Talk:Roman people

As a modern identity section
Hello,. I'm glad you decided to expand this article, and I think you did a good work. However, the last section seems pretty Greek-centered. I guess it makes sense, after all the Byzantine Empire was practically ruled by Greeks, but I think you could expand the parts about the Romanians and the Romansh people a bit more (although since I'm Romanian, I admit that my opinion is probably biased and it's fine if you don't want to).

I also think you should specify that not all Istro-Romanians (I'm glad to know that you've taken them into account!) call themselves "Romans". The Istro-Romanians don't have a very strong feeling of unity and they mostly name themselves after their respective village. "Vlach" is also used. You could also mention the Aromanians, who have many names among which there are some derivatives of "Roman". In case you want to know, the other Balkan Romance people, the Megleno-Romanians, use "Vlach" exclusively. I think it would also be a good idea to mention somewhere in the article that none of the terms used is related to the Romani people. I can help with the Aromanians, but that would have to happen in the next few days. Excellent article, as usual! Super  Ψ   Dro  22:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yeah, the focus of this article really is a bit distorted; I'm most familiar with the Romans who eventually disappeared in western Europe and the Romans who lived on in the Byzantine Empire and so those Romans are what the article focuses most on at this time (the Romans in the Republic and Empire in Antiquity; what most people see as the definite "Romans" aren't explored in as much detail for instance). Since the Byzantines are explored quite a lot and the "main" portion of the Byzantines became what we today call the Greeks, I thus put more focus on them since those are the ones I knew most about.
 * Since you are more knowledgeable than me in regards to Romanians, Istro-Romanians and the other Balkan Romance people(s?) you'd be more than welcome to expand the information on them (and other portions if you find anything)! Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added information about the four Balkan Romance peoples (peoples because they are not a single ethnicity but a group of them). I have to admit that it was more interesting than I expected. I might add something else about the Romansh people and the Romands, but the section is getting pretty large. Do you think it would be a good idea to divide the "Romance peoples" subsection into "Western Europe" and "Eastern Europe" subsubsections? Also, I guess the lead should be updated regarding modern Roman self-identification. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice! As of now I don't think we need to divide the "Romance peoples" subsection but if more is added on the Romands and the Romansh that might be necessary (more text would also allow us to fit in another image, though I don't know what image might be suitable). As for the lead, yes I agree. One thing I feel might be important is that while the name of the Romanians and Romania itself (and the identities of the other Balko-Romance peoples) obviously derive from Rome (either through the actions of the old Roman Empire in that part of the world or maybe through something having to do with the Byzantines - Romania was after all the informal name the citizens of that empire called their country) it might be interesting to incorporate how the modern day people with these identities see it. Modern "Romans" in the city itself and modern Greeks who use the name Romioi obviously connect themselves to Ancient Rome (as seen in the numerous attempts to revive the Roman Republic) and its medieval continuation the Byzantine Empire, respectively.
 * The reasoning behind why the small western groups (Romans and Romansh) and the Balko-Romance peoples use the identities is made pretty clear in the article (maybe not for the Romands, but for the rest) but what (if anything) it means for them to be modern "Romans" isn't. I'm not sure if there are any sources on that or if it's something relevant at all but it's interesting to think about. Either way you are free to modify the lead in any way you want, I do agree that continual self-identification as "Romans" is as relevant to mention for the Balko-Romance peoples and the "Romans" in the alps as it is for the Greeks. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to search a bit and I couldn't find anything for none of those groups. The most useful thing I found is that Romans are sometimes seen as aggressors against the Dacians, which are preferred by some Romanians. In fact, I have read on the Internet some comments from Romanians that would like Romania to be renamed to Dacia, but I think this is just limited to some Dacian fanatics and is no serious movement. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I finally added something about the Romands, so all ethnic groups are now covered in the article. There are some other ethnicities and languages whose name is derived from the Latin language (Ladin people, Ladino language...), but they should probably be mentioned in the article about the Latin language, although if you want I can briefly mention them here too. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the contribution on the obscure Romands! I've split the quite long subsection on Romance peoples into two, one for western Romance peoples and one for the Balkan Romance peoples. Would be nice with an image for the Balkan Romance peoples (preferrably something Rome-associated as with the others) but I don't know if there are any good ones to use for that.
 * I don't think it is necessary to mention the Ladin people or the Ladino language here, but it could be mentioned in the article on Latins, as per that article the term "Latin" has meant many different things in different times and places and doesn't necessarily imply a connection to the Romans. For example, the Byzantines called everyone from Western Europe "Latins" and they certainly did not see western europeans (not even those in Rome itself) as Romans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no really adequate image for the Balkan Romance peoples subsection. Perhaps we could use this linguistic map of the Balkans in the Early Middle Ages, this map that shows the Latin-speaking territories that were under the Roman Empire or a map of Dacia. Perhaps I could create a map myself comparing the borders of the Roman province of Dacia with those of Romania, although that would exclude the Aromanians and Istro-Romanians. Maybe we could add somewhere a map about the ethnic groups that still use a name derived from "Roman"? Super   Ψ   Dro  20:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Note on the infobox picture
Just gonna leave a note here to future editors who might have some opinion on the infobox picture; I've changed the original lineup of 9 famous Romans (link to how that looked) to a collection of some of the famous Fayum mummy portraits. Why? Because in most other articles on ethnic/national groups the infobox picture is either just some normal people of that group (see Istro-Romanians, Croats, Bedouin, Sahrawi people), a flag (see Italians, Romani people, Assyrian people, Swedes) or a map (see Romanians) and I didn't feel like using a map of the Roman Empire would be of much encyclopedic use here (since the borders changed so much throughout the empire's existence) or a flag (since the Romans didn't have any). The Fayum portraits would be the closest we can get to that for the Romans.

Some alternatives could be the (but that's of an emperor and I feel like many would argue that he is "too Byzantine" to be the poster child of the "Roman people" page) or either of these two lineups of Roman busts  but one is all-male and the other is all-female which isn't very good for inclusivity. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I'm especially keen on the idea of having images of people in the infobox at all. The Fayyum mummy portraits are probably more representative of the overall population of the Roman Empire than the lineup of nine famous Roman men, but it is worth pointing out that they all come from Egypt. The people depicted in these portraits are probably mostly of Egyptian and/or Greek descent and they most likely would have thought of themselves primarily as Egyptians, Greeks, or somewhere in between.
 * These portraits are probably representative of the appearance of the population of Egypt during the time of the Roman Empire, but Egypt was just one part of the Roman Empire. For large parts of its history, the Roman Empire also ruled Italy, France, Switzerland, Britain, large parts of Germany and Austria, Iberia, northern Morocco, northern Algeria, Tunisia, northern Libya, the Levant, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, the Balkans, areas along the Black Sea, and even briefly Mesopotamia. We're talking about an enormous, ethnically diverse empire here. I'm not convinced that there is a way to fully represent the entire diverse population of the Roman Empire in a single image. —Katolophyromai (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. My main point is that if we are going to have an image of Roman people in the infobox, I think the Fayum portraits is the best option since they are actual contemporary color portraits (plus, I think they are really cool). It is, as you say, problematic that everyone in the picture is from Roman Egypt (or at the very least died there) and it would be good if a picture could encapsulate more of the empire's diversity. The people in Roman Egypt were of course just as Roman as the people in Rome itself by the time of the 3rd century and onwards (from when most, if not all, of the portraits in the infobox image should be) but yeah.
 * Do you have any suggestions on what could replace the image? I think it would be a bit boring to not have an image at all the infobox. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Modern Italians and Roman kingdom
If you want to discuss incorporating more on modern Italians and the political history of the Roman kingdom, which I feel is quite unrelated to what the article is about, then it would be better to discuss it here on the talk page than edit-warring over its inclusion in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and what the hell was this?

Look all I want is to put most of the history of the Romans on this page because I feel along with other people that this page isn't telling the whole history. What I put is some truth. There are sources that support what I say. Look the Romans were Italian 2,000 years ago, the Romans are the hisory of Italy along with the Renaissance, but that was then, saying they are not related is like saying that Mexicans are not descended from the Aztecs and the modern day Spanish are not descended from the Conquistadors, and modern Greeks are unrelted to the Spartans. If I find the sources will you let me write what I say? Futurama 55 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources (see this page for what that means on Wikipedia) that support what you are saying you are welcome to add it to the article, yes. I take issue with your additions because they, at least from what I understand, to some degree contradict what is already in the article. As the article says, "Roman" was never really an ethnic identity in the way that "Italian" is today. During the Roman Republic it was a civic identity, referring to someone that lived in the city of Rome and during the time of the Roman Empire it was more similar to a national one in the sense that a "Roman" was a "citizen of the Roman Empire". In the 4th century, a person who was born in Egypt and lived there their entire life could be seen as equally Roman as someone who lived in the city itself. The idea that modern Italians have some big claim to being Romans just because they happen to live in the Italian peninsula is dangerously nationalistic; all Romance peoples (be they Spaniards, French, Romanians or others) have an equal claim to "Romanness" (and you'll notice that none of them claim to be Romans, this is in the article). Italy has been invaded, and the people living there "reshuffled" (the Germanic Lombards ruled the peninsula for centuries for instance) countless times since Antiquity so there is unlikely to be an especially strong connection just because Rome is located in Italy. The same goes for modern Mexicans being descended from the Aztecs and modern Greeks being descended from Spartans; this is modern ethnical and nationalistic thinking that ancient peoples didn't engage in. That the Roman Empire continued in the eastern Mediterranean for centuries after the Romans lost control of Italy is another nail in the coffin for there being a special Italian connection beyond just geography. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. However I know in my heart that the Romans are Italians, but if I am not able to find "reliable sources" to put on the Roman People page to support my claims, will you at least allow me to put that the Romans started out as an "Italic" civilization on said "Roman People" page? After all they were the Latins before they established Rome. And they were a part of many Italic civilizations that lived on the Italian Peninsula along with the Etruscans, Greeks and Samnites. On every other Wikipedia page about the Romans and history of Italy it does say that the Romans were one of many Italic civilizations that eventually rose up and became the dominant superpower. Will you please allow this? I just want to make sure that the Romans remain a part of the history of Italy, and I want people to know that. Just like the Aztecs are Mexican History and Spartans are Greek history. That's all I want. RomanHawk7 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on reliable sources; if reliable sources are not used how are readers supposed to know that Wikipedia editors are not just making stuff up?
 * That being said, Roman civilization was founded by Italic people, yes. You'll notice that the infobox on the top lists "other Italic peoples" under "related Ethnic groups". This article currently begins in the Roman Republic because it is about Roman identity (people who identify as "Roman") and we do not have any surviving contemporary sources from before the Roman Republic in regards to this. What I'm saying, and what is sourced in the article right now, are two things:
 * 1) what "Roman" meant changed a lot throughout the centuries. Rome as a civilization lasted for a long time. In 200 BC, a Roman was a citizen of the city Rome but in 400 AD a Roman could be a citizen of anywhere in the empire (i. e. not necessarily Italic/Italian at all). In the Middle Ages a Roman was either a citizen of the city itself or a greek-speaking citizen of the Byzantine Empire, both of which self-identified as "Romans". For much of its history, Rome was a large multiethnic empire, not just an Italic civilization. No one denies that Rome is a large part of the history of Italy, but Rome is a large part of the history of all of Europe, and to a degree the rest of the world, not just Italy. If you read the "Later history in Western Europe" section of this article you'll see how Roman identity changed and transformed in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (a lot of it is about Italy in particular).
 * 2) yes, Roman legacy is very present in Italy and of course modern Italians would be descended from the Romans to some degree but modern Italians do not self-identify as "Romans" (other than those who live in the city to a degree) and would not have an exclusive claim to Roman identity even if they did; modern Spaniards are for instance the descendants of Romans and Goths in the same way that modern Italians are the descendants of Romans and Lombards. Neither group self-identifies as Romans but they are both "Romance" peoples. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As they told you, Romans were much more than "Italians", they were people from many other places around the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, the majority of Romans weren't from Italy during the Roman Empire, particularly since Caracalla. 31.221.138.112 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"and Hellenized peoples"
To stop the current round of edit-warring, I'll explain why adding "and Hellenized peoples" to the sentence in question is unnecessary. In context, the text in question is this:
 * To the Romans and Italians of the 8th and 9th century, the original Roman Empire was a thing of the past. There definitely used to be an empire, such as during the time of Constantine the Great, but it had now transferred itself to the Eastern Mediterranean and ceased to be properly Roman, now inhabited by "Greeks".

It serves to illustrate what the Italians of the 8th and 9th century perceived the Roman Empire to be, saying that they 1) saw it as a thing of the past and that 2) that it had been transferred to the east but was now no longer Roman since it was not inhabited by people they called "Greeks". Adding "and Hellenized peoples" at the end does absolutely nothing here. The passage is about how the Italians viewed the Eastern Empire - they did not have a concept of "hellenized peoples", but referred to all of the east's inhabitants as "Greeks". This is also in the sources used for this section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Due to your lack of inquiry you will be somewhat impressed to learn that they, like the Byzantines, did have a concept of "Hellenization" and that this only adds more sense to the text.

"My late father and emperor Basil had persuaded the Slavic tribes to change their ancient customs, and hellenised them, and subjected them following the Roman (Byzantine) system, liberated them from their leaders, honoured them by the baptism and trained them to fight against people at war with the Romans (Byzantines)" Leo The Wise. (Not logged User :b)
 * I'm not arguing that the Byzantines did not have a concept of hellenization. I'm pointing out that the passage in question is only about the perception of the Italians. The entire article is about self-identity; Byzantine perceptions of themselves and "Romanness" is covered later on. This passage is solely about how the Italians viewed the empire and what Romanness means and as such it makes no sense to add "and Hellenized peoples" since the Italians did not have a concept of this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes they did have a concept of "Hellenization" once again make your search. Im well aware this is just the point of view of the Italians yet they did know that apart from the Greeks were pepople ho adopted their same way of life and culture as a letter from the City of Rome to the Emperor Justinian testify.

‘the citizens of Rome stated that they would rather ‘serve the Goths than the Greeks and their Graecid (Hellenized) pepoples ’

(Not logged User :b)
 * If you want this information added you should have added it with a source and you should definitely not have edit-warred in the way that you did. Do you have a citation for this letter? Is this the only mention of "Hellenized" (and note that "Graecid" meaning "Hellenized" is very much a matter of opinion) in the context of someone from Italy referring to the easterners? In that case it is not notable. The source currently used to corroborate this passage in the text does not use "Hellenized", just "Greeks", and as such if you want this added you need to also add a source that uses the term "Hellenized" in this way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I will add a source than :) (Not logged User :b) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're of course welcome to respond to my concerns about this as well... Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

About the revision
I did it. Which romance populations descend from such intermingling? 62.10.60.222 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite unnecessary to remove text to ask a question. All romance populations descended from such intermingling, that's why they're called romance. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Catalan, and many more. Gug01 (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Latins
Hi, congratulations on bringing this to GA! It's been interesting to read this article. There is an issue however that I have noticed for a while now. How does this article stand regarding the article Latins (Italic tribe)? We could say that both are like different stages of the same people, but the articles are not linked or mention each other. There are various places to mention the Latins here, such as in "Originally only referring to the Italic citizens of Rome itself" at the lead. I also think that the Latins can give more to talk about the Romans as an ethnic group, since they were clearly one single ethnic group at start. I think the biggest expansion to integrate the Latins into this article should be done at "Founding myths and Romans of the republic", perhaps including a short mention of the inter-ethnic Roman–Latin wars. Some text would ideally also be added to the article about Latins so that it ends more like as a transition to this article. I can help with these proposals. What do you think? Super  Ψ   Dro  10:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You're free to work on integrating this and Latins (Italic tribe) more closely if you want. I think it is important to note that whereas the early Romans were Latins, "Roman" as a term meant a inhabitant of Rome (i.e. not necessarily a Latin one, though almost all of them probably were), and also that from the point when the Romans expanded out of Latium it is no longer possible or appropriate to describe the Romans as all being Latins. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've expanded a bit the article. It does not follow a chronological line, and it talks about the first centuries of Rome very briefly, so I didn't add too much on the Latins. I've tried to make the new info fit fluidly in the paragraph, but it could maybe be better. Please make any fixes that you regard necessary. I will also write a bit about the Romans on the article about the Latins. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the addition was good but I separated it so that the first paragraph is now solely on foundation myths and the Latins are now discussed in the second paragraph which I think becomes clearer since the third paragraph also sort of continues on the theme of Roman expansion begun in the discussion on the Latins. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Terminology
Why does an article entitled "Roman people" begin in its opening sentence, " The Romans were a cultural group..."?

Are "Roman people" and "The Romans" the same thing? In this article, "The Romans" appears around 40 times, and "Roman people" appears around 4 times, despite being the article title. Either, this article should be titled "The Romans", or the connection should be explained between "Roman people" and "The Romans".27.32.145.157 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The concept of "Roman people" is not very common. "Romans" is common and can mean two things:


 * 1)the citizens of the city of Rome.


 * 2)the citizens of the empire of Rome.


 * To clarify, these are two sides of the same coin, point 2 logically follows point 1. In antiquity, "citizenship" meant belonging to a specific city (you could also have more than one citizenship). So at the time of the empire of Rome, "Romans" strictly meant "citizens of Rome [the city]": inheriting or acquiring Roman citizenship meant that the capital of the empire was legally your home and you had many rights and privileges associated with this fact (some you had to exercise by going to Rome, such as voting or appealing to the Emperor; others were privileges you had throughout the empire because you, as a citizen of Rome, were part of of the city that ruled the empire). More broadly, and this is point 2, "Romans" meant "citizens of the Roman empire", who were distinguished from the various indigenous peoples in the empire for having the above rights and privileges (progressively all the indigenous natives become "Romans", so "Romans" gets constrasted with the "barbarias" who live outside of the empire or migrate in it).


 * In the East, the latter meaning (Romans as citizens of the Roman empire) became dominant as Constantinople and not Rome was their capital, surviving the fall of Rome itself into the hands of Odoacer and of the Ostrogoths, so the people there continued to call themselves Romaioi (Greek for Romans) until 1453.


 * In the city of Rome, the former meaning (Romans as inhabitants of the city of Rome) survived the fall of the empire in the West and of end of the Roman civilisation in general, as it continued to be used down to this day.


 * So "Roman" has always been a denomyn and/or a legal status. This article, with its title, takes a weird approach and fails to clarify this aspect.Barjimoa (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)