Cultural aspects of Byzantine Italy

Please don't make the thread about the POD.

Let's just assume that the center of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople and most of the western empire was lost, except Italy. Now what? What will be the role of Greek in Italy and in the rest of the former empire? Can we expect a slow shift from Romance to Greek in the entire peninsula?
 
Please don't make the thread about the POD.

Let's just assume that the center of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople and most of the western empire was lost, except Italy. Now what? What will be the role of Greek in Italy and in the rest of the former empire? Can we expect a slow shift from Romance to Greek in the entire peninsula?

Depends on what "Roman Italy" is, I guess. OTL Byzantine Italy had parts that were quite Greek at least as far as nobles and important people went (Bari, Sicily), some that were Italian but oriented towards a Greek style (Naples itself), and other parts that were perfectly Latin and later Italian (so, like, everything else). Not to mention that if Italy stays a major part of the Empire, the Greek/Latin biligualism would be much more likely to endure as compared to OTL where Italy's importance rapidly declined.
 
I imagine in a Justinian empire in which Italy remains a part Italy would play a big role. It would most likely be a tax base as well as a a commercial and intellectual center.
 
Please don't make the thread about the POD.

Let's just assume that the center of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople and most of the western empire was lost, except Italy. Now what? What will be the role of Greek in Italy and in the rest of the former empire? Can we expect a slow shift from Romance to Greek in the entire peninsula?

From what I know even Justinian I was a native speaker of Latin, born in the Balkans.
So the Eastern Roman Empire had Latin speaking regions in OTL.
Italy wouldn't change the language issue dramatically; having Latin and Greek peacefully coexist was the most natural thing for the Roman Empire.

The elites would be bilingual in Italy, North Balkans and in the 'Greek' ERE much longer.
As for the Latin-speaking common folks holding to Latin and not switching to Greek... it depends on ATL.
If the Latin Balkans had been invaded, depopulated and lost in ATL (as in OTL, because it is endangered region under any circumstances), that would have weakened influence of the Latin language in the Empire.
The same with the North/Central Italy - if it is invaded and depopulated, the Greek language would certainly encroach there.

But if the Latin and Greek regions of the Empire were invaded and depopulated equally, to the same extent, evenly (proportionally), I see North/Central Italy speaking Latin for half a millennium or longer.

As for the colloquial/spoken language of the Roman army...
Italy had lost its importance as a recruitment pool long ago, but the Greek speaking regions traditionally provided a steady supply of recruits (I am speaking about the Late Empire here of course).
So the Roman army would probably be Greek-speaking (but here again a lot depends on human resources of the Latin Balkans saved or lost, as that had been a good imperial recruiting pool).
 
Last edited:
As for the colloquial/spoken language of the Roman army...
Italy had lost its importance as a recruitment pool long ago, but the Greek speaking regions traditionally provided a steady supply of recruits (I am speaking about the Late Empire here of course).
So the Roman army would probably be Greek-speaking (but here again a lot depends on human resources of the Latin Balkans saved or lost, as that had been a good imperial recruiting pool).

I think this to a point might be a major factor in Italy "Hellenising". Any troops recruited from Italy, or who retire in Italy, will likely have children who join the army, who learn Greek and Greco-Roman habits. It might not be particularly strong, but I can see a slow drift in that direction, unless Italian recruitment can form Latin-majority armies.
 
I imagine there would be some cultural differences between the various regions of Italy as OTL regardless of the degree of Hellenization.

The south (Naples and below, including Sicily) would be unquestionably Greek and part of "the core lands" of the ERE. Latium and its vicinity would be a center of culture and history and probably have a bit of a revival compared to OTL 4th-6th centuries. If it did revive it would probably assume more of a Greek nature than OTL from Greek settlement and investment and the Papacy would essentially become the Patriarchate of Rome.

Beyond this, though, even with Greek cultural influence much of Italy will remain Latin. The Bulgarians spent centuries under Byzantine influence and held fast to their language and culture; the Italian Latins will do the same. Larger cities like Firenze, Genoa, and Milano will eventually host a sizable Greek urban class. These may make the language of the cities Greek, but the countryside will hold to Latin without extensive education.

Special note on Venetia, though--if the PoD's early enough the city isn't even founded, or more likely founded later under happier circumstances. If founded later it might be as a Greek colony and be considered integral as the south is.
 
I think this to a point might be a major factor in Italy "Hellenising". Any troops recruited from Italy, or who retire in Italy, will likely have children who join the army, who learn Greek and Greco-Roman habits. It might not be particularly strong, but I can see a slow drift in that direction, unless Italian recruitment can form Latin-majority armies.
Good point.
But you can never be sure in such things.

For example, the Roman Latin-speaking legions were stationed in the Greek East for good two centuries and numerous Latin-speaking veteran colonies were settled there, but they failed to Latinize it; the only exception is the North Balkans where some Greek-speaking regions were Latinized, but there was the highest concentration of Latin legions in the empire and the greatest degree of the Latin settlement.
And when "the Greeks from the East" started to be recruited into the Roman army, they slowly Hellenized it, instead of being Latinized themselves.
 
Last edited:
Good point.
But you can never be sure in such things.

For example, the Roman Latin-speaking legions were stationed in the Greek East for good two centuries and numerous Latin-speaking veteran colonies were settled there, but they failed to Latinize it; the only exception is the North Balkans where some Greek-speaking regions were Latinized, but there was the highest concentration of Latin legions in the empire and the greatest degree of the Latin settlement.
And when "the Greeks from the East" started to be recruited into the Roman army, they slowly Hellenized it, instead of being Latinized themselves.

Well, it is an interesting topic - after all, we typically make the assumption that China will always Sinicize it conquerers (because historically it seems to have done that).

I wonder if there are any absolute factors that would lead to Greek being 'strong' against Latin, like 'Chinese' is strong against 'Mongolian'? It'd be... interesting to see a non-relativist analysis of that.
 
Well, it is an interesting topic - after all, we typically make the assumption that China will always Sinicize it conquerers (because historically it seems to have done that).

I wonder if there are any absolute factors that would lead to Greek being 'strong' against Latin, like 'Chinese' is strong against 'Mongolian'? It'd be... interesting to see a non-relativist analysis of that.

I am afraid there are no rules in this linguistic issue.

I mean the Hellenistic Eastern part of the Roman Empire hold on against Latinization for 6 centuries or so, and even Hellenized the Romans, who settled there.
But the same "Hellenistic" regions failed to Hellenize the conquering Arabs, vice versa.
 
This depends ENORMOUSLY on how Byzantine Italy came into existence. Off the top of my head, I can imagine quite a few scenarios, in chronological order, each with wildly different outcomes:

1. The collapse of the western Empire is far more gradual, and Italy escapes most of the destruction, crucially the vast latifundias in Latium and the aqueducts of the capital. Rome (and its metropolitan area) ITTL would be a city of 500k-1m people. Other cities which were completely wiped off, such as Milan/Mediolanum, would continue as well. Eventually, I see a very high chance (almost certainty in fact) of this much, much stronger Italy breaking off from Constantinople's orbit once religious and cultural differences become pronounced enough. (OTL, even as late as 730 A.D., Romans rose up and proclaimed one of their own as Emperor in response to the Iconoclasm controversy)

2. The Ostrogoths never move to Vandal-ravaged Italy and either stay in the Balkans or are settled in the east. Absent Theoderic the Great, we are likely to see a lot of devastation in Italy as Franks, Visigoths and Vandals keep messing with it. With Odoacer's rule being likely highly unstable, Italy might even fragment into different polities, each following a different warlord, theoretically answering to the Emperor or his representative. Such a situation would make the peninsula a huge beacon for other migratory peoples to settle there, and would probably result in lots of differing regional identities emerging. Urbanism might suffer substantially ITTL in Italy.

3. A political solution is achieved that reintegrates the Ostrogoths (think Justinian marrying Amalasuntha) into the Empire with minimal bloodshed. In such a situation, Goths would still be demographically (and militarily) significant across Italy. I imagine they would slowly be assimilated into a new "Italian" people over time that speaks a fusion of vulgar Latin with lots of Gothic words and phrases. That, or the Goths manage to achieve a majority somewhere in the north, turning Italy into a province with a Gothic-speaking north, Latin-speaking center and Greek-speaking south (as lots of refugees flee there as OTL, trying to escape violence in the Balkans). Rome remains a comparatively huge city at 300k. The Senate, elevated by the Ostrogoths OTL as a means of co-opting Roman elites, will become a huge political player ITTL, and a thorn in every subsequent Emperors side.

4. The Lombards never conquer huge chunks of Italy, or are contained in the far north. Ravaged by the plague, Justinian's reconquest and Frankish raids, Italy will be in a precarious position here. Politically beaten into submission, Italian elites will need a long time to get their act together. Popes will be appointed as OTL from the Greek-speaking east and local military commanders will be the only ones with political power besides the Church. If the situation continues and Constantinople is capable of continuously funneling troops to Italy, the Church is likely to keep the subordinate position it had in the East. Rome remains the husk it was OTL, its aqueducts destroyed and its surrounding farmland ravaged.

5. Last minute ninth-inning save by the Byzantines in the VIIIth century. By now, Italy is a mess, and cities are already practically independent whenever there isn't a large military force just outside of them. The Church holds considerable influence, and will be dominated by Italians for the foreseeable future, no matter what the Emperor does. The merchant cities of OTL are bound to develop - but since they will not be able to outright attack Byzantine holdings, things will go differently in the East. Taxation of these cities will be THE political issue, and it will likely be merged with the wider theological debate. I really don't see how this state of affair could possibly last for more than a couple of centuries.
 
Eventually, I see a very high chance (almost certainty in fact) of this much, much stronger Italy breaking off from Constantinople's orbit once religious and cultural differences become pronounced enough. (OTL, even as late as 730 A.D., Romans rose up and proclaimed one of their own as Emperor in response to the Iconoclasm controversy)
If Italy is included into the ERE for a long time the 'religious and cultural differences' would become less and less with every passing year, a lot of ties would fasten Italy and Constantinople together.
In OTL these differences became so pronounced because for centuries Italy was apart from the Roman East administratively and organizationally, here in ATL the process would go in the opposite direction.

I mean in ATL Italy would have the same reasons for breaking off from Constantinople's orbit like every other rich Roman region with enough military force stationed there - Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, the Balkans (the same 'religious and cultural problems' might appear); or rising to get their pretender on the throne in Constantinople (without partitioning, dismembering the Roman Empire).

But I agree that adding Italy (in any of your variants) to the 'standard' ERE of OTL - is to increase the risks of imperial instability: additional imperial army with sufficient territory to support this army (during the initial period of the rebellion at least). That might be the last straw which would break the backbone of the ERE; it gets too big for its own good.
In my personal opinion traditional standard ERE of OTL was the biggest territory to realistically survive for a long time considering Roman political particularities.

So in order to keep Italy inside the ERE and not to destabilize the Empire, my preposition is to 'loose' one of the other 'big' imperial territories.
Egypt is too important as a breadbasket for Constantinople and Italy, Syria is too important to protect Egypt... so my preposition for ATL for the ERE is to loose Anatolia (but keeping everything else and Italy). This Roman Empire (the Balkans, Italy, Egypt and Syria) would be quite manageable and has chances for a long life. Good navy is a must, of course.

How would the ERE loose Anatolia? That's not important. Let's say in this ATL world the Khazarian Khanate would intervene into the Romano-Sassanian war and get Anatolia from the Romans in exchange for the help against the Persians (or just conquer it, whatever).
The Arab invasion is probably butterflied away, and we have different, but stable ERE with Italy instead of Anatolia.
 
How would the ERE loose Anatolia? That's not important. Let's say in this ATL world the Khazarian Khanate would intervene into the Romano-Sassanian war and get Anatolia from the Romans in exchange for the help against the Persians (or just conquer it, whatever).
The Arab invasion is probably butterflied away, and we have different, but stable ERE with Italy instead of Anatolia.

That isn't a stable situation long-term. If a hostile power controls all of Anatolia they are a stone's throw away from Constantinople itself (and during that invasion it would've been besieged and maybe taken anyway). If Constantinople is taken the Empire collapses, with Italy going its own way anyway.

Mind, this would still be an interesting scenario, because you'd have a Greek-dominated Italy, independent OTL Greece, and most likely some sort of Miaphysite Syria-Egypt hybrid. That last could be a major power in the long term.
 
Losing Anatolia means Syria and Egtyt will be lost as well as its frankly inconceivable that the Empire could keep one but not the other long term. Realistically only Persia or the caliphate (which was, geopolitically the heir to the Persians as the USSR was to Russia or the Ottomans to the Byzantines) could really accomplish this and I cannot see how they would take Anatolia without first seizing Syria and Egypt due to sheer geography if nothing else.

I would add to this that Anatolia was a major source of manpower and resources for the Empire; there is no circumstance in which losing it helps the empires survival. On the contrary the loss of Anatolia was the doom of the Empire.

More generally I would point out that the Romans kept southern Italy (magna Graecia) until the 11th century. Them keeping more of the peninsula should not hurt their chances and on the contrary should help them if the devasation of the gothic wars can be avoided.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
This depends ENORMOUSLY on how Byzantine Italy came into existence. Off the top of my head, I can imagine quite a few scenarios, in chronological order, each with wildly different outcomes:

1. The collapse of the western Empire is far more gradual, and Italy escapes most of the destruction, crucially the vast latifundias in Latium and the aqueducts of the capital. Rome (and its metropolitan area) ITTL would be a city of 500k-1m people. Other cities which were completely wiped off, such as Milan/Mediolanum, would continue as well. Eventually, I see a very high chance (almost certainty in fact) of this much, much stronger Italy breaking off from Constantinople's orbit once religious and cultural differences become pronounced enough. (OTL, even as late as 730 A.D., Romans rose up and proclaimed one of their own as Emperor in response to the Iconoclasm controversy)

2. The Ostrogoths never move to Vandal-ravaged Italy and either stay in the Balkans or are settled in the east. Absent Theoderic the Great, we are likely to see a lot of devastation in Italy as Franks, Visigoths and Vandals keep messing with it. With Odoacer's rule being likely highly unstable, Italy might even fragment into different polities, each following a different warlord, theoretically answering to the Emperor or his representative. Such a situation would make the peninsula a huge beacon for other migratory peoples to settle there, and would probably result in lots of differing regional identities emerging. Urbanism might suffer substantially ITTL in Italy.

3. A political solution is achieved that reintegrates the Ostrogoths (think Justinian marrying Amalasuntha) into the Empire with minimal bloodshed. In such a situation, Goths would still be demographically (and militarily) significant across Italy. I imagine they would slowly be assimilated into a new "Italian" people over time that speaks a fusion of vulgar Latin with lots of Gothic words and phrases. That, or the Goths manage to achieve a majority somewhere in the north, turning Italy into a province with a Gothic-speaking north, Latin-speaking center and Greek-speaking south (as lots of refugees flee there as OTL, trying to escape violence in the Balkans). Rome remains a comparatively huge city at 300k. The Senate, elevated by the Ostrogoths OTL as a means of co-opting Roman elites, will become a huge political player ITTL, and a thorn in every subsequent Emperors side.

4. The Lombards never conquer huge chunks of Italy, or are contained in the far north. Ravaged by the plague, Justinian's reconquest and Frankish raids, Italy will be in a precarious position here. Politically beaten into submission, Italian elites will need a long time to get their act together. Popes will be appointed as OTL from the Greek-speaking east and local military commanders will be the only ones with political power besides the Church. If the situation continues and Constantinople is capable of continuously funneling troops to Italy, the Church is likely to keep the subordinate position it had in the East. Rome remains the husk it was OTL, its aqueducts destroyed and its surrounding farmland ravaged.

5. Last minute ninth-inning save by the Byzantines in the VIIIth century. By now, Italy is a mess, and cities are already practically independent whenever there isn't a large military force just outside of them. The Church holds considerable influence, and will be dominated by Italians for the foreseeable future, no matter what the Emperor does. The merchant cities of OTL are bound to develop - but since they will not be able to outright attack Byzantine holdings, things will go differently in the East. Taxation of these cities will be THE political issue, and it will likely be merged with the wider theological debate. I really don't see how this state of affair could possibly last for more than a couple of centuries.

There's a scenario I think you've missed:

The 11th century Romans avoid the Seljuk Turkish invasion of Anatolia and then over time conquer Italy and the Eastern Med.
 
If the Byzantines manage to keep direct control of Rome, maybe you'd see a less independent Papacy. Possibly even avoid the schism altogether if you can keep too many power hungry Popes from taking office consecutively.
 
It's all fine to say 'don't make this about the PoD', but when and how the Roman Empire retains Italy makes a huge difference.

This depends ENORMOUSLY on how Byzantine Italy came into existence. Off the top of my head, I can imagine quite a few scenarios, in chronological order, each with wildly different outcomes:

1. The collapse of the western Empire is far more gradual, and Italy escapes most of the destruction, crucially the vast latifundias in Latium and the aqueducts of the capital. Rome (and its metropolitan area) ITTL would be a city of 500k-1m people. Other cities which were completely wiped off, such as Milan/Mediolanum, would continue as well. Eventually, I see a very high chance (almost certainty in fact) of this much, much stronger Italy breaking off from Constantinople's orbit once religious and cultural differences become pronounced enough. (OTL, even as late as 730 A.D., Romans rose up and proclaimed one of their own as Emperor in response to the Iconoclasm controversy)

3. A political solution is achieved that reintegrates the Ostrogoths (think Justinian marrying Amalasuntha) into the Empire with minimal bloodshed. In such a situation, Goths would still be demographically (and militarily) significant across Italy. I imagine they would slowly be assimilated into a new "Italian" people over time that speaks a fusion of vulgar Latin with lots of Gothic words and phrases. That, or the Goths manage to achieve a majority somewhere in the north, turning Italy into a province with a Gothic-speaking north, Latin-speaking center and Greek-speaking south (as lots of refugees flee there as OTL, trying to escape violence in the Balkans). Rome remains a comparatively huge city at 300k. The Senate, elevated by the Ostrogoths OTL as a means of co-opting Roman elites, will become a huge political player ITTL, and a thorn in every subsequent Emperors side.

As Magnum states, how and when Italy is retained or retaken by the Roman empire makes a huge difference. I prefer either of these two options, leaning towards the latter. Parts of northern Italy might still fall to various conquering nomads or eventually break off if and when the Goths rebel, but retaining Rome ought to be conceivable. Given the easy maritime access and defining themselves by their Roman Empire heritage, I do not see the Latin and Hellenic cultures drifting apart, rather the opposite.

Well, it is an interesting topic - after all, we typically make the assumption that China will always Sinicize it conquerers (because historically it seems to have done that).

I wonder if there are any absolute factors that would lead to Greek being 'strong' against Latin, like 'Chinese' is strong against 'Mongolian'? It'd be... interesting to see a non-relativist analysis of that.

I would imagine that the prestige of a culture in the minds of its neighbours would play a huge role. The Romans looked up to the Greeks and adopted a lot of their culture before conquering the Greek parts of Italy, let alone Greece itself. Similarly, I can see how the Yuan would, upon becoming sedentary and urbanized, eschew their nomadic roots and adopt more than just the styles of their impressive subjects.
 
Top