Germanic influence on the Romance languages

<<The ending "es" in Portuguese and "ez" in Spanish are from Gothic and means "son of ": Rodrigues (Portuguese), Rodriguez (Spanish) meant son of Roderick. >>

Interesting and new for me. But is this an Hispanic adaptation or it is an exact structure, If so is it still used out of Spanish ?

I've heard that the Scottish "Mc" thing has the same sense. Is it correct ?

The "son of" basis for surnames are common to many cultures. In Scandanvian and English surnames, like JOHNson, Lief ERICson, etc, this is easily visible.

But in other cultures, it is less evident. Dutch surnames with "Van" or German "Von" mean, "of", or "from", similar to "de" or "di", but can also apply to "son of", as they are "of their father".

These Spanish names are Hispanicized versions of the original Germanic names yes. "Roderick" for example, was changed to "Rodrigo", as in "El Cid".

French surnames of Germanic origin underwent the same transformation. They were often spelt nearly the same in this case however, but the pronounciation was "Gallicized". For example, the Frankish name "Colbert" was most likely originally pronounced (Kol-bert) but is now pronounced (Kol-bear).

" Fab, I think your esitmates are entirely inaccurate. "

That is possible, this were not "my estimates", but they were the only ones I found - and wikipedia is not a precise scientific source as long as anyone can add his own numbers.

I tend to think that it is so much difficult to give numbers of germanic "invaders" since they enter in roman empire slowly - it probably looked like more a progressive "immigration" than a real "invasion".
The fact that those "invaders" integrated themselves in the Gallo-roman and Ibero-roman culture seems to show that it have been in this way.

Well in some cases, particularly prior to the fifth century, theses migrating tribes did just peacefully emigrate beyond the Roman frontier, to settle in Roman lands. This could be seen as a gradual immigration, with the natural assimilation which follows immigration.

But, these barbarian tribes who moved into Roman lands, did so with the threat of force. By this time, the Romans knew they were powerless to stop them, when they had more pressing concerns on the eastern frontier, the Huns, etc. So, they allowed them to occupy Roman land in return for their military service to the Emperor, and they were known as foedaroti, (but my spelling is wrong). The Romans really had no choice. It was either they allowed them to move in, and make advantageous use of them for military purposes, or have them invade by force and eventually sack your cities, rape and pillage the countryside, and take your land anyways.
So think its wrong to label this scenario as "immigration". How would you feel if half of Germany's population decided to "emigrate" to France, and in order to make room for them, you had to give up your land, so they could have some "living space"? They would move into Lyons or Paris and into your neighborhood. And in order to accomadate them, some of you would have to be evicted from your neighborhoods. How would you respond to that? With open arms, and say come here my brothers? You would most likely feel invaded, intruded upon, and taken advantage of.

««But, these barbarian tribes who moved into Roman lands, did so with the threat of force.»»

They were running from the Hun’s army.

««So think its wrong to label this scenario as "immigration". »»

Call them refugees.

««You would most likely feel invaded, intruded upon, and taken advantage of.»»

You know the conditions imposed by the Romans for the Visigoth tribes to enter in the Roman Empire? To leave the sick, the elderly and the wounded on the frontier to die of starvation or be killed by the Huns and to give healthy men to the army. The Roman army was already full of Germanic soldiers that would and did allow other Germanic tribes to enter, even without permission. The Romans also needed soldiers to help fight the Huns. Land and food was promised to the Visigoths, but they ended up starving and having to sell their own children to the Romans, giving them a chance to survive even if it was as slaves, in exchange for dog meat.

In 408 AD the Romans massacred thousands of wives and children of the Germanic soldiers, after the assassination of Stilicho. After revolts of the Visigoth, about 40,000 Germanic slaves were given back to freedom as to pay for the lives the killed Germanic people.

Later the Visigoth migrated south and became foederati in Hispania. It is a bit hard to say who could be feeling that was being taken advantage of.


By the way, do you know how many Romans migrated to Hispania to compare with the number of other migrants?

Roman, Germanic, Celtic, they all became the ancestors of the people of most of western Europe. I do not think there was one better than any of the others. They all lived in Barbarian times and they all did what they had to do to survive. Many tribes simply vanished in wars, were enslaved or disappeared in other catastrophes. Those who are known as being the ancestors of any people are the ones who survived.

"By the way, do you know how many Romans migrated to Hispania to compare with the number of other migrants?"

I do not know the exact number, but I know that most of the Roman colonization of Hispania was concentrated in the coastal areas of eastern and southern Spain, which were the most culturally advanced at the time of the Roman conquest, and remained the most populated and Romanized regions of all Hispania. There were possbily over a hundred thousand Roman colonists who came to Iberia. There were about seven Roman Emperors who were Spanish, including famous names like Hadrian, Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius. Famous historians and philosophers and other scholars of the Roman world like Seneca were also from Spain.

"Call them refugees."

Okay, they were refugees/invaders. They were not refugees in the sense that they were welcomed with open arms, the way victims of a natural disaster are. These "refugees", which included the Vandals (where we get the the term "Vandalism", which means the "Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property), whose name to this day carries a reference to pillaging, displacement, roberry, and destruction, and the Suevi, the Alans, the Burgundians, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Angles, the Allemani, the Franks, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards, and many others, emigrated to Roman lands as "refugees" but still displaced the Roman inhabitants, and either killed them and swept them off their land, or conquered them and forced them to live a life in subjection to German rulers.

The actions of the imperial government of Roman rulers does not excuse or justify the slaughter of innocent civlians of far away provinces like Gaul and Hispania. The fact is, beside the threat of the Huns, the underlying motivational factor for the Germans accross the Rhine, was a desire to inhabit the fertile lands of the prosperous Roman Empire. For centuries, even before the onset of the Huns, the Germanic people, as a migratory people, had always wanted to move beyond the Rhine froniter. They were already doing so at the time of Julius Caesar's intervention in Gaul, which led to the Gallic Wars. Had it not been for the Roman presence on the Rhine frontier, all of Gaul and southwestern Europe would have fallen victim to the tidal wave unleashed by the German hordes, long before they did in the 5th century.

But yes Gringo, the Roman government and army did savagely mistreat the Goths who they allowed to serve as Foedarati. If it were me, I would have sacked Adrianople and marched to gates of Constantinople myself. This is also around the time when they routed seven roman legions, and obliterated 2/3 of the eastern Roman army, and killed Emperor Valens. The way the Romans treated them, similar to concentration camps, it is no wonder they responded in such a way.

««I do not know the exact number, but I know that most of the Roman colonization of Hispania was concentrated in the coastal areas of eastern and southern Spain, which were the most culturally advanced at the time of the Roman conquest, and remained the most populated and Romanized regions of all Hispania. There were possbily over a hundred thousand Roman colonists who came to Iberia.»»

One hundred thousands? There are no known numbers… those who went to Hispania were from several places of the empire, to city colonies like Pax Julia, and from Rome the elite, people to control and rule Hispania. Those more quickly Romanized, the “Togati”, were the ones allied to the Romans against the Celtiberians, the ones sold out.
The great majority of Hispano-Romans were only given citizenship in 212 AD, until then they had no rights. And after that they were the poor people, the working class many were slaves.



««These "refugees", which included the Vandals (where we get the the term "Vandalism", which means the "Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property), whose name to this day carries a reference to pillaging, displacement, roberry, and destruction,»»

You mean they did what Scipio Aemilianus did to Carthago or to Numantia? The Romans were so much more civilized!!! they did not destroy property, they would take the property to Rome, as war spoil and, in many cases, kill the people or enslave them.

In the last Cantabrian war, in North Hispania, they did what was done so many times to the local tribes, they killed all the youths of the rebel tribe. But that was so much more civilized than destroying property!

At a time when killing, enslaving, cutting hands and burning towns with people in them was so popular destroying the property of the Romans was more horrible than killing people. Shame on them for all eternity!!

The Arian Vandals and the Roman Church hated each other, that is why their name became shameful, not because of destroying property.
And the Hispano-Romans were not displaced.

««and the Suevi, the Alans, the Burgundians, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Angles, the Allemani, the Franks, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards, and many others, emigrated to Roman lands as "refugees" but still displaced the Roman inhabitants, and either killed them and swept them off their land, or conquered them and forced them to live a life in subjection to German rulers.»»

You mean they did to the Hispano-Romans what the Romans did to the Celt-Iberians?
To live a life in subjection to German rulers was so much worst than living in subjection or enslaved to Roman rulers...

I have to throw away my books…Burn them. They say they (Alans, Vandals, Suevi) were given lands in Iberia as foederati. The Romans even helped the Suevi when they had a fight with the Vandals. Of course they all got greedy but who wouldn’t.


««The actions of the imperial government of Roman rulers does not excuse or justify the slaughter of innocent civilians of far away provinces like Gaul and Hispania.»»

In those days it was no big thing for rullers to massacre population. If you want to condemn them you will have to condemn the whole human civilization…. It is not about excuses or justifications…. Just think how could they conquer and maintain an empire without the slaughter of innocent civilians that did not want them as rulers?
Civilians fought for their homes country and freedom, the children would be the soldiers that could kill you tomorrow. You have to learn the past through the eyes and convictions of some one of that time not with a XXI century mentality.


What I am trying to tell you is that the Romans were no better than the other so called Barbarians. The winner writes the history, the losers are always the bad guys.

The idea of making the “barbarians” the bad guys and the Romans the good ones is hypocrisy.

No, from a moral standpoint, the Romans were no better than the Germans by any stretch of the imagination. But the Romans were definitely a more sophisticated, advanced, and cultured civilization, while German society was primitive, tribal, illiterate, and unsophisticated. The Germans didn't even bathe!

There is no "good" or "bad". There is just "civilized" and "barbaric". It is not a coincedence that the Germanic conquests coincided with the onset of the dark ages, a time of ignorance, superstition, filth, decentralization, economic and academic decline and cultural decay. It wasn't until the Renaissance and the "re-birth" of Classical civilization, that Europe was finally able to match the achievements and quality of civilization that had already been accomplished by men of Greco-Roman times.

««The Germans didn't even bathe!»»

Shame on them...
Try to bathe with 20ºC degrees bellow zero. One sneeze and then catch the flu, no antibiotics, the chances of survival were little.

««There is just "civilized" and "barbaric". »»

And is it civilized to burn cities, cut hands, etc? What is civilized? To produce works of art and literature and at the same time send people to feed the lions?


««It is not a coincedence that the Germanic conquests coincided with the onset of the dark ages, a time of ignorance, superstition, filth, decentralization, economic and academic decline and cultural decay.»»

And there was no ignorance and superstition in the time of Roman rule?
Nero and Caligula were great rulers!!

The decline was of the Romans, when they stopped conquering other advanced civilizations they stagnated. The empire was full of corruption and sick long before the German invasions.

Religion had a big, big finger on the onset of the dark ages it is not fair just to blame the “Barbarians”.

Anyway, the Visigoths had laws to protect the bees and were the most Romanized of Germans!! Not that uncivilized, the bees appreciated :)

@ Gringo

"Anyway, the Visigoths had laws to protect the bees and were the most Romanized of Germans!! Not that uncivilized, the bees appreciated :)"

Interesting. Dacians also had measures to protect the bees.

LAA
"The Germans didn't even bathe!"


Well, Germans did actually invent soap!

Well, I've read in at least a couple of different sources that people who like to travel far from the pampering effects of civilization actually do well NOT to bathe -- the smell may be offensive to delicate sensibilities, but allowing your natural skin oils to clog your pores and coat your skin actually functions as a natural insect repellent -- bugs are much more likely to home in on the odor of unprotected, freshly-washed "clean" skin.

After all, you would have to imagine that a couple million years of evolution have provided us with skin that knows what it's doing when it produces waxes and oils and scent glands and scent-trapping hairs. Our modern penchant for habitually removing our own natural smells and oils and replacing them with manufactured perfumes and lotions would probably strike our ancestors as strange, artificial and a little absurd!

I suppose I should qualify this:

"natural insect repellent "

--in terms of biting pests like flies and mosquitoes, anyway.

Ectoparasites like lice, ticks, mites, and fleas (we are the only primates with our own species of flea, did you know that?) have evolved alongside us and are immune to that tactic!

From what I've read, I know that French has a few hundred words of Germanic origin. As far as Italian is concerned, I know of a couple of them. The Italian word "borgo" is German derived. It means town, or village (from Germanic "berg"). Also, the Italian word "stivale", meaning "boot" has a Germanic origin. The word for "boot" in German is "steifel".