Hellenised Italy?

[de Ptysz]

What could have led to this scenario? Would the native Latin culture live on or would it be completely suppressed by the overwhelming Hellenism?

Maybe a longer living Alexander, who wants fulfill his conquest by annexing Carthage and Italy could do it? Even if his empire would eventually collapse and divide, Italy may be ruled by Hellenic or Hellene-friendly monarchs, what would lead to dominance of Greek culture and complex assimilation in upcoming centuries (a fate similar to what happened to Phrygians, Galatians etc.).

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

I could see it being a more even mixture of Latin and Greek.


Or I could be completely wrong. Yeah, I probably am. Just ignore this post.

 

[jabberwoky]

I could see it being a more even mixture of Latin and Greek.


Or I could be completely wrong. Yeah, I probably am. Just ignore this post.

I could see the south becoming almost the completely hellanised, the north maby not so much.

 

[eliphas8]

I could see it being a more even mixture of Latin and Greek.


Or I could be completely wrong. Yeah, I probably am. Just ignore this post.

A mixture of Latin and Greek is basically OTL, you know what with the two cultures being so incredibly similar upto and including worshiping the same gods (although the Romans seem like they're the only people who liked Ares/Mars, that and the language difference are in my opinion the only major differences culturally).

 

[de Ptysz]

The reign of native Roman (Latin) elites in the Roman Republic was critical to survival and later flourish of the Latin culture, although the culture was still dominated by the Greek influences (every educated Roman would know Greek language and Iliad). If the political elites were hellenised, then the entire society would be influenced greatly by the Hellenic culture and thus Latin culture would eventually vanish.

Ps. I was thinking about the area of Mezzogiorno and Central Italy. Lombardy and surroundings will probably go their own ways.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

There's also the heavily hellenized Etruscans. The wildcard I guess is the Samnites since they retained their culture for the most part through the Social War.

 

[Errnge]

There are actually several chances for this to happen.

For long periods of time, Syracuse was the hegemonic power in southern Italy, and Sicily, while the Etruscans were their counterbalance in the north. Syracuse was very successful in diminishing Etruscan power, and could have spread Greek influence further north, establishing colonies in Latium and Etruria were it not for Carthage's meddling.

Other more specific POD's would be any of the following:

Alexander I of Epirus succeeds in his invasion.

Alexander the Great lives longer, either he or one of his generals receive an invitation from Taras or maybe Syracuse for military aid, and they oblige, annexing the territory.

Pyrrhus of Epirus is more successful in Italy against the Romans.

Agathocles succeeds in destroying Carthage in the final chapters of the Sicilian Wars, and is thus able to consolidate strong Greek power in the South, just in time to fight off the encroaching Romans. If he plays his cards right, Syracuse might become a Roman analogue.

It should also be noted that Greek culture was so prevalent in Southern Italy and Sicily that there are still Greek speakers there to this day

 

[de Ptysz]

Alexander I of Epirus succeeds in his invasion.

That could fit it. In this period Epirus would be covered in Greece (political turmoil after the death of Megalos Alexandros) and Rome's position was still quite fragile, due to being hated by all subjugated Latin people.

 

[Errnge]

That could fit it. In this period Epirus would be covered in Greece (political turmoil after the death of Megalos Alexandros) and Rome's position was still quite fragile, due to being hated by all subjugated Latin people.

Alexander's great opponent in this war wasn't the Romans, though, it was the Samnites. The Samnites at this point were certainly a more powerful group than the Latins, so if Alexander can defeat them, the Latins will be a cakewalk

 

[tuareg109]

With a POD before the 330's BC, you have to remember that Latin won't be so important. Oscan is for the most part the major language of the Italian peninsula, with Umbrian and Etruscan near second and third (not necessarily in that order). Latin was rather low on the list at this time.

 

[Mixxer5]

What about Hellenizing Italy during Byzantium rule? Sure, it means that ERE would have to be in much better shape than it was in otl, but Latin culture was already strongly battered.

Well- unless Hellenization= pre- Roman period.

 

[Ledalek]

What about Hellenizing Italy during Byzantium rule? Sure, it means that ERE would have to be in much better shape than it was in otl, but Latin culture was already strongly battered.

Well- unless Hellenization= pre- Roman period.

calling byzantines hellene was a big insult, as hellene = filthy heathen

 

[Mixxer5]

calling byzantines hellene was a big insult, as hellene = filthy heathen

Ok- but they still were Greeks. And basically Greek= Hellene

Of course to actually Hellenize Italy, administration should be Greek as well. And it was still Latin during Justinian reign- and it was that way until Heraclius.

 

[scholar]

What could have led to this scenario? Would the native Latin culture live on or would it be completely suppressed by the overwhelming Hellenism?

Part of me thinks this is mostly what happened in OTL. Much of the Roman Pantheon was grecified to the point where they were simply different names, sharing many of the same or similar stories about them. Eventually Rome saw itself as an extension or betterment of the Greek Civilization. Some of them are pretty interesting: Zues's father went to Rome and helped found the Latin people, refugees from Troy found their way to Rome. The more of the Greek/Hellenic land Rome conquered, the more roman culture was conquered and subjugated by the Greek/Hellenic influences.

The term Greco-Roman Civilization is not one made lightly, it has much a connection as the Judeo-Christian term.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Ok- but they still were Greeks. And basically Greek= Hellene

Of course to actually Hellenize Italy, administration should be Greek as well. And it was still Latin during Justinian reign- and it was that way until Heraclius.

Well, partially.

Large parts of Justinian's government (and, indeed, Augustus' and Diocletian's and Constantine's) were operating in the Greek language, even if Justinian himself was a traditional Latin speaker and his grand legal consolidation projects were issued initially in Latin.

The converse of this is that the primary language of the Exarchate of Ravenna seems to have been Latin: you can see this illustrated by the mosaic portrait of Heraclius' grandson Constantine IV that describes him as "Imperator", not "Basileus". Africa, if I recall, was governed in Greek, but in Italy this seems to have been much, much less the case, apart from Sicily and Calabria, which were Greek anyway.

Even in Byzantine Apulia, Greek was never particularly prominent, with Latin being used despite the increasing Byzantine hold on the area from the later ninth century onwards.

Basically, I suspect that any POD after the rise of the Roman Republic is too late to suppress Latin and build a thoroughly Hellenophone Italy.

 

[Mixxer5]

Well, partially.

Large parts of Justinian's government (and, indeed, Augustus' and Diocletian's and Constantine's) were operating in the Greek language, even if Justinian himself was a traditional Latin speaker and his grand legal consolidation projects were issued initially in Latin.

The converse of this is that the primary language of the Exarchate of Ravenna seems to have been Latin: you can see this illustrated by the mosaic portrait of Heraclius' grandson Constantine IV that describes him as "Imperator", not "Basileus". Africa, if I recall, was governed in Greek, but in Italy this seems to have been much, much less the case, apart from Sicily and Calabria, which were Greek anyway.

Even in Byzantine Apulia, Greek was never particularly prominent, with Latin being used despite the increasing Byzantine hold on the area from the later ninth century onwards.

Basically, I suspect that any POD after the rise of the Roman Republic is too late to suppress Latin and build a thoroughly Hellenophone Italy.

Hm. Interesting points about Exarchate primary language. On the other hand it's not too strange that these territories were governed by Latin speakers. After all this territory was either Latin, or... Whatever language Ostrogoths spoke. So Latin was preferable and it's not like empire had time and resources to actually try to assimilate central and Northern Italy.

Still- Southern Italy is surely "able" to become Hellenized. After all, Greek speakers are living there until today (even though they're minority). Rest of Italy? Why not? After all we've barely 6th century. If (somehow- might be tough. They fared pretty well in You TL- and a bit later too ) Byzantium holds whole Italy and isn't distracted too much, slow assimilation and settlement might occur. Greeks were actually trying to settle Armenia with less troublesome population (in XI century- it was quite disastrous though), so why not try with Italy? Especially considering how diminished its population was after Belizarius conquests. It might be kind of mix of cultures (or not), but I guess it's not impossible. Under two conditions though:
- Byzantium keeps Italy (obviously)
-no plague of Justinian, which destroys urban populations, decimates rural one and leaves Byzantium vulnerable and unable to settle anything.

 

[de Ptysz]

Well- unless Hellenization= pre- Roman period.

Kind of. I was thinking about something to suppress Rome when it was still a minor player in Italy, and thus let the Greeks from Magna Grecia to live on and develop freely.

 

[Mixxer5]

Kind of. I was thinking about something to suppress Rome when it was still a minor player in Italy, and thus let the Greeks from Magna Grecia to live on and develop freely.

That's much. much more than just suppressing Ronans- I see no reason why Carthage wouldn't conquer these territories sooner or later (surely Sicily and at least coast of southern Italy).

 

[de Ptysz]

That's much. much more than just suppressing Ronans- I see no reason why Carthage wouldn't conquer these territories sooner or later (surely Sicily and at least coast of southern Italy).

It is possible. But it's also possible that one of the Greek states (Epirus, Syracuse or other polis) would achieve dominance over the region and establish a long-living power in Italy, spreading Greek culture up north. And do not underestimate the attractiveness of Greek culture in the eyes of Italics.

 

[Mixxer5]

It is possible. But it's also possible that one of the Greek states (Epirus, Syracuse or other polis) would achieve dominance over the region and establish a long-living power in Italy, spreading Greek culture up north. And do not underestimate the attractiveness of Greek culture in the eyes of Italics.

It's rather doubtful. Unless such state goes "Roman Republic style", it's going to end up eaten by Carthage. History showed that only equal opponent for Rome in Mediterranean area was Carthage. When Rome started to be direct opponent of Carthage, conflict started. And here Carthage may be only stronger when such conflict starts.