I don’t really understand all the folks who are saying that this is al based on a false premise, that there is no Ialian “look”. There are, of course, different looking people and much diversity in ALL countries. But if you grabbed a random 100 people from Italy, Spain, Germany, England, The United States, and Sweden, I bet people could do a pretty good job of determining which grouip was from which country.
I don’t think it is an unreasonable question.
Totally agree with your post, in London you see a huge number of groups of foreign tourists and believe me you can very easily identify which groups come from which countries.
I’ve nothing else to add except that the Masters of Rome series are an excellent set of books and totally readable.
Mc Cullough is one of the few authors who seem to get it right about ancient Rome unlike your Saylors, Davises etc.
Good reading.
The creepy thing is that each and every one of them was made out of meat.
No, seriously. They were born meat, and they died as meat. Yeesh.
Perhaps, but how much of that would be determined from purely physical characteristics like size and shape of nose, coloring, height, and hair color as opposed to things like haircut, cut and fit of clothing, and body language?
[Moderator Note]
Since this post has been reported, I am posting to indicate that although it is out of line for GQ, it is also seven years old. I assume that KidCharlemagne has cooled off by now. 
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Just about everyone trooped through the Italian pensinsula (and islands) at some point in the last 2 - 3 thousand years. Italians are very much a mixed bred:
I know red - headed Sicilians, dark (to the point of arab - looking) northern Italians, and so forth.
It’s true that there can be an Italian “look”, but it’s also true that a whole bunch of Italians don’t have it.
I live in Italy, and can usually pick out the tourists from the natives; I can usually guess where the tourists are from, too. However, this goes beyond characteristic facial features: manner of dress can be a quick give - away (what the heck is it with Germans and the socks/sandals thing? :D).
Why do you say this? The -o ending is a marker of the dative case. If Mark Anthony were referring to himself, would he not say “Marcus Antonius sum”?
And how is that at all relevant to the question raised by the OP?
My fuzzy recall of Latin is that the ending for the vocative case is -e for second declension nouns with nominative ending in -us, except those ending in -ius, in which case it’s -i.
Gaius -> Gai
Marcus -> Marce
The pronunciation of that ‘e’ is likely the same as the IPA ‘e’: close-mid front unrounded. The ‘i’ is long and pronounced as in “machine”.
I was told in my first year of Latin that the use of -o to end masculine words in Italian is due to the Latin ablative case, but I don’t understand why that would be true.
edit:
The vocative case being that case used when you call out someone’s name to address them. Any “normal” grammatical function would use another case. “Marcus Antonius sum” to mean “I am Mark Anthony” looks correct to me. But “Marce Antoni” would be what you would say to get his attention.
Before the romans took control of the whole of Italy (and beyond), the north of the peninsula was populated by Celts.
The very northeastern portion of the peninsula IIRC. The Etruscans held most of the north-central and north-western portions.
Was Italian a recognized language during the Roman Empire?
About 8 years ago, I’d say.
Eh? Is this a woosh? If not, then… Italian didn’t exist as a language during the Roman Empire. Italian as we know it comes from the dialect spoken in Medieval/Renaissance Florence, a good 1200 years after the Roman Empire.
I think the argument is “We think of the Romans as being fundamentally different than the Italians, so we wonder if they look different. But a lot of those differences are artificial: for example, their names were the same as Italian names today, but we make them sound different.” I’m not saying that’s true–I have no idea–but I think that’s the argument.
A very small sample set anecdote.
A long long time ago a college of a friend of mine found a book of classics, and in it there was a copy of a Roman picture depicting an idealised “Roman” profile. This guy was rather amused as as he pointed out to my friend, the picture was a very close likeness of me. Which it was. So, by a sample of one, I apparently have a “classic” Roman profile. I also get picked as North Italian by modern northern Italians.
I have blue yes and (had) blonde hair. And not a trace of Italian blood in me. British blood however, and therefore who knows what genes are in that pool.
So, make of that what you will.
So you see, way back then, uh, Sicilians were like, uh, wops from Northern Italy. Ah, they all had blonde hair and blue eyes, but, uh, well, then the Moors moved in there, and uh, well, they changed the whole country …
That is a good question, and I do not know the answer to it. It would be interesting to see how much of the “difference” between national groups is due to physical characteristics, and how much due to cultural factors, like the ones you mention.
Judging from surviving sculptures and busts, ancient Romans wouldn’t have looked out of place walking around modern-day Rome. There has undoubtably been some mixing with other populations in the interim (although a LOT of the Roman slaves were of Greek stock, which don’t look all that different from Italians, to be honest) but in all likelihood modern-day Italians are descended from the base gene pool from centuries ago.
For those who might be curious to see a genetic study, here’s an interesting one from *Genetic structure in Europeans *(Nelis et al. 2009) that shows which European groups cluster together genetically: take a peek.
What you’ll see is that the genetic study found a continuum, from the Baltics (Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians) at one extreme to the Southern Italians at the other. Southern Italians are, unsurprisingly, most closely related to Northern Italians. The next closest group are Spaniards (another Romance group), and farther out we find the Swiss, French, and Bulgarians. Meanwhile, those kooky Finns are way off in a category of their own, only overlapping a bit with their neighbors the Swedes.
