In the new DLC's culture map I can't seem to find any Roman/pure Latin cultured provinces. Should they be there or not?
Should there be Roman culture on the map in the new DLC?
- Thread starter Joemit
- Start date
-
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.
Nope. It got conquered by the Lombards 250 years ago, and a substantial part reconquered by the already officially Greek ERE. So the old culture had long since vanished.
Out of curiosity, when did the Roman culture die out (by that I mean completely evolve into the various Romance Cultures)?
That's entirely subjective
If we're not being melodramatic and complaining about how Rome was a lost age of glory we could say that the Romance cultures and Roman culture are one continuous string
When did the evolution of Latin make it become what is now known as Italian, French, Romanian etc.?
I'd say never. Even if we don't consider the Romance cultures as Roman continuation, what we call "classical" culture, especially in the Middle Ages, especially in the Church, is the Roman culture. They communicated in latin (just like Erasmus later).
Latin began to evolve quite early. That's why the is no date for this "transformation". It also depends on the place: there was no unique Italian/French etc... language. For example, what is no know as Italian is not older than the XIXth century... If you look at the oldest "French" texts, it looks more like latin with bad declinations than like an other language.
But if I had to give a datation for the beginning of the separations between different latin dialects, it would be ca. the IIIrd century. But the romance languages come later, around the IXth century for the earliest. Before that they are only "transitional" late latin languages.
But Italian and French cultures (for example) were very close, despite different languages/dialects.
No.
There is no set date, ethnogenesis is a continuous process. The romans* as a people disappeared around the 4th century AD and were replaced by another type of romans, a new culture.
*by romans I mean the peopel who created the republic and the early empire.
There is no set date, ethnogenesis is a continuous process. The romans* as a people disappeared around the 4th century AD and were replaced by another type of romans, a new culture.
*by romans I mean the peopel who created the republic and the early empire.
I'm not an expert on the field, so someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that much of the peasantry in the Italian peninsula only spoke vulgar Latin because the proper language took quite a while to learn. With the degradation and collapse of Roman society, the language eventually stopped being taught and the vulgar form developed into Italian due to Germanic influence. A similar process occurred in other former areas of the Roman Empire where the local forms of Latin spoken by the populace began to meld together with the languages of the Germanic invaders.
.png){kind=avatar}
I would say what really changed the old Roman Culture for good in Italy was Justinian's conquest. That ended up being really bloody and really devastating to the peninsula.
Bear in mind I'm of the opinion Roman Culture didn't really die out. I look at it as gradually shifting and evolving. It has a ton of descendants to this day.
I mean would you really say the early colonial culture of the US died out? Or did it simply evolve and grow over time. You wouldn't look at America as something different in those 200 years it's been a country. Yet even before 476 Rome existed for 1000 years.
Bear in mind I'm of the opinion Roman Culture didn't really die out. I look at it as gradually shifting and evolving. It has a ton of descendants to this day.
I mean would you really say the early colonial culture of the US died out? Or did it simply evolve and grow over time. You wouldn't look at America as something different in those 200 years it's been a country. Yet even before 476 Rome existed for 1000 years.
What matters is the name list basically. Is the Italian name list appropriate for 8th century Italian nobles or did they have more Latin-sounding names?
Rome did indeed exist for 1000 years but it was not inhabited by the same people for the entire period of time, such like a modern day American is not exactly the same as those who fought the revolutionary war. Nations evolve and change and over time they get to the point where they are no longer the same people as who they were a couple of centuries ago. The same thing happened with the Romans after the empire was established.
Imho what really changed roman culture for good were Caracalla and Constantine's decrees. The first gave conquered "barbarians" isntant citizenship and basically put their customs and traditions on the same footing as roman ones while the second supported a religion which competently changed the mindset and modus operandi of the entire empire. That was when old Rome finally disappeared (a process which started with Augustus)
The original first waves of Germanic invaders, the goths, vandals and others had fought in the roman armies, spoke latin and were literate, in essence they merely replaced the romans at the top but keep the legal and political systems in place for the most part with them at the top with little distruption other than northern france where the franks and Alans settled which had fallen into compete economic, social and political chaos.
As for Latin comments about having difficultly understanding different dialects started appearing in writings in the early 8th century and by the third Council of Tours in 813 priests were ordered to either preach in rustica lingua romanica (Vulgar latin) or in the Germanic vernaculars – since the common people could no longer understand formal Latin.
As for Latin comments about having difficultly understanding different dialects started appearing in writings in the early 8th century and by the third Council of Tours in 813 priests were ordered to either preach in rustica lingua romanica (Vulgar latin) or in the Germanic vernaculars – since the common people could no longer understand formal Latin.
Yeah, many of the invasions did not cause a major disruption, but the same, again, can be said about the previous Roman invasion or political assimilation into Roman rule. Roman Empire wasn't the same as a modern nation state. You could probably talk about layers added on the surface rather than just simply becoming Roman in Gaul, Spain or even Italy. In 5th century, you'd have had Romano-something all over the place but little pure Roman other than the city of Rome itself. Rome wasn't a latinizer.
Anyway, no pure Roman on the map in 769 any more, not really. I'm pretty sure you could find some rural areas where little had changed since 5th century, but I don't think pure Roman culture would be warranted in any provinces on a 769 map.
Anyway, no pure Roman on the map in 769 any more, not really. I'm pretty sure you could find some rural areas where little had changed since 5th century, but I don't think pure Roman culture would be warranted in any provinces on a 769 map.
Last edited:
Indeed!
To add to this.... The 'creation' of a Post-Roman identity is an interesting thing. The experience I'm sure varied all over in the former expanses of the empire, beyond even the Romance speaking lands. Language by all means is not the ultimate trait in how you defined yourself in the past as it is now in Europe. Nationality in the modern day European sense is very much rooted by language groupings, and thus culture and thus 'ethnicity'.
A person asking an uneducated peasant in the Italian pennisula "What are you?" could rest much more on his religiosity, social status and geographical position in the penninsula than merely his language. The peasant could very well speak a local dialect of italo-romance and he'd be largely unaware of it.
"What do you speak?"
"Um the vulgar latin?"
"But it doesn't sound like what they say in church? How could you call it LATIN?!"
"Well this is how we speak it here in my village. I don't know what you'd want to call it."
I'm sure if you asked the average God-fearing peasant in Italy what he was he'd also answer 'Christian' faster than anything else. Arguably the 'Roman identity' gave way to a "Christian" identity faster than any national identity.
In the east in compaison the 'Roman' identity eventually became synnonomous with Christianity, so if anything, the association with a Roman identity gained in strength in the middle ages. Where before the Romans were first the ruling Emperors, governers and top ranking officals - they later became all those with citizenship. When citizenship became so common as to be irrelevent, to be Roman meant to be Christian and within the empire.
Anyways, identity is a weird thing in the Middle Ages and I am rambling at this point.
Last edited:
What separated the romans is that they had the genius in how they did things that they made the local peoples want to become romans, at least in the non Greek portions of the empire but then the greeks looked down on everyone else including the romans as barbarians anyway. Even the German invaders wanted to become romans.
One could argue that at least the County of Rome and the Duchy of Latium could have "Roman" culture not the same of the "Romans" that conquered Europe but a close descendent of them? Sure... maybe the name could be "Italo - Roman" if one want to be more precise.
What is sure is that the french as we know it only appeared in the last centuries of the last millenia. in the new start date, french did not exist nor in 870 altough in that date the transformation to french was already in the process.
in 769 it is very likely gallo-roman/roman still existed and with frankish contact and the loss of latin education will make the language slowly evolve into french and other romance dialect.
So I'd say if latin even vulgar was still spoken in Italy, and the roman culture was still preserved somehow, they deserve to have the roman culture.
in 769 it is very likely gallo-roman/roman still existed and with frankish contact and the loss of latin education will make the language slowly evolve into french and other romance dialect.
So I'd say if latin even vulgar was still spoken in Italy, and the roman culture was still preserved somehow, they deserve to have the roman culture.