-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not a good representation of what I said, but anyone can go back and read it. We should leave it here, we are taking up too much of this post, which is a different topic. Happy to continue in private messages, and I can look into getting you some sources regarding the various celtic tribes that were within the iberian dominant regions, plus celtic toponyms in those regions etc. If it's something you are actually interested in, and want to read.
- 1
I actually only brought up the Celtic-Latin link as a little historical point of interest, it wasn't meant to part of any greater point haha. I didn't expect it to be so focused on, I thought it was quite well known that the majority of the permanent linguistic replacement was in Celtic speaking land.
For Britain the main factor is lack of a Roman presence, and its relative isolation. It wasn't as valuable or desirable and didn't attract a lot of settlers, they weren't constructing as many cities etc. Still there was a decent amount of Romanisation that took place, and you had the Romano-British forming as the Celts slowly Romanised, and many of them were Latin speakers. So it wasn't that they didn't Latinise, it was just slower. The more interesting thing is the rapid collapse of that culture when the Romans left, because the rapid abandonment of everything Roman is incredibly strange. That's a real complex issue with so many factors that there isn't really any consensus among historians. Well other than them agreeing that it had many contributing factors.
- 1
- 1
This is where I can pop back in, Britain is a rather unique case when it comes to our now extinct romance language. Firstly Britain's level of romanization was highly localized to the southeast, with Wales, Cornwall and the North of the Humber being vastly less developed and more rural/industrial mining. These areas are where Celtic languages persisted long after the Roman withdrawal. Secondly, uniquely among the western roman provinces that fell in the 5th century The Roman and Celtic populations resisted the Germanic invaders militarily. fighting them to a standstill at points in the 500's. But the knock on effect seems to have been the more rapid collapse of Roman infrastructure and institutions. So as the Saxons gradually gained ground it was at the expense of the Romanized urban areas that early British Latin needed to survive as a language, With no native apparatus to govern like the Franks or Visigoths there was no Latin institutions to prolong the language or assimilate the Saxons. By about 700 the vast majority of the major roman cities had fell with the majority of the populations fleeing west and integrating into the early Welsh. Welsh and Cornish incidentally have a lot of Latin loanwords.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
If I recall correctly Welsh is less than 10% latin by vocabulary. It does have more Latin than English though.
Guys, with the non-release of today's DD, the other thread has pulled way ahead, we need to think of something to spark discussion!
Uh..um...I think we should rename the ERE to France!
Uh..um...I think we should rename the ERE to France!
- 3
- 1
- 1
In an effort to increase discussion, I think the the USA is not a new Rome, it is clearly a new Carthage. Yes, Britain is a new Phoenicia.
- 2
- 1
We will sail and salt Rome! Long live Carthage! Repay the injustice!
- 2
I'm all for avenging Carthage but when Carthage is the US and Mexico is Rome is when I start to feel conflicted
- 2
It has been a thing to claim inheritance of Rome, USA being one of the places where that has happened. But has it been a thing to claim inheritance of Carthage on Phoenicia?
Tunisia and Lebanon claim to be the successors of Carthage and Phoenicia respectively
- 2
Which is understandable as they're both located where the original country was. Has any country besides Rome had lots of succession claimants?
I think this makes France (and maybe Romance Europe in general) Greece, so perhaps that time Napoleon III invaded Mexico is the Pyrrhic war?
- 2
It's not really a country but many have claimed to be the Caliphate. China and Persia also had many successor states.
- 1
- 1
Years ago I saw it crystal clear. USA was republican Rome, powerful and expansionist, Europe was Greece broken up in small nations and Russia with its "oriental despotism" was Persia. But why is USA Carthage? I feel like they role play Rome so hard even with the "no kings" protests recently that it is hard to justify comparing them to any ancient civilisation rather than Rome. It is easy to say "ERE is France" or "USA is Carthage", but without a creative argumentation it is kind of boring.
- 3
- 1
china is rome, usa is carthage
source: chinas flag is red and yellow like romes banner in Imperator
- 2
- 1
- 1
The USA is a naval focused former colony that has surpassed its progenitor due to having significantly more territory and not needing to get tangled up in the problems of the old world. The USA really likes to play up its similarities to the Roman Republic, it has since its foundation, but it seems no more Roman to me than, say, Poland does.
- 2
- 1