Byzantium vs Eastern Roman Empire?

[Skuchney]

The Iberian language has nothing to do with Latin and Celtic languages, it's speculated to be related to Basque, and they all adoted Latin. Same as with North African languages (Afroromance was an extinct language but it existed). They reason has nothing to do with language similarity but with the elites speaking Latin.

We do know that Celtic speakers quickly adopted latin as their language at a very rapid pace but often merged it with their Celtic languages. The Romans loved to complain about the Celts butchering Latin. There are comments about those very people in Iberia / the pyrenees speaking far better Latin than the Celtic speakers. This is likely because they didnt really merge in their language due to them being very different languages not even of the same family. It's thought the reason French sounds the way it does is because of the large Gaulish influence. The Celto-Italic language only diverged into the various Celtic and Itallic languages well short of 1,000 years prior to the Roman conquest of Celtic lands. The Celtic expansion across Europe just prior to Roman expansion worked out really well for the Romans.

Anyway, Iberia was over half Celtic speaking at this stage, as Celts had been spreading into iberia, and there was a lot of mixing between them and the other iberians, it gets quite messy. Iberia is quite fascinating, because it was quite celtic dominated, with a decent helping of other languages which we aren't quite sure what they were related to, then it had a few Greek cities on the coast and a bunch of Carthaginian cities, and just prior to Roman conquest all of the non-celtic areas were entirely under Carthaginian rule. So they became a very linguistically mixed area which was very Celtic heavy at the time of Roman rule, which aided in the linguistic shift as Latin could be used as the lingua franca and was easily adopted by the Celtic speakers.

As for North Africa, I'm not actually sure how much of North Africa spoke Latin. From what I have been able to find it seems to have mostly been spoken in the Roman cities, and was not the dominant language. Punic continued to be spoken in the area, and the Numidian language(s) were quite dominant as well. It wasn't homogenised into some purely Latin speaking group at all.

At any rate, look up a map of the Celtic expansion across Europe, it's an extensive stretch of territory. This expansion very much paved the way for Roman expansion as not only did it make it easier for them to Romanise the areas, but the Celts were not this barbaric tribal people they are often portrayed as, but they tended to build cities and roads, with trade and crafts etc. So there was an existing structure there which Rome could subsume and build their system on top of. This facilitated that gradual Romanisation.

 

[Tercio Soldier]

We do know that Celtic speakers quickly adopted latin as their language at a very rapid pace but often merged it with their Celtic languages. The Romans loved to complain about the Celts butchering Latin. There are comments about those very people in Iberia / the pyrenees speaking far better Latin than the Celtic speakers. This is likely because they didnt really merge in their language due to them being very different languages not even of the same family. It's thought the reason French sounds the way it does is because of the large Gaulish influence. The Celto-Italic language only diverged into the various Celtic and Itallic languages well short of 1,000 years prior to the Roman conquest of Celtic lands. The Celtic expansion across Europe just prior to Roman expansion worked out really well for the Romans.

Anyway, Iberia was over half Celtic speaking at this stage, as Celts had been spreading into iberia, and there was a lot of mixing between them and the other iberians, it gets quite messy. Iberia is quite fascinating, because it was quite celtic dominated, with a decent helping of other languages which we aren't quite sure what they were related to, then it had a few Greek cities on the coast and a bunch of Carthaginian cities, and just prior to Roman conquest all of the non-celtic areas were entirely under Carthaginian rule. So they became a very linguistically mixed area which was very Celtic heavy at the time of Roman rule, which aided in the linguistic shift as Latin could be used as the lingua franca and was easily adopted by the Celtic speakers.

As for North Africa, I'm not actually sure how much of North Africa spoke Latin. From what I have been able to find it seems to have mostly been spoken in the Roman cities, and was not the dominant language. Punic continued to be spoken in the area, and the Numidian language(s) were quite dominant as well. It wasn't homogenised into some purely Latin speaking group at all.

At any rate, look up a map of the Celtic expansion across Europe, it's an extensive stretch of territory. This expansion very much paved the way for Roman expansion as not only did it make it easier for them to Romanise the areas, but the Celts were not this barbaric tribal people they are often portrayed as, but they tended to build cities and roads, with trade and crafts etc. So there was an existing structure there which Rome could subsume and build their system on top of. This facilitated that gradual Romanisation.

Iberia was divided roughly in 3 parts, the North-West celtic, the center Celt-Iberian and the East-South Iberian. The Iberian part didn't speak Celtic at all, this is heavily substantiated by evidence. They didn't even share the same gods and customs. Iberia was not culturally homogeneous. The center is called Celtiberian because that's where Celts influenced Iberians. The Iberian parts were much more influenced by the Phoenicians, even before Carthage, as they shared gods and the alphabet with them, and these were the areas that were under Carthaginian influence prior to the Second Punic War.

Edit: This is a map of the language distribution prior to Roman conquest.

 

[treb]

Alcoholism?

Not quite but similar enough end result...

 

[Aquila SPQR]

it begins with an a and ends with an m...

Asserting wisdom.

 

[Skuchney]

Iberia was divided roughly in 3 parts, the North-West celtic, the center Celt-Iberian and the East-South Iberian. The Iberian part didn't speak Celtic at all, this is heavily substantiated by evidence. They didn't even share the same gods and customs. Iberia was not culturally homogeneous. The center is called Celtiberian because that's where Celts influenced Iberians. The Iberian parts were much more influenced by the Phoenicians, even before Carthage, as they shared gods and the alphabet with them, and these were the areas that were under Carthaginian influence prior to the Second Punic War.

This is close to what I was trying to get at, however be careful with interpreting maps like that as they have a tendency to put solid lines in places where they blur, and to not show cultural mixing and influences. There was not a complete separation between these groups, and we can see celtic influence even over the southern areas of Iberia in their material culture and in their language.

This was during a period of Celtic expansion, and the Celtic expansion fully into southern Iberia was only cut short by Carthaginian and Roman expansion. Celtic and Iberian cultures were in a state of mixing, forming what we call Celtiberian, and this was most definitely occuring in the Southern areas as well, as evidenced through archeological, linguistic and historic accounts. It was specifically this mixed group, the Celtiberians, who were in the process of expanding Southwards not just militaristically but also in terms of trade and cultural influence. It is a really interesting time period!

So over time these Southern areas were getting more diverse, as there were conquests, migrations, immigration, trade etc from the Celts into the areas, trade with Greeks, trade expansion and rule from Carthaginians bringing Punic language and customs and then later Roman rule and colonisation. This complex history is what opened them up to a rapid Romanisation, and the role of the Celts in the area does need to be recognised. It should of course not be put forward as a sole reason. Celtic expansion is just a significant factor in the spread of Latin. So apologies if I didn't explain what I meant clearly there.

I feel like I just hijacked a threat about Eastern Rome to talk about the Celts hahaha!

 

[Tercio Soldier]

This is close to what I was trying to get at, however be careful with interpreting maps like that as they have a tendency to put solid lines in places where they blur, and to not show cultural mixing and influences. There was not a complete separation between these groups, and we can see celtic influence even over the southern areas of Iberia in their material culture and in their language.

This was during a period of Celtic expansion, and the Celtic expansion fully into southern Iberia was only cut short by Carthaginian and Roman expansion. Celtic and Iberian cultures were in a state of mixing, forming what we call Celtiberian, and this was most definitely occuring in the Southern areas as well, as evidenced through archeological, linguistic and historic accounts. It was specifically this mixed group, the Celtiberians, who were in the process of expanding Southwards not just militaristically but also in terms of trade and cultural influence. It is a really interesting time period!

So over time these Southern areas were getting more diverse, as there were conquests, migrations, immigration, trade etc from the Celts into the areas, trade with Greeks, trade expansion and rule from Carthaginians bringing Punic language and customs and then later Roman rule and colonisation. This complex history is what opened them up to a rapid Romanisation, and the role of the Celts in the area does need to be recognised. It should of course not be put forward as a sole reason. Celtic expansion is just a significant factor in the spread of Latin. So apologies if I didn't explain what I meant clearly there.

I feel like I just hijacked a threat about Eastern Rome to talk about the Celts hahaha!

As I said, there is no evidence that by the time of Roman conquest Southern and Eastern Iberia spoke anything other than the Iberian language. I think you are treating Iberia like a big blob and assuming that since Celts had influenced the Iberians in the center they had already influenced the others. This is not the case. Iberia was divided in lots of tribes that were culturally distinct. The most Southern ones (turdetanos) still carried the old Tartessos culture for example.

It's not just about language, if you read the Roman records for example the Celtiberians had a special way to make steel that was very good. Roman and Greek accounts also clearly separate Iberians and Celts, and they say Celtiberians were a mix.

I don't know why you're so bent on saying that Latin only became predominant in the West because of Celts.

In any case the Romans treated the Celtiberians much worse than the Iberians because of their fierce resistance. Look at the siege of Numantia.

 

[Skuchney]

I don't know why you're so bent on saying that Latin only became predominant in the West because of Celts.

Scratching my head at this one a little, because you've said it in response to me saying the following:

It should of course not be put forward as a sole reason. Celtic expansion is just a significant factor in the spread of Latin. So apologies if I didn't explain what I meant clearly there.

This is not the case. Iberia was divided in lots of tribes that were culturally distinct. The most Southern ones still carried the old Tartessos culture for example.

Yes, and no. There was Celtic spread and influence into these areas, it was altering their language and material culture. There is archeological, linguistic and written accounts of this regarding the Southern Iberian groups like the Turdetani etc. Even delving into Tartessos culture and language it gets really controversial, trying to determine what is Celtic influenced and what isn't, how much of their language was celtic, how much wasn't etc. There most certainly was a cultural mixing occurring and a high level of contact between iberian and celt-iberian groups, with this being evidenced. Unsure what you mean by no evidence? Be very careful in asserting solid boundaries between groups, it's often not born out.

I am not saying that all these cultures and languages had been subsumed by Celtic. What I am saying is that these areas were already in the process of a cultural and linguistic shift caused by subsequent invasions/migrations/trade etc. In the most southern/coastal regions this was far more recent and more limited. Could we argue that in Iberias case there is more nuance due to having so many other influences, with the Iberians being wedged between Punic and Celtic, influenced by both, in the midst of a merger, with possible linguistic isolation of groups etc? Sure! Love me some complexity and nuance. The unique situation of the Iberians made them primed for a linguistic shift, is what I would argue.

When it comes to the role of Celtic expansion, I would say it is no coincidence that the majority of the most thoroughly Latinised areas of Europe were the areas with a heavy Celtic presence due to their recent mass migrations from their heartland. We can look elsewhere, areas like North Africa and Illyria for example, and we don't see the same. In those areas Latin seems to be used as a lingua franca and a secondary language, not completely replacing existing languages. Then in areas where Greek is already a lingua franca Latin is far more limited in its spread, being more the language of administration.

We could probably discuss this for hours, which I would love seeing as how I have nothing better to do with my IT role being disestablished. But possibly not the people coming here for Eastern Rome, when we are discussing the spread of Latin in Western Rome. How about we agree to disagree about the role of Celtic expansion on the spread of the Latin language?

 

[AntarcticRanger]

Illyria for example, and we don't see the same. In those areas Latin seems to be used as a lingua franca and a secondary language, not completely replacing existing languages.

Didn't Illyria get greatly latinized? I thought til the south slavic migrations the Balkans were mostly latin speaking, and even today aromanians and romanians are a thing. They were at least a romanized as Gaul, whose language survived the fall of the western empire.

 

[Baphomet enjoyer]

This thread has gone on for so long that the previous generation of debaters has been replaced with a new generation

 

[P.Quirinius]

This thread has gone on for so long that the previous generation of debaters has been replaced with a new generation

Well some of them are present since page one. I wonder if someone like @Aquila SPQR @Lele @Lord Lambert or @honkajoki has read every single post on this thread or close to it?

 

[Tercio Soldier]

Scratching my head at this one a little, because you've said it in response to me saying the following:



Yes, and no. There was Celtic spread and influence into these areas, it was altering their language and material culture. There is archeological, linguistic and written accounts of this regarding the Southern Iberian groups like the Turdetani etc. Even delving into Tartessos culture and language it gets really controversial, trying to determine what is Celtic influenced and what isn't, how much of their language was celtic, how much wasn't etc. There most certainly was a cultural mixing occurring and a high level of contact between iberian and celt-iberian groups, with this being evidenced. Unsure what you mean by no evidence? Be very careful in asserting solid boundaries between groups, it's often not born out.

I am not saying that all these cultures and languages had been subsumed by Celtic. What I am saying is that these areas were already in the process of a cultural and linguistic shift caused by subsequent invasions/migrations/trade etc. In the most southern/coastal regions this was far more recent and more limited. Could we argue that in Iberias case there is more nuance due to having so many other influences, with the Iberians being wedged between Punic and Celtic, influenced by both, in the midst of a merger, with possible linguistic isolation of groups etc? Sure! Love me some complexity and nuance. The unique situation of the Iberians made them primed for a linguistic shift, is what I would argue.

When it comes to the role of Celtic expansion, I would say it is no coincidence that the majority of the most thoroughly Latinised areas of Europe were the areas with a heavy Celtic presence due to their recent mass migrations from their heartland. We can look elsewhere, areas like North Africa and Illyria for example, and we don't see the same. In those areas Latin seems to be used as a lingua franca and a secondary language, not completely replacing existing languages. Then in areas where Greek is already a lingua franca Latin is far more limited in its spread, being more the language of administration.

We could probably discuss this for hours, which I would love seeing as how I have nothing better to do with my IT role being disestablished. But possibly not the people coming here for Eastern Rome, when we are discussing the spread of Latin in Western Rome. How about we agree to disagree about the role of Celtic expansion on the spread of the Latin language?

I'll just say it differently. Can you give me a source that Celtic language and culture had influenced the Southern and Eastern Iberian tribes and that the Celtic language had any significant presence there? I have read a lot about pre Roman Iberia and I've never seen this claim.

 

[honkajoki]

Well some of them are present since page one. I wonder if someone like @Aquila SPQR @Lele @Lord Lambert or @honkajoki has read every single post on this thread or close to it?

I haven't properly read thru them all in the sense that I'd try to understand them all, but I may have skimmed thru them all so that I have a rough idea what was being discussed in each. Even that is seriously weird considering I don't have a strong opinion on Byzantium's name.

 

[Skuchney]

I'll just say it differently. Can you give me a source that Celtic language and culture had influenced the Southern and Eastern Iberian tribes and that the Celtic language had any significant presence there? I have read a lot about pre Roman Iberia and I've never seen this claim.

I am surprised, it should be in most literature, there is a great deal of debate regarding the extent of this influence among historians, and a lot of difficulty tracing the influences and determining what originated where, which group belonged to which language family etc. The Celtic influence in the south was certainly much less than in the center and the North, but I haven't encountered any historians that believe there was no influence at all? Cultures don't really function that way, they have a tendency to mix, and modern views on the spread of Celtic language in culture is that it wasn't necessarily waves of conquest, there was an ongoing cultural shift from trade and interaction. Assuming you aren't reading dated information that is.

I'm not going to list of sources because I would spend hours doing it and honestly my adhd meds have worn off so I'm not all that focussed. I also have found people don't tend to read them, so it's a lot effort on my behalf which usually doesn't result in anything. But quickly googling things like "celtic influence on xyz" then plugging in southern iberia, turdetani, contestani etc will yield fruit. You can then mix it up and put "critique of" so that you get a rounded view. I always like to read the criticisms as well. One that was interesting was "The Celticisation of the Iberian Peninsula, a process that could have had parallels in other European regions" by Manuel Alberro. But that one is a bit short and doesn't cover the full picture. There is far too much to read on the topic, but it is very interesting.

Just to add, there are Celtic place names in every region of Spain. So it's quite well evidenced that no iberian tribes were without Celtic influence. The debate is about the extent.

 

[Tercio Soldier]

I am surprised, it should be in most literature, there is a great deal of debate regarding the extent of this influence among historians, and a lot of difficulty tracing the influences and determining what originated where, which group belonged to which language family etc. The Celtic influence in the south was certainly much less than in the center and the North, but I haven't encountered any historians that believe there was no influence at all? Cultures don't really function that way, they have a tendency to mix, and modern views on the spread of Celtic language in culture is that it wasn't necessarily waves of conquest, there was an ongoing cultural shift from trade and interaction. Assuming you aren't reading dated information that is.

I'm not going to list of sources because I would spend hours doing it and honestly my adhd meds have worn off so I'm not all that focussed. I also have found people don't tend to read them, so it's a lot effort on my behalf which usually doesn't result in anything. But quickly googling things like "celtic influence on xyz" then plugging in southern iberia, turdetani, contestani etc will yield fruit. You can then mix it up and put "critique of" so that you get a rounded view. I always like to read the criticisms as well. One that was interesting was "The Celticisation of the Iberian Peninsula, a process that could have had parallels in other European regions" by Manuel Alberro. But that one is a bit short and doesn't cover the full picture. There is far too much to read on the topic, but it is very interesting.

Just to add, there are Celtic place names in every region of Spain. So it's quite well evidenced that no iberian tribes were without Celtic influence. The debate is about the extent.

About the Celtic place names, this is not a perfect map but it still shows that theCeltic names of towns that remains is non existent in the South and the East, and in the center is still not comparable to the North and the West. Together with the language map I provided earlier, I think it shows that Celtic languages had little to zero influence in the Iberian tribes of the East and South. That they had contact, trade and even wars with Celts and Celtiberians doesn't mean that the Celtic languages had any significant presence in the population. In their case the Celtic presence should be so little as to not play a factor in their latinization, becuase they stil had Iberian as their spoken language, even if some Iberian traders or rulers knew Celtic (which I don't think is proven but it's possible).

 

[Skuchney]

About the Celtic place names, this is not a perfect map but it still shows that theCeltic names of towns that remains is non existent in the South and the East, and in the center is still not comparable to the North and the West. Together with the language map I provided earlier, I think it shows that Celtic languages had little to zero influence in the Iberian tribes of the East and South. That they had contact, trade and even wars with Celts and Celtiberians doesn't mean that the Celtic languages had any significant presence in the population. In their case the Celtic presence should be so little as to not play a factor in their latinization, becuase they stil had Iberian as their spoken language, even if some Iberian traders or rulers knew Celtic (which I don't think is proven but it's possible).View attachment 1317984

A lack of extant Celtic towns is not useful, also the map leaves out other toponyms such as rivers, hills, mountains etc . It does show that yes the Celts were extremely dominant in the North and West. You can also see in the center there were the Celt-Iberi were that less extant towns seem to have survived, and them being a more direct mixture of Celtic and Iberian could certainly play a role there.

What it doesnt show it the Celtic toponyms that go all the way South and East, Catalonia and Granada for example have some celtic toponyms. I don't know if anyone has compiled this. Those areas were in the VERY early stages of that cultural shift, we tend to find the toponyms more in geographical features like rivers I think? But also you had Celtic tribes in places like Baetica, they didn't just stay in the very north, the tribes did roam around all of Iberia. At any rate, that shift was underway, they were adding Celtic words and names, slowly incorporating Celtic practices, etc. This is all in line with the modern understanding of how Celtic expansion worked. It was initially thought to be aggressive waves of conquest. But the evidence seems to be more of a slow methodical migration, definitely with some conquest, but slowly over time, but most importantly high levels of trade, and increasing levels of trade. It seems to be this trade dominance that really spread the Celtic language and culture across Europe, with Celtic toponyms appearing in the strangest of places. Celtic toponymy is such an interesting field.

My point is that the example you gave me of a non-celtic area becoming thoroughly Latin, is an area of the world that was already experiencing Celticisation, and had Celtic tribes roaming all over the landscape. The people there were already mixing and changing, and then you add other variables such as the Punic conquests, and admixtures from other various groups and it makes this a prime location for Latinisation. It shouldn't be all that surprising that an area of the world already undergoing a cultural shift would be receptive to shifting in another direction, should it?

 

[Lord Lambert]

Well some of them are present since page one. I wonder if someone like @Aquila SPQR @Lele @Lord Lambert or @honkajoki has read every single post on this thread or close to it?

probably close to it yeah

 

[Tercio Soldier]

A lack of extant Celtic towns is not useful, also the map leaves out other toponyms such as rivers, hills, mountains etc . It does show that yes the Celts were extremely dominant in the North and West. You can also see in the center there were the Celt-Iberi were that less extant towns seem to have survived, and them being a more direct mixture of Celtic and Iberian could certainly play a role there.

What it doesnt show it the Celtic toponyms that go all the way South and East, Catalonia and Granada for example have some celtic toponyms. I don't know if anyone has compiled this. Those areas were in the VERY early stages of that cultural shift, we tend to find the toponyms more in geographical features like rivers I think? But also you had Celtic tribes in places like Baetica, they didn't just stay in the very north, the tribes did roam around all of Iberia. At any rate, that shift was underway, they were adding Celtic words and names, slowly incorporating Celtic practices, etc. This is all in line with the modern understanding of how Celtic expansion worked. It was initially thought to be aggressive waves of conquest. But the evidence seems to be more of a slow methodical migration, definitely with some conquest, but slowly over time, but most importantly high levels of trade, and increasing levels of trade. It seems to be this trade dominance that really spread the Celtic language and culture across Europe, with Celtic toponyms appearing in the strangest of places. Celtic toponymy is such an interesting field.

My point is that the example you gave me of a non-celtic area becoming thoroughly Latin, is an area of the world that was already experiencing Celticisation, and had Celtic tribes roaming all over the landscape. The people there were already mixing and changing, and then you add other variables such as the Punic conquests, and admixtures from other various groups and it makes this a prime location for Latinisation. It shouldn't be all that surprising that an area of the world already undergoing a cultural shift would be receptive to shifting in another direction, should it?

I have provided 2 maps of languages and town names. You haven't provided any sources. This is from Strabo's Geography, from AFTER the Roman conquest:

"From this river the country has received the name of Bætica; it is called Turdetania by the inhabitants, who are themselves denominated Turdetani, and Turduli. Some think these two names refer to one nation, while others believe that they designate two distinct people. Of this latter opinion is Polybius, who imagines that the Turduli dwell more to the north than the Turdetani. At the present day however there does not appear to be any distinction between them. These people are esteemed to be the most intelligent of all the Iberians; they have an alphabet, and possess ancient writings, poems, and metrical laws six thousand years old, as they say. The other Iberians are likewise furnished with an alphabet, although not of the same form, nor do they speak the same language."

"The Turdetani, on the other hand, especially those who dwell about the Guadalquiver, have so entirely adopted the Roman mode of life, as even to have forgotten their own language. They have for the most part become Latins, and received Roman colonists; so that a short time only is wanted before they will be all Romans."

So, from direct Roman quotes from after the conquest we know the Turdetani had their own language and ancient traditions dating well before any Celtic migration. We also know they spoke a different language from other tribes, so there wasn't even a language uniformity between tribes. And we also know that Romanization made them forget their own language, so it was not an adaptation from a supposedly already present Celtic influence that was similar to Latin.

By the way, this is what Strabo had to say about Celtiberias:

"Those of the Iberians who adopt these new modes of life are styled togati. Amongst their number are the Keltiberians, who formerly were regarded as the most uncivilized of them all. So much for these."

 

[AntarcticRanger]

How did this discussion on pre roman Iberia start anyhow? I mean I like it, it is a relative weak spot in my historical knowledge, but it is quite strange for this thread.

 

[Tercio Soldier]

How did this discussion on pre roman Iberia start anyhow? I mean I like it, it is a relative weak spot in my historical knowledge, but it is quite strange for this thread.

Because Skuchney was arguing that the reason that the West Latinised and the East didn't was because the West had Celts, and they spoke a "similar enough" language to Latin. I disagreed and brought up the examples of Afroromance and Iberia, but Skuchney said Iberia didn't count because it was already Celtisized, and I argued that the South and the East didn't speak Celtic languages and were wildly different culturally, as show by Roman and Greek records that divide Hispania in the Celt, Celtiberian and Iberian zones.

 

[AntarcticRanger]

Because Skuchney was arguing that the reason that the West Latinised and the East didn't was because the West had Celts, and they spoke a "similar enough" language to Latin. I disagreed and brought up the examples of Afroromance and Iberia, but Skuchney said Iberia didn't count because it was already Celtisized, and I argued that the South and the East didn't speak Celtic languages and were wildly different culturally, as show by Roman and Greek records that divide Hispania in the Celt, Celtiberian and Iberian zones.

Ah, that makes sense to relate to this thread. Has Britain with its relative lack of latinisation been brought up? Is that relevant?