There were a bunch of people living in the area, farming and worshipping the gods, who shared similar values and felt a certain unity. Those folks got together and started building a city.
But they weren’t romans tho, they only became romans when someone called the place “Rome”
So in order for them to be called romans, they mustve vuilt the place and then named it. Before that they were called sth else.
Which came first: Rome or the romans?
The Romans.
There were a bunch of people living in the area, farming and worshipping the gods, who shared similar values and felt a certain unity. Those folks got together and started building a city.
But they weren’t romans tho, they only became romans when someone called the place “Rome” So in order for them to be called romans, they mustve vuilt the place and then named it. Before that they were called sth else.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
There were plenty of people living in the New England colonies before they started referring to themselves as ‘Americans.’
Maybe they called themselves Romans and were like hey what should we name our city? How about we name it after ourselves and call it “Rome”
People build cities, buildings do not, so I’m going to vote for people coming first.
The question is if they were considered and/or identified as Romans before there was a city called Rome
Ahh, but a better question is whether they were Roman before they had the name?
What does that mean to you? What is the essence of being Roman that preexisted the name?
Would a rose by any other name not smell just as sweet? And more importantly, would a rose still smell if there was no one around to sniff?