Ethnic identity of ancient Sicilians

[kochman]

That is what everyone is trying to tell you. Just because Sicily was under Roman administration, it does not mean the population of Sicily - those actually living there - weren't predominantly Greek-speaking, especially since under the Romans there was no concerted effort to "Latinize" the Greek-speaking populous.

Your "everyone" is one person, btw.
The greeks were not really there all that long, people... this is simple. The Romans ran out the greek rulers of a few cities on the island (Siracusa being the biggest)...
You have offered no evidence whatsoever for your claim that the Romans, who did everything in Latin, and made Latin the roots for several regions, didn't try to "latinize" the "greek speaking populous" (which was only a fraction of the island to begin with.

The difference between a dialect and a language is more political than linguistic. I think you have an equally strong case that Swedish and Norwegian are the same language as Florentine Italian and Sicilian. I can read Dante with no problems, but I'm usually guessing at Sicilian words. But either way, this is a modern analysis. If you're dealing with a time before Italy, the claim that Sicilian is Italian is more tenuous either way.

I don't know as much about this topic as I should, but I often think the Norman conquest moved the Mezzogiorno into the "Italian" sphere. All I have is church affiliations to go by, however. The area leaned Greek Orthodox, although there were Lombard Princes who were important as well. It was sort of a no-man's land of Quasi-Byzantine control. At a minimum, Greeks were never run out of Southern Italy and Sicily, they were merely conquered. Greek influence remained strong in the area even as the language began to conform to some variant of Latin.



The language would be Punic (i.e., Western Phoenician, which was an offshoot of Tyrian Phoenician, iirc). That being said, I don't think it was spoken at all in Southern Italy. If it remained in Sicily, it would likely be limited to Western Sicily (Sardinia and Corsica might have had remaining inhabitants that spoke it). Given the nature of Greek colonization vs. Phoenician colonization, my guess is only a certain tier of society ever spoke Punic and that group benefited by a switch to Greek, Latin, or whatever the so-called Saracens spoke (Berber I'm guessing).

True about the language... there are severe differences... due to all the many conquerors of Sicily.

However, to say the Normans moved the Mezzogiorno into the Italian sphere is wrong. There was a greek administration to a lot of the areas in the Mezzo... however, they were still very Italian, with stronger Greek influence in Brindisi and a couple of other port cities where the Byzantines held sway...

The saracens spoke Arabic, it was one of the major languages in the Norman court at Palermo... that, French, Latin, and Greek.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, I'm not entirely sure there was an Italian sphere at the time. There were local Lombard princes ruling and things like that, but many were agents of the Eastern Empire. However, it's easier to figure out if the area was affiliated with the Bishop of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople. At least in this criteria, Greek churches were more common than Latin ones (as much of a difference as there actually was).

 

[General Pilates]

I'm unsure what exactly you mean by the 'Italian sphere'? Do you mean the Lombards, because the Byzantine parts of Southern Italy were usually not Lombard.

 

[Marla_Singer]

LOL. This reminds me an old Tarantino movie...
Dennis Hopper was a great actor.


Link to video.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm not sure what Italian sphere is either. I've been generally objecting to that term as meaningless. I suppose you could make a linguistic argument, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to determine the every day language of people in this area.

However, there were plenty of Lombards in Southern Italy in the 11th Century. It's a little difficult to tell who exactly was a Lombard ruler, who relied on Lombards for their armies, etc., but you have individuals like Pandulf and Guaimar that ruled Capua, Salerno, Beneveto, etc. and were Lombards. That's not particularly relevant, since I'm not sure Lombard = Italian at this point in history, but I do want to emphasize that things weren't as clear cut as it would be drawn on a map (even leaving aside the power struggles and continuously shifting rulers).

 

[LightSpectra]

You have offered no evidence whatsoever for your claim that the Romans, who did everything in Latin, and made Latin the roots for several regions, didn't try to "latinize" the "greek speaking populous" (which was only a fraction of the island to begin with.

Most people spoke Greek and wrote in Greek during most of the Roman Empire's history, dude. They even spoke Greek on the Senate floor.

 

[General Pilates]

However, there were plenty of Lombards in Southern Italy in the 11th Century. It's a little difficult to tell who exactly was a Lombard ruler, who relied on Lombards for their armies, etc., but you have individuals like Pandulf and Guaimar that ruled Capua, Salerno, Beneveto, etc. and were Lombards. That's not particularly relevant, since I'm not sure Lombard = Italian at this point in history, but I do want to emphasize that things weren't as clear cut as it would be drawn on a map (even leaving aside the power struggles and continuously shifting rulers).

I was thinking of Calabria and Apulia, mostly, which IIRC were generally out of the rule of the Duke of Benevento. And yeah, I was simply attempting to interpret his words to the best of my ability.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, I would still call Calabria and Apulia Greek at this point. Maybe less Greek than they were in 200 BC, but still Greek.

 

[Takhisis]

They even followed the Greek Church until at least the 10th century CE.

 

[kochman]

Most people spoke Greek and wrote in Greek during most of the Roman Empire's history, dude. They even spoke Greek on the Senate floor.

Where? Throughout the empire? Mainly in the Eastern Part, which was made up of Hellenic states... sure, but the Sicilians became Roman as they were conquered early and had time to assimilate.


Greek was the language of the educated/"lingua franca" (wherever Latin wasn't the "lingua franca") of its time, and the rich often had their children educated by Greeks, etc... ... but Latin was the language of the people, and just because Greek was occasionally spoke on the Senate floor doesn't really mean much.

 

[kochman]

Yeah, I would still call Calabria and Apulia Greek at this point. Maybe less Greek than they were in 200 BC, but still Greek.

Interesting, my friends from the regions you note would completely and totally disagree with you...

 

[General Pilates]

Interesting, my friends from the regions you note would completely and totally disagree with you...

Did your friends live in these areas during the Byzantine control? Do they have evidence for their arguments besides 'Those smelly Greeks could never be my ancestors'? If not, your argument doesn't hold merit.

 

[Takhisis]

Friends from the North would say we're discussing Africa history, so what's your point exactly, kochman?

 

[kochman]

Did your friends live in these areas during the Byzantine control? Do they have evidence for their arguments besides 'Those smelly Greeks could never be my ancestors'? If not, your argument doesn't hold merit.

Um, you are taking my reply to someone else, and using it in your argument?
That's not a good technique.
The person I replied to said he "still considers them Greek" or something like that... You are talking about the Byzantine era.

The admin during the Byzantine era of the Mezzogiorno was, gasp, in Greek. I know this people, you are not teaching me anything here. However, as I said, other than Brindisi, Otranto and a couple of other cities, Greek was not the major language of the people of the Mezzogiorno, it was colloquial Latin, as the entire peninsula had, thanks to the Romans...

Regarding Sicily, I recommend the following reading to you all:
Sicily: Three Thousand Years of Human History by Sandra Benjamin

It is quite well written, and will break the history down quite well.

Friends from the North would say we're discussing Africa history, so what's your point exactly, kochman?

Only the racist ones in the north would say something stupid like this... I lived up north, and most do not think anything like this.
That's a pretty poor thing for you to post about Italians.

 

[sophie]

Regarding Sicily, I recommend the following reading to you all:
Sicily: Three Thousand Years of Human History by Sandra Benjamin

Three thousand years is an awfully long time to cover in just one book, especially for one person to write without any co-editors. I don't know if it would necessarily be the best source. Maybe for an overview to give you a grounding in the topic, but for something as specific as the topic this thread seems to be taking, I'd imagine you're better off going for a more specific monograph publication, particularly coming from a social historian. The funny thing about history is that you can be a specialist in a specific time period and region, and still have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in a separate specialty, but in the same period, especially when you're on the topic of Social or Economic history, which entails endless hours digging through church records. My recommendation would be to swallow your pride and take a look at the types of sources Dachs listed out. In fact, you really can't go wrong with Halsall, that man really knows his stuff. And he's got a great blog!

 

[Takhisis]

Only the racist ones in the north would say something stupid like this... I lived up north, and most do not think anything like this.
That's a pretty poor thing for you to post about Italians.

Well if you can invoke 'friends from…' then anyone else can do it. Keep missing my point like you do with Dachs.

 

[Louis XXIV]

They even followed the Greek Church until at least the 10th century CE.

Not only that, there's strong evidence there were many that followed the Greek Church a century later in the 11th Century until the Normans started closing them down. Patriarch Michael Cerularius retaliated for this by closing down Latin churches in Constantinople (if Cardinal Humbert is to be believed).

Um, you are taking my reply to someone else, and using it in your argument?
That's not a good technique.
The person I replied to said he "still considers them Greek" or something like that... You are talking about the Byzantine era.

I didn't say I still consider them Greek. It's only six posts up, you could look at what I wrote. I'll put it in context:

However, there were plenty of Lombards in Southern Italy in the 11th Century. It's a little difficult to tell who exactly was a Lombard ruler, who relied on Lombards for their armies, etc., but you have individuals like Pandulf and Guaimar that ruled Capua, Salerno, Beneveto, etc. and were Lombards.

I was thinking of Calabria and Apulia, mostly, which IIRC were generally out of the rule of the Duke of Benevento. And yeah, I was simply attempting to interpret his words to the best of my ability.

Yeah, I would still call Calabria and Apulia Greek at this point. Maybe less Greek than they were in 200 BC, but still Greek.

I would still call them Greek at this point [in time (i.e. the 11th Century)].
We're talking about the Duchy of Benevento.

Non penso che i suoi amici siano grecci.

 

[Pangur Bán]

As posters like Takhisis know, the "Greeks" were Romans until quite recently. The Greeks essentially remade themselves according to Western ideological fantasy in the 18th and 19th centuries. Before they were Romans ruled by Turks. Of modern Greece, most of it wasn't Greek-speaking in the middle ages ... Romance (i.e. Vlach) and Slavic were dominant north of Thermopylae except in cities. It is even possible that the territory of modern Greece had more Latin speakers in much of late antiquity/middle ages than Greek-speakers.

Latin spread in non-urbanized areas of military settlement, especially in imperial provinces. It was the language of soldiers rather than city-dwellers. It is nonsense to speak of the Romans as only Latin-speakers after the BC era. The Roman Empire was started by Latin speakers, but Greek was as Roman a language as Latin in everyone's eyes by the early ADs. A few hundred years later "Greek" was the only Roman language. And if you object to that you object to French being called French rather than Gallo-Romance, or Bulgarian being called Bulgarian rather than Moesian Slavic.

Romance/Latin, spoken in late antiquity/early middle ages between Thebes and Slovakia, ended up being referred to with a borrowing from German via Slavic (same word giving "Welsh").

Greeks were called "Roman" by themselves and most of their neighbours; by the high/late middle ages their land, Anatolia, was called "Romania" even in Latin (Rum in Turkish). Turks--most of them ex-"Greeks"/Romans themselves--even in the 20th century called their Greeks "Romans".

 

[kochman]

Three thousand years is an awfully long time to cover in just one book, especially for one person to write without any co-editors. I don't know if it would necessarily be the best source.

It's certainly not the only book I've read on the topic! I've studied Sicilian history extensively, in particular the Norman and Byzantine eras. The book I recommended was just a good starting point.

Well if you can invoke 'friends from…' then anyone else can do it. Keep missing my point like you do with Dachs.

I didn't miss your point at all, I disagreed with it because it was in poor taste and insinuated that Northern Italians consider Sicilians africans.

I didn't say I still consider them Greek. It's only six posts up, you could look at what I wrote. I'll put it in context:
I would still call them Greek at this point [in time (i.e. the 11th Century)].
We're talking about the Duchy of Benevento.
Non penso che i suoi amici siano grecci.

Ok! I didn't see that, my mistake! Certo che non sono grecchi!

 

[Lone Wolf]

Greeks were called "Roman" by themselves and most of their neighbours; by the high/late middle ages their land, Anatolia, was called "Romania" even in Latin (Rum in Turkish). Turks--most of them ex-"Greeks"/Romans themselves--even in the 20th century called their Greeks "Romans".

Well, there's also that thing with Theodoros II Laskaris and Georgios Plethon's Hellenic claims (the latter with his neo-Paganism and projects of turning Morea into Sparta 2.0 went further then the former, who just scattered references like

Every kind of philosophy and knowledge was either an invention of the Hellenes or was improved by them... But you, or Italian, in whom do you boast?... The same air that was then, is now ours, too; the Hellenic language is ours; and we are drawn from their blood...

Niketas Choniates, who usually just calls Byzantines "Romans" (for example, he tells about a certain Mauropoulos, a "Roman by genos", who had a prophetic dream about Manuel I's defeat), during his accounts of the Fourth Crusade switches to "Hellenes" (probably with a shade of biter irony), though he still calls Byzantium "the Roman state".

History, the greatest thing in the world and the best Hellenic invention - how can I dedicate it to the acts of barbarians versus the Hellenes?... Though the bishop of Athens could push the Marquess <Bonifacius> away... he decided that when Constantinople had been taken and both Eastern and Western parts of the Roman state were powerless under the shadow of the Latin spear, it's pointless to resist and resigned the fortress without a battle...

That kind of Hellenism seemed to be quite limited to the Byzantine intellectuals themselves, though.