What languages would be spoken in a non arabised, middle ages MENA?

I disagree. Locals were developing their own Aramaic (and Arabic, it appears) literary and liturgical varieties, and Greek was less, not more, dominant in the written record in Late Antiquity relative to earlier times. There's a lot of local variation of course, but no evidence I know of that Greek had ever turned even anything close to being spoken by vast number of people in the area in the nine centuries it dominated it as a written standard, or that it was significantly spreading as such. Instead, we see it being challenged by an increasingly self-conscious effort by native intellectuals using Syriac, Palestinian Christian Aramaic, Old Arabic, and, elsewhere, Armenian and Coptic.
Not all of these efforts are bound to be successful long term (think Gothic as a counterexample) but I tend to believe that the ship for in-depth linguistic Hellenization of the region as a whole had already sailed by the sixth century.

Keep in mind, Greek only became the sole official language of the empire under Heraclius. Not long after that, the Levant was lost. We don’t really know what happens if it remains part of the empire indefinitely.
 
That's honestly a ridiculous idea, Arabic can replace Aramaic and Coptic in mere centuries but Greek of all languages can't?

In the right circumstances, of course it could. I don't see the right circumstances likely to arise in Late Antiquity or after it. If anything, the Hellenistic and Roman times were the point when the foundations of this shift would have been laid. For various reasons (not all entirely clear, though clearly the pre-Hellenistic prestige of Aramaic played a role), it did not happen to a sufficient extent before the local languages arose as cultivated varities tied to local identity (and to specific religions, very often).
The fact that Greek disappeared relatively quickly from most uses in most of the Levant and Egypt after the Arab conquests (not without leaving an imprint) while Aramaic emphatically did not (to a lesser extent also the case for Coptic) suggests a relatively shallow rooting.
Remarkably, by the ninth century many Arabic thinkers of all faiths regarded Greek (they called it "Ionian", as in, Classical Greek) as an utterly dead language, even the very few who were proficient in it. They did no see continuity with Byzantine Greek, which they usually called "Roman".
The point is prestige. Between Alexander and the time of the Severans, Greek was unquestionably the prestige language in most of the Levant, main exceptions being Jewish milieus (important but somewhat self-contained) and some peripheral areas (Palmyra, the Nabatean realm, Osrhoene and Hatra both often under Parthian suzerainity, generally the arid hinterlands). However, it seemingly failed to take root as a spoken language outside urban areas and probably even there mostly among the elites, as opposed to what had begun to happen in many parts of the West for Latin and Greek itself in Anatolia. Then, again unlike the case of the West and Anatolia, Christianity and Late Antique religiosity more generally came and Aramaic(s), Coptic, Armenian and, to a small degree, Old Arabic (as well as Gothic and Ethiopic) became, or became again, prestigious written languages, tied to faith and local identity, carrying prestige. Not necessarily in opposition to a Roman overarching identification, but certainly with some level of contrast with Greek. Then, Greek had lost its main chance to take root.
Compare with Gaul, where, while Gaulish being widely spoken into Late Antiquity and even occasionaly written, it lacked prestige and nobody seems to have considered, for instance, translating Christian scripture into it.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind, Greek only became the sole official language of the empire under Heraclius. Not long after that, the Levant was lost. We don’t really know what happens if it remains part of the empire indefinitely.
True, but Latin, the other official language, was always very marginal in the Roman East anyway, with some exceptions. It's not like Aramaic held on because the Romans ever did give a damn about it before Heraclius, actually it largely disappears from the record in both Nabatene and Palmyra after the Roman direct conquest (does not tell much since Aramaic was clearly not the spoken language in most of Nabatene and probably also not the only one in Palmyra). Edessa, where Syriac developed, is a different story, but then it only entered the Roman orbit in a stable way in mid-third century and Syriac was already an incipient literary language by then.
 
I didn’t mean a rising punicisation during late antiquity. I mean that Punicisation in previous times had meant much of the population spoke neo Punic. I think conflict and tribal migration will mean indigenous language is limited to Berber or Punic influenced Berber languages, unless European or Asian powers intervene
By 500/600 AD, Punic was probably, if not residual, limited. It seems that most people in Africa Proconsularis spoke some form of either Romance or Berber (and few possibly Greek after Justinian's reconquest), though how many rural Punic speakers remained (if any) we actually do not know.
I am not aware of any document of the Vandal language ever found in Africa at all.
 
In the right circumstances, of course it could. I don't see the right circumstances likely to arise in Late Antiquity or after it. If anything, the Hellenistic and Roman times were the point when the foundations of this shift would have been laid. For various reasons (not all entirely clear, though clearly the pre-Hellenistic prestige of Aramaic played a role), it did not happen to a sufficient extent before the local languages arose as cultivated varities tied to local identity (and to specific religions, very often).


The fact that Greek disappeared relatively quickly from most uses in most of the Levant and Egypt after the Arab conquests (not without leaving an imprint) while Aramaic emphatically did not (to a lesser extent also the case for Coptic) suggests a relatively shallow rooting.


Remarkably, by the ninth century many Arabic thinkers of all faiths regarded Greek (they called it "Ionian", as in, Classical Greek) as an utterly dead language, even the very few who were proficient in it. They did no see continuity with Byzantine Greek, which they usually called "Roman".


The point is prestige. Between Alexander and the time of the Severans, Greek was unquestionably the prestige language in most of the Levant, main exceptions being Jewish milieus (important but somewhat self-contained) and some peripheral areas (Palmyra, the Nabatean realm, Osrhoene and Hatra both often under Parthian suzerainity, generally the arid hinterlands). However, it seemingly failed to take root as a spoken language outside urban areas and probably even there mostly among the elites, as opposed to what had begun to happen in many parts of the West for Latin and Greek itself in Anatolia. Then, again unlike the case of the West and Anatolia, Christianity and Late Antique religiosity more generally came and Aramaic(s), Coptic, Armenian and, to a small degree, Old Arabic (as well as Gothic and Ethiopic) became, or became again, prestigious written languages, tied to faith and local identity, carrying prestige. Not necessarily in opposition to a Roman overarching identification, but certainly with some level of contrast with Greek. Then, Greek had lost its main chance to take root.
Compare with Gaul, where, while Gaulish being widely spoken into Late Antiquity and even occasionaly written, it lacked prestige and nobody seems to have considered, for instance, translating Christian scripture into it.
Well if the heresies are crushed and imposition of Greek Orthodoxy successful, what ethnic identity can survive as a majority?

I disagree with that idea, it just tells us that Greek was an elite and urban language and the Arabs by supplanting the elite and changing the urban demographic centers removed the basis for the Greek dominance.

That's a stupid idea IMO, Roman Greek is direct continuation of Classical Greek for all intents and purposes.

I'd argue that had Greek rule continued the Levant would have gone the way of Anatolia(at least in part) which also for long time had only Greeke elites and urban and coastal centers and yet Anatolia(peninsular anyway) was virtually only Greek by the 9th century.

Edit: Again I will bring up the comparison with Arabic, if Arabic managed to assimilate Aramaic quickly, there is no reason to believe it's impossible or unlikely for Greek to replace it, especially when the reasoning brought up is just some small trend of regrowth of Aramaic which might be easily changed, again, given IOTL.
 
Edit: Again I will bring up the comparison with Arabic, if Arabic managed to assimilate Aramaic quickly, there is no reason to believe it's impossible or unlikely for Greek to replace it, especially when the reasoning brought up is just some small trend of regrowth of Aramaic which might be easily changed, again, given IOTL.
One of the reasons for quick assimilation was the similarity of the languages. It's similar to how Latin displaced Gaulish.
 
For lack of space I strongly suggest Empires of the Word by Nicholas Ostler. It summarises the advantages particular languages had, why they spread, why they declined. And is very convincing.
 
That's honestly a ridiculous idea, Arabic can replace Aramaic and Coptic in mere centuries but Greek of all languages can't?

‘Arabic’ had already occupied much of the desert regions of the Middle East and represented the largest single land coverage of any of these linguistic groups in the Mid East. Even in Iraq, the Lakhmids had spread all the way toward the Tigris River, and made its presence known. Meanwhile, Arabs had been steadily moving through the desert regions abd occupying these areas for hundreds of years. Like how Aramaic replaced Assyrian in a short span of time, Arabic will attempt demographically to do the same.

It should be further mentioned, the larger tribes of Arabs lie to the south and if they migrate like the Lakhmids, more areas can come under the rule of Arab strongmen.
 
‘Arabic’ had already occupied much of the desert regions of the Middle East and represented the largest single land coverage of any of these linguistic groups in the Mid East. Even in Iraq, the Lakhmids had spread all the way toward the Tigris River, and made its presence known. Meanwhile, Arabs had been steadily moving through the desert regions abd occupying these areas for hundreds of years. Like how Aramaic replaced Assyrian in a short span of time, Arabic will attempt demographically to do the same.

It should be further mentioned, the larger tribes of Arabs lie to the south and if they migrate like the Lakhmids, more areas can come under the rule of Arab strongmen.
But can't the same be said about Greeks? By the 7th century they were overall dominand in Anatolia(Cilicia too?), Cyprus and had presence in adjacent cities like Antioch and Alexandria among others.

The Byzantines also were not foreign to use resettlement programs.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Western Levant,Egypt,Libya and of course,Anatolia were Greek and Roman stronghold inherited by the Byzantines who who were their heirs. As I said,nothing prevents them from settling these lands and eventually Hellenizing them. The Assyrians,Egyptians and the Jews didn't rule any empires for a long time by then and hence they wouldn't probably rise again by opposing the Greeks and Persians. So Greeks still dominate. Persians conquering and holding it is also unlikely considering that they were coming down from the inside. So Greeks/Romans win the day. Languages will be as applicable. In the North Africa,East Germanic or Romance is the most likely one.
Any uprisings would be dealt with very severely by the Romans and so that's unlikely.
 
I am somewhat shocked that more than just a few times people posted any sort of Germanic as a serious contenter for minority language, let alone dominant.
I looks like people have an overdramatized perception of the Germanic migrations through the late Roman Empire.
Don’t forget that everywhere a German made themselves king that didn’t already speak German got quickly assimilated into the dominant local culture, mostly Latinate.
Even places like France, where entire Germanic tribes were the foundation of the country steadily shifted away from speaking germanic.

As had been said before, the only serious langauge presence will be Greek, Persian, and Aramaic in the ME, with Berber being dominant in North Africa with some urban romance.
 
I am somewhat shocked that more than just a few times people posted any sort of Germanic as a serious contenter for minority language, let alone dominant.
I looks like people have an overdramatized perception of the Germanic migrations through the late Roman Empire.
Don’t forget that everywhere a German made themselves king that didn’t already speak German got quickly assimilated into the dominant local culture, mostly Latinate.
Even places like France, where entire Germanic tribes were the foundation of the country steadily shifted away from speaking germanic.

As had been said before, the only serious langauge presence will be Greek, Persian, and Aramaic in the ME, with Berber being dominant in North Africa with some urban romance.
I think it's just one guy, in any case you are right, you would need some early POD(4th century) to have different enough Roman collapse and migrations to even start thinking of any long term Germanic linguistic presence beyond Europe.
 
Syriac might becomme more widspread as eastern Christianity and Manicheanism spreads, a altaic-syriac might develop based on what happens in central asia, but any invaders
 
Even if heresies are defeated (hard task, esecially as they had refuge in non-Roman lands) Syriac and other Aramaic varieties are not going away. By that point, they were used by Orthodox believers as well after all.
You are right that Greek in Late Antique Levant was mostly an elite and urban language; therefore, it had a relatively shallow basis for dominance, which thus largely waned after the Conquests.
Obviously the Abbasid perception of a full rupture between Classical and Byzantine Greek was linguistically incorrect. It is still telling as a perception regarding the status of Greek as living language in the area.
Could a surviving Eastern Roman rule over the Levant make Greek the dominant spoken language in the region? It is possible, if protracted enough; certainly, Greek would not go anywhere as a learned and administrative language; however, judging by the linguistic history of the area, and given that Syriac and other Aramaic dialect are not going anywhere, in my opinion this would not be sufficient for Greek seeping down to the general populace universally, not in any quick or straghtforward way at least, unless other factors enter the picture.
 
Even if heresies are defeated (hard task, esecially as they had refuge in non-Roman lands) Syriac and other Aramaic varieties are not going away. By that point, they were used by Orthodox believers as well after all.
Used in liturgy? Would that really be the case if liturgical Aramaic becomes associated with heresy if the Orthodox church clamps down harshly on Miaphysitism?

Also AFAIK Miaphisites hate Nestorianism more than they hate Orthodoxy.

You are right that Greek in Late Antique Levant was mostly an elite and urban language; therefore, it had a relatively shallow basis for dominance, which thus largely waned after the Conquests.
But late Antique Greek also took over Anatolia by this point, I feel like the linguistic pressure on the Levant could come directly by land from the North, which IMO would at the very least bring Antioch within the ocean of solidly Greek areas, even if just at its edges, from there I think the pressure from Greek would be very different, considering both the possibility of expansion by attrition and the possible demise of Aramaic as a liturgical language, on top of that the by now traditional usage of Greek in urban and elite population.

Could a surviving Eastern Roman rule over the Levant make Greek the dominant spoken language in the region? It is possible, if protracted enough; certainly, Greek would not go anywhere as a learned and administrative language; however, judging by the linguistic history of the area, and given that Syriac and other Aramaic dialect are not going anywhere, in my opinion this would not be sufficient for Greek seeping down to the general populace universally, not in any quick or straghtforward way at least, unless other factors enter the picture.
Well I don't think Greek would necessarily take little time to expand, but so many factors are in favour of a stronger usage of Greek, the expansion of Arabic from the hinterland would just play in favour of that IMO, especially the entire coastal area.
This is without taking in account any possible deportations and resetlement programs used historically by Byzantium to remove insurgent groups and re-hellenize areas.
 
Well I don't think Greek would necessarily take little time to expand, but so many factors are in favour of a stronger usage of Greek, the expansion of Arabic from the hinterland would just play in favour of that IMO, especially the entire coastal area.
This is without taking in account any possible deportations and resetlement programs used historically by Byzantium to remove insurgent groups and re-hellenize areas.
Are you aware that resettlement programmes of Aramaic speakers is precisely why it became a lingua franca. So many groups were settled around the empire that it became useful to know since there'd always be someone who spoke it nearby to translate.
 
Are you aware that resettlement programmes of Aramaic speakers is precisely why it became a lingua franca. So many groups were settled around the empire that it became useful to know since there'd always be someone who spoke it nearby to translate.
What exactly are you talking about? I'm not talking about deportations internal to the Levant, I mean resettlement between Anatolia and the Levant or even with Balkans and Levant.
 
Top