Romania
Which country is the most Latin: France, Spain or Italy?
"yet the Germans today are still "barbarians" (not so labeled in this particular thread, but in others..."
-- Hey, Arschloch, hab'ich es geschrieben?
"as though the Germans never were allowed to have a transitory episode..."
-- Of course they had one, which was very similar, beginning when Karl der Grosse submitted the Saxons and continuing during the Drang nach Osten. The Germans brought civilisation —and their language— to the areas between the river Elbe and Weichsel, along with urbanization and a more advanced stage of development.
Ignorant twat, if you can't read, refrain from writing anything..
-- Hey, Arschloch, hab'ich es geschrieben?
"as though the Germans never were allowed to have a transitory episode..."
-- Of course they had one, which was very similar, beginning when Karl der Grosse submitted the Saxons and continuing during the Drang nach Osten. The Germans brought civilisation —and their language— to the areas between the river Elbe and Weichsel, along with urbanization and a more advanced stage of development.
Ignorant twat, if you can't read, refrain from writing anything..
Guest Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:57 pm GMT
Who said it was. It just happens to be what we write our language in, and even though it evolved it's still generally called the Latin alphabet.
That it is called Latin alphabet does not mean it was invented by the Romans. They only used capital letters, on the contrary we don't use them most of the time. We don't write our language in the alphabet of the Romans, it is quite different.
_________________
Please be informed: the so called "Latin" alphabet we all use today as standard stems from Karl the great (carolus magnus) and his court in Aachen, Germany. It is called by specialists Carolingian minuscule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_minuscule :
Carolingian or Caroline minuscule is a script developed as a writing standard in Europe so that the Roman alphabet could be easily recognized by the small literate class from one region to another. It was used in Charlemagne's empire between approximately 800 and 1200. Codices, pagan and Christian texts, and educational material were written in Carolingian minuscule throughout the Carolingian Renaissance. The script developed into Blackletter and became obsolete, though it forms the basis of more recent scripts.
....
Scholars during the Carolingian Renaissance sought out and copied in the new legible standardized hand many Roman texts that had been wholly forgotten. Most of our knowledge of classical literature now derives from copies made in the scriptoria of Charlemagne. There are over 7000 manuscripts written in Carolingian script surviving from the 8th and 9th centuries alone.
Though the Carolingian minuscule was superseded by Gothic hands, it later seemed so thoroughly 'classic' to the humanists of the early Renaissance that they took these Carolingian manuscripts to be Roman originals and modelled their Renaissance hand on the Carolingian one, and thus it passed to the 15th- and 16th-century printers of books (book printing is a German invention), like Aldus Manutius of Venice. In this way it is the basis of our modern typefaces. Indeed 'Carolingian minuscule' is a style of typographic font, which approximates this historical hand, eliminating the nuances of size of capitals, long descenders, etc..
Who said it was. It just happens to be what we write our language in, and even though it evolved it's still generally called the Latin alphabet.
That it is called Latin alphabet does not mean it was invented by the Romans. They only used capital letters, on the contrary we don't use them most of the time. We don't write our language in the alphabet of the Romans, it is quite different.
_________________
Please be informed: the so called "Latin" alphabet we all use today as standard stems from Karl the great (carolus magnus) and his court in Aachen, Germany. It is called by specialists Carolingian minuscule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_minuscule :
Carolingian or Caroline minuscule is a script developed as a writing standard in Europe so that the Roman alphabet could be easily recognized by the small literate class from one region to another. It was used in Charlemagne's empire between approximately 800 and 1200. Codices, pagan and Christian texts, and educational material were written in Carolingian minuscule throughout the Carolingian Renaissance. The script developed into Blackletter and became obsolete, though it forms the basis of more recent scripts.
....
Scholars during the Carolingian Renaissance sought out and copied in the new legible standardized hand many Roman texts that had been wholly forgotten. Most of our knowledge of classical literature now derives from copies made in the scriptoria of Charlemagne. There are over 7000 manuscripts written in Carolingian script surviving from the 8th and 9th centuries alone.
Though the Carolingian minuscule was superseded by Gothic hands, it later seemed so thoroughly 'classic' to the humanists of the early Renaissance that they took these Carolingian manuscripts to be Roman originals and modelled their Renaissance hand on the Carolingian one, and thus it passed to the 15th- and 16th-century printers of books (book printing is a German invention), like Aldus Manutius of Venice. In this way it is the basis of our modern typefaces. Indeed 'Carolingian minuscule' is a style of typographic font, which approximates this historical hand, eliminating the nuances of size of capitals, long descenders, etc..
"Yet the Germans today are still "barbarians" (not so labeled in this particular thread, but in others...) "
I've never seen anyone on here call Germans "barbarians". Bear in mind though, there are many trolls (posting under different names) on this forum.
I've never seen anyone on here call Germans "barbarians". Bear in mind though, there are many trolls (posting under different names) on this forum.
Per la Germania il gioco non valeva la candela: le terre erano povere, fredde ed inospitali. Per questo i romani non l'hanno mai attaccata veramente. Erano molto più appetibili la Gallia, la penisola iberica ed il sud della Britannia: lì le terre erano coltivabili, il clima più mite e le persone più ospitali ...questioni di convenienza.
<<Per la Germania il gioco non valeva la candela: le terre erano povere, fredde ed inospitali. Per questo i romani non l'hanno mai attaccata veramente. Erano molto più appetibili la Gallia, la penisola iberica ed il sud della Britannia: lì le terre erano coltivabili, il clima più mite e le persone più ospitali ...questioni di convenienza. >>
Let me doubt it. In Central-Northern Spain , where locals were incredibly hostile towards the Romans, much more than in southern and eastern Spain (very Romanized even before the Romans stepped on foot in there) weather can as harsh as in Germany and the land is much less fertile than in Southern Germany. Still the Romans spent centuries in fighting against the Iberian Celtic tribes until they defeated them. It was not a question of calculation cost like someone said but the prestige of the Roman legionis. Their tenacious effort in conquering North Spain was not worth the pain at all, yet they finally achieved their goal. It is true that Scotland probably was not interesting and thus they just build a wall against the Picts, but Germany had big rivers and very fertile lands.
Let me doubt it. In Central-Northern Spain , where locals were incredibly hostile towards the Romans, much more than in southern and eastern Spain (very Romanized even before the Romans stepped on foot in there) weather can as harsh as in Germany and the land is much less fertile than in Southern Germany. Still the Romans spent centuries in fighting against the Iberian Celtic tribes until they defeated them. It was not a question of calculation cost like someone said but the prestige of the Roman legionis. Their tenacious effort in conquering North Spain was not worth the pain at all, yet they finally achieved their goal. It is true that Scotland probably was not interesting and thus they just build a wall against the Picts, but Germany had big rivers and very fertile lands.
CVRRENT "LATIN" ALPHABET IS A BARBARIAN BASTARDIZATION OF THE TRUE LATIN ALPHABET COMMITED BY THE GERMANIC "SCHOLARS" OF THE CAROLIGIAN COURT DURING THE MEDIEVAL AGE. IT SHOULD BE CALLED GOTHIC ALPHABET BETTER.
<<<<That's true, the Spanish empire was far bigger in terms of land, but far, far smaller in terms of population. >>>>
<<On the contrary, Mexico was highly populated (more or less like nowadays). The chronicles tell us that the capital of the Aztec empire was biggest than the European cities.>>
Nonsense, Tenochititlan was very large, about 200,000 people, but that city, and the rest of Spanish America was rapidly depopulated by war and disease. According to the Urugyan Eduardo Galeano's book "Open Veins Of Latin America" there was about a 90% population fall.
Whereas the city of Rome was about one million at its peak, and the Mediterranean was heavily spotted with cities all through the roman era. Total population 50-80 million, which was a huge amount for the lightly populated ancient world.
<<On the contrary, Mexico was highly populated (more or less like nowadays). The chronicles tell us that the capital of the Aztec empire was biggest than the European cities.>>
Nonsense, Tenochititlan was very large, about 200,000 people, but that city, and the rest of Spanish America was rapidly depopulated by war and disease. According to the Urugyan Eduardo Galeano's book "Open Veins Of Latin America" there was about a 90% population fall.
Whereas the city of Rome was about one million at its peak, and the Mediterranean was heavily spotted with cities all through the roman era. Total population 50-80 million, which was a huge amount for the lightly populated ancient world.
There are several different estimates for the Roman Empire. Scheidel (2006, p. 2) estimates 60 million. Goldsmith (1984, p. 263) estimates 55 million. Beloch (1886, p. 507) estimates 54 million. Maddison (2006, p. 51, 120) estimates 48 million. Roman Empire Population estimates 65 million (while mentioning several other estimates between 45 million and 130 million).
As for the Spanish Empire Wikipedia says 64 millions. That only counts the Spanish empire itself but not the Portuguese Empire that was part of the Spanish one for 80 years.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#cite_note-16
As for the Spanish Empire Wikipedia says 64 millions. That only counts the Spanish empire itself but not the Portuguese Empire that was part of the Spanish one for 80 years.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#cite_note-16
"In Central-Northern Spain , where locals were incredibly hostile towards the Romans, much more than in southern and eastern Spain (very Romanized even before the Romans stepped on foot in there) weather can as harsh as in Germany and the land is much less fertile than in Southern Germany. Still the Romans spent centuries in fighting against the Iberian Celtic tribes until they defeated them. It was not a question of calculation cost like someone said but the prestige of the Roman legionis. Their tenacious effort in conquering North Spain was not worth the pain at all, yet they finally achieved their goal. It is true that Scotland probably was not interesting and thus they just build a wall against the Picts, but Germany had big rivers and very fertile lands."
Horseshit. Indeed, the Romans were primarily interested to keep under control urbans civilisations scattered all around the Mediterranean, but they were also anxious to secure tin ore supplies. Tin was just as essential a resource as oil is today, and the only known sources were in British Cornwall and (to a much smaller scale) in the West of Spain.
Horseshit. Indeed, the Romans were primarily interested to keep under control urbans civilisations scattered all around the Mediterranean, but they were also anxious to secure tin ore supplies. Tin was just as essential a resource as oil is today, and the only known sources were in British Cornwall and (to a much smaller scale) in the West of Spain.
The metal supplies in Spain were not as big as the Romans initially coneived and probably Germany would have much more profitable mines as well. Believe me, in North Spain there was nothig valuable for the Romans.
<<Romania>>
At least Romania seems to be the most proud country of its Latin past . So I am agree.
At least Romania seems to be the most proud country of its Latin past . So I am agree.
>>the Normans —who had the most advanced state at that time— were able to conquer England almost effortless<<
Almost everybody was. England has always been easy pray ;-)
Almost everybody was. England has always been easy pray ;-)
<<As for the Spanish Empire Wikipedia says 64 millions. That only counts the Spanish empire itself but not the Portuguese Empire that was part of the Spanish one for 80 years.>>
That may very well be true, but all you're saying is that, in a world with a far higher population the Spanish empire was probably only just as numerous, or slightly more so, than the Roman one.
AD 200 - about 200 million
AD 1600 - about 500 million.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
That may very well be true, but all you're saying is that, in a world with a far higher population the Spanish empire was probably only just as numerous, or slightly more so, than the Roman one.
AD 200 - about 200 million
AD 1600 - about 500 million.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html