Roman Families, Where They Went

Didn't the romans themselves have problems with fimaly trees? They often claimed famous or heroic ancestors. Julius Caesar claimed to be descended from the goddess Venus didn't he?

That's one of the more likely claims. Venus was very active, you know.

It is my understandig that the entire senate and their families were massacred by the Goths around 560AD They had been taken hostage and when Count Blesarius from Justinian killed their king in one of his impossibly won battles, then the hostages were killed in retaliation. The Senate was never formed again though it had been operating until that time. Rome was nearly emptied around this time by starvation, war and the plague. This dealt to the current patrician class of the time though as the power over the centuries had changed around a lot, there must have been many with illustrious bloodlines still.

Just an interesting aside A family I lived with in ITaly had a father that looked as if he came out of Roman history I'm sure if I looked for his face in history books i would find it He wasn't emotional like his theatric wife but serious, rational, practical and an engineer by trade. A comment he made when his wife was heading of to the opera was " I can't understand what my wife sees in that stuff The only music I like is military marches" He was different to most Italians I met there

The House of Savoy can trace it's genealogy back to a roman senator.

Many imperial lineages are still very much existent, just we're thinking of the rotten side of the apple- 'western rome'- there are websites dedicated to tracing people's genealogies via the eastern emperors, and some of it is rooted back in even western roman times for families they are related to. You'll have to talk to some greeks to find knowledge of the old roman stock.... as I pointed out, only the House of Savoy claims it, but there are lesser branches of nobility that married byzantine nobility as well, and have the symbols of the eastern emperors their coat of arms during the renaissance.

Surprised my username and password still worked here.

The House of Savoy can trace it's genealogy back to a roman senator.

 

Many imperial lineages are still very much existent, just we're thinking of the rotten side of the apple- 'western rome'- there are websites dedicated to tracing people's genealogies via the eastern emperors, and some of it is rooted back in even western roman times for families they are related to. You'll have to talk to some greeks to find knowledge of the old roman stock.... as I pointed out, only the House of Savoy claims it, but there are lesser branches of nobility that married byzantine nobility as well, and have the symbols of the eastern emperors their coat of arms during the renaissance.

 

Surprised my username and password still worked here.

Wow, good to see you back. Last time I dealt with you I sent you a package to Iraq and you disappeared from UNRV (and so did I for a while). It was kind of worrisome. Good to see you're alive and about.

The House of Savoy can trace it's genealogy back to a roman senator.

Out of curiosity, would you know to whom and how far back? And what are your sources? I though the Savoy family only went back to the 11th century or so. Very interesting.

Many imperial lineages are still very much existent, just we're thinking of the rotten side of the apple- 'western rome'- there are websites dedicated to tracing people's genealogies via the eastern emperors, and some of it is rooted back in even western roman times for families they are related to. You'll have to talk to some greeks to find knowledge of the old roman stock.... as I pointed out, only the House of Savoy claims it, but there are lesser branches of nobility that married byzantine nobility as well, and have the symbols of the eastern emperors their coat of arms during the renaissance.

You're making a great point here. Expanding the view to the eastern empire would most likely increase the chances, well at the least significantly.

Many imperial lineages are still very much existent, just we're thinking of the rotten side of the apple- 'western rome'- there are websites dedicated to tracing people's genealogies via the eastern emperors, and some of it is rooted back in even western roman times for families they are related to. You'll have to talk to some greeks to find knowledge of the old roman stock.... as I pointed out, only the House of Savoy claims it, but there are lesser branches of nobility that married byzantine nobility as well, and have the symbols of the eastern emperors their coat of arms during the renaissance.

Phanariot Kantakouzenos, Palaeologos and Komnenos families established themselves in the Romanian principalities and claimed byzantine imperial descent, but is unclear if the claim has any merit because they generally can't prove their genealogy before 1600.

The House of Gonzaga is descended through marriage from the heiress of the Paleologos of Montserrat.

Nice to see you again.

It's not that many people don't have family trees going back to ancient Rome, it's that we trace these trees in a particular way - from father to son. Actually the further back one goes, the family tree expands exponentially so its a rare westerner who doesn't have a Roman somewhere in the mix.

However to trace that descent requires, in essence, that fathers produce sons every generation for 1500 years, something that is rather unlikely. Secondly, until recently aristocratic families faced severe competition from their peers (even the family line of our own dear queen has several violent sideways jumps) which, together with wars, plague etc made it hard for a line to keep going.

Everyone else lacked the means to keep records. Or the interest. How many of us today know the names of even one of our eight great-great grandfathers?

Adding the chance of an undocumented bastard for each generation renders the whole thing moot anyway.

There's bound to be one in 50 generations.

In this episode of the BBC programme Who Do You Think You Are", Mayor of London Boris Johnson finds records taking his ancestry back to God (yes, you did read it right).

Disclaimer: The above makes me sound like a krank. That may be the case, but rest assured the persona I adopt on this forum is perfectly normal, logical, and capable of reasoned argument.

May I add two pennies to this discussion.

I would suggest that the two best places to seek long lived Roman family names are Ravenna (which remained under imperial control, even as the Western Empire collapsed), and Venice, which was never sacked by the Invaders (or anyone else). The original population of Venice consisted of refugees from Roman cities near Venice such as Padua, Aquileia, Treviso, Altino and Concordia (modern Portogruaro) and from the undefended countryside, who were fleeing the successive waves of Germanic and Hun invasions. I met a Venetian once who claimed that many families in the city could claim ancient lineages (including back to late roman times).

The historian Francesco da Mosto claims a humble but traceable family tie back to Venice in the fifth century - he has stated that many other families have kept the family tree tradition of the Roman times and can give similar family accounts.

Therefore, given that many noble families will have been amongst the refugees to the safety of this 'Roman' city in the 5th century (they after all could pay for the sea transport), then logically they will also have kept the family tradition of listing ancestors ....

Hopefully, someone will one day persuade these families to make public the family records and let the world know of the long histories that some them can claim.

Cheers

RB

Hopefully, someone will one day persuade these families to make public the family records and let the world know of the long histories that some them can claim.

I can think of one reason why they don't...

Yeah, I somehow survived Iraq. I remember using the latin dictionary and grammer in Iskandariya, Iraq during its triangle of death/surge era in 2007 trying to decipher a Tudor era early modern English translation of Vegetius called 'knighthoode and bataille' or something close to that spelling. I took a turn to Philosophy during the seige on a helicopter ride back from Kalsu to Iskan, and in a few years turned to Cynic Philosophy. I dabble in getting horribly confused in translating unbelievably still untranslated philosophy works on the side.

Its difficult breaking the post Nietzschean prejudice (one Nietzsche as a philologist didnt hold to) against classical philisophy, and the deep taboo of medieval philosophy. In San Francisco, I remember I was debating with a bunch of philosophers in a group about information theory, logic, and AI, and not a single one of them knew who Ramon Llull was.... I'm steering away from a cyclic pattern of history to a cognitive/migration duality, but its damn annoying when new traditions who think they evolved from a spark in the dark in a vaccuum to be completely unaware that older, and advanced parallel systems existed earlier in history, and already tackled many of the same problems, going off into some pretty interesting tangents we are still blind to. Convergent evolution of ideas are pretty common in philosophy given everyone is issued similar models of brains!

Roman names statistically couldnt last very long, given the late republican land grant formulations of the 'latifundal' system (hope I spelled that right).

The foundation of continuity of every successful society is the endurance and health of it's various sexual strategies, both illicet and mainstream. Sexuality is the foundation of the state, all acts seemingly peripheral to sexuality, such as war, self identity, laws, philosophy, manufacturing, etc, by the selfish economy of human nature, must by default intergrate within the sexual schema or fall away. Ibn Khaldun pretty much nailed the technological flow of civilization in relation to dynastic fluctuations, but didnt really hit other systems, such as republics, or manorial or capitalistic or socialist systems. He had a good grasp of the feudal. Islamic feudalism differed from European models in one way, given the dhimmi tax, Eastern Orthodox Latin christians living in medieval north africa until the 15th century, mych like the jews in north africa until the early 20th century in the Mahgreb, and even the coptics in Egypt to this day, could survive in isolation and relative indifference to the larger Muslim population, as long as they were non threatening, isolated, and kept quiet. The latins left via Carthage for sicily in the late medieval era, joining the renessiance as players with little apparently to offer, unlike the greeks returning from the eastern empire's collapse via the turks.

The sexuality of republican rome was nailed by Cato, Pilny, and even to a extent, Cicero. The old conservative minor land holder, providing the backbone of the republican middle class. Frugal living, tough lovs, independence and honesty as the chief virtue. The large aristocratic land estates pretty much F'd that patristic utopia up, in much the same way microsoft and apple computers economic model monkey stomped the jeffersonian model of a agrarian republic.

There isnt a whole lot of reason to hold to a patriarchy for family inheritance if you dont have landed estates to pass on to heirs. You might as well name your family after the silly equivelent of something modern like Spagettios or Hotdog if your a slave. A serf can have a little more self respect, but lack of education breeds stupidity, both today as well as the dark ages, and parents had no reason not to name their children whatever wacky name that popped into mind. The concept of the late roman republic's massive land grants are the only that seemed to of survived, other than the Catholic/orthodox church.... a good Roman lineage that was self aware would own one, never willing work in one, and if they had to from destitution, within a few generations their descendents were peasants named Spagettios. The dark ages were dark for a reason.

The roman system of small landholding inheritance in the west died out in the west in sixth century, last stronghold beind in the Sub Sahara were latin legal inheritance contracts were still being signed. Many here wouldnt even realize romans lived so far south, especially considering the Vandal invasion to the north.... but thats north africa for you.

The manor system followed germanic, not roman methods of inheritance, and therefor marriage. Incest was determined by a elementry root system based of the knuckles of the fingers tracing lineages, instead of the Roman system. The Zenith of the feudal system saw large, landed aristcrats marrying in incest to consolidate wealth, land holdings, and military power, while the roman educated priesthood noted this was a bad idea theologically, legally, and just damn downright creepy marrying your cousin generation after generation, and forced roman styled marriage laws roughly the same time as it was pushing the university system and the seperation of church and state in a effort to break the encroaching powers of the nobility. A very inbred nobility. Today, we run amuck with these abstract concepts, reorganizing them in complex schemes, slapping labels like liberal and conservative, moral or immoral to their fancy arrangements, with love or disgust. Its connective genesis is tbe 12th century however. Even though we are not quite roman in our sexual outlook today in the west, or in Europe, we each play upon variables in resurrecting its laws and ways to suit our reproductive needs. I doubt the renaissance, rising from the sexual tensions of oligarchial italy against the nobility of the holy roman empire could of happened.

In germany (my family tree research, hence my emphasis) many common german names arouse from the start of this era, arising from trade guilds. The trade guilds were village-town affairs, not exactly suited for a manor, unless it was massive like the large russian estates of the 19th century. Instead of being named something stupid, like Spagettios, or demeaning like Toby, you got a respectable trade name.

The combination of symbolic-heraldic symbols, and major minor lineages of a royal house, lead to both a geometric and arithmatic erosion of authentic latin family names as a upper most default in the west for most to be weeded out. A name, like smith, can be infinitely spread to countless descendents, but not a family crest or other heraldic symbol, if it is to matter in terms of representing the lineage and importance of the house. A example, though the House of Savoy can trace its lineage to the roman senate, it cant trace the name 'Savoy' back to it, merely its claim to its earliest established 'nobility'. Other dynastic claims of greater economic and political concern would soon top that, as each generations marriage would have to take into balance the current dynastic balance of 'power' in marrying and accepting the superiority and emphasis of official names. Much like in Children of Dune, when Alia said the Atreides interest in the marriage would trump the old imperial system (the atreides heir was female, marrying into a male dominated, formerly supreme yet now subordinate imperial household).

Thess trends are ancient, and still ongoing, as the Queen of England husband isnt considered king, but merely a royal consort, despite being of a royal lineage himself. Each house imposes silly rules on this stuff.

A good, nearly modern look at heraldry vs modern family names vs dynastic houses and titles would be to look at the House of Hanover. YeahIt subdivided its coat of arms 4 times, and half of it still retains the british coat of arms, Yeahbut left the british monarchial succession after queen victoria, Yeaha female unable to inherit under salic law, Yeahwhich governed Hanovers succession, Yeahand went to the next closest inheritor.

Its why some royal houses still count byzantine imperial heraldic symbols on their crest, Yeahbut cant claim the name legitimately as a family lineage of direct descent.

Mathematically, Yeahin the west, Yeahmost names would of been weeded off in time. Pliny was very wise in noting the decline of the Roman small land holder as the end of the Romans, the roman identity was for all intents and purposes wiped out within a thousand years. Constantines mutt system, based on Augustine and Judea-Christian models, survived alot longer in the east. It was more stable, Yeahand homogeneous, not having to juggle germanic and roman practices. Turks didnt care to muddle it either.

What is interesting is the priesthood of the romans was Yeahhierarchial, Yeahboth in its pagan and christian variation, and didnt subdivide via mitosis (was non sexual reproducrtion, via diocese subdivisions). YeahThey kept growing and growing, and kept in many places the same conservative titles, and despite illiteracy, never forgot what land it owed, privilege it was entitled to from otherwise forgotten antiquity. Many roman priests in the rebublican era were hereditary, before the foreign mystery cult religions took over. The five Christian Holy Sees to this day continue recording the names of their patriarchs/popes in dynastic sucession. This was important in the ancient world, and a good name meant alot, be it stolen or legitimately claimed (many greek noble families claimed descent from the crew of the Agronauts for example, which is bull.)

The diversity of sexual practices, the individuals sexual strategy versus the needs and acceptance of the community balanced against the frictions and outright antagonisms of other societies dictates the how and why of our history and identifications. A truely independent, wild Cynic living in the forest has only need of one name, if a name at all. Someone with 8 grandparents inheriting a trade and plot of land in a walled city needs to prioritize his name to at least the second degree to avoid incest and maintain simple property claims. A office holder, two names and a title, a prince a variety of names,titles, symbols and myths, and a first generation founder of a dynasty, especially a empire, can like the Cynic just go lazy by one name once again. There is only one Alexander, one Ceasar, one ghenghis, Attila..... and one Diogenes, one Jesus, one Barbarosa. You dont have to demand 'Alexander who?' you know it from its awesomeness and infamy. It tends to get you laid as if you had 50 titles and royal names. Being a ascetic like Jesus or a masturbating madman like Diogenes is a obvious obstacle to reproductive success,but its still a sexual strategy that paid dividens for the larger societies that embraced them.

The policy of Ceasar, screw any skank With a title, or augustus nuclear family, or Nero's hoodlum gangrape anything beautiful that moves, shows us the range of options the roman state offered for social emulationYea via ceasars dynasty. Many more variations were possible. Yeah.

Sorry for all the times the word yeah popped up, my android phone kept autocorrecting yeah into absurd places in the post above, and even deleting that word and two words before it couldnt erase it. I gave up in a few places and left it.

Think someone just shot someone nearby while hitting writing my yeah apology. I heard the argument, the shot, and now I think I might have to do something. I might die, so everyone have fun. Gonna go get shot now in the ribs investigating this little occurance of insanity.... where are the cops..... where.....