Ehm, plumbing is a bad example since the Romans did that WAY ahead of the Muslim world. For that AND sidewalks, you're welcome. Thanks for the numbers, that was handy.
I hope that was a joke. It's very sad to see people take credit for achievements of others just on the grounds that they happen to share the same nationality/race/religion/birth place.
Sure, someone of your tribe achieved X in the past, very well done, but how did YOU contribute to that? Winning the lottery of birth is not an achievement.
Edit: Anyway I'm starting to believe that this whole submission/thread should be flagged. It certainly discusses many things besides the theft of the tablet.
Found Augustus Caesar's hn account.
(Though, obviously the Romans were far from the first to do this; evidence of some sort of sewerage apparatus goes back at least 6000 years, and the Minoans had an urban system long before Rome existed)
I am confused... are you an ancient Roman?
I'm actually more of a cisalpine gaul than a roman myself, but the beauty of the empire was that it was multi cultural and multi racial.
Said that, Italians absolutely look like romans, this is a small example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdUPYm06gVc
Our language is also the closest to the type of Latin romans spoke during the empire (which itself evolved).
I do not understand why it's even controversial, you're making a dumb point.
Wrong. Modern Galician is the closest extant language to Latin, the next closest being Spanish.
Romans fought wars against Italians for centuries, who after being conquered were regarded as allies, then as citizens, but never as Romans. The French and Germans have just as much Roman in their blood as the Italians.
https://languagevolcano.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/which-langu...
I don't speak Galego well but Spanish FOR SURE is not as close as Italian because it contains so many Arabic influences.
Also, you're referring to "cives romani" and obviously a person that didn't live in the city of Rome wasn't a roman.
Regarding the having "roman blood" for French and Germans, you're just wrong. I'm not even going to bother finding you resources because it's not my job to educate you, but I suggest you inform yourself before you start spewing incorrect notions like they are somehow facts.
Funny how even though I'm fluent in Latin and can understand a third of spoken Spanish (having never studied Spanish), I can barely understand 10% of Italian regardless of the accent I'm listening to or which city the speaker is from. It's also funny that several other fluent Latin speakers (and some professors) I've talked to agree about this.
>Also, you're referring to "cives romani" and obviously a person that didn't live in the city of Rome wasn't a roman.
No, not obviously. Romans thought of themselves as a separate ethnicity with a distinct language, culture, and religion from Italians. They are descended from a distinct tribe that settled the city. A Roman family who had lived in Gaul for generations would still be called Roman. An Italian family who had lived in Roma would still be called Italians and cives Romani. Romans settled throughout their conquered territory, which included Italy, Hispania, Britannia, and Gaul. Like it or not, those regions have as much demonstrable Roman blood as modern day Italians whom are mostly descended from Italic tribes, not from Romans.
>it's not my job to educate you
Thank heavens my education of the Latin language and Roman history doesn't depend on you.