The History Thread!

Eh, the base for modern standard ("High") German was already laid in the 11th and 12th century with Salian and Stauffen court language, which drew from Middle and Upper German and completely ignored Lower German. Look at France for example, where the southern dialects also were all ignored (and standard French was based rather exclusively on Parisian, even), so I don't think that a larger number of Low German speakers will necessarily result in a language shift towards it. Of course, everything is possible.

A Germany that centralises (it was officially/legally united) in the Middle Ages would be the same Germany as we know in a way; in the same way we recognise medieval France as the same as modern France, if that comparison makes any sense to you.

Dude, we are in the territory of AH. All bets are off.

To clarify: Who would think, in his right mind, a tsar who is fighting wars elsewhere in Europe, could have the audacity and insanity to massacre the population of his finest township?

"AH"? Indeed. Though you employing that term makes me wonder whether I might know you. Then again, if that were the case my arguments and style of discussion should long have revealed to you who I am, heh.

Depends. While it is true that High German was the language of government for a long time (the Habsburgs used it themselves, being Austrian of course) Low German was the language of the common folk in northern Germany, just as Occitan was widely spoken in the south of France even though the langues d'oil prevailed in Paris. Even a strong, centralized state like France didn't really mind what language you spoke in the Early Modern Period, provided you paid your taxes and would join the military if you were levied and so on.

The standardization of national languages came only in full force after the introduction of compulsory basic education, which is a relatively recent development.

@Argeus: Why not go on AH.com if you'd like to talk about Alternate History?

edited 27th Mar '11 7:17:50 AM by Kinkajou

You're right, but the result was the same: No matter how many people spoke Provencal or Occitan, both were entirely pushed aside in favour of Parisian eventually. So, dialect population numbers do not necessarily tell much about the "strength" of a particular dialect.

Centralized Bureaucracy wins out every time.

Funnily enough, of all the Italian dialects Tuscan was used as the base for the modern Italian language, even though the kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont unified it and Rome had its own dialect.

It's probably because the Renaissance was developed in Florence.

The reason they chose Tuscan is because the first major grand work in Italian literature (that is the first work that was written in vernacular Italian instead of Latin) was Dante's Divine Comedy, and that was written in the Tuscan vernacular.

Well, to say frankly, my style of AH is most delightfully employed to poke fun at moe shows. For instance, I've tried to reason a scenario in which:

• The Romans won Teutoberg.
• The Roman consul leading that battle (not Varro, of course) visited the Delphi after his triumph and got his reading that his future and that of his descendants will not be in Rome, but rather in Japan.
• Said consul and his legion marched across Europe, through Siberia and built ships near today's Vladivostok to sail to Japan, and got nailed by the Kamikaze.
• The consul was shipwrecked and amnesiac, and spent the rest of his days mingling as a commoner in Japanese soil.
• 2000 years later, LOL Yuuichi Aizawa.

Not something your average armchair historian would like, no?

@ Octo: I swear I have only frequented the following places - Battleon forums, Twilight Sucks and TW Center. And TV Tropes. Did I meet you somewhere along the line?

Exactly! Dante's work was but one of the many fruits of the Florentine Renaissance.

There's a saying that Renaissance Italy was a hotbed of political intrigue and warfare and it gave us the, well, Renaissance, while Switzerland was a peaceful and neutral place and all it gave us were cuckoo clocks.

It's not entirely false, but Swiss neutrality was only introduced at the Congress of Vienna and before that, the Old Swiss Confederacy got itself involved in multiple conflicts, either against outside forces like Burgundy, or wars among the cantons, the last of which was the Sonderbund War.

@Argeus: You'd fit in the ASB forum perfectly.

edited 27th Mar '11 7:30:11 AM by Kinkajou

ASB?

Alien Space Bats, where allohistorical discussions of fictional stuff is open.

And back to them European history; would the Italian monarchy not be as discredited if King Victor Emmanuele III did not give in to Mussolini?

I wonder, the commies were quite hip by that time. But then, the Christian Democrats would likely have rallied to the defence of monarchy.

Then I have not met you before Argeus. I was thinking of AH.com. Makes me wodner now of course who Kinkajou is...

Speaking of the Hohenstaufens, what do y'all make of Kaiser Frederick II, stupor mundi?

He's been portrayed as everything from Antichrist, denouncing Moses, Jesus and Muhammad alike as frauds (Pope Gregory IX and allies), to an ideal leader (Kantorowicz), to a politically strong yet otherwise normal Christian Emperor by current medievalists, his ideology of church and state in line with the Eastern Roman Emperors and Henry VIII.

Screw him. Screw him and his confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis and his statutum in favorem principum!

@Octo: You're on AH.com?

@Rotty: I personally think he was a Caesaropapist in the mold of an Eastern Emperor.

Well, I was.

Was, so you were banned?

Anyway, Angevin Empire time; it was nice in theory but the Plantagenets were a rowdy bunch,

The one time England and France decided to huggle and try to be one big happy family, it didn't last.

And you forgot the pothole.

The reason why there was no pothole is because IMO it is arguable whether the personal union that formed the Angevin could have been a lasting union. I mean, if latter English kings were stronger, they could have very well turned the Empire into something of an union akin to Kalmar or Krewo.

In essence, the 100 years is just a succession crisis taken to its logical extreme, so if it weren't for this succession crisis, we could have a London or Paris Union and an English-France Commonwealth trekking nicely well into the late middle age.

Do note that France would dominate the union; the Angevin kings spoke French first and foremost. Not to mention that even taking England's wealth into consideration, France was a very appealing prize.

Speaking of which. At that time, am I correct to say that "France" as we know it does not yet exist, and in its place was a diverse mix of duchies surrounding a monarchic France?

For anyone who has been following the news recently, I present an interesting diversion in the text of Sallust's The Jugurthine War, which documents the war between Carthage and Ptolemid Egypt over Libya:

And so Cyrenaica became divided from Tripolitania at Ras Lanuf.

Nice catch, classicist.