durr I bet English people are a lost Slavic tribe because they both speak indoeuropean languages
>hurr durr Arabs are a lost Assyrian tribe because they both spoke a Semitic language

Why can you see the boner through the skirt!?
We need answers

The romans were great copiers. They took the gladius from ibearian (guals?) And the pilum from the Etruscans.

Its also worth noting that many of the original sources we have are curious themselves about the etruscans. By the time of Augustus, they had been gone for more than 500 years. Many cultures sort of romanticize the primitives they displace as powerfull warriors, example:usa and native americans. This probably happened with the etruscans as well.

There were guals in the north and greeks to the south. Illyrians in croatia. Idk who else really was in Italy before roman domination.

This post was 100% rude.
You could have told him why politely.
Enjoy being lonely you socially inept loser

>Sure I can tell you wha't's wrong, Greek and Latin are extremely...

i implied none of that, i simply implied that they might have shared origin of which the romans were aware of you dumb little pretentious twat

>Also Romans often loathed Greeks too, while some Romans toke pride on descending from Etruscans (Maecenas), so you implying all Romans loathed Etrruscans and loved Greeks is also retarded and shows again yoru ignorance on the subject.

you're wrong, the greeks and romans considered the etruscans to be a morally degenerate inferior civilization of orgies and bastard children(both greek and roman writers wrote the same slander against the etruscans) while romans considered the greeks to be a high civilization from which they took their alphabet, philosophy, myths, science, literature, etc. while the etruscans were completely wiped from the face of the earth by the romans(unlike the greeks)

the romans definitely had an affinity for greek civilization, it's possible it's because of the high status of greek civilization after alexanders conquests and the hellenization of the known world, but even before that the romans had an affinity for greek culture

your whining about /pol/ and getting upset over the fact that the etruscans were looked down upon makes me think you have a political agenda behind your arguments

is it because to you the greeks and romans represent western civilization while the etruscans were "other", so you must elevate them while downgrading the romans?

Etruscans were not primitives, they had cities bigger than Athens and were great artists, pic related

I must have touched a chord, poor genetics obsessed retard

>i implied none of that

You said they could be A LOST GREEK TRIBE, you absolute retard, stop backpedaling.

>the greeks and romans considered the etruscans to be a morally degenerate inferior civilization of orgies and bastard children

A few Romans did, not all, Hesiod calls them "the noble Tyrrenians" for instance, Maecenas took pride in descending from them, of course they did have radically different societies so there was slander too by some but it was not unilateral as you say.

Greek for instance received a lot of hate from the Romans for being effeminated, corrupted, sophistic, etc... Ever heard of Cato the elder?

>is it because to you the greeks and romans represent western civilization while the etruscans were "other", so you must elevate them while downgrading the romans?

I never really downgraded the Romans

>I personally believe

Tribes in the iberian peninsula were either celts, iberians or celtiberians, a mix of both.
The romans took the gladius hispaniensis from celts and celtiberians.
Iberans (and celtiberians too) had the falcata sword, which was a kind of a sabre, romans actually had to reinforce the borders of their shields with iron because of its cutting power.

Turdulos were not celts but Pre Indoeuropeans like the other Iberians

He is right tho. Veeky Forums mixing genetics, semantics and archeology and making categorical mistakes by applying "indo-european" wrongly is a meme that needs to die. But people here can't be arsed to read a book and so they venture on through shitty blogs and wiki pages.

yes, and vascones and aquitanians were pre indoeuropean too.
this is a just a shit map i found on the internet.

>You said they could be A LOST GREEK TRIBE, you absolute retard, stop backpedaling.
yes exactly, what's hard to understand here? i don't know where the romans came from, i know where the greeks came from, but not the romans, so maybe they come from the greeks, if you know where the romans come from, kindly share, stop sperging out

you sad miserable little sack of shit, i bet you wouldn't dare to even raise your voice IRL, let alone behave like this

where did i mention genetics?

indo-european is most certainly not a meme and how did i apply it wrongly?

Werent there Phoenician settlements around Sicily and southern Italy?

Is that a midget?

Etruscans are Proto-Europeans

>Tople tyrannic overlord
>Remove monarchy and proceed to create the most successful Republic the ancient world had ever seen
Vs
>Tople the empire version of it
> proceed to establish Tribal monarchies and fuck everything up
> It's all the same
Well it sure it made some neurons fire some synapses

What does that mean?

They're descended from the original people of Europe that survived being ARYANed by R haplogroup invaders

IIRC Sardinia or Corsica has a very high percentage of I haplogroup

Yeah. Etruscans were high on J2 instead though, not I2.

Yep, just typical farmers.

Read

That map is very inaccurate. They only settled in western Sicily and on the southern coasts of Sardinia.

Although their expansionist fuckery later was a bit different.

Not true, they also settled in North Eastern Sardinia (Olbia)

They even built massive walls around Olbia after they expelled the Greeks after the battle of the Sardinian sea, pic related

The Greeks settled in Olbia first. The name of the city is derived from them. Carthaginian presence in that region was probably short lived.

I give up, you're a literal retard, why the the fuck would they come from Greeks? Greeks were around since 1500 bc at least and their culture was completely different from that of the Romans who invaded and again, the language is completely different, Italic and Celtic languages probably had common origins, the hypothetical Italoceltic peoples, since Italic and Celtic languages are similar, Greek on the other hand has nothing to do with Italic languages except being distantly related since it's Indoeuropean too.

>hurr durr I'm so tough I bet I would beat you up IRL xDD

You are beyond pathetic, fuck off.

>Italic and Celtic languages probably had common origins

Somehow I find that hard to believe.

Ask linguists, not me.

I see people using "Italo-Celtic" only to refer to genetics, not language.

Yes, it's a midget. The Romans used them as Standard bearers to make the standards seem larger and more impressive, that way they didn't have to spend money on making a larger standard or waste more regular sized men carrying a larger heavier standard. Romans were nothing if not practical.

No evidence for this at all. They rose to prominence after the IE migrations, they /might/ have been non-IE but we'll probably never know.

"Who gives a SHIT what you find hard to believe? You're a fucking moron, what you believe is irrelevant.

lol, chill out dude. I'm not the other guy you were talking to.

I'm not that faggot and I didn't assume you were that other faggot, because you at least are capable of using grammar.

You are, however, still a moron.

There is no evidence the Italic and Celtic languages are related at all as far as I'm aware. Feel free to try to prove me wrong.

>There is no evidence the Italic and Celtic languages are related at all as far as I'm aware.

This is because you're completely unaware of all the relevant data, and don't care enough to do a simple google search.

>Feel free to try to prove me wrong.

Why would I waste my time trying to do what nature has already done?

This isn't me anyway

I'm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic

>The traditional interpretation of the data is that these two subgroups of the Indo-European language family are generally more closely related to each other than to the other Indo-European languages. This could imply that they are descended from a common ancestor, a Proto-Italo-Celtic which can be partly reconstructed by the comparative method. Those scholars who believe Proto-Italo-Celtic was an identifiable historical language estimate that it was spoken in the third or second millennium BC somewhere in south-central Europe[citation needed] but this hypothesis fell out of favour after being reexamined by Calvert Watkins in 1966

Just a shaky theory. Nothing factually confirmed.

>the romans always preferred the greeks

Nah, but some romans like to 'we wuz' greeks in a way, by saying that the romans are the true inheritors of classical greek culture and that contemporary greeks were just a bunch of losers who betrayed their ancestors.

Or at least that's what I read from some guy, with no idea how accurate that was.

No, its just a really short skirt. You used to be able to see the whole ass of South Italic horsemen just as clearly as you can see the horses ass.

They basically just wore shirts with no bottoms, that's how short those skirts were.

Why did they leave their private parts unprotected? That's not very smart.

Because no one likes Betty Swollocks.

How about this question. What were the non-Roman Latins like? I know Roman myths say there was an 'Alba Longa' city that the Romans defeated that was head of a 'Latin league', I also think I read something about a prominent Latin port-town that the Romans conquered too.

Who were the Faliscans?

The Falisci were the less assholish brothers of the Latins. Latin and Faliscan weren't even different languages, but just different dialects within the same group like Italy has today. However, they stayed loyal to the Etruscans unlike the Latins and this led to their demise and subjugation later.

So I'm not exactly sure what really happened to all these people when Rome conquered them. Like, sure, they got assimilated, but how long did that take?

the samnites, savines and even i suppose the etruscans.

I don't know how I would cope in a world where everybody's cock and balls are just hanging out. That's just too much.

>interesting paralells
>dicks. theyre both dick shaped.

phallus worship wasnt really uncommon back then.

are you angry because you're stupid?

insulting me will not make you any less stupid, my stupid low iq friend.

>why the the fuck would they come from Greeks?
why not? they took their alphabet from the greeks, their architecture and religion were similar too, their language has common roots(indo-european)

i didn't state it as a fact, i stated it as something to think about, if you are knowledgeable on the subject, then share it with us. But you are not, and you compensate by sperging out like the mentally deficient low iq moron you are