AHC: Carolingian Nationalism

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Iori

To be clear here, the PoD only has to be a century after the OTL Carolingian Empire collapsed.

You still need something where the end result is people caring about events centuries ago after much divergence (as in, anything that was drawn together in the days of the Carolingian Empire existing has unraveled as the pieces went their own ways).

This is more the stuff of ambitious rulers claiming to be the heir of Charlemagne than popular movements.

[Marc Pasquin]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

This is more the stuff of ambitious rulers claiming to be the heir of Charlemagne than popular movements.

That goes back to what I was talking about: you get someone (monarch/dictator/president) claiming to reconstitute the carolingian empire for some purpose. Obviously, you have people like napoleon that comes to mind but instead of just being "inspired" by charlemagne, if the empire somehow lasted longer, he could use that as a stepping stop to justify his action ("I'm not conquering you, I'm bringing you back into the fold")

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Marc Pasquin

That goes back to what I was talking about: you get someone (monarch/dictator/president) claiming to reconstitute the carolingian empire for some purpose. Obviously, you have people like napoleon that comes to mind but instead of just being "inspired" by charlemagne, if the empire somehow lasted longer, he could use that as a stepping stop to justify his action ("I'm not conquering you, I'm bringing you back into the fold")

The problem is that such a person can say that until they're blue in the face without anyone taking it seriously.

[wolf_brother]

This is simply so far out there it should almost qualify to be moved to ASB.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

This is simply so far out there it should almost qualify to be moved to ASB.

A question. How far back do you think one could go for a polity's existence before it becomes like that for 19th century nationalism?

[Marc Pasquin]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

A question. How far back do you think one could go for a polity's existence before it becomes like that for 19th century nationalism?

would probably depend what happen in the meantime. If splinter polities split up over the years but end so different from others (adopting different sects or political system) that they end up seeing the others as traitors and enemies, the "point of no return" could be short wherehas if the split was against their will (one part being conquered by one or more countries), the iredentist feeling could last for centuries.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

A question. How far back do you think one could go for a polity's existence before it becomes like that for 19th century nationalism?

As I've already said its a matter of, among other things, a shared recent history as a polity. The Greeks hadn't been an independent state since the 15th century, but they had been united in the Ottoman eyalets of Morea and Yanina, and in the atmosphere of the post-Napoleonic period revolutionary ethnic nationalism came to dominate European politics. Similarly you get modern Basque nationalism even though the Navarre was conquered in the 16th century because even after so it remained an autonomous region which, for the most part, enjoyed its own laws, a situation which continued right up until almost the 19th century. So I don't think there's a line in the sand where before that everything is ASB and after its all fair game, I think that you have to look at these things on a case-by-case basis. And, as you say, the various component parts of the Carolinigian empire had gone their own way and developed their own separate political and cultural heritage in the thousand years after its breakup.

[Tobit]

The map in the OP seems like pretty ideal borders for the conquests of a Napoleon that is less obsessed with world conquest. He has avoided Spain and Russia so it is likely that the British have pursued splendid isolationism. On the other hand it is likely that to hold on to such an empire, Napoleon and his viceroys have had to apply some extremely authoritarian methods to control these lands. I expect that Napoleon would delegate some of the power into the hands of states, but still maintain those states as vassals.

The early adoption of railroads and telegraphs would help this empire along, but I see it maintaining itself by the techniques of totalitarianism. A secret police, collective punishment, and playing divide and conquer with ethnicities could be applied in Europe in the same way that they were applied in the colonies.

Also perhaps the Pope has fled for Spain, and Napoleonic Europe is like the PRC in terms of religion (a state sanctioned Catholic Church that spews propaganda). Eventually by 1848 the Empire collapses under its own weight, but becuase it is made up of several different states it collapses at different rates. In fact one of the major criticisms of the later years of the Napoleonic Empire was that it was too disunited, and the regimes under it worked too hard for their own profit rather than governing for the good of Europe. Finally there are many that appreciated the industry and trade that a united Europe brought with it. Religous awakening occurs and the Catholic religion is reinvigorated across the ex empire, as a new dynamic Pope returns to Rome, he crowns a new Emperor on Christmas and the Neo-Carolingian Empire is born.

I think Charlemagne would be useful imagery to restore because it represents when Christendom was united and I think it could appeal to the lower classes as a figure that everyone knows about, this was also the time period when secret societies were very popular in Europe. Perhaps a Habsburg, a Catholic Hohenzollern, or maybe even a Savoyard could be crowned "a new Charlemagne." Actual lineage wouldn't matter because it would be a totally propagandistic action.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

A question. How far back do you think one could go for a polity's existence before it becomes like that for 19th century nationalism?

The polity doesn't matter: you didn't get Habsburg nationalism. Nationalism matches with cultural groups, not historic states. The only reason historic states come into it is if it's a source of pride for the cultural group, or an excuse for the cultural group to grab more land.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Socrates

The polity doesn't matter: you didn't get Habsburg nationalism. Nationalism matches with cultural groups, not historic states. The only reason historic states come into it is if it's a source of pride for the cultural group, or an excuse for the cultural group to grab more land.

What I was trying to say was, no one is going to resurrect Dacia, for instance.

The people who live their don't identify themselves as Dacian.

Tobit: Why is Britain going to pursue "splendid isolationism" towards Napoleon when it has never done that towards people trying for European hegemony?

[Zuvarq]

Catholic German + French + Catalan nationalism.

[Tobit]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

What I was trying to say was, no one is going to resurrect Dacia, for instance.

The people who live their don't identify themselves as Dacian.

Tobit: Why is Britain going to pursue "splendid isolationism" towards Napoleon when it has never done that towards people trying for European hegemony?

Thinking about a Pod (doing some quick wiki research) I would think a more lenient treaty of Tilsit by not creating the duchy of Warsaw would keep the peace. Also Napoleon would not pursue Portugal as part of the Continental system, thus avoiding the peninsular war. Instead Napoleon would focus on turning the Continental system into a more self sufficient trade block.

Or maybe some earlier Pod involving no Invasion of Egypt.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Tobit

Thinking about a Pod (doing some quick wiki research) I would think a more lenient treaty of Tilsit by not creating the duchy of Warsaw would keep the peace. Also Napoleon would not pursue Portugal as part of the Continental system, thus avoiding the peninsular war. Instead Napoleon would focus on turning the Continental system into a more self sufficient trade block.

Or maybe some earlier Pod involving no Invasion of Egypt.

And that sound you hear is me going "So?"

No one except Napoleon of the leaders of the Great Powers wants Napoleon dominating Europe the way "I'm going to rebuild the Carolingian Empire" would mean.

Not Austria, not Prussia, not Britain, not Spain, not Russia.

Also, Napoleon leaving Portugal out of the Continental System ruins the entire point of it as a policy.

You want to avoid war in regards to France and most everyone else, avoid "France wants to dominate Europe" war in the first place. Because no one is going to happily accept someone as conquest-happy as it would take to take those lands - and Britain will eagerly fund Austria and anyone and everyone else that will fight it.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The problem is that you have to have something that people would be willing to believe is "common" - and for that matter, relevant.

It sounds like you may need Charlemagne to kick of the crusades early and be much more successful. If say the Carolingian can hold Palestine for 400 years and build a great imperial capital city some where on the Rhine, maybe you have the seed to build on. A lot of the Italian identity is built on the past glory of Rome, so maybe if the Carolingians hold the holy land until 1100 AD before falling into decline you have enough of a history to make some future generations want to restore the glory. Add in a unified religion and a unified language taught to the literate (some version of Latin) and perhaps some towns in Germanic regions switching to some Romance languages for prestige, and maybe it is enough to create sort of a Romance speaking HRE. After all the Hapsburgs and Prussians tried to build German speaking empires that included large number of Slavs, and with some different POD, we could easily have a very large Greater Prussia or Greater Austria. With a large base population in France and the Poe Valley speaking the Romance language of Carolingian and if the areas of Germany IOTL in 1880 were 25% Carolingian speakers, it might work.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

It sounds like you may need Charlemagne to kick of the crusades early and be much more successful. If say the Carolingian can hold Palestine for 400 years and build a great imperial capital city some where on the Rhine, maybe you have the seed to build on. A lot of the Italian identity is built on the past glory of Rome, so maybe if the Carolingians hold the holy land until 1100 AD before falling into decline you have enough of a history to make some future generations want to restore the glory.

How is kicking off the crusades early going to matter?

How is a great capital on the Rhine going to relate to the splits and divisions?

Add in a unified religion and a unified language taught to the literate (some version of Latin) and perhaps some towns in Germanic regions switching to some Romance languages for prestige, and maybe it is enough to create sort of a Romance speaking HRE. After all the Hapsburgs and Prussians tried to build German speaking empires that included large number of Slavs, and with some different POD, we could easily have a very large Greater Prussia or Greater Austria. With a large base population in France and the Poe Valley speaking the Romance language of Carolingian and if the areas of Germany IOTL in 1880 were 25% Carolingian speakers, it might work.

Unified religion is OTL. Unified language in the sense that was important at the time (and the common people speaking a different language isn't going to be something the state can do much about - even if it wants to. which is unlikely in this era) existed.

And "Carolingian" (Not at the name, which is presumably for convenience's sake)?

This all feels entirely artificial and unnatural, in the sense of trying to force square pegs into round holes.

If the areas of Germany in OTL were 25% Carolingian speakers, there's still centuries of divergence (as in, the people in East Francia - however that breaks down - going different directions than the people in West Francia - however that breaks down) to make the idea that "we are all Carolingites" the stuff - still - of wannabe heirs of Charlemagne, not of popular nationalist.

It's up there with "Celtia, also known as Ireland+Wales+Scotland+Brittany+Cornwall.".

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

How is kicking off the crusades early going to matter?

How is a great capital on the Rhine going to relate to the splits and divisions?

Well, national identity is often partially built upon past glories. We can look at the HRE or Ghana as examples of nationalities adopting nationalities that are not their own. And the modern Greeks are more Slavs who adopted a Greek identity over the centuries than actual descendants of Athenians from Plato's days. We can also look a the Slavic tribes. Many of the modern Slavic people were actually 10's of tribes that came to identify with one dominant tribe. Or take the Prussians, an Baltic people with their own language who adopted a German identity and became more German than the Germans.

Sure it is not a simple POD, and it will take centuries to unfold, but it is doable. You do need some way to keep the Carolingian Empire around for centuries to allow time for it develop. So we need a POD for this one. And we will need a process to begin to have people think of themselves as Carolingians. You seem to have trouble accepting this process happens, but history is full of examples. Chinese history is a prime example of many people becoming one over centuries. Or the Celts in Gaul becoming Romans. Or the Celts in England becoming Romans then becoming English. It just takes time and a integration process. IMO, something like a successful Holy War or a glorious Imperial Capitol help the process.

And I don't know why you get worked up the "Carolingian" as a name for the new language which never existed IOTL. It would clearly be some successor language to Latin, and it would clearly not be any of the languages IOTL. While they could easily have a different word for the language, the single most likely name would be Carolingian or Latin.

It may fell artificial and unnatural, but that is because we are trying to say this one works not many of its competitors. Of the many languages in modern Italy, Latin won out because the Romans won out. Of the many languages that used to be spoken in France, French won out. Of the many languages in Italy in 1800, one dialect was selected. Modern German is putting together at least two different Germanic languages into one language in a state created in a very odd and unlikely manner. So it is clear that some languages win out over others. Most of the languages spoken 1000 years ago in Europe are extinct or near extinct. Most of the tribes/nations have been absorbed into other groups over the centuries.

And there was a process of taking many smaller groups and unifying them into larger nationalities. IOTL, it is France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Austria. But with butterflies it could be many different groups. We happen to be talking about the Carolingian becoming a nationality. But we could just as easily be talking about Burgundy forming a nation. Or modern Germany being 4 different nationalities. Or the Czech nationality becoming Germanized and absorbed into the German nationality. Or Flanders becoming a large nation state. Or a different Slavic tribe dominating/abosbing the Polan tribe. Or any of a 1000 other examples. Yes each one is a low probability even, but so was the rise of Prussia. So was Switzerland forming a nation out of 4 different languages. So was Venice failing to form a nation that lasted until modern times. So the emergence of the modern English identity which is a blend of Roman, Norman, Celtic, and various German Groups.

[Zuvarq]

The Rhine or other rivers in the region are not that extreme of boundaries once bridges are built over them. And there are few mountains in the region. It's not all that hard to keep the region together especially with an early POD. You could also have a regional plague in western Germany--a small plague of the sort happened in IIRC Sorbia, which contributed to the area being repopulated by Germans.

But IMO you don't need to go that far back, just crush Austria somehow in the 18th or 19th centuries. Then the French, Catholic Germans, and possibly Catalans and North Italians, could participate in a Carolingian nationalism. Hell maybe German 'victories' in WWI or WWII and then later punishment could lead to a state that, though it wouldn't be named Carolingia or anything (might be called the EU), would occasionally call itself Carolingian.

However, to actually unite the entire Carolingian Empire instead of half of it is very difficult.

[wolf_brother]

Let's just wave our hands, sprinkle some fairy dust on it, and call it a day eh?

[kasumigenx]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Well, national identity is often partially built upon past glories. We can look at the HRE or Ghana as examples of nationalities adopting nationalities that are not their own. And the modern Greeks are more Slavs who adopted a Greek identity over the centuries than actual descendants of Athenians from Plato's days. We can also look a the Slavic tribes. Many of the modern Slavic people were actually 10's of tribes that came to identify with one dominant tribe. Or take the Prussians, an Baltic people with their own language who adopted a German identity and became more German than the Germans.

Sure it is not a simple POD, and it will take centuries to unfold, but it is doable. You do need some way to keep the Carolingian Empire around for centuries to allow time for it develop. So we need a POD for this one. And we will need a process to begin to have people think of themselves as Carolingians. You seem to have trouble accepting this process happens, but history is full of examples. Chinese history is a prime example of many people becoming one over centuries. Or the Celts in Gaul becoming Romans. Or the Celts in England becoming Romans then becoming English. It just takes time and a integration process. IMO, something like a successful Holy War or a glorious Imperial Capitol help the process.

And I don't know why you get worked up the "Carolingian" as a name for the new language which never existed IOTL. It would clearly be some successor language to Latin, and it would clearly not be any of the languages IOTL. While they could easily have a different word for the language, the single most likely name would be Carolingian or Latin.

It may fell artificial and unnatural, but that is because we are trying to say this one works not many of its competitors. Of the many languages in modern Italy, Latin won out because the Romans won out. Of the many languages that used to be spoken in France, French won out. Of the many languages in Italy in 1800, one dialect was selected. Modern German is putting together at least two different Germanic languages into one language in a state created in a very odd and unlikely manner. So it is clear that some languages win out over others. Most of the languages spoken 1000 years ago in Europe are extinct or near extinct. Most of the tribes/nations have been absorbed into other groups over the centuries.

And there was a process of taking many smaller groups and unifying them into larger nationalities. IOTL, it is France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Austria. But with butterflies it could be many different groups. We happen to be talking about the Carolingian becoming a nationality. But we could just as easily be talking about Burgundy forming a nation. Or modern Germany being 4 different nationalities. Or the Czech nationality becoming Germanized and absorbed into the German nationality. Or Flanders becoming a large nation state. Or a different Slavic tribe dominating/abosbing the Polan tribe. Or any of a 1000 other examples. Yes each one is a low probability even, but so was the rise of Prussia. So was Switzerland forming a nation out of 4 different languages. So was Venice failing to form a nation that lasted until modern times. So the emergence of the modern English identity which is a blend of Roman, Norman, Celtic, and various German Groups.

Actually, I screwed the Polans tribe in one of my timelines.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Well, national identity is often partially built upon past glories. We can look at the HRE or Ghana as examples of nationalities adopting nationalities that are not their own. And the modern Greeks are more Slavs who adopted a Greek identity over the centuries than actual descendants of Athenians from Plato's days. We can also look a the Slavic tribes. Many of the modern Slavic people were actually 10's of tribes that came to identify with one dominant tribe. Or take the Prussians, an Baltic people with their own language who adopted a German identity and became more German than the Germans.

Sure it is not a simple POD, and it will take centuries to unfold, but it is doable. You do need some way to keep the Carolingian Empire around for centuries to allow time for it develop. So we need a POD for this one. And we will need a process to begin to have people think of themselves as Carolingians. You seem to have trouble accepting this process happens, but history is full of examples. Chinese history is a prime example of many people becoming one over centuries. Or the Celts in Gaul becoming Romans. Or the Celts in England becoming Romans then becoming English. It just takes time and a integration process. IMO, something like a successful Holy War or a glorious Imperial Capitol help the process.

I don't agree. None of those do doodly-squat to encourage people to assimilate any more than successful wars against the Turks or a glorious imperial capital did for A-H, which actually endured over centuries instead of having its pieces having time to go their separate ways again by the time of nationalism.

And I don't know why you get worked up the "Carolingian" as a name for the new language which never existed IOTL. It would clearly be some successor language to Latin, and it would clearly not be any of the languages IOTL. While they could easily have a different word for the language, the single most likely name would be Carolingian or Latin.

And "Carolingian" (Not at the name, which is presumably for convenience's sake)?

A new language that never existed OTL and has no reason to develop TTL, because the non-Romance languages work just fine.

It may fell artificial and unnatural, but that is because we are trying to say this one works not many of its competitors. Of the many languages in modern Italy, Latin won out because the Romans won out. Of the many languages that used to be spoken in France, French won out. Of the many languages in Italy in 1800, one dialect was selected. Modern German is putting together at least two different Germanic languages into one language in a state created in a very odd and unlikely manner. So it is clear that some languages win out over others. Most of the languages spoken 1000 years ago in Europe are extinct or near extinct. Most of the tribes/nations have been absorbed into other groups over the centuries.

And most of that happened for organic, natural reasons, or a situation where the people making the decision were in the position to make an arbitrary decision. Neither of those apply to Carolingian.

And there was a process of taking many smaller groups and unifying them into larger nationalities. IOTL, it is France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Austria. But with butterflies it could be many different groups. We happen to be talking about the Carolingian becoming a nationality. But we could just as easily be talking about Burgundy forming a nation. Or modern Germany being 4 different nationalities. Or the Czech nationality becoming Germanized and absorbed into the German nationality. Or Flanders becoming a large nation state. Or a different Slavic tribe dominating/abosbing the Polan tribe. Or any of a 1000 other examples. Yes each one is a low probability even, but so was the rise of Prussia. So was Switzerland forming a nation out of 4 different languages. So was Venice failing to form a nation that lasted until modern times. So the emergence of the modern English identity which is a blend of Roman, Norman, Celtic, and various German Groups.

Except that all of those happened for well developed reasons, and none of those reasons exist in Carolinginia.

Carolingina has numerous divisions that its collapse - whether OTL or centuries later - will accent and emphasize and otherwise deepen.

Meanwhile, England - even if Roman-Norman-Celtic-Jute-Angle-Saxon has all come together, has all had those absorbed to greater or lesser degrees to form a coherent whole in each stage - it's not throwing all six (plus Danish) into the mix at once and expecting them to work out as one thing.

This isn't something like the Polans failing and someone else rising because neither the (to use OTL terms) French group or the German group have that position over the other.

Burgundy is another such example of this problem. Sure, you could form a nation drawn together despite popular, 19th century style ethnic/cultural nationalism with the right combination of things (though you're very unlikely to see anyone want to resurrect one in the age of nationalism, which is contrary to the whole concept of multi-national polities - within Europe, that is) the way OTL Switzerland is - but having a nationalist movement to restore Carolingia across the boundaries of France and Germania (using the Roman term for convenience)? No.

Prussia rising is from a different sort of events.