Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Where did the Romans go!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by qqq111qq (U6358436) on Thursday, 26th October 2006
As a casual reader of history I am intrigued by the random references to the Goths, Visigoths, and Vandals. Read any reference book and you will find nothing more than the Goths were driven from the east by the Huns and sought refuge in the Roman Empire and then sacked Rome.
What was the ethnic back ground and geographic origin of these people? Not forgeting the Visigoths and Vandals. -
Message 2
Posted by -Taliesin- (U6338455) on Friday, 27th October 2006
I think they moved down my road.
Taliesin -
Message 3
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 27th October 2006
Where did the Romans go? Well it all depends if they followed Brian's advice when he said "Romanes Eunt Domus"...
-
Message 4
Posted by qqq111qq (U6358436) on Friday, 27th October 2006
Yes a great help thanks, no doubt some one told them to follow one of their own roads and told them to "keep going till you get to a bend"!
-
Message 5
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 27th October 2006
What's this, then? 'Romanes Eunt Domus'? 'People called Romanes they go the house'?
-
Message 6
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 27th October 2006
It... it says, 'Romans, go home'.
-
Message 7
Posted by -Taliesin- (U6338455) on Friday, 27th October 2006
Ha Ha, conjugate the verb fully boy..now write it out 100 times!
Taliesin -
Message 8
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 27th October 2006
No it doesn't. What's Latin for 'Roman'? Come on!
-
Message 9
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 27th October 2006
'R... Romanus'?
-
Message 10
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 27th October 2006
Goes like...?
-
Message 11
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 27th October 2006
'Annus'?
-
Message 12
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 27th October 2006
Vocative plural of 'annus' is...?
-
Message 13
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 27th October 2006
Eh. 'Anni'?
-
Message 14
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 27th October 2006
Mention of them is hardly random, given the role they played in Rome's later development (and its downfall as the major political force in western Europe and North Africa).
Both tribes (the Visigoths were simply a part of the Goths who 'broke away' in the 3rd century) claimed to have their origins in Scandinavia. There is no hard archaeological evidence to support this, but the Goths themselves, through their own songs and stories, claimed to have emanated first from what is now (unsurprisingly) Gotland in Sweden. This is slightly supported by the fact that a later movement of people from the same area - the tribe known as the Götar (or Geats) - were recognised immediately by the Romans as being of the same ethnic stock and acquired the name Ostrogoths (Goths from the East) on that basis.
The Vandals have slightly vaguer origins but are thought to have come into Roman view from Denmark, though some have placed their origin even further north - in modern Norway or Sweden. -
Message 15
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Saturday, 28th October 2006
Doesn't the ruler of Denmark still claim to be 'Duke of the Wends & the Goths'?
-
Message 16
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 30th October 2006
Linguistic evidence helps here too, in that the Goths spoke a Germanic language, or an East Germanic language to be more precise (English, German, Dutch are West Germanic; Scandinavian languages are North Germanic). Considering that the consensus puts the Germanic urheimat (original homeland) in northern modern Germany, Denmark, and southern Sweden then the Goths claiming they come from Scandinavia certainly rings true.
-
Message 17
Posted by qqq111qq (U6358436) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Thanks for your reply Id seen a documentary that had shown the Goths coming from the east and vaugley showed the Ukraine but your theory would seem to make more sense.
-
Message 18
Posted by qqq111qq (U6358436) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Thank you for your reply, no the references are specific ie there are numerous mentions of them but never have I seen any reference to their ethnic origin. The closest was a documentary that seemed to suggest they came from the south east of Europe perhaps the Ukraine.But your theory would seem to carry more weight,
thank you -
Message 19
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Re : Stoggler & rainbowffolly
Very good. That's really brightened up my morning. -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 5th November 2006
One has to note though that like in the example of Huns that swept along them a large number of other tribes, the Goths had similarly provoked the same phenomenon, otherwise it is unimaginable that their relatively large populations in Ukraine came all from such a small island (Gotland) in the Baltic sea. Of course they could had been continuously reinforced (via commerce with homeland) with continuous arrivals from Sweden but then the fact that their language did not resemble so closely the Scandinavic ones implies that this supposition is not so strong. More possibly they came down using the rivers (through what is modern Russia), dragging with them a lot of other tribes Germanic from the western parts, possibly proto-slavic from the eastern parts but certainly Baltics and Lithuanians and established in modern Ukraine where they rested for some centuries untill displaced violently by the Huns, thus enterring the Roman Empire first as asylum seekers, then as raiders that later became both imperial mercenaries and rebelious elements. The Gothic language - whose last remnants were still spoken by small populations in Ukraine till 17th century I think - relatively does not resemble much either the German language or the Scandinavian and forms a family of its own with the extended family of Germanic languages. It has to be said that the majority of Goths established in what is nowadays Bulgaria while Vandals, who had a more obscure origin (possibly from the area covering south east Danmark, North East Germany and Northwest Poland) finished their course in Northern Africa, in what is now Algeria and Tynisia - some suggesting that tribes like the one Zidane comes from (having a bit weird characteristics, not typically arabic or northern african) keep a Vandal reminiscence in their anthropologic characteristics - though themselves prefer saying that they come from the Greeks cos it is more cool.
-
Message 21
Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Monday, 6th November 2006
Gothic is as has been said, an East Germanic language, in fact the only one we have much knowledge of, as we only have (Latinised) personal names from the other East Ger. languages, Vandal and Burgundian.
There is indeed a case for saying that the Goths came form Gotland. I had not heard, though that the Geats ‘became’ the Ostrogoths, however. I have taken the Geats as in ‘Beowulf’ to be those cousins of the Goths that remained in the Gotland region.
No, the Goths (probably) moved over from S. Scandinavia to what is now roughly Poland and then later moved to the region north of the Black Sea, where they divided into the eastern Ostrogoths and the western Visigoths. The Visigoths lived in the area of Transylvania and, once there, were converted to the Arian form of Christianity by Ulfilas. It was he who devised an alphabet for them and translated the Bible into their language, a copy of part of this in Uppsala being the only surviving record of that language. It is though to be closer to Proto-Germanic that any other old version that survives of the Germanic languages (e.g. Old English, Old Norse). The Lord’s Prayer, for instance, begins ‘Atta unsar, thu in himinam, weihnai namo thein’ (I have changed the letter þ for ‘th’ t o avoid confusion!).
The last surviving Gothic speakers were in the Crimea, and I think were still there in the 16th century. The demise of the Visigothic kingdom after the Moorish victory in Spain in 711 marks the end of Gothic political power in Western Europe. I do not know how many Visigoths still spoke Gothic by then: the 7th century saw the Spanish Goths leave Arian Christianity for Roman Catholicism, and this meant that Latin rather than Visigothic became their liturgical language. I imagine most of those who fought unsuccessfully alongside King Roderick (and no Life of Brian quotes, please!) spoke an early Spanish. The Goths in Spain and Italy would be outnumbered by speakers of Late Latin/Early Spanish or Italian. -
Message 22
Posted by widget (U2260877) on Tuesday, 7th November 2006
"Where did the Romans go? Well it all depends if they followed Brian's advice when he said "Romanes Eunt Domus""
Haven't seen that for years...was that what he graffitied on the wall?
'Who you calling bignose?' -
Message 23
Posted by gumption78 (U2800277) on Saturday, 11th November 2006
"Romani ite domum"
Now write it down a hundred times. If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your b***s off! -
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 11th November 2006
this romanes seemed so un-roman...
-
Message 25
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Sunday, 12th November 2006
the romans went nowhere,christanity took over rome remember and they all became christains and stayed where they were,
i cannot belive some of you people went to colledge
and have phds in ancient history.
gasp sigh -
Message 26
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Sunday, 12th November 2006
For once, I agree with GBU, & would add that everybody who could has been trying to pretend that they are Roman or the true heirs of the Romans ever since...
-
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 12th November 2006
Considering the fact that Rome was founded as a multinational union of smaller cities comprising italic as well as some Greek tribes (out of which most probably the class of proto-patricians formed... you know, the ones that did not talk much latin but more greek and preferred to have fewer connection with the italic plebeians), it is a bit difficult to say that Romans were this or that. They were one city of the mid-italic pensinsula that became larger and larger and ended up an empire. By 4th century A.D. it was difficult to establish if more than 30% of powerful people in the Empire could trace their roots back into ancient Rome. Of course there were the traditional old families in Rome but then Rome itself was not anymore the capital of the Empire, but continued as a double sacked city of continously reduced importance. The Empire just continued without Rome having shifted in the east. This is such a simple fact that is so difficult for some western scholars to understand but then that is what it happened. The term 'byzantine' is simply an invention of a French writer in the 18th century (who largely dispised the Eastern Romam Empire and medieval Greek culture and termed them as 'byzantines' giving a negative meaning in that term). But for all the world this was the Roman Empire. If they talked Greek that means simply nothing. Patricians in ancient times talked Greek not latin!
Romans were of no specific nation or culture to have a talk here of "what happened to them". We can have a general talk of "what happened to Egyptians, what happened to Persians or to Scyths" but what happened to Romans? What? What happened to the citizens of Rome? Where? Those living in Rome? Or those in Ravenna? But people from Ravenna were not Romans initially, they must had been Etruscans thus in no sense related closely to Italic tribes! Those living in Gaulic lands? But were they Romans? I do not think so! They were a multinational military force comprising forces originating some even from modern day northern Iran! So what happened to them? They just simply went with the wave of their times and integrated in the local societies. Nothing surprising. -
Message 28
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Friday, 17th November 2006
The Romans were Trojans not Greeks!
-
Message 29
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 17th November 2006
The Romans were Trojans not Greeks!Ìý
Perhaps E_Nik meant that they were related to those barbarians from Macedonia with the funny hats and short-lived empires?
RF -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 18th November 2006
In one thread you cannot even locate Ilion (Troya) and here you say that Romans were Trojans? Well...
Even if they were Trojans (as Romans liked to say - showing of course their own ignorance of their past), Â鶹ԼÅÄr never claimed Trojans as barbarians or am I wrong? Ancient Romans spoke Greek not latin and it was the increasing presence of plebeians that changed that. Sorry but it is like this.
PS: Rainbowfolly, yes Macedonians wore funny hats but it is not up to you to decide if they were Greeks or barbarians because of that characteristic. Persians of 500 B.C. described them as "greeks with hats"... at a time that Macedonians were an unknown tribe - I think they must had known better than you and do not take it personally! Akarnanians were leaving their hair long and Aitolians were shaving their heads skinhead, were they different nations? Perhaps barbarians? Athenians and Spartans accused also each other of being barbarians. You can name them barbarians all if you like no problem. That does not change the fact that these were all Greeks and Macedonians simply the best of them. Short-llived were their empires but much more forward thinking than the Roman empire that brought the civilisation level to a standstill (unless you find a great innovation between 1st B.C. to 4st A.D. centuries!). -
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 18th November 2006
I think the difficulty to see Rome in a more sober way is thanks to a 1200 years old propaganda starting from the Frankish Empire (Germans) and Charlemagne - it was him that first claimed that Romans' original language was latin and since Eastern Romans spoke Greek and were greek and since they had let down the city of Rome they should not have the title of the Roman Empire. An absurd claim for Rome that started as a city (talking about 8th-6th century B.C.) having leaders whose first language was Greek and not Latin!!! Who knows that? You should! Even the name Rome is greek and speaks for itself.
Am I claiming Romans as Greeks? No. Not me, but it was them that claimed so sometimes, like for example when they wanted to participate in the Olympics during Imperial times (they could just enforce it but they just preferred to remember their ancient connections with Greeks). All what I am claiming is that Rome was neither a pure Italic city but was a multinational formation right from its formation. -
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 19th November 2006
It is also so interesting to see that each of the modern countries has a vastly different idea of what was Rome. For example, for French it was the conquest of Gaul that made Rome an Empire (which is not true, it was the victory over the Carthagenians and the annexation of Greek kingdoms and cities in the south and the east). French go to the extend of talking about a Gaulo-Romanic civilisation as if the annexation of Gaul had any super-natural effects on the Roman culture (not that it did not have any influence at all, but in no sense this was any cataclysmic one, by all means!). Happily, English do not make talk of that and when they do they mean simply the type of culture that developed locally on the island during Roman conquest.
The truth is that when the western Roman empire fell, these lands continued as one of the most backwards lands of Eurasia (if not the most) presenting most powerfull countries like Frankish kingdom that had less than 100 people per 1 million who knew how to read and write... this is amazing! Now, that must tell us something of the effect of the Roman civilisation and culture in the west, and how important must had been for Romans the west, isn't it (cos even during the Roman Empire I doubt this percentage was much different)? It is also evident of how much the Roman culture influenced the west (little... the westerners did not inherit much other than some ruins and the christian religion which mainly responsible for continuing the "Roman myth" via imposing the Latin language.). It is not accidental that it took westerners 1000 years (and that is a lot!) to get out of their cocoon and present a higher culture (with more than 100 people knowing how to read and write per 1,000,000 million)... and if they did that this was purely out of imitation of the Eastern Roman and the Muslim Empires and not out of as-if continuing the "Roman vision". It is just that they had to search for a myth that was closer to them and out of the Empires, the one that was situated in the most western possinble position was Rome.
Hence, the false vision of what had been Rome and the difficulty of many to put things in their proper order. Hence, also the discussion of "what happened to Romans, where did Romans go"... Romans who? Even in pre-Ru=epublican times, the Roman armies where 80-90% non-Roman (i.e. not from the city of Rome)... so we should redress the question as "what happened to the multinational force that worked for Romans?". Well half of them continued as "half the Empire" in the East and did just fine for 1000 years (in fact they thrived, pushing the civilisation level out of its standstill that fell during Roman times), and the other half in the west they continued each (local or invaders) his own way presenting a low-level culture until they developed further 1 millenium after (and that had nothing to do with the Roman heritage but with the contact with the east and south). -
Message 33
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 20th November 2006
Hi E_Nik,
Short-llived were their empires but much more forward thinking than the Roman empire that brought the civilisation level to a standstill (unless you find a great innovation between 1st B.C. to 4st A.D. centuries!).Ìý
I would have thought that of all people the Greeks would have seen the maintaining of an empire for 500 years a great innovation!
Cheers,
RF
p.s. Sorry for the joke about Macedonians being barbarians - couldn't resist it!
-
Message 34
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 20th November 2006
p.s. Sorry for the joke about Macedonians being barbarians - couldn't resist it!
Ìý
If their border customs and security men during Tito's time are anything to go by (and this from bitter and expensive experience), they still are! I was never so glad to make it into Greece in my life. -
Message 35
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Monday, 20th November 2006
Nik,
Your bias is showing again...
-
Message 36
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 20th November 2006
Your bias is showing again...Ìý
Just like a g-string worn by a bear in hipsters...
RF -
Message 37
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Monday, 20th November 2006
RF
Just like a g-string worn by a bear in hipsters...
please, language. there are many young bears around!!! -
Message 38
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 20th November 2006
They're called cubs.
-
Message 39
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Monday, 20th November 2006
ooohhh. so you know them???
-
Message 40
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 20th November 2006
Only the glamorous ones. I'm not as addicted as the others.
-
Message 41
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Tuesday, 21st November 2006
Only the glamorous ones. I'm not as addicted as the others.
lol.
. it seems i was nearly married off to one!!!???
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.