''Romance pride''

[Peterski]

Percentage of Non-Romans was increasing also in the army, which started to employ a lot of "barbarians". At the beginning ethnically Italic people were 4/5 of all soldiers, later % of foreigners in the army was increasing. In 212 AD all free inhabitants of the Empire regardless of origin were granted Roman Citizenship:

"Based on Epigraphics (Keppie 2000 / Birley 1979) concerning the early Imperial era from Augustus to Claudius (27BC-41AD) the Legion ratio was 2/3 - 4/5 Italian Legionaries; By Claudius/Nero (41AD-69AD) the ratio dropped to 1/2 of Italian Legionaries and in the era (69AD-117AD) Italian Legionaries were 1/5 in the West and 1/10 in the East (Alston 1995); Keeping in mind however that the "provincial" Legionaries were often of Italic stock (that is Veterans/Citizens), and Roman Italica (post 117AD) still provided the single largest contingent of any province in the Empire (Yann Le Bohec 1989), Centurions were still overwhelmingly Italic (Yann Le Bohec 1989) and the Praetorians were exclusively Italic (until Septimus Severus) and Mark Aurel even raised two complete/exclusive Italic Legions (Italica II/Italica III) for the Marcomannic-wars; In 212 AD Constitutio Antoniniana granted all peoples of the Roman world Citizenship (except slaves) and this century was marked by civil-wars, usurpators, secessionist empires and ended with the Tetrarchy and Rome no longer being the Capitol."

Cassius Dio (155 - 235 AD) wrote this about declining birth rates among "Romans of the original stock":

"Yet not even so, by threatening or urging or postponing or entreating, have I accomplished anything. You see for yourselves how much larger a mass you constitute than the married men, when you ought by this time to have furnished us with as many more children, or rather with several times your number. How otherwise shall families continue? How can the commonwealth be preserved if we neither marry nor produce children? Surely you are not expecting some to spring up from the earth to succeed to your goods and to public affairs, as myths describe. It is neither pleasing to Heaven nor creditable that our race should cease and the name of Romans meet extinguishment in us, and the city be given up to foreigners, - Greeks or even barbarians. We liberate slaves chiefly for the purpose of making out of them as many citizens as possible; we give our allies a share in the government that our numbers may increase: yet you, Romans of the original stock, including Quintii, Valerii, Iulli, are eager that your families and names at once shall perish with you."

[TheForeigner]

Why not use the term "Latin" for the peoples and cultures? "Romance" are only the languages. Why let Latin Americans have some kind of monopoly on the "Latin" term?

[Fantomas]

Percentage of Non-Romans was increasing also in the army, which started to employ a lot of "barbarians". At the beginning ethnically Italic people were 4/5 of all soldiers, later % of foreigners in the army was increasing. In 212 AD all free inhabitants of the Empire regardless of origin were granted Roman Citizenship:

"Based on Epigraphics (Keppie 2000 / Birley 1979) concerning the early Imperial era from Augustus to Claudius (27BC-41AD) the Legion ratio was 2/3 - 4/5 Italian Legionaries; By Claudius/Nero (41AD-69AD) the ratio dropped to 1/2 of Italian Legionaries and in the era (69AD-117AD) Italian Legionaries were 1/5 in the West and 1/10 in the East (Alston 1995); Keeping in mind however that the "provincial" Legionaries were often of Italic stock (that is Veterans/Citizens), and Roman Italica (post 117AD) still provided the single largest contingent of any province in the Empire (Yann Le Bohec 1989), Centurions were still overwhelmingly Italic (Yann Le Bohec 1989) and the Praetorians were exclusively Italic (until Septimus Severus) and Mark Aurel even raised two complete/exclusive Italic Legions (Italica II/Italica III) for the Marcomannic-wars; In 212 AD Constitutio Antoniniana granted all peoples of the Roman world Citizenship (except slaves) and this century was marked by civil-wars, usurpators, secessionist empires and ended with the Tetrarchy and Rome no longer being the Capitol."

Actually "civil wars" and total barbarisation of the Roman army in Gaul and Britain began already in 190 AD when Clodius Albinus led his legions that consisted only of Celts and Britons (or legions led Albinus as own candidate for the imperial throne) to Rome.

[Szegedist]

Because Romance countries like Spain,Portugal and France have long histories as independent states, and they are proud of their own history, culture and identity.

Portuguese for example they had their empire and proud history, why should they feel connected and be proud of "Romance Brotherhood" with Romania?

Most French I spoke to consider themselves first and foremost as French, while Italy or Spain are just foreign countries.

[Peterski]

The premise of this thread, that there is some "special tie" between Germanic or Slavic countries, is also wrong. "Special ties" between all Germanic and all Slavic countries were - unsurprisingly - historically claimed mostly by Germany and Russia. By the largest Germanic and by the largest Slavic country, respectively. Other Germanic and Slavic countries are not so fond of these "Pan-Germanic" and "Pan-Slavic" ideologies.

Germany and Russia were large bullies, who bullied other Germanic and Slavic countries.

Ask for example Denmark or the Netherlands, if they want to identify with Germany.

Even Austrians no longer want to identify as Germans today.

Only White Americans have some kind of fixation about being German-descended.

They will claim being "German-Americans" even if only 20% of their ancestry is German.

[Szegedist]

^^ Pan-Slavism was first as a Slavic-Independence movement, and pan-Germanicism was developed as a response to that.

[Peterski]

Nope. Pan-Germanicism (first as language-based nationalism) predated Pan-Slavism. Pan-Germanicism began already in the late 18th century, Pan-Slavism in the mid-19th century. Language-based nationalism was invented in Germany - and was different than French nationalism, which was citizenship-based.

Germany (at first Prussia and Austria, then German Empire) claimed rights to all lands inhabited by someone who spoke German, even if those speakers were only a minority of population in that area.

That ideology ultimately led to expulsion of all disloyal German-speakers after WW2 from all areas outside of Germany. Expulsion or forcible De-Germanization (the latter was the case for example in Alsace, where everyone now speaks French and younger generations no longer understand a word in German).

[Mingle]

Then you have not read "The Gallic Wars" by Julius Caesar.

The slaughter was comparable to that during the Mongol Invasion of Hungary.

Except that the Mongols retreated and did not colonize Hungary, while the Romans won.

In Dacia the slaughter and enslavement after the Roman conquest was even worse.

===================

Ancient Gauls were described as mostly light-haired people. Modern French are mostly dark-haired. Obviously there was mixing with Southerners. There are some studies which confirm this. For example "The Role of Recent Admixture in Forming the Contemporary West Eurasian Genomic Landscape" shows that there was very considerable Italian admixture in France dating to years 36 AD - 1042 AD, and Levantine admixture in France, probably also from times when the Roman Empire ruled in the Levant and in Gaul. There was Levantine admixture in Italy itself as well, which is confirmed by sources saying about immigration to Italy from eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (especially Rome was a melting pot like modern London):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/

Recent amixtures (in last ~2000 years) from outside into Europe, and within Europe:

The French autosomal DNA is closer to that of the Germans than to that of the Spanish or Italians. The French are even closer to Austrians than to Northern Italians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneti...#Autosomal_DNA

23andMe also groups the French and Germans together.

---

Its very obvious by looking at both autosomal DNA and Y-DNA that the Romanians are not descended from Romans and this is despite the fact the Romans committed greater slaughters in Dacia than in Gaul, so I see no reason why the French or Spanish should then be descended from the Romans when the Romans did less damage there.

[MinervaItalica]

- Italians are very provincial and identify regionally.. i.e. people emphasize being Sicilian, being Roman, being Venetian because Italy was only recently united (1860).

lol i don't think so, Italians love to emphasize their regional culture/food etc... not of being Sicilian, Roman etc... regional cultural differences are everywhere in Europe not only in Italy. I can pretty assure you that they are proud of being one united nation. Also, you can see Italian flag weaving almost everywhere in Italy from the normal house to the biggest palace and from Alto Adige to Lampedusa.

The premise of this thread, that there is some "special tie" between Germanic or Slavic countries, is also wrong. "Special ties" between all Germanic and all Slavic countries were - unsurprisingly - historically claimed mostly by Germany and Russia. By the largest Germanic and by the largest Slavic country, respectively. Other Germanic and Slavic countries are not so fond of these "Pan-Germanic" and "Pan-Slavic" ideologies.

Germany and Russia were large bullies, who bullied other Germanic and Slavic countries.

Ask for example Denmark or the Netherlands, if they want to identify with Germany.

Even Austrians no longer want to identify as Germans today.

Only White Americans have some kind of fixation about being German-descended.

They will claim being "German-Americans" even if only 20% of their ancestry is German.

Agree with this.

[Mingle]

The premise of this thread, that there is some "special tie" between Germanic or Slavic countries, is also wrong. "Special ties" between all Germanic and all Slavic countries were - unsurprisingly - historically claimed mostly by Germany and Russia. By the largest Germanic and by the largest Slavic country, respectively. Other Germanic and Slavic countries are not so fond of these "Pan-Germanic" and "Pan-Slavic" ideologies.

Germany and Russia were large bullies, who bullied other Germanic and Slavic countries.

Ask for example Denmark or the Netherlands, if they want to identify with Germany.

Even Austrians no longer want to identify as Germans today.

Only White Americans have some kind of fixation about being German-descended.

They will claim being "German-Americans" even if only 20% of their ancestry is German.

German itself is not a proper ethnicity. Germany is the result of an ongoing Pan-Germanization project. German is not an ethnic group but a unification of various German groups such as the Saxons, Bavarians, Allemans, Thuringians, etc. In Denmark, many schools teach German and its easy for them to learn. Most people in England probably don't know what a Germanic is but the ones that do see themselves as Germanic. Austrians and Netherlanders for the most part may or may not know what a Germanic person is but they all acknowledge the very close cultural ties they share with Germany and see themselves as a similar people. Many people from the Netherlands can understand German. Just because someone doesn't support "Greater Germany" does not mean they are anti-Pan-Germanic or dislike seeing themselves as Germanic.

Yugoslavia was a result of Pan-Slavism so its not just a Russia thing. I've also met Pan-Slavic Poles before.