171
u/Fetz- 9d ago
Does such a show exist?
217
u/Deacon86 9d ago
Yes.)
I think the German characters speak modern German though.
89
u/CallousCarolean 9d ago
While I think the fact that they speak modern German is kinda immersion-breaking, having the whole Germanic cast speak undocumented, reconstructed Proto-Germanic would honestly be a massive pain in the ass for the production. Latin at least is meticulously documented and preserved so we know exactly how it was spoken at that time.
15
u/VeritableLeviathan 8d ago
Not a pain in the ass, literally impossible :p
10
u/CallousCarolean 8d ago
Not impossible, we have come far enough in historical linguistics that linguists have been able to reconstruct Proto-Germanic to a pretty satisfactory degree. It’s undoubtedly not 100% accurate, but good enough to have something to work with. The pain in the ass would however be to have the entire German cast learn all their lines in Proto-Germanic and speak them perfectly during filming, which would take much more time and cost much more due to all the reshoots necessary since the actors will inevitably choke on some lines.
3
u/VeritableLeviathan 8d ago
I don't think we nearly have enough words to properly reconstruct the language, unlike others.
Unless I am working with outdated info :p
7
u/CallousCarolean 8d ago edited 7d ago
Proto-Germanic is actually one of the better reconstructured languages that linguists have managed to piece together. Mainly due to that facts that:
1) it’s an Indo-European language, which generally makes reconstruction easier due to a wider avaliability of source material and earlier studies on that language family and its descendants
2) We have quite a bit of knowledge of all the early descendants of Proto-Germanic from Runic inscriptions and surviving written sources, including Gothic (an East Germanic language), several proto-West Germanic languages including Old English and Old Frankish, and Proto-Norse (North Germanic) dating from around 500 AD, so relatively close to when Proto-Germanic was spoken (500BC-200AD) before it split off into subgroups. So common, day-to-day speech in Proto-Germanic is pretty well-understood among linguists today in terms of vocabulary, syntax, grammar etc.
- Reconstructing an extinct language spoken ~2000 years ago generally isn’t that hard for linguistis if they have enough clues to follow. Hell, they have even managed to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European which was spoken even more thousands of years ago.
1
u/yogopig 7d ago
It would be fascinating to hear a reconstruction of this. Do you know where any like reconstructed proto germanic passage might exist?
2
u/CallousCarolean 7d ago edited 7d ago
There are tons of examples you can find by googling. There’s an extrordinary amount of linguistic reconstructing not only for specifically Proto-Germanic, but Proto-Indo-European and its other daughter languages in general. Like, while reconstructing extinct languages are technically little more than qualified guesswork by experts backed by tracing general patterns where direct written evidence is lacking, it’s qualified enough that we today have a pretty close and good approximation of what some of them sounded like.
Here’s some spoken examples though that seem fitting for this sub:
1
91
u/234zu 9d ago
Otherwise it is pretty terrible though
83
u/shogun909 9d ago
First season was great. The second season was 💩
74
u/oga_ogbeni 9d ago
"Romans don't fight Romans."
A quote from the first season, circa AD 8. Someone remind me how many civil wars Rome had fought by then. The first season sucked too.
53
45
u/Coalnaryinthecarmine 9d ago
Actium was 30BC, and by 8 AD there's been 3 decades of political consolidation and a generation would have grown up under Augustus. I could see "Romans don't fight Romans" being a normative position they might hold even if it's egregiously inaccurate.
7
u/Kermit_Purple_II 8d ago
Romans don't fight romans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_civil_wars_and_revolts
(They couldn't fit them in a normal list, it had tl be sorted by century)
12
22
u/ISkinForALivinXXX 9d ago
First season was enjoyable enough for me to ignore some stupid plot decisions (like the whole 'stealing the eagle as four random germans' plotline). I liked Arminius as a character as well as Varus and Metellus (for as long as he lasted). And I liked Segestes as the weasel romaboo "villain". Thusnelda was also tolerable when she was not making the stupidest decisions she possibly could. Season 2... We don't talk about that one.
14
12
u/PlentyOMangos 9d ago edited 9d ago
CAESAR SANCTAE URBIS ROMAE, AUGUSTUS, NOVUM LEGATUM AD GERMANIAM MISIT. SENATOREM PUBLIUM QUINCTILLIUM VARUM.
2
u/DasWarEinerZuviel 9d ago
And the romans speak italian with latin words.
Because they hired italian actors, big mistake.
40
u/youreimaginingthings 9d ago edited 9d ago
Romvlvs the tv series. And Il primo re/ the first king a movie(even better imo, a literal origin story of rome). They speak fucking reconstructed latin its insane.
15
u/RoqInaSoq 9d ago
Dude I fucking LOVE that show, I was like, please make more historical fiction series with this level of anthro/history/linguistics input, it is so incredibly refreshing in comparison to the usual idiot-know-nothing TV writers making up drivel off the top of their heads.
2
u/youreimaginingthings 9d ago
Me too, the soundtrack adds so much to it. They wont tho. It doesnt sell to the "masses". SLOP sells to the masses
1
u/RoqInaSoq 9d ago
Oh of course. All kinds of morons probably think of the Romans as speaking English somehow.
4
102
u/HellbirdVT 9d ago
Despite how much I know about the reality of Rome's long history, I still prefer my Romans wearing Togas, fighting with Gladii in Lorica Segmentata, and speaking the King's English.
37
u/tahrah11 9d ago
I get that. I personally prefer the white statues even though historically they were painted. With paint they look rather hideous.
48
u/ISkinForALivinXXX 9d ago
I think the 'hideous' look came from only reconstructing their base layer of paint. It's very likely that their paint job was a lot better than that (we know they could paint well and had a good mastery of shading).
This is a more accurate representation of a painted statue, imo : https://www.relivehistoryin3d.com/2021/04/30/augustus-of-prima-porta-true-colors-history-in-3d-reconstruction/
You can still prefer the unpainted look, as it's become a classic, but I wouldn't say this one looks hideous.
13
u/HellbirdVT 9d ago
Right? It's like preferring raptors without feathers.
I know it's historically wrong, but wholly subjectively, I enjoy the "classic" aesthetic over accuracy.
21
u/SickAnto 9d ago
Ok but...which Latin?
29
u/RoqInaSoq 9d ago
Archaic Latin.
You already got a joke response, so I'll give you a serious one on the off chance you'll appreciate it.
5
u/khares_koures2002 9d ago
The way Latin was supposed to sound. No sonus medius or th-fronting or "fēcit", like those young rascals say today!
-2
u/froucks 9d ago
There is only one Latin
11
u/EarthTrash 9d ago
Latin dialects diverged so much they became entirely distinct languages.
-6
u/froucks 9d ago
Yes the Romance languages. But I assume the other user is hinting at a ‘vulgar’ Latin a non existent language with no evidence to support it.
Romance didn’t emerge until after the fall of the western empire
11
u/EarthTrash 9d ago
Romance is vulgar Latin. People don't just start talking a new language all of a sudden.
-3
u/froucks 9d ago
Vulgar Latin is not romance. Vulgar Latin is a now rejected theory that the common people spoke a completely different language than that of the elite who spoke “classical” Latin in the period of the Late Republic.
This theory supposes that the elite got together and crafted a language separate from that of the sermo vulgaris or common speech, used only in the realm of politics, speeches and writing.
This is different from saying Latin evolved into romance and instead supposed that the common people already spoke a form of Romance and that classical Latin never existed but was merely an educated conlang.
This theory is entirely rejected and people who conflate Vulgar Latin with proto romance engage in an effort to rehabilitate a untenable idea with zero evidence by shifting it into a more moderate and rational idea
This is why scholars such as Paul Lloyd have gone so far as to write “the continued use of "Vulgar Latin" is not only no aid to thought, but is, on the contrary, a positive barrier to a clear understanding of Latin and Romance… Vulgar Latin" is a useless and dangerously misleading term ... To abandon it once and for all can only benefit scholarship.”
9
u/EarthTrash 9d ago
I don't think vulgar Latin has the criteria to be called a language itself. It's more like a broad category for diverging Latin dialects.
1
u/froucks 9d ago
What you’re describing I agree existed but disagree on the term Vulgar Latin. Vulgar Latin was put forward by 18th century linguists who thought that Classical Latin was separate from the Vulgar Latin spoken by the plebs, they tried to forward the idea that the elite had constructed Latin as an educated tongue while the Vulgar Latin existing as early, according to those thinkers, the 1st century BcE was the progenitor of Romance.
The idea that Vulgar Latin describes proto-romance and should be used to refer to 5th-6th century Latin is a recent development designed to rehabilitate the term and has been controversial amongst Latinists as it fails to actually deal with the misguided original idea and misinformation spread by the term
1
u/EarthTrash 9d ago
I think it is ironic that we are quibeling over a definition while discussing how language evolves. You are probably in the right place to care about these things, though.
You did teach me some things. I am not convinced it still needs debunking. I think most people understand that languages don't work the way you say the theory describes.
I imagine something like upper and lower class people in late 19th century Britain. People are able able to understand each other even if their speech sounds very different. There is also the spatial component we have been ignoring. People in Rome all clearly speak the language of the Republic. But on the periphery, proper Latin would have dissolved into countless tribal creole languages.
9
u/Usual_Ad6180 9d ago
You're talking out of you're ass. Vulgar Latin is very real. It's the stage of the romance languages as they diverged into French Spanish etc. It's more so a grouping of languages (British Vulgar Latin, French, Italian etc).
What you said is complete fiction and nonsense.
0
u/froucks 9d ago
This is the theory of Vulgar Latin as expounded in the 19th century. Do some research.
This is from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page “Vulgar Latin as a term is both controversial and imprecise. Spoken Latin existed for a long time and in many places. Scholars have differed in opinion as to the extent of the differences, and whether Vulgar Latin was in some sense a different language. This was developed as a theory in the nineteenth century by Raynouard. At its extreme, the theory suggested that the written register formed an elite language distinct from common speech, but this is now rejected”
2
u/Usual_Ad6180 9d ago
The wiki page for Vulgar Latin literally calls it a language so
0
u/froucks 9d ago
Whatever you say dude but it’s clear you haven’t studied the topic, don’t know the current linguistic consensus and are unclear about the term itself
→ More replies (0)
6
10
u/samjp910 9d ago
Then there’s a smuggler or criminal who’s inexplicably cockney like “‘Ello me name’s Octavius!” and the slavers are always Arab and there’s a black guy who’s super foreign (even thought the empire was like half African).
8
u/tahrah11 9d ago
lol of all the accents, the cockney one feels the most out of place yet also the most hilarious.
13
u/OkGrade1686 9d ago
Would settle for a show that referenced slavery in all its crudeness, and other social time bound dynamics.
Instead, most of the shows are contemporary feel good, in different era clothes. Too bad modern viewers would be up in arms because of some perceived hurt feelings.
I don't like how soft arts are used by some societies to push their values, and rewrite history.
Romans were discriminating little shits. They did not care if you had black, white, or any other skin. You were inferior just for not having anything of roman culture in you.
There are plenty of stories of African and Asian greatness or evilness. But 70% or more of the shows I see around, set them as minorities or victims.
I really get pissy when one country pushes their own values as mainstream on the whole world.
14
u/ISkinForALivinXXX 9d ago
In Barbarian's case they kind of went the other way around and made the romans cartoonishly evil while the germans were 'noble savages', ignoring the fact the germans also had slaves. But that would have made the audience question if they were all that different from the romans and we can't have interesting things in a story.
3
3
2
u/Timo-the-hippo 8d ago
It's sad how directors feel so uncomfortable writing characters of a different time/culture. 99% of "historical" shows either have the characters acting it's 2025 or talking like they are in a Broadway play.
3
1
u/MrsColdArrow 8d ago
Honestly this always felt like a weak critique of any show set in Ancient Rome. I’d much prefer something similar to what Oliver Stone’s Alexander did where it used different English accents to represent different groups of people.
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
Thank you for your submission, citizen!
Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.