Romans afterwards, and forgetfulness

[Cadenicus]

Anyone know (or have good theories) on what became of roman families as Rome "fell" or faded away? I think I've asked this question around here before, but more in terms of why *nobody* today has a family memory of ancient rome.

 

But if you took a time machine back then and watched, say, a reasonably well-off but not currently famous (non-Julii, etc) family, what would you see happen? If you fast-forwarded to the fall of rome, then 20 years later, then followed the descendents of each child in that sample family, and each child of each child, up to current times, at what point would you notice that the children had literally forgotten their family name? At what point would they not even know they had descended from Romans?

 

Were there ANY romans families (even *one*?) that carefully instilled their family history in their children for as long as, say, into medieval times? Or is it simply impossible for lines to cohere that long?

[phil25]

There was a calculation done once about how noble families at the time of the Wars of the Roses died out naturally every so many generations. I cannot recall the exact figure.

 

I think any family eventually dies out in the direct male line (the one that carries the surname) after a period, so links going back would be tenuous at best.

 

We know the Romans experienced this - even under the Republic, many family names were only continued by adoption.

 

Moreover, when Rome "fell" many families must also have been disrupted by deaths from pestilence, starvation and murder; by forceful separation or intermarriage with the newcomers (Visigoths, Lombards etc)

 

Phil

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I think Phil hits on a good point mentioning intermarriage with newcomers, after the fall of the empire there would have been a massive influx of people from all races and walks of life looking to take advantage of the Empire's decline and trying to make a better life for themselves, i think the 'true' Romans would have found it harder and harder to continue the family name.

[Horatius]

I have always had the suspicion that many went into the hierarchy of the Church. Archbishops and Bishops were temporal rulers in those days and many took over the functions of the former Roman Magistrates . There were no restrictions on marriage and such in those days.

[Aurelianus]

I suspect that changes in language would affect changes to the names; foreigners always have trouble pronouncing some sounds in a language, and with names it was also common to equate it with a similar word in their own language. I was browsing a list of Italian sir-names, and the first one I came across that looked vaguely Roman was di Saluzzo = Sallustius; da Carrara = Carius or Carus; Rossi = Roscius or Rusonius? The prospect is there...

[The Augusta]

I suspect that changes in language would affect changes to the names; foreigners always have trouble pronouncing some sounds in a language, and with names it was also common to equate it with a similar word in their own language. I was browsing a list of Italian sir-names, and the first one I came across that looked vaguely Roman was di Saluzzo = Sallustius; da Carrara = Carius or Carus; Rossi = Roscius or Rusonius? The prospect is there...

 

A good point, and I'm sure Docoflove will leap in here at some point as she is our linguistics expert. All I would say about the above examples, Aurelianus, is that 'da Carrara' would no doubt have the meaning of a person 'of Carrara' - cf. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - the artist. Therefore, IMHO this particular surname would have derived from a placename, as do many of our English surnames. But you are definitely right in that phonetics played a great part in changing original surnames - no doubt the world over.

 

As an enthusiastic genealogist myself, I cannot believe that Roman bloodlines died out entirely - which, of course,is a different thing to names. But we would never be able to trace a modern family back to their Roman roots, purely because no records would exist before the middle ages, in any country I would think - but Doc may well know more on this topic. It's certainly a fascinating one.

 

As an amusing aside to all this - has anyone seen the ludicrous genealogies on the Internet, where certain people claim to have traced their family tree back to ancient Rome? I actually found one purporting to have Livia as a 17th great-grandmother! One has to feel quite sorry for such souls......

[Aurelianus]

I actually found one purporting to have Livia as a 17th great-grandmother! One has to feel quite sorry for such souls......

 

If that is a modern claim it is obviously imposible.

 

Come to think of it, the best documented genealogy is that of royals and aristocrats, and a Roman magistrate is the most likely candidate for aristocratic post... then I remembered that every place that was once in the empire has been conquered at least once (more than once in everywhere except Turkey), so it is unlikely that any old orders would have survived.

 

However most of the monarchy of Europe will be descended of the neo Roman Aristocracy, through medieval marital diplomacy with Byzantium, and as I believe Alexius I said "we [the aristocracy] are a disgustingly inbred bunch". Only a few of the prominent families of Rome moved to Constantinople, and it is pretty guaranteed that most of the emperors were their (indirect) descendants. An interesting thought, I wonder if anybody has ever tried to trace it back...

[phil25]

Interestingly, the british monarchy makes no attempt to trace ancestry back to Roman origins. It traces descent from Cerdic the Saxon (c600AD).

 

The French monarchy is descended either from a Visigoth (Merovee); a Frank (Charlemagne) or Charles Martel, Pippin the Short etc or such characters (I am no expert on genealogy) - none of whom was Roman. Hugh Capet was also non-Roman and comparatively late.

 

I don't think the Hapsburgs, or the previous Spanish dynasties, were of Italian origin. Their contacts, to the extent they were, were with families such as the Medici - who would be Lombards, I guess.

 

I'd be grateful for someone who is authoritative on genealogy to help me out here, but wishful thinking apart, is ANY European family known to have descended over such a long period. It is quite impossible in the direct male line, and i would have thought that even indirectly there would be many breaks in the succession.

 

Phil

[The Augusta]

I'd be grateful for someone who is authoritative on genealogy to help me out here, but wishful thinking apart, is ANY European family known to have descended over such a long period. It is quite impossible in the direct male line, and i would have thought that even indirectly there would be many breaks in the succession.

 

Phil

 

It depends what you mean, Phil. Certainly, no 'ordinary' family would be able to trace themselves back so far, purely because surnames themselves only became fixed in the middle ages. In England, for instance, a family could only trace itself back with any certainty to the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth I, when a ruling by the Church of England declared that all parish registers should be kept for perpetuity. HOwever, there are ways around this with certain documents that are still in existence: hearth tax, window tax etc. which may have records of a family back to the early 1500's, or sessional papers from regional courts which can go back as far as about 1430. Beyond that, only the gentry or - as you point out - royalty, would be able to present a pedigree from personal records. One of my own lines is traceable by documentation back to the reign of Henry VIII ( a will dated 1538), but beyond this a great deal of speculation is needed, and the 'probability' factor comes into play - easier when the surname is more uncommon, but hopeless otherwise.

 

Interesting point there about the English monarchy tracing itself back to 600 AD. I never knew that, but it does not surprise me.

[DecimusCaesar]

An interesting subject! As far as many of the prominent families of the Roman senate went, weren't they massacred by the Goths in the sixth century? Even so that would not explain why some family names die out. What I find strange is why some names are popular yet others die out. For instance my own family name only dates back to the 16th century, so my ancestors from before this period would have had completely different family names, yet they decided to abandon one name and go for another newer, modern one.

 

The same could be said for first names.

 

At the same time some names manage to transcend cultures and time, that's why some Bronze Age Greek names like 'Jason' are still used today and other names probably go back further than that. Why did naes like Jason survive to be used until modern times while names like Domititus, Vespasianus etc die out?

[phil25]

Classical names have had "vogues" in comparatively recent times.

 

A character (the son of Soames sister and Monty Dartie) in the Forsyte saga (John Galsworthy) is christened Valerius Publius and is known as "Val" Dartie.

 

I suspect that you might have found a rask of Vespasians, Theophiluses etc in the mid-C19th.

 

Marcus is still a popular name (but do people associate it with Mark and biblical sources rather than ancient Rome?)

 

As few now read, or have familiarity with the classics, let alone are even remotely latinate, it does not surprise me that there are few Roman names in use. Our heroes and role models come from elsewhere.

 

In the UK even the old reliable "Christian" names seem to be in use less. We have had a fashion for names like Emma, Charlotte, Harry etc; old Testament parallels, Jacob; and those sourced from Ireland, Africa, the Carribbean and even wholly made up (along the "River" Phoenix model). there must also be huge numbers of Brad's, Harrison's, Sean's and other film-star parallels.

 

Phil

[The Augusta]

Phil - just to restore our faith..... my daughter (aged 17) went to high school with a boy called Tiberius. Yes - it's true!

[Julia C]

I recently did a double-take while watching both Indiana Jones and Back to the Future. Both movies had a casting director named 'Valorie Messala' which strikes me as incredibly similar to the old patrician Valeria Messala name. It's likely that there's no real descent there at all, but it was still pleasant to find.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

There is one , David Hughes , who published some 1,873,982 genealogies on the net . I don't know his sources and methods . IMHO his genealogies are not scientific .

 

An example (used by me partly in another thread) -

 

Imperator Caesar Augustus

Iulia

Iulia

Iulia

Gaius Octavius Laenas

Octavia

Curtilia

Domitia Lucilla

Domitia Lucilla

Marcus Aurelus Caesar Augustus

Annia Luccila

Aurelia

Commodus Pompeianus

Aurelia (the wife of Claudius Ceaser Augustus 2nd)

Claudia

Constantius Caesar Augustus

Constantius

Gella

Iustina (wife of Magnentius Caesar Augustus)

Galla (sister of Valentinianus Caesar Augustus 2nd)

Placidia (wife of Constantius Caesar Augustus 3rd)

Valentinianus Ceaser Augustus (3rd)

Placidia (wife of Olybrius Caesar Augustus)

Iuliana

Olybrius

Proba

Iuliana

Anastasia Areobinda

Iuliana (daugther in low of Mauricius the "Byzantine" Emperor)

Ardebasto

Ervigio (King of "Spain")

Aupais

Charles "Martel"

Pepin "Le Korte"

Charlemagne

Pepin

Bernard

Pepin

Heribert I

Heribert II

Robert

Adelaide

Ermengrade

Judith

Robert "Diablo"

William "The Conqueror"

.

.

.

.

.

Elizabeth II of England

 

 

Now , this is just one example of so many "genealogies" runing on the net

 

I , too a descendant of Roman nobility , I am the 83rd generation from Scipio Africanus , hooray for David Hughes !!!

 

 

 

Edit - David Hughes just called me and said that I am the 67th generation from Marcus nothingius anythingius , a prattler who lived in Paestum in the 2nd century BCE , damn

Edited December 3, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Northern Neil]

As far as I am aware, there are still members of the Kantakazenous and Paleologous families kicking around in south eastern Europe. These people can, of course, still trace their origins to the later Byzantine empire.

Some Italian christian names are directly related to Roman counterparts:

Massimo

Ottaviano

Valerio, etc.

 

As far as dilution of the Roman 'race' by incomers is concerned, I am not so sure that ancient immigration had nearly as profound an effect on populations as people assume, and as mass immigration such as we witness today does. Most Italians today appear to be the same, morphologically, as their ancestors are on mosaics and wall paintings, and many of the visigoths who descended into Italy in the 5th century were themselves descended from Roman provincials captured from Asia Minor a century and a half earlier. The only Italians who appear to conform to the German 'Racial type' live mostly in the North, where you would expect. But then, are they in fact ethnic Germans, or descended from the earlier Cisalpine Gauls?

 

Again, in Southern Italy one finds people using body language and non verbal gestures which are used also by the Greeks, although it has to be said that most Neapolitans and Sicilians are probably unaware of their Greek ancestry. It is increasingly being found that in ancient and early mediaeval times, populations stayed put rather than being displaced or eradicated. In Britain, the only places where people have significant genetic correlation with people living in Jutland and Northern Germany are East anglia and the home counties, although most of Britain eventually 'bacame' Anglo-Saxon. In western Turkey, there are a lot of fair skinned, blue-eyed people, although many would deny that they had Greek genes.

 

Closer to home (for us Brits) there was the example of the chap living in the west country whose DNA profile exactly matched that of an 8'000 year old skeleton, thus making him the only person in the world who can definitely trace his family back through 300 generations.

 

I have shot off on a bit of a tangent here, but basically what I am saying is that, although no individuals can claim to trace their families to individuals in the Roman era, most Europeans can say that they almost certainly have Roman Ancestors, given that migration of peoples and mixing of cultures is viewed in some quarters as having less impact than previously thought.