Ancient Romans did not look like modern Italians

>Ancient Romans did not look like modern Italians

Other urls found in this thread:

medievalists.net/2010/12/medieval-england-had-a-per-capita-income-over-1000-research-shows/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

...

These are all northern Gallic scum.

Pacino is quintessential Roman.

Literally nobody on this picture is Italian except for Al Pacino, and he looks like a Maghreb sandnigger rather than a normal Italian.

They are Romans

>screeches about how blue-eyed or light-skinned Romans are descended from Celts or Germans
>Northern Italy leads the South in IQ, GDP, low crime rate, cultural influence, entrepreneurship, etc.

I guess Germanics really ARE superior to swarthy Mediterraneans!

Polentoni lead the country in interracial cuckoldry as well

As others have said, Sicily was once among the wealthiest regions in Italy until 200 years ago. Equally, Naples was considered a world capital until 19th Century, together with Rome and Paris.

The reason for the economic disparity, and the discrepancies in IQ, crime rate, and so forth, has to do more with geography than some stupid innate superiority associated with cumskins.The actual physical geography of the Southern Italy isn't ideal for large quantities of agriculture for a few reasons, 85% of the land is either hills or mountains with few exceptions to this e.g. The plains of calabria and in the heel around Bari. The actual soil is a red soil which is usually good for the cultivation of plants like coffee and soya, but due to the sudden, often torrential rains (Scirocco winds are winds from Africa laden with sand) in the area, that leech the soils heavily, and the lateness of the discovery of these plants, the area never was really utilised for the growth of the crop. The bedrock is limestone which is ideal for drainage but due to the poor soil over it is virtually useless. So in terms of the primary sector the only real avenues were olives and citrus fruits for cash crops (Oranges and the like), and wheat for subsistence.

The secondary sector in the area is poorly developed to put it frankly as it is a considerable distance from the markets of Europe and the area lacks many large universities for it's population. In recent times this has been rectified but in the crucial period of industrialisation in the 19th Century, the Southern Italy lacked the coal and iron reserves to rapidly develop alongside Northern Italy. Although in recent times this has begun to change in places like Naples and in the cities on Sicily.

I don't expect a cumskin to understand this, so go on and chirp about how muh blonde hair makes you superior.

>It's another "Ancient Romans looked like this" thread

Sicily is the Balkans of Italy.

t. Pasquale esposito

Would you prefer an Egyptian edition this time around?

t. John Bob

Not at all actually

Why do you retards feel the need to spam the same shotty threads every day? Is your life so sad and empty?

>As others have said, Sicily was once among the wealthiest regions in Italy until 200 years ago. Equally, Naples was considered a world capital until 19th Century, together with Rome and Paris.

>This is what terrones believe

Milan, Venice, Florence were richer than any southern shitholes

You mean the ones who vote for the strongest nationalist party in Italy?

All the communists are in Tuscany and Emilia romanga (the north)

Get a load of this polentone.

During the medieval era, Sicily was richer than England. With the discovery of the New World, Sicily's importance rapidly diminished, though it was still one of the wealthiest parts of Italy despite an aristocracy intent on exploiting its resources and returning nothing.

I have somewhat olive skin, brown hair, and brown eyes. If you weren’t retarded you would realize that I was criticizing the nonsense that the late Roman Germanic invasions had a great effect on the Northern Italian gene pool. The fact of the matter is that ancient Romans looked much the same as Italians do now. Some were dark and Middle Eastern-looking, some were blond and pale. Most fell somewhere in between. They were darker than modern Germans and lighter than modern Syrians.
I don’t doubt that a lot of the difference between the North and South lies in non-genetic factors.

No, the other user is actually right. Venice and Florence were obviously richer in their hapogee, but long gone were those days come the unification. I doubt that Milan has ever been richer than Naples before 1861.

>During the medieval era, Sicily was richer than England.
That's only because England was pigsty tier poor.

I never said anything about Germans, I specifically said Gauls (Celts), which undeniably inhabited northern Italy.

This is what a real latin man with ancient roman phenotype looks like

That's a literal nigger, fuck off kara boga retard.

No, it was actually pretty well off compared to other regions.

medievalists.net/2010/12/medieval-england-had-a-per-capita-income-over-1000-research-shows/

>Anglos claiming that England was wealthy
Yeah that's very credible. Bet they were also about to conquer space if the Frenchman wasn't keeping them down.

Romans wuz terrorists?

Why do people say this? Nordics say it because dark features scare them. Niggers say it because light features scare them.

Yeah and Sardinia was richer than Ireland in 1200 bc

The mosaics in the Villa Romana del Casale are unusual in that the people in them are predominantly blonde haired, unlike most other surviving Roman frescos and mosaics. Were 4th century Sicilians really much fairer than mainlanders or would these have likely been commissioned by the Vandal/Goth ruling classes at the time?

>4th century
>vandal goth ruling class