Unconquered races within the Roman Empire

[S SEVERUS]

1) my point was that Roman RULE did not make any changes in the language. I have come across a lot of folks who think that the Romans stamped out other languages and made Latin compulsary or something. That of course did not happen.

2) That Spanish, Portugese and French a Romance languages of course has a lot to do with the Romans. My guess is that Latin spread as a second language for a great deal of people, but that for the lower classes, the original languages (at least for a long time) remained in place. We have a accounts of Celtic survival not only in the 5th c., but even into the Middle Ages. But Latin spread through many of the Western provinces as the common language. I guess the spread of Christianity would have given this process and extra boost.

3) Celtic languages are a lot closer to Italian languages (and hence Latin) than Germanic languages, which would account for an easier switch to a Romance language.

4) We don't have a good detailed picture of what was spoken where at the end of Roman rule. It is very possible that the Romance languages spread further after that time, unrelated to 'the Rimans'.

But what does that say for Rumanian language... Dacia was "celtic"?

[Gäiten]

I have to ask what about tribes living within the Empire`s borders who were not conquered, but closely allied with Rome.

For example I think of the Batavi.

[D B Campbell]

I have to ask what about tribes living within the Empire`s borders who were not conquered, but closely allied with Rome. For example I think of the Batavi.

I should leave this one to our friends from the Netherlands! //penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Pliny_the_Elder/4*.html#106:poz9ozic]Pliny, Natural History 4.106/17[/url] (only in Latin, I'm afraid -- come on Bill: where's the English translation?! :wink: ), where he lists the peoples of Gallia Belgica. Notice that some are said to be "free" (liberi -- i.e. free of tribute) and others are said to be "allies" (foederati -- i.e. held by some kind of treaty), but the Batavi are simply listed as part of the province.

[Robert Vermaat]

But what does that say for Rumanian language... Dacia was "celtic"?

Dacian was an Indo-European language close to Thracian. But there are many doubts as to what Dacian really was like, there are no inscriptions to guide us.
I can't say for sure, but maybe Rumania was settled with Roman immigrants after it's final conquest. Dacian tribes were present outside the zone occupied by the Romans, and Rumenian does contain dacian words. The Carpi may have been such a tribe, and other see Albanians as migrant Dacians..

[Gorgon]

But what does that say for Rumanian language... Dacia was "celtic"?

I can't say for sure, but maybe Rumania was settled with Roman immigrants after it's final conquest. Dacian tribes were present outside the zone occupied by the Romans, and Rumenian does contain dacian words. The Carpi may have been such a tribe, and other see Albanians as migrant Dacians..

I remember reading a loooooong time ago, and maybe the source wasn't reliable or maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but it seems that much of the original population of Dacia/Romania was either wiped out during the wars and/or resetled somewhere else and that there was a massive roman colonization program for the area with roman or romanized imigrants from all parts of the empire.

[S SEVERUS]

Maybe, but what's the use of conquering and then exterminating all the inhabitants...makes no sense to me.But why did they keep their language in a gulf of passing people like huns, gepids, avars slavs...?

[Gorgon]

I think the idea was that they made major resetlements of the native population, not exactely that the population was wiped out in their totality. And after those resetlements (or during them) a huge amount of roman and romanized immigrants were established there. I don't know how much of this is true or acepted though; as I said I seem to remember reading something along those lines a looonnngg time ago.

[marka]

There are two peoples I know of who remained 'free' from Roman rule throughout all or most of the history of Rome.

Who?

I always wonder why the Isaurians were only 'dicovered' at such a late date (the late 5th c.) as very good soldier material.

probably more of a change of policy on the part of the romans
recruiting them en masse would have solved overpopulation problems and neatly used an internal enemy against their external ones.
they used armenian troops in large numbers too

i doubt the eastern romans (or byzantines if you prefer) were ever desperate for soldiers-while they had money they could always recruit.

[Theodosius the Great]

I agree with the parallel with Spain for the second and first centuries BC. For example 133 BC, the fall of Numantia, is always quoted as the end of Celtiberian resistance to Rome, but we find that in 105 Celtiberians are able to repulse the Cimbri and Tetutones that had invaded Spain, without Roman help. And still in 96 BC the Romans had to crush the revolt of the oppidum of Termantia, let alone the wide support enjoyed by Sertorius in Celtiberia, that enabled him to mantain his fight.
I believe that the situation was more fluid than we sometimes conjecture, with Roman control more or less tight depending on the political circumstances, the local elites supporting Roman control or not depending of their interests and the political climate, periods where the "conquered" enjoyed more freedom, etc...

I see. I held the misnotion that within the empire there remained some untouched peoples. A modern parallel would be some remaining tribes within the Amazon forest of Brazil who have to this day never encountered Western civilization.

Yes, we seem to be in agreement with your last statement about the degredational fluidity of Roman control over their subjects. Thank you for your input

And that goes to everyone who participated in the thread as well.
Thank you for the enlighting discussion

~Theo

[Rumo]

2) That Spanish, Portugese and French a Romance languages of course has a lot to do with the Romans. My guess is that Latin spread as a second language for a great deal of people, but that for the lower classes, the original languages (at least for a long time) remained in place. We have a accounts of Celtic survival not only in the 5th c., but even into the Middle Ages. But Latin spread through many of the Western provinces as the common language. I guess the spread of Christianity would have given this process and extra boost.

3) Celtic languages are a lot closer to Italian languages (and hence Latin) than Germanic languages, which would account for an easier switch to a Romance language.

However there were Romance languages born also in the Eastern side of the Empire, the extinct Dalmatian, the modern Romanian and Aromanian. In these regions the influence of post-Roman Latin Christianity was limited and also late (on Dalmatian coast and in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary), most Balkan Romance speakers had either Slavonic or Greek as liturgical/prestige language. So here we have a case of Latin becoming the primary language of common people before the demise of the Roman rule (in Balkans that would be late 6th-early 7th century CE).

Why it should be different in the Western provinces? To my knowledge there's no solid evidence Celtic (or whatever non-Roman language) was the most spoken language in Western Empire in, let's say, 5th century CE.

It should be also noted that at the Council of Tours in 813, the Frankish clerics were ordered to translate and preach in rustica Romana lingua and in Thiotisca lingua (but no Celtic language). The common people were already speaking Romance (and Germanic languages) but the Christian message delivered in Latin was not readily accesible to them.

[Ron Andrea]

... all the unconquered peoples living within Roman territory who remained untouched by Roman tax collectors, soldiers, and influence.

You win! I cannot think of any territories within the empire that remained "independent" of Roman involvement.

(Incidentally, there is a common misconception -- which may, or may not, be at the root of your question, Theo -- that the Romans had to directly administer a territory in order to benefit from it. This was not the case, as the multiplicity of "friendly kingdoms" shows. Think of Judaea under Herod the Great -- not part of the empire, but Rome had a very close interest in the running of the kingdom, and would interfere at the drop of a petasus. Other territories -- Cottian Alps, Mauretania, Crimea, Thrace, Commagene, Palmyra ... -- fall into the same category, but were eventually absorbed into the Roman administration.)

DB's reference to Judaea is a good one. Herod the Great may have maintained his independence but his offspring did not. On the other hand, Roman rule was resisted for several generations, culminating in their subjugation by Vespasian following the AD 66 revolt. While he made every effort to erase the Jewish nation, language and people, they persisted.

Other national/language/ethnic groups may have parallel histories.