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

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.
Well that's was not your initial argument, you said that somehow Aramaic would become stronger if populations are moved around, but that's not the case, so resettlement programs would definitely help with the spread of the Greek language and/or Orthodox religious communities.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
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.



They could, but invaders do not always bring about linguistic shifts. Consider the Franks/Visigoths, the Mongols, even the Turks outside of Anatolia.
That's perfectly said! Hellenized Arabic would probably be limited to a Provincial language in the possible Byzantine Hejaz or would remain as a pure Arabic language among the Christian/Jewish/Zoroastrian/Pagan Arabs and the language would mix with Persian if they convert to Zoroastrianism or Greek if converted to Christianity or pure Arabic if they remain pagan. Jewish conversion of Arabs is unlikely. Turks would remain totally unheard of without Islam. They would remain some people residing on the borders of the Civilized Empires and would probably be assimilated into the flourishing Greek/European or Persian pouplace. Mongols would be crushed by the Romans in the East either eliminated or converted and assimilated into the flourishing Roman or Persian pouplace.
*Eliminated- as a conquering/vandalizing force.
Yes,but we have to see how the Eastern and Western Superpowers behave with each other. How England,France(Frankish) would be received with Byzantines and how Byzantines would be received by them. Or how Slavic empires would be treated by the Byzantines and how Persia decides it's diplomacies.
 
Last edited:
Well that's was not your initial argument, you said that somehow Aramaic would become stronger if populations are moved around, but that's not the case, so resettlement programs would definitely help with the spread of the Greek language and/or Orthodox religious communities.
No. You said resettlement/deportations would weaken Aramaic and I responded by pointing out that when that happened previously it made Aramaic a lingua franca.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
No. You said resettlement/deportations would weaken Aramaic and I responded by pointing out that when that happened previously it made Aramaic a lingua franca.
You would be right. Aramaic and Coptic would remain a minority language or a heritage language spoken by Bilingual Greeks who have even Aramaic/Syriac/Egyptian heritage. The Greeks would settle in large numbers due to the Balkans getting attacked in the later ages and ME and Egypt being relatively peaceful after a treaty with the Persians. Eventually,the Byzantine Greeks would be softened towards the minorities after the mixing and an amalgamation would rule the strong Byzantine Empire now covering Anatolia,Levant,Egypt and parts of Caucasus. That's what would be seen in the modern era as far as I can say.
I just reached 700 on the forum!
 
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.
I agree with the first part of your argument. The rise of the Arabs was indeed shocking to contemporary observers and later historians alike (including Muslim ones), and nobody really was likely to have predicted it in 600. Only in recent years we are starting to make real historiographical sense of that turn of events.
Not that it was unlikely in itself, but surprising to most of everyone involved, sure.
However, a (obviously more limited) spread of Arabic outside the peninsula was an ongoing process before Islam (we have clearly Arabic onomastics in Palmyra in the third century already; the inscription of En Avdat, with three lines of poetry in Arabic that are considered the earliest secure and roughly dated attestation of the language, likely from around 100 CE, was found in what is now Israel; and so on) that would likely go on even without the Conquests, at least in inner Syria, parts of Palestine and all along the Euphrates. You won't see an Arabic-speaking Tunisia ITTL, and probably Egypt neither; but for at least parts of Syrian and Iraq, it's still likely to happen.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
I agree with the first part of your argument. The rise of the Arabs was indeed shocking to contemporary observers and later historians alike (including Muslim ones), and nobody really was likely to have predicted it in 600. Only in recent years we are starting to make real historiographical sense of that turn of events.
Not that it was unlikely in itself, but surprising to most of everyone involved, sure.
However, a (obviously more limited) spread of Arabic outside the peninsula was an ongoing process before Islam (we have clearly Arabic onomastics in Palmyra in the third century already; the inscription of En Avdat, with three lines of poetry in Arabic that are considered the earliest secure and roughly dated attestation of the language, likely from around 100 CE, was found in what is now Israel; and so on) that would likely go on even without the Conquests, at least in inner Syria, parts of Palestine and all along the Euphrates. You won't see an Arabic-speaking Tunisia ITTL, and probably Egypt neither; but for at least parts of Syrian and Iraq, it's still likely to happen.
It is possible but only in the Deserts neighboring the fringes of Arabia. Otherwise,it would also remain a minority community language.
 
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.

Not really the case OTL, where Slavs conquered most of Greece and most assimilated into the ancestors of modern Slavic-speaking Greeks. The Byzantines had to re-settle the area with Anatolian Greeks afterwards.

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.

Religious disputes were bad enough in OTL Byzantium, so this could result in serious internal conflict, weakened military and civil instutitions, and open their country to invasion from the outside. The Copts OTL invited the Arabs in, and later revolted against them several times, so the Byzantines are certainly at a huge risk here of having similar events happening here. The Arabs will still be restless without Islam, and a good Persian ruler can smash them wide open. Same with the Avars or another steppe tribe. Western Europe is already lost to Byzantium, since IMO the Berbers in Africa and the Franks in Western Europe will push out Byzantine influence.

Best hope for Byzantium is a Sassanid collapse, but even that just means they get replaced by a Turkic dynasty (i.e. Seljuks)--they weren't all Muslims or invited in by Muslims, Uyghurs were Manichaeans, some were Zoroastrian or Christian, etc.--or one of their own nobility (i.e. Mihranids) and the state revitalised and ready for another major war against them. But by the 7th century times have changed and the Arab tribes will be a potent force in any conflict, as will steppe groups like the Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, etc.

Do you mean Arameans or Armenians?

No, I mean the Armenians. They followed Miaphysitism/Oriental Orthodoxy and maintained a separate identity from Byzantium despite centuries of Byzantine rule. You could attribute their success to them being on the borderlands between Rome and Persia and later Rome and the Caliphate, but large swaths of Anatolia remained Armenian from Antiquity to their deportation and destruction in the Armenian genocide (and concurrent emigration to other countries). They did not assimilate into Greek, Persian, Arab, Turkish, or Kurdish culture in any sizable numbers, although a lot of Anatolian Turks and Kurds are likely descended from Armenians (and Aramaic-speaking groups for that matter).

The question is why this wouldn't also be the case with the Aramaic-speaking peoples, who are in a borderland between Persia and Byzantium, have their own strong religious institutions, and a strong and ancient written culture.

I agree with the first part of your argument. The rise of the Arabs was indeed shocking to contemporary observers and later historians alike (including Muslim ones), and nobody really was likely to have predicted it in 600. Only in recent years we are starting to make real historiographical sense of that turn of events.
Not that it was unlikely in itself, but surprising to most of everyone involved, sure.
However, a (obviously more limited) spread of Arabic outside the peninsula was an ongoing process before Islam (we have clearly Arabic onomastics in Palmyra in the third century already; the inscription of En Avdat, with three lines of poetry in Arabic that are considered the earliest secure and roughly dated attestation of the language, likely from around 100 CE, was found in what is now Israel; and so on) that would likely go on even without the Conquests, at least in inner Syria, parts of Palestine and all along the Euphrates. You won't see an Arabic-speaking Tunisia ITTL, and probably Egypt neither; but for at least parts of Syrian and Iraq, it's still likely to happen.

IMO the most likely effect is that areas like Nabatea, Palmyra, and lower Mesopotamia become mixed between Arabic and Aramaic-speaking communities in the absence of Islam, except in the more desert areas where Arabic will supplant Aramaic (as it already had by Late Antiquity).

I wouldn't be surprised if in areas like the Western Desert of Egypt you saw Arabic-speaking groups, who might assimilate the locals Berbers, Tebu, or other peoples.
 
It is possible but only in the Deserts neighboring the fringes of Arabia. Otherwise,it would also remain a minority community language.
There were Arabic-speaking settled groups before Islam already. But I agree it would not expand anywhere near IOTL.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
There were Arabic-speaking settled groups before Islam already. But I agree it would not expand anywhere near IOTL.
That's what I said. Minority community language it would be and the speakers wouldn't be homogeneous and be bi or tri lingual.
 
Last edited:
IMO the most likely effect is that areas like Nabatea, Palmyra, and lower Mesopotamia become mixed between Arabic and Aramaic-speaking communities in the absence of Islam, except in the more desert areas where Arabic will supplant Aramaic (as it already had by Late Antiquity).

I wouldn't be surprised if in areas like the Western Desert of Egypt you saw Arabic-speaking groups, who might assimilate the locals Berbers, Tebu, or other peoples.

Nabatea was already predominantly Arabic, as well as parts of the Middle and Lower Euphrates (Anbar and Hira) and presumably the Syriac Steppe; the older Coelesyria was probably already mixed, and it seems there were Arabs settled in Aleppo IIRC. Aramaic will be better placed, but Arabic was slowly advancing even without Islam.
The Western Desert is trickier but not impossible.
The Romans might want to bring Christian Arabian tribes inside as foederati, a policy they had in earlier times.
 
My development of Southern Romance:
Tou would have two languages, one centered around Carthage, the ther near Tangier.

Tafilxan (inspired by Sardinian and Punic sound changes)
  • Africa-Tafilxa -
  • Zeugitana -Đugitana-Đudana
  • Carthago -Kartagu
  • Utica -Utka
  • Hippo Diarrhytus -Ibudardu -Ibdardu
  • Thabraca- Tabalka -Taboka
  • Hippo Regius - Ibargu
  • Calama -Kalma -Koma
  • Thagaste -Tagšta
  • Tipasa - Tifša
  • Sicca Veneria -Isđabera -Isđabra
  • Bulla Rega -Buđarga
  • Thaburto Maius -Tuburtu Mađu
  • Neapolis -Nablu
  • Byzacena - Bisdakena
  • Hadrumetum -Tadulmetu -Tadmetu
  • Thapsus -Tafšu
  • Thysdrus - Tusdul -Tusdu
  • Ruspe - Arušpa
  • Taparura -Tabura -
  • Iunci- Đuki
  • Sufes -Isfeš
  • Sufetula - Isfetula -Isfeta
  • Tripolitania -Tilbulitana -Tibwitana
  • Leptis Magna -Lebtimana
  • Tripolis -Tilbuli -Tibwi
  • Sabrata -Isbalta -Isbota
  • Girba -Girba
  • Tacape- Takba
  • Numidia - Numiđa
  • Constantine - Kustina
  • Mileve -Mileb
  • Chullu - Xuđu
  • Lambaesis - Labši
  • Bagae - Bage
  • Theveste - Tebešt
  • Capsa - Kafša
Where š is the sound written in Englsih as sh, X stands for the 'j' or La Rioja and đ is a sound between d , z, and first consonant of Germany.

Maurtañan (inspired by Sardinian, Punic and Spanish with Mozarabic as well)
  • Mauritania -Mawrtaña-Mortaña
  • Sitifensis -Išfeši
  • Sitifis -Išfeš
  • Igilgilis -Igiłi-Iżił
  • Saldae-Išawż -Išoż
  • Tubusuptu -Tubšuft
  • Caesarensis -Kešereš- Kešreš
  • Caesarea - Kešal-Kešo
  • Tipasa -Tibša
  • Icosium -Iqšu
  • Russuccuru -Arušuql- Aršuql
  • Iomnium-Żoñu
  • Lambdia -Labża
  • Kartena -Kartena-Kartna
  • Mina -Mina
  • Portus Divini -Furtużibni
  • Siga-Išga
  • Altava -Awtba -Otba
  • Tingitana -Tiżtana
  • Tingis - Tiżi
  • Septum -Išeftu
  • Lixus -Likšu
  • Volubilis -Bulbił
Ż as French ge or j,š as in English sh, ñ similar to Spanish, ł is soft las in Portuguese lh ,q is kw.
 
Last edited:
IMO /p/ is not likely in any African Romance languages since it isn't present in any modern Berber languages IIRC (which might be because of Arabic) but /p/ also was lost in the Punic of Late Antiquity. I could also easily see three or even four different Romance language groups given the huge distances and rough terrain. Carthage's dialect will be among the most prestigious though.
 
I could also easily see three or even four different Romance language groups given the huge distances and rough terrain. Carthage's dialect will be among the most prestigious though.
I agree with the sentiments here. Just take a looks at how many languages formed in Europe from Latin. We could see multiple dialects that then influence each other or grow distant enough to become a distinct tongue, probably in a dialect/language spectrum. In addition to the aforementioned African and Mauretanian, we might see a Tripolitanian dialect along what is now Libya, a transitional Numidian dialect between the two main languages in what is now Algeria, and maybe an insulated Djerban dialect. Romance might be limited to cities and their hinterlands while the lands in between would remain largely Berber-speaking.
 
I agree with the sentiments here. Just take a looks at how many languages formed in Europe from Latin. We could see multiple dialects that then influence each other or grow distant enough to become a distinct tongue, probably in a dialect/language spectrum. In addition to the aforementioned African and Mauretanian, we might see a Tripolitanian dialect along what is now Libya, a transitional Numidian dialect between the two main languages in what is now Algeria, and maybe an insulated Djerban dialect. Romance might be limited to cities and their hinterlands while the lands in between would remain largely Berber-speaking.
Also remember that the straits of Gibraltar might not be that large of a barrier as they are now, for the southern coast of Spain was Punic before the conquest, so the dialect over there might be very similar to Maurtañan spoken just south. We cannot know for sure, for few surviving fragments of Mozarabic remain, and niw the language was displaced by Castillan.
I was also thinking whether at least western Sicilian wasn't South Romance as well;
Regarding Tripolitania/Tibwitana: I would agree that a specific variety would develop over there, should the region be politically separate from the rest of Africa /Tafilca.
Regarding the transitional dialect in Numidia /Algeria: it depends, regarding the extent of Romanization, for you would still have Berber tongues in the area.
 
Top