Ethnic question about europe

That's completely untrue. The Romans might not have had knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa, but they still had access to the Libyan terminus of trans-Saharan trade which provided a good number of African slaves.

There IS plenty of trace of African blood in Europe. When you think of Italians, especially the Southern portions, you think of dark and swarthy. In Roman times they were all fair and Indo-European. Northern Italians are in general paler today, but that's because of Germanic invasions in the Dark Ages.

The same is true of the Middle East. The classical Arab was very fair - now look at them, particularly in areas where large numbers of slaves have come from Africa since forever, like Yemen.

Well, I am not sure I agree that the classical Arab was very fair. The semitic peoples have probably always been pretty dark simply because of the climate they lived in.

As for the source of modern Italy's skin coloration, I think again, just based off of the historical evidence so far, its hard to determine what the primary source was. Yes, there were slaves, but southern Italy also spent time under the control of Islamic invaders (and probably a larger period of time where it was subject to raiders from Africa).

Modern genetics could, I am sure, answer the questions, finding what if any genes typical of sub-saharan africans there are in the Italian population and when they entered the population.

--
Bill
 
If my memory of sources serves me well, "Slave" indeed comes from "Slav", remnant of German conquest of Western Slavs (Elbe, Pomerania and such), which generated massive influx of Slavic slaves on European slave market in times when the modern English was being created.

"Slava" in Russian can be "glory" or "popularity". However it is awfully close to "slovo" ("word") so linguist are still fighting which word is really related to tribal name. "Word" hypotesis looks more logical to me.
 
That's completely untrue. The Romans might not have had knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa, but they still had access to the Libyan terminus of trans-Saharan trade which provided a good number of African slaves.

There IS plenty of trace of African blood in Europe. When you think of Italians, especially the Southern portions, you think of dark and swarthy. In Roman times they were all fair and Indo-European. Northern Italians are in general paler today, but that's because of Germanic invasions in the Dark Ages.

The same is true of the Middle East. The classical Arab was very fair - now look at them, particularly in areas where large numbers of slaves have come from Africa since forever, like Yemen.

no they werent
i supose by fair you mean blond and bright skinned
which they werent
romans were newer fair
no people of the apenines were fair
no mediteran population was fair
even if acient populations of north africa were sometimes a litle brighter than today, those changes are due to later migrations not slave trade

romans were definitley not fair haired and probbably not fair skinned
blond, orange and red hair and pale skin was regarded as a sing of low birth, weakness, lack of intelect, generaly a range of rasist beliefs were tied to the people considered dirty low barbarians with blond hair and blue eyes
this was becouse most mediteran and midlle eastern people were and are darker, even the white ones
the fact manny italians look a bit moorish is probbably due to the contact vith saracens more than some acient imperial heritage, but even then most romans were mediterran tipes with black curly hair, brunete was the fairest they got, being born blond would to them be like being born today a few tones darker in a white family, there would be all kinds of bigotry and rasism involved

besides, slaves didnt mix with the base demografic that much, even if at times they were the base demografic
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
romans were definitley not fair haired and probbably not fair skinned
blond, orange and red hair and pale skin was regarded as a sing of low birth, weakness, lack of intelect, generaly a range of rasist beliefs were tied to the people considered dirty low barbarians with blond hair and blue eyes
this was becouse most mediteran and midlle eastern people were and are darker, even the white ones
the fact manny italians look a bit moorish is probbably due to the contact vith saracens more than some acient imperial heritage, but even then most romans were mediterran tipes with black curly hair, brunete was the fairest they got, being born blond would to them be like being born today a few tones darker in a white family, there would be all kinds of bigotry and rasism involved
Oh, really? Have you ever read up on your Roman emperors? According to Suetonius, Augustus was blond-haired and grey eyed; Caligula was blond (no word on his eyes), Claudius had grey eyes (no word on his hair), and Nero was blond with what we call "cat's eyes" (blue-green). It's amazing that they were able to overcome such society prejudices to rise to the role of emperor. :rolleyes:
 
you ewer been to Itali?

no seriously, the number of slaves from Africa that were actually black as in dark brovn with central african fatial features was wery low
most slaves from africa were Egiptians, Berbers, those sort of ethnic groups, and these were a small percentage of slaves
these already look more or less mediteranean and in a couple of generations mixing with Kelts and Greeks noone can realy tell the diference
and the majority of slaves were from northen europe anyway

then a huge number of Gots, Langobards, Germans, Slavs, Avars, Huns etc..etc.. came here, and then most European populations mixed up untill now we are all almoust identicall

interestingly theres a gravesite from the roman period in Istra where they found people, Roman veteran legionares, who were about 200cm tall, wich is huge for those days, and one of the teories sugests these are recrutes from black african tribes wich got land in Istra as the usual revard to veterans
Can you find a link for this, it sounds interesting. But I doubt that they were legionaries, legionaries were roman citizens. Also, I think is fairly easy for forensic experts to determine their race.
 
Then just read works by classical authors and get their descriptions. Arabs today are darker than they used to be. It takes a very long time for a human population to change pigmentation to adapt to a climate - this is not a relevant factor. Arabs didn't "evolve" in Arabia.

Well, I am not sure I agree that the classical Arab was very fair. The semitic peoples have probably always been pretty dark simply because of the climate they lived in.

As for the source of modern Italy's skin coloration, I think again, just based off of the historical evidence so far, its hard to determine what the primary source was. Yes, there were slaves, but southern Italy also spent time under the control of Islamic invaders (and probably a larger period of time where it was subject to raiders from Africa).

Modern genetics could, I am sure, answer the questions, finding what if any genes typical of sub-saharan africans there are in the Italian population and when they entered the population.

--
Bill
 
There is just about nothing in this post that is remotely true, and as you failed to present even a shred of evidence to support your position, there's very little anyone can say. If you think that Classical Romans were as dark as modern non-Germanic Italians, you obviously have never read any Roman histories at all. As Leo pointed out, a large number of the emperors were blond.

And if you think people weren't having sex with slaves, I don't even know where to begin. Roman slave-owners MOSTLY had sex with slaves.

no they werent
i supose by fair you mean blond and bright skinned
which they werent
romans were newer fair
no people of the apenines were fair
no mediteran population was fair
even if acient populations of north africa were sometimes a litle brighter than today, those changes are due to later migrations not slave trade

romans were definitley not fair haired and probbably not fair skinned
blond, orange and red hair and pale skin was regarded as a sing of low birth, weakness, lack of intelect, generaly a range of rasist beliefs were tied to the people considered dirty low barbarians with blond hair and blue eyes
this was becouse most mediteran and midlle eastern people were and are darker, even the white ones
the fact manny italians look a bit moorish is probbably due to the contact vith saracens more than some acient imperial heritage, but even then most romans were mediterran tipes with black curly hair, brunete was the fairest they got, being born blond would to them be like being born today a few tones darker in a white family, there would be all kinds of bigotry and rasism involved

besides, slaves didnt mix with the base demografic that much, even if at times they were the base demografic
 
Bright day
Disputed. It could come from "word". Seeing as as the closest neighbours are "mutes".

What did the Slavs call themselves? It seems to me that half the Slavic names contain the word "slav" in them, Miroslaw, Mieczyslaw, etc. It seems strange to call your selves "Words". A people will generally think of itself as normal and name other people after divergences from their own behavior. Hence Germans are silent. Compared to Poles at least, as I re-learn every day on the train.
 
What did the Slavs call themselves? It seems to me that half the Slavic names contain the word "slav" in them, Miroslaw, Mieczyslaw, etc. It seems strange to call your selves "Words". A people will generally think of itself as normal and name other people after divergences from their own behavior. Hence Germans are silent. Compared to Poles at least, as I re-learn every day on the train.

Germans are called "Mutes" in the Slavic Languages not because they didn't talk much, but because they talked "gibberish", i.e. the Slavic people coudn't understand them.
As for the names: the rote "-slav" in the names doesn't come from "word" but from the "fame". As mentioned above, this two words sounds pretty much the same.
 
There is just about nothing in this post that is remotely true, and as you failed to present even a shred of evidence to support your position, there's very little anyone can say. If you think that Classical Romans were as dark as modern non-Germanic Italians, you obviously have never read any Roman histories at all. As Leo pointed out, a large number of the emperors were blond.

And if you think people weren't having sex with slaves, I don't even know where to begin. Roman slave-owners MOSTLY had sex with slaves.

Not to mention Sulla, Ahenobarbus, Julius Caesar and Antony are all described as having characteristics now associated with northerners. Red or blond hair and blue eyes among the traits mentioned.

There were Berbers stationed on Hadrian’s Wall and it would be surprising indeed if there were no sexual relations and offspring from their interaction with the locals. I seem to recall units of black skinned Africans garrisoning Britain too but I forgot the reference.

Auxillaries were recruited from all over and beyond the Empire and they had no formal restrictions on marriage as the legionaries did. This did not stop de facto relationships developing among the latter of course. So intermarriage and the natural result of children happened for centuries.

Sexual relations between masters and slaves was commonplace too. Thier offspring would be raised in the household and the laws preventing gross mistreatment of slaves existed from the Republic so their survival rate was quite good.
 
you are right

i was wrong

thank you
i do tend to shit it sometimes, and apreciate when it is pointed out to me

still, the "african" features amongst parts of Italian, and some south European populations, should be considered the result of contact with invading Saracen and Berber peoples
there must be lots of sources that can support this
i got this particular information from waching a lot of RAI and Mediaset documetaries, where this is stated repeatedly by historians and geneticists, but i really couldnt quote sources
 
Top