Romans

[Ephestion]

After reading a few posts it appears that many Italians think they are Romans. That is not the case!

First of all Neapolis was a Greek Colony. The Latin Speaking plebs took over the Greek administration of Neapolis but that doesnt mean the Roman city was Latin. Infact the majority of inhabitants in southern and middle Italy were Greeks. The culture of Rome was Greek in that Koine was used as a standard common language from the Greek colony of Spain or Hispania, France, through to the Mid East. We have many records including the Septurgiant text to indicate that even after 0AD the need for Greek translations for Western Europe were in high demand.

The Collabrians, Genoese, and all those from Sicily to the Captioll of Rome spoke Greek as a common language most if not all higher positions were taken by those of Greek origin. Names like Ioulios Kaisar are infact Hellenic Names not Latin nor Italian. During this time period we call them Roman because simply it was a combination of two cultures Greek-Latin. The term Roman helps identify the new culture. But teh culture we speek of was Hellenic by all means as the ROman Gods and all thinsg related were not as popular as those of the Greeks between 500BC-100BC.

However, under no circumstances can an Italian think they are Romans for two significant reasons:

1. The Roman EMpire was ruled by Greeks for 1200 years. It was only between 100BC-285AD that the Italic Peninsula housed the ROman administration there after it was moved to Byzantium a powerfull ancient city by Diocles (Diocletian) a Greek of whom took back control of the Empire. While reading Roman history it becomes to some degree biased in that certain historians assume all names should be given their Latinization but from early historians we note that Hellenisation far out weighed any significance to EUropean culture than did ROman. Eaven the issues of Administration, Government and Laws. As far as I know we do not found our modern societies on Ancient ROman Law we model them on the Christian Byzantine Laws that were Greek in origin. For example our laws all stipulate: Though shalt not Kill, Though shall not steal, adultyr etc. The Italics do not by enlarge call themselves ROmans, however, in places like Cyprus, Anatolian Greece and pockets of Greece the terms Romaioi and Graico are synonymous.

2. The Invasion of Northern Italy by Clets, Franks, later Lombards, and many Barbarian tribes led to a new culture that is called Italic as it forced many changes on to the way Latin was spoken and eventually resulted in changes to the alphabet. On this note of alphabets, the ROman Alphabet was a collection of Greek letters that existed in minor Greek Alphabets for example the letter R in Spartan = R in ROman = P in Attic. The letter F in Latin was the counting symbol of the Greeks. In other words teh Alphabet used by ROmans further suggests it was an important Greek city primarily a trading city because the alphabet they call LATIn is infact the Greek alphabet used for trade(a Merchant Koine).

The Modern Italians in Rome and North of Rome are Germanic Latins. The SOuthern part is still Helleno-ROman. The term Roman post 285AD is synonymous to Hellenes no longer applicable in historical terms to those inhabiting the italic peninsula.

[Titus Ultor]

A noteable mini-article, I think..

Perhaps this is why Italian is actually less like Latin than French? I'll do some research soon.

Ephestion, perhaps you should cite some sources for your position. Not that I'm questioning the veracity of it, as I myself haven't quite looked into it enough yet to know.

[Ephestion]

Almost all the Greek words found in English came directly from French. The French vocabulary was already Hellenic. Words such as program, strategy, didactic etc appear as a common vocabulary for all Europe. The French used Greek as a common language not Latin. However, as Western EUrope became re-colonised by Latin Rome (100BC - 100AD), the already Greek cities began to adopt Latin. The re-colonisation of Western Europe involved the masacre of inhabitants and we estimate some 30-50% of city populations were murdered by Latin ROman Legions and replaced by Latin Colonists in teh form of Marshal outposts. Places like MArsielles in France suffered greatly as Latin Rome slaughtered its inhabitants and replaced them with Latin field marshals and legions. As a result France and Spain represent two significant steps in terms of herritage for Europe. Both these languages are understandable to some degree especially if higher level Hispanic and French are used by Greeks. Needless to say Italian is also the same. However, with French we see despite the fact that ROmance languages are considered derivative Latin languages, the core of commoness between these languages is not Latin. In each of these languages is a component of Greek languages beit unused today or used is another matter. For example it is entirely possible for a French person or Hispanic who has substantial vocabulary of their Greek words in their languages to communicate entirely in Greek. Even English which is seeded by French can serve this purpose for example:

"the HELLENIC DIDACTICS, SYMPOSIUMS, and PLETHORA of PHYLOSOPHICAL MONOLOGS, are the GENESIS of SYNCHRONOUS SCHOLASTIS and FORM the BASE of ACADEMIA. the KOINE of EUROPE, was HELLENIC. Today HELLENIC PHRASEOLOGY seems TYRANNICAL to our OPHTHALMICS, yet it FORMS an SYNERGISTIC ERGO that FORMS our EUROPEAN LEXICON."

Capitilised letters indiacte Greek words. I simply mention that the Greek teachers and materials along with Symposiums and the great number of philosohical talks and events created a unified school and the base of academia. That the common language of Europe is /was Greek even though we see Greek as a really tyranical language when used yet with a common work or effort by Europeans it became part Europes dictionary/ vocabulary.

Comparing modern people with past cultures is difficult you must emmerse yourself in the way things were rather than imply relations with today and the past wiothout seeing vividly a distinct set of facts. Yes Romance languages are Latin based, before that they were Greek based and today all of them have both in their languages. Unlike Latin Greek lives on perpetuiating and exapanding on these languages. For example the word computer today is common, but now the scientific name is "hypologistic machines" ie YPOLOGISTIKI MHXANI (Greeklish). The study of Microbial Genetics Microbio - Genetika (Greeklish).

[Aztec_Brave]

"the HELLENIC DIDACTICS, SYMPOSIUMS, and PLETHORA of PHYLOSOPHICAL MONOLOGS, are the GENESIS of SYNCHRONOUS SCHOLASTIS and FORM the BASE of ACADEMIA. the KOINE of EUROPE, was HELLENIC. Today HELLENIC PHRASEOLOGY seems TYRANNICAL to our OPHTHALMICS, yet it FORMS an SYNERGISTIC ERGO that FORMS our EUROPEAN LEXICON."

I'm sure you could do the same for words purely of Latin or Germanic origin in. A lot of those words look like later borrowings for scholastic terms (most probably made by scholars who were fluent in Greek and simply needed a term for something or because they thought it was more pure than the vulgar european tongues). Many of them are not exactly common terms (tell me how often you use "Synchronous Scholastis" or "Synergistic Ergo" in regular speech) and few show evidence of being natural domesticated words in any modern language (if they were we might expect French/English/Whatever sound changes applied to them, rather than seeing something so similar to the greek form).

despite the fact that ROmance languages are considered derivative Latin languages, the core of commoness between these languages is not Latin.

Actually, if you attempt to reconstruct a proto-language for all romance languages using the comparative method (this was used for example to reconstruct the hypothetical ancestor of all Indo-Europeans langs, Proto-Indo-European) you get vulgar latin. There may have been much borrowing from Greek in Both these languages as well as in Latin, but the common base of all Romance Languages is Latin. (The same way that English has borrowed huge ammouns of vocabulary from Latin as well as Greek to a lesser degree, but still has a Germanic base).

By the way, I'm not trying to bash your theory on the Hellenic ethnicity of the Romans, I just disagree with some of the linguistics.

[Quacker]

Ugh! This reminds me of my Greek/Roman test coming up on Friday!

(lol sry for the "OT")

[Vingauld]

Actually, if you attempt to reconstruct a proto-language for all romance languages using the comparative method (this was used for example to reconstruct the hypothetical ancestor of all Indo-Europeans langs, Proto-Indo-European) you get vulgar latin. There may have been much borrowing from Greek in Both these languages as well as in Latin, but the common base of all Romance Languages is Latin. (The same way that English has borrowed huge ammouns of vocabulary from Latin as well as Greek to a lesser degree, but still has a Germanic base).

By the way, I'm not trying to bash your theory on the Hellenic ethnicity of the Romans, I just disagree with some of the linguistics.

Infact at the beginning of the medieval period, poeple in France spoke Latin from wich, during the medieval period, French evolved. During the (european, so not the Italian) rennaisance when many poems where written in Latin or Greek, French poets wrote theirs in French

[Quacker]

More OT goodness...but i got a 88% on the test...i'm happy

[Ephestion]

qouted: "There may have been much borrowing from Greek in Both these languages as well as in Latin"

Therefore since LATIN was formed through Hellensitic Influence ie given the Greek Colony of Neapolis became known as Rome and since all other places had Hellenistic influences proven by what are considered borrowed words ie not natural then the only reason why non-natural terms would exist throughout all Romance languages is that the influences of the Greeks in the West were already pre-established and lived on well after 1453AD. The commoness esxtends to also non Romance languages and therefore teh COMMON link is not LATIN but Greek. Marsielles for example was a Greek colony in France around 1200BC. Hispania is teh name of teh Greek colony in Spain the name of Prytania is the name of the Greek settlements made by Pyreneas the explorer (Greek). Why would the Greek names be retained if they did not have lingual and cultural herritage linking baclk to Greece.

Edited November 25, 2005 by Ephestion

[Caesar]

It was only between 100BC-285AD that the Italic Peninsula housed the ROman administration there after it was moved to Byzantium a powerfull ancient city by Diocles (Diocletian) a Greek of whom took back control of the Empire.

Dioclietian was the Emperor who split the Empire into two halves, but Constantine moved the Capital to the ancient port of Byzantium and renamed it Nova Roma (later called Constantinople).

[Ephestion]

Diocletian did not rule from old rome he ruled from Byzantium or Nicodemia. He did not divide the empire he divided the administrative roles into a tetrarchy. Two Augusti and Two Caesars. Diocletian was the one who moved the empires administration to the East. Constantine declared and made the move official by decree and more significantly is know for his Christianisation of the EMpire as it adopted an official faith.

[Caesar]

Diocletian never ruled in Byzantium, that move was made by Constantine the Great who changed the name of the ancient port-city to Nova Roma (later changed to Constantinople). Both Empires were run using the same legal and military system in the time of Diocletian, but after the death of Constantine both were separate of each other, and the Western Empire was no more than a military dictatorship under the "guidance" of the Eastern Emperor in Constantinople. The day to day governing of the Roman Empire eventualy fell to the Catholic Church and the Pope.

[Ephestion]

Well yes Diocletian didnt rule from the West his part of the Tetrarchy was Anatolia and Greece. His investments were being made in the ancient Greek city of Byzantium. He and his administration were located in Eastern ROman lands. His exat place of rule is questionable however it is certain it was not old Rome. He spent most of his time crossing the empire than he did positioned in any place. However, Nicodemia was his favorite site as it enabled him to visit and keep tabs of progress in Byzantium as teh city was being built up through his orders. This is why Constantine later moved teh capitol because when he arrived to the position he saw easily the unsurpassed wealth that had been injected into Byzantium the city. DIocles visited old ROme several times and even travelled as far as Spain on many ocassions.