I would like to register my opposition to an image posted regularly on the Sup Forums board...

I would like to register my opposition to an image posted regularly on the Sup Forums board, which compares the empires of the French, Italians, Germans and British. In this image, the Roman Empire is attributed to the Italians.

The Roman Empire is not the 'Italian Empire'. Italians are not 'Romans' in the classic sense (I say this as citizens of the city of Rome are technically 'Romans' but just as citizens of Paris are 'Parisians', citizens of Berlin are 'Berliners' etc).

The picture I have posted is of the Italian Empire, the only one in history so far. It is the land accumulated under the regime of Benito Mussolini, save for Libya. Mussolini was an idiot who relied on his Axis pals to bear the brunt of the war, and is therefore not a figure to hold in high regard.

The Empire he curated is similarly a steaming pile of dog shit.

Italians are not Romans. Roman Empire was great, Italian Empire was trash.

Please correct the particular image I speak of and replace the Italian flag with the Roman 'SPQR' emblem.

autism

Number of times I have been bullied in two days: 5

Make that 6 you smelly pom

Italians are "Romans" and Italian history after the fall of Rome and Italy is all about them trying to achieve their lost unity and pride.

are you clinically retarded

Italians might not be Romans but Romans were Italians

Yeah retard no shit, but they are direct descendants

>romans were not italians
>italians aren't the closer there is to romans

Someone didn't read about Rome beyond cool eagles and armors.

Switzerland is the new Rome

Top autism

Isn't that a case of "Muh heritage" that Sup Forums hates?

>Doesn't speak the language (Classic vulgar Latin I mean, although Italian is a distant descendant)
>Relying on great great great great great great great x20 grandparents for identity, ethnicity
>Isn't an SPQR citizen (then again, nobody is today obviously)

What's the difference between Italians being "We're Roman" vs a Irish-American being "I'm Irish-American" which Sup Forums hates? Is there a double standard where one gets overlooked? I've seen a lot of Italians claim to be Roman, which doesn't bother me but I'm surprised they get away with it while other cases of "heritagefagging" as Sup Forums hates causes foaming at the mouth

No bully, just curious

Retarded post, all languages changed. A modern German could NOT understand a word of proto-germanic.

And "muh heritage" is usually about countries that still exist

Italy is evolved Roman empire. Italians are descendants of Romans. They speak their language and live in their culture.


'''''''''''''''''Irish''''''''''''''''''''''' Americans do neither

Reminder that the roman empire fell in 1453 and no one is it's rightful in inheritor.

Nah Roman culture is very different from irltaluan culture and Latin is not Italian.

You're the same person to argue that Iraqis, Egyptians, and Syrians, etc are not the direct descendants of the Mesopotamians, Ancient Egyptians, and Phoenicians, respectively.

Excuse me but I idenfity as a Greek and as we all know the Greeks are the rightful heirs of the Roman Empire, as their Byzantine Empire lasted until 1453.

Therefore you're wrong.

>Roman culture is very different from irltaluan culture
Well i mean we don't have gay orgies anymore so i guess that's true

>Irish Americans do neither

Ireland speaks English, I assume you're not talking about Irish (language) which has mixed amount of knowledge (taught there in schools, major decline in native speakers over centuries)

Romans spoke classical Greek and Latin.

>Italians are descendants of Romans

Given that Irish-Americans have been here for, I would presume like 1-6/7/8? generations, while using 500 AD as an easy "end date" of Rome (I know it mostly collapsed before that with the final sackings of Ravenna, Rome and Ostrogoth conquests), and 5 generations per century (using 20 years old as an easy guess to when women have children through the ages), it would come to about 75 generations since the fall of rome.

So the Irish-American would be distanced from his great great great grandfather.

The Italian would be descended from his great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great Roman grandparents

The amount of quotations you put around Irish in your post indicates a heavy emotional reaction. I tend to try to think in terms of logic, such as mathematics and proofs. In my view, either both of them can be considered ethnically Irish/Roman respectively based on ancestry (which you claim is acceptable for Italians), neither (if ancestry alone is unacceptable, which is also a valid response, or the Irish is *more* related to his ancestors by way of around 1,400-1,300 fewer years genealogical "distance", as well as speaking the same language and having the same religion.

Post too long. Sorry for the autism, I'm just speculating if there is a heavy emotional bias clouding actual logic here. My theory is that notions of heritage are considered unacceptable or acceptable heavily based on emotional anger and elitism, psychological factors rather than a sense of measurable factors.

The culture is interesting. To compare, Irish and their diaspora both have the same church to a degree, the modern catholic church. Roma had polytheistic west Hellenic religion, then later the archaic Latin church, along with minorities like Jews and mystery cults. In this way, the Irish + Diaspora have the same religion, while the Italian and Roman either have separate ones (Pagan) or very distantly related (early archaic Latin church and Ostrogoth Arian church). A purely impartial logical observer would say the Irish + Diaspora is far closer.

Cuisine has also evolved a lot. I don't know much about Irish food or what Irish-Americans eat or what they clung onto (potatoes are all I can think of, sorry) but Italian food has evolved a lot. Tomatoes come from the new world for example and changed many aspects of cuisine. Also I could be wrong (I probably am) but did Romans in Italy have coffee? Varieties of coffee are a nice part of Italy's wonderful modern cuisine.

As always, no bully, I'm just trying to be thoughtful and logical here. I'm worried that Sup Forums relies too much on emotional reflexes, thus making us prone to illogical concepts