Google autocomplete is a gem and a curse. Inspired by @todayintokyo’s post on questions about Japan, I thought I’d have a look at what people are asking about Rome and classical Greece and, wow...
Christmas holidays leave a lot of time for milling around, so I’ll answer them in case anyone’s interested. (Please forgive me if any of this is incorrect/incoherent, it’s nearly 11pm as I’m writing this lol)
Did the Romans speak Latin?
Yes, Latin was Rome’s (and the Roman Empire’s) official language! Of course, many Romans or foreigners in Rome spoke other languages for the sake of communication, trade and education - Greek was particularly popular among the nobility - but Latin was what they all had in common.
Did the Romans invade Scotland?
Long story short, no. They tried, failed, and built Hadrian’s Wall to keep the ‘barbarian’ Gaels out - southern Britain was already too cold and muddy for the temperate Romans, not much point in losing more lives over more mud.
(Hadrian’s Wall was what inspired Game of Thrones’ The Wall, as confirmed by G.R.R. Martin himself, but Hadrian’s was nowhere near as high, thick or long.)
Did the Romans have glass?
Absolutely! In fact, their skill with it was much more artistic and masterful than the average glassmaker today, just search ‘roman glassware’ here on Tumblr or on Google images to see what I mean.
Did the Romans invent concrete?
Yep! It’s famed for its durability, which is due to its contents of volcanic ash (Pompeii flashbacks), lime and seawater. The seawater reacted with the ash over time to give it its strength and anti-cracking nature.
In fact, the Roman method was so effective that it lasts for far longer than modern concrete (modernity/Westernisation =/= progression, it seems) and scientists today are trying to find ways to revitalise it.
Did the Romans eat pizza? / Did the Romans eat pasta?
Sadly not, only later Italians did. Their empire deserved to crumble for not inventing either smh.
Did the Romans invade Britain? / Did the Romans invade England?
They did indeed in AD 43 under Emperor Claudius, and they only began to withdraw in the late 300s when the city of Rome was being threatened by a Germanic tribe called the Visigoths.
Did the Romans invade Ireland?
No. Even now, archaeologists have no idea to what extent they communicated or even knew of each other.
Did the Romans celebrate Christmas?
Emperor Constantine only began converting the empire to Christianity from AD 313 (they had been pagan previously), and the earliest evidence we have of Romans celebrating Christmas was in 336 AD, very late in Roman history. Throughout most of Roman history, therefore, no they did not celebrate Christmas.
(They did have a festival which was similarly important and similarly timed (mid-December) called the Saturnalia. It also involved communal partying, gift exchanges and a general spirit of liberty (e.g. slaves could order around and punish their masters) - it was one of the most anticipated festivals of the Roman calendar. However, the purpose was very different: it was to worship the pagan god Saturn, the father of god-king Jupiter and the previous ruler of the world before its occupation by humanity. Namely, the festival marked a return to the ancient ‘Golden Age’ in which nature was dominant, peaceful and uncorrupted.)
Did ancient Greece have emperors? / Did ancient Greece have kings?
No emperors, traditionally Greece was comprised of city-states ruled by kings (or theoretically by the dēmos, the people, if you were Athens). Under Roman occupation it did answer to Rome’s leaders (consuls, then later emperors), but the idea of emperors was much more late-Roman than Greek.
Did ancient Greece celebrate Christmas?
Nope. It was originally pagan and did not celebrate any Christian holidays until a) it was conquered by Rome b) Rome later converted to Christianity, thus enforcing it on the rest of the empire. However, this conversion point was so long after the ‘heroic’ and ‘classical’ periods of Greece that by the time it did become mostly Christian, it was no longer ‘ancient Greece’ in the same sense.
Did ancient Greece have electricity?
Y’all are asking the real questions out here, that’s for sure lmao.
Nope, electricity wasn’t used anywhere as a power source until Thomas Edison’s studies about two thousand years later.
God though, a good ol’ GPS would have saved Odysseus a lot of trouble.
Did ancient Greece and Rome overlap?
Oh, nelly...
Greece predated Rome by at nearly a thousand years, but Greece’s and Rome’s histories together lasted for centuries, even before the latter conquered the former. It’s why they are studied together as one field of academia. Many Italian settlements were in fact Greek colonies. Classical Greek helped shape Latin. Much of Roman religion was inspired by that of the Greeks. Many Greeks could speak Latin and many Romans could speak Greek. Roman art, philosophy and architecture was particularly fascinated by that which was Greek - to put it in meme format, the crab is Roman culture and the crocodile is Greek culture. And these are just the absolute basics, entire tomes have been written on Greece’s and Rome’s somewhat symbiotic relationship.
TLDR hell yes they did.
Did ancient Greece have a flag? / Did ancient Greece have a constitution?
Nah. Although history often refers to Greece as one country, one culture, it was more a collection of independent city-states with their own identities and constitutions.
They all had three things in common: religion (+ the moral/social codes which came along with it), language, and (in most cases) enemies from abroad - therefore in later centuries, as well as their city-based nationalities, they did all call themselves the Hellenes. If you were a fellow Hellenic, you’d be able to work and live in other Greek cities with less trouble than if you were to try, say, in a ‘barbarian’ land such as Persia. Greeks were civilised; everyone else was an uncultured brute. Hence, their sense of unity was more from fear of the outside, from xenophobia, than from internal harmony.
Because of this, there was never an altogether complete sense of assimilation. Different cities had distinct dialects, favoured different gods/cults within the wider Pantheon, often warred against each other (especially Athens and Sparta, whew), fed their own specific cultures and law-sets and reputations. Nationality and citizenship in that age were not really about country or region, the world was just too small for that. You wouldn’t say ‘Hi I’m Phoebe and I’m Greek’, you’d say ‘Hi I’m Phoebe and I’m from the city of Halicarnassus.’ The closest analogy I can really think of is the cities in the dystopian series, Mortal Engines.
So no, they didn’t have a single flag or constitution. There was just not enough unity between them all.
Did ancient Greece trade?
Initially I was going to wave this off as a silly question because ‘hurr durr everyone trades’ but ACTUALLY.
Along with the rest of the eastern Mediterranean, Greece had its own Dark Ages between the fall of its early society (aka Mycenaean Greece) and the rise of Homeric-style poetry and culture, i.e. between the 1100s and 700s BC. Communication in general was absolutely awful: there were no great armies, no great cultural progressions, and yes, no substantial trade. The fact that Greece was then feeling down in the dumps also discouraged foreign trade.
It took the bard Homer’s influence to get people to start thinking, creating, travelling and thus mass-trading again - this sudden surge in activity eventually led to Greece’s Classical Period, i.e. 4th century BC, you’ll probably imagine gleaming Athenian pillars. Increased thinking and culture led to increased politics/nationalism, increased p/n led to increased warring and military action, increased warring improved transport and communication, and WHOOSH suddenly trade took off.
So basically, Mycenaean Greek trade was good (as far as we can tell), Dark Ages Greek trade was shocking, Classical Greek trade was quite literally revolutionary.
Did ancient Greece have lions?
Yep! However, they weren’t like the sub-Saharan lions you’re probably imagining right now - those are Panthera leo, but the Eurasian lions that would have been in Greece were Panthera spelaea.
Nevertheless there were indeed lions and they played a huge role in Greek mythology and literature. The Nemean Lion was the first of Hercules’ Twelve Labours; Homer, the trendsetting legendary lad that he was, created a trope of comparing something innocent and vulnerable to something vicious and savage and desperate by using the analogy of a lamb and a hungry lion.
Did ancient Greece have a democracy?
Nope, only one city named Athens did. Don’t get me wrong, it was at the time and still is a big deal considering it hadn’t been done before, BUT there are three important things to note:
It was ONLY Athens which had a democracy - every other Greek city kept their kingships.
The Athenian democracy wasn’t what we’d call democracy. Only free, Athenian-on-both-sides men could vote and participate in local politics - this left out all slaves, all women (even if they were Athenian), and all foreigners or residents of foreign descent (no longer how long you and your family had lived in and worked in and contributed to the city and community).
It wasn’t foolproof considering it eventually got overthrown by power-seeking tyrants.
Latin was originally spoken by an eponymous group of ancient Italians. One of these Latin cities, the Romans, spread the language by conquering all of Italy, later the Mediterranean, then much of Europe and the Middle East. Although rarely spoken now, it is the mother of all Romance languages and contributes to about a third of English vocabulary. Its influence has since spread across the world through European imperialism; there are few places left that are completely unaffected by the Romans’ language and culture.
This particular post serves as both a beginner’s guide and a taster to what Latin is, with some common vocabulary along the way. Especially since many people are currently stuck at home due to Covid-19, and may like to stay occupied by learning a new language. Hope you enjoy!
N.B. Anything beginning with an asterisk (*) means that you may hear differently elsewhere, for example on Duolingo.
General
Latin is fundamentally a very difficult language, even for academics, and even if your native tongue is Romance. But I am not saying not to try, I am saying it is normal to struggle!
All ‘U’s were then written as ‘V’s, and all ‘J’s as ‘I’s. Modern Latin-learning tends to replace some ‘V’s with ‘U’s in order to facilitate reading. We have lost the exact pronunciations of classical Latin, not to mention differences between dialects, but the following explanations are some of the strongest estimates.
*‘V’ should be normally pronounced as /ʍ/, when between consonants as /u/.
*A standalone ‘I’ before another vowel becomes /j/ or /dʒ/.
Iuppiter servum in exilium pepulit.
[ Ivppiter servvm in exilivm pepvlit. ]
[ Yoo-pi-ter ser-woom in e-xi-li-oom pe-poo-lit. ]
Jupiter drove the slave into exile.
Iuppiter, Iovis (3, m.) - Jupiter, king of the gods servus, servi (2, m.) - slave in + acc. - into, to exilium, exilii (2, n.) - exile pello, pellere, pepuli, pulsum (3) - drive out, push, repel
Latin generally follows a SOV (subject, object, verb) sentence structure:
rex regnum amat.
The king loves his kingdom.
rex, regis (3, m.) - king regnum, regni (2, n.) - kingdom; power amo, amare, amavi, amatum (1) - love, like
There are no definite or indefinite articles (a/the) - normally, you must add them to your translation yourself depending on the context. There are relative pronouns (e.g. qui/quae/quod - who, which), demonstrative pronouns (e.g. hic/haec/hoc - this; he/she/it) and many other pronouns/determiners, but they are not required for every sentence.
*Unlike English, you do not capitalise the sentence’s first letter UNLESS that first letter is part of a name.
Most meanings are conveyed via changes in word endings (i.e. it relies on conjugating and declining) rather than word order. This makes Latin an inflected language.
Nouns
While English uses word order to show how nouns and adjectives relate to a situation, Latin uses endings and cases from different declensions to do the same. Latin uses 7 cases, but 2 of them (vocative and locative) are rarer.
pater, o Attice, donum Iovis matri cum comite Romae dedit.
Atticus, my father gave Jupiter’s gift to my mother with his comrade in Rome.
pater, patris (3, m.) - father donum, doni (2, n.) - gift, present mater, matris (3, f.) - mother cum + abl. (only used for people) - with comes, comitis (3, m/f.) - companion, comrade, partner Roma, Romae (1, f.) - Rome do, dare, dedi, datum (1) - give; surrender, hand over
Noun endings change in case, gender and number. There are three genders: masculine (m.), feminine (f.), and neuter (n.). The two grammatical numbers are singular (sg.) and plural (pl.). A noun will abide by the endings of one of five possible declensions.
In dictionaries, like above, you will see a noun given as ‘nominative, genitive (declension, gender) - English meaning’. The genitive is always featured because it is the only case whose ending is specific to its own declension (other endings may be seen across declensions but have different cases each time). Therefore, if you know what a noun’s genitive is, you know what declension it is, and vice versa.
Adjectives
An adjective agrees with its related noun in case, gender and number. However, they do not always have the same endings; all adjectives decline as either 2nd m. / 1st / 2nd n. (also seen as 2-1-2) or 3rd.
Here, every adjective agrees with the adjacent noun in case, gender and number, but none has the same ending:
omnis puella, mulier pulchra, homo sapiens, puer stultus
every girl, the beautiful woman, the wise man, a foolish boy
omnis, omne (3) - every, all; whole puella, puellae (1, f.) - girl mulier, mulieris (3, f.) - woman pulcher, pulchra, pulchrum (2-1-2) - beautiful, handsome homo, hominis (3, m.) - man; human being sapiens, sapientis (3) - wise, knowing puer, pueri (2, m.) - boy stultus, stulta, stultum (2-1-2) - stupid, foolish
N.B. With exceptions, most Latin adjectives follow the noun.
However, that is not to say that nouns and adjectives can never have the same endings. They often do: Roman writers used this frequently as a literary device known as homoioteleuton.
equus magnus, feminae parvae, homines sapientes, dona laeta
a big horse, little women, wise men, the happy gifts
equus, equi (2, m.) - horse magnus, magna, magnum (2-1-2) - big, great, large femina, feminae (1, f.) - woman parvus, parva, parvum (2-1-2) - little, small laetus, laeta, laetum (2-1-2) - happy, cheerful, blessed
Sometimes you see an adjective without a noun. When this happens, translate the adjective as an adjective AND a noun:
fortis horrenda diu passus est.
The brave man suffered horrible things for a long time.
fortis, forte (3) - brave, strong, bold horrendus, horrenda, horrendum (2-1-2) - horrible, terrible, horrendous diu (adv.) - for a long time patior, pati, passus sum (3, deponent) - suffer, endure; allow, permit
N.B. horrenda is in the accusative neuter plural, hence ‘things’.
Verbs
The doers of verbs are shown by verb endings, unlike English which requires personal pronouns. Nominative personal pronouns can support a verb in Latin, but they are not required. They are best used to show contrast, unity or general emphasis - as if someone were pointing a finger at you - and this is why they are not seen often. Both sentences below are grammatically correct, but the second flows better:
ego dormire amo, tu dormire amas, nos amici apti sumus.
dormire amo, dormire amas, amici apti sumus.
I like to sleep, you like to sleep, we are suitable friends.
dormio, dormire, dormivi, dormitum (4) - sleep ego, me, mei (pers. pron.) - I, me, my tu, te, tui (pers. pron.) - you, you, your nos, nos, nostri (pers. pron.) - we, we, our amicus, amici; amica, amicae (2/1, m./f.) - friend aptus, apta, aptum (2-1-2) - suitable, apt, appropriate sum, esse, fui, futurum (irreg.) - be; be alive, exist, live
Latin uses the following tenses: present, future, future perfect, perfect, imperfect and pluperfect - and each comes with its own set of endings. There are also participles, supines, infinitives, imperatives, gerunds, gerundives, actives, passives, deponents and other structures to show contemporary, previous, subordinate or hypothetical events - these also come with their own stems and endings, but they often work like adjectives and so are not entirely unrecognisable.
Dictionaries present verbs as ‘present active, present active infinitive, perfect active, supine (conjugation)’. There are 4 conjugations, which are different sets of verb endings.
All Latin verbs come as either 1. active (I kill), 2. passive (I am killed) or 3. deponent (passive in form, active in meaning). Each comes with its own set of endings.
1. hic homo me interficit!
This man is killing me!
2. hic homo interficitur!
This man is being killed!
3. hic homo me interficere conatur!
This man is trying to kill me!
hic, haec, hoc (pron.) - this; he/she/it interficio, interficere, interfeci, interfectum (3) - kill, destroy conor, conari, conatus sum (1, deponent) - try, attempt
N.B. While most verbs can be active or passive interchangeably, deponents never switch. They are never seen with active endings or passive meanings.
The indicative (1) and subjunctive (2) moods distinguish expectations from reality. The indicative presents facts, while the subjunctive anything hypothetical from questions to wishes to fears. Each mood comes with its own set of endings.
1. vir dives me cupit.
The rich man wants me.
2. vir dives me cupiat.
May the rich man want me.
vir, viri (2, m.) - man; husband dives, divitis (gen.) (3) - rich, wealthy; wealthy man cupio, cupere, cupivi, cupitum (3) - desire, want, long for
Learning ancient versus modern languages
I’ve seen language-learners new to Latin comment on the difference in tone and content, sometimes even being discouraged by it.
Learning an ancient language which is no longer spoken today, i.e. ‘dead’, is very different from learning a modern foreign language. Some basic techniques don’t change, such as how to memorise vocab. However, the overall approaches are different because the overall goals are different - unless the goal is simple pure enjoyment, which is in fairness the best reason to learn!
Modern language studies are to encourage international communication and many other reasons.
Ancient language studies are almost entirely to study the ancient world, how it led to the modern world, and this is mostly done through analysing ancient sources in their original languages.
When studying Latin, you therefore are more likely to learn heavy vocabulary such as ‘die’ or ‘sacrifice’ before you learn ‘take a bath’ - some of the examples I use in this post aren’t cheerful. Classicists learn how to translate heavier content first because it is more commonly mentioned in the ancient sources which the entire subject relies upon - death comes up much more frequently in Caesar’s Gallic Wars than greetings.
Recommended resources
- Duolingo Latin course - if you want to learn Latin as you would a modern language.
- Memrise Latin courses - almost infinite number of vocabulary and idiom lists.
- Massolit Classics ($) - online lectures covering Greek and Roman history, culture and literature.
- Amazon page for John Taylor ($) - esteemed author of Latin textbooks from beginner level up.
- William Whitaker’s Words - reliable vocabulary translator in both directions.
- Perseus Digital Library - public archive of ancient texts in their original languages and many different English translations.
- Logeion - online dictionary for Latin and Classical Greek.
Final Word
Absolutely do not fret if anything confuses you; like all things worth doing, understanding and applying it will take time. I am making more in-depth posts on various aspects of Latin grammar and vocab, with exercises, in the very near future, so hold on tight. Thank you for reading!
