>When emperor Micheal III addressed a letter in 865 to Pope Nicholas I in which latin was defined as a barbarian language, the latter wrote back that Michael's pretention in calling himself "Roman emperor" was ridiculous as he was unable to speak the "Roman language "
This is actually embarrassing. Byzantinebros?I thought we wuz roman and shieet...
>Smug byzantine court pretends that the roman senate just left for Constantinople one day
Once again the "romans" are completely ignorant of their own history.
jej
What a bunch of bullshit. Greeks had it comin.
The "byzantine" empire will forever be more roman than whatever a bunch of germanic chieftains where doing
At very least the westerners weren't calling latin a "barbarian language", it seems that the byzantine empire wasn't spared by the catastrophic knowledge loss during the dark age
They were right though
Byzantines had nothing to do with Rome and I am sick and tired of the Reddit meme that they did
>bar-bar-bar the east Roman empire had nothing to do with Rome bar-bar-bar!
Cool story
Ataturk said Italians aka Romans are the sons of Troy and should side with their ancestors the Turks over Greeks.
Turks and Greeks are literally all Romioi, Ottomeme conquest and administration just broke them and made the muslim converts larp as steppe homies while the christian half decided to larp as ancient hellenes, lmao
East Roman Empire was a Cristian empire, and Latin has nothing to do with Christianity, Gospels being written in Greek and Old Testament in Hebrew.
The Pope likely couldn't even speak the "Roman" language either; by then it was either Proto Romance or very old Tuscan.
Roman language was spoken by the Romaioi and besides that, had been spoken by Romans since the Roman Kingdom/Etruscan period.
all of the clergy was trained in latin dumb frick
And even then you had people complaining that nobody could speak Latin correctly as they were pronouncing it largely according to their Romance dialects. (I'm not sure at this time how widespread Alcuin's reforms had reached - but even then Alcuin was an Englishman.)
There's a linguistic difference between proto Romance and Late/Vulgar Latin. The Oaths of Strasbourg are supposed to be the earliest substantial evidence of Romance.
It's implausible for Proto-Romance to diffuse in the Middle Ages when trade and political ties are collapsed. Remember that Romanian also descends from it. Proto-Romance must be fairly early Vulgar Latin.
they obviously didn't collapse so much considering anglo saxons were recorded in the slave markets of rome in the time of gregory the great
Are the Anglo slaves in Romania?
romania is a country of slaves
>Proto-Romance must be fairly early Vulgar Latin.
some level of palatalization of k/g before e/i is common in all romance languages, and it hapoened in the fifth century, so proto-romance cannot be older than that.
Can be a development of Common Romance, rather than Proto.
not parsimonious enough.
There are similar developments in Common Slavic and Common Germanic. For example, Germanic z shifted to r in all extant Germanic languages but this is post-PG.
>Proto Romance
Dates to the late Republic or early Empire
>very old Tuscan.
Old Italian
>At Christmas 1196, Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI attempted to force Alexios to pay him a tribute of 5,000 pounds (later negotiated down to 1,600 pounds) of gold or face invasion. Alexios gathered the money by plundering imperial tombs at the church of the Holy Apostles and heavily taxing the people through the Alamanikon.
>Henry took the occasion to exact tribute and had a threatening letter sent to Alexios III in order to finance the planned Crusade. Alexius immediately submitted to the tributary demands and exacted high taxes from his subjects to pay the Crusaders 5,000 pounds of gold.
Nice "empire" you got there, Gr*ek
You should read "Latin in Byzantium", it's full of anecdote such as this
The eastern roman empire can be considered somewhat roman until Phocas, who suspended the teaching of latin in Constantinople
The only writing we have directly from an Emperor addressing this, that being Constantine VII takes a relatively neutral stance on the language, saying that it was also the Roman language and that it was used more after the reign of Heraclius (for those who read only wikipedia, this does not mean anything as to the 'offical' language nor does it mean that it went away for a long while yet). He was happy to call it his own language even if people in his day didn't speak it anymore outside of ceremony. Of course Constantine VII is on the other end of the spectrum from most people considering he was very well learned and from what we can tell, very interested in history even if he sometimes puts a lot of trust into popular myth, which says either Diocletian or Heraclius did everything because they were so cool and he pretty obviously only uses Imperial records from the East, and maybe West to relate the past in his very hostile writing on Aetius, who was hated by the Emperor Valentinian III.
Interesting thanks anon
But weren’t the first bibles in greek?
Maybe Michael was simply a moron.
Imperial law still used a lot of Latin terms which were written in Latin script. There is no way the byzantine were that ignorant of their own origins.
You will never be a real roman
Silence, chapulines vendor
Greeks were the ones to actually carry Roman legacy forward.