3 ms·

Given the historical record, assuming the population remained the same is not even remotely warranted.

• fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  It certainly hasn't remained exactly the same, but there could be quite a bit of similarity left: It is generally agreed that the invasions that followed for centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire did not significantly alter the local gene pool, because of the relatively small number of Germanics, or other migrants, compared to the large population of what constituted Roman Italy. In 2008, Dutch geneticists determined that Italy is one of the last two remaining genetic islands in Europe, the other being Finland. This is due in part to the presence of the Alpine mountain chain which, over the centuries, has prevented large migration flows aimed at colonizing the Italian lands[1] The migrants comprised war bands or tribes of 10,000 to 20,000 people,[5] but in the course of 100 years they numbered not more than 750,000 in total,[citation needed] compared to an average 40 million population of the Roman Empire at that time.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Italy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
  • rbecker 6y ago
    That's Roman Italy - but what about North Africa and the Middle East, which were large parts of the Roman Empire?