Ethnic identity of ancient Sicilians

[Takhisis]

Moderator Action: Split of from this OT-thread.

Medusa, because she is represented in the Sicilian flag, and that's staying power (the Greeks got ran out of their by the Romans over 2,000 years ago).

The Greeks got run out of there? No way. They still controlled it until the Arabs came.

 

[kochman]

The Greeks got run out of there? No way. They still controlled it until the Arabs came.

Uh, no they didn't.
Pockets of Greeks remained (and still do!), but the Romans veni vedi vicci...

 

[Dachs]

Uh, no they didn't.
Pockets of Greeks remained (and still do!), but the Romans veni vedi vicci...

You err in assuming that "Greeks" and "Romans" are mutually exclusive groups in the ninth century (when Muslim - not Arab - groups began the conquest of the island)

 

[Takhisis]

Well, Romaioi did mean 'Greeks' for a long time…

 

[Dachs]

Well, Romaioi did mean 'Greeks' for a long time…

quite - or, at least, "Christian Greeks"

 

[kochman]

You err in assuming that "Greeks" and "Romans" are mutually exclusive groups in the ninth century (when Muslim - not Arab - groups began the conquest of the island)

No, I don't.
Why are you guys nitpicking this?
The Greeks and Romans were different... latin versus hellenic... this is clear.

It was saracens, and they were generally arab muslims, that took over... when the Roman Empire fell (and yes, the Byzantines were the ones who nominally controlled Sicily at the time, but they were hardly a greek island).

Believe me, I know quite a bit more about Sicilian history than the average bloke...

The Byzantines called themselves Romaio, that doesn't make Greeks and Romans the same thing, blending empire and all...

 

[Dachs]

No, I don't.
Why are you guys nitpicking this?
The Greeks and Romans were different... latin versus hellenic... this is clear.

No, they weren't. Moving on.

It was saracens, and they were generally arab muslims, that took over... when the Roman Empire fell (and yes, the Byzantines were the ones who nominally controlled Sicily at the time, but they were hardly a greek island).

Sarakenoi != Arabs. The former term is more or less meaningless - like calling everybody from Western Europe a "Frank" or a "Latin" - and should be avoided, not least because it eventually developed into a slur. The latter term has a quite specific meaning - Arabic-speaking peoples. The groups that took over Sicily included many people who spoke Arabic, and even more who did not e.g. various Ifriqiyan and southern Iberian Berbers. It is a poor label. The one thing all of them did share was Islam, and so it is best to call them Muslims. It is as though one was referring to the 'American' invasion of Normandy in June 1944 instead of the 'Allied' one.

Your initial claim, that the "Greeks" got "run out" of Sicily by the "Romans", is manifestly untrue even going by your posts alone - discussing "pockets" of Greeks (farcical - the island certainly had more Greek-speakers than Latin-speaking ones in the ninth century) and the fact that the (notably Greek) Byzantine Empire controlled the territory when the Arabs Muslims appeared on the scene. So I guess they didn't get run out after all. Bog-standard Internet practice of backing away from your actual argument while continuing to claim that a) you're still right and b) let's argue about this other thing for no apparent reason.

Believe me, I know quite a bit more about Sicilian history than the average bloke...

Saying "bloke"? The hell? Turn in your passport at the door, unAmerican swine.

Honestly, you haven't demonstrated more of a knowledge of Sicilian history than Dennis Hopper did.

The Byzantines called themselves Romaio, that doesn't make Greeks and Romans the same thing, blending empire and all...

That's like saying Manjus can't be Chinese. There is a difference between ethnic and civic nationality.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is always interesting to read Dachs' posts even if he has disowned the title of philhellene by now. Personally i know very little history and have minimal historical books in the library, but i used to be interested in it.

Anyway, back to monsters i guess.

 

[kochman]

No, they weren't. Moving on.

Oh, nevermind, you quoted wikipedia! All my arguments are out of the window! Much less, an article on the Byzantine Empire!!! Hahahahahahahah

Italians/Romans are not the same as Greeks/Hellens... sorry. You will never convince me that they are. Sicilians are more mixed than many Italians, but they are Italians (and I know that many a Sicilian will not agree, but that's just regional/nationalism).

Sarakenoi != Arabs. The former term is more or less meaningless - like calling everybody from Western Europe a "Frank" or a "Latin" - and should be avoided, not least because it eventually developed into a slur. The latter term has a quite specific meaning - Arabic-speaking peoples. The groups that took over Sicily included many people who spoke Arabic, and even more who did not e.g. various Ifriqiyan and southern Iberian Berbers. It is a poor label. The one thing all of them did share was Islam, and so it is best to call them Muslims. It is as though one was referring to the 'American' invasion of Normandy in June 1944 instead of the 'Allied' one.

I am wholly aware of who was there...
Moors, saracens, etc... yes, like Frank or Latin... I don't care.

Your initial claim, that the "Greeks" got "run out" of Sicily by the "Romans", is manifestly untrue even going by your posts alone - discussing "pockets" of Greeks (farcical - the island certainly had more Greek-speakers than Latin-speaking ones in the ninth century) and the fact that the (notably Greek) Byzantine Empire controlled the territory when the Arabs Muslims appeared on the scene. So I guess they didn't get run out after all. Bog-standard Internet practice of backing away from your actual argument while continuing to claim that a) you're still right and b) let's argue about this other thing for no apparent reason.

They no longer held onto their own power or had Greek masters, was my point...
People get run out of power... in this case, it was the Greeks who got run out by the Romans, who later somewhat reverted to Greek rule (in Roman name)...
Believe me, I am well aware of what happened in Sicily over the centuries.

I would like to know your source for "the island certainly had more Greek-speakers than Latin-speaking ones in the ninth century". I am aware that the Greek speakers were much more prevalent then... but since the Romans, then the Ostrogoths came through, before the Byzantines recaptured the island... that's a lot of Latin.
I am aware of a second wave of Greek immigration before the Saracens took over... but I don't recall, from my studies on the topic, it being that overwhelming.

Honestly, you haven't demonstrated more of a knowledge of Sicilian history than Dennis Hopper did.

I am not here to prove myself to you, so I really don't give a crap if you believe in my knowledge or not... besides, I could never trump your massive wikipedia source/knowledge.

It is always interesting to read Dachs' posts even if he has disowned the title of philhellene by now. Personally i know very little history and have minimal historical books in the library, but i used to be interested in it.

Anyway, back to monsters i guess.

I'd be a lot more impressed if Wikipedia wasn't used so often.

 

[Dachs]

Oh, nevermind, you quoted wikipedia! All my arguments are out of the window! Much less, an article on the Byzantine Empire!!! Hahahahahahahah

I'd be a lot more impressed if Wikipedia wasn't used so often.

I merely presented the information in a format I assumed you would understand. I have to admit, nobody's ever accused me of relying on Wikipedia for anything, since I'm usually the person who rails against its inadequacy on history topics. Surely your memory is not so short that you've forgotten how I've schooled you in history before, and clearly without Wikipedia - although I wouldn't be unduly surprised if it were.

If you want relevant and easily obtainable scholarly titles on Greek/Roman ethnicity, see e.g. Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West (useful on the concept of layered ethnicity, something which you are horribly failing to understand); Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (useful on basically everything Byzantine, with some relevant sections on linguistics); Warren Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival (useful on the situation of Greeks in Italy and Sicily in the ninth century, which has an obvious direct application to the circumstances).

Italians/Romans are not the same as Greeks/Hellens... sorry. You will never convince me that they are. Sicilians are more mixed than many Italians, but they are Italians (and I know that many a Sicilian will not agree, but that's just regional/nationalism).

"Roman" is not the same sort of thing as "Italian" or "Greek". "Roman" is a civic nationality, not an ethnic one, much like "Chinese" or "American" today; the inhabitant of a Roman state e.g. the so-called "Byzantine" Empire was a "Roman". "Greek" is an ethnolinguistic concept; if you spoke Greek, you were Greek. Therefore (most of) the inhabitants of Sicily under the Empire were in fact both Roman - in the sense that they lived in the Roman Empire - and Greek - in the sense that they spoke Greek.

Obviously I'm not saying that somebody who lived in, say, Gaul in the second century AD was "Greek" because he lived in the Roman Empire. Don't be childish.

Moors, saracens, etc... yes, like Frank or Latin... I don't care.

Hey, if you can't be assed to try to make yourself make sense...

They no longer held onto their own power or had Greek masters, was my point...
People get run out of power... in this case, it was the Greeks who got run out by the Romans, who later somewhat reverted to Greek rule (in Roman name)...
Believe me, I am well aware of what happened in Sicily over the centuries.

I would like to know your source for "the island certainly had more Greek-speakers than Latin-speaking ones in the ninth century". I am aware that the Greek speakers were much more prevalent then... but since the Romans, then the Ostrogoths came through, before the Byzantines recaptured the island... that's a lot of Latin.
I am aware of a second wave of Greek immigration before the Saracens took over... but I don't recall, from my studies on the topic, it being that overwhelming.

Treadgold's second work noted above is the most obvious source, but simple linguistic reasoning ought to suffice. The Roman state never imposed Latin on anybody, and did not even make it a requirement for citizenship; it coined in both Greek and Latin long before even the time of Augustus. While many inhabitants of the non-Italian parts of the Roman Empire soon began to speak Latin, these were confined to the aristocracy, who had the money to engage in the sort of Ciceronian Latin studies that other people didn't because Ciceronian Latin was completely freaking useless. So maybe two to five percent of the population of formerly-Greek-speaking regions had any reason or capacity to pick up Latin, even in Italy itself - where truly ancient languages such as Oscan or Etruscan survived well into the Tetrarchy, if not later.

Added to that is the migration of even more Greek-speaking people to southern Italy and Sicily from the seventh century onward due to a near-total lack of stable control over modern-day Greece, something you seem to be well aware of. It may very well be this influx that sustained Greek language and its variants in southern Italy to the modern day, although it's impossible to say. Regardless, even taking an extremely generous estimate for "Latinization" in southern Italy by the time of Ioustinianos and Herakleios, it is difficult to come up with any sort of estimate that leaves non-Greek speakers - let alone speakers of "Italian", which did not exist in the ninth century - nonexistent in southern Italy and Sicily by the ninth century as you claimed earlier.

I am not here to prove myself to you, so I really don't give a crap if you believe in my knowledge or not... besides, I could never trump your massive wikipedia source/knowledge.

It feels awfully funny to see my own annoyed words about Wikipedia parroted back at me, I have to admit.

I think this has derailed.

Did you see the crappy Papandreou jokes? It was never on rails in the first place.

That said, I have to admit, my favorite Greek mythological monster isn't on the Pole. Typhon was scary as all hell and fought an extremely long war with the Olympians during the Titanomachia - it was way more badass than any of the Kyklopes or whatever. And if not that, the hekatoncheires (amusing parallels with Browning's Setebos, the "many-handed as a cuttlefish") would surely be in the running.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Italians/Romans are not the same as Greeks/Hellens... sorry.

ONE PARAGRAPH LATER.

like Frank or Latin... I don't care.

So yeah, Greeks/Hellens/Italians/Romans are the same thing, Franks.

 

[kochman]

Spoiler :

I merely presented the information in a format I assumed you would understand. I have to admit, nobody's ever accused me of relying on Wikipedia for anything, since I'm usually the person who rails against its inadequacy on history topics. Surely your memory is not so short that you've forgotten how I've schooled you in history before, and clearly without Wikipedia - although I wouldn't be unduly surprised if it were.

If you want relevant and easily obtainable scholarly titles on Greek/Roman ethnicity, see e.g. Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West (useful on the concept of layered ethnicity, something which you are horribly failing to understand); Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (useful on basically everything Byzantine, with some relevant sections on linguistics); Warren Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival (useful on the situation of Greeks in Italy and Sicily in the ninth century, which has an obvious direct application to the circumstances).

"Roman" is not the same sort of thing as "Italian" or "Greek". "Roman" is a civic nationality, not an ethnic one, much like "Chinese" or "American" today; the inhabitant of a Roman state e.g. the so-called "Byzantine" Empire was a "Roman". "Greek" is an ethnolinguistic concept; if you spoke Greek, you were Greek. Therefore (most of) the inhabitants of Sicily under the Empire were in fact both Roman - in the sense that they lived in the Roman Empire - and Greek - in the sense that they spoke Greek.

Obviously I'm not saying that somebody who lived in, say, Gaul in the second century AD was "Greek" because he lived in the Roman Empire. Don't be childish.

Hey, if you can't be assed to try to make yourself make sense...

Treadgold's second work noted above is the most obvious source, but simple linguistic reasoning ought to suffice. The Roman state never imposed Latin on anybody, and did not even make it a requirement for citizenship; it coined in both Greek and Latin long before even the time of Augustus. While many inhabitants of the non-Italian parts of the Roman Empire soon began to speak Latin, these were confined to the aristocracy, who had the money to engage in the sort of Ciceronian Latin studies that other people didn't because Ciceronian Latin was completely freaking useless. So maybe two to five percent of the population of formerly-Greek-speaking regions had any reason or capacity to pick up Latin, even in Italy itself - where truly ancient languages such as Oscan or Etruscan survived well into the Tetrarchy, if not later.

Added to that is the migration of even more Greek-speaking people to southern Italy and Sicily from the seventh century onward due to a near-total lack of stable control over modern-day Greece, something you seem to be well aware of. It may very well be this influx that sustained Greek language and its variants in southern Italy to the modern day, although it's impossible to say. Regardless, even taking an extremely generous estimate for "Latinization" in southern Italy by the time of Ioustinianos and Herakleios, it is difficult to come up with any sort of estimate that leaves non-Greek speakers - let alone speakers of "Italian", which did not exist in the ninth century - nonexistent in southern Italy and Sicily by the ninth century as you claimed earlier.

It feels awfully funny to see my own annoyed words about Wikipedia parroted back at me, I have to admit.

Did you see the crappy Papandreou jokes? It was never on rails in the first place.

That said, I have to admit, my favorite Greek mythological monster isn't on the Pole. Typhon was scary as all hell and fought an extremely long war with the Olympians during the Titanomachia - it was way more badass than any of the Kyklopes or whatever. And if not that, the hekatoncheires (amusing parallels with Browning's Setebos, the "many-handed as a cuttlefish") would surely be in the running.

Since this is getting extremely snarky, and off topic... I will rest with a final statement, take it or leave it.
The language of the administration of a country doesn't mean the people are of the group/culture.

The Romans were the ones with the longest lasting impact, not the Greeks, as they are and have been, and Italian people in Sicily, as seen in their language and culture.
The Ostrogoths ruled, official language gone... people Sicilian... Italian... which is rooted in Roma.
The Byzantines ruled, official language Greek... people Sicilian... Italian...
The Muslims ruled, official language Arabic... people Sicilian... Italian...
The Normans ruled, official language French.... people Sicilian... Italian...
The Germans ruled... blah blah blah...
All the way to today... people Sicilian... Italian...

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Sicilians still don't speak Italian!

 

[kochman]

The Sicilians still don't speak Italian!

That's funny, I could have sworn I was speaking it with them on my many trips there... I guess I know Sicilian!
They have a very strong dialect which they speak amongst themselves, which is HEAVILY Italian...

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's funny, I could have sworn I was speaking it with them on my many trips there...

If you believe you spoke with Sicilians there, you are mistaken. Only Franks and Arabs live in Sicily.

 

[kochman]

If you believe you spoke with Sicilians there, you are mistaken. Only Franks and Arabs live in Sicily.

Please, Franks and Saracens... gosh

 

[Virote_Considon]

Since this is getting extremely snarky, and off topic... I will rest with a final statement, take it or leave it.
The language of the administration of a country doesn't mean the people are of the group/culture.

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.

 

[LightSpectra]

A little bit off-topic, but somebody from Tunisia once tried to explain to me that the inhabitants of Sicily and southern Italy spoke 'Carthaginian' well into the 2nd century AD. I was trying to ascertain what language this mysterious 'Carthaginian' was (Punic, I suppose?), and how one could prove that, given that all of the documents and coins would've been published in either Koine Greek or Latin at that point.

It sounds like typical nationalist jargon to me, but I'm not well-read enough in the subject to say anything about it.

 

[General Pilates]

I'm fairly sure that as in Spain and the Frankish raids Berbers were the vast majority of the Caliphate's armies when they attacked Sicily. It should be telling that both the invasions of France after Poiters and the invasion of Sicily in 740(Where they had seized Syracuse) were halted because of the Great Berber revolt.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That's funny, I could have sworn I was speaking it with them on my many trips there... I guess I know Sicilian!
They have a very strong dialect which they speak amongst themselves, which is HEAVILY Italian...

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.

A little bit off-topic, but somebody from Tunisia once tried to explain to me that the inhabitants of Sicily and southern Italy spoke 'Carthaginian' well into the 2nd century AD. I was trying to ascertain what language this mysterious 'Carthaginian' was (Punic, I suppose?), and how one could prove that, given that all of the documents and coins would've been published in either Koine Greek or Latin at that point.

It sounds like typical nationalist jargon to me, but I'm not well-read enough in the subject to say anything about it.

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).