What If There Had Never Been a Roman Empire?

[oudysseos]

I'd like to throw this out there as it's something that I often think about, and I would love to hear what the serious people on the EB forum have to say. It's two questions really:

1. Given for the sake of argument that there had never been a Roman Empire, what do you think the most likely (realistic) reason would have been, e.g. Brennus, Hannibal, Pyrrhus, etc? Your EB campaign may give you some ideas here.

2. What would our world be like if there never had been a Roman Empire?


Of course it's all total speculation, but there are some things that we could say with confidence. Spanish, French, Italian of course would never have developed. But what about English? Or Christianity? Or representative democracy? What would today's political boundaries be? And going back in history, would Attila have stopped where he did? The Turks? Would technological progress have been faster or slower? And on and on.

Just thought it might be more interesting than the usual spam. And no, it's not an "I hate the Romani" thread, so don't go there.

[Maximus Aurelius]

All I have to say is that the entire history of mankind is based on the question "what if". Just what would have happened if Alexander died much later and really conquered the whole world (including the romans)?

[Strategos Alexandros]

All I have to say is that the entire history of mankind is based on the question "what if". Just what would have happened if Alexander died much later and really conquered the whole world (including the romans)?

Then the Vandals, Goths etc. would have conquered that and life would be pretty much the same except that our languages would be based on Greek.

[Red_Russian13]

I've always been keen on "alternate" history questions like this. This one is as hard to answer as any of them though, because the cogs of history are huge and complex. Break off even a small tooth, and you have a completely different machine. It's hard to say. One could interpret you question as asking if Caesar and others hadn't set in motion a chain that brought low the Republic. What if the Republic carried on? I assume, however, that you mean what if no Rome came into being, right? I don't like to think of it. That's how much I love Rome...

I'd definitely be interested in what the expertise here thinks though. I'm barely qualified to be an amateur amateur historian.

[Dhampir]

As a rule, I do not indulge in such HUGE acts of "What If?". But there are some minor points I'd like to address.

"But what about English?"

English would still exist, but it would have evolved differently without the introduction of French into the language around the time of the Norman Conquest. We could still be speaking Saxon English. Hwæt!

"Or Christianity?"

Christianity was not dependent on Roman control of the Holy Land. It could have arisen under the occupation of any foreign power.

"Or representative democracy?"

Liberal democracy is mostly an invention of the Enlightenment which primarily drew from Greek authors (or in some cases, prior secondary works which drew from Greek) as opposed to Roman. About the only contribution of Roman government to modern democracy is lingual.

[cmacq]

Nearly all would be as it is today, plus or minus a few ruined buildings here and there. Gallic would have become the Latin of its day or some other Italic tribe would have become Roman like. History has many treads that run in a similar direction; if several are removed one will still have a similar outcome as other treads rise to take the place of those removed. Now if one reorders the entire universe; thats literally another story all together.

[Seleukus]

I'd like to throw this out there as it's something that I often think about, and I would love to hear what the serious people on the EB forum have to say. It's two questions really:

1. Given for the sake of argument that there had never been a Roman Empire, what do you think the most likely (realistic) reason would have been, e.g. Brennus, Hannibal, Pyrrhus, etc? Your EB campaign may give you some ideas here.

2. What would our world be like if there never had been a Roman Empire?


Of course it's all total speculation, but there are some things that we could say with confidence. Spanish, French, Italian of course would never have developed. But what about English? Or Christianity? Or representative democracy? What would today's political boundaries be? And going back in history, would Attila have stopped where he did? The Turks? Would technological progress have been faster or slower? And on and on.

Just thought it might be more interesting than the usual spam. And no, it's not an "I hate the Romani" thread, so don't go there.
My answer to #1:

One of the most overlooked important events in history is the murder of Seleukus Nikator by Ptolemy Keraunos on the shores of Thrace in 280 BC. Had this not occurred, Seleukus would have taken over Makedonia and Thrace (having just defeated and killed Lysimachus in the Battle of Corumpendium.) This would most likely have given the Seleukids the strength necessary to subdue Ptolemaic Egypt and unite Alexander's empire once more.

If think such an alternate Arche Seleukia would have easily been able to stop the rising power of Rome.

[Elmetiacos]

It all depends when you imagine the Romans to have lost out - Tarquin and the Etruscans easily crush the rebel upstarts? Brennus' Gauls burn the city to the ground? Pyrrhus wins? Hannibal wins? The Gauls kill Caesar and Vercingetorix launches a counter attack? They would all lead to different outcomes.

[Dhampir]

"what do you think the most likely (realistic) reason would have been"

The Etruscans not having allowed the latin tribes to become powerful.

[Watchman]

If think such an alternate Arche Seleukia would have easily been able to stop the rising power of Rome.Lotta major what-ifs in its emergence process already, but anyway, Italy - and the western Mediterranean basin in general - was very very far away from the Seleucids' Persian heartlands...

[blitzkrieg80]

~:confused: - Rome had NOTHING to do with English as a language or culture... thus why the Irish had to convert Anglo-Saxons, and even much of Europe. all it would have done is increase the time between oral cultural and literate culture. I know this is at odds with Britain's wannabe-Rome status, but that's as accurate as Berlin having anything to do with Rome, a thing of modernity and European civ... although Runes as we know them would not be around - NOO! my tats are gone! [strokes place on arm where they'd been] ~;) but Runes would then have developed from a different Alphabet, prob. Greek, just as Slavic language was based on Cyrillic.

in fact, without Rome destroying everybody's culture, much of Europe would still be Celtic, and the Germanic tribes probably would have developed a centralized government at some point, during the Dark Ages at the very least- rather than being purposely battered and scattered into all the various kingdoms and not becoming Deutschland until the 1800s.

'what-if's' are great, though - don't let them get you down... in fact, my novel is a historical fiction 'what-if' (although technically that makes it sci-fi) concerning the 2nd Punic War and stopping Rome's navy and expansion short of the Alps - which alows some depth into how the Celtic, Germanic and steppe tribes might have been. Persian Christians would be killing Germans for not converting to Christianity- now that I think is ironic.

[Spartan198]

Nearly all would be as it is today, plus or minus a few ruined buildings here and there. Gallic would have become the Latin of its day or some other Italic tribe would have become Roman like. History has many treads that run in a similar direction; if several are removed one will still have a similar outcome as other treads rise to take the place of those removed. Now if one reorders the entire universe; thats literally another story all together.
I'd have to agree with you. If Rome (or Macedonia,on the subject of what ifs) hadn't become the dominant power in Italy,Etruscan hegemony would most likely have remained intact and we would probably be talking about an Etruscan empire much like we are the Roman Empire.
Same could be said about Carthage,had it instead been Rome sacked and destroyed at the end of the Third Punic War.

Maybe it's just a kind of hopeful thinking,but I always ask myself,'What if Sparta had remained the dominant Greek military power up to the Roman invasion?'

[Watchman]

Well for one thing the Romans' great Eastern rival would have been Achaemenid Persia, since the southern Greeks were patently incapable of doing much about that one by themselves.

For another, given the Spartans' chronic conservatism even in most military matters, it'd have been a cakewalk for the Romans. The hoplite shieldwall seems like a really bad idea against an enemy with a fetish for heavy "shield-destroyer" javelins...

...which alows some depth into how the Celtic, Germanic and steppe tribes and how they might have been.I can vouch for the steppe guys not having been one jack different, though. Not only were they rather little affected by the goings-on among the distant settled empires in general, already due to the blunt fact few in their right minds tried any territorial expansion into the seas of grass, the fundamentals of their ecology and lifestyle starkly restricted their "developement potential" - when you look at it, around the only thing that changed between the Sarmatians and Mongols was level of political organisation, and that was largely because the Mongols shemelessly copy-pasted Chinese sedentary management practices.

[Dhampir]

Rome had NOTHING to do with English as a language or culture.

Modern English is, essentially, an evolved combination of Saxon English (brought over by the Saxon/Angle/Jute invasions with some mixing with local languages, but not a whole lot) and Old French (brought over with the Norman Conquest).

The population of Northern France speaking a corrupted form of Latin--and it subsequently being picked up by the Normans--is a direct result of Rome conquering northern France.

[blitzkrieg80]

The Huns would have had a different enemy instead of a bunch of constantly hedged and harassed Germanic tribes fleeing before them. The Goths would prob. still have joined their ranks as some Germanic tribes would have, being lost in the vagueness of 'Scythian' in Greek accounts. Attila could never make for France without a terribly weak and uncentralized Deutschland.

I dont talk about Modern English or Middle English because that would be meaningless. All Modern languages borrow from way too many cultures- with maybe the exception of Icelandic.. Old English did have influences simply by circumstance from Latin since Christian monks were educated and promoted that as their elite and holy script, but the OE language stood fine on its own 2 legs.

no word 'beer' without Latin (biber), although 'ale' would be available :grin: what people called 'beer' was much different than today anyways- medieval records show it to be more expensive and a distincly different drink from ale, thought to be made from fruits/berries of some sort, possibly akin to strong cider, or 'Welsh ale'

[blitzkrieg80]

here's a question: what would be going on with the ACTUAL city Byzantion without Rome? its prehistory and pre-Roman history is quite vague, so I wonder sometimes, it's still an excellent location

[Dhampir]

here's a question: what would be going on with the ACTUAL city Byzantion without Rome? its prehistory and pre-Roman history is quite vague, so I wonder sometimes, it's still an excellent location

The Russians would have a warm-water port with easy ocean access and Britain would have had a naval arms race with them instead of Germany?

[Watchman]

That one could as well have been named "the geese that lays the golden egg" as far as location is concerned, so you can comfortably bet whatever else happened there'd be a major city or few in that region. Cities virtually exist for trade, and that strait/landbridge is a jugular artery.

[Moosemanmoo]

We would all be here wondering: what if there had never been the empire of megas moose?

[Jolt]

What if the "Yutseb Elephants had been used by Hannibal instead of normal regular African Bush Elephants?"

[Lynchius]

I have two books entitled What If and More What If which are a series of essays written by historians on military and political history from ancient greek times to the Cold War. One of these details was "Conquest Denied" by Josiah Ober. The scenario if Alexander died at the Grancius (which nearly happened). It argued that Achaemenid persia would retain Central Asia and Mesopotmaia with Asia Minor. Meanwhile Athens would remerge in the Western Mediterranean and figth Carthage. Both would be exhausted and leave Rome able to gain the Mediterranean as its own.

Theres a lot of interesting topics in it and you can find out more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If%3F_%28essays%29 :2thumbsup:

"Kill them all. God knows his own."
- Albigensian leader during their 13th century crusade against 'heretics'

[Elmetiacos]

The Etruscans not having allowed the latin tribes to become powerful.
In that case there wouldn't have been anything to stop Pyrrhos conquering Italy. The Greek cities in Southern Italy and Sicily would have been a flashpoint for rivalry between the Greek Leagues, Carthage, Epiros and Macedonia and it would depend who, if anyone, won out - until Mithridates of Pontus made his move...

Elsewhere, Carthage would have consolidated their hold on the Western Mediterranean. Probably Ptolemaic Egypt would have fought it out with Parthia over who got the last scraps of the Seleucid territory, but we would have seen pretty much the same split between the East and West, a Greek East versus a Phoenician, rather than Latin, West. Perhaps Gaul under Vercingetorix or some other leader and Dacia would have created powerful states on the edges. The effect of Hunnic and Germanic invasions would probably have been a lot less on empires centred on Carthage and Egypt than on ones centred in Rome and Byzantium, but Dacia and Macedon would probably have gone under. I doubt the religious situation would have been anything like today with no single empire. Even if the Graeco-Egyptian Empire had converted to Christianity that would be no reason for the Carthaginian one to do so. Unless Egypt and Persia behaved in the same way as the East Romans and Sassanids, Islam, if it arose, would not have been able to expand as easily, leaving us with a Buddhist central Asia and a Zoroastrian Iran and Caucasus, and a Zoroastrian Russia...

[lobf]

"Or Christianity?"

Christianity was not dependent on Roman control of the Holy Land. It could have arisen under the occupation of any foreign power.

But the Catholic Church would not have existed. That would have had a huge impact on the development on Europe. And the person Jesus probably would not have existed, or at least would have existed under different political circumstances, which would probably make him a historical nobody.

Then again I'm not too familiar with Jewish political history.

And could the idea of personal salvation though acts have arisen without Jesus? Maybe, maybe not.

[Strategos Alexandros]

That would depend on whether or not you believe Jesus was responsible for the idea, but I would have thought that someone would come up with it eventually.

[SaberHRE]

What if there had never been a Roman Empire, as the Roman Republic would continue.

In this scenario, Caesar nevers crosses the Rubicon. Around 50 AD the Romans reintroduce the initial Marian ideas. So the States pays for the recruits arms and armour, but the recruit does not get pay for until he pays off the equipment.

With such revival of military service, Romans would return to being a highly militarized nation and resist all later invasions.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

And the person Jesus probably would not have existed, or at least would have existed under different political circumstances, which would probably make him a historical nobody.


I disagree.

Judea was a small land at a crossroads between great empires. It was always occupied by some foreign power or another. First the Hyksos, then the Egyptians, then the Assyrians, then the Persians, then the Macedonians, then the Selucids, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Turks, the list of conquerors of Judea is endless!

Judea spent very little of its history being a free and independent power. Very little indeed. And foreign occupation leads to oppression, which leads to misery, which leads to religion to help the people cope with misery, which leads to the myth of the Messiah, which leads to Jesus, which leads to Christianity in some form or other. It's practically inevitable.

[fjkwgv43]

If there had never been a Roman Empire, or if there had never been a Rome at all? They're different questions.

If there had never been a Rome at all, we'd all be speaking Modern Carthaganian Semitic by now. If there had just never been a Roman Empire, in the sense that Octavian never consolidated power, well then I'd say the most likely reason would be that Hannibal got his siege engines and sacked Rome, 115 years before Gaius Julius was born.

If Caesar had died in Gaul, like say when fighting Vercingetorix, there probably still would have been an empire. Civil war was inevitable at that point, but the outcome of it wasn't. That would have come down to a political battle between Pompey and Cato. Cato was a True Believer in the Republican Senate, while Pompey wanted at least a dictatorship.

There also never would have been a Rome had Alexander gone west instead of east. But Macedonian interests did not lie in that direction.

[Dhampir]

But the Catholic Church would not have existed. That would have had a huge impact on the development on Europe. And the person Jesus probably would not have existed, or at least would have existed under different political circumstances, which would probably make him a historical nobody.

Then again I'm not too familiar with Jewish political history.

And could the idea of personal salvation though acts have arisen without Jesus? Maybe, maybe not.

Any religious thinker could have become a Jesus figure and be killed and be the focal point for a new religion. Jesus of Nazareth didn't start Christianity--his followers did.

Not to knock Christianity--I have great respect for the power of religion and I view it as a necessary component of a healthy society--but it really had little which was new about it. Its original components are clearly derived from existing religions and made to fit the mold.

The Roman Catholic Church would not exist, no. But that isn't to say that Alexandria or Baghdad or Jerusalem itself couldn't have been Augustine of Hippo's City of God.

I am fairly certain that Christianity would have spread as it historically did in any atmosphere of oppression--it is a faith well suited to popular acts martyrdom. As long as the people in charge of the region--be they Hellenistic or Persian or whatever--tried to stop the religion, it would have spread and become powerful.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

What if there had never been a Roman Empire, as the Roman Republic would continue.

In this scenario, Caesar nevers crosses the Rubicon. Around 50 AD the Romans reintroduce the initial Marian ideas. So the States pays for the recruits arms and armour, but the recruit does not get pay for until he pays off the equipment.

With such revival of military service, Romans would return to being a highly militarized nation and resist all later invasions.

Don't think so.

The Republic was based on the fighing power of its peasant militia. The Republic's legionaries were small farmers, fiercely devoted to their land and their state - the Senate and People of Rome.

But the great Roman victory in the Second Punic War led to the noble patrician class gaining too much wealth and too many slaves. They bought up all the little farms in Italy and turned them into vast slave-run enterprises. The small farmers became paupers and turned into the mobs of Rome.

When the young men of the mob joined the legions, they fought not to preserve their land, their families and their country - they fought for booty. And the booty was distrubuted by the generals, not the state. Effectively the patriotic legionaries of the Republic became no better than mercenaries fighting for pay and booty - their loyalty was to their general for getting them booty.

That's why Ceasar was able to make himself dictator of Rome - because his soldiers were loyal to him and not to the Roman state.

So by Ceasar's time, the Republic was already doomed, because the soldiers weren't loyal to it anymore. If it hadn't been Ceasar who made himself dictator, it would have been Pompey or Brutus or Mark Antony or someone else. It was inevitable.

For the Republic to survive, the patrician class must be stopped from becoming too rich and powerful, and the spoils of victory must be shared more among the veterans and the people instead of the nobles keeping it all for themselves. And Rome mustn't take too many slaves, otherwise it becomes a slave economy instead of a citizen economy.

[SaberHRE]

But again the goal is not to revive patriotism among the Quirites, but military vigour.

Soldiers who fight for whatever reasons, are still soldiers. So whilst facing invasions on many fronts a Huge number of men can be mustered. Further the problem which the 2nd Century B.C commanders faced could be nullified by incorporating limited numbers of the subjagated peoples and by auxilia. So there is no sense of sending large numbers of Italians into the Syrian front, but use Syrian natives and Roman colonists.

[fjkwgv43]

The Republic was based on the fighing power of its peasant militia. The Republic's legionaries were small farmers, fiercely devoted to their land and their state - the Senate and People of Rome.

The Republic's legionaries were professional soldiers, in the post-Marian era. Most of them did not own any land, as the requirement was dropped by Marius. Also, most "peasants" had no use for the Senate, since it did not represent their interests. The plebs had their own assemblies that were capable of passing laws without the Senate's involvement. The Senate only represented the interests of the optimates, who were exclusively patrician.

[Watchman]

I have two books entitled What If and More What If which are a series of essays written by historians on military and political history from ancient greek times to the Cold War.I have the first one. It sucks, hard. In the usual vein of such shallow counterfactual history, the scenarios presented follow extremely narrow and deterministic - and in many cases flat out faulty - narratives after the "divergence point"; typically you get the impression the authors came up with their conclusions first and then hammered the rest of the projections to fit into those.

In other words, bleh. The 'insights' therein are around the level of "had the Persians won democracy wouldn't exist" and "Europe (if not Western Civilisation As We Know It(tm)) was saved from the Mongols by the timely death of Khan XYZ"...

"Kill them all. God knows his own."
- Albigensian leader during their 13th century crusade against 'heretics'For the record, the Albiguensians/Cathars were the heretics there; that line is attributed to one of the leaders of the right-thinking Christians stamping them out, probably a Church potentate asked by a somewhat frustrated officer how they were supposed to pick the heretics from the faithful in a city they'd just overrun IIRC...

[Elmetiacos]

In other words, bleh. The 'insights' therein are around the level of "had the Persians won democracy wouldn't exist" and "Europe (if not Western Civilisation As We Know It(tm)) was saved from the Mongols by the timely death of Khan XYZ"...
Heh - I saw a TV documentary series which did this. They decided that if Boudicca had won the battle of Watling Street, we'd all be Muslims...

[Cyclops]

I think the most likely thing to stop the empire was the Romans themselves, failing to develop the absorbent political system that supported their military machine. Say the Patricians win the conflict of the orders by preventing the development of the tribunate,or even a return to monarchy before the Empire was so firmly entrenched in Italy.

Without the Empire there is a bid setback in the urbanisation of the Western Mediteranean basin. What urban centres did develop would be strongly influenced by Carthage, either as a ruler or trade and cultural transmitter.

I believe Hellenic culture acted as a carrier for Jewish ideas that became Christianity: unless the Greek-dominated eastern Med and Carthage dominated Western med were united for a lengthy period then I can't see Christianity becoming as dominant a world religion.

Certainly Greek cyulture would remain an important theme.

Maybe Ireland could have been converted to Baal worship by an escaped Spanish slave? We could all get pissed on Tanit's day?

[Spartan198]

Heh - I saw a TV documentary series which did this. They decided that if Boudicca had won the battle of Watling Street, we'd all be Muslims...
The same Boudicca that was queen of the Iceni? :inquisitive:
It'd be laughable to hear how they came up with that one...

[Hax]

Probably they think that if she'd won, she'd have rallied more British tribes, pushing the Romans back into Belgica, marching through Gallica, up to Roma, which leaves the Sassanids open to conquer the Eastern Roman Empire.

Eventually, because she can't control the tribes, her empire falls apart, leaving the Sassanids to capitalize on the situation and take her lands. Then, somewhat later, a religion very alike to Islam develops, spreading it's way through the Sassanid empire much like Christianity spread through the Roman Empire.

And here we are.

ALLAH AKBAR!

========

In anycase, this theory is based on too many if's

If Bouddicca would have pushed on to Belgica
If she later pushed on to Roma
If the Romans had been defeated on both fronts
If the Sassanids would have pushed on through Hellas
If Bouddicca's kingdom/empire had fallen apart
If the Sassanids would have capitalized on that.

Etc, etc, etc.

[Watchman]

...and those fall apart at the very first "If", since the Romans weren't exactly noted for their willingness to let people - nevermind stinky rebels - get away with beating up their armies.

Their standard, and proven, solution was to toss more of those armies at the problem until it buckled...

[Elmetiacos]

It actually went:
If Britain goes, so does Gaul.
Therefore, there's no Carolingian Empire to stop the Muslims advancing over the Pyrenees.
That's an awful lot of implicit assumptions.

[Tiberius Nero]

There is a saying in Greece, that if one's grandmother had wheels, she'd be an electric bus...

That summarizes my thoughts about all this endless "what if" speculation.

[Watchman]

It actually went:
If Britain goes, so does Gaul.
Therefore, there's no Carolingian Empire to stop the Muslims advancing over the Pyrenees.
That's an awful lot of implicit assumptions.Gah. :skull:

[Justinian II]

Heh - I saw a TV documentary series which did this. They decided that if Boudicca had won the battle of Watling Street, we'd all be Muslims...


Wait, what? How the heck would that be possible.....? that's one hell of a long straw of a connection.

[lobf]

I am fairly certain that Christianity would have spread as it historically did in any atmosphere of oppression--it is a faith well suited to popular acts martyrdom. As long as the people in charge of the region--be they Hellenistic or Persian or whatever--tried to stop the religion, it would have spread and become powerful.

Indeed. I conceded that it could have developed without Jesus ("would" would have been more appropriate.) However, if it had not developed in the Roman empire it's spread would likely have been very different. It may not have spread in Europe without the Roman foundation in Gaul and Iberia. It could have spread to Persia.

Of course these are huge and pretty much pointless speculations. I just think a lack of a Roman empire would have had a fairly significant effect on the development at least of world cultures if not eventual progress.

[Frodge]

Well obviously if the Roman Empire had never existed, we'd all have three legs and base organised religion around Tupac and Biggie. :laugh4:

[lobf]

That's exactly what I'm trying to say.

[hellenes]

Can anyone blame me for detecting a huge dose of stupidity, retardness and complete inability of reason in the phrase:
"We would all be speaking *Incert a language*"....
I mean if anyone speaks core Latin today or even a resemblance is the catholic church...everyone else is speaking German (French/German, English Italian) with Latic and Greek clothes on top....or Celtic (Irish/Portuguese) with latic and greek clothes again....
So no people you dont speak latin....

[alatar]

But all of the languages are descended from Latin ( with of course many other languages thrown in), that is unquestionable.

[hellenes]

But all of the languages are descended from Latin ( with of course many other languages thrown in), that is unquestionable.

SO youre saying that arabian/chinese and Greek are decended from latin?
Even if you mean that the western European languages are decended from latin ...you couldnt be more wrong the core of French/Italian/English is GERMAN...with the latin sauce on top...

[Obelics]

if you mean that the western European languages are decended from latin ...you couldnt be more wrong the core of French/Italian/English is GERMAN...with the latin sauce on top...

i dont like to come in this kind of debate, they feel much youtubish for me, anyway what you have sayd is wrong you know...

speaking with your word, English is German root with latin and greek clothes (much heawy clothes for latin), but french, spanish portughese, romanian, italian etc. are Latin roots with more or less german clothes... in some case few.

Again Latin we think of, is just a cristallization of a language in a date temporal frame, or even almost an artificial thing, so in this optic, some modern language can be seen just as "modern Latin"

Same as chinese wenyen is the classic chinese, it is almost not anymore understandable by modern chineses, but this dont means modern chinese is not related with wenyen. Is just that we call wenyen a form of chinese codificated in the time, while modern chinese is the same "organism" who has seen time passing.

[alatar]

I meant the western European.

And language is not cores with layers on tip, they are all very complicated, and all have roots in Latin, they are not the only root's of the language, or the biggest roots. But simple statement saying every western European language is only slightly Latin is clearly wrong.

You can see the differences in languages by just examining them, English of course is very heavy on the German side, French is less so, and Italian is very heavily based on Latin.

[Tiberius Nero]

SO youre saying that arabian/chinese and Greek are decended from latin?
Even if you mean that the western European languages are decended from latin ...you couldnt be more wrong the core of French/Italian/English is GERMAN...with the latin sauce on top...

Sorry but this is incorrect; the core of English and German is Germanic, but French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese et a. are practically Latin dialects, regional variations of vulgar Latin.

[Metalstrm]

As a guy who hails from Malta, I can definitely say something about the effects of various occupations by different countries (Malta is that little island to the south of Sicily that is not even a pronvince by itself in EB:|). Well, Malta passed under the rule of tons of kingdoms/empires, and the effect of the different cultures is, to say the least, huge on the present day culture.

First came the Phoenicians and the Greeks. The Greeks gave the name to our country (Malta is a bastardization of Melita which means honey). We are still known for the honey we produce. Then we passed under the rule of the Carthaginians and subsequently the Romans. The Romans had quite a good effect on our culture. Some places are called after the olive oil that used to be produced during those times. St. Paul (a Roman citizen supposedly) was shipwrecked here during those times and brought Christianity to the island.

Then in 870AD came the Arabs, who gave us the roots of our language (Maltese is a Semitic language highly influenced by Romantic languages such as Italian, Sicilian, and English and written in a modified Latin alphabet...) and brought several other things, such as irrigation systems (some still in use), and citrus plants (if I'm not mistaken).

Around 1100 Malta passed under Sicilian rule, and till 1530 changed hands very rapidly, including the Aragonese, Castille, and eventually Spain (see the effects on language above). Then in 1530 it was given to the Knights of St. John, who gave us pretty much the majority of our present day culture. Christianity and architecture were all heavily influenced by the Knights. (Still, the architecture of households has a slight Arabic influence that is especially evident in older farmhouses). The Knights kept the Ottoman Turks in check in 1565 after they besieged us and we won, and they also helped the defeat of their navy a few years later. This was part of the reason why the Ottomans did not make any other advances in Europe.

In 1798 came the French, for just a couple of years (we hated them and wanted them out so we besieged them in the capital city, lol. No offence to French people ;)). Then the British took Malta in 1800, till our independence in 1964. The British obviously had a huge effect, especially on the language (English is an official language here and pretty much everyone knows how to speak English), methods of education, even driving (we drive on the left hand side like the Brits). During WWII Malta was central for the British empire, and operations based here prevented Rommel from dominating the African theater, so I'm glad to say that this tiny island also had effects on larger lands.

Enough of that. Essentially, everything had an effect on the present day. Taking a single event out of the equation would probably change the present day completely. It's like the so called 'butterfly effect'...

[lobf]

I meant the western European.

And language is not cores with layers on tip, they are all very complicated, and all have roots in Latin, they are not the only root's of the language, or the biggest roots. But simple statement saying every western European language is only slightly Latin is clearly wrong.

You can see the differences in languages by just examining them, English of course is very heavy on the German side, French is less so, and Italian is very heavily based on Latin.

Except they don't all have roots in Latin. English may draw heavily on Latin words for it's vocabulary, but in grammar, syntax, sentence structure, it's totally different.

[alatar]

When I say roots, I do not mean sole root, descended only or purely from Latin.
I said that Latin effected and changed all the languages, which it did. English is clearly different from the Romantic languages, but neither is it a direct descendant of and Germanic language.


So basically what I am saying is that all languages are a mixture of others, and although some draw more heavily on other, simply calling English/French/Spainish Germanic in Latin clothing is clearly wrong.

[Dhampir]

For too long I have heard people claim that English comes from Latin. It doesn't! It's a West Germanic language!

I suppose I learned Saxon English for no reason. I should have taken Latin to read medieval English literature. ~:pissed:

Hwæt!

[alatar]

It is more Germanic that Latin, yes.
But that does not mean it would not have been greatly altered had latin not been spread by Rome.

[Dhampir]

It is more Germanic that Latin, yes.
But that does not mean it would not have been greatly altered had latin not been spread by Rome.

Not very much. It is debatable to what degree English was actually affected by the introduction of Old French (a corruption of Latin and Frankish) around the time of the Norman Invasion.

English was already heading toward what we would refer to as Middle English and it probably would have headed there anyway, just without the introduction of Old French words.

After this part, I quit studying medieval literature and started studying science fiction.

[Obelics]

It is more Germanic that Latin, yes.
But that does not mean it would not have been greatly altered had latin not been spread by Rome.

im not expert on english story/philology (i know very few of that), but i think there are an huge trasformations and introduction of Latin words due to the Normans too.

for examples: dangerous, uncle

dangerous it seems taken completely from normans for me (but im not english expert)

uncle too for me. in fact the world uncle is the same of the actual french oncle.
Now they both derive from latin Avunculus (little parent).
but i thing it was introduced by normans(french).

Just for fun take this strange example:
English and French use the same exact latin word Uncle and Oncle from latin Avunculus
Italian instead use a Neo-Greek word Zio from Thios, i think (but again im not sure) it was borrowed during the esarcate.

[alatar]

Not very much. It is debatable to what degree English was actually affected by the introduction of Old French (a corruption of Latin and Frankish) around the time of the Norman Invasion.

English was already heading toward what we would refer to as Middle English and it probably would have headed there anyway, just without the introduction of Old French words.

After this part, I quit studying medieval literature and started studying science fiction.

The vocabulary of english would have been altered at least had the romans never came.

So many words are based on latin.

Now I agree it is a western germanic language, but do not be ridiculous and suggest that english would not have been altered drastically (in terms of vocabulary if not structure) is the roman empire had not spread.

If it hadn't spread, but the Saxons had still invaded, we would be speaking a much more germanic language.

[Watchman]

Then again, English got a buttload of loans from the Scandinavian branch of Germanic languages, in particular whatever the fig exactly the Danes were speaking at the time, too...

[Dhampir]

The vocabulary of english would have been altered at least had the romans never came.

So many words are based on latin.

Now I agree it is a western germanic language, but do not be ridiculous and suggest that english would not have been altered drastically (in terms of vocabulary if not structure) is the roman empire had not spread.

If it hadn't spread, but the Saxons had still invaded, we would be speaking a much more germanic language.

English being a West Germanic language is not something to be agreed upon or not. It is what it is.

Everything about the language of English is Germanic. You need to separate the language--grammar, structure, etc..--from the words used (you can know every word out there but if you can't build a sentence, you don't know the language).

We borrow many words from all over the world. All languages do.

The primary contribution to English of Latin is through words from Old French; but not any real aspect of language.

Words having evolved from Latin does not equate any real Latin influence on the language.

I don't mean to insult, but I get a laugh out of "a much more Germanic language". There are no degrees of being a Germanic language-you either are or your aren't. English is 100% a Germanic language, as are German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, Afrikaans, Icelandic and others.

[lobf]

Hey Dhampir, check post #42. I had company and couldn't use the internet for a few days.

Just in case you missed it.

[Dhampir]

Hey Dhampir, check post #42. I had company and couldn't use the internet for a few days.

Just in case you missed it.

I did miss it.~:0

Given a possible spread into Persia, as opposed to Europe, I wonder if Christianity would have survived Islam.

[Watchman]

*shrug* Why not ? Zoroastrianism did, anyway. As did assorted local brands of Christianity.

[blitzkrieg80]

When I say roots, I do not mean sole root, descended only or purely from Latin.
I said that Latin effected and changed all the languages, which it did. English is clearly different from the Romantic languages, but neither is it a direct descendant of and Germanic language.

So basically what I am saying is that all languages are a mixture of others, and although some draw more heavily on other, simply calling English/French/Spainish Germanic in Latin clothing is clearly wrong.
Yes, English IS directly descendant of Old English, a German language which looks more foreign than it sounds. And believe me, Old English has .001% Latin in it, other than the script/alphabet and cultural influence of literacy. Norman military conquest and temporary culture did more than anything to add Latin and the original Germanic words were still retained: I say Swine! take your Pork elsewhere ~;)

For instance, fast in "Hold Fast" is not Latin, and exists in modern German as fest without much change of meaning whatsoever, just like Go-er is widespread in Germanic languages. That's pretty damn direct descendence.



I don't mean to insult, but I get a laugh out of "a much more Germanic language". There are no degrees of being a Germanic language-you either are or your aren't. English is 100% a Germanic language, as are German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, Afrikaans, Icelandic and others.
I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks that location by itself has the greatest affect on language and knowledge of the history of that people independent of study/education [through osmosis then?] really drives me insane- as if a random ignorant person from the country naturally retains any quality from that places' ancestors- hahahah- keep dreaming.

The evolution of English has caused it to form a unique place on the Germanic tree, but it is certainly no less Germanic. Anyone who studies the different forms of Germanic can appreciate how interrelated it all is. Fun stuff. Glad to hear there is someone else out there who knows and enjoys it, Dhampir ~:)

[hellenes]

What I meant by Germanic roots of French/Italian/Spanish was that these people are in practice Franks/Lombardi/Visigoths Etc...So the sceleton and the deep bone of these languages is Germanic...

[Obelics]

What I meant by Germanic roots of French/Italian/Spanish was that these people are in practice Franks/Lombardi/Visigoths Etc...So the sceleton and the deep bone of these languages is Germanic...

OMG! i cant dare to reply to theese, ok, so Spanish are Arabs! Italian are Spanish! Greeeks are Turks and Slavs...

this is an invasion of the evil creatures from mars... help help HELP!
im dying... uhm:skull: :skull: :skull:

[Tiberius Nero]

What I meant by Germanic roots of French/Italian/Spanish was that these people are in practice Franks/Lombardi/Visigoths Etc...So the sceleton and the deep bone of these languages is Germanic...

Do you actually know any of these languages (French, Italian, Spanish), including Latin and some other Germanic language apart from English? If you do, sorry, your skills in comparative linguistics seem rather limited :P

Also FYI, there are probably millions of people of non European descent, African Americans being a notable group, who speak a Germanic language (English) as their native language, without probably having a droplet of Germanic blood in their veins... This argument of your's hold no water at all, descent, race etc have nothing to do with linguistic origins.

P.S.:I know French, Italian, Latin, have a working knowledge of Spanish, and I am quite fluent in German btw, so I have some idea what I am talking about, I don't mention all this in order to brag, its nothing to brag about anyway...

[alatar]

I'm still talking about vocabulary, which may have lead to confusion.

I fail to see where we disagree, (if you thought I was saying English was not germanic in origin, you would of course disagree).

What I meant was in terms of words used, english has much more germanic words than say, Italian (and of course in other ways).

I disagree that 0.01% of english is dervied from latin (weather directly or indirectly, though other languages).

And my original post was simply saying that Italian and French and English were not German in Latin clothes.
This was the post I was talking about,

the core of French/Italian/English is GERMAN...with the latin sauce on top...

[Conradus]

What I meant by Germanic roots of French/Italian/Spanish was that these people are in practice Franks/Lombardi/Visigoths Etc...So the sceleton and the deep bone of these languages is Germanic...

2 Things:
1)Languages have very little to do with the people who speak them.
2)The German "invaders" were actually quite small in numbers compared to the entire population they controlled. After some centuries there must have been such a mixing between the overlords and their minions that it was hardly possible to distinguish them as two different tribes.

That said the basis of Italian/Spanish or French is Latin, just as the base for Dutch, German or English is Germanic. With English it has a lot of french(latin) words added to the juice thanks to the romansnormans. This is also partially true for Dutch.

[Obelics]

@Hellenes
Italian, French Spanish language backbone (using your words) is Latin. The grammar, the regles, the sintax the most part of their vocabulary etc. There are some germanic origin words in this languages, but they are not a lot.
Part of germanic words are related to armaments, for example Guerra (italian), Guerre (french), same as english (germanic) War. But often those language still keep the latin form in some way, for example italian Bellico (adjectiv related to war). Some ancient words are still used in litterature, as example italian Pugnare, Pugnando, Pugnace etc.
As i already sayd the classic latin is just a form of latin "photographed" in a given temporal frame, and this is still not completely true, cause every form of language who become "classic" (i did also the example of chinese wenyen) has also a tendency to become sort of standardized, this means that it can be seen as a sort of Artificial litteraly language, from philosophy to poetry. The same in some way as the Scholastic Latin in the Middle Age.

i just dont comment on the Visigoth/Franks/Longobards things. It would take a whole new thread full of people (with your same behaviour) coming about arabs, slavs, turks, mongols, macedonians, martians, and company...

@Alatar
regarding the english thing. i thing the poster of the 0.01% thing, was referring to the words that were "directly/straight" taken by latin. But actual English, with the Normans, with the Reinassence etc. has a huge quantity of Latin words (dont forget that the Reinassence period see a new big quantity of freshly forged latin words in the European languages, and greek too, and this is true also for German/English etc.). And it is true that it still keep the germanic origin equivalent. Often the germani is used as informal, and the latinate is used as formal, or there is a different use between the two words.

[alatar]

@Alatar
regarding the english thing. i thing the poster of the 0.01% thing, was referring to the words that were "directly/straight" taken by latin. But actual English, with the Normans, with the Reinassence etc. has a huge quantity of Latin words (dont forget that the Reinassence period see a new big quantity of freshly forged latin words in the European languages, and greek too, and this is true also for German/English etc.). And it is true that it still keep the germanic origin equivalent. Often the germani is used as informal, and the latinate is used as formal, or there is a different use between the two words.

That makes more sense:laugh4: