What is this bullshit

> Romans considered Punics and especially the Greeks to be civilised

Barbarians doesn't mean not civilized, it means they spoke a different language, open a history book, they called Punics barbarians very often

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Abandon thread we have a failure at life here

No, fuck you, what the fuck is YOUR point? The OP asked a question, I answered, and then your retarded ass went ballistic for no reason. Fuck you, fuck your family, fuck wherever you come from, go get cancer and die.

>Romans
>Nordic
Please remove yourself from existence.

Modern Italians have light brown and blonde hair too, doesn't make them "Nordic".

My point is that North Italy is more Roman than some of the Souther regions, in fact i can be argued romans migrated from the north, north italians are romans.

They weren't Nordic at all, they were definitely lighter than the Greeks and Phoenicians, especially to the North (but that was more Celtic and Germanic prior to Romanisation, so it's not surprising), but that doesn't mean Nordic.

True.
Even Indians are light haired compared to the French.

And you couldn't have just said that without being a bombastic cunt? Kill yourself.

Virgil was from fucking North italy, and he is considered the greated roman

Oratius was said to have blonde hair

Augustus was blonde like an angel, so was Nero, Caligula had brown hair (a feature you don't find among south italians), the list could go on

False
Latin tribes intermarried with Etruscan which were pretty fucking dark
The romans also used blonde as the hair ornament of prostitutes because it was exotic for them
They also in more than an occasion distinguished themselves from the fairer Germans, but they never distinguished themselves in appearence from Carthage

a thread died for this

>Look at this picture
Did you? All it shows are rough dates of when they expanded where.

Those are not necessarily Italians: that's Bologna, a college city packed with international students, I can see from miles away that the blond ones on the left are Dutch or German faggots

Yes, legend says the first kings of Italy ruled the very south of it. Then the Romans expanded Italy until its modern definition

>Greeks
>phoenecians
>barbarians
Are you actually retarded
>inb4 barbarians are people that didn't speak Latin

yes, you retard

For fucks sakes.
The romans made several legitimacy claims based on connections to Troy and Greek mythology.
>b-b-but the didn't speak Latin.
Correct, they didn't. But neither did Northern Italy. The difference is that Northern Italy was controlled by Gauls whom the Romans hated vs Greeks and Phoenecians whom the Romans did not hate to their core.

>Phoenicians
>whom the Romans did not hate to the core

You're completely retarded

>a group of people the hated but were never conquered by
Vs
>Northern neighbors that invaded and looted their seat of power

Gee I wonder who they hated more?
Yes they hated phoenecians but not to the degree that they hated Gauls.

Could you mention a Roman document when they talk bad about Gauls?

I doubt it

What is that map even supposed to mean? It doesn't represent conquest dates, nor citizenship date, nor administrative reorganization of borders date.
It's just a shit fucking map, best I can see.

Holy shit what a retarded thread. op please leave and never return to this board

Here. It's from polybius

>What is this bullshit that north Italy is less Roman than the south?
I don't think that's what's implied, and very much doubt you could make a case of that. Rome colonized the north much more than the south (excluding modern day Campania which was basically an extension of Latium back then), due to the continuous campaigns of pretty much genocide towards gauls in the northleaving empty and better farmland available in the northwest and modern day Emilia Romagna, the presence of strong merchantile people like the Veneti in the north east and Norici in the Alps welcoming the roman presence and colonies, etc.
The south was comparatively rocky and arid, already full of other italics and greeks who resented the founding of more colonies.
>Look at this picture
Best I can think of is what parts of the peninsula fell under the name of Italy through the centuries. First the south, because that's where the Vituli (from whose name Italy derived) lived, then the center when the romans took over the name's usage, then the north when Augustus moved the borders of Italy as an administrative unit up to the Alps, then the islands when Diocletian added them into the Diocesis Italiae. But it's still a very rough and inaccurate map, an embarrassing effort.

he was Greek

>Polybius
>Roman

it is true, northern Italy as considered a part of Gaul for a long time

That means very little, "Italy" had pretty much no cultural significance whatsoever before the late republic.
Half of the north was never even inhabited by gauls, italic presence in the north east is as old as anywhere else in the peninsula, Rome started setting up colonies centuries before Augustus moved the border up to the Alps, the local italics were aligned with Rome since the early-middle republic and considered amongst the closest related italic people (then again Virgil might have been a bit biased on that since he was a northerner too), Rome went out of its way to annihilate the local gauls in multiple wars and campaigns of outright genocide (like after the second punic war to punish the traitor tribes) that convinced many tribes that survived the purges to leave the area en masse.
Compare the south, infested with greeks since before Rome was even founded, the islands not even considered Italy until the introduction of the italian diocesis in the third century.

theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm
Educate yourselves

>Vituli
Itali

Learn Latin

Augustus was a redhead

Fuck you OP, I bet I could slap your ass like a bitch

>high level of discourse

You fucking faggots.

Don't ruin history with this race bullshit. Disgrace.

inb4 Egyptians are Nordics too

That map only indicates when various parts of the Italian peninsula became part of the "Italia" province

At least you cuck have finally jumped off the "Greeks were nord" theories after that recent study btfoed that. I'll give it another few years for the "romans were nord" meme to finally get btfo definitively too.

did you just called the greeks barbarian lmao

WE

Not only do some of these Latin and Greek terms not quite mean what the author of that page has given - e.g. glaucus, a, um does not mean 'grey', but rather 'bluish grey' (look it up in Lewis and Short). Likewise, subflavus (/sufflavus, a, um) means 'yellowish' or even literally 'beneath yellow' (i.e. not quite yellow). Again, look at Lewis and Short. At the very least this suggests the page's author is distorting his 'findings'.

But far worse is that Suetonius, whose access to archival material evidently dwindled after his vitae of Caesar and Augustus, is cited as a 'primary source', when the emperors he described died a considerable length of time before he wrote.

Considerably worse is the use of Malalas as a primary source for the physical description of emperors living in the first and second centuries AD. Malalas wrote in the sixth century AD. His physical descriptions of the emperors as regards their colouring is entirely of his own imagining.

A case in point is that Malalas' detailed physical description of Justinian is a case in point. This was an emperor with whom Malalas was a contemporary - yet he describes this emperor as μιξοπόλιοσ τὴν kάραν kαὶ τὸ γένειον - 'greying of both hair and beard' (Chronographia 18.10). Malalas, writing in Antioch would never have seen Justinian in person, only via public images - almost certainly only via coins, PERHAPS via statuary/mosaics/icons. However, nowhere in surviving portraiture of Justinian is he depicted as bearded. So Malalas seems to have got things wrong EVEN with a contemporary emperor about whom he would have the most information to go on. His descriptions of the physical features of the earlier emperors are fabricated.

The author also cites modern literature as 'proof' of the physical features of emperors with no evidence of where those authors got their information.

Shoddy as fuck.

Butthurt north italian wants desperately to claim descent to roman empire while simultaneously claming to be """nordic""". Fuck off back to /int/ or /pol/, retard.

northern italian here. No idea what you're talking about

...

Is this unironically what ancient Romans looked like?

This, they still changed capital to Medolianum and latter Ravenna tough

>all this pointless discussion about ancient roman's pigmentation
Why not just look at skull structure? Most ancient roman sculptures have stereotypically Italian features. You'd have to be face blind not to notice this.