Who,why,what and how?

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

he should read LIVIvS!

M.VIB.M.

[varistus]

Never said that it did not. Just making a point of attempting to find their origins. Also, stated that none of the many theories are proved. Some even say the Romans are from the steppes.

[Bhuark]

I don't really see much point in going all the way back to Troy, as Rome was established by some bandits, who at one point kidnapped the women of a nearby city to "have their way with them". Immediately, the gene pool is half latin. But the probable reality is the gene pool was mostly latin in the first place, surely? There were also plenty of Greek and Gallic genes in Italy at that time.

As for the Romans being ugly, it's just a subjective opinion from 2000 years later. I am quite confident that if the Romans were viewed as ugly as a race during their time by other civilisations, we'd have read about it from other contemporary sources.

Tarbicus, I do most honestly concur. I only bring up the bit about the Aeneid because someone mentioned it in a previous post. Again, this is most likely just a total falsehood, or maybe an old tale with just a tiny hint of truth in it. More likely than not, the "Romans" were mainly descendants of Etruscans, or at least a satelite tribe thereof, and probably shared more with them than any other group on the peninsula. While they're were lots of Greek settlements in Italy after the Trojan War, most of the immigration happened later, much later as in Hellenistic times. I'm sure the original Romans were influenced by the Etruscans, who were in turn influenced by the Greeks, and the list goes on and on.
Just trying to tie some loose ends together from earlier posts, not suggest that Romulus and Remus ( if you believe that one ) were actually related to the house of Troy. Most likely just some earlier Empire propoganda and Virgil trying to remake himself as the Latin Homer.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Tarbicus Wrote -

"I don't really see much point in going all the way back to Troy, as Rome was established by some bandits, who at one point kidnapped the women of a nearby city to "have their way with them".

I see an instant parallel!

Regards!

[varistus]

All I wanted was to get people to think 'outside the box' because many times that is how the truth and discoveries occur. The Romans did not look at all like any modern Europeans as a whole, yes there could have been people from Germany to Mesopotamia in those paintings,true. However, I want those who can truly look at many to study carefully, they are an strangely muscular type in general (I will not comment about facial features, you know my opinion), very different than any modern type in the middle east or Europe. It is a look that is hard to define, just that it occurs very often and not a look of someone that has worked the mines but something very genetic and unusual. What does that mean? I am not sure but just wished people would expand with research on this and just think it is possible the Romans were not just another Latin tribe. Maybe not Latin at all? I think their success on the battle field could be attributed(physical make up0 to this besides the obvious.(military discipline) Sometimes the obvious is over looked.

[Tarbicus]

The Romans did not look at all like any modern Europeans as a whole, yes there could have been people from Germany to Mesopotamia in those paintings,true.

I've been to Greece and I have to say I don't see major differences. There's a theory that the Fayum portraits have been more Hellenised as well, to give the people they depict more kudos in a society that held Hellenistic roots with more prestige.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

never tell a Turk his food is Greek, never tell a Greek his food is Turkish,

and never ever try to convince them that what they really are eating is ROMAN!!!!!

:lol:

M.VIB.M.

[Magnus]

No offense, but this is silly. How can you say that the romans look different from modern europeans as a whole, when you're basing it all on a few paintings!?!?!

2000 years isn't long enough for a species to evolve enough to look entirely different. It's simple science.

Thinking outside of the box? A lot of people like to say that when in fact they are just thinking outside of common logic.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Anyway, the resemblances here are really impressive, take for example some people of Tarquinia the southern part of the etruscan land:



This is the famous Omero Bordo that call himself "the last etruscan" he makes shoking copies of etruscan vases by the original methods and materials (take a look at: [url:3gx1zvmt]http://www.ultimoetrusco.it/[/url])



Ah, and below this is me: do you notice anything? :lol:



Valete,

[L C Cinna]

I wonder how you can say the Romans on portraits and statues look so different from modern people? My personal impression always was that they don't look too different (maybe especially female haircuts do lol )

The Romans never were one ethnic group. from their earliest time on they were always a mix of different peoples and during the times of the empire it would be hard to find a "typical" Roman with "exclusive" Roman roots even in the traditional patrician families.

[Robert Vermaat]

Ah, and below this is me: do you notice anything? :lol:

YES!
There's a Roman bust hovering over you! hock:

[Robert Vermaat]

Oh, you meant this? Nah. Your ears fit with his and the nose looks good too, but your face is actually narrower and longer.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

:lol:

Now you finally know because the late helmets have nasals: it was due to the Army fulfilling of you small-noses/north europeans and your problem to protect your delicate upturned sniffing tools from the rain...

Real men's noses are the cases of your tiny ones... 8)

Vale,

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Ah!!! so the slashing of noses on statue is actually historically correct!!

:lol:

M.VIB.M.

[Tarbicus]

Nope. My mate is convinced it's an international gang of nose-nickers.