Results 1 to 30 of 63

Thread: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Symbasileus ton Rhomaioktonon Member Maion Maroneios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Heraklion, Crete, Greece
    Posts
    2,610

    Default Re: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

    Hardly. The Roman society was well-integrated into what we call "Byzantine Empire" today. The very word "Byzantine" is something only we use to describe the Eastern Roman Empire, while they themselves still viewed themselves as Romans. Not to mention their customs and fighting techniques, which were clearly Roman. The only Greek was probably the official language of the State, as even the local populance spoke a hodge-podge of Greek, Slavic, Latin etc.

    Maion
    ~Maion

  2. #2
    The Rhetorician Member Skullheadhq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Antioch
    Posts
    2,267

    Default Re: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios View Post
    Hardly. The Roman society was well-integrated into what we call "Byzantine Empire" today. The very word "Byzantine" is something only we use to describe the Eastern Roman Empire, while they themselves still viewed themselves as Romans. Not to mention their customs and fighting techniques, which were clearly Roman. The only Greek was probably the official language of the State, as even the local populance spoke a hodge-podge of Greek, Slavic, Latin etc.

    Maion
    If they are Roman, why didn't they speak Latin?
    Romans without Rome aren't Romans,
    "When the candles are out all women are fair."
    -Plutarch, Coniugia Praecepta 46

  3. #3
    Symbasileus ton Rhomaioktonon Member Maion Maroneios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Heraklion, Crete, Greece
    Posts
    2,610

    Default Re: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

    That doesn't count as an argument in my book. Constantinople was officially called "Nova Roma", which means "New Rome". And as I said, Greek was indeed the official language after some point. But that is mainly because the majority of the population was more familiar with Greek, especially in Greece where the population spoke some kind of Greek dialect and where the Empire itself was based.

    Oh, and just for you to know, during the years of the Republic or early years of the Empire (at least that's the extend of my knowledge on the specific subject) cities like Athens and Alexandria still used Greek. Not to mention a "good" education of any Roman included Greek after some point. It's called influence. Not to mention the fact that Latin was probably only used as an official language in writing and quoting laws etc., local languages of conquered tribes especially in very autochthonous areas probably outlived any Latin influence long after the split and disintegration of the Empire.

    Maion
    Last edited by Maion Maroneios; 07-12-2009 at 12:40.
    ~Maion

  4. #4
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

    Maion, you are right on point.

    As I said at the start of this thread, numerous good books has been written on the subject. I would suggest enlightenment by reading these instead of limited posts in an I-net forum however informative they are.
    Nothing compares to books.

    In fact when you install EB you agree to do just that; read more history.
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  5. #5
    Symbasileus ton Rhomaioktonon Member Maion Maroneios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Heraklion, Crete, Greece
    Posts
    2,610

    Default Re: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

    I couldn't agree more to that.

    Maion
    ~Maion

  6. #6
    Member Member Macilrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark
    Posts
    1,592

    Default Re: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

    Plus, it is damn fascinating and interesting.
    'For months Augustus let hair and beard grow and occasionally banged his head against the walls whilst shouting; "Quinctillius Varus, give me my legions back"' -Sueton, Augustus.

    "Deliver us oh God, from the fury of the Norsemen", French prayer, 9th century.
    Ask gi'r klask! ask-vikingekampgruppe.dk

    Balloon count: 13

  7. #7
    Symbasileus ton Rhomaioktonon Member Maion Maroneios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Heraklion, Crete, Greece
    Posts
    2,610

    Default Re: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

    That's subjective, I guess.

    Maion
    ~Maion

  8. #8

    Default Re: How 'Roman' was the Roman Empire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios View Post
    That doesn't count as an argument in my book. Constantinople was officially called "Nova Roma", which means "New Rome". And as I said, Greek was indeed the official language after some point. But that is mainly because the majority of the population was more familiar with Greek, especially in Greece where the population spoke some kind of Greek dialect and where the Empire itself was based.

    Oh, and just for you to know, during the years of the Republic or early years of the Empire (at least that's the extend of my knowledge on the specific subject) cities like Athens and Alexandria still used Greek. Not to mention a "good" education of any Roman included Greek after some point. It's called influence. Not to mention the fact that Latin was probably only used as an official language in writing and quoting laws etc., local languages of conquered tribes especially in very autochthonous areas probably outlived any Latin influence long after the split and disintegration of the Empire.

    Maion
    I think Greek was made into the official language early in the 7th century through the reforms of Heraclius (which also included military reorganization), when some say the Eastern Roman Empire "turned into" the Byzantine empire, so for most of its history it seems to have had Greek as its language. That, and even when the Roman empire was unified, Greek was always the majority language in the eastern provinces, so its influence remained strong. I'm sure they thought of themselves as Romans even until the end of their time, but I wonder how many actual Romans still survived in Greece and the east by the fall of Constantinople. However, I remember reading that many Byzantine refugees fled to Italy after the Turks took it, meaning that they might have seen Italians as old kindred people, even though they were divided along the lines of religion for centuries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    I am Romanian , proud member of the only nation that kept this name (Romani in Romanian) for 2000 years.Also, Romanian is considered the language with the most arhaic latin vocabulary and the closest to old vulgar latin spoken all over the emmpire.
    My opinion is that the Roman empire was Roman all over the provinces in what concerns the state institutions : administration and the army.
    Latin language imposed itself as lingua franca through the presence of roman administration and of roman legions on the ground.
    Three factors were very important : Administration,Army and Culture.
    Barbarian tribes took fast the benefits of roman culture and language - Spain,Gaul, Trace.
    Advanced cultures like Greeks all over the east were good enough for roman use, so they werent imposed roman language in administration, greek was also in use.

    Roman legions were very present in Provincia Dacia during 106- 274 AD , short time, but at times even 4 legions were serving...the reason was the huge gold mines from the Western Carpathians, modern day transilvania.
    The gold was the reason for Trajan's 2 campaigns of 101-102 and 105-106 AD which led to the distruction of the Dacian kingdom. Well, there was also a barbarian habit of these Dacians to invade and plunder all the way from Danube to Greece :D .
    Roman settlers were installed in the province, which hapens to be the center of old greater Dacia streching from river Tisa to the river Nistru. Even after the withdrawal of 274, the Romanised population spread the latin language all around the carpathians, leading to the romanisation of all Dacians outside the empire. So now you have no Dacian remainents , like the Gauls or Basc minority in Spain.

    Unlike Romania, modern Albania (Iliria) kept their language which is related to the tracian-dacian because the roman army was not concentrated there , an interior pacified long time province.

    I think that all the succesor nations are actually local populations turned into Romans by mean of cultural asimilation.

    A branch of the Romanian people live in the Balkans, Macedonia, Albania, Greece, they call themselves Arm'ni , meaning Aromani, Aromanians, but they also call themselves "Makidoni" and they cherish the flag of ancient Macedonia, the red sun and have songs about it in their tradition, songs about Alexander and so on.

    This tells me that they are local Macedonian shepards turned into Romans by language 2000 years ago.

    Same with Romanians, our tradition, folk , old stories are of mountain shepards, not of roman colonists. We are Dacians talking a latin language. There is even an old story talking of the union of a Troian (Trajanus ?) and an old lady called Dokia (Dacia ? ) Oral tradition talking of roman conquest as a colaboration kept alive for 2000 years.



    Example of similar words in Romanian and Italian:

    Italian- Romanian-English

    Casa-casa-House
    Uno,due, tre, quatro - Unu,Doi,Trei, patru = one, two, three
    Monte negro - Munte negru - Mountain black

    That's true, some aspects of the language and grammar in Romanian have survived hundreds of years are very close to Latin. Like we don't have the word "the" (like la or le); instead it's included in the actual noun as an ending, like Latin. Also, for plurals, we use the letter i at the end, instead of s like Spanish, French, and Portuguese. And alb, the word for white, sounds closer to the Latin albus than blanc or bianco. There's still people with names like Virgiliu, Aureliu, and Ovidiu after all these years, although they're not as common anymore. But even though the languages are similar, I don't know how many actual Romans colonized the place or survived over the centuries. It's an interesting topic anyway.
    Last edited by Andros Antonius; 08-10-2009 at 19:21.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO