Where did the Romans come from?

Not really , Mediterranean is a road and ideas are flowing from and to everywhere.
If you leave tribal nations out the rest that lied outside Egyptian influence had a very similar culture .

 

really? and what major influence did Egyptian culture have on Greece?...Greek architectural style, religious structure, alphabet was adopted everywhere, the roman didn't have that same cultural influence...what major cultural change did the Romans leave with the Egyptians?...there were essentially only three major cultural influences in the Mediterranean, Greece, Rome and Eygpt, we can exclude the Carthaginians as Rome erased that culture...Eygpt stayed contained and the Romans patterned themselves on Greece, science, education, religious, architecture...the Romans were keen observers and students, learn from others, take the best and then improve on it...

 

Egyptians were already hellenized by greeks by the time of early romans, they adopted greek language, warfare and politics. Romans at their peak conquered Egypt, Greece and all the contemporary known world. Everything in europe, north africa and middle east was touched by the romans.

 

eygptians never adopted greek as their language, it was the language of the Ptolomies/government...just as french was the language of english government after the invasion of william the conqueror for centuries but not of english people...the Rosetta stone was a Ptolomy decree in greek with eygptian translation for the non greek speaking eygptians...

 

The short answer is that for a very long time every Greek that wanted to study had to go in Egypt , everything from agriculture to beekeeping came here through there.

The bit longer answer is that Hellenes together with other IE people came into the area between 2500 and 2000bc and found another civilization in it's last moments ( remember our mythology has three major floods and the "biblical" one is only the second) . Because this civilization was way ahead of us we looked around for more info about them and the source of all recorded history was Egypt .

Architecture wise is nonsense , Egypt is flat while 80% of Greece is mountains , also our religion was different ( the natural law is above everything , even gods ) so our ancestors tried to make buildings part of the landscape rather than huge ass monuments standing out.

Culture wise Egypt played very minimal role because we learned trade, exploration and colonization from the Phoenicians and city state structure didn't left much space for an expanded and overly mystic clergy.
Areas where Egyptian element was big ( like the city of Elefsina that was built by Oros... an Egyptian) things were a bit weird , for example Elefsinian mysteries were only for the chosen few and this is as un-Greek as it goes , typical Hellenic mysteries like the Kawirian in northern Aegean had to be open for everyone.

Before leaving the relations between us and Egypt (which by the way is a Greek name and it means "southern Greece" , the name they used was Kem) you have to understand that foreign rulers from a mostly secular nations find very attractive the idea to embrace local customs and become god-kings , Alex and Cleopatra could have been gods for the Afghans the Medians and the Egyptians but no Greek would ever accept that (*)(*)(*)(*).

The Romans were the newbs of the area and their cultural appeal in either Greeks and Egyptians was from minimal to non. What they did well was to subjugate themselves into a national scope rather than their personal ambitions (like we do) or the will of the clergy (like Kemians did) . Apart from few linguistic loans i doubt that they took anything from Egypt , they stood as cosmopolitan and open minded as we did while having complete contempt for the mystics like the Jews and tribals like the Gauls.
Romans transfer their ability to build and maintain empires , army organization , universal law , expanded tax services and in short everything needed to run an expansive state to us and later to the Ottomans . All three achieved a high degree of cultural fusion that allowed the transfer of knowledge , Egyptians were never really part of it but Egypt is where everything started ( with Phoenecians and Carthage standing somewhere in the middle ).

 

Wrong. Egypt wasn't the beginning, it was Mesopotamia. Their city States influenced the Phonecians who in turn influenced the Greeks.

 

Great Mesopotamian civilizations existed before the Santorini eruption , back then Romans didn't existed and Greeks outside Mycenae, Crete & the other Minoan colonies were not exactly civilized . Yes we did met the Assyrians later but we didn't get influenced by them - not much at least.

 

I dont necessarily agree with all that but it's a good post...

 

The romans took everything good from others and discarded the useless. This charateristic shines expecially in their military: they developed chainmail after fighting the first gauls, they developed the famous roman gladius after they fought the iberian shortswordsmans, they reinforced their banded armours with neck protection after fighting the tracians, who used large head cleaving weapons. After fighting almost everything, their military reached almost perfection and was considered undefeatable.

They did the same in everything else too, architecture, science and culture, everything they thought to be useful they copied it and then was perfectioned.

There was no other people in the world with such an adaptative mentality and that's why their empire lasted for a huge amount of time unrivalled.

 

It's been a while since I've read up on pre-history, but was it ever established who the 'Sea Peoples' were? iirc it was thought by the Egyptians and earlier peoples that they had swept down from the northeast of the Greek peninsula as a horde that swept other smaller tribes and peoples before them.

 

Read up a little on the Minoan civilization; it was the dominant naval power in the region of Greece, referred to in Egyptian histories as 'the people of the isles', when the Greeks were still barbarian tribes. They were known to have traveled west as far as Sicily, Sardinia, and the south-western coast of Italy; one their kings allegedly died in Sicily, which indicates they might have colonized some places in Italy. They are another possible candidate for Roman roots.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_peoples

http://www.phoenician.org/sea_peoples.htm

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/SeaPeoples.html

 

I was waiting for the connection between Troy and the Romans.

It's been a while since I took the class on Troy, but I do know that it's only an excavation site. English is my second language, so if I'm unclear, please excuse me and ask me to clarify. There are quite a few "Troys", which archeologists named Troy I. (roman numerals) to Troy IX. Now these start way before Odyssey, and each time we jump a number, we do so because of a massive change in events clearly visible in the evidence of the excavation site. However these jumps in numbers can often not be dated precisely because Trojans left no written evidence behind which we then could confirm.
There are multiple layers of the excavation site know as Troy. The oldest if I remember correctly was before 3000 BC. And I'm really sorry that I don't have the full list of all the Troys anymore, but if memory serves me right, Troja VI. which we date to around 1700 - 1500 BC could be the Troy from the Odyssey.

Rome as an Empire was 1000 years later in it's beginnings. The connection between Troja and Rome or any other culture later is often made to make the roots of the own society more legendary. One of the more recent ones that come to mind was Germany's attempt to get Troy somehow connected to the Arian-race in the 1930s and 1940s. Both of these lack any evidence of any kind.

Is it possible to have roots in Troy if you are Roman? Yes it is, but very unlikely. We know of Hittites importing goods from Greece 1600 BC. Troy could have been one of the trading stations between early Mycenae and Hittites. The bronze used in Greece was from today's Great Britain, and traveled trough France and then to Greece to be manufactured. So yes, if goods traveled this far, it is possible that some trades also settled in Rome from Troy, but it is unlikely that these families would remain there for a 1000 years.

 

huh, I thought it was a great deal more recent, like the 12th century BC, which would make it believable. If the story is actually from the 17th century BC, then it's incredible how accurate it actually was when it was written down.

 

Recent discoveries in northern Russia seem to point to the Aryans having originated there. The sites haven't been studied in detail yet, as far as I know.

 

True "Aryans" are supposed to be the Indo-Aryan, who came to Europe thousands of years ago and didn't mix with other "races". The last descendants of these are the Romani people - better knows as gipsies At least according to one of the history professors at the university here in Austria.

Maybe it is. I don't know. My expertise is not in that field. I'm a contemporary historian, but I might give you some insight to what might put this into perspective:

Herodotus who lived in the 5th century BC, wrote down the history known to him. He is a true forefather of "history" as a science. However, he didn't ask the question "Why?" when he wrote down events, therefore didn't explain why something happened, nor did he challenged the authenticity of the sources he had. He just wrote down the history of the world known to him. He collected all sorts of data, and used also legends and hearsay. His work covered an astounding 3000 year history.

Now because we have his complete work, we have to now evaluate what is true and what isn't. For example Herodotus wrote that they found huge bones which Herodotus claims are the remains of the Titans, when they lost the battle against the Gods. Because his description was so accurate, archeologists found the exact location Herodotus wrote about over 2400 years ago, and we could now date the battle of the Gods to 14,000 BC I think.

In truth, the huge bones discovered belonged to a Mammoth and a few other animals ancient Greek people didn't know that they had existed before.

So my point is this: Yes there is some truth to every legend, but you shouldn't believe it 100%. The description of Troy wasn't that accurate. For many decades there was an overwhelming effort to find Troy, and it was discovered quite late, especially considering how much information we had.

 

A history professor once said to me in a discussion he thought Herodotus did not filter information intentionally. He basically wrote down what he was told, and decided to let others figure out reality. Problem looking back now we are so removed from the events, it is hard to know what Herodotus thought might real and what he was fairly sure was a steaming pile lol

 

I'm aware of that, I was referring to the recent discoveries in Siberia, and some other finds that push back Aryan migrations back a couple of thousand years to 6000 years ago.

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/183166

This particular article doesn't mention them but some finds have been reported in Siberia and other locations as well.

 

If I may spitball some myself; the Latins were an indo-European people who presumably formed the majority of the people. They occupied land to the south of Rome.
The Etruscans were a non indo-European people to the north of Rome.
All the tribes and kingdoms around Rome had traded with and been influenced by the Greek City States. They all looked up to and tried to emulate the triumphs of Greek civilization.
When Rome grew powerful they adopted the Greek religion, they adopted their forms of government, and they adopted their art forms.
The patrician families of Rome, the upper class, learnt Greek as a matter of course the same way most people today learn English as a second language. Some families even adopted false Greek personas to boost their status. e.g. That they were descended from Greek gods or that Rome was founded by expats from Troy.
Most people were illiterate and easily believed myths and legends. 😨

 

My knowledge of the origin of races/peoples is a bit sparse so forgive me for my absence on this one.

True. Even warfare was conducted Greek style.
Romans definitely assimilated the best of local cultures but to be honest I wouldn't call Greek civilization triumphant as they were a seriously fractured people who practised slavery and could do as they pleased with them.
And of course there's the near constant infighting amongst the Greek states.

It was certainly a similar style but was very much their own. As for government the Greeks tended to vary depending on which state and it was the Romans who elaborated on the republic system.

I agree.

 

This may help.


The indigenous peoples of Sicily, long absorbed into the population, were tribes known to ancient Greek writers as the Elymians, the Sicani and the Siculi or Sicels (from which the island gets its name). Of these, the last were clearly the latest to arrive on this land and were related to other Italic peoples of southern Italy, such as the Italoi of Calabria, the Oenotrians, Chones, and Leuterni (or Leutarni), the Opicans, and the Ausones.

It is possible, however, that the Sicani were originally an Iberian tribe. The Elymi, too, may have distant origins outside of Italy, in the Aegean Sea area. The recent discoveries of dolmens also in this island (dating to the second half of the third millennium BC), seems to open up new horizons on the composite cultural panorama of primitive Sicily.

It is a well-known fact that this region went through a quite intricate prehistory, so much so it is difficult to move about in the muddle of peoples that have followed each other. The impact of two influences, however, remains clear: the European one coming from the North-West, and the other, the Mediterranean influence, of a clear oriental matrix.[3] Complex urban settlements become increasingly evident from around 1300 BC.

From the 11th century BC, Phoenicians begin to settle in western Sicily, having already started colonies on the nearby parts of North Africa. Within a century we find major Phoenician settlements at Soloeis (Solunto), present day Palermo and Motya (an island near present day Marsala). As Phoenician Carthage grew in power, these settlements came under its direct control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sicily#Prehistory

 

It's no different today, really, it's just that the myths and legends adapt to changing circumstances. Literacy can help, but without critical thinking skills it can actually be worse than not being literate when it comes to that sort of thing. Just check out the Conspiratard sub-forum for just a few examples.

 

You're right. Critical thinking skills are necessary but don't discount belief in myth and legend. They are potent forces, then as now.

 

True that the Greeks had slaves. Without the slaves ancient Greece could not have produced and supported it's many original geniuses.
So on social justice they certainly weren't triumphant, but in matters of philosophy, literature, mathematics, poetry, sculpture and others they certainly were far and above any previous civilization.
And Rome adopted and made their own this Helenist culture and built an empire on the back of it.
BTW I'm presently reading a book "the History of Rome" by Titus Livius (free book) written about 60BC. He describes the founding of Rome in less flattering term's, certainly not by Trojans. 🐎

 

Sometimes if it looks like duck it really is just a duck...

just maybe the eygptians built the pyramids without alien assistance....just maybe the mayans built their pyramids without eyptian help...just maybe the romans were people indigenous to the region and didnt require trojans to begin their society...

Why the continual need to attribute one societies success to another...