4 ms·

>by the time of Basil II they were speaking Greek instead of Latin They were speaking Greek the entirety of their time in the Roman Empire though?

coldtea 3y ago
The Eastern provinces yes - including places now considered "middle eastern", which back when the Roman conquest happened were run by the Ptolemys and other hairs of Alexander. The emperors however, when Byzantium was established did not, as they came from latin speaking Roman elites (it was after all the eastern part created from the split of the Roman empire into two organizational units). It took a few centuries for the eastern emperors to speak Greek (and basically rise from the local elements).
- golergka 3y ago
  Thats incorrect. Greek may not have been their main language, but most of educated and especially noble Romans spoke it. It was language of poetry and philosophy, speaking it was a shibollet of belonging to the educated. Mark Aurelius Antoninus, for example, wrote his Meditations in Greek, not Latin.
  - sapphicsnail 3y ago
    There's also a lot of republican authors that compare Latin infavorably to Greek. This was during the "Golden Age" of Latin literature. Part of why the Aeneid was such a huge deal is that a lot Roman's didn't think you could write a good epic in Latin.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Thats incorrect. Greek may not have been their main language, but most of educated and especially noble Romans spoke it I wrote:"The Eastern provinces yes [did speak Greek]. The emperors however, when Byzantium was established did not" The official language of the emperors and the state was latin, until Heraclius, 3 centuries after Constatinople was established. Emperors spoke Latin regardless of whether they knew Greek as part of their cultural education. And some only had a more basic grasp, or were versed in ancient Greek (to read the relevant literature) more than colloquial late antiquity Greek. Constantine for example had a basic command of Greek, but still needed translators for anything official.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  >The Eastern provinces yes - including places now considered "middle eastern", which back when the Roman conquest happened were run by the Ptolemys and other hairs of Alexander. I'm not sure what your point is? The eastern provinces were part of Rome. >The emperors however, when Byzantium was established did not, as they came from latin speaking Roman elites (it was after all the eastern part created from the split of the Roman empire into two organizational units). It took a few centuries for the eastern emperors to speak Greek (and basically rise from the local elements). Emperor Julian may have spoken Greek as his first language and he was emperor during the 300s. Regardless, a large number of emperors knew Greek to varying degrees. Many of the Roman elites (in the West) knew Greek.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >I'm not sure what your point is? The eastern provinces were part of Rome. My point is those places had centuries of Greek-speaking established, and they spoke Greek. I literally start with the point: "The Eastern provinces, yes [did speak Greek]", confirming the parent's ascertion that "they were speaking Greek the entirety of their time in the Roman Empire though?".
- imbnwa 3y ago
  You may be mistaking the fact that the Romance languages would come to dominate in the former territories of the Roman Empire in Western Europe for some sort of significance of speaking Latin; not at all. Places like Spain and France would come to speak Latin derivatives because the common soldier stationed there spoke a dialect of it themselves, and the Roman governance needed to talk to the working-class soldiers to get anything done. The Roman working class would not have an extensive grasp of Greek. The educated and elite of Rome, nay, the majority of the Mediterranean would have spoken a form of Greek. Paul of Tarsus writes his letters now collected in the New Testament of the Christian Bible in Koine Greek; likewise the rest of the New Testament, as well as most of the writing of the Church Fathers, largely written by people from middle-class backgrounds. Hence, the Germanic warlords who would come to be the ancestors of Western European aristocracy today, would come to speak Latin because they primarily were use to engaging the militaries of Rome, both as allies and as enemies, rather than the intelligentsia of Rome.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >You may be mistaking the fact that the Romance languages would come to dominate in the former territories of the Roman Empire in Western Europe for some sort of significance of speaking Latin The Roman emperors spoke latin, and that was the language of the senate, army, and politics in general, as well as everyday life in Rome. A latin ancenstry was also a must for the most part - even supposedly "ethnic" emperors are usually just descendants of latin parents, Roman royalty or army deployed in some part of the empire. That the elites also were taught Greek as a cultural thing is another matter. For cultivation it was ancient (attic) Greek that they read classical Greek texts in, not Koine. Byzantium had both: the people spoke Koine Greek, but the "higher education" Greek in which "serious" literature and treatises was written, and which was taught, was attic, the Greek dialect of ancient Athens. The population in the whole eastern part of the Empire, did speak Koine Greek, a big majority as their native tongue, and others as a trade language (or in older Greek settlements). The latter that was more commonly the case for the western provinces when it came to Greek too.
  - timeon 3y ago
    > Paul of Tarsus writes his letters now collected in the New Testament of the Christian Bible in Koine Greek Were Roman soldiers of west less Roman than Helenized-yew?
- KoftaBob 3y ago
  > The emperors however, when Byzantium was established did not, as they came from latin speaking Roman elites What the Emperor's ethnic/cultural background is, and what the general populace spoke are two different things. If we want to use that analogy, then let's look at the Ottoman sultans. The first few Ottoman sultans were primarily of Central Asian Turkic ethnic makeup, however every one of them had a policy of having children with women who were Christians of either Greek, Circassian, Balkans/Caucus, and later Polish backgrounds. That means that very quickly, the average Ottoman sultan was almost entirely a blend of Greek/Balkan/Circassian and a very small percentage actually of Turkic ethnic makeup. Does that mean that the Ottoman empire for most of its existence was a Greco-Caucasian Empire, rather than a Turkish one?

coldtea 3y ago

The Eastern provinces yes - including places now considered "middle eastern", which back when the Roman conquest happened were run by the Ptolemys and other hairs of Alexander. The emperors however, when Byzantium was established did not, as they came from latin speaking Roman elites (it was after all the eastern part created from the split of the Roman empire into two organizational units). It took a few centuries for the eastern emperors to speak Greek (and basically rise from the local elements).

golergka 3y ago
Thats incorrect. Greek may not have been their main language, but most of educated and especially noble Romans spoke it. It was language of poetry and philosophy, speaking it was a shibollet of belonging to the educated. Mark Aurelius Antoninus, for example, wrote his Meditations in Greek, not Latin.
- sapphicsnail 3y ago
  There's also a lot of republican authors that compare Latin infavorably to Greek. This was during the "Golden Age" of Latin literature. Part of why the Aeneid was such a huge deal is that a lot Roman's didn't think you could write a good epic in Latin.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Thats incorrect. Greek may not have been their main language, but most of educated and especially noble Romans spoke it I wrote:"The Eastern provinces yes [did speak Greek]. The emperors however, when Byzantium was established did not" The official language of the emperors and the state was latin, until Heraclius, 3 centuries after Constatinople was established. Emperors spoke Latin regardless of whether they knew Greek as part of their cultural education. And some only had a more basic grasp, or were versed in ancient Greek (to read the relevant literature) more than colloquial late antiquity Greek. Constantine for example had a basic command of Greek, but still needed translators for anything official.
ImJamal 3y ago
>The Eastern provinces yes - including places now considered "middle eastern", which back when the Roman conquest happened were run by the Ptolemys and other hairs of Alexander. I'm not sure what your point is? The eastern provinces were part of Rome. >The emperors however, when Byzantium was established did not, as they came from latin speaking Roman elites (it was after all the eastern part created from the split of the Roman empire into two organizational units). It took a few centuries for the eastern emperors to speak Greek (and basically rise from the local elements). Emperor Julian may have spoken Greek as his first language and he was emperor during the 300s. Regardless, a large number of emperors knew Greek to varying degrees. Many of the Roman elites (in the West) knew Greek.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >I'm not sure what your point is? The eastern provinces were part of Rome. My point is those places had centuries of Greek-speaking established, and they spoke Greek. I literally start with the point: "The Eastern provinces, yes [did speak Greek]", confirming the parent's ascertion that "they were speaking Greek the entirety of their time in the Roman Empire though?".
imbnwa 3y ago
You may be mistaking the fact that the Romance languages would come to dominate in the former territories of the Roman Empire in Western Europe for some sort of significance of speaking Latin; not at all. Places like Spain and France would come to speak Latin derivatives because the common soldier stationed there spoke a dialect of it themselves, and the Roman governance needed to talk to the working-class soldiers to get anything done. The Roman working class would not have an extensive grasp of Greek. The educated and elite of Rome, nay, the majority of the Mediterranean would have spoken a form of Greek. Paul of Tarsus writes his letters now collected in the New Testament of the Christian Bible in Koine Greek; likewise the rest of the New Testament, as well as most of the writing of the Church Fathers, largely written by people from middle-class backgrounds. Hence, the Germanic warlords who would come to be the ancestors of Western European aristocracy today, would come to speak Latin because they primarily were use to engaging the militaries of Rome, both as allies and as enemies, rather than the intelligentsia of Rome.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >You may be mistaking the fact that the Romance languages would come to dominate in the former territories of the Roman Empire in Western Europe for some sort of significance of speaking Latin The Roman emperors spoke latin, and that was the language of the senate, army, and politics in general, as well as everyday life in Rome. A latin ancenstry was also a must for the most part - even supposedly "ethnic" emperors are usually just descendants of latin parents, Roman royalty or army deployed in some part of the empire. That the elites also were taught Greek as a cultural thing is another matter. For cultivation it was ancient (attic) Greek that they read classical Greek texts in, not Koine. Byzantium had both: the people spoke Koine Greek, but the "higher education" Greek in which "serious" literature and treatises was written, and which was taught, was attic, the Greek dialect of ancient Athens. The population in the whole eastern part of the Empire, did speak Koine Greek, a big majority as their native tongue, and others as a trade language (or in older Greek settlements). The latter that was more commonly the case for the western provinces when it came to Greek too.
- timeon 3y ago
  > Paul of Tarsus writes his letters now collected in the New Testament of the Christian Bible in Koine Greek Were Roman soldiers of west less Roman than Helenized-yew?
KoftaBob 3y ago
> The emperors however, when Byzantium was established did not, as they came from latin speaking Roman elites What the Emperor's ethnic/cultural background is, and what the general populace spoke are two different things. If we want to use that analogy, then let's look at the Ottoman sultans. The first few Ottoman sultans were primarily of Central Asian Turkic ethnic makeup, however every one of them had a policy of having children with women who were Christians of either Greek, Circassian, Balkans/Caucus, and later Polish backgrounds. That means that very quickly, the average Ottoman sultan was almost entirely a blend of Greek/Balkan/Circassian and a very small percentage actually of Turkic ethnic makeup. Does that mean that the Ottoman empire for most of its existence was a Greco-Caucasian Empire, rather than a Turkish one?