Living descendants of Mark Antony(antigonejournal.com)
antigonejournal.com
Living descendants of Mark Antony
https://antigonejournal.com/2022/10/descendants-mark-antony/
120 comments
> Plot twist at the end there, as the author of the article is themselves a prince of the family of living descendants of Mark Anthony.
That's not a plot twist. It's a strategy as old as civilization itself, probably older. It's mentioned right at the front of the piece:
> In Ancient Greek and Roman cultures, having a distinguished family lineage determined your social standing. This practice has continued to exist within hierarchical societies to this day. Furthermore, many royal houses throughout history have claimed descent from ancient ruling dynasties and from famous figures both demonstrably historical (Alexander the Great, for example) and mythical (such as Hercules, Venus or Aeneas) to solidify their monarchical claim.
It's entirely possible they are living descendants of Mark Antony, but if they are, so is every other person in the vicinity of the Mediterranean.
That's not a plot twist. It's a strategy as old as civilization itself, probably older. It's mentioned right at the front of the piece:
> In Ancient Greek and Roman cultures, having a distinguished family lineage determined your social standing. This practice has continued to exist within hierarchical societies to this day. Furthermore, many royal houses throughout history have claimed descent from ancient ruling dynasties and from famous figures both demonstrably historical (Alexander the Great, for example) and mythical (such as Hercules, Venus or Aeneas) to solidify their monarchical claim.
It's entirely possible they are living descendants of Mark Antony, but if they are, so is every other person in the vicinity of the Mediterranean.
> That's not a plot twist. It's a strategy as old as civilization itself, probably older.
Yep, the good ol' not-so-humble-brag.
Yep, the good ol' not-so-humble-brag.
Is he though? I would imagine in all those intervening years, at some point the male heir got cuckolded by his wife.
There are other things that can happen as well, rape is a known thing, and of course, adoption as well. Romans definitely did adopt others and give them their family name. On a tree, none of this shows.
Humble to write an essay where you could do such a reveal?
As of yet, no one has managed to prove descent from antiquity. People claim it for various reasons, but none of the claims are provable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_antiquity
If the average age of giving birth is 25, Mark Antony would be about 80 generations ago. With each generation back doubling the number of ancestors (2 parents, 4 grandparents, …), this person has a theoretical 2^80 ancestors - somewhat more than the number of people that have ever lived. So clearly that logic is flawed, and the family tree must in fact be a family web - but potentially a very, very wide one.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a large portion of the population of Italy were also descendants of Mark Antony, albeit without the famous lineage to prove it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a large portion of the population of Italy were also descendants of Mark Antony, albeit without the famous lineage to prove it.
There also wasn't much mixing of isolated populations of humans, leading to a relatively large amount of inbreeding. Sort of like a graph with clusters of heavily linked nodes and only a few links between the clusters.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029453-500-inbreedi...
> "“In the distant past, human populations were probably only in the thousands or at best tens of thousands, and lived locally, exchanging mates only with their nearest neighbours.”"
International shipping, and now, air travel, has changed this - the 20th century and the population boom have led to more genetic mixing than at any point in human history.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029453-500-inbreedi...
> "“In the distant past, human populations were probably only in the thousands or at best tens of thousands, and lived locally, exchanging mates only with their nearest neighbours.”"
International shipping, and now, air travel, has changed this - the 20th century and the population boom have led to more genetic mixing than at any point in human history.
We have pretty good evidence since 2013 of bands of neolithic humans moving over really tremendous distances. There's good evidence in the Americas of people moving from the Great Lakes down to the Gulf and beyond. Once horses were domesticated in Eurasia, all bets are off and we see mass migration from the steppe through to all of Europe, India, Iran, the Horn of Africa, and other places. This didn't happen in a single life time, but people on horseback with carts really got around.
All of which is true, but Mark Anthony gets us well into the historical period.
We have a pretty good sense from that of who did and who didn't get around.
It's surely the case that the vast majority of Japanese on Hokkaido are not descendants of Mark Anthony. On Kyshu, maybe, the Portuguese contributed some genes there.
We can really only be detailed about this with a Y chromosome for a man, or mitochondrial lineage for a woman, and that only covers the case of lineal descent.
Not only can we not determine with confidence who is or isn't a descendent, even given a complete DNA sequence we don't have: most of those descendents won't have any Mark Anthony DNA at all! Chromosomes are more chopped than sifted, if that makes sense, I'm going on memory here, but somewhere around the 12th generation, we start having phantom ancestors: they existed, but left no record in our genes.
We have a pretty good sense from that of who did and who didn't get around.
It's surely the case that the vast majority of Japanese on Hokkaido are not descendants of Mark Anthony. On Kyshu, maybe, the Portuguese contributed some genes there.
We can really only be detailed about this with a Y chromosome for a man, or mitochondrial lineage for a woman, and that only covers the case of lineal descent.
Not only can we not determine with confidence who is or isn't a descendent, even given a complete DNA sequence we don't have: most of those descendents won't have any Mark Anthony DNA at all! Chromosomes are more chopped than sifted, if that makes sense, I'm going on memory here, but somewhere around the 12th generation, we start having phantom ancestors: they existed, but left no record in our genes.
Yeah, of course the math makes sense but one can clearly find pockets of people it likely doesn't apply to. And for sure, trying to point to specific ancestors isn't really possible you don't even need to go back 12 generations in some cases if memory serves.
My main point is that its becoming clear that many supposedly very isolated populations have in fact had gene mixture with outside groups in the not distant past and that there were large pre-modern migrations and mixing events.
My main point is that its becoming clear that many supposedly very isolated populations have in fact had gene mixture with outside groups in the not distant past and that there were large pre-modern migrations and mixing events.
If I'm recalling the numbers correctly, there's somewhere between a one in a million and one in a billion chance of not inheriting any DNA from one of your grandparents -- unlikely, but not so unlikely that there aren't dozens or hundreds of people walking around for whom that is true.
My mother’s parents were from a small island community in Norway. They were second cousins.
One time I got drunk and made out with my second cousin who still lives on that same island. My friends and family who witnessed the course of events were merely amused and not at all disgusted.
Inbreeding ain’t going nowhere in coastal Norway!
My (not at all previously related) wife thinks I’m insane that I love telling this story.
One time I got drunk and made out with my second cousin who still lives on that same island. My friends and family who witnessed the course of events were merely amused and not at all disgusted.
Inbreeding ain’t going nowhere in coastal Norway!
My (not at all previously related) wife thinks I’m insane that I love telling this story.
2nd cousin relationships are common in most parts of the world, and not viewed with the circumspection that 1st cousin relationships tend to be. You are much more genetically distant from a 2nd cousin than you are from a 1st.
I would say that the distance depends too on where someone is from. If they come from an endogamous community then they are related to other people in their tree through more than just a single branch. Islands, villages, etc. Sometimes it is fine, other times it can be a problem.
While in the US Navy (1977 ~ 1981) I can distinctly remember the unique facial structures of the people in Southeast Asia and being able to tell what country they were from because of this. A couple of decades later with the mixing of populations by various means, and their diet changing in that-time frame, I couldn't reliably tell anymore.
> There also wasn't much mixing of isolated populations of humans, leading to a relatively large amount of inbreeding.
The genetics of Rome's population at the beginning of the Common Era were almost identical to that of Anatolia's, but just after Antony this began to change significantly due to the migrations that followed the Roman Empire's expansion: https://news.stanford.edu/2019/11/07/genetic-history-rome/
The genetics of Rome's population at the beginning of the Common Era were almost identical to that of Anatolia's, but just after Antony this began to change significantly due to the migrations that followed the Roman Empire's expansion: https://news.stanford.edu/2019/11/07/genetic-history-rome/
All it took was a single person who was a wanderer from each isolated community. I’ve read a number of articles that estimate, based on genetics, that every person living has a common ancestor who lived 2000-4000 years ago. It could have been a peasant in rural Tibet or a South Pacific Islander or someone(s) else entirely.
https://sci-hub.st/10.1038/nature02842
https://sci-hub.st/10.1038/nature02842
This is the correct answer. The entire population of Europe is about as descended from Mark Antony as that Georgian noble house. Only the Y-chromosome is lineally passed across such long time spans
The real give away is in the bio: Prince Theodore D. Kopaliani is a member of the Bagrationi Royal House.
Does it follow that same would apply for all humans of Mark Antony's time?
Kinda!
This is covered in Randall Munroe's (of XKCD fame) latest book - What If 2; chapter 33 "Ancestor Fraction"
Obviously a human who did not have any children cannot be the ancestor of anyone - this includes the circa 50% of humans who died during infancy, and the 25% of adult humans who did not have children.
Also, for some people who had children the line will die-out; if you have four children all of whom die in infancy, your line dies out. If none of your grand-children have children, your line dies out. Randall quotes a study which estimated that this applies to 40% of all people who ever had children.
So, taken together roughly 25% of all humans who were ever born went on to have children and form a part of the modern human 'ancestor web'.
In Summary: If you picked a random human of any age from the time of Mark Antony there is a roughly 25% they are an ancestor to all humans. If they are an adult that rises to 50%, and if they already have kids it rises to about 62.5%.
This is covered in Randall Munroe's (of XKCD fame) latest book - What If 2; chapter 33 "Ancestor Fraction"
Obviously a human who did not have any children cannot be the ancestor of anyone - this includes the circa 50% of humans who died during infancy, and the 25% of adult humans who did not have children.
Also, for some people who had children the line will die-out; if you have four children all of whom die in infancy, your line dies out. If none of your grand-children have children, your line dies out. Randall quotes a study which estimated that this applies to 40% of all people who ever had children.
So, taken together roughly 25% of all humans who were ever born went on to have children and form a part of the modern human 'ancestor web'.
In Summary: If you picked a random human of any age from the time of Mark Antony there is a roughly 25% they are an ancestor to all humans. If they are an adult that rises to 50%, and if they already have kids it rises to about 62.5%.
Does this take into account geographical limitations? I don't know about today, but if you applied the same analysis to the global population of 1600, it seems impossible on geographical grounds for either Mark Anthony or one of his contemporaries in South America to be an ancestor of everyone alive in 1600.
You’re assuming much more “cross-polination” than actually happened.
Humans didn’t use to mix geographically (hence different races).
And there’s isolated subgroups that didn’t mix or mixed much less (e.g. Jews in Europe)
Humans didn’t use to mix geographically (hence different races).
And there’s isolated subgroups that didn’t mix or mixed much less (e.g. Jews in Europe)
Is that "are" or "will be" an ancestor to all humans?
No. I don’t know the names of any great first century subsaharan African or Native American leaders, but even 80 generations back there are almost certainly none in my family tree. On the other hand I wouldn’t rule out some Asian steppe leader being in there somewhere.
All real family trees are not tree-shaped but diamond-shaped due to inbreeding (often very distant), a phenomenon geneaologists call "pedigree collapse":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse
If it's "very distant" is it really inbreeding?
It's inbreeding by the technical definition/understanding but obviously it's not inbreeding from a practical/biologically concerning standpoint.
In that case we're all inbred, so what does the word mean?
> we're all inbred, so what does the word mean
Genealogically, it means a family tree which is not a binary tree [1]. The measure is meaningful over a certain number of generations. Everyone is inbred over infinite generations, assuming a universal common ancestor. That doesn't sap the term of meaning.
Medically, we look at the coefficient of coancestry [2].
Practically, I think we trace back 3 to 4 generations, my source being grandparents (2) is a common word, great grandparents (3) less so but widely understood, and great great grandparents (4) being something few people keep track of.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree
[2]https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4...
Genealogically, it means a family tree which is not a binary tree [1]. The measure is meaningful over a certain number of generations. Everyone is inbred over infinite generations, assuming a universal common ancestor. That doesn't sap the term of meaning.
Medically, we look at the coefficient of coancestry [2].
Practically, I think we trace back 3 to 4 generations, my source being grandparents (2) is a common word, great grandparents (3) less so but widely understood, and great great grandparents (4) being something few people keep track of.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree
[2]https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4...
The same thing it always meant. Like many things, just because it's a continuum and not binary doesn't mean it's a useless concept.
absolutely not.
What next, we can defend "tall" being anywhere from 1mm to 9 feet because height is a continuum?
Words have meaning so they can be used for communication. If I use the word inbred to mean two siblings having a child and two partners sharing an ancestor 20 generations back, I'm not communicating anything when I use the word inbred.
And pointing out that closeness of ancestry is a continuum is not a defense of using that word in that manner.
What next, we can defend "tall" being anywhere from 1mm to 9 feet because height is a continuum?
Words have meaning so they can be used for communication. If I use the word inbred to mean two siblings having a child and two partners sharing an ancestor 20 generations back, I'm not communicating anything when I use the word inbred.
And pointing out that closeness of ancestry is a continuum is not a defense of using that word in that manner.
I wouldn't be surprised if every person in Europe and every person in the Americas with European ancestry was descended from Mark Antony.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/2...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/2...
Nice breakdown. Maybe it works the other way too.. that a large percentage of the population alive today can count rulership/prominence in their ancestry.
I speculate that when times were hard for humans in the course of history, those who were better off were more likely to successfully raise kids to adulthood, who in turn had better chances of establishing their own families
I speculate that when times were hard for humans in the course of history, those who were better off were more likely to successfully raise kids to adulthood, who in turn had better chances of establishing their own families
Yes, every single person alive that has any ancestry from Western Europe is a direct descendant of William the conqueror and Charlemagne and others. But they are also all direct descendants of the servant who cleaned out their potty every morning (presuming that servant had descendants). Claiming royal descent is not a big deal since we are all descended from everyone that lived back then and has descendants to this day.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/01/your-family-past-present-and-...
https://nautil.us/youre-descended-from-royalty-and-so-is-eve...
https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/01/your-family-past-present-and-...
https://nautil.us/youre-descended-from-royalty-and-so-is-eve...
Furthermore for an ancestor that far back, many of their descendants may not even have inherited any of their actual genes.
Given that the lineage has not died out, the average number of ancestors per generation is not zero. If you assume it is 1.2, that would mean about 2M descendants, which seems much more reasonable.
You should read up on family trees. This is an extremely well known thing and you can find a lot of articles that answer this question.
This comment is begging for a link—or at least a description of this "extremely well known thing"
This is called pedigree collapse.
> A descent from antiquity isn’t something most of us can relate to,
What? How so? Did we come out of thin air?
What? How so? Did we come out of thin air?
"Descent from antiquity" is a technical term that means that a specific linage to antiquity can be confirmed, typically via historical documents.
Virtually anyone with deep roots in england have landed gentry in their ancestry because statistically they survived long enough to have more progeny. So the base premise here is just wrong.
We're all descended from Adam, and Joseph of Aramathea.
We're all descended from Adam, and Joseph of Aramathea.
Virtually EVERY person, from every country, is descended from royalty/aristocracy of some kind somehow. And obviously, literally every person is descended from people who lived in antiquity.
The unusual thing is having a traced relation with royalty or stretching back this far.
The unusual thing is having a traced relation with royalty or stretching back this far.
Well he is a "Prince". Of a non-existent Kingdom. So he cannot be wrong, can he?
Georgia is still around. He's just out of power.
Georgia is a Republic not a Kingdom.
Unrelated to the genealogy; but at what point does it become ridiculous to claim yourself a prince? With over a century of no power for the family and no obvious way back to it as the kingdom is well dissolved, it feels like dress-up to style yourself a prince.
I don’t want to cast doubt on his claims either, but I was unable to find anyone with the surname Kopaliani in any of the main or cadet branches of the house of Bagrationi.
Maybe ridiculous, but not totally unprecedented. Aga Khan IV is generally considered to be royalty despite the fact that his family hasn't held secular power (outside of the occasional governorship) since [1095](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizar_ibn_al-Mustansir). Of course, they held religious leadership as Imams of the Nizari branch of Islam.
Very quickly, considering the monarchs of Denmark and Sweden removed titles from grand children of the reigning monarchs, and the British are reportedly considering the same.
He is still part of the special club that we are not invited to. Among people with current or former titles, titles still matter.
Is this like people who wear $500 jeans? Only they can tell the difference.
genealogy hobbyist here: descent from European antiquity can not be reliably determined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_antiquity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_antiquity
> An unbroken lineage to people of ancient times, known as a descent from antiquity, still remains to be historically proven.
Such records exist in Chinese culture, in particular in Taiwan and the diaspora, as they have not been interrupted before the Cultural Revolution.
Such records exist in Chinese culture, in particular in Taiwan and the diaspora, as they have not been interrupted before the Cultural Revolution.
Even then it depends on what you’d call antiquity. Chinese records only go back as far as 220 BCE, and with a lot of gaps in between.
And yet there are people who can trace their lineage back to Confucious (c.551 – c.479 BCE)
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/projects/out-of-eden-walk...!
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/projects/out-of-eden-walk...!
Not verifiably, no they cannot.
Where can one learn more about this?
If the traced genealogy line is average birth age 25 and 50% female, then there are 40 females.
This would mean that a 2% infidelity rate would have a more than 50% chance of breaking this chain, although there would likely be other undocumented ones.
This would mean that a 2% infidelity rate would have a more than 50% chance of breaking this chain, although there would likely be other undocumented ones.
One thing we can say with certainty is that every person alive today and every person who will ever be born is a descendant of successful hunters.
Such paper lineages assume that none of the fathers were cuckolded. DNA is the only way to be sure.
« Non-paternity events » occur at a rate of a few percents a given generation at best, but it's enough that at this scale even a rock-solid documents trail isn't proof of descent.
Assuming it's 3%, then after 80 generations there would only an 8% chance of the genealogy being accurate.
> « Non-paternity events » occur at a rate of a few percents a given generation at best
I thought that widespread genetic testing has shown it to be much higher than that.
I thought that widespread genetic testing has shown it to be much higher than that.
> I thought that widespread genetic testing has shown it to be much higher than that.
Higher rates might be mythical. In any case, it's unclear what the definition should be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event#Rates_of_n...
It's quite fun to imagine doing research on this. You could stand around outside a primary school with a clipboard at the end of the day and ask fathers whether they believe they are the biological parent of the child and fill in a form that looks like this:
Higher rates might be mythical. In any case, it's unclear what the definition should be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event#Rates_of_n...
It's quite fun to imagine doing research on this. You could stand around outside a primary school with a clipboard at the end of the day and ask fathers whether they believe they are the biological parent of the child and fill in a form that looks like this:
[ ] Man with parental responsibity told me to fuck off.
[ ] Man with parental responsibity said: "Look at him, what do you fucking think?"
[ ] Man with parental responsibity told me it was none of my fucking business.
[ ] Man with parental responsibity punched me on the nose.
[ ] Other.
That was much harder to do, in the past, and people back then weren't as foolish and trusting as today. They literally went to great lengths to make sure it didn't happen. And especially royal lineages.
At the same time, testing was also not possible back then.
At the same time, testing was also not possible back then.
> That was much harder to do, in the past
Is there any evidence for that? In one of David Attenborough's documentaries, he talks about that. Research showed that people are quick to point out that a baby looks like the father, even when the father isn't the biological father. The inference is that cuckolding is a common occurrence.
You're right that people would go to great lengths to ensure fidelity of the women, even executing them for infidelity. They wouldn't have bothered if cuckolding wasn't common. The recent movie "The Last Duel" was historically accurate in that it was a duel to the death over whether a knight's friend had sex with his wife or not.
Is there any evidence for that? In one of David Attenborough's documentaries, he talks about that. Research showed that people are quick to point out that a baby looks like the father, even when the father isn't the biological father. The inference is that cuckolding is a common occurrence.
You're right that people would go to great lengths to ensure fidelity of the women, even executing them for infidelity. They wouldn't have bothered if cuckolding wasn't common. The recent movie "The Last Duel" was historically accurate in that it was a duel to the death over whether a knight's friend had sex with his wife or not.
0) Politics is a messy, confusing affair, even by-nature (if you will). I would take such lineage claims with a generous pinch of salt ;)
1) the Ancient world was gravely brutal. Sex, Pregnancy and Fighting were more often used synonyms than most may realize today. Hard to tell how many children Mark Anthony knew he himself 'fathered', let alone us today. Slavery and serfdom was rife in/around Europe up to 1400s, and in parts up to as late as mid-1800s!
2) Bolsheviks were ruthless in removing the Tsar+family + opposition. it's highly unlikely they would've been so lean on such famous linage from little ancient Rome; they were full of paranoia.
Article's a great read though.
1) the Ancient world was gravely brutal. Sex, Pregnancy and Fighting were more often used synonyms than most may realize today. Hard to tell how many children Mark Anthony knew he himself 'fathered', let alone us today. Slavery and serfdom was rife in/around Europe up to 1400s, and in parts up to as late as mid-1800s!
2) Bolsheviks were ruthless in removing the Tsar+family + opposition. it's highly unlikely they would've been so lean on such famous linage from little ancient Rome; they were full of paranoia.
Article's a great read though.
I bet they're all traitorous covert Egyptians as well! - Romans, probably
“But what is the significance of all this?”
For this particular story none at all. Nothing.
For this particular story none at all. Nothing.
Is this a world record for proven genealogy? I read somewhere that the British monarchy held the record tracing back to mid-Saxon times. This blows that out of the water by about 600 years.
> Is this a world record for proven genealogy? I read somewhere that the British monarchy held the record tracing back to mid-Saxon times.
China did not have a dark age and so descent from antiquity is relatively common there. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Confucius_in_th... , 80 generations of the family of Confucius have been recorded.
What would qualify this as "proven" to you?
China did not have a dark age and so descent from antiquity is relatively common there. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Confucius_in_th... , 80 generations of the family of Confucius have been recorded.
What would qualify this as "proven" to you?
It's not proven at all. He takes speculative jumps to close gaps:
> My conclusion is that his younger sister, Queen Nana (AD 295–337), married King Mirian III of Caucasian Iberia (AD 290–362).
In a footnote he admits that the ancestry of the wife of Mirian III is unknown.
> My conclusion is that his younger sister, Queen Nana (AD 295–337), married King Mirian III of Caucasian Iberia (AD 290–362).
In a footnote he admits that the ancestry of the wife of Mirian III is unknown.
Yes, I noticed that, but that is a different kind of problem.
There's no such thing as a proven genealogy extending back so far. Such a proof cannot exist.
But as far as reasonably-well-documented claims go, going back to Saxon times is not even impressive on a worldwide basis.
There's no such thing as a proven genealogy extending back so far. Such a proof cannot exist.
But as far as reasonably-well-documented claims go, going back to Saxon times is not even impressive on a worldwide basis.
[deleted]
Tangentially, one time I read the question “at what point are you functionally not related to your ancestors anymore?”
I knew my great grandparents until their death when I was 18. My great great great grandparents would potentially view me as “their” descendants but I wonder how much further. Going back 8 or 10 generations means there are so many descendants (thousands?) that the relationship is meaningless.
I knew my great grandparents until their death when I was 18. My great great great grandparents would potentially view me as “their” descendants but I wonder how much further. Going back 8 or 10 generations means there are so many descendants (thousands?) that the relationship is meaningless.
> Mark Antony was a close relative of Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) and a brave general
Brave? I'm sure that the grunts in his army where much, much more likely to die than him (they were in a riskier position, he had better armour, weapons, training etc)
Brave? I'm sure that the grunts in his army where much, much more likely to die than him (they were in a riskier position, he had better armour, weapons, training etc)
As a very low self-esteem person, I envy the self-confidence of the author. In high school he seems more of a man than I will ever be.
Perhaps you would also have been more confident if you had grown up in privilege and had the resources to pursue various things. An organism with few resources will seek safety and the conservation of energy, whereas one with abundance will seek expansion
Is Marc Anthony a descendent of Mark Antony?
It's one of those classical names that are traditionally "translated" to the language of discourse. If you can accept that Mark Antony indicates the same name as MARCVSANTONIVS, it's not exactly a great stretch to identify that with Marc Anthony as well.
There was an h in the title. We've de-h'd it now.
It's "Mark Antony". Spell check!
Isn't the actual name Marcus Antonius? I wonder why we use the anglicised version for him, but the latin names for most other Romans
Maybe for the same reason the names of famous cities (especially if already famous in the past) are translated into foreign languages.
Examples.
Roma is Rome in English and Milano is Milan.
London is Londra in Italian but Manchester is Manchester and Liverpool is Liverpool.
Livorno (a small Italian town where English poets liked to spend their time) is Leghorn.
Aachen (a German city that used to be the residence of Charlemagne) is Acquisgrana in Italian.
Nobody has been translating city names anymore but Londra is going to stay. Aachen is not very famous but probably Acquisgrana is even less so. I should check current history books of schools.
Examples.
Roma is Rome in English and Milano is Milan.
London is Londra in Italian but Manchester is Manchester and Liverpool is Liverpool.
Livorno (a small Italian town where English poets liked to spend their time) is Leghorn.
Aachen (a German city that used to be the residence of Charlemagne) is Acquisgrana in Italian.
Nobody has been translating city names anymore but Londra is going to stay. Aachen is not very famous but probably Acquisgrana is even less so. I should check current history books of schools.
> Maybe for the same reason the names of famous cities (especially if already famous in the past) are translated into foreign languages.
They're not translated as much as they are derived from the same etymons used by the languages spoken there. Italian Acquisgrana or French Aix-la-Chapelle derive from Latin Aquis {capella, grana, villa}. The only properly official name most cities had throughout Europe was in Latin rather than any vernacular, including in areas where non-Romance languages were spoken such as German, English, Polish and so on.
They're not translated as much as they are derived from the same etymons used by the languages spoken there. Italian Acquisgrana or French Aix-la-Chapelle derive from Latin Aquis {capella, grana, villa}. The only properly official name most cities had throughout Europe was in Latin rather than any vernacular, including in areas where non-Romance languages were spoken such as German, English, Polish and so on.
I still want someone to explain how Firenze got rendered as Florence.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/Florence
> The city name is from Roman Colonia Florentia, "flowering colony," either literal or figurative, and became Old Italian Fiorenze, modern Italian Firenze.
https://italyinview.com/italian-places/italian-cities/floren... elaborates:
> The Romans were the founders of Florence. Realizing the importance of a thoroughfare towards the Po plain, Ceasar in 59 B.C. ordered the establishment of a colony on the north bank of the Arno. The foundation is thought to have taken place in the spring, during the Floral Games, or Ludi Florales: hence the name Florentia, which was given to the city. Flora was the goddess of flowers and gardens, and the mother of spring in Roman mythology. Tuscan dialect turned the Latin Florentia into Fiorenza — a name which is to be found on Renaissance frescoes, and which was later shortened to Firenze.
> The city name is from Roman Colonia Florentia, "flowering colony," either literal or figurative, and became Old Italian Fiorenze, modern Italian Firenze.
https://italyinview.com/italian-places/italian-cities/floren... elaborates:
> The Romans were the founders of Florence. Realizing the importance of a thoroughfare towards the Po plain, Ceasar in 59 B.C. ordered the establishment of a colony on the north bank of the Arno. The foundation is thought to have taken place in the spring, during the Floral Games, or Ludi Florales: hence the name Florentia, which was given to the city. Flora was the goddess of flowers and gardens, and the mother of spring in Roman mythology. Tuscan dialect turned the Latin Florentia into Fiorenza — a name which is to be found on Renaissance frescoes, and which was later shortened to Firenze.
> Old Italian Fiorenze, modern Italian Firenze.
That I can follow.
> Florentia, [...] became Old Italian Fiorenze
Still lost. I know accents are thick and an ex used to wax poetic about the fluidity of names, especially at the intersection of thick regional accents and illiteracy. But this one is still a bit of a stretch.
That I can follow.
> Florentia, [...] became Old Italian Fiorenze
Still lost. I know accents are thick and an ex used to wax poetic about the fluidity of names, especially at the intersection of thick regional accents and illiteracy. But this one is still a bit of a stretch.
Ceasar also founded Florence?? This guy... :)
As another comment pointed out what needed explanation - if anything - is that Florentia got rendered as Firenze.
Well or Londra? The Romans called it Londinium, so you might expect the modern Italian to be ..(I'm no expert on how Italian has modified endings).. 'Londinia' or 'Londino' or something.
It's Londres in French which seems related, I wonder where they came from though.
It's Londres in French which seems related, I wonder where they came from though.
How about the German city of Stuttgart rendered as Stoccarda(FR) or Estugarda(PT) but not in other languages... no idea why.
The city we call Antwerp in English is known as Amberes in Spanish.
When you know that the French name is Anvers it makes a little more sense.
When you know that the French name is Anvers it makes a little more sense.
Maybe Anvers is derived from Amberes: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anvers#cite_note-espagnol-5
Anversa in Italian.
By the way, Leuven (Belgium) is Lovanio even if I hardly heard that translated name until they hosted the UCI World Championship in 2021.
By the way, Leuven (Belgium) is Lovanio even if I hardly heard that translated name until they hosted the UCI World Championship in 2021.
It's Stoccarda in Italian too.
My understanding - but I could be wrong - is that the local name of Milan through history only became Milano recently.
The latin name was Mediolanum. Apparently it comes from Celtic Medhelan, in the middle of the plain, and it should be a common name also on the northern side of the Alps (any French person can confirm?). I googled a bit to find when the name switched from Latin to Italian with no success. You could check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Milan but I suggest to give a look at the Italian version of the page with more maps, if you're interested in that sort of things.
> I googled a bit to find when the name switched from Latin to Italian with no success.
That isn't the kind of thing that happens at a particular point in time. It's a process that takes hundreds of years.
That isn't the kind of thing that happens at a particular point in time. It's a process that takes hundreds of years.
Biala is known as Zuelz to German speakers.
> I wonder why we use the anglicised version for him, but the latin names for most other Romans
We also use classical Latin names for pre-classical Romans who would have written their own names rather differently.
We also use classical Latin names for pre-classical Romans who would have written their own names rather differently.
I suspect Shakespeare can take at least some of the credit/blame.
I actually thought the article was about the singer Marc Anthony...
Fixed now!
Marc Anthony has 6 children:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Anthony
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Anthony
To me the amazing thing is that they managed to hold on to both power and money for so long. It took 1800 years for them to lose power, and 200 years later they're still sending their princes to Princeton.
edit: sorry Princeton highschool, I've got to hand it to them that this high school essay is more well written and polished than anything I ever handed in..