Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

• Message 1. 

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  It is often noted that following the fall of the Roman Empire while Italy, Gaul and Iberia carried on speaking a latin based language, Britain did not.
  
  But other parts of the Western Roman empire also stopped speaking Latin notably Netherlands south of the Rhine, Flemish BElgium, Germany west of the Rhine, parts of Switzerland and Austria south of the Danube.
  
  The effect and size of Migration on the change to English has been much debated, what about these areas was it due to mass migration, warrior elite or cultural changes?
  

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  mmm, thats a puzzeler
  
  Also is it true the Romanian is a Romance language? I have always heard this, but don't know if it is an urban legend or not
  
  As for the rest, Italy had been latin speaking for many generations and many latin speakers had moved to and lived in the Provance of South Gaul. Iberia had provided one Imp that I know of (although I know that latin wasn't his mother tongue) and again many an officer retired there.
  
  Maybe Britain and northern Europe just wernt attractive enough in the early days for large numbers of Roman emigere's so the native languages remained in daily use and once the romans withdrew then the local tongue became dominant in administrative use as well??

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  Tim, I firmly disagree with these warrior elite/cultural change ideas. People do not change their entire language in one fell swoop due to cultural change, nor if a group of foreigners takes over their government. Conceivably a foreign administration may, after centuries of only allowing its own language for governance and official documents, cause the language to change irrevocably. This was not the situation at the fall of the Roman Empire.
  
  The simplest explanation is that at the fringes of the empire (Britain, and places close by the Rhine/Danube frontier), barbarians were able to take over the land and become the dominant part of the population, thus the language in these areas changed. Further in, the numbers of native and Latin speakers remained predominant, even if politically and militarily the invaders were in control.

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  Romanian is indeed a Romance language, as its name suggests. Modern Romania lies roughly in the area of the Roman province of Dacia. Modern Romanian is sometimes considered to be the modern language most like ancient Latin, but I have also heard that about some of the Italian dialects (one dialect on Sardinia for example maintains the hard "k" sound to ancient Latin letter 'c'). One thing that is for certain, if you can speak any of the other Romance languages, Romanian is fairly easy to pick up. It has had some influence from the surrounding Slavic languages but the core Romance vocab and grammar remains.
  
  In connection with this thread though, I have absolutely no idea how the Roman province of Dacia remained as a Latin/Romance speaking area whereas the other areas already mentioned were. No idea to what scale native-speakers moved into the area, and the area has been subjected to invasions over the centuries, so there must have been many linguistic influences over the intervening centuries.

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  It does take a hell of a long time to "kill off" a language of a "defeated" group. You only have to look at the Celtic languages at how difficult it has been for English to completely take over, and even today they are fighting back (rather vigorously in Wales at least). Despite the efforts of some English AND CELTS over the centuries (not least 19th and early 20th educational policies) the people have stubbornly clung onto their languages and identities.
  
  I've been trying to rack my brains to think of a time when a significantly large group has abandoned its language due to the influx of another group and I can't. I know there's been much debate about the Anglo-Saxon invasions and the linguistic element in early England there (for another thread methinks!) but I cannot conceive of large numbers of people giving up their language so easily.

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  It is not inconceivable that the majority of people did not speak Latin during Rome's occupation of Britain. While it was the language of the occupation forces and no doubt of the upper classes, many others may have spoken it as a second language.
  
  Similar with the Norman invasion.

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  Tony
  
  the funny thing is though that very few Latin words entered the British Celtic loanguage compared to the large number of Norman French ones that were to enter English.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  Fascinating
  
  I have never accepted the cultural arguement. Buying a BMW or a Toyota may not make you a German or Japanese but people who buy BMWs do not then decide to speak German and people who buy Toyotas do not then decide to where a kimono or take up Shintoism.
  

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Landwehr (U1664897) on Monday, 19th September 2005

  The native British had plenty of motivaton to adopt English, as the laws imposed by Anglo-Saxon kings discriminated against non-English speakers. The same thing had happened to the people of Gaul & Spain when the Romans took over - their languages disappeared, and very few Celtic words entered Latin. So it's hardly surprising that English should have become the dominant language in the parts of Britain conquered by the Anglo-Saxon warrior aristocracy.
  
  The traditional view, that there was a mass migration of Germanic peasants who drove out the "Celts" has a long pedigree in the literature, but the efforts of historians like Myres to use archaeological evidence to support this view are now coming under attack from a younger generation of historians.

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Tuesday, 20th September 2005

  The thing is, we don't know to what extent the Latin tongue replaced Brittonic Celtic in lowland Britain. Because this was the area later settled/transformed most significantly by Angles, Saxons and Jutes. The earliest written records in British Celtic are from outside that area.
  
  The parts where a 'P'-Celtic (i.e. British) Celtic language survived to a late date (to the present day in one or two cases!) were generally northern or western upland areas, least likely to have been heavily 'Romanised'. The oldest surviving 'Welsh' poems relate to the Britons of the Lothians, Cumbria and the Pennines. Cornwall was a part of Britain very distant and different) from the 'heartlands' of Roman Britannia.
  

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 21st September 2005

  "The native British had plenty of motivaton to adopt English, as the laws imposed by Anglo-Saxon kings discriminated against non-English speakers."
  
  I thought the laws disciminated against Welsh rather than Welsh speakers.
  
  I have read a couple of books by Christopher Snyder and was planning to bring out a book specifically on the origin of the English, I do not know if it is published yet, and he postulates that the British largely abandonned Eastern 'England' to the English in the 5th C AD and in the late 6th and early 7th C the English then conquered Western 'England' tyaking over the Celtic kingdoms.
  

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Landwehr (U1664897) on Wednesday, 21st September 2005

  <QUOTE' USER='TimW' USERID='1736633'>he postulates that the British largely abandonned Eastern 'England' to the English in the 5th C AD and in the late 6th and early 7th C the English then conquered Western 'England' tyaking over the Celtic kingdoms.<BR /> </QUOTE><BR /><BR />He can postulate anything he wants I guess, but let's hope he can also bring some evidence to support his conclusions. Everyone accepts that the English first settled in Eastern England, but what is the evidence for wholesale migration by ethnic groups?

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 22nd September 2005

  "He can postulate anything he wants I guess, but let's hope he can also bring some evidence to support his conclusions. Everyone accepts that the English first settled in Eastern England, but what is the evidence for wholesale migration by ethnic groups?"
  
  You can read his books 'Age of Tyrants' and 'The Britons' and judge for yourself.
  
  I think he is pointing towards evidence for dismanteling and abondonment. But from what I read there is plenty of evidence of a dramatic cultural change in Eastern England coupled with depopulation along the Northern European seaboard.
  
  One of my sons studied this at University and his conclusion was for significant migration into Eastern England.
  
  I did once on the old pages ask what clear archaelogical evidence was there for a Viking invasion of England in the 9th C AD and no-one seemed to be able to come upwith anything that could not be put down to cultural influences.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Fall of Roman Empire - non-latin speaking

  Report message13

Back to top