The Greeks

Given their background, it can be interpreted as a Greek calque (or something between a calque and a direct loan). In other words, The way they write/speak may get "infected" by the other languages they know.

It could be but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot reason to believe that. Why would they adopt "Roman" as a loanword in particular if they specifically rejected the Byzantine identification as Roman?

Actually, I'm pretty sure I've seen @LSCatilina post on the topic of Latins calling the Byzantines Roman. Perhaps he can give some clarification.
 
It could be but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot reason to believe that. Why would they adopt "Roman" as a loanword in particular if they specifically rejected the Byzantine identification as Roman?

Actually, I'm pretty sure I've seen @LSCatilina post on the topic of Latins calling the Byzantines Roman. Perhaps he can give some clarification.

I'm not familiar with the rest of the text nor its original version in Latin, but, if you simply read the quotes, you'll see that the chroniclers are only talking about geographical Romania (presumably Anatolia).

EDIT: I'm not sure that I need to clarify it, but its quite obvious (due to its practicality) that geographical places are commonly exonyms and/or loanwords. Also, the use in the quotes doesn't see to be the rule in the writings of their contemporaries living elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
I'm not familiar with the rest of the text nor its original version in Latin, but, if you simply read the quotes, you'll see that the chroniclers are only talking about geographical Romania (presumably Anatolia).

They were describing the area as Romania because they thought the people were Romans. Is your position that Latins adopted a Greek loanword to specifically describe a geographic area as "land of the Romans" even though they didn't think the land was the land of the Romans?
 
@Lampiao

Byzantines were irregularilly called Romans by Latins (I don't think that labelling Foulcher de Chartres or Etienne de Blois isn't really accurate: most crusade chroniches* were achieved in the first years of the XIIth century, furthermore), in a political sense rather than ethnic tough : either as inhabitants of the Romania under the emperor, either eastern or orthodox christian outside Romania (probably under the influence of rûm used by Arabs to call melkites, sometimes other oriental Christians as well)

Romania, isn't a loanword, but rather a word inherited from late Latin to medieval Latin and romance languages.
Now, how this word was used by Latins certainly refletcs the use of other derivated words as Rhomania, or rûm, but it's really hard to consider that a basic ethnonym of the late Empire was totally forgotten and that Latin use of Romania is only taken from medieval Greek.

Now, this use of "Roman" always was paralleled since the Xth century, from the use of "Greek" especially (but not only, political claims and boasts were pretty much important too) as Roman was used for naming western regions (Italian Romania, for exemple), populations (Aquitains, and more important the people of the city of Rome and such the pope**) and of course the language (Lenga Romana for Old Occitan)

*To be distinguished from choniclers of the Latin states, tough
** Which is what Romanorum refers to, for what matter the imperial claims in western Europe
 
I had once had a scenario in mind where this became an identity question. I had a Byzantine Empire survive to the 19th century with the Balkans and Anatolia. After nationalism appeared I had the liberals find their ideals in ancient Greece, with its democracy etc. They were also anticlericals like most liberals of the time and started to regards themselfs as greeks - or hellens if you like. They claimed that the Empire is greek as well. On the other hand the conservatives continued to call themselfs romans, were heavily religious and found their historical ideal in earlier Byzantine times. They also supported absolutism. They were much more open minded howeveer with the not greek people of the empire - the bulgarians, armenians etc as long as they accepted being part of the Empire.
 
We call the Germans Germans in English, rather than Deutsch.

Germany is indeed a good example of a country which has many different names, depending on the language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Germany

They would be called Roman or Greek depending on your politics.

Copying from Quora:
https://www.quora.com/Were-the-Byzantines-known-as-the-Romans-to-their-contemporaries

"The term "Byzantine Empire" was coined by Hieronymus Wolf a century after the Fall of Constantinople. "Byzantine" was never a term used by any contemporary to describe the Empire, and the standard term was "Empire of Greeks" by those who sought to downplay its Roman nature. The Arabs and the Turks however, always used "Rum" to describe the Empire and its lands (as did Eastern Christians-Copts, Assyrians, etc etc-at least ones that did not enter communion with the RCC during the Crusades). The Seljuk's established a Sultanate of Rum in Anatolia in lands captured after the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert in 1071. Mehmed the Conqueror claimed the title of Kaiser-e-Rum (Caesar of Rome) after conquering Constantinople in 1453. In fact, the entire Greek speaking population of the Ottoman Empire were termed as millet of Rum and the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was treated as their leader. In fact, as has been noted in this great answer, there were people calling themselves Romans well into the early 20th Century."

I guess this means that if the Byzantine Empire survived, it is quite possible that they would be known as "Greeks" by people from Western Europe.
 
Given their background, it can be interpreted as a Greek calque (or something between a calque and a direct loan). In other words, The way they write/speak may get "infected" by the other languages they know.

The thing is, a lot of "Latins", or at least notable ones, spoke Greek.
 
Romania, isn't a loanword, but rather a word inherited from late Latin to medieval Latin and romance languages.
Now, how this word was used by Latins certainly refletcs the use of other derivated words as Rhomania, or rûm, but it's really hard to consider that a basic ethnonym of the late Empire was totally forgotten and that Latin use of Romania is only taken from medieval Greek.

Now, this use of "Roman" always was paralleled since the Xth century, from the use of "Greek" especially (but not only, political claims and boasts were pretty much important too) as Roman was used for naming western regions (Italian Romania, for exemple), populations (Aquitains, and more important the people of the city of Rome and such the pope**) and of course the language (Lenga Romana for Old Occitan).

The thing is, a lot of "Latins", or at least notable ones, spoke Greek.

@Indicus, That's exactly my point.

The word "Roman" (and its derivations) when used in Latin and in Western European languages has a continuous tradition to make reference to Italy, the city of Rome, the Western Empire, Romance-speaking regions, Romance languages, etc. as @LSCatilina said.

However, the usage of the word "Greek" in Latin to make reference to the eastern part of the empire, Greek-speaking people, etc. dates way back to classical times. And, If we add to this the fact that Medieval Western Europeans were much more inclined to use the word "Greek" than the word "Roman" to make reference to the Byzantine Empire, we can assume that the very uncommon usage of the word "Roman" by Western Europeans in a Byzantine context was influenced by the Medieval Greek.
 
Top