For a period of time, the Etruscans, along with all the rest of the Italian peoples, were an independent and distinct group of people within the Roman fold.

Italy as organized by Augustus. Etruria was the ancestral region of the Etruscans.

Rome’s approach to conquering the Italian peninsula was nothing particularly special or unique. Like most pre-modern states, Rome did not attempt to exercise full, direct control over its subject cities. Instead, it made alliances and agreements with these cities that allowed them to have a lot of autonomy in exchange for granting some concessions and contributions to Roman authority.

Rome did this in Italy, a dense and urbanized region, with unique success. Its alliance system, forged from about the year 500 BCE to the year 250 BCE, had incredible durability, and the client cities of Rome were exceptionally loyal. Even though the subject peoples remained separate from Rome, they found common cause with the Romans and stood by their side.

The biggest test of this alliance system came during the Second Punic War, when Hannibal drove a dagger into the heart of Rome by defeating massive Roman armies in three devastating battles. In the aftermath of the worst defeat at Cannae, Hannibal attempted to turn Rome’s allies to his side. However, only a few cities heeded his call, and most of the Italian cities continued to offer resistance to his army. Eventually, he was cut off, his home of Carthage was threatened, and he was forced to withdraw from a staunchly unified Italy.

This was where Rome was unique: it somehow made its subject people just as fanatically loyal to Rome as the Romans themselves. The Etruscans, although they were historic and endemic enemies of Rome for centuries, were no exception to this.

However, these bonds were not without cracks in the mold. So long as foreign threats kept Italian and Roman interests united, the Italians and Romans remained united. But once peace came and said interests diverged, the two groups inevitably came to diverge.

Expansion of Roman control over Italy

Numerous issues, including a lack of benefits from foreign wars, restrictions on voting rights for Italians, general discrimination, and corruption from heavy-handed Roman officials, led to the outbreak of the Social War, a general uprising of Rome’s Italian cities. Leading this revolution were the Samnites in central Italy, but the Etruscans in the north were not far behind.

Ironically, this last gasp of Italian independence would prove the nail in the coffin for that independence. In order to end the fighting, Rome offered universal amnesty and full equality for all Italians and Italian cities that stopped resisting. Most cities took Rome up on this offer, and from then on, the Italians were full Roman citizens with voting rights and political equality.

The cultural divisions were not quite erased with this single bold stroke, but they became less significant as the years went by. All of Italy soon became “Roman” not just in name, but in language, culture, and thought. Residents of Italian cities came to consider themselves Romans, first and foremost.

The Cippus Perusinus, one of the longest surviving Etruscan inscriptions

The Etruscans were no exception to this rule. They remained a distinct people for a bit after the Social War, but the Etruscan language likely fell out of use sometime around the turn of the millennium. The emperor Claudius, who lived from 10 BCE to 54 CE, could reportedly read and write Etruscan and wrote a history of the Etruscan people, but he was collecting knowledge of a bygone past by that point.

The Romans turned the Etruscans, and all other conquered peoples, into Romans. That’s why they were so special.

The relationship between the Etruscans and the Romans is a fascinating topic that has intrigued historians for centuries. While there is no definitive answer, it is generally believed that the Etruscans were absorbed by the Romans over time, rather than remaining a separate group within the Roman Empire.

The Etruscans, an ancient civilization that thrived in what is now modern-day Italy from the 9th to the 2nd century BCE, made significant contributions to art, architecture, and even influenced Roman religious practices. However, the rise of Rome as a dominant power in the region inevitably led to the assimilation of the Etruscans into Roman culture.

One key factor in the absorption of the Etruscans was the gradual conquest of their territory by the expanding Roman Republic. Through a series of military campaigns, the Romans gained control over Etruscan cities, which eventually became integrated into the Roman administrative system. This process was not without resistance, as the Etruscans fiercely defended their autonomy, but ultimately they succumbed to Roman rule.

As the Romans established their dominance, they introduced their own political, social, and cultural institutions, gradually supplanting those of the Etruscans. The Roman legal system, for example, replaced Etruscan laws, while Latin became the predominant language, replacing the Etruscan language. This linguistic shift played a significant role in eroding Etruscan identity over time.

Furthermore, intermarriage between Romans and Etruscans became common, leading to the blending of the two populations. This cultural mixing further contributed to the assimilation of the Etruscans into Roman society. Eventually, the distinct Etruscan identity faded away, with the Etruscan language becoming extinct by the 1st century CE.

However, some aspects of Etruscan culture did leave lasting influences on Roman civilization. Etruscan art, for instance, had a profound impact on Roman artistic styles, with many Roman sculptures and paintings reflecting Etruscan techniques. Etruscan religious practices also influenced Roman religion, with deities like Tinia and Uni being incorporated into the Roman pantheon.

Pretty much.

Etruscans

The Etruscan language is similar to a sixth-century b.c.e. Greek dialect common to Lemnos but differs from other Mediterranean languages. Inscriptions are in the Greek alphabet but written from right to left. Precise definitions of some words are still not known.

By the seventh and sixth centuries b.c.e. the Etruscans had conquered Rome, much of Italy, and non-Italian areas such as Corsica. This success brought their political and cultural peak in the sixth century b.c.e.

Short answer :

Latins and Samnites were two different native Italic tribes and both were part of a biggest italic tribes : Umbri.

The gods of origins, that did not spread throughout the empire but were spread throughout the Italic tribes. So everywhere in Italy, not only between Latins and Samnites. The cult of ancestors (Larii), the gods of the homeland (Patrii) and the exaltation of the family (that it is still strong in Italy).

The warrior culture, Samnites are particularly famous for having repeatedly defeated the Romans in their attempt to conquer the territories to the south. The Romans adopted their culture of valiant and brave warriors and Latins as Samnites chose the god of war as their main God. Romans considered as their main God Mars (in Greek Ares) , called by Samnites Mamerte.

Long answer :

First of all, Samnites were not a Latin tribes, they were an Italic tribes from Central-South Italy. Infact Latins and Samnites were two different native tribes of Italy that, with other native tribes of Italy, called themselves Italic. The Italic tribes were very numerous with different languages, some like Etruscans talk in a Semitic language and some like Latins and Samnites in a Indo European language. Samnites are particularly famous for having repeatedly defeated the Romans that tried to conquired their city Maloenton, that was firstly called by romans Maleventum that mean bad (male) event (eventum) meaning that it was the place of a bad event for Romans : their defeats. After the city was called Beneventum that mean good (bene) event (eventum) because Romans finally conquired the city. The city of Benevento is still there in Campania (my region).

According to what Cato said, culturally they shared what the Romans considered the “Italic native culture”. Cato was strongly against the Greek culture, he defined the Greeks like lazy men no more skilled at defending their territories and too busy drinking, partying and talking about philosophy to take part in the political life of the empire (This is not true because many Roman nobles chose Greek teachers for their children so that they could enter in politic). Cato exalted the culture and values of the Italic peoples, even those who had contacts with the Greeks for centuries and were part of the Magna Greece. Those values were linked to the house, the family, the nature, and they shared also some gods that the Romans called "gods of the origins". These “gods of origins” were common to all Italic populations, Samnites and Latins as well. Those gods were the Italic goddess of Agriculture, Cerere for Latins and Kerres for Samnites smiliar with the Greek goddess Demetria, the the Italic goddess of SPRING, Flora for Latins and Fluusaí for Samnites that have no corresponding in to the Greek pantheon.

The Sannites were particularly devoted to Mars, Mamerte with the Samnite name. Whether he was primarily a god of war or agriculture remains in doubt. He was connected with spring and fertility and protected the fields, the harvest and the cattle, but he was also the god of youth and as such he was endowed with strength and skill in fighting: it was perhaps thanks to the Sannites that in Italy his warrior image ended up predominate. In addition, all the Italic tribes, Latins too, celebrated and exalted the Larii that were ancestors of the family that protect their loved ones still alive. Another common cult was that delegated to the Patria (homeland), some minor deities who were tasked with protecting Italy and the Italics.

Ps. I don't know if you are interested in this but those were the main Italic tribes, that were diveded in smaller tribes :

• Ligurians : probably the oldest people on the Italian peninsula, famous sailors, they gave their name to the region where they lived, modern day Liguria. Genoa, capital of Liguria, was one of the 4 maritime republics of medieval Italy.
• Veneti : They were good horse breeders, good at the processing of bronze objects, experienced navigators of rivers, lagoons and sea. They gave their name to the region where they lived, modern day Veneto . Venice, capital of Veneto , was one of the 4 maritime republics of medieval Italy. Ancient Venetian culture developed for about 1000 years, from 1200 BC until about 200 BC.
• Cisaplin gauls : they lived in modern day Lombardy, Piedmont and Aosta Valley. They were considered by the Romans as fake Italic because they arrived in Italy around 400 BC and settled in the Padana Plain. They were divided into many independent tribes, that is, free from each other. They lived in hut villages that were surrounded by fortified walls in order to defend themselves from their enemies. They were farmers and ranchers, but they were also good craftsmen. They invented the wheeled plow and the barrel, a container for storing wine. They has the same gods of Gauls in France.
• Terramaricoli : they lived in modern day north Emilia Romagna about 2000 years BC . The name Terramaricules comes from the words earth marna, that is fat earth, because it is very fertile. They lived in villages of stilts, because they lived in a swampy environment (i.e. with land covered with still water, which does not flow) and rich in waterways. Thanks to the stilts they were able to defend themselves from the water of the flooded rivers and from the humidity. They were farmers, fishing along rivers, but they also knew how to melt metals and make objects such as pots and clothes made of wool and linen.
• Etruscans : well, we all know them right? The Etruscans were the first Italic peoples to achieve a remarkable degree of civilization. We know little about their origins: probably the tribes that lived in a small area of the Tuscany region have joined with other tribes that came from far and were born thus the Etruscans. The first testimonies about the Etruscans are from 700 BC. The Etruscans were farmers, craftsmen and traders. They knew how to work iron with skills, they were good navigators and they brought their products to many areas of the Mediterranean and even to the coasts of Northern Europe. They were famous for their state cities, art, tombs and a writing system that influenced the Latin alphabet.
• Villanoviani : The name Villanoviani comes from the name Villanova which was a city close to Today's Bologna. The Villanoviani infact lived on a large territory that ranged from South Emilia Romagna to Campania between the 9th and 7th centuries BC. The Villanovians inhabited areas rich in pastures and fields, near the waterways, in villages of huts. Their huts were built of terracotta bricks and were covered with swamp reeds. The Villanovians were farmers and ranchers, but they also hunted and fished. They also knew how to make metal objects, such as tools to grow, swords, jewelry.
• Umbri : This were the largest people in the entire Italian peninsula and they included some of most advanced peoples such as Latins and many of the peoples of the so-called magna Greece. We even know their pantheon and their alphabet . Within this tribe there was also the Samnite tribe. They lived in south-central Italy, partially in the same territory of Villanovians so they also knew how to make metal objects, such as tools to grow, swords, jewelry. Some of these peoples were the Umbrians, the Piceni and the 3 tribes of my southern italian region (Campania) that lived in the territories that were part of the magna Greece : the Sabini , the Osci and the Samnites . Roman legends say that the first people with whom the Romans mingled during the founding of Rome were the Sabini, Osci and Samnites talked in the same language called Oscan and Samnites were famous warriors. Umbrians and Piceni were ranchers and farmers and famous warrior peoples.
• Siculi : In Sicily, from 3000 BC, the Sicans lived. Then, in about 1400 BC, the Siculi arrived. The Siculi have slowly taken the place of the Sicans. When the Greeks built the colonies in southern Italy and the islands, they also began to trade with the Siculi and the other peoples of the South.
• Pirrics : they were divided into Iapigi, Messapi, Vituli, Bruzi, Lucani and the most important one : the Italians. Yes, one of this populations gave the name to the whole country of Italy. Their territory ranged from the south of Puglia to the south of Basilicata to Calabria. So the most southern region in the peninsula, except for Sicily. When the Greeks met the people of southern Calabria for the fist time they started to call them Italians Because they were famous for their deity, the Calf God. So Italy have an ancient greek name, like Europe, that mean Land of calves or Land of Calf God.
• Sardi : From 1500 BC in Sardinia there were the Sards, they gave their name to the region. The Sard civilization is also called the Nuraghi civilization. Nuraghi are cone trunk-shaped towers (a cone without the top, without the tip), formed by stone blocks and used as dwellings, barns, workshops or warehouses. The Sardinians were first shepherds and warriors, then they also became farmers, craftsmen and traders. The Sardinians developed mainly between 1200 and 900 BC.

Ah, the mystery of the Etruscans. An obsession for historians, a headache for linguists, and a fascinating tale for casual readers. Once a dominant ethnic group and cultural powerhouse that stretched across much of Northern and Central Italy, they have since completely vanished from the surface of the planet, with only a few inscriptions and testimonies to give us an idea of this long-dead civilization.

The Etruscan language does not have a conclusive origin in any language family. It is quite distinct from Indo-European languages in the region, and while various theories have been posited to explain this seemingly foreign language’s arrival in Italy, none have any substantial evidence to support them. The language, as far as we know, remains a complete outlier.

Very few primary sources exist in Etruscan. We have inscriptions on tombs and pronouncements, some calendars, and coins, but there is no surviving correspondence or literature. Analyzing the grammatical structure and phonology can only tell us so much about who the Etruscans really were, and having something, anything, from an Etruscan in his native tongue, would help massively.

The history of the Etruscans was never extensively recorded, and much of it has been lost. Of course, we have no written Etruscan sources to rely on, and Roman historians generally did not bother. The Etruscan language became a liturgical language used only by specific priests, and even that had died out by the 3rd century. We are forced to piece together a fragmented story based upon inscriptions, pottery shards, and the occasional comment from a Roman or Greek writer.

Before the Romans, there were the Etruscans. They had a flourishing literary tradition and were a crucial link in the post-Bronze-Age trade networks of the Mediterranean. But as their cities were slowly subjugated and their culture was stifled, the stories of these people were lost forever.

They were an integral part of Rome. They were there at the foundation of Rome. However, Rome had existed for hundreds of years before. People lived on these hills before 1,000 BC:

Population density was low. The area was a mosquito infested swamp. As you see, the low land between the hills were flood prone and remain so:

Who would live in such hills, surrounded by swamp? The desperate people of the area. The poor without access to better land and others such as runaway slaves, criminals, exiles, etc. Many of them made a living as pastoralists.

Livy claims, The History of Rome, Book 1:

In accordance with this policy, Romulus opened a place of refuge on the spot where, as you go down from the Capitol, you find an enclosed space between two groves. A promiscuous crowd of freemen and slaves, eager for change, fled thither from the neighboring states. This was the first accession of strength to the nascent greatness of the city.

The Romans claim they came from three places:

This makes sense since those three tribes were closest to Rome. However, note the elevation as well. In a malaria prone area, living in wetlands could kill you.

Livy claims Romulus organized three tribes based on origin. Academics agree:

The first tribe, or the Ramnes, were a Latin colony on the Palatine hill, said to have been founded by Romulus. As long as it stood alone, it contained only one hundred gentes, and had a senate of one hundred members. When the Tities, or Sabine settlers on the Quirinal and Viminal hills, under king Tatius, became united with the Romans, the number of gentes as well as that of senators was increased to 200. These two tribes after their union continued probably for a considerable time to be the patricians of Rome, until the third tribe, the Luceres, which chiefly consisted of Etruscans, who had settled on the Caelian Hill, also became united with the other two as a third tribe. When this settlement was made is not certain: some say that it was in the time of Romulus (Festus, s.v. Caelius Mons and Luceres; Varro, de Ling. Lat. V.55); others that it took place at a later time (Tacit. Ann. IV.65; Festus, s.v. Tuscum vicum). But the Etruscan settlement was in all probability older than that of the Sabines, though it seems occasionally to have received new bands of Etruscan settlers even as late as the time of the Republic.

In other words, the Etruscans were always in the area and when Romulus organized the hills into one state, more Etruscans came. This was reflected in the family names of ancient Rome.

For example, certain patricians families at the dawn of Republic were Etruscan:

• Herminia gens
• Volumnia gens
• Lartia gens
• Volumnia gens

Julius Caesar claimed the Roman governmental structure came from Etruscans, The War With Catiline:

“Our ancestors, Fathers of the Senate, were never lacking either in wisdom or courage, and yet pride did not keep them from adopting foreign institutions, provided they were honorable. They took their offensive and defensive weapons from the Samnites, the badges of their magistrates for the most part from the Etruscans.”

The Roman dress code was Etruscan in origin:

One thing NOT adopted from Etruscans was the family dynamic. Women had a far higher status and were freer in Etruscan society:

Before Rome rose to power Theopompos of Chios wrote about them. He claimed:

“Sharing wives is an established Etruscan custom…Etruscan women take particular care of their bodies and exercise often. It is not a disgrace for them to be seen naked. Further, they dine not with their own husbands, but with any men who happen to be present….are also expert drinkers and are very good looking.”

In Rome, the pater familias had 100% power of life and death over all members of his family and their wives had no agency. Patriarchy was the Roman way. Even as Etruscans served as the plurality of Roman kings, the Etruscan influence should not be overemphasized.

The Romans viewed themselves as a Latin folk. Even so, at the deepest level, there were Etruscan influences so deeply interwooven, it is hard to determine what is truly Roman. For example, Romulus and Remus were supposedly children of a Latin princess that were abandoned on the banks of the Tiber. The Etruscans had a similar story that pre-date Rome’s founding (Etruscan tomb stone, 7 Century BC):

Another example, Etruscan relief, 5th Century BC):

It appears the wolf story was popular among Etruscan, (Lupa of Fiesole):

Did the Romans piggy-back an existing story?

TL;DR: The Etruscans were the ancient world's ultimate party animals, too busy living la dolce vita to build an empire.

Once upon a time there lived a group of people who believed that life was best lived horizontally. No, not because they were lazy, but because they spent so much time reclining on fancy couches at lavish banquets. These were the Etruscans, the original "work hard, party harder" civilization.

Picture this: while the Greeks were busy philosophizing about the meaning of life and the Romans were drawing up battle plans, the Etruscans were perfecting the art of the three-hour lunch break. It's like they were living in their own version of "Eat, Pray, Love," minus the praying and the loving... well, maybe not the loving.

Now, don't get me wrong. The Etruscans weren't totally useless. They were like that cool aunt who teaches you how to mix the perfect cocktail but forgets to mention the importance of a 401(k). They gave us some pretty nifty stuff: the Roman arch, gladiatorial combat, and a writing system that makes doctors' handwriting look legible.

But when it came to building a lasting empire? Let's just say they were about as effective as a chocolate teapot in a sauna. Why? Well, for starters, they couldn't agree on anything. Imagine trying to organize a potluck dinner where everyone insists on bringing wine. That was Etruscan politics in a nutshell.

Their city-states were more divided than a pizza at a toddler's birthday party. While the Greeks were forming leagues and the Romans were, well, doing Roman things, the Etruscans were too busy arguing over whose wine was better to notice the empires rising around them.

And let's talk about their military strategy, shall we? The Etruscans approached war the way a cat approaches a bath — with a mix of disdain and utter confusion. Their idea of military training was probably limited to perfecting their javelin throws at dinner parties. "Hey Velthur, bet you can't hit that olive across the room!" Great for parties, not so great for defending your civilization.

But perhaps their greatest downfall was their love of luxury. The Etruscans were the original influencers. They were so busy flexing their gold jewelry and fancy tombs that they forgot to build things like, oh I don't know, a unified defense system?

It's like they were intend to play a game of civilization on easy mode, but forgot to check the difficulty settings of the AI opponents around them. Oops.

So, what can we learn from our Etruscan friends? Well, for one, maybe don't put all your eggs in the "living your best life" basket. It's all fun and games until a Roman legion shows up at your door asking if you have a moment to talk about their lord and savior, Jupiter.

And perhaps, just perhaps, there's more to building a civilization than having the best parties and the fanciest stuff. But hey, at least they went out in style, right? I mean, if you're going to be conquered, you might as well do it while wearing gold earrings and sipping the finest wine.

In the end, the Etruscans were like a shooting star - bright, beautiful, and gone too soon. They burned bright, partied hard, and left us wondering: is it better to build an empire that lasts a thousand years, or to throw parties that are remembered for eternity?

The Greeks encountered the Etruscans and, even though initially they may have had some peaceful interactions, it turned belligerent pretty fast.

Around the same time of the Persian-Greek wars (500–480 BCE), there was another major war being fought in the Western Mediterranean-the War between Greeks of Magna Grecia and Eastern Sicily and a coalition of Etruscans (or Tyrrhenians/Tyrsenians/ΤΥΡΣΗΝΟΙ, as the Greeks called them) and Phoenicians/Punics/ΦΟΙΝΙΚΕΣ from Western Sicily and Carthage.

The story starts around 540 BCE when the Phoceans/ΦΩΚΕΕΙΣ leave their city in Asia Minor (in Ionia) to avoid enslavement by the advancing Persian armies. According to Herodotus, the Phoceans were the first among all the Greeks to make long distance sea voyages and they took all their population and settled in their established Western Mediterranean colonies in Velia/Elea in Campania, Massilia/Marseille in Southern France and Alalia in Corsica. Very quickly, they came in conflict with the Etruscans whose confederation was working its way down the western side of the Italian peninsula and in Corsica.

The Etruscans were afraid that the newcomer Phocean Greeks would take over their sea trade and they allied with Phoenicians to try to expel the Greeks from Corsica and the Tyrrhenian Sea. In fact, in 535 BCE, the underhanded Phoceans of Corsica defeated a combined Etruscan/Phoenician fleet in the sea battle of Alalia. It was a Pyrrhic victory and the Phoceans had to evacuate Corsica and headed to the Bay of Naples to join other Greeks in Cumae and Velia.

Around the same time, the Etruscans had spread their influence in a small but developing city named Rome. The last three Kings of Rome were probably Etruscans ending in 509 BCE with Lucius Superbus Tarquinus. However, in the model of similar uprisings in Athens and elsewhere, the Kings were deposed and a local Republic is established.

In 504 BCE, the advancing Southern Etruscans enlisted local Italian tribes (Umbrians and Daunians) and faced the Greeks in Campania at the first battle of Cumae. The Etruscans and allies lost. The Etruscans started to lose influence but didn’t give up.

Finally, In 474 BCE, the Etruscans, again with the help of Phoenicians, were able to raise a big fleet and tried to overtake the Greeks of Cumae and Velia at the Bay of Naples. Just like in mainland Greece against the Persians, the Italiote Greek cities came together. The Syracusian fleet under tyrant Hiero came to assist their compatriots and the Etruscans were again defeated. This time it was the end of the Etruscan influence in Italy. Their territories were now taken over by upstarts like Romans, Samnites, Gauls and Phoenicians/Punics. The Roman Republic was now fairly new and able to get established without having to worry about Etruria.

As evidence of this last battle, Syracusian tyrant Hiero dedicated this Etruscan helmet at the Temple of Zeus in Olympia

The inscription on the helmet states

HIARONΩ ΔΕΙΝΟΜΕΝΕΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΙ(Σ) ΣVRAKOΣΙΟΙ ΤΟΙ ΔΙ ΤVRAN ΑΠΟ ΚVMAΣ

“Hieron, (son of) Deinomenes, (dedicates) to Zeus (this) Etruscan (helmet), from Cumae (on behalf of) the Syracusans”.

Notice the Archaic Doric letters substitution of “R” for Attic “P” and “V” for Attic “Y”. The “Ω” is written as an open “O” with a gap on the left side, sort of like a reverse “C” and “H” is written like a reverse “E”. For anyone who can read Greek, it is written in a very “laconic” manner. Pretty amazing!

we don’t know very much about the Etruscans but they appear to have been organized similarly to the Greeks as far as military and administration. They adopted the Greek Euboean alphabet which became the Latin alphabet and has a lot of stylistic similarities.. However, their language and customs are still a mystery.

I would say the Romans were in awe of Etruscans. They were much more advanced than the Latin tribes. The Cloaca Maxima was designed & constructed by Etruscan engineers. If you look far enough everything that we think of as Roman is actually Etruscan. The Romans borrowed the toga, trinomial names, roads, concrete, divination using animal entrails, gladiatorial games, etc. They have Etruscan antecedents. Emperor Claudius wrote an encyclopedia about them. Sadly the volumes are lost.

This statue is not Roman. It's Etruscan.

The fate of the Etruscans after their conquest by Rome is a tale of gradual decline and cultural transformation, woven into the broader narrative of Roman expansion. The Etruscans were a vibrant civilization that thrived in central Italy from the 8th to the 3rd century BCE, known for their advanced art, architecture, and governance. However, as Rome began its rise to power in the 4th century BCE, the Etruscan cities found themselves increasingly vulnerable.

By the late 4th century BCE, the Romans had begun to conquer Etruscan territories, culminating in the decisive battles that led to the fall of Etruscan city-states. By 264 BCE, the Etruscans were fully integrated into the Roman Republic, but not without significant changes to their identity and culture. The initial military conquests were followed by a process of cultural assimilation, yet the Etruscans experienced a unique fate that differentiated them from other conquered peoples.

One of the reasons the Etruscans were not fully assimilated into Roman society was their distinct cultural identity, which included a unique language, religious practices, and artistic traditions. Their language, although related to Latin, was ultimately marginalized as Latin became the dominant language of the region. While some Etruscan elites adopted Roman customs and intermarried with Romans, many common Etruscans maintained their traditions for generations.

Additionally, the political landscape of the time played a crucial role. The Etruscans had already been fragmented into various city-states, which made unification against external threats difficult. This fragmentation weakened their ability to resist Roman domination and diminished their influence. Furthermore, as Rome expanded, it absorbed and integrated the remnants of Etruscan culture into its own, often through syncretism, rather than outright assimilation.

As the Roman Republic evolved into the Roman Empire, the Etruscans saw a further decline in their autonomous identity. Many Etruscan towns lost their significance, while others were completely absorbed into the expanding Roman territory. The luxurious lifestyle of Etruscan elites began to fade, replaced by a more Romanized way of life. Their rich burial practices, once a defining aspect of their culture, started to dwindle, reflecting the erosion of Etruscan heritage.

However, the Etruscans left an indelible mark on Roman culture. They influenced Roman religion, architectural styles, and even aspects of government. Concepts like augury, religious rituals, and certain deities were borrowed from Etruscan traditions. Moreover, the famous Roman arch and the use of the vault in construction can be traced back to Etruscan engineering techniques.

Forgive me professor for stealing some of your material, but I've heard a great lecture on this topic recently. Here are three maps that I hope can explain things, let's start first with Bronze Age Italy, long before the rise of Rome and Etruria.

Two main cultures existed, one in the Po Valley in northwestern Italy and another in the Apennines. These two groups are mainly distinguished by their burial practices, the first, a subgroup of the Urnfield Culture of central Europe, are called the Terramaricoli thrived 1700 to 1150 BCE. The latter were mountainous herdsmen who buried their dead in trench (fossa) graves and emerged 1500 BCE.

How are these relevant to Etruria? Well they gave way to the Villanovan culture which was the first iron age culture in Italy, who seemed to combine traits from both. The relationship between this group and the Etruscams are up for debate, but they were eventually subsumed by the latter.

There are a two sides to the scholastic debate regarding the origins of the Etruscans

1. Herodotus states that the Etruscans were descendants of the Lydians, this sect believes the Etruscans to be foreigners to Italy
2. Dionysus of Halicarnassus believed that the Etruscans were natives of Italy

Two arguments for autochthlony and two arguments against.

1. The burial customs of the Etruscans showed an evolution from Villanovan and Fossa cultures, who were both indigenous
2. The sites of Etruscan cities were the same as Villanovan villages (for example Veii)
3. But the language of the Etruscans were non Indo European, with the closest known parallels being Old Phyrgian and a stelle found way off in Lemnos in the Aegean
4. Advanced organization of Etruscan culture seems to draw it's origins elsewhere

I hope that clears up some things, the reason why Etruria lost its dominant position is kind of similar to Greece. The loose confederation of city states were eventually overshadowed by Rome and conquered before they were able to unite together and crate real resistance. The peak of Etruscan culture was right around the time after the mythical founding date of Rome, when they dominated western Italy, and the Tyrrhenian Sea was named after them. However Etruscan expansion was halted by Greek coalitions from the South, and overshadowed by Carthage on the seas. Check battles of Alalia and Cumae. But still they held enormous power on the Italian mainland compared to the small city that was Rome, who saw several Kings of its monarchy who were Etruscan, representing their culture influence.

The Greeks would have been shocked by the presence of women in drinking parties. Athenian women were locked away in harems. Spartan women were somewhat free ranged. In this Etruscan sarcophagus. A man & a woman are depicted as sharing a couch while eating at a banquet. This was a big taboo to the Greeks.

The relationship between the Romans and the Etruscans was a complex one, characterized by a mix of fear, admiration, and rivalry. While it is difficult to generalize the sentiments of an entire civilization, we can delve into historical records and archaeological findings to shed light on this intriguing topic.

In the early days of Rome, the Etruscans, who inhabited the region of Etruria (modern-day Tuscany), exerted considerable influence over the growing city-state. The Etruscans were renowned for their advanced civilization, boasting impressive architectural feats, sophisticated metalwork, and a thriving trade network. Their cultural impact on Rome was substantial, with elements such as religious practices, art styles, and even the Roman alphabet believed to have been influenced by the Etruscans.

However, as Rome grew in power and expansionist ambitions, tensions between the two entities began to rise. The Etruscans had once dominated the Italian peninsula, but their influence waned as Rome steadily gained strength. This shift in power dynamics undoubtedly fostered a sense of insecurity among the Etruscans, as they saw their former dominance slipping away.

Fear, to some extent, may have been present among the Romans as well. The Etruscans were formidable adversaries, known for their well-equipped armies and strategic prowess. Rome faced several military challenges from Etruscan forces throughout its early history, including the famous Battle of the Allia in 390 BCE, where an Etruscan-led coalition defeated the Romans, resulting in the sack of Rome itself.

Despite these conflicts, the Romans also held a certain fascination with Etruscan culture. They admired the Etruscans’ artistic achievements, adopted many of their customs, and sought to incorporate elements of Etruscan civilization into their own society. Roman elites frequently commissioned Etruscan artists and acquired Etruscan artifacts, reflecting the admiration and emulation of Etruscan cultural practices.

As time went on, the Etruscans gradually lost their distinct political identity, assimilating into the emerging Roman Republic. The Romans absorbed much of Etruscan territory, further diminishing the Etruscans’ influence over the region. With the eventual Roman conquest of Etruria in the 3rd century BCE, any fears or tensions between the two groups likely dissipated, as the Etruscans became an integral part of the Roman state.

Sources:

• Beard, M., North

Yes! Goodness, yes! Greeks were the Starbucks or American Military of the Ancient Mediterranean: everywhere, for your inconvenience. The Greeks had numerous cities in Italy and on the Island of Sicily. These were some of the largest and most powerful of the Greek City-States! We hear about them less than Athens and Sparta only because they lacked the Athenian knack for history writing and Imperial self-promotion. Practically speaking, all this close contact meant that Etruria and Rome developed a rich patina of civic culture and religion in the Greek mold. The “bones and muscles” of each society were still very much native, but the “skin” of Hellenism helped integrate them into the larger Mediterranean World that resulted from the conquests of Alexander and his successors.

Propaganda from Maco the Makadonkey who is conveniently hiding his identity!

Macedonians did not adopt Greek, they were Greek, so it is endemic to their culture.

Even the North Macedonian government acknowledges that the Ancient Macedonian empire was Hellenic and that the population in Slavic North Macedonia has no association with the Ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedonia. So the Greek language never disappeared from the geographic region of Ancient Macedonia, but rather, Slavic migration brought non-Greek-speaking people into Paeonia which was to the North of Ancient Macedonia.

What else could one expect from a race of people who fabricated the Slavic North Macedonia identity in the 20th Century, as per a CIA document (CIA-RDP83–00415R004300550001–2), in which it was stated that Tito created a Slavic Macedonian language and ethnicity in the 1950s and all family names were altered accordingly.

Most people identified themselves as being Bulgarians before the change of identity by Tito.

The Slavic North Macedonian language is a transition between Serbian and Bulgarian, but more closely related to the Bulgarian language. Books were printed in this newly fabricated Macedonian language that residents could not understand. It was a language that possessed more ancient Slav words than the Serbian language.

This information is not derived from Greek sources but rather comes from the American CIA which clearly ridicules the notion that Ancient Macedonians utilized a Slavic North Macedonian dialect of the Bulgarian language.

This document laughs in the face of the Slavic North Macedonian propaganda.

Macedonia has been Greek from ancient times right through to the present; whereas Slavic North Macedonia has never had any association with the Ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedonia; neither in culture, language, ethnicity, or geographic region.

I shall leave you with a quote from the author T.J. Winnifrith “Apparently, these radical Slavic factions [i.e: the North Macedonian ultranationalists] decided to live with their myths and lies for the constant amusement of the rest of the world!” (T.J. Winnifrith, "Shattered Eagles, Balkan Fragments", Duckworth)

The Etruscans started speaking Latin. In fact a lot of famous Italian city-states during the Renaissance were in Tuscany. Cities like Pisa, Florence, Lucca, etc. prospered in the post-apocalypse. The Roman Senate itself was last mentioned in 603AD. But by the 630s AD, the Curia Julia where the senate convened was converted into a church. A new power emerged after 754AD. It was the Papacy.

Centuries later Renaissance dynasties too sunk their tentacles into the Papacy. Families like Medici, Sforza became imbedded. However the Borgias were not from Italy. They were from what's now modern-day Spain.

Milan, Bologna, Padua, etc. are in Lombardy. But they too were power players.

Genoa gained its city charter from the Carolingians in 855AD.

Venice gained its city charter from the (Byzantine) Eastern Roman Empire.

Southern Italy and Sicily were totally controlled by the Norman Hauteville dynasty.

Eventually the House of Savoy ruled over modern Italy in 1861.

Archaeologists have found many Etruscan inscriptions.

They used an alphabet derived from the Greek one, more precisely the Euboean alphabet, introduced in the Italian peninsula by the Greek colonies.

Deciphering the Etruscan writing was not difficult for scholars, unfortunately it is not possible to understand the meaning of many of their words because there are no bilingual texts with other languages known with Greek or Latin.

However it emerged that the Etruscan language was not of Indo-European origin and therefore was very different from the other languages of the Italic peoples.

Most of the known Etruscan texts are funerary inscriptions, so we know a limited list of Etruscan words.

Regarding their culture, we know it mainly through Greek and Roman authors, but these sources are not always reliable.

The three main tribes which confederated to form the ancient kingdom (370–231 BC) and then republican league (231–167 BC) of Epirus — Molossoi, Thesprotes, and Chaones, together with several others — were all Greeks. “Illyrian” was the name they themselves gave to their northern neighbours (likely including the Albanians of later history).

These peoples were semi-nomadic pastoralists, seen as barbaric by sedentary cities to the south, which were already transitioning to a relative sophistication and disdained royal and traditional government. Despite this, the region was seen as holy by even the most remote fringes of the Greek world; being the nominal homeland of the Dorians (one of the two main Greek ethnic divisions, the other being the Ionians) and site of the oracle at Dodona, one of the primary sanctuaries of the Greek world.

Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).

Nicholas Hammond, Philip of Macedon (1998)

The Epirote tribes often warred against the various Illyrian peoples to their north; these constant conflicts may have been an impetus for the confederation of an Epirote kingship.

• In the 380s BC, the “Illyrian” king of the Dardanians, Bardyllis — who had subdued many of the surrounding peoples — attacked Epirus, nominally to restore a former Molossian king to the throne, in alliance with the Greek tyrant of Syracuse (a power with interests all over the region, including the Ionian islands off the coast of Epirus). Defeating the Molossians, the Dardanians proceeded to ravage Epirus and threaten the oracle of Dodona. The Spartans, who at the time saw themselves as protectors of the Greek world, marched north and expelled the Dardanians from the Molossian kingdom. Bardyllis would continue to dominate the region until defeated and killed by Phillip of Macedon, a kingdom which the Dardanians had formerly forced into a subsidiary alliance.

The subsequent period — that is, from the mid-4th to the mid-3rd century — saw the rise and consolidation of a strong Molossian kingdom, in the 330s incorporating the neighbouring Thesprotians and Chaonians. The kings of the Molossians claimed descent from the mythical Achilles (much as every royal dynasty claimed descent from one hero or other; the kings of Macedon were descendants of Hercules). The royal line was ended by assassination in 231.

• In the 230s BC Epirus saw the invasion of the “Illyrian” king of the Ardeans, a people who seem to have been based in modern Herzegovina and Montenegro and were allied to the Macedonians. Badly defeated, the Epirotes entered into a subsidiary alliance under the Ardeans, who would themselves be eventually defeated by the Romans in the span of three wars (230–170 BC).

The subsequent government of Epirus lay in the hands of a synedrion or parliament, dominated by Thesprotians rather than Molossians, until its final absorption by Rome in the 160s.

Map of the region with estimated ethnicity of tribes in colour (black, Greeks; red, Illyrians; purple, Phrygians). Ancient Epirus was centred on “Molossia, Thesprotia, Chaonia” on the map. Greeks farther north existed as shown, but are not conventionally regarded as Epirotes.

There would be no major alteration in this ethnic balance, not even in modern times. Although minor movements did see some Albanian peoples move southwards. Epirus remained largely Greek-speaking, albeit with very considerable Albanian influence, often translating to political dominance, as time wore on. This is unlike the Arvanitika region of Attica, Boeotia, and northeast Peloponesus, where rapid depopulation that followed the 4th Crusade saw large Albanian population settle there under invitation from Catholic rulers, becoming the Arvanites of modern Greece. However, unlike Epirus, these Albanians — who quickly transitioned to the sedentary village lifestyle of lowland Greece — saw much less military or political activity, often remaining under Catholic and Turkish rulers.

After the 4th Crusade, Epirus split off under Greek kings (vasilis, emperors) ruling from Arta, who after 1260 accepted the subordinate title of despot (dhespotis, lord) in deference to the restored Paleologue empire in Constantinople. The below map reflects events of the 1400’s, when an Albanian tribal group, the Zenevisi, had seized power in Argyrokastron (Gjirokaster, “silver castle”) whereas another Albanian potentate, Maurice Spata, had conquered the old capital in Arta and proclaimed himself despot, aided by popular dissatisfaction against the emergence of a Florentine Catholic despot, Esau de Buondelmonti, who married the old Greek despot’s widow, an ambitious woman of the Paleologue dynasty.

The battle was not exactly a Greek-Albanian war — with Albanians competing for the support of already established Greek elites, and Esau securing military support from Albanian enemies of the Zenevisi. Ultimately, the question was solved by the inroads of the Frankish Count Carlo Tocco of Cephalonia, who annexed both Arta and Ioannina, and holding off further Zenevisi advance, in 1416. He would rule in the Greek style and language, with increasing concessions to the Orthodox church, until his dynasty’s annexation to the Ottoman empire in the late 15th century.

According to Herodotus, the Etruscans came from Lemnos island. They settled west of the Tiber river. They spoke a language isolate. The Latins settled east of the river. They got everything from the Etruscans: the Roman triple barreled name, arch, roads, gladiatorial games, toga, concrete & even the alphabet. The Etruscans adapted the Greek alphabet. They gave it the modern names ie “a (ah), be, ce (keh), de, e (eh) etc.” For example, since they didn't have the hard g sound (golf) they used gamma for the k sound (kilo).

Romulus founded the city of Rome c.753 BC. Then he got sucked by a tornado. The Senate decided not to elect a Roman as king. They hired Etruscans to rule over them. Until Brutus deposed the last king in 509 BC.

Both. ‘Romioi’ and ‘Hellenes’ are just different names describing the same ethnic group. Modern Greeks are the descendants of both ancient Greeks and medieval Romans (Byzantine Greeks). Both are equally important in Greek history.

After the conquest of the Greek world by the Romans, the Romans kept in their eastern provinces the local administrative structures and did not attempt to Latinize them, instead leaving Greek culture dominant. With the edict of Caracalla in 212 AD, all free men of the Roman Empire were to be given Roman citizenship.

Hence Greeks had Roman citizenship and, with the centralization and bureaucratization that came as a result of Diocletian’s and Constantine’s reforms, identified more and more with the Roman state. With the advent of Christianity the term ‘Hellene’ ceased to mean ethnic Greek and was used as a synonym for ‘Pagan’ (followers of the old polytheistic religions). Since Greeks had Roman citizenship and the word ‘Hellene’ changed its meaning, they began identifying as ‘Romans’.

As the Eastern part of the Roman Empire became a separate entity (first in 284 and finally in 395), it came to be increasingly dominated by Greek culture. The loss of the south-eastern provinces (Syria-Palestine, Egypt) and North Africa to the Arabs in the seventh century meant that the Empire had a plurality of its population that was either Greek or Hellenized. The language of court and culture was Greek and Byzantine authors looked at ancient Greek writers for inspiration.

This identification of Greek populations with the medieval Roman state meant that Greeks used up to the 20th century (and even now, but more rarely) the term ‘Romios’ (Roman) to describe themselves. For a more thorough answer regarding Greek national identity, see my answer: Christos Antoniadis's answer to How did Greek nationalism emerge?

When Rome was founded in 753BC. The hegemon of northern and central Italy were the Etruscan city-states. They were in the iron export business. They panned the beaches of Corsica, Elba and Tuscany for black sand or iron oxide. They smelted the iron right on the beach. They left so many slag piles that Mussolini processed them into steel in WW2.

However c.390BC, the Gauls blitzkrieged through central Europe and the Balkans. They sacked the Etruscan city-states (Tuscany) and Latium. Rome was sacked but the Gauls failed to get the Roman treasury in the Temple of Juno Monetas. In the morning the Gauls proposed that they get a percentage of the treasury and they would bugger off. The Romans agreed. Thus the Romans with their intact treasury became hegemon of central then all of Italy. I don't know how the Greek city-states of southern Italy dealt with the Gauls.

Epirotes were Albanians. Their language is Albanian.

This is their language:

Greek appears to be a different one

I rather doubt that the Etruscans had a lesser population than other Italian peoples. The Romans thought that there were lots of them. Their armies had distinct class divisions into troops armoured like Greek hoplites, troops with long shields, less armoured and light troops. That may reflect the Etruscans having a stratified society, or that lesser armed troops represent subject Italians. That might mean that there were large numbers of troops in an Etruscan army, but were all Etruscan. However the Romans deployed consular armies with equal numbers of allied infantry and a higher proportion of allied cavalry.

The advantage the Etruscans held was that they successfully expanded through planting cities. That form of colonisation will have pushed back the pastoral tribes from the flat and fertile land into the hills. The cities were centres of trade and culture which must have had an effect on local elites. However, the big difference between Rome, a former Etruscan colony, and the Etruscans was the tight degree of control over allies and planted Roman colonies that the Romans exercised. Etruria had a League of cities, but it was not as single minded as the Roman .

Riley Miller, the final assimilation of Etruscans into Roman culture seems to have happened during the lifetime of Augustus (63 BC to AD 14). His close friend and minister C. Clinius Maecenas was born into an Etruscan family and spoke Etruscan at home (Horace says he was descended from Etruscan kings). After AD 14, we hear of no one speaking Etruscan, and the emperor Claudius (born 10 BC) learned it, but he was one of the last to know Etruscan when he died in AD 54, and he was not a native speaker. We do not know precisely when the Etruscans came to Italy. A good guess would be a bit before 825 BC. The Etruscans had an opinion that their civilization would last 7 great centuries. A great century is the span of time from the birth of the oldest guy to the death of the last person who met him/her. So if some guy lived to be 78, the century ended when everyone who ever met him also died. A great century is longer than 100 years. While a lot of people died at age 60, there were always a few who lived into their 90s. We actually hear somewhere how long each of those 7 Etruscan centuries was. Typically ~125 years, but one was especially long and another was short. I would estimate the 8 of them were close to 900 years together. Etruscan culture was completely assimilated after AD 1. I am not sure how long before 1, maybe 20–60 years.

“Were the ancient Macedonians Hellenized? If so, how did the Greek language disappear in Macedonia?”

Nice try, NoMac Maco. :)

The Macedonians were Greeks, not hellenized.

"Nevertheless, ancient writers, from Hesiod in the eighth century to Herodotus and Thucydides in the fifth, and even to Strabo, in the early frst century AD, accepted that the Macedonians were Greeks and so Greek-speaking. When Athenian ambassadors visited the court at Pella or Macedonian envoys visited Athens, neither side needed interpreters, whereas Greeks needed interpreters to understand the Illyrians, for example. Moreover, the written archaeological evidence discovered in Macedonia is all in Greek, Macedonian proper names are Greek, and the correct term for the people -Makedones- is Greek in root and ethnic terminations and may have meant "Highlanders". Even Macedonian religion is more Greek than anything else - the Macedonians particularly revered Zeus, Dionysus, and Heracles.” (Ian Worthington, "By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire", Oxford University Press, 2014. pp.20-22

"Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the north-west, the peoples of Molossis (Epirot province), Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." (Robert Morkot, British historian, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publishing USA, January 1997)

"Macedonian was a strong dialect of very early Greek, which was not intelligible to contemporary Greeks." (“A History of Greece to 323 BC”, Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. 516)

"Nowadays historians generally agree that the ancient Macedonians form part of the Greek ethnos, hence they also shared in the common religions and cultural features of the Hellenic World." (“The Oxford Classical Dictionary” 3rd ed.- Macedonia, Cults, p. 905)

“Modern scholars now almost unanimously recognise them [ancient Macedonians] as Greeks, a branch of the north-western and Dorian Greeks who after long residence in the Pindus region migrated eastward.” (John Van Antwerp Fine Sr, “The Ancient Greeks; a Critical History”, Harvard University Press, p.605)

"They [ancient Macedonians] felt as Greeks, and they had no temptation to destroy what they claimed was their mother country. They had clearly no wish to swallow up Greece in Macedonia, but rather to make Macedonia, as a Greek state, the ruling power of Greece. Such was undoubtedly the aim of Philip and Alexander too." (Theodore Ayrault Dodge, “Alexander”, p.187)

"In favour of the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians is what we know of their language (Doric Greek), their place names, names of the months and many of their personal names especially royal names which are Greek in root and form. This tells us that they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca but spoke it as natives, (though with a local accent, which turned Philip into Bilip, for example). The Macedonians’ own traditions derived their royal house from one Argeas, son of Macedon, son of Zeus, and asserted that a new dynasty, the Temenids, had its origin in the sixth century from emigrants from Argos in Greece, the first of these kings being Perdiccas. This tradition became a most important part of the cultural identity of Macedon. It enabled Alexander I (d.452) to compete at the Olympic Games (which only true Hellenes were allowed to do); and it was embedded in the policy of Archelaus (d.399) who invited Euripides from Athens to his court, where Euripides wrote not only the Bacchae but also a lost play called Archelaus. (Socrates was also invited, but declined.)” (Richard Stoneman, “Alexander the Great”, p.14)

“Macedonia as a whole was tended to remain in isolation from the rest of the Greeks." (Peter Green, British classical scholar: "Alexander the Great", p. 20)

“Macedonia was - and still is - a territory of northern Greece. The Ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin and spoke a broader rougher dialect of Greek." (Stephen Batchelor, “The Ancient Greeks for Dummies”, 2008)

"We know the ancient Macedonians were fundamentally Greeks. That is to say, they were Greek speakers and ethnically they were Greeks." (Yale University, “Introduction to Ancient Greek History, Philip, Demosthenes and the Fall of the Polis”, 2007)

“As members of the Greek race and speakers of the Greek language, the ancient Macedonians shared the ability to create political forms." (N.G.L. Hammond, “The Miracle that was Macedonia”, 1992, page 206)

"Greece and Macedon were akin in blood and culture". (N.G.L. Hammond, “A History of Greece to 332 B.C.”, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1986, page 651)

"All in all, the language of the Macedonians was a distinct and particular form of Greek, resistant to outside influences and conservative in pronunciation. It remained so until the fourth century when it was almost totally submerged by the flood tide of standardized Greek." (Nicholas Hammond, "A History of Macedonia" Vol. ii, 550-336 BC)

"Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine, descent... Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian... The Macedonians, over whom Philip was to rule, were an outlying family member of the Greek-speaking peoples." (Nicholas Hammond, "Philip of Macedon" Duckworth Publishing, February 1998)

"We must remember too that Philip and Alexander were Greeks, descended from Heracles, wished to be recognised as Greeks, as benefactors of the Greeks, even as Heracles had been." (N.G.L. Hammond, “Alexander the Great”, p.257)

"The king (of Macedon) was chief in the first instance of a race of plain-dwellers, who held themselves to be, like him, of Greek stock." (David George Hogarth, “Philip and Alexander of Macedon”, p.8)

"From Alexander I, who rode to the Athenian pickets the night before Plataea and proclaimed himself to the generals their friend and a Greek, down to Amyntas, father of Philip, who joined forces with Lacedaemon in 382, the kings of Macedon bid for Greek support by being more Greek than the Greeks. […] Macedonia was inhabited by sturdy gentry and peasantry all composed of the same racial elements as the Greeks." (David George Hogarth, "Philip and Alexander of Macedon", pp.9-10)

“The Macedonian kings, who maintained that their Greek ancestry traced back to Zeus, had long given homes and patronage to Greece's most distinguished artists.” (Robin Lane Fox, Oxford University, UK, “Alexander the Great", p.48)

"To his ancestors (to a Persian's ancestors), Macedonians were only known as 'Yona takabara', the 'Greeks who wear shields on their heads', an allusion to their broad-brimmed hats." (Robin Lane Fox, Oxford University, UK, "Alexander the Great", p.104)

“As for the hired Greeks in Persian service, thousands of the dead were to be buried, but the prisoners were bound in fetters and sent to hard labour in Macedonia, because they had fought as Greeks against Greeks, on behalf of barbarians, contrary to the common decrees of the Greek allies.” (Robin Lane Fox, "Alexander the Great", p. 123)

“The kings were not the only Macedonians active in the Panhellenic sanctuaries. Contrary to the opinion generally held, this was not a royal privilege explained by their alleged Heracleid ancestry, but, as we have already seen, the continuation of a practice by Macedonian commoners which is epigraphically attested in Delphi from the end of the sixth century.” (Robin J. Lane Fox [ed.], “Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC–300 AD”, 2011, p.58)

“Macedonia is a Greek-speaking kingdom in northern Greece, populated by people using Greek names, Greek months of the year, worshipping Greek gods. Those who live in Skopje [North Macedonia] and say that that is Macedon and Alexander's homeland, are as ignorant and outrageous as if someone was to say Oxford University was really in Belarus and Oxford was Minsk!" (Robin Lane Fox, Oxford University, UK, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 29/08/2011)

"Macedonians participated in Olympics were only freeborn Greek men were allowed to participate." (David Sansone, Ancient Greek civilization, Wiley-Blackwell, 2003, p.32)

“Afterwards he [Alexander] revived his father's League of Corinth, and with it his plan for a pan-Hellenic invasion of Asia to punish the Persians for the suffering of the Greeks, especially the Athenians, in the Greco-Persian Wars and to liberate the Greek cities of Asia Minor.” (Victor Davis Hanson, “Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome”, Princeton University Press, 2012, p.119)

“That the Macedonians and their kings did in fact speak a dialect of Greek and bore Greek names may be regarded nowadays as certain.” (Malcolm Errington, “A History of Macedonia", University of California Press, February 1993)

"This was Macedonia in the strict sense, the land where settled immigrants of Greek stock later to be called Macedonians.” (W. J. Woodhouse, Australian historian, "The tutorial history of Greece, to 323 B.C.: from the earliest times to the death of Demosthenes", p.216, University Tutorial Press)

"The latest archaeological evidence now confirms that Macedonia was named after a Greek speaking tribe or people called the "Makednoi" meaning 'Highlanders' from the Greek 'macos' for 'tall' or 'high'. Their local dialect of North-Western Greek was later replaced by Attic Greek and spread throughout Asia by Alexander". (N. G. Wilson, “Encyclopaedia of Ancient Greece”, 2009)

"When we take into account the political conditions, religion and morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a Greek race and akin to the Dorians. Having stayed behind in the extreme north, they were unable to participate in the progressive civilization of the tribes which went further south." (Ulrich Wilcken, "Alexander the Great", p. 22)

"The so-called Republic of 'Macedonia' is located in what was ancient Paeonia and the ancient Paeonians were non-Greeks whom the Greeks (Macedonians) conquered and incorporated into their European empire." (Paul Cartledge, University of Cambridge UK)

“It should be noted that there is no connection between the Macedonians of the time of Alexander the Great who were related to other Hellenic [Greek] tribes and the [North]Macedonians of today, who are of Slavic origin and related to the Bulgarians.” (David H. Levinson, Cultural Anthropologist, "Encyclopedia of World Cultures", p.239)

"Not much need to be said about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia: it is undeniable." (Ian Worthington, "Philip II of Macedon", Yale University, 2008)

The Greek language did not disappear in Macedonia (that is Macedonia proper, Greece), Greek is the language of Macedonia since antiquity. But the most widely spoken language in the northern parts of the modern geographical region of Macedonia (North Macedonia, which is an unrelated modern Slavic country, Susan Silberberg), was the Bulgarian language.

Above: map of the modern Slavic country of North Macedonia, which is located immediately north of Macedonia (Greece).

The Romans started out as vassals of the Etruscan state which was centered a little further north in Italy in a region called Etruria. At this time power tended to be centered in “city-states” rather than whole countries. Examples are Athens, Sparta, Babylon, etc.

Culturally the Etruscans were the predecessors of the Romans. They were powerful enough that they forbade the Romans to build a wall around their city (making it less defensible and less likely to rebel against their Etruscan overlords.)

Then the Etruscans installed their own kings of Rome. The last royal family, the Tarquins, were corrupt enough that the Romans finally threw them out (in 506 BCE according to tradition) and founded the Roman Republic. This lasted until 30 BCE when the Republic tore itself apart and became an “Empire”.

Drake(the questioner), “Etruscan” is an ancient Greek word mentioned first in ancient Greek texts described either by Greek Geographers or Greek Philosophers.

That the name is Greek means that the Greeks knew well about this race and its origins as the Greeks are the first one to describe their origins.

So, through reading many ancient Greek texts we get to learn that the Etruscans are people that lived on the Greek island(Greek then and today) of Lemnos.