WI: The Romans had spoken Etruscan instead of Latin
- Thread starter Abdominalz
- Start date
If Rome had spoken Etruscan from the start, then it wouldn't be the Rome we knew, but some Etruscan town that would have been more firmly within the greater Etruscan political millieu. The alternative would be Etruscanisation, in a period perhaps where Rome did, arguably, have an Etruscan king and where Etruscan settlements were reaching further South.
Arguably either one of these would have given Rome a more Etruscan outlook by the 4th century BC, so that it would be pursuing more traditional Etruscan interests. Whilst Rome of course did swallow up the Etruscan lands, and did independently annex Corsica, Sardinia and Marseilles, it might be argued that a more Etruscan Rome would have been less focused early on on Sicily, the Samnites and by extension Carthage.
If we assume that Rome emerges to dominate the Etruscan lands, that is.
If Rome does not, and continues to play second fiddle to more powerful Etruscan cities then it is likely to get caught in the middle between those on the hand and the Samnites on the other.
If Rome does lead a united Roman Etruria, it might focus on stabilising its Northern borders, Southern Gaul, perhaps Spain earlier.
Arguably either one of these would have given Rome a more Etruscan outlook by the 4th century BC, so that it would be pursuing more traditional Etruscan interests. Whilst Rome of course did swallow up the Etruscan lands, and did independently annex Corsica, Sardinia and Marseilles, it might be argued that a more Etruscan Rome would have been less focused early on on Sicily, the Samnites and by extension Carthage.
If we assume that Rome emerges to dominate the Etruscan lands, that is.
If Rome does not, and continues to play second fiddle to more powerful Etruscan cities then it is likely to get caught in the middle between those on the hand and the Samnites on the other.
If Rome does lead a united Roman Etruria, it might focus on stabilising its Northern borders, Southern Gaul, perhaps Spain earlier.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Not so great, to be honest. Early Roman culture was heavily influenced by the Etruscans. The Latin alphabet for example is directly inspired by the Etruscan one. The same goes for architecture, religion and maybe even political organization.
The Etruscan political and cultural sphere included some Italic-speaking cities. Rome was one, though somewhat peripheral. Falerii was more firmly within the Etruscan system even though it spoke Faliscan, an Italic language very closely related to Latin; its material culture is, however, basically identical with the one of linguistically Etruscan centers nearby.
So, I don't see linguistic shifts as impacting very much of the rest of the culture. Rome could have follwed her historical path while speaking Etruscan. Now, there are going to be consequences in terms of how her language spreads, how it is perceived, and so on. Historically, Latin is quite closely related to Umbrian, Oscan, and Picene, the main Italic languages, which arguably favored linguistic assimilation; it also shares a lot with two of the main language areas the Romans met in their expansion, Greek and Celtic. The similarity between Greek and Latin was noted by ancient grammarians (some regarded Latin as a divergent dialect of Greek) and also possibly favored linguistic interchange. Etruscan-speaking Romans would be regarded as "different" in a way the historical Romans were not from a Greek perspective, I suppose.
EDIT: On the other hand, there's Lemnian.
So, I don't see linguistic shifts as impacting very much of the rest of the culture. Rome could have follwed her historical path while speaking Etruscan. Now, there are going to be consequences in terms of how her language spreads, how it is perceived, and so on. Historically, Latin is quite closely related to Umbrian, Oscan, and Picene, the main Italic languages, which arguably favored linguistic assimilation; it also shares a lot with two of the main language areas the Romans met in their expansion, Greek and Celtic. The similarity between Greek and Latin was noted by ancient grammarians (some regarded Latin as a divergent dialect of Greek) and also possibly favored linguistic interchange. Etruscan-speaking Romans would be regarded as "different" in a way the historical Romans were not from a Greek perspective, I suppose.
EDIT: On the other hand, there's Lemnian.
Last edited:
If Rome still manages to expand and eventually conquer the lands we know as the Empire OTL, language evolution in Europe would be very interesting. I reckon that creoles may even develop between Gaulish and Etruscan, or other Indo-European languages in the region.
It has been postulated that the Etruscan language was a Pre Indo European language (there are obviously other theories too) with linguistic links to Rhaetian and languages spoken in the Sicilian and possibly Sardinian interior. Of course Lemnian heritage is also a popular consideration. However clearly the majority of Europe and Near Asia were speaking Indo European languages opposed to Etruscan. Linguistic divergence/hybridisation therefore is less possible IMO but far from impossible. Had the Etruscans continued for far longer as the dominant culture in the peninsular then I can envisage the Rhaetian languages surviving for far longer too. Therefore would ethnic Rhaetians in Switzerland develop as an independent and unified polity of some kind in defiance of the Celtic and Germanic incursions in the OTL? In the OTL obviously Rhaetian culture was subsumed by Roman, Celtic and Germanic culture.
Based on the OP's style, he's probably looking for a Rome that does that... while Etruscan taking over as the day to day language.
Under the premise that Rome is still basically Rome but it just had adopted the Etruscan language during the Etruscan's time dominating Rome and the rest of Roman history occurs more or less the same... I think you'd find some interesting linguistic changes across Europe and within the Roman Empire.
One big change would be the more probable survival of indigenous languages across Western Europe. A large reason why languages like Gallic, Lusitanian, and other western Indo-European languages were so effectively subsumed by Latin was partially to do with their similarity and closeness of relation. Etruscan itself would surely spread and be a lingua franca across the region, but it would not be so easily adopted by everyone. Etruscan loanwords would be all over the place, and would probably be the dominant language in Italy, with pockets in mountainous areas of Italic languages (like Oscan maybe).
One big change would be the more probable survival of indigenous languages across Western Europe. A large reason why languages like Gallic, Lusitanian, and other western Indo-European languages were so effectively subsumed by Latin was partially to do with their similarity and closeness of relation. Etruscan itself would surely spread and be a lingua franca across the region, but it would not be so easily adopted by everyone. Etruscan loanwords would be all over the place, and would probably be the dominant language in Italy, with pockets in mountainous areas of Italic languages (like Oscan maybe).
Wait, you post on Roman threads? I thought anything pre-Charlemagne didn't interest you.
Probably not. Late Iron Age Imperialism in the Med does appear not to have cared much for such sort of ethnolinguistic considerations in general (ethnicity was important, but was seen in genealogical, not linguistic, terms). Also, as Falerii being linguistically (almost) Latin and politically Etruscan shows, there is no reason to think that an Etruscan-speaking Rome wouldn't have been involved in a ATL equivalent of the Latin League (Roman and Latin political identities are distinguished in OTL's sources by the way, betraying the mixed nature of Roman citizenry, and, likely, of her culture too). The League was not apparently defined in linguistic terms (I think some members were Oscan-speaking cities, for instance, though I am not sure). Also, if Rome is predominantly Etruscan, the fate of Latin as a language in the rest of Latium may be problematic from an early date.
Incidentally, IOTL, there are cultural markers that separate Rome from Etruria from an early date. For example, Roman upper class women do not appear to have enjoyed the same sort of public importance they seemingly had in many Etruscan cities (including Falerii). Funerary habits were different (though they also differed across Etruria) and the level of interaction with Phoenicians and Hellenes in early periods was markedly larger in Etruscan (and, to a lesser extent, Campanian) centres. Rome was apparently more austere and somewhat egalitarian in outlook than most Etruscan cities, though this may not actually have been the case under the Tarquinians. It is useful to note that whatever really happened when the Tarquinians were expelled from Rome closely parallels what was going on in other Etruscan polities, for the little we know about it (and may be comparable to contemporary upheavals in some Hellenic poleis and later ones in Carthage; we have not enough info on other autonomous Phoenician cities in the Middle and Western Med, but one can suppose the general trend was shared - it may have something to do with the Persian Empire).
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
What exactly caused the creation of republican regimes in the 6th and 5th century? Within some decades, nearly all Greek cities abolished their archaic monarchies and opted for aristocratic constitutions - in Athens, they even adopted a democratic organization before the end of the century. And even the cities that maintained their monarchical institutions heavily limited the power of their kings. Was this a Greek phenomenon which inspired Rome and Carthage (both cities who also abolished monarchy) - or was it a development affecting all city states, Greek, Etruscan and Phoenician ones?
Another interesting institution of the time is tyranny. While tyranny mainly affected Greek cities, some historians have described the Etruscan kings of Rome as tyrants. Roman and Greek sources credit one of them (Servius Tullius) with the creation of the centuriate and (new) tribal organization. And indeed, Greek tyrants often paved the way for more popular constitutions by weakening the nobility. I wonder if the reign of the Etruscan kings was crucial in shaping Rome's social organization - and if one of the reasons for the abolition of Roman monarchy was that the patricians opposed tyrannic policies favoring the plebeians.
One of the reasons seems to have been economic growth due, in part, to an incread role of commerce, and growing social inequality going with it. The dynamic seems to have affected (south) Etruscan cities as well as Hellenic ones (though generally a bit later), we do not know enough of Phoenician cities outside Carthage to tell much about them. Tyranny, of something very similar, appears to have been an Etruscan thing as well. The development however seemingly starts in Greece, which in the sixth century BCE became the commercial and manufacturing core of the Med world, which at this point started to become significantly integrated. In particular we see some more advanced developments in Ionia (which is part of why I threw the idea that the Persian Empire integrating the East is an influential factor) and a few other poleis (Corynth, Athens and, to a point, Sparta in particular). Note however that oligarchies were very powerful in the monarchical era in most of Greece and even more so in many parts of Italy (particularly in North Etruria). The sharp distinction we make now between "king" (rex, basileus, lucumon, malik) and "tyrant" (tyrannos, turannus etc. , but usually still malik in Punic IIRC; the word spreads in the Med from Greek, showing it relative novelty as an institution; but it seems to be a loanword from Anatolian in Greek, which again indicates directions and vectors of change) seems to be a post-factum classification under the influence of Platonic and Aristotelian thought, a fourth century thing, not a sixth century one. Things were far less clear back then. The Etruscan Kings of Rome do indeed fit with with the dynamic of tyranny much more than with archaic monarchy, but the sources still call them "kings" (reges).