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

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.
I think the reference is to the spread of Aramaic under the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, which was greatly helped by said empires' deportation strategies. I doubt that such a thing would apply much in an ERE context.
Anyway, I understand that Syriac was a liturgical language for Melkites too, in parts of the Levant. It is true that Miaphysites and "Nestorians" were deeply at odds, more so than each was with the Orthodox church in many cases, but in the Levant, all three accepted the use of Syriac.
It is plausible to imagine Antioch coming fully into a Greek linguistic sphere, but I still think that Aramaics were entrenchd enough.
 
I think the reference is to the spread of Aramaic under the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires, which was greatly helped by said empires' deportation strategies. I doubt that such a thing would apply much in an ERE context.
Anyway, I understand that Syriac was a liturgical language for Melkites too, in parts of the Levant. It is true that Miaphysites and "Nestorians" were deeply at odds, more so than each was with the Orthodox church in many cases, but in the Levant, all three accepted the use of Syriac.
It is plausible to imagine Antioch coming fully into a Greek linguistic sphere, but I still think that Aramaics were entrenchd enough.
To be honest I seriously don't see why you would believe that even Antioch, of all places, wouldn't become Greek, there are a dozen or so examples within the MENA region alone of bigger ethnic and linguistic changes during the middle age, many of which started with a less favourable situation for the assimilating party.
 
To be honest I seriously don't see why you would believe that even Antioch, of all places, wouldn't become Greek, there are a dozen or so examples within the MENA region alone of bigger ethnic and linguistic changes during the middle age, many of which started with a less favourable situation for the assimilating party.
Uh? I said that Antioch could become Greek. I don't think that the Levant as a whole is likely to do that.
 
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.
As Falecius says I was referring to the deportations of Aramaic speakers which spread Aramaic around the Levant.
The point is if you're spreading particular speakers around it won't necessarily reduce their numbers because it becomes feasible to use the next generation as translators between those regions and promotes it as a lingua franca.
 
Swahili and Malagasy remain as languages of the enslaved and the language of Zar and other afro-influenced spiritual traditions.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
I am actually surprised by how people say Arabic would still be the Lingua Franca. Arabic would be limited to the Peninsula and in the Levant and Mesopotamia,it would be limited to a Minority language or limited to the fringe regions like for example Palmyra. In Emesa,Aleppo,Antioch,Damascus,etc,Aramaic would be the ethnic language of a half of the population while Greek/Latin/Romance would be the language of the other half. In Egypt,it would be Coptic instead of Aramaic with the same pattern. In the Eastern Mesopotamia,however,Persian would be the language.
 
I think the Armenians are a relevant example when considering the status of Aramaic. Sure, it was a borderland, but so is a large part of the Levant (just replace the Caliphate with Persia).
 
As Falecius says I was referring to the deportations of Aramaic speakers which spread Aramaic around the Levant.
The point is if you're spreading particular speakers around it won't necessarily reduce their numbers because it becomes feasible to use the next generation as translators between those regions and promotes it as a lingua franca.
That doesn't make sense in this situation, Greek wouldn't start using Aramaic when Greek is a far better lingua franca within all Byzantine territories while Aramaic is limited to the Levant, Mesopotamia and Arabia and is, within this scenario, losing ground to Arabic as well.
 
That doesn't make sense in this situation, Greek wouldn't start using Aramaic when Greek is a far better lingua franca within all Byzantine territories while Aramaic is limited to the Levant, Mesopotamia and Arabia and is, within this scenario, losing ground to Arabic as well.
I think you're misunderstanding me.
I was pointing out that spreading out the speakers of a particular language lays out the basis for a lingua franca rather than declining said language.
How well it does depends on existing lingua francas and the areas (trade, administration, etc) they operate in.
 
even without Islam, i would assume the turkic peoples would still come to the region and without the religious importance of Arabic perhaps some sort of turkic would become the dominate language of the region.
 
I think you're misunderstanding me.
I was pointing out that spreading out the speakers of a particular language lays out the basis for a lingua franca rather than declining said language.
How well it does depends on existing lingua francas and the areas (trade, administration, etc) they operate in.
If you deport Aramaics speakers to Anatolia and Greeks to Levant, you are increasing the assimilatory power of the already dominant Greek language.

The Byzantine historical resettlement did not cause Anatolia to become Slavic, for example.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
A possibility is that large numbers of Greeks and Romans could migrate from Balkans and settle in Levant and Eastern Anatolia when Slavs invaded. So the Levant would be mostly Greek anyway.
 
A possibility is that large numbers of Greeks and Romans could migrate from Balkans and settle in Levant and Eastern Anatolia when Slavs invaded. So the Levant would be mostly Greek anyway.
IOTL the Slavs simply assimilated or depopulated the regions they conquered, while I guess some amount of migration is possible I think it needs to be state controlled and needs to involve Anatolia too, because the Balkans would be too depopulated by the 7th century.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
IOTL the Slavs simply assimilated or depopulated the regions they conquered, while I guess some amount of migration is possible I think it needs to be state controlled and needs to involve Anatolia too, because the Balkans would be too depopulated by the 7th century.
If the Byzantium looses Balkan regions from Croatia to Macedonia,they will obviously tighten their grip over the Levant,Egypt and Anatolia where the fleeing Greeks/Romans would be resettled.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
But since this question is about ATL,would the Byzantines resettle Slavs into their empire is my doubt after their conversion to the Byzantine Church. This would help the rulers get their edge against other sects which they didn't like much. Also,since this empire now is now too Christianized(very universalizing religion) by the time of Slavs,Stillicho like situation as in earlier Roman Empire would possibly be avoided. So that would Strengthen Byzantines like anything. Now Persia would sense danger with this powerful Greek and Slav Superpower and could probably ally with their neighbouring Scythians/Sogdians/Massagatae or Tocharians or something who still existed then. Now that would be interesting. Zoroastrianism too could become an universilizing religion and this in turn would worry Christian Europe who could then react appropriately to unite or something as Zoroastrianism now containing Eastern Iranians and Tocharians come in a sufficiently fierce contact with any European empire either in the Anatolia or somewhere in Eastern Europe. In that case,a unity of Frankish kingdoms,Visigoths,Germans,Anglo Saxon England,Slavs,Balts,Greeks isn't that far fetched. So now Middle East would become a true mix of Europeans with sprinkling of Tocharians,Persians,Eastern Iranians who'd be converted to Christianity if they settle in European administered territories.
 
If you deport Aramaics speakers to Anatolia and Greeks to Levant, you are increasing the assimilatory power of the already dominant Greek language.

The Byzantine historical resettlement did not cause Anatolia to become Slavic, for example.
As I said
How well it does depends on existing lingua francas and the areas (trade, administration, etc) they operate in
Historically if you're spreading languages out they become more viable as translators.
 
I am actually surprised by how people say Arabic would still be the Lingua Franca.

People often assume that the OTL world must have been a likely outcome, and so an alternate TL should not be too different. But really the rise of the Arabs was shocking. I don't think many people in the year 600 could have predicted what the Middle East would look like in 700.

Without the rise of an Arab empire (and the association of Arabic with Islam) I don't think the language is likely to spread outside of the peninsula.

even without Islam, i would assume the turkic peoples would still come to the region and without the religious importance of Arabic perhaps some sort of turkic would become the dominate language of the region.

They could, but invaders do not always bring about linguistic shifts. Consider the Franks/Visigoths, the Mongols, even the Turks outside of Anatolia.
 
Exactly, in this case it wouldn't work because Greek has strong demographics, institutional backing etc.
And yet it still didn't replace Aramaic in the Levant despite several centuries of institutional backing OTL so I don't see how it will TTL.
 
Top