Is there any veracity to the claim Roman elite was different

>>1952460

Yes, everyone is Roman.
But Italians.
Italians have no relation with ancient Romans at all.

The same with Modern and Ancient Greeks.

>>1952460
>Is there any veracity to the claim Roman elite was different from modern southern European populations?
None at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Italy#Migration_Y-DNA
The DNA of modern Italians is almost identical to that of the Romans. The most significant genetic change took place in Sicily, where about 8% of the population has North African heritage. For the sake of comparison, that's comparable to the percentage of non-British in Britain nowadays.

>I see it posted all the time
Where, on /pol/? That retarded idea that because some emperors had light eyes and blonde hair they were 100% Germanic? Bullshit. Light eyes are, first of all, not even that uncommon in Italy. As for blonde hair, if the depictions of their statues are anything to go by then darker, dirty blondes were the most common and high (platinum) blonde extremely rare. Which fits with what we know about modern Italians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond#Southern_Europe

This idea that the Roman elite was Germanic and that Italy's important declined as the elite was bastardized is Northern Europe's equivalent of WE WUZ KANGS 'N SHIET.

>>1952500
>>1952462
Also worth noting that late imperial nobility and even emperors could be just about anyone as Roman had ceased being an ethnic identifier and become a political one

>>1952460
>I see it posted all the time that the genetic makeup of those populations has changed very dramatically.
Do you see studies posted? Because everytime I see a stormie making this argument (without posting any proofs whatsoever aside from raep, which doesn't even make sense because if anything the germs were the main rapists) there automatically appears someone who posts Cavalli-Sforza's study on italian genetic history, still the most appreciated study on the subject, which says the last meaningful change in Italy's genetic makeup happened in the iron age.

>>1952722
>without posting any proofs
Get ready for "this is a pic of a redhead mummy".
Which is about as useful as afro-centrist's posting some pic of some mummified nubian pharaoh, but self-awareness has never been a stormfag's main quality.

>>1952460

that isnt true

southern europeans are different from northern europeans because they descend to a larger degree of the pioneer farmers from Anatolia who colonized Europe in the neolithic, mixing with and replacing the native hunter gatherers.
Before that, when Europe was inhabited only by its native hunter gatherers, the people of Spain and Sweden were genetically the same.

This happened many milleniums before Rome, and Sardinians are almost completely descended from that neolithic colonization wave.

northern europe had a much lower population density back then (in the neolithic), because agricultural techniques, which were invented in the middle east, adapted much better to the mediterranean than to the north. And that situation didnt change till the middle ages, when the heavy plough was developed, and only then northern europe begun to be a developed place.

also, recessive traits, like blue eyes and being blonde, spread in the north because of the low population density, and every northern european is lactose tolerant, because herding was probably more important for them than agriculture for milleniums.

so, no, modern Italians arent very different from the people who lived in Italy 2000 years ago, and back then, Romans saw Germans as very different from them.
Also, the renaissance happened in Italy 500 years ago, I dont ever see people asking if Romans were very different from the Italians of the time of Da Vinci and Michelangelo.

>>1952753

also, culture matters.
Compare welfare state Sweden to the Vikings, or Japan now and Japan 70 years ago, or North Korea and South Korea right now.
If Italy sucked at war in the World Wars, it does not need to be because of a genetic reason.

File: Ancient_West_Eurasia_1&2.png (80KB, 1218x764px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1218x764px

>>1952753
>the people of Spain and Sweden were genetically the same
Not really, European Hunter Gatherers also had plenty of genetic variation.

Italics arrived many centuries before Rome even existed.
Some samples from Remedello, from the neolithic to later times, are basically Sardinians, so you reasonably have in Italy a Sardinian substratum before the arrival of Indo-European speaking folks.

The latter arrive centuries before Rome was even a thing.
Now judging from the genetics of modern central-north Italians, the latter simply got 'kurganized' as they say i.e they mixed with proto-IE related newcomers, be it Italics or Celts, so it's not like these important Italic elites married with each other only and subjugated the locals, they mixed with the locals since the beginning, and by the time Rome started becoming more than a small village, I think it's fairly safe to assume the patrician families were descendant from these already mixed new Italics, which would be akin to modern Italians, at least from the center-north.
And moreover, the presence of Etruscans in Latium and Rome probably also implies that there was a significant degree of Etruscan ancestry in the patrician families.
I mean, after all IIRC the last known Etruscan speaker was a Roman Emperor.

I haven't included south Italians simply because there is increased near eastern affinity in south Italy just like in southeast Europe which isn't explained by the early neolithic Sardinian-like substratum of southwest Europe, which means there were likely some later waves of migrations, possibly linked with the spread of the otherwise rare J2 haplogroup(diffusion of metallurgy perhaps?).

So to conclude, no, I don't think there was a significant degree of genetic stratification between the different castes in south Europe.

http://www.unz.com/article/what-race-were-the-greeks-and-romans/

there are only two peoples in the world - white and non-white

File: 1478638052811.png (15KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 420x420px

>>1953552
>unz.com

File: 1478638052777.png (87KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1000x600px

>>1953556
whites are the smartest

>>1952926
nice graph

what is the shit plotted on the axis, or is it just a similarity cluster sort of representation of data