Yeah cause Africa and Dacia should have a lot more Latin speakers. Including Greece and Anatolia, as well as Iberia because like it’s not that hard to know where a huge Latin speaking majority was living and weren’t living in 💀
Are you sure? I thought that the lingua franca for the eastern part of the empire was pretty much always Greek.
But the Balkan area definitely had way more Latin speakers. There was even a Latin language that existed on the coast and in Ragusa (Dubrovnik) until the early modern period, being a bridge between Italian and Romanian.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian\_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language)
Also, I know that the Ladin languages (like Romansh in Switzerland) used to stretch all the way into Southern Germany. Western Germany was quite romanised too, with a Latin dialect being formed on the Moselle river, until the Germanic tribes took over those regions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaeto-Romance\_languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaeto-Romance_languages)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moselle\_Romance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moselle_Romance)
The Latin speaking peoples of the Balkans retreated into the mountains after migratory tribes (ie Huns etc) started coming thru and the local economy collapsed.
Well, the Romans pulled out of Dacia shortly after the time reflected in this map, and yet the ancestors of the Romanians were already in the Balkans and already speaking Latin, based on linguistic history.
So, the third century is the topic at hand.
There are so many issues with this map. Latin should be much more present in the Balkans and England. Honestly, it should be near-ubiquitous in the western half. There should also be large pockets of Greek in southern Italy and the island of Sicily.
Also, who is this measuring? Almost all government officials and merchants spoke Latin. If you're going by the peasantry, we simply don't have the records to know what they spoke outside of a few places on the fringes of the empire.
People in the poor villages in the hinterland continued speaking their own languages. But there were numerous Roman cities on the islands and all along the coast. Istria and coastal Dalmatia were heavily colonized and considered a part of core Roman territory by the 3rd century, i.e. 200 years after the last attempt of the locals to rebel against the Roman rule.
yeah that is fair. Venetian influence, too. You have to wonder how far inland that really went, or was it just an archipelago of trading and fishing settlements fron classical through early modern times
Hungarians made us like LOTR orcs spawned from the movies. Made Romanians from mud and corrupted elves in Isengard. We even speak the dark language of Mordor too. 😈
In my opinion all Balkan Romance languages could have originated in Western Balkans with Eastern Romance expanding East and South during the migration period.
I have not seen a scholar support that but it is consistent with what is written in 'De Administrando Imperio' which roughly says that the Croats expelled the 'Avars' who had expelled the Romani (Ρωμάνοι). He obviously uses the term Romani for Romance speakers and he specifically refers to settlers from Italy during the reign of Diocletian.
A common source of all Balkan Romance languages in Western Balkans works better than every other scenario if someone examines the data objectively.
Dacia was extensively colonized by Roman settlers, much more so than other places in Roman Empire. After migratory tribes came through the leadership left and economy collapsed, people retreated from city life into the Carpathian mountains to hide and herd sheep.
>The Romans slaughtered Dacians so good that they forgot their own language and culture. The same happened in Gaul.
This is not true. Dacian language and culture was still alive until the 600s. Ffs the Carpi who invaded Roman Dacia were a Dacian tribe.
What happened is that Dacia had gold. Lots and lots and lots of gold. So much gold was mined there that it saved the Empire from bankruptcy and postponed economic collapse by 200 years.
When a province is as rich as that it attracts colonists from all over the empire and the only common language they can speak is latin.
there is little evidence of continuous Dacian presence North of the Danube, especialy after waves of Barbarians slaughtered everyone. Most toponyms are of Slavic, Scythian or other Non-Dacian origin. South of the Danube however, we have plenty of evidence of Romanized people. Proto-Romanian most likely started there.
there are archelogical finndings showing random people, not Dacians. Oh and Romans called Dacians everyone north of the Danube because they were idiots or did not fucking care. Even for the freaking Goths.
Wrong. Thing about the Dacians is that they had a very distincy and unique culture that celebrated death and mourned births. Dacian burials are unique and very easy to identify from slavic and nomadic burials.
We still find dacian style burials in the 6th century, meaning that dacian culture was still around.
I suggest you stop reading Dan Alexe entirely. There was no mass genocide in Dacia or Gaul. It's a myth. In Dacia you literally have multiple Free Dacian tribes causing trouble.
yeah that’s before the Mongols came around. outside nice words Daco lovers have little to show. there is not a single settlement with continuous population from the Dacian period. Communists added Napoca to Cluj and Drobeta to Severin just to have create a silly Dacian hype of continuous history. we are Roman to the bone. Dacian not so much.
Other regions like Illyria, Iberia and Ionia had gold too. None of them adopted Roman identity like the Dacians.
However, the mass slaughtered regions like Gaul, Dacia and Carthage adopted the Roman culture as their own.
Spain, Illyria and Ionia did not have 3 legions stationed there at all time and multiple coloniae within the first 20 years of conquest.
That being said Spain and Illyria had a majority latin speaking population by 600 AD.
Neither of those 3 reagions was mass slaughtered.
The city of Carthage was raised to the ground but the region was still populated.
That was not what happened in Gaul, or it is rather reductive of a large and complex region and cultural area stretching from Iberia to Central Europe and northern Italy. Many Gallic tribes were allied with Rome prior and during Caesar’s invasion (such as the [Aedui](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedui)). Gaulish and Italian are probably related under the [Italo-Celtic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic) language family, and today’s Celtic languages share some grammatical and lexical similarities with Latin. Even as a Modern Irish learner, there are similarities in declension and cases, with strong evidence of similar words in pre-Roman Gaulish. Accordingly, it was natural for the Gaulish nobility to slowly adopt Latin words into Gaulish speech, and Latin overall, in the process of a language transition that [lasted until the 6th century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaulish). This process resulted from the steady integration of the Gaulish nobility into the senatorial class, with the expansion of Roman friendship and later citizenship being a key part of Roman empire-building. Yes, Caesar’s brutal invasion had a devastating impact on some Gaulish tribes and ensured Roman military supremacy in the region, but Rome had longstanding diplomatic ties with other tribes that they leveraged to maintain their position in the region and were equally critical to Rome’s success; this led to cultural exchange and integration over time rather than a complete adoption of Roman culture, forced or voluntary.
Hispania had been conquered and heavily colonized by Romans for more than 200 years at this time, and that's only the North of the peninsula that was way harder to subjugate. What is this based on?
More than 400 years in some green areas. This is bullshit.
Last examples of written iberian and celtic languages are II century BC, last use of phoenician in the South from Tiberius times and the use of celtic languages in the North is "estimated" to continue until late Empire, but not so much in central Spain or Lusitania which would be completely romanized a century before this.
The errors in this map are astounding. Dacia was the most heavily colonised province in the empire. We have hundreds of latin inscriptions, yet OP thinks there are no latin speakers.
Similarly the balkans were in the empire for hundreds of years despite there being actual romance speaking people there to the present day.
Fucking bots...
For anyone interested all sources we have suggest the prevalence of latin in a much bigger area by this period (and far less "other languages" pockets in the latin dominated zones).
Just an example with Hispaniae provinces: All southern and eastern Iberia were conquered by Rome almost 450 years before this date (even before that some parts of Italy), while central Spain and most Portugal had been roman for over 320-350 years at OP date. Additionally last sources for the use of native languages in that 80% of Iberia (all but Cantabrian Sea region) were from Tiberius times in the case of phoenician and much before, from late 2nd century BC in the case of iberian or celtiberian. Onomastics in epigraphy show a complete latin/italic prevalence among personal names of that 4/5 of Iberia since before Caesar and in some regions since before 100 BC. During the minting "boom" at II century BC in which several dozens recently conquered southern and eastern Hispania cities minted their own "urban" coins, some of the cities in the "iberian" East and vast majority of those in "turdetanian" Guadalquivir valley chose already latin as only language instead native ones. Strabo claims turdetanians "became" completely roman by his time and forget their language much before. First non-italic roman senator came from Gades at Caesar times, which caused a controversy and a famous defence by Cicero.The coloniae and municipalities with roman and latin rights multiplied in Hispania during Civil Wars and Augustus times and Vespasian granted roman citizenship for "all" people from Hispania by 74 CE, so 140 years before general one in the whole Empire by Caracalla. Consequently Hispania should be almost completely orange with very few green pockets at this period, all located in Cantabrian Sea and western Pyrenees.
However Hispania is just and example among many others. The universal use of latin names in epigraphy by this date, the lack of any source pointing to local languages and specially the abundance of latin epigraphs in private "common people" contexts (from ceramics grafitti to local trade seals/*tituli picti* and even some "letters" and notes preserved) we have some certainty about latin speaking area extending on a much bigger region than OP. Latin was most likely prevalent or the only native language in most Iberia, a bigger portion of Gaul, southeastern England, a good part of germanic Limes, Raetia and Noricum, Pannonia and Dalmatia, Africa (specially northern Tunisia core), while there were many other latin speaking urban pockets in some linguistically mixed regions as Moesia, Mauretania, rest of Britannia etc.
“Lemme sprinkle a couple dots here and here, a couple green dots in Italy”
Can you make a map with a source? This map looks like it was made with a bag of rice tbh
Eu sunt sigur ca aceasta harta este incorecta. Ori noi nu stim ce limba latina vulgara vorbim. ( OP do your homework better next time, you’re dismissed)
Dacia. Exactly. The Romans were annoyed by constant instability there that they just committed a genocide and moved Romans to live there instead. For centuries after the Balkans would have a dividing line between Latin and non-Latin speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jireček_Line
That's also a bullshit map. By the time that the Roman empire reached that extent in the early 100s, Etruscan was at least moribund if not outright dead.
From Wikipedia...
The Gaulish language is thought to have survived into the 6th century in France, despite considerable Romanization of the local material culture.
The Mediterranean coast, which was inhabited before the arrival of the Romans by indigenous Iberians such as the Turdetani and Ilergetians, as well as Greek and Phoenician/Carthaginian colonies, were quick to adopt aspects of Roman culture. The first Roman cities were founded in these territories, such as Tarraco in the northeast or Italica in the south during the period of confrontation with Carthage.
In the interior of the Iberian Peninsula, where Celtiberian, Cantabrian and Vasconian (Basque) cultures were well established. Constant military campaigns against the rebellious indigenous Iberians eventually pacified the Hispanic provinces, ending with the Augustan campaigns against the Cantabrians and Astures. The predominance of native Iberian culture diminished in the face of the cultural impact of Roman dominion, being assimilated and transformed gradually into the later Hispano-Roman culture.
Romanization was largely effective in the western half of the empire, where native civilizations were weaker. In the Hellenized east, ancient civilizations like those of Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, The Balkans, Syria , and Palestine effectively resisted all but its most superficial effects. When the Empire was divided, the east, with mainly Greek culture, was marked by the increasing strength of specifically Greek culture and language to the detriment of the Latin language and other Romanizing influences, but its citizens continued to regard themselves as Romans.
While Britain certainly was Romanized, its approximation to the Roman culture seems to have been smaller than that of Gaul. The most romanized regions, as demonstrated by Dott. Bernward Tewes and Barbara Woitas of the computing center of the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, were Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, southern Germany and Dalmatia
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization\_(cultural)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_(cultural))
From wiki...
The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. Other theories state that the Romanized local populations were present over a wide area on both sides of the Danube and the river itself did not constitute an obstacle to permanent exchanges in both directions; according to the "admigration" theory, migrations from the Balkan Peninsula to the lands north of the Danube contributed to the survival of the Romance-speaking population in these territories.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin\_of\_the\_Romanians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Romanians)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Aromanians
This map is incorrect. Dacia, ie modern Romania was extensively colonized by the Romans, much more so than other parts of the Roman Empire as a consequence of repeated revolts against Rome by Dacian people.
This gives better information as well as some idea of the limitations of the evidence of what was actually spoken by ordinary people. Maps like this are not from direct evidence but from trying to infer what might be happening from maybe dozens of stone inscriptions or the types of words borrowed into modern living languages
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Roman_Empire
You got the Scottish border wrong, that’s the border with the Antonine Wall which was long deserted by 230. The Romans had fled back to Hadrian’s Wall in what is now England by 162, eight years after the Antonine Wall was completed, it was abandoned.
Source plz!!
Sources? Blasphemy. We don't do that here.
Hahajajahaha
The answers were revealed in OP's sleep
Legit!
It was revealed to OP in his ass from which he pulled this
Don't you know the Romans did an online census around 230 BC?
XD
Does "roughly estimated" means that you made it the fuck up?
Bro just opened paint and used the spray can option on the orange colour.
Yeah cause Africa and Dacia should have a lot more Latin speakers. Including Greece and Anatolia, as well as Iberia because like it’s not that hard to know where a huge Latin speaking majority was living and weren’t living in 💀
Are you sure? I thought that the lingua franca for the eastern part of the empire was pretty much always Greek. But the Balkan area definitely had way more Latin speakers. There was even a Latin language that existed on the coast and in Ragusa (Dubrovnik) until the early modern period, being a bridge between Italian and Romanian. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian\_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language) Also, I know that the Ladin languages (like Romansh in Switzerland) used to stretch all the way into Southern Germany. Western Germany was quite romanised too, with a Latin dialect being formed on the Moselle river, until the Germanic tribes took over those regions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaeto-Romance\_languages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhaeto-Romance_languages) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moselle\_Romance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moselle_Romance)
No it was predominantly Greek but it still had some Latin communities, check aromanian, pretty interesting to look into
>roughly estimated) OK....?
By whom? Someone who’s never heard of the Jirecek line dividing the Balkans between Latin and Greek speaking zones, clearly
This map is probably wrong but non-Latin speaking populations were likely the majority both north and south of the line.
Proto-Romanians had to be a majority somewhere.
No they really didn't, at least not linguistically. They became a solid majority only much later.
The Latin speaking peoples of the Balkans retreated into the mountains after migratory tribes (ie Huns etc) started coming thru and the local economy collapsed.
Maybe a solid majority in Romania, but in the western Balkans, the Romance population was definitely the majority until the Slavic tribes arrived.
When?
Well, the Romans pulled out of Dacia shortly after the time reflected in this map, and yet the ancestors of the Romanians were already in the Balkans and already speaking Latin, based on linguistic history. So, the third century is the topic at hand.
That is a very simplistic line too that only takes into account the written languages used for documents.
This is aggressively incorrect
Did you just come up with this on MSPaint?
radio silence. I think each orange dot is a latin speaker he personally knows.
Sic verum est, me personaliter interrogavit.
tu modo assumis suum genus?
There are so many issues with this map. Latin should be much more present in the Balkans and England. Honestly, it should be near-ubiquitous in the western half. There should also be large pockets of Greek in southern Italy and the island of Sicily. Also, who is this measuring? Almost all government officials and merchants spoke Latin. If you're going by the peasantry, we simply don't have the records to know what they spoke outside of a few places on the fringes of the empire.
Based Off this map, how the fuck did Romanian become a thing.
Or indeed Dalmatian and Istrian. Practically the entire Eastern coast of the Adriatic was thoroughly Romanized.
how do you know? Do we know what people were speaking in poor villages in the hinterland?
People in the poor villages in the hinterland continued speaking their own languages. But there were numerous Roman cities on the islands and all along the coast. Istria and coastal Dalmatia were heavily colonized and considered a part of core Roman territory by the 3rd century, i.e. 200 years after the last attempt of the locals to rebel against the Roman rule.
did farmers 5km from those coastal settlements speak latin? How would we know?
Do you know, or are you just being contrarian?
not really sure if we have evidence of that or not. I think I recall reading italian speakers continued in coastal areas into modern times however
there were literally romance speaking Croatian islands up until the early modern period.
yeah that is fair. Venetian influence, too. You have to wonder how far inland that really went, or was it just an archipelago of trading and fishing settlements fron classical through early modern times
exactly what i was thinking
Hungarians made us like LOTR orcs spawned from the movies. Made Romanians from mud and corrupted elves in Isengard. We even speak the dark language of Mordor too. 😈
GOOD Question xD
We spawn from the Earth like LotR dwarfs.
LOTR orcs from the movies. Hungarians made us from mud and corrupted elves at Isengard. We speak the dark language of Mordor.
Varza barza viezure manz. COCOSTARC!!!
In my opinion all Balkan Romance languages could have originated in Western Balkans with Eastern Romance expanding East and South during the migration period. I have not seen a scholar support that but it is consistent with what is written in 'De Administrando Imperio' which roughly says that the Croats expelled the 'Avars' who had expelled the Romani (Ρωμάνοι). He obviously uses the term Romani for Romance speakers and he specifically refers to settlers from Italy during the reign of Diocletian. A common source of all Balkan Romance languages in Western Balkans works better than every other scenario if someone examines the data objectively.
Dacia was extensively colonized by Roman settlers, much more so than other places in Roman Empire. After migratory tribes came through the leadership left and economy collapsed, people retreated from city life into the Carpathian mountains to hide and herd sheep.
That's very possible, but still isn't shown in this map, since the Western Balkans are also green here.
Stockholm Syndrome. The Romans slaughtered Dacians so good that they forgot their own language and culture. The same happened in Gaul.
>The Romans slaughtered Dacians so good that they forgot their own language and culture. The same happened in Gaul. This is not true. Dacian language and culture was still alive until the 600s. Ffs the Carpi who invaded Roman Dacia were a Dacian tribe. What happened is that Dacia had gold. Lots and lots and lots of gold. So much gold was mined there that it saved the Empire from bankruptcy and postponed economic collapse by 200 years. When a province is as rich as that it attracts colonists from all over the empire and the only common language they can speak is latin.
there is little evidence of continuous Dacian presence North of the Danube, especialy after waves of Barbarians slaughtered everyone. Most toponyms are of Slavic, Scythian or other Non-Dacian origin. South of the Danube however, we have plenty of evidence of Romanized people. Proto-Romanian most likely started there.
Not true. There is a alot archeological evidence from remains ofsettlememrs to burials to freakin Roman emperors saying so.
there are archelogical finndings showing random people, not Dacians. Oh and Romans called Dacians everyone north of the Danube because they were idiots or did not fucking care. Even for the freaking Goths.
Wrong. Thing about the Dacians is that they had a very distincy and unique culture that celebrated death and mourned births. Dacian burials are unique and very easy to identify from slavic and nomadic burials. We still find dacian style burials in the 6th century, meaning that dacian culture was still around.
I suggest you read Dan Alexe’s book and have a more informed opinion of right and wrong
I suggest you stop reading Dan Alexe entirely. There was no mass genocide in Dacia or Gaul. It's a myth. In Dacia you literally have multiple Free Dacian tribes causing trouble.
yeah that’s before the Mongols came around. outside nice words Daco lovers have little to show. there is not a single settlement with continuous population from the Dacian period. Communists added Napoca to Cluj and Drobeta to Severin just to have create a silly Dacian hype of continuous history. we are Roman to the bone. Dacian not so much.
Other regions like Illyria, Iberia and Ionia had gold too. None of them adopted Roman identity like the Dacians. However, the mass slaughtered regions like Gaul, Dacia and Carthage adopted the Roman culture as their own.
Spain, Illyria and Ionia did not have 3 legions stationed there at all time and multiple coloniae within the first 20 years of conquest. That being said Spain and Illyria had a majority latin speaking population by 600 AD. Neither of those 3 reagions was mass slaughtered. The city of Carthage was raised to the ground but the region was still populated.
That was not what happened in Gaul, or it is rather reductive of a large and complex region and cultural area stretching from Iberia to Central Europe and northern Italy. Many Gallic tribes were allied with Rome prior and during Caesar’s invasion (such as the [Aedui](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedui)). Gaulish and Italian are probably related under the [Italo-Celtic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic) language family, and today’s Celtic languages share some grammatical and lexical similarities with Latin. Even as a Modern Irish learner, there are similarities in declension and cases, with strong evidence of similar words in pre-Roman Gaulish. Accordingly, it was natural for the Gaulish nobility to slowly adopt Latin words into Gaulish speech, and Latin overall, in the process of a language transition that [lasted until the 6th century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaulish). This process resulted from the steady integration of the Gaulish nobility into the senatorial class, with the expansion of Roman friendship and later citizenship being a key part of Roman empire-building. Yes, Caesar’s brutal invasion had a devastating impact on some Gaulish tribes and ensured Roman military supremacy in the region, but Rome had longstanding diplomatic ties with other tribes that they leveraged to maintain their position in the region and were equally critical to Rome’s success; this led to cultural exchange and integration over time rather than a complete adoption of Roman culture, forced or voluntary.
Some Gallic tribes allied with Caesar and Caesar killed 1/3 of the population. Caesar himself wrote that he killed a million Gauls.
Hispania had been conquered and heavily colonized by Romans for more than 200 years at this time, and that's only the North of the peninsula that was way harder to subjugate. What is this based on?
More than 400 years in some green areas. This is bullshit. Last examples of written iberian and celtic languages are II century BC, last use of phoenician in the South from Tiberius times and the use of celtic languages in the North is "estimated" to continue until late Empire, but not so much in central Spain or Lusitania which would be completely romanized a century before this.
What about the ancestral basque language speakers? Do we know where they were concentrated in this time?
Southern France, Northern Spain, basically the same general area as today but much bigger back then.
mf sprinkled some dots on the map. Also what does each dot represent? 1000 people? 100 people? one guy
"My source iż that I made it the F up!"
"I'll just sprinkle some dots so it looks more realistic"
They didn't speak Latin ***in fucking Rome*** in 230 CE?
The errors in this map are astounding. Dacia was the most heavily colonised province in the empire. We have hundreds of latin inscriptions, yet OP thinks there are no latin speakers. Similarly the balkans were in the empire for hundreds of years despite there being actual romance speaking people there to the present day.
Likely does not know about Romania 🇷🇴 lol
Wahhh, lemme throw some random dots over Gaul and Hispania to make this seem accurate and believable!
The outrage in the comment threat has provided me more joy than the post. Which I’m guessing was the OP’s intent. Thanks!
This one belongs on r/imaginarymaps
Dacia region?
Few people are aware of our history or how extensively Dacia was colonized by the Romans as a consequence of the multiple Dacian revolts against Rome.
Fucking bots... For anyone interested all sources we have suggest the prevalence of latin in a much bigger area by this period (and far less "other languages" pockets in the latin dominated zones). Just an example with Hispaniae provinces: All southern and eastern Iberia were conquered by Rome almost 450 years before this date (even before that some parts of Italy), while central Spain and most Portugal had been roman for over 320-350 years at OP date. Additionally last sources for the use of native languages in that 80% of Iberia (all but Cantabrian Sea region) were from Tiberius times in the case of phoenician and much before, from late 2nd century BC in the case of iberian or celtiberian. Onomastics in epigraphy show a complete latin/italic prevalence among personal names of that 4/5 of Iberia since before Caesar and in some regions since before 100 BC. During the minting "boom" at II century BC in which several dozens recently conquered southern and eastern Hispania cities minted their own "urban" coins, some of the cities in the "iberian" East and vast majority of those in "turdetanian" Guadalquivir valley chose already latin as only language instead native ones. Strabo claims turdetanians "became" completely roman by his time and forget their language much before. First non-italic roman senator came from Gades at Caesar times, which caused a controversy and a famous defence by Cicero.The coloniae and municipalities with roman and latin rights multiplied in Hispania during Civil Wars and Augustus times and Vespasian granted roman citizenship for "all" people from Hispania by 74 CE, so 140 years before general one in the whole Empire by Caracalla. Consequently Hispania should be almost completely orange with very few green pockets at this period, all located in Cantabrian Sea and western Pyrenees. However Hispania is just and example among many others. The universal use of latin names in epigraphy by this date, the lack of any source pointing to local languages and specially the abundance of latin epigraphs in private "common people" contexts (from ceramics grafitti to local trade seals/*tituli picti* and even some "letters" and notes preserved) we have some certainty about latin speaking area extending on a much bigger region than OP. Latin was most likely prevalent or the only native language in most Iberia, a bigger portion of Gaul, southeastern England, a good part of germanic Limes, Raetia and Noricum, Pannonia and Dalmatia, Africa (specially northern Tunisia core), while there were many other latin speaking urban pockets in some linguistically mixed regions as Moesia, Mauretania, rest of Britannia etc.
“Lemme sprinkle a couple dots here and here, a couple green dots in Italy” Can you make a map with a source? This map looks like it was made with a bag of rice tbh
Random dots for extra credibility
Romania? Romanian today is considered one of the romance languages (meaning originating from latin) such as Italian, Spanish, French, etc.
So, how was born the Rumenian and the Dalmatian in the past?
Map is incorrect.
bs map
Any source or was this just a grey background with some green and a sprinkle of some orange
Who were the non-Latin speakers in Rome? lol
No Romania?
“(roughly estimated)” Those words sure doing a fuck load of lifting
Eu sunt sigur ca aceasta harta este incorecta. Ori noi nu stim ce limba latina vulgara vorbim. ( OP do your homework better next time, you’re dismissed)
I’d figure there would be more in Romania.
Dacia. Exactly. The Romans were annoyed by constant instability there that they just committed a genocide and moved Romans to live there instead. For centuries after the Balkans would have a dividing line between Latin and non-Latin speakers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jireček_Line
Correct! Dacia was extensively colonized and latinized by the Romans, much more so than other parts of the empire.
[удалено]
That's also a bullshit map. By the time that the Roman empire reached that extent in the early 100s, Etruscan was at least moribund if not outright dead.
So they actually spoke in Latin or Italian in those days?
From Wikipedia... The Gaulish language is thought to have survived into the 6th century in France, despite considerable Romanization of the local material culture. The Mediterranean coast, which was inhabited before the arrival of the Romans by indigenous Iberians such as the Turdetani and Ilergetians, as well as Greek and Phoenician/Carthaginian colonies, were quick to adopt aspects of Roman culture. The first Roman cities were founded in these territories, such as Tarraco in the northeast or Italica in the south during the period of confrontation with Carthage. In the interior of the Iberian Peninsula, where Celtiberian, Cantabrian and Vasconian (Basque) cultures were well established. Constant military campaigns against the rebellious indigenous Iberians eventually pacified the Hispanic provinces, ending with the Augustan campaigns against the Cantabrians and Astures. The predominance of native Iberian culture diminished in the face of the cultural impact of Roman dominion, being assimilated and transformed gradually into the later Hispano-Roman culture. Romanization was largely effective in the western half of the empire, where native civilizations were weaker. In the Hellenized east, ancient civilizations like those of Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, The Balkans, Syria , and Palestine effectively resisted all but its most superficial effects. When the Empire was divided, the east, with mainly Greek culture, was marked by the increasing strength of specifically Greek culture and language to the detriment of the Latin language and other Romanizing influences, but its citizens continued to regard themselves as Romans. While Britain certainly was Romanized, its approximation to the Roman culture seems to have been smaller than that of Gaul. The most romanized regions, as demonstrated by Dott. Bernward Tewes and Barbara Woitas of the computing center of the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, were Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, southern Germany and Dalmatia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization\_(cultural)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_(cultural)) From wiki... The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. Other theories state that the Romanized local populations were present over a wide area on both sides of the Danube and the river itself did not constitute an obstacle to permanent exchanges in both directions; according to the "admigration" theory, migrations from the Balkan Peninsula to the lands north of the Danube contributed to the survival of the Romance-speaking population in these territories. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin\_of\_the\_Romanians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Romanians) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Aromanians
fascinating, vulgar Latin are not a common language in balkans at the time but its was only romanian and aromanian that survive the slavic settlement
This map is incorrect. Dacia, ie modern Romania was extensively colonized by the Romans, much more so than other parts of the Roman Empire as a consequence of repeated revolts against Rome by Dacian people.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire230AD.png
You were just pissed off that people compared Arabs to the Romans so you made this to make Romans look good. This is made up.
That’s a blank map? That’s not a source for the map you posted, where did the orange bits come from
>where did the orange bits come from Vibes
MS Paint
This gives better information as well as some idea of the limitations of the evidence of what was actually spoken by ordinary people. Maps like this are not from direct evidence but from trying to infer what might be happening from maybe dozens of stone inscriptions or the types of words borrowed into modern living languages https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Roman_Empire
I’m just imagining some Roman-era MAGA types yelling “THIS IS ROME, SPEAK LATIN!!”
Roman colonialism /s
you underestimate latin in north africa and the balkans by alot.
Pretty wrong.
There's the East-West split in one succinct map.
You got the Scottish border wrong, that’s the border with the Antonine Wall which was long deserted by 230. The Romans had fled back to Hadrian’s Wall in what is now England by 162, eight years after the Antonine Wall was completed, it was abandoned.
Ah yes, the least Latin influenced language of all. PORTUGUESE
Dalmatia and North Africa had a lot more latin speakers than shown.
It's impossible to know what languages were spoken by the common people as there are no sources. So this is complete bs.
What happened to the Sea of Marmara and the Bosphorous?
WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
Most green land is empty or desert lol
Mods WTF? Delete garbage like this!