Tunisians, Egyptians and Syrians?

[wvwvw]

Keep talking about legends...
The only thing you can do.

Italus is another Myth...

You dismiss what ypur own historians have written as myths. Livy and other historians are only reporting the historical facts which are historically certain because they were written down. We know from Roman historians that Rome was founded by Romulus the son of Aeneas and that its inhabitants were Trojan Greeks. That's recorded history! These were written by historians and chronographers who cite primary sources.

You would rather believe that all European history before the middle ages was completely made up as part of a grand conspiracy where there is NOT ONE SHRED of historical evidence to even remotely suggest that even one historical king of Rome was made up.

[MinervaItalica]

You dismiss what ypur own historians have written as myths. Livy and other historians are only reporting the historical facts which are historically certain because they were written down. We know from Roman historians that Rome was founded by Romulus the son of Aeneas and that its inhabitants were Trojan Greeks. That's recorded history! These were written by historians and chronographers who cite primary sources.

You would rather believe that all European history before the middle ages was completely made up as part of a grand conspiracy where there is NOT ONE SHRED of historical evidence to even remotely suggest that even one historical king of Rome was made up.

Even if it was true (still is only a Myth) It doesn't make Romans (who are Latins) Hellenes but only some rulers. Period. Rome was founded by Latins, an Italic tribe. Believe it or not.

But whatever the origin of the legend, it is clear that the Latins had no historical connection with Aeneas and none of their cities were founded by Trojan refugees. Furthermore, Cornell regards the city of Alba Longa itself as probably mythical. Early Latial-culture remains have been discovered on the shore of the Alban lake, but they indicate a series of small villages, not an urbanised city-state. In any case, traces of the earliest phase of Latial culture also occur at Rome at the same time (c. 1000 BC), so archaeology cannot be used to support the tradition that Rome was founded by people from Alba Longa.[30] If Alba Longa did not exist, then nor did the "Alban kings", whose genealogy was almost certainly fabricated to "prove" Romulus' descent from Aeneas. The genealogy's dubious nature is shown by the fact that it ascribes the 14 Alban kings an average reign of 30 years' duration, an implausibly high figure. The false nature of the Aeneas-Romulus link is also demonstrated by the fact that, in some early versions of the tradition, Romulus is denoted as Aeneas' grandson, despite being chronologically separated from Aeneas by some 450 years.[51]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins...an_origin-myth

Btw you seems very interest in Greek and Roman history for a user from Uruguay.

[Sekarotuinen]

The Canaanite (Jews, Syriacs, Phoenecians) and Coptic semitic groups used to be much more med looking than they are now. Arabian conquest and assimilation changed their (half MY) genetic makeup quite a bit. My mom is darker skinned, for example, but her eyes are muvh lighter than you would find on any Saudi.

[wvwvw]

Livys and other historians descriptors of times, people and places have been proven 100% accurate on all counts including archeology.

Ruins Support Myth of Rome's Founding
http://www.genesis6giants.com/index.php?s=505

All of these facts were independently corroborated by the Roman state, the Roman people and their historians and the historians of Greece. This is why they formed the historical consensus and why the have survived to this day. Their very existence alone prove their authenticity.

The Romans had the tablets and wrote down what they said and this was accepted as the by and unquestioned by ALL historians and was therefore the consensus.

The evidence were seen and accepted by all Roman and Greek historians without question! It's authenticity was proven beyond doubt from PRIMARY SOURCES to their own satisfaction and formed the historical consesus! Even if all the histories of Rome were burned in a fire and nothing at all survived there would have still be thousands of people who would have been able to remember reading them or studying them a school so if there was any deviation in their reconstruction they would have spoken up. Since these histories were unquestioned there clearly was no deviations.

What is absurd and insane is the notion that any ancient historian would want to make up non existent history and everyone of his contemporaries and successes would accept it. Not only that, not just one but every ancient historian did this and yet every historian agreed with it and every historian made up exactly the same thing at the same time writing independently and that they managed to suppress all other accounts that said something different so that there is not a mention of them anywhere.

[Sikeliot]

Tunisians, Syrians, Egyptians don't look like Greeks. Even the whiter among them do not look Greek but closer to other places where there is more genetic similarity to North Africa (probably Iberia, Malta, Sicily).

Also, given the low/nonexistent Northeast Euro affinity in these places, but it exists in modern Greeks, and a completely "off" ratio of East to West Med, it is impossible for North Africans to have any substantial Greek DNA.

[Sikeliot]

Also, Greeks do not even look wholly Med to begin with. There are influences from Central and Eastern Europe present.

[wvwvw]

Even if it was true (still is only a Myth) It doesn't make Romans (who are Latins) Hellenes. Period. Rome was founded by Latins, an Italic tribe. Believe it or not.

But whatever the origin of the legend, it is clear that the Latins had no historical connection with Aeneas and none of their cities were founded by Trojan refugees. Furthermore, Cornell regards the city of Alba Longa itself as probably mythical. Early Latial-culture remains have been discovered on the shore of the Alban lake, but they indicate a series of small villages, not an urbanised city-state. In any case, traces of the earliest phase of Latial culture also occur at Rome at the same time (c. 1000 BC), so archaeology cannot be used to support the tradition that Rome was founded by people from Alba Longa.[30] If Alba Longa did not exist, then nor did the "Alban kings", whose genealogy was almost certainly fabricated to "prove" Romulus' descent from Aeneas. The genealogy's dubious nature is shown by the fact that it ascribes the 14 Alban kings an average reign of 30 years' duration, an implausibly high figure. The false nature of the Aeneas-Romulus link is also demonstrated by the fact that, in some early versions of the tradition, Romulus is denoted as Aeneas' grandson, despite being chronologically separated from Aeneas by some 450 years.[51]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins...an_origin-myth

Btw you seems very interest in Greek and Roman history for a user from Uruguay.

The Romans were descended from Trojan Greeks and the Italian women they married and previous Greek inhabitants of Rome including the Arcadians.

The kings descended from Aeneas who founded Rome ruled first over Lavinium and then over Alba Longa which was founded 30 years afterwards.

The kings descended from Ianus up to Latinus who ruled over Italy ruled primarily from Ianiculum and Latinus was based in Laurentium when Aeneas came to Italy.

The existence of Saturn has already been proven. His was the Minoan Greek king Satur who ruled at Knossos in about 1700 BC. The Romans writing in 400 BC had the sources for 1400 BC and 1700 BC.

More historians mentioned Romulus than they do Herodotus or Thucydides. More is said about the history of Romulus than that of Herodotus or Thucydides. Romulus created the laws and constitution of Rome which are recorded by every Roman historian.

There is no historical basis for the revisionist claiming that Romulus did not exist. The Romans had primary sources and references and all their historians said the same thing and formed the historical consensus therefore the existence and provenance of these sources is not and has never been disputed.

The historical consensus states that Romulus wrote the laws of Rome and this had a verified and undisputed provenance based on the corroborated and peer reviewed accounts of primary documents and eyewitnesses and was never the subject of any dispute. The fact that all historians testify to his existence and their accounts all had verified provenance makes his existence the DEFAULT POSITION of historical science.

If you wish to dispute Romulus existence you are required not only to provide at least one verified historical account that says something to the effect that not only was there no Romulus and some other king founded Rome instead (because Rome must have had a founder given that there were at least 7 kings who ruled over it and over 50 earlier kings that had control over it), but you must also proved that that was the accepted consensus.

[MinervaItalica]

The Romans were descended from Trojan Greeks and the Italian women they married and previous Greek inhabitants of Rome including the Arcadians.

The kings descended from Aeneas who founded Rome ruled first over Lavinium and then over Alba Longa which was founded 30 years afterwards.

The kings descended from Ianus up to Latinus who ruled over Italy ruled primarily from Ianiculum and Latinus was based in Laurentium when Aeneas came to Italy.

The existence of Saturn has already been proven. His was the Minoan Greek king Satur who ruled at Knossos in about 1700 BC. The Romans writing in 400 BC had the sources for 1400 BC and 1700 BC.

More historians mentioned Romulus than they do Herodotus or Thucydides. More is said about the history of Romulus than that of Herodotus or Thucydides. Romulus created the laws and constitution of Rome which are recorded by every Roman historian.

There historical basis for the revisionist claiming that Romulus did not exist? The Romans had them and all their historians said the same thing and formed the historical consensus therefore the existence and provenance of these sources is not and has never been disputed.

The historical consensus states that Romulus wrote the laws of Rome and this had a verified and undisputed provenance based on the corroborated and peer reviewed accounts of primary documents and eyewitnesses and was never the subject of any dispute. The fact that all historians testify to his existence and their accounts all had verified provenance makes his existence the DEFAULT POSITION of historical science.

If you wish to dispute Romulus existence you are required not only to provide at least one verified historical account that says something to the effect that not only was there no Romulus and some other king founded Rome instead (because Rome must have had a founder given that there were at least 7 kings who ruled over it and over 50 earlier kings that had control over it), but you must also proved that that was the accepted consensus.

Whatever will make you sleep tonight, delusional.

[Profileid]

Greeks are nordic.-Raine

[wvwvw]

Tunisians, Syrians, Egyptians don't look like Greeks. Even the whiter among them do not look Greek but closer to other places where there is more genetic similarity to North Africa (probably Iberia, Malta, Sicily).

Also, given the low/nonexistent Northeast Euro affinity in these places, but it exists in modern Greeks, and a completely "off" ratio of East to West Med, it is impossible for North Africans to have any substantial Greek DNA.

In general they don't but some do. There are still Greek villages in Syria of Islamized Greeks.