What happened to the people who called themselves Romans after the Fall of Rome?

[poiuytrewq0987]

I've always found the complete disappearance of Romans post-fall very puzzling. I'm hoping anyone here can shed some light on what happened to the Romans post-fall.

[Wulfhere]

Nothing happened to them. They're still there, in Rome. The rest of the empire continued calling themselves Romans too, and still do - Romance.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Nothing happened to them. They're still there, in Rome. The rest of the empire continued calling themselves Romans too, and still do - Romance.

The people who succeeded the Romans, yes, they're here today. But not who I was talking about. I'm talking about the people who called themselves Romans and marched for the Senate and the People of Rome.

[SilverFish]

Two options:
Either they
1)Hanged themselves after thinking that they have no other future

or

2)They moved on with life.

[Wulfhere]

The people who succeeded the Romans, yes, they're here today. But not who I was talking about. I'm talking about the people who called themselves Romans and marched for the Senate and the People of Rome.

They're the same people. The inhabitants of Rome are descended from those very people you describe. They even retained some of their institutions long after losing the empire - the Senate for example, which continued to meet until around 600.

Romanes eunt domus

[poiuytrewq0987]

They're the same people. The inhabitants of Rome are descended from those very people you describe. They even retained some of their institutions long after losing the empire - the Senate for example, which continued to meet until around 600.

Romanes eunt domus

Well, yes but that's not really the point I was trying to get to. The Romans who identified as Roman for many centuries then all of the sudden a few centuries after the fall, they end up calling themselves Italian, a bit odd if you ask me.

Perhaps it is because after the fact Rome had been occupied for many centuries and Romans started to lose touch with their "Romanness" and end up identifying as Italian instead of Roman?

[Stefan]

Italy is a fairly recent country. It seems that after the fall of the Romans it became regional identification on the peninsula. Similar to how it was before the roman expansion, except for a cultural and lingual change since then of course. I could definitely be wrong though, and I am posting this by memory rather than verification on if I'm right or not.

[Loddfafner]

I understand that residents of Italy still identify according to region and city instead of as Italians. Italy was a mid nineteenth-century creation. Rome was part of the Papal States, the capital of Catholic Christendom for centuries. They certainly saw themselves as successors of the Roman Empire. Mussolini, in his own way, revived a sense of Romanness.

[Electronic God-Man]

I understand that residents of Italy still identify according to region and city instead of as Italians.

Yeah, and it's a problem for them. No one wants to fight for Italy or work for Italy.

I guess there are pros and cons to that though.

[Comte Arnau]

After the Fall of Rome, speakers of Romance languages continued to consider themselves Romans/Latins, or at least, speakers of that language. At least until around the year 1000.

Even today you have the Romanians, the Romansh, the Ladinians...

[Osweo]

Even the Byzantines called themselves Romans...

[Kadu]

Even the Byzantines called themselves Romans...

Even Alana.:shrug:

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o21/Kadu_album/Imagem91.png

It is católica apostólica romana not católica apostólica y romana :P

y=and

[Wulfhere]

Well, yes but that's not really the point I was trying to get to. The Romans who identified as Roman for many centuries then all of the sudden a few centuries after the fall, they end up calling themselves Italian, a bit odd if you ask me.

Perhaps it is because after the fact Rome had been occupied for many centuries and Romans started to lose touch with their "Romanness" and end up identifying as Italian instead of Roman?

The Romans still call themselves Romans.

[Tabiti]

Romans the citizens of nowadays Rome? The question is the same with Aztecs, Mayans, Byzantines, Babylonians, Assyrians and all once citizens of big ancient empires.
To be honest, there wasn't a "Roman" ethnicity. Most Romans were in fact Italic tribes.

[Wulfhere]

Romans the citizens of nowadays Rome? The question is the same with Aztecs, Mayans, Byzantines, Babylonians, Assyrians and all once citizens of big ancient empires.
To be honest, there wasn't a "Roman" ethnicity. Most Romans were in fact Italic tribes.

There was once a Roman ethnicity, and a very strong one. Roman literature is full of patriotic writings. But the ethnicity became diluted after citizenship was gradually granted to the whole empire, and loads of non-Romans flocked to Rome. Having said that a strong Roman identity still remains, though probably not what would be called an ethnicity.

[Eins Zwei Polizei]

Rome was a town which became an empire. The concept of Roman citizenship couldn't obviously limit to the original families who lived in the town itself at the dawn of its existence, and extended to the confederated or subjugated ethnicities (first the surrounding populations of the Peninsula, then Cisalpine and Transalpine Celts, Greeks, and so on). After the empire fell new identities emerged taking their names from ancient geographical definitions (e.g. Italy from the province of Italia, Spain from Hispania, etc.) or from populations which migrated more recently (e.g. Lombardy from the Lombards, France from the Franks, etc.).

[Eins Zwei Polizei]

By the way until later times Roman citizenship had always been a privilege which was bestowed on specific individuals, élites or ethnicities, and not to the whole population of the empire. After its fall the inhabitants could still identify as "Romans" facing the new "barbarians", but of course this distinction wouldn't last long as populations fused together.

As it has been previously noticed the Byzantines kept calling themselves Romaioi, while Charlemagne's empire revived in its turn the Roman appellation.

[Tony]

I've always found the complete disappearance of Romans post-fall very puzzling. I'm hoping anyone here can shed some light on what happened to the Romans post-fall.

Romans , or let's say it better , the people who lived in Italy , spoke Latin and identifyied themselves as Romans , didn't actually disappeared in 476 , the year historians take as the official date of the Roman Empire's end.

It's a bit like the Byzantines , they're still living today in Anatolia but have lost their own original identity.

Roman has always been more a cultural term than an ethnic one , it means what is linked directly or indirectly to Rome , in fact those who founded Rome were the Latini , probably coming from what is today Hungary.

The Italian peninsula has always been a patchwork of several different people , before , during and after the Roman dominated age.
The Roman elite didn't managed to Romanized all these tribes , especially the rural population , who actually didn't speak properly Latin but the vulgar , a mix of Latin and their own earlier languages (think of Etruscans , Sanniti , Greeks...)

After the fall of Rome obviously these regional ethnic differences re-emerged even more strongly to the point that even today many Italians , especially in the south , talk more their dialects than Italian.

As regard to the ethnic map I assume Italy changed the most in the first millenium , the early centuries seen the immigration from the provinces so we imported Numidians , Egytpians , Syrians , Germani , Britanni , Gauls and the likes , after the fall we experienced another wave of strangers , mostly Lombards and Ostrogoths.

But telling an exact figure of how many Italians today can claim to be the descendants of the original Romans (i.e. also pre-Roman people) is very difficult , likely the most but it's almost impossibile to calculate.

[curiousman]

Even the Byzantines called themselves Romans...

Even the Ottoman Sultan after the fall of Constantinople called himself Qaisar i Rum that is Emperor of the Romans.

[Eins Zwei Polizei]

Even the Ottoman Sultan after the fall of Constantinople called himself Qaisar i Rum that is Emperor of the Romans.

That's because the "Roman" concept has hardly been an ethnicity proper, aside from its beginnings in Latium.

[Sol Invictus]

Romans just designates the city from which Romans come from. The original inhabitants of Rome are the Latin tribe.

[asulf]

Two options:
Either they
1)Hanged themselves after thinking that they have no other future

or

2)They moved on with life.

The story like this to play tricks on people.

I have a friend who comes from a patrician family of Rome, these ancestors were sitting in the senate, and Caesar knew him and other great figures of history.
Well imagine that it is Belgian! Italian emigrant not become Belgian, it belongs to the Belgian nobility.
All goes well for him, he directs the brewing companies money, and deserves to stay open for who knows how to appreciate.
He inherited the financial funds of the ancestors patricians, and n is the link of a long chain, each generation helps to maintain the achievements of his ancestors.
Opportunities in the past have been that he is Belgian, because ports and maritime trade.
I think that is an interesting example, which suggests to me that the ancient Romans have become for some Italians, other Europeans have become.
beyond the centuries men have remained the same, some do not hesitate to seek or retain opportunities elsewhere.:D

[antonio]

Even the Byzantines called themselves Romans...

And the Franks, Osweo as you know probably better than me, which I guess, started the Sacrum Imperium Romanum-Germanicum (sorry for my bad Latin), which for a decades, unites with the Kingdoms of Castille, Aragon, etc...on the figure of Rex Carolus First of Spain, and Fifth of Germany.

Other thing, you all, must consider is that Latin was the official language of many parts of Europe till Renaissance: obviously they could switch sooner to Romance or Germanic languages: if they did not do that is a clear symptom of surveiance of Roman Empire, even disgregated into little Goth kingdoms.

All these kind of things reunited yield to the conclusion that the Roman Empire, at least like an objective to achive last till recent ages.

Nowadays, of course, were on different things, the nasty, soulles and culturess European Union, shamed of its History, failed even to make a minimum reference to Christian roots of all the stuff.

[asulf]

Even if my ancestors faced Rome, and eventually with other brothers three centuries later ...... to put Rome on the ground
It is clear that Rome, left his mark on our civilization, striking the imagination of peoples long after his fall.
The greatness of Rome and some of its luster partly explains why, some people then claimed the title of Romans.

[Liffrea]

Contraction was the name of the game in the late western empire, although AD476 is generally taken as the official end of the western empire with the deposition on Romulus Augustulus this is really a de jure recognition of what had been a de facto state of affairs from the early 5th century AD. Italy was, pretty much, a free standing unit on it’s own by AD476. In AD476 Odavacer commander of what remained of the “Roman” army deposed Augustulus and, nominally, ruled in the name of the eastern emperor Zeno.

The process of Romanisation was different depending on region. In Britain Roman identity had largely collapsed within a couple of generations of the abandonment of Roman authority in the island, in Italy the removal of the emperor was probably no major event, the senate continued well into the 6th century although it had been politically impotent long before the end of empire, whilst Rome was already a shadow of its former self and it’s population had been declining steadily from the 3rd century. By AD399 hovels were being built on the Campus Martius.

The continuance of everyday life in post-imperial Italy is quite remarkable. Under the Gothic kingdom life continued largely as normal and most of the Goths were concentrated north of the river Po defending the Alpine passes. The law did distinguish between Roman and Goth but in practise that meant very little at all. In point of fact the Roman landed class pretty much continued as before, it was only the Lombard invasions in the late 6th century that really began to shake the old Roman foundations. By the end of the 7th century we have evidence that Romans were beginning to give their children Lombard names, whilst Roman names were generally concentrated in the lower and servile classes.

[Óttar]

failed even to make a minimum reference to Christian roots of all the stuff.
The man who designed the EU flag said he modelled it after the 12 stars around Mary's head as per the extra-synoptic Revelation of St. John (or so this is the Church's official explanation), and her mantle is traditionally blue like the sea and sky, so the flag is blue. :coffee:

http://reocities.com/MadisonAvenue/agency/6495/mary52.jpg

[Osweo]

Most Romans were in fact Italic tribes.
I read a good article in National Geographic a few years ago about those peoples. The archaeologist interviewed even tried to suggest that regional identities of the present day owe a great deal to those of the times before the Social Wars... Rather far fetched in some ways, though natural in others. I'm interested - since we have many Italians contributing to the thread - when did the old names like Samnite and Oscan fall into disuse? Some like Etruscan and Apulian and so on never did, having been retained to name the areas concerned, but this seems uneven across the peninsula.

After its fall the inhabitants could still identify as "Romans" facing the new "barbarians", but of course this distinction wouldn't last long as populations fused together.
You might not have heard of the desperation with which some in Britain held on to their Romanitas. St Patrick - a Fifth Century Northern Briton - was quite adamant about this in one of his surviving writings, the Epistle to Coroticus. He described himself and the royal recipient as 'Citizens of the Holy Romans'. Many gravemarkers from this same period and even up to around 650 show how men clung to such old titles from the Roman provincial administration as Magistrate, and used Imperial terms of address like Sapientissimus.

In Patrick's example, however, we can see how the civic identity turned imperial is beginning to take on also a confessional shade of meaning... Charlemagne's adoption of the same may indeed have been inherited from Patrick. THe first man to address him as 'Imperator' was Alcuin of York, a man trained by the heirs of Patrician Christianity reimported into northern England... :thumb001:

it was only the Lombard invasions in the late 6th century that really began to shake the old Roman foundations.
With the Normans coming soon to finish the job...

By the end of the 7th century we have evidence that Romans were beginning to give their children Lombard names, whilst Roman names were generally concentrated in the lower and servile classes.
I wonder, can anyone tell us the general tendency of the pedigrees of the noble class throughout Italy?

[Osweo]

The man who designed the EU flag said he modelled it after the 12 stars around Mary's head as per the extra-synoptic Revelation of St. John (or so this is the Church's official explanation), and her mantle is traditionally blue like the sea and sky, so the flag is blue. :coffee:

http://reocities.com/MadisonAvenue/agency/6495/mary52.jpg

Sure, but they really go out of their way to deny this connection - thereby proving Antonio's point.

I'm amazed that Revelation actually scraped its way into the Canon, actually, given its weirdo nature... ;) Such a book of cryptic symbolism and occult ideas is far less 'Christian' than the rest of the New Testament, and it's less surprising that the murky figures behind the early EU should have taken something from this source, than from the Gospels or the like.

It is also significant on this flag that the Queen of Heaven's halo is empty... :strokebeard:

[Germanicus]

To answer what happened to the inhabitants of Rome we have to ask where they came from first; the Etruscans inhabited the area of what we now call the city of Rome.
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n449/ruffusruffcut/etruscan.png


Etruscan civilization is the modern English name given to the culture and way of life of a people of ancient Italy and Corsica whom the ancient Romans called Etrusci or Tusci. The Attic Greek word for them was Τυρρήνιοι (Tyrrhēnioi) from which Latin also drew the names Tyrrhēni (Etruscans), Tyrrhēnia (Etruria) and Tyrrhēnum mare (Tyrrhenian Sea). The Etruscans themselves used the term Rasenna, which was syncopated to Rasna or Raśna.

As distinguished by its own language, the civilization endured from an unknown prehistoric time prior to the founding of Rome until its complete assimilation to Italic Rome in the Roman Republic. At its maximum extent during the foundation period of Rome and the Roman kingdom, it flourished in three confederacies of cities: of Etruria, of the Po valley with the eastern Alps, and of Latium and Campania. Rome was sited in Etruscan territory. There is considerable evidence that early Rome was dominated by Etruscans until the Romans sacked Veii in 396 BC.

Culture that is identifiably and certainly Etruscan developed in Italy after about 800 BC approximately over the range of the preceding Iron Age Villanovan culture. The latter gave way in the seventh century to a culture that was influenced by Greek traders and Greek neighbors in Magna Graecia, the Hellenic civilization of southern Italy.

The Roman Empire and it's culture may have changed, but the inhabitants of Rome are still there in it's descendants that inhabit the city now.

Here is The Power of Rome...A Fasces.
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n449/ruffusruffcut/roman_lictor_with_fasces.jpg

Here is an Etruscan fasces found in Etruscan grave site, which proves to me the early Romans adopted Etruscan culture and formed it into an Empire building society.
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n449/ruffusruffcut/iron_fasces.jpg

[Svanhild]

What happened to the people who called themselves Romans after the Fall of Rome? They started crying for centuries after Germanic hordes from the north looted their depraved realm. :costumed-smiley-083 I better abscond from outraged romanophiles now...:wink

[Germanicus]

I better abscond from outraged romanophiles now...:wink

Outraged educated Romanophiles my dear.....:)

[Kadu]

I better abscond from outraged romanophiles now...:wink

Please don't, that would be very ungermanic of you.

[Comte Arnau]

To be honest, there wasn't a "Roman" ethnicity.

Citizens from the Empire spoke Latin and felt Roman. Seneca or Trajan were not 'Spanish', they were Roman.


What happened to the people who called themselves Romans after the Fall of Rome? They started crying for centuries after Germanic hordes from the north looted their depraved realm.

Germanic hordes that adopted the Roman language and laws.

[Wulfhere]

The man who designed the EU flag said he modelled it after the 12 stars around Mary's head as per the extra-synoptic Revelation of St. John (or so this is the Church's official explanation), and her mantle is traditionally blue like the sea and sky, so the flag is blue. :coffee:

http://reocities.com/MadisonAvenue/agency/6495/mary52.jpg

This is one of the most blatant examples of continuing Roman (Catholic) power in the EU. We should have nothing to do with it.

[Wulfhere]

Germanic hordes that adopted the Roman language and laws.

Except in England.

[Falkata]

And except here too

http://planetaazul.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/aldeagala.jpg

[Comte Arnau]

Except in England.

William the Conqueror corrected that mistake years later. For the sake of the English language.

[Murphy]

This is one of the most blatant examples of continuing Roman (Catholic) power in the EU. We should have nothing to do with it.

You're a fucking fool Wulfhere. Honestly.. i

Regards,
The Papist.

[Amapola]

Back in topic, it's not very clear that people in the remains of the Western empire would realize what had happened. It was not only that the communications made any news to take a long time to be transmitted, but also the empire was still alive and booming in its Eastern part. Besides, the "barbarians" (Visigoths) in Hispania kept on the Roman heritage with which they had coexisted for a century and which was considered as "their own". As odd as it might sound, the feeling that the empire had disappeared, all in all, took a long time to occur.

[Amapola]

Citizens from the Empire spoke Latin and felt Roman. Seneca or Trajan were not 'Spanish', they were Roman.

Indeed, that's right, but allow me to qualify.

Rome created Hispania as an "unity": introduced a common language; it was Rome that created an administrative and legal structure, and through Rome we got the religion that would become an identity sign very soon amongst Hispanos: Christianism. Hispania was Rome BUT there was an Hispano-Roman awareness: The Hispanos are Romans from the Iberian peninsula, as Roman as the ones from "Rome". Their home, their land is Hispania. A good example of that sensitivity is the poet Martialis (Martial): he spoke of himself as "sprung from the Celts and Iberians, and a countryman of the Tagus;" He born in Bílbilis (Calatayud), left for Rome and, after a life full of difficulties, came back to his native land, where he wrote that:

Mientras vagas inquieto y al azar, Juvenal, por la ruidosa Subura o subes al Aventino al templo de la soberana Diana; mientras empapado de sudor bajo tu toga que sacude al aire vas jadeante por los palacios de los poderosos y te fatigan el Celio mayor y el menor, a mí después de muchos inviernos de desearlo me acoge y me hace aldeano mi Bílbilis, orgullosa de su oro y de su hierro. Aquí, descansando, cultivo con ligero trabajo el Boterdo y Platea; ¡mira qué nombres a cuál más ordinario éstos de mi tierra celtíbera!; gozo de un sueño hondo y prolongado que muchas veces no interrumpe la hora tercera, y ahora es cuando me repongo por completo de cuantas vigilias he sufrido a lo largo de treinta años. Aquí desconozco la toga: si la pido me dan un vestido cualquiera que yace en una destartalada silla. Cuando me levanto me espera una fogata que alimentan apiladas carrascas del vecino monte y que la granjera rodea de múltiples ollas. Acude el cazador, el que precisamente se desea tener en el espeso bosque. El colono, aun imberbe, reparte a cada esclavo su menester y me pide licencia para cortarles el pelo.
Así me gusta vivir; así quiero morir.

Or:

"Do not be suprised, my friend, that I long so much for remote lands in which people feel immensely rich with very little; it is true that I live in Rome enjoying a life of fame and prestige, but it is also true that I was born from Celts and Iberians."

[Occidental]

To answer your question first one must ask what exactly is a Roman? I am sure that a native Briton who lived in Roman Britain considered himself just as much a Roman as one from the the Eternal City itself.

But if you ask what happened to the peoples who founded Rome, I suppose their blood may still be found in the region though it is in all probability highly diluted by foreign blood.


This is one of the most blatant examples of continuing Roman (Catholic) power in the EU. We should have nothing to do with it.

With the European Union's increasingly anti-Christian policy, the above statement is quite laughable.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Alana
As odd as it might sound, the feeling that the empire had disappeared, all in all, took a long time to occur.

Not odd at all, in any state in any age only a minority usually have a vested interest in the survival of that state, we can separate the Roman political state from the cultural impact that Romanisation had on Western Europe.

To a Celtic British tribesmen it didn’t matter much whether he paid his taxes to a Celt or a faceless Roman official. To a tribal leader there were benefits in adopting Roman ways, not least armed legions to ensure he staid in power.

Politics isn’t culture, the Western Roman state after over a century of contraction simply no longer had the tax base (remember this was before credit) to support itself, it became impotent. The removal of a Roman Emperor for a Gothic King made as much difference to the average inhabitant of the former empire as the effective creation of an EU super state by the Lisbon Treaty has made for a citizen of an EU member state.

Rome as an idea still impacts European civilisation to this very day.

[Zyklop]

As odd as it might sound, the feeling that the empire had disappeared, all in all, took a long time to occur.
This surely differed from region to region. In the provinces Raetia and Noricum (modern day South-Germany and Austria) Roman troops were retracted by Stilicho in the beginning of the 5th century AD and this had a devastating effect on the remaining Romanised population. The biography of Saint Severinus of Noricum tells of famines, raids and an eventual organised evacuation of the provincial settlers across the Alps in 488AD.

[antonio]

Indeed, we have a deeper and broader historical perspective on such times that many of the in-time human-beings. Specially cause they dont know future definite dilution of Roman Empire as we know it, so their thinking on that turbulences would be simply that Roman era was passing severe barbarian turbulences. And this lack of perspective, itself, was the second reason (just after their cultural Roman background) to believe that these people still considered Roman ones.

[antonio]

The man who designed the EU flag said he modelled it after the 12 stars around Mary's head as per the extra-synoptic Revelation of St. John (or so this is the Church's official explanation), and her mantle is traditionally blue like the sea and sky, so the flag is blue.

You're right. But nowadays, when several countries -as Poland(this nice country of good workers and pretty girls)- tried hard to register an explicit reference to Christianity into the brand new stalled European Constitution, they unexpectedly clashed with the frontal oposition of anothers -headed "como no"!:mad: by the postmodern nest of pseudoprogressive mediocrity we used to call Spain,-. And Frenchies too, but they are the true heart of Europe, can we blame them for anything...but Multiculturalism? :thumb001:

[Freomæg]

To be honest, there wasn't a "Roman" ethnicity. Most Romans were in fact Italic tribes.
Yes, I was always under the impression that the Roman Empire was theoretically multi-ethnic. Of course, most original subjects were of the Mediterranean type, with perhaps plenty of Alpine peoples etc. I guess after the fall of Rome, the label 'Roman' ceased to have much significance to the average person and they simply reverted to identifying with their local districts and communities.

[Svanhild]

Germanic hordes that adopted the Roman language and laws.
The successor of a number of Germanic hordes, Germany, doesn't speak Latin. We have some Latin or Greek leanwords but there are German languaged alternatives to most words. Television? Fernsehen. Demokratie? Volksherrschaft. Attack? Angriff. Konstitution? Verfassung. Volumen? Fassungsvermögen. And so forth. Some users have an entirely glorified view of the Romans and Roman influence. First and foremost, the Roman Empire was an imperialistic and warmongering machine with less respect for sovereign regions at their borders. Roman downfall was the prize for centuries of insolence. Forced progress that comes with whip and knout is no progress.

[Comte Arnau]

Indeed, that's right, but allow me to qualify.

Rome created Hispania as an "unity": introduced a common language; it was Rome that created an administrative and legal structure, and through Rome we got the religion that would become an identity sign very soon amongst Hispanos: Christianism. Hispania was Rome BUT there was an Hispano-Roman awareness: The Hispanos are Romans from the Iberian peninsula, as Roman as the ones from "Rome". Their home, their land is Hispania.


Sure. Just as many Andalusian actors and singers nowadays end up in Madrid, as they feel it's the capital of their country and where they'll have more opportunities to develop their careers. Does it mean they don't love or feel proud of their homeland in the south? In the same way, Hispano-Romans felt Rome as the capital of their country, even if feeling Hispania as their home province. They considered themselves peripheral Romans. Historians making of the province of Hispania a reason to talk about the first unity of modern Spain are just playing with history in an anachronic way.

Very nice texts, btw.


The successor of a number of Germanic hordes, Germany, doesn't speak Latin. We have some Latin or Greek leanwords but there are German languaged alternatives to most words. Television? Fernsehen. Demokratie? Volksherrschaft. Attack? Angriff. Konstitution? Verfassung. Volumen? Fassungsvermögen. And so forth. Some users have an entirely glorified view of the Romans and Roman influence. First and foremost, the Roman Empire was an imperialistic and warmongering machine with less respect for sovereign regions at their borders. Roman downfall was the prize for centuries of insolence. Forced progress that comes with whip and knout is no progress.

We were talking about Germanic hordes invading the Roman Empire, not about the homeland of those tribes who were not part of it.

There are some very ancient basic Latin loanwords in German though, not just those recent calques. You have Kaiser, Mauer, Käse, Uhr, Kreuz, Pferd, Kirsche, pflanzen, Wein...

[Amapola]

Even Alana.:shrug:

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o21/Kadu_album/Imagem91.png

It is católica apostólica romana not católica apostólica y romana :P

y=and

But I am not the Iglesia! :p

[Svanhild]

We were talking about Germanic hordes invading the Roman Empire, not about the homeland of those tribes who were not part of it.
Germanic hordes invaded Rome after centuries of attacks and fortunately failed attempts to integrate and add Germanic habitat as Germania Inferior and Germania Superior to the Roman Empire. Romans conquered and romanized the Celtic tribes situated on the left bank of the Rhine but could be stopped by Germanic tribes east of the Rhine a bunch of times. Therefore the French speak a Romanic language and the Germans a Germanic language. Not only Varus got a bloody nose. :wink What do you expect? After centuries of pressure and conflicts with Romans and their raids deep into Germanic territory, the retaliation of not only the Goths was raging and unforgiving. As the question, so the answer. What goes around, comes around.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Germanic hordes invaded Rome after centuries of attacks and fortunately failed attempts to integrate and add Germanic habitat as Germania Inferior and Germania Superior to the Roman Empire. Romans conquered and romanized the Celtic tribes situated on the left bank of the Rhine but could be stopped by Germanic tribes east of the Rhine a bunch of times. Therefore the French speak a Romanic language and the Germans a Germanic language. Not only Varus got a bloody nose. :wink What do you expect? After centuries of pressure and conflicts with Romans and their raids deep into Germanic territory, the retaliation of not only the Goths was raging and unforgiving. As the question, so the answer. What goes around, comes around.

Varus was arrogant and he paid the price in blood. :)

[Kadu]

But I am not the Iglesia! :p

Whether it's a person or the church the same rule is applied, and you know that very well.;)

[LongBoat]

I've always found the complete disappearance of Romans post-fall very puzzling. I'm hoping anyone here can shed some light on what happened to the Romans post-fall.


Hello Vojn, I agree, some with posts here. Here are some of what I gathered in my studies. These are just the Teuton tribes around Rome not the ones that went north to the Baltic see and so on.

To know all,... a person can't start history of our people in the middle, (middle ages) ages or mediaeval times. The people then were the developed Teutonic tribes. They were other peoples before that.
The Question is Rome and what happened.
I’ll try and keep it short - on Rome and around.

The Teutons were the chief heirs of Rome. The Roman Empire did so well because most of their generals were Teutons.
By the 6th century the Teutons were 32 tribes. One of them, the Vandals were at the top in North Africa. The Visigoths with their Gothic kindom in Spain and Southern Gaul. The Franks under Clovis in Northern Gaul. The Burgundians south-eastern Gaul. (The Anglo- Saxons (or Isaac's sons) up north had conquered a large part of Briton by that time.)

The Ostergoths under Teodorie overthrew Odoacer of Italy and became King.
The Visigoth tribes in Italy amalgamated with the local population. Out of the Teutonic and Roman speech grew Spanish, Italian and French. Latin was used for centuries in writing only. There were 32 Teutonic tribes everyone with distinct character.

Now you have to read between the lines in the history. The Teuton tribes were called Barbarian because they were opposition to the Roman Empire. You do not get Barbarians that have finely crafted jewellery (jew ellery) or revolutionary ships and the order and law the Teutons had.

The Roman Empire wrote the history and recorded them as barbarians, they were not barbarians. (I can extend if you wish.)

The Teuton tribes in this area absorbed the natives of that land. To know more about them and the other Teutonic Tribes where they came from and what became of them you have to go back to ancient history even, before the Greeks. Where they amalgamated to become Teuton. It is too long to discuss as part of this discussion.
I hope this helps some
LongBoat

[Amapola]

Whether it's a person or the church the same rule is applied, and you know that very well.;)

Is it? where's written? tú infiel :mad: :p

[Osweo]

(The Anglo- Saxons (or Isaac's sons)
Oh My God.

The term Saxon is our modern word that reached us via Latin Saxones. The original term was SEAXE. It is written in hundreds of Old English manuscripts, and survives to this very day in Essex, Sussex and Wessex. There is no 'son' in this word. The seax was a short sword or knife that this tribal confederacy took their name from. They knew of this derivation themselves, and contemporary British writers did too. The seax was their distinctive weapon, and many have been found. They figure in Welsh legends of how the Germanics slaughtered their leaders in Vortigern's time. The etymology of the word links it with the Latin for 'stone' (see Saxifrage), suggesting an inheritance from the times when cutting implements were still fashioned from flint.

There is NO connection with the Isaak of Hebrew mythology. I actually find this suggestion offensive, as well as downright deluded. Please, refrain from outdated speculation like this. :mad:

Now you have to read between the lines in the history. The Teuton tribes were called Barbarian because they were opposition to the Roman Empire.
Even in the mouth of a Greek or Roman, the term 'barbarian' was NOT primarily a term of abuse. It did not mean 'savage'. It just meant 'non-Roman'. It was as equally applied to urbanised or civilised foreigners as to those of still rural culture.

You do not get Barbarians that have finely crafted jewellery (jew ellery)
WHAT ON EARTH are you saying?!?!?
That the term 'Jewellery' has a connection with the English form of the ethnonym 'Judah'??!?!? Are you in your right mind?
I really shouldn't have to do this, BUT:
jewel
late 13c., "article of value used for adornment," Anglo-Fr. juel, O.Fr. juel, jouel "ornament, jewel" (12c.), perhaps from M.L. jocale, from L. jocus "pastime, sport," in V.L. "that which causes joy" (see joke). Another theory traces it to L. gaudium, also with a notion of "rejoice." Sense of "precious stone" developed early 14c.
Jew (n.)
c.1175 (in plural, giwis), from Anglo-Fr. iuw, from O.Fr. giu, from L. Judaeum (nom. Judaeus), from Gk. Ioudaios, from Aramaic jehudhai (Heb. y'hudi "Jew," from Y'hudah "Judah," lit. "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced O.E. Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah." Jews' harp "simple mouth harp" is from 1584, earlier Jews' trump (1545); the connection with Jewishness is obscure. Jew-baiting first recorded 1853, in ref. to Ger. Judenhetze. In uneducated times, inexplicable ancient artifacts were credited to Jews, based on the biblical chronology of history: e.g. Jews' money (1577) "Roman coins found in England." In Greece, after Christianity had erased the memory of classical glory, ruins of pagan temples were called "Jews' castles."

[LongBoat]

Oh My God.

The term Saxon is our modern word that reached us via Latin Saxones. The original term was SEAXE. It is written in hundreds of Old English manuscripts, and survives to this very day in Essex, Sussex and Wessex. There is no 'son' in this word. The seax was a short sword or knife that this tribal confederacy took their name from. They knew of this derivation themselves, and contemporary British writers did too. The seax was their distinctive weapon, and many have been found. They figure in Welsh legends of how the Germanics slaughtered their leaders in Vortigern's time. The etymology of the word links it with the Latin for 'stone' (see Saxifrage), suggesting an inheritance from the times when cutting implements were still fashioned from flint.

There is NO connection with the Isaak of Hebrew mythology. I actually find this suggestion offensive, as well as downright deluded. Please, refrain from outdated speculation like this. :mad:

Even in the mouth of a Greek or Roman, the term 'barbarian' was NOT primarily a term of abuse. It did not mean 'savage'. It just meant 'non-Roman'. It was as equally applied to urbanised or civilised foreigners as to those of still rural culture.

WHAT ON EARTH are you saying?!?!?
That the term 'Jewellery' has a connection with the English form of the ethnonym 'Judah'??!?!? Are you in your right mind?
I really shouldn't have to do this, BUT:
jewel
late 13c., "article of value used for adornment," Anglo-Fr. juel, O.Fr. juel, jouel "ornament, jewel" (12c.), perhaps from M.L. jocale, from L. jocus "pastime, sport," in V.L. "that which causes joy" (see joke). Another theory traces it to L. gaudium, also with a notion of "rejoice." Sense of "precious stone" developed early 14c.
Jew (n.)
c.1175 (in plural, giwis), from Anglo-Fr. iuw, from O.Fr. giu, from L. Judaeum (nom. Judaeus), from Gk. Ioudaios, from Aramaic jehudhai (Heb. y'hudi "Jew," from Y'hudah "Judah," lit. "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced O.E. Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah." Jews' harp "simple mouth harp" is from 1584, earlier Jews' trump (1545); the connection with Jewishness is obscure. Jew-baiting first recorded 1853, in ref. to Ger. Judenhetze. In uneducated times, inexplicable ancient artifacts were credited to Jews, based on the biblical chronology of history: e.g. Jews' money (1577) "Roman coins found in England." In Greece, after Christianity had erased the memory of classical glory, ruins of pagan temples were called "Jews' castles."

So ok other than the one point about Saxons and the joke the rest you agree right ?

(Jewellery) :thumbs up (Ok so at least I found someone who reads what they see. It was a joke.)

[Osweo]

So ok other than the one point about Saxons and the joke the rest you agree right ?
Well.... it was horrendously simplistic to say the least. I saw in your 'intro' thread you were going on about Teutons too. There's more to Europe than the Germanics, you know. :coffee:

It was a joke.
Thank Christ. But use these - ;) - in future. There are SO many idiots on the net who'd say that in ALL SERIOUSNESS... :suomut::tsk:

Please tell me the Isaac thing was a joke too...

[LongBoat]

[QUOTE=Osweo;174808]Well.... it was horrendously simplistic to say the least. I saw in your 'intro' thread you were going on about Teutons too. There's more to Europe than the Germanics, you know. :coffee:

I know, but my interest lies with them:biggrin:




Please tell me the Isaac thing was a joke too...

I see a long discussion, what do you use as base for ancient history ?

[Anthropos]

Sure, but they really go out of their way to deny this connection - thereby proving Antonio's point.

I'm amazed that Revelation actually scraped its way into the Canon, actually, given its weirdo nature... ;) Such a book of cryptic symbolism and occult ideas is far less 'Christian' than the rest of the New Testament, and it's less surprising that the murky figures behind the early EU should have taken something from this source, than from the Gospels or the like.

It is also significant on this flag that the Queen of Heaven's halo is empty... :strokebeard:

It's entirely Christian and it's entirely canonical. It was Luther who first planted the idea that it is not canonical; in fact he did not regard it to be inspired nor even recommended to read, but his opinion is irrelevant; even Lutheranism overruled Luther on that note, just as it overruled his questioning the Epistle of Jacob (also known as 'James'). The reason why Revelation is not included in Sunday readings is that those were already fixed when The Revelation of John was incorporated in the Scripture.

[curiousman]

Hello Vojn, I agree, some with posts here. Here are some of what I gathered in my studies. These are just the Teuton tribes around Rome not the ones that went north to the Baltic see and so on.

To know all,... a person can't start history of our people in the middle, (middle ages) ages or mediaeval times. The people then were the developed Teutonic tribes. They were other peoples before that.
The Question is Rome and what happened.
I’ll try and keep it short - on Rome and around.

The Teutons were the chief heirs of Rome. The Roman Empire did so well because most of their generals were Teutons.
By the 6th century the Teutons were 32 tribes. One of them, the Vandals were at the top in North Africa. The Visigoths with their Gothic kindom in Spain and Southern Gaul. The Franks under Clovis in Northern Gaul. The Burgundians south-eastern Gaul. (The Anglo- Saxons (or Isaac's sons) up north had conquered a large part of Briton by that time.)

The Ostergoths under Teodorie overthrew Odoacer of Italy and became King.
The Visigoth tribes in Italy amalgamated with the local population. Out of the Teutonic and Roman speech grew Spanish, Italian and French. Latin was used for centuries in writing only. There were 32 Teutonic tribes everyone with distinct character.

Now you have to read between the lines in the history. The Teuton tribes were called Barbarian because they were opposition to the Roman Empire. You do not get Barbarians that have finely crafted jewellery (jew ellery) or revolutionary ships and the order and law the Teutons had.

The Roman Empire wrote the history and recorded them as barbarians, they were not barbarians. (I can extend if you wish.)

The Teuton tribes in this area absorbed the natives of that land. To know more about them and the other Teutonic Tribes where they came from and what became of them you have to go back to ancient history even, before the Greeks. Where they amalgamated to become Teuton. It is too long to discuss as part of this discussion.
I hope this helps some
LongBoat

I think you have to check again your history book ...

[Osweo]

I see a long discussion, what do you use as base for ancient history ?
Philology, archaeology, classical texts, folklore, toponymy.

NOT the scriptures of minor Levantine kingdoms.

[Hrolf Kraki]

They moved to Romania, naturally.

[Poltergeist]

What happened to them? Nothing. They are still around, something that is corroborated by the fact that Romance languages are still today spoken from Tejo to the Delta of Danube.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
Well.... it was horrendously simplistic to say the least.

Quite so, linguists Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson as well as geneticist Peter Forster have made some interesting claims regarding the provenance of Old English. Using various “tree models” without an inbuilt prejudice towards West Germanic they have discovered (independently) that Old English is, structurally, akin to Frisian (no surprise so far) but vocabulary wise more related to Old Norse, more to the point this infusion took place whilst the “Anglo-Saxons” were still on the continent, where as most linguists assume Old English grew from various dialects spoken in England after the 5th century. Even more interesting is the placement of Old English as a separate branch of Germanic in it’s own right. Where as other West Germanic languages can be grouped by structure and vocabulary to close relations Old English doesn’t share this relationship and is very much the odd one out.

Old English could be far older than we imagine.

[Wulfhere]

Quite so, linguists Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson as well as geneticist Peter Forster have made some interesting claims regarding the provenance of Old English. Using various “tree models” without an inbuilt prejudice towards West Germanic they have discovered (independently) that Old English is, structurally, akin to Frisian (no surprise so far) but vocabulary wise more related to Old Norse, more to the point this infusion took place whilst the “Anglo-Saxons” were still on the continent, where as most linguists assume Old English grew from various dialects spoken in England after the 5th century. Even more interesting is the placement of Old English as a separate branch of Germanic in it’s own right. Where as other West Germanic languages can be grouped by structure and vocabulary to close relations Old English doesn’t share this relationship and is very much the odd one out.

Old English could be far older than we imagine.

This is very interesting, and confirms what seems obvious anyway - that the English are much more closely related to Scandinavians than to Germans. Germans look and act foreign in a way that Norwegians or Danes never do, for example.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wulfhere
This is very interesting, and confirms what seems obvious anyway - that the English are much more closely related to Scandinavians than to Germans. Germans look and act foreign in a way that Norwegians or Danes never do, for example.

Cough.

I think we might be reading a bit more into the claim (and it is still a claim) than the evidence would allow for, but yes, I agree, it is interesting.

I’m probably opening a can of worms here, I apologise if the thread subsequently turns to shit, but what is it with you and the Germans? I’ve known a few personally, I don’t buy into this “pan-Teutonic” BS, I find I have more in common with the “Celtic” Scots, Irish and Welsh than any Scandinavian or German or continental for that matter really, but they were alright folks, same with the one Dane I’ve ever met, normal bloke as far as I could see. Contrary to popular opinion the Germans do have facial expressions and have even been known to crack the odd joke.

They’re just people. You don't read The Sun by any chance?

[Wulfhere]

Cough.

I think we might be reading a bit more into the claim (and it is still a claim) than the evidence would allow for, but yes, I agree, it is interesting.

I’m probably opening a can of worms here, I apologise if the thread subsequently turns to shit, but what is it with you and the Germans? I’ve known a few personally, I don’t buy into this “pan-Teutonic” BS, I find I have more in common with the “Celtic” Scots, Irish and Welsh than any Scandinavian or German or continental for that matter really, but they were alright folks, same with the one Dane I’ve ever met, normal bloke as far as I could see. Contrary to popular opinion the Germans do have facial expressions and have even been known to crack the odd joke.

They’re just people. You don't read The Sun by any chance?

I totally agree with you about Celts - I don't regard the Welsh, Scots or Irish as foreign in any way. In the second division, as it were, of foreignness then come the Frisians, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch etc., of whom I've known quite a few, enough to form a good judgement. I've also known enough Germans to definitely place them in the third division - perhaps, to be fair, a division all of their own, because French probably come into the fourth division. It's just a question of similarity of attitude, culture, physical appearance, and other traits.

I wasn't including colonies, i.e. artificial "new" nations in any of those categories, because it goes without saying that I don't regard New Zealanders, Australians, or (English speaking) Canadians as foreign. Americans - well, it very much depends on the American.

[LongBoat]

I wasn't including colonies, i.e. artificial "new" nations in any of those categories, because it goes without saying that I don't regard New Zealanders, Australians, or (English speaking) Canadians as foreign. Americans - well, it very much depends on the American.
You missed South Africa including all the other in Africa ?

[Jarl]

Except in England.

Brian Sykes offeres an explanation why. First of all Romans withdrew from England before the Saxon invasion. Secondly, coming from deep Germania, not even at the limes of the civilised world, they were just too primitive to adopt the Roman laws and institutions. Unlike in the case of Goths, their barbaric leaders probably never even saw a city, and spent much of their time drinking beer in their halls and hunting wild boars in the woods.

[Wulfhere]

You missed South Africa including all the other in Africa ?

Only a minority of the inhabitants of South Africa are kin, so there was no real need to mention it. Or Zimbabwe, or Kenya, etc. (admittedly with even smaller minorities).

[Wulfhere]

Brian Sykes offeres an explanation why. First of all Romans withdrew from England before the Saxon invasion. Secondly, coming from deep Germania, not even at the limes of the civilised world, they were just too primitive to adopt the Roman laws and institutions. Unlike in the case of Goths, their barbaric leaders probably never even saw a city, and spent much of their time drinking beer in their halls and hunting wild boars in the woods.

Not a case of "too primitive", but rather of having retained cultural integrity. Of all the Germanic invaders of the Roman Empire, the Anglo-Saxons were the only ones who were still Pagan.

[Kazimiera]

---> moved to History