Eupedia(Maciamo) on the subject of Italians and Romans.

[Styrian Mujo]

"One of the great mysteries of European history in my eyes is the complete reversal in character between the ancient Romans and medieval or modern Italians.

The Romans were very organised, disciplined, serious, rather stern and stoic, military-minded, cared little about family ties (they frequently adopted people unrelated to them or murdered their blood relatives), and were unusually ready to sacrifice themselves for the common good of their nation (as legionaries).

The Italians are just the opposite in all these respects. They are possibly the least organised Europeans, among the least disciplined. They are fun-loving hedonists. They have made terrible soldiers ever since the Middle Ages (Italians haven't won a single foreign battle in history, except in Libya and Ethiopia where their army far outnumbered the locals in number and fire power). Italians attach a lot of importance to family relations, and often place loyalty to family and friends above that of society or the whole nation. One of the main problems of modern Italy is tax fraud, because people don't feel enough solidarity with other Italians."

[Sikeliot]

Because only a small area of Italy is descended from the ancient Romans by blood.

[Grab the Gauge]

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-into-Italians

One of the great mysteries of European history in my eyes is the complete reversal in character between the ancient Romans and medieval or modern Italians.

The Romans were very organised, disciplined, serious, rather stern and stoic, military-minded, cared little about family ties (they frequently adopted people unrelated to them or murdered their blood relatives), and were unusually ready to sacrifice themselves for the common good of their nation (as legionaries).

The Italians are just the opposite in all these respects. They are possibly the least organised Europeans, among the least disciplined. They are fun-loving hedonists. They have made terrible soldiers ever since the Middle Ages (Italians haven't won a single foreign battle in history, except in Libya and Ethiopia where their army far outnumbered the locals in number and fire power). Italians attach a lot of importance to family relations, and often place loyalty to family and friends above that of society or the whole nation. One of the main problems of modern Italy is tax fraud, because people don't feel enough solidarity with other Italians.

Many character traits are highly inheritable. Cats don't make dogs or vice versa. So how is it possible that modern Italians descend from ancient Romans ?

The character traits of modern Italians listed above are far more exacerbated in the southern half of Italy. This is all the more surprising since the ancient Latins originated in the coastal area between Rome and Naples. Since Rome was flooded with immigrants from all over the empire, chances are that the Roman genes survived better in Neapolitans. The region was heavily settled by rich Romans, who had holiday homes in what they called the Campania Felix. Campania was even part of the same province as Rome, the Regio I Latium et Campania. Some Roman emperors were more often in Capri than in Rome itself.

This made me wonder how much DNA from the ancient Latins, the patricians of the Roman Republic, survive in modern Italians. Ironically the temperament and values of the ancient Romans were closer to that of modern Swiss or Germans than to that of Italians. Yet it is hard to think of two European cultures more diametrically opposite as the Swiss/Germans and the Italians, especially if we look only at the Neapolitans or southern Italians.

EDIT:

In his book The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, the American political scientist Edward Banfield employed the phrase 'amoral familism' to describe the inability of modern (mostly southern) Italian villagers to 'act together for the common good, or indeed for any good transcending the immediate material interest of the family'. Interestingly this complete lack of attachment to the state and lack of identification to the wider community is found nowadays in societies that I would qualify of 'short-ranged collectivist' (in which the collectivity is the family or village) of the Balkans and southern Italy, as opposed to the 'wide-range collectivism' (where the collectivity is the whole nation) of East Asia.

How can you judge a nation's talent for military strategy or discipline if they are fighting between themselves ?

As for fighting Austro-Hungary, Italy never won a single battle, even when they were fighting at 10 against one . It is either the Prussians and especially the French (thanks to Napoleon III's dream of unifying Italy) who defeated the Austrians and gave Austrian possessions to Piedmont.

The same happened in WWII. Italy lost on every front. They lost in Greece and needed to be rescued by the Germans. They lost in Egypt against the Brits and needed to be rescued by the Germans. Etcetera.

Those are all quite negative traits of character. I don't know why you'd want to be so biased in reaction to what I wrote when I was describing the Italians as fun-loving (in contrast with the stern and cruel Romans). Anyway you could agree with me that the adjectives you choose to describe the Germans could never reasonable apply to the Italians, whether Northerners of Southerners. Likewise the adjectives I chose to describe the ancient Romans couldn't apply to modern Italians or vice versa. That proves there is a truth in them.

Why Italy hasn't won a fight in hundreds of years

It would be more intellectually honest to place the Battle of Vittorio Veneto into context. It followed the disastrous Battle of Caporetto, in which the Italian army, despite its numerical advantage, was spectacularly defeated by the Germans and Austrians. The Italians suffered 40,000 casualties. However, more tellingly, 265,000 Italians were taken prisoners (by an Austro-German army of 280,000 still alive, so nearly one prisoner per victor) and according to David Gilmour in his history of Italy, "350,000 deserted, disappearing into the hills and attempting to find their way home."

The Battle of Vittorio Veneto, in November 1918, is often hailed as the greatest of all time in Italian history and is claimed by Italians to have led to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Emire. However, as David Gilmour explains, "In fact it was achieved with the support of French and British units at a time when the Germans were already beaten, the empire was already dissolving, and the Viennese government was seeking an armistice."

This reminds me of how the Italians changed side in the middle of both World Wars. How honourable and satisfying is it to betray your former allies and defeat them when they are already on their knees and seeking armistice ? In 1940 Italy had insisted on staying neutral when Hitler declared war on France and Britain, only to change mind and declare war on France in June, two months after the French had already surrendered. How brave indeed.

[Hamlet]

Because only a small area of Italy is descended from the ancient Romans by blood.

I agree, glad to see you're not one of those ALL ITALIANS R ROMANZ people. Not that there's anything wrong with being Med, obviously, civilisation was just a Mediterranid pasttime.

[Kouros]

Because only a small area of Italy is descended from the ancient Romans by blood.

Everybody in Italy descends from Romans, because Roman is an identity, not an ethnicity. Romanization was just the process of unifying Italy under Latin culture.

You are referring to the Latins.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

"One of the great mysteries of European history in my eyes is the complete reversal in character between the ancient Romans and medieval or modern Italians.

The Romans were very organised, disciplined, serious, rather stern and stoic, military-minded, cared little about family ties (they frequently adopted people unrelated to them or murdered their blood relatives), and were unusually ready to sacrifice themselves for the common good of their nation (as legionaries).

The Italians are just the opposite in all these respects. They are possibly the least organised Europeans, among the least disciplined. They are fun-loving hedonists. They have made terrible soldiers ever since the Middle Ages (Italians haven't won a single foreign battle in history, except in Libya and Ethiopia where their army far outnumbered the locals in number and fire power). Italians attach a lot of importance to family relations, and often place loyalty to family and friends above that of society or the whole nation. One of the main problems of modern Italy is tax fraud, because people don't feel enough solidarity with other Italians."

This dude is a hack. A poster caught him arguing in favor of the crusades and then found a post that was arguing against the crusades. It was the exact opposite argument. It was weird and not enough time passed for such a drastic shift in mindset.

Also, Italians won battles during WW1 and in the 1850s against the Austrians.

Also, there was a great deal of corruption during Roman times. You could buy your position, for example. The later Roman period was worse but the early period wasn't so squeaky clean. Just because Roman society promoted particular values doesn't mean the society as a whole matched those values.

[Hamlet]

This dude is a hack. A poster caught him arguing in favor of the crusades and then found a post that was arguing against the crusades. It was the exact opposite argument. It was weird and not enough time passed for such a drastic shift in mindset.

Also, Italians won battles during WW1 and in the 1850s against the Austrians.

Also, there was a great deal of corruption during Roman times. You could buy your position, for example. The later Roman period was worse but the early period wasn't so squeaky clean. Just because Roman society promoted particular values doesn't mean the society as a whole matched those values.

Those aren't really foreign battles.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Those aren't really foreign battles.

What is a foreign battle if not a battle against foreigners? Il Duce's desire for an empire of sorts was forced on the Italian population. There was little interest for it from the population. It was literally stupid in that there was no real benefit from controlling these territories. It was just for show.

Also, I just remembered. The issue about the crusades was revealing of this dude's character in that he had denied his view on the crusades had changed. That is when someone quoted a post he had made in the past that as I said in my previous post was drastically different.

When someone does shit like that I write them completely off as someone that can't be trusted on anything.

[Hamlet]

What is a foreign battle if not a battle against foreigners? Il Duce's desire for an empire of sorts was forced on the Italian population. There was little interest for it from the population. It was literally stupid in that there was no real benefit from controlling these territories. It was just for show.

Also, I just remembered. The issue about the crusades was revealing of this dude's character in that he had denied his view on the crusades had changed. That is when someone quoted a post he had made in the past that as I said in my previous post was drastically different.

When someone does shit like that I write them completely off as someone that can't be trusted on anything.

Foreign as in not right on your border.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Foreign as in not right on your border.

I addressed this with my point about the population's lack of interest in taking part in empire building.

Marciamo should do some real research. As for 'fun loving' he should take a look at the habit of Italian immigrants to Argentina and the US at the turn of the century and their habit of saving what meager earnings they made. So called 'fun loving people' don't save their money and develop small businesses, which is what Italians are known for in Argentina and the US. I happen to read up on immigrant cultural patterns.

The only thing he has a solid point on is corruption but that was typical of the Roman era as well.