Your Ideal European Borders?

[AcaciaSgt]

From the mind of someone who only half-knew what he was doing... nah, just kidding. More like three-quarters. I debated if to include only Europe or add the bits that would be visible as well. Went with the latter, as you will see.

Of course, since the limit is 1900, it's subject to change in the following years/decades in such a hypothetical scenario... but who knows...

Also keep in mind this is just political borders. Whatever brewing conflicts and the life are not included.

 

[Mikestone8]

When constructing "ideal borders" it depends which of these you consider more important:

• creed
• dialect
• culture/ideology
• family lineage

Prioritising one or two will give you highly variant borders when compared.

And they weigh differently in every case.

In his first published work [1], Toynbee also listed four factors which could (but not necessarily would) create a nationality.

1) A common country, esp if it is a well-defined physical region, like an island, a river basin or a mountain mass.
2) A common language, esp if it has given birth to a literature
3) A common religion
4) A common tradition or sense of memories shared from the past.

But he cautioned that "it is impossible to argue from one case to another. Precisely the same group of factors may produce nationality here, but have no effect there. [examples]

Great Britain is a nation by geography and tradition, though important Keltic-speaking populations in Wales and the [Scottish] Highlands do not understand the predominant English language.

Ireland is an island smaller still and more compact, and is further unified by the almost complete predominance of the same English language, for the Keltic speech is incomparably less vigorous here than in Wales. Yet the absence of common tradition combines with religious differences to divide the country into two nationalities, at present sharply distinct from one another and none the less hostile because their national psychology is strikingly the same.

Germany is divided by religion in precisely the same way as Ireland, her common tradition is hardly stronger, and her geographical boundaries quite vague, yet she has built up her present concentrated national feeling in three generations.

Italy has geography, religion and tradition to bind her together, yet a more vivid tradition is able to separate the [Swiss] Ticinese from his neighbours, and bind him to people of alien speech and religion beyond a great mountain range.

The Armenian nationality does not occupy a continuous territory, but lives by language and religion.

The Jews speak the language of the country in which they sojourn, but religion and tradition hold them together. "


[1] Nationality and the War, 1915. The quote is from Ch 1.

 

[DrakonFin]

His point, to me, seems to be that modern Russian is as much a made up category as Ukrainian or Belarusian as they are all descendant from an Imperial Russian nationality.

Indeed. We need to remember that the Imperial Russian nationality and identity was as much a made up concept as current Ukrainian nationality and identity is. We are dealing with imagined communities here, anyway. Identities are politically and historically contingent. A bigger imagined community is not by definition any more "natural" than a smaller one is. If it would be, then we could well say that the most "natural" state of affairs would be a single language and joint identity for all of humanity.

To me it seems that Napoleonrules thinks that it is more natural for Moscow to decide what happens to Ukraine than the Ukrainians doing that themselves, an idea that very much tends to rub me the wrong way. But then it is very logical, given that his ideal plan for Europe is essentially based on the concept of "might makes right".

 

[Deleted member 97083]

To me it seems that Napoleonrules thinks that it is more natural for Moscow to decide what happens to Ukraine than the Ukrainians doing that themselves, an idea that very much tends to rub me the wrong way. But then it is very logical, given that his ideal plan for Europe is essentially based on the concept of "might makes right".

Napoleon, after all, rules.

 

[Ivoshafen]

TBH just give every separate language it's own nation. Not saying it's viable, however it stops the death of languages such as Votic, Veps, Frisian, so on and so forth. Pair that with some supernational organization such as the EU on crack and I feel like it could work

A little

But it'd still function

 

[RavenMM]

TBH just give every separate language it's own nation. Not saying it's viable, however it stops the death of languages such as Votic, Veps, Frisian, so on and so forth. Pair that with some supernational organization such as the EU on crack and I feel like it could work

A little

But it'd still function

What are the languages of europe?

 

[Arkenfolm]

TBH just give every separate language it's own nation. Not saying it's viable, however it stops the death of languages such as Votic, Veps, Frisian, so on and so forth. Pair that with some supernational organization such as the EU on crack and I feel like it could work

A little

But it'd still function

The Irish have had their own nation for about a century now, and yet the practical use of Irish has declined. If in 1899 you gave all those minority ethnic groups a language, I don't think you'd see anything different. Not to mention for the Votes and Veps at least the majority of people in their homeland would be Russian, according to the Imperial Russian Census. Maybe with clever (and very ugly) drawing of the borders you could get the number of Russians down to 40% or so. Not sure if the same is true with the Frisians (the East/North Frisians definitely, though).

 

[Skallagrim]

The Irish have had their own nation for about a century now, and yet the practical use of Irish has declined. If in 1899 you gave all those minority ethnic groups a language, I don't think you'd see anything different. Not to mention for the Votes and Veps at least the majority of people in their homeland would be Russian, according to the Imperial Russian Census. Maybe with clever (and very ugly) drawing of the borders you could get the number of Russians down to 40% or so. Not sure if the same is true with the Frisians (the East/North Frisians definitely, though).

As I've argued way earlier in the thread, to preserve far more regional languages, one needs a POD further back. Preventing the centralist legacy of the French revolution would be an excellent start for this. The main issue, however, is that the standardisation of language through (increasingly state-supported) schooling would have to be prevented throughout the 19th century.

What are the languages of europe?

Do you have a while? Since the idea raised is to prevent the demise of regional languages, we have to include the ones that are by now dead or moribund. So let's have a look. I'll list definite languages-in-their-own-right (in c. 1800, at least), and where appropriate, I'll include possible subdivisions for cases where one really wants to go all out with the linguistic diversity.

Since this list is very long, I'll put it behind a spoiler cut.

Spoiler

Finnic and Sami

Finnish

Karelian

Ludic

Ingrian

Estonian

Livonian

Votic

Veps

Sami
-- Southern Sami
-- Ume Sami
-- Pite Sami
-- Lule Sami
-- Torne Sami
-- Finnmark Sami
-- Sea Sami
-- Inari Sami
-- Kemi Sami
-- Skolt Sami
-- Akkala Sami
-- Kainuu Sami
-- Kildin Sami
-- Ter Sami


Baltic

Latvian
-- Latgalian
-- New Curonian

Lithuanian
-- Samogitian


North Germanic

Danish

Norwegian

Swedish

Icelandic

Faroese

Norn


Celtic

Welsh

Irish

Scottish Gaelic

Cornish

Manx


English

Standard modern English

Scots


Frisian

West Frisian

Saterland Frisian

North Frisian


Dutch and German

Low Franconian
-- Hollandic (i.e. modern standard Dutch)
-- Zeelandic
-- Brabantian
-- West Flemish
-- East Flemish
-- Limburgish
-- Meuse-Rhenish

Low Saxon (also called West Low German)
-- Northern Low Saxon
---- Gronings
---- East Frisian Low Saxon
-- Westphalian
---- Drents
---- Stellingwerfs
---- Urkers
---- Twents
---- Sallands
---- Achterhoeks
---- Veluws
-- Eastphalian

East Low German
-- Brandenburgisch
-- Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch
-- Mittelpommersch
-- East Pomeranian
-- Low Prussian

Central Franconian
-- Ripuarian
-- Moselle Franconian
-- Luxembourgish
-- Lorraine Franconian

Rhine Franconian
-- Palatinate Franconian

Hessian
-- North Hessian
-- East Hessian
-- Central Hessian

Thuringian

Modern standard German

Upper Saxon (ironically a Franconian language, not Saxon)
-- Erzgebirgisch

Neumärkisch

Silesian German

High Prussian

High Franconian
-- East Franconian
-- South Franconian

Alemannic
--Swabian
-- Low Alemannic
---- Alsatian
-- High Alemannic
---- Highest Alemannic

Bavarian (includes Austrian)
-- Northern Bavarian
-- Central Bavarian
-- Southern Bavarian
-- Cimbrian


French and Spanish

French (i.e. Oïl languages)
-- Parisian / Standard modern French
-- Berrichon
-- Bourguignon-Morvandiau
-- Champenois
-- Franc-Comtois
-- Gallo
-- Lorrain
-- Norman
-- Picard
-- Poitevin
-- Saintongeais
-- Walloon
-- Angevin
-- Manceau
-- Mayennais

Franco-Provençal / Arpitan
-- Bressan
-- Dauphinois
-- Forèzien
-- Jurassien
-- Lyonnais
-- Savoyard

Occitan
-- Vivaroalpenc
-- Auvergnat
-- Gascon
---- Béarnese
---- Landese
---- Aranese
-- Languedocien
-- Limousin
-- Nissart
-- Provençal

Catalan
-- Valencian

Aragonese

Standard modern Spanish

Asturian

Leonese

Extremaduran


Portuguese

Standard modern Portuguese

Galician

Fala


Basque

Basque (an isolate)


Italian

Standard modern Italian

Piedmontese

Ligurian

Lombard

Venetian

Ladin

Friulian

Emiliano

Romagnolo

Romanesco

Campano
-- Neapolitan

Calabrese

Corsican
-- Gallurese

Sassarese

Sardinian

Sicilian


Greek

Modern Greek
-- Demotic Greek
-- Katharevousa

Cypriot Greek

Pontic Greek

Mariupolitan Greek / Rumeíka

Cappadocian Greek

Tsakonian

Griko


West Slavic

Czech

Slovak

Polish

Silesian

Pomeranian
-- Kashubian
-- Slovincian

Sorbian


East Slavic

Russian

Belarusian

Ukrainian

Rusyn


South Slavic

Slovene

Serbian

Croatian

Bosnian

Montenegrin

Bulgarian

Macedonian


Hungarian

Standard modern Hungarian

Csángó


Romanian

Standard modern Romanian

Wallachian

Moldavian

Banat Romanian


Albanian

Standard modern Albanian / Gheg

Tosk Albanian


Classical, ceremonial and liturgical languages

Latin

Ancient Greek

Koine Greek

Medieval / Byzantine Greek

Old Church Slavonic

...that's just languages. It doesn't account for the fact that places like Tyrol, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco etc. - while not marked here in any distinct fashion - may well wish to retain their independent status. Likewise, certain areas that are linguistically unified may be politically or religiously divided in other ways within currently existing states, and may wish to maintain that separation.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Then what are schools going to teach? That kids should just spell a word however they feel like as long as someone can understand it? And then there's what we see on the Internet nowadays where speakers of those small/regional/non-national languages can't decide on one way to spell their language because there's a ton of dialects and each person obviously wants to speak and write in their own dialect. Should each dialect get their own country too in order to prevent more prestigious forms of the language from dominating them?

 

[Magnum]

semi-random and not totally serious

 

[Ivoshafen]

Guys, calm down it was an ideal. Just a linguistic fantasy,

And an excuse to get me a Low German state

 

[Skallagrim]

Then what are schools going to teach? That kids should just spell a word however they feel like as long as someone can understand it? And then there's what we see on the Internet nowadays where speakers of those small/regional/non-national languages can't decide on one way to spell their language because there's a ton of dialects and each person obviously wants to speak and write in their own dialect. Should each dialect get their own country too in order to prevent more prestigious forms of the language from dominating them?

Are you not confusing dialect and language? What I listed concerns languages. While many of those listed have largely faded out, and/or have adopted more and more characteristics of the dominant language of the country, back around 1800 or so, these were certainly languages. Not just different ways of spelling words and things like that. There is a tendency among some people to dismiss local languages as mere dialects. That tendency is a legacy of the same development that led to the standardisation of 'national' languages in the 19th century. Those advocating for standardisation often deliberately misrepresented local language as boorish, backwards dialects of little value or distinction.

What has been suggested in this thread, by myself and others, is the possibility that instead of dominant languages becoming the standard, a situation where the many local languages each undergo their own standardisations would be preferable. The idea that it's impossible for them to standardise is ludicrous. Dutch could standardise, couldn't it? If around 1800, Frisia had been split off from the Netherlands, I assure you Frisian would soon have achieved a standardised form. It is the lack of independence and the decline of the language (specifically, the ensuing lack of institutional support) that caused the failure to standardise many local languages in OTL.

Supposing that in 1800, an ASB flaps its majestic wings over Europe, and all the etnho-cultural-linguistic groups in Europe magically get their own sovereign states and the corresponding recognition by their peers, I assure you that their languages would soon achieve standardisation. Depending on the borders drawn, the shape of that standardisation may of course vary. For instance, Frisian has three distinct forms. If these all get their own country, they'll almost certainly each standardise separately. If they become one united Frisia, I'll bet you'll see a single standardised Frisian language emerge before long.

Needless to say, while independence fosters the formation of a national identity, and such an identity fosters the cultivation of one's own language, it is still a fact that closely related languages often borrow from each other, and grow to be more alike. The increasing interconnectedness of our world would see to that in spite of our designs, whatever they might be. So for instance, I consider the lasting existence of Bressan, Dauphinois, Forèzien, Jurassien, Lyonnais and Savoyard as fully distinct languages very unlikely. Even if they were to be split off from the political power of Paris entirely, it's still to be expected that they would grow closer politically and linguistically, eventually becoming the colourful dialects of an emerging Franco-Provençal / Arpitan language, within a country covering that same area.


Taking all that into account, a vaguely 'realistic' projection of my own decentralist ideal ('realistic' as in: these countries could all survive independently) could give you a modern-day Europe looking like the list below. (ATL countries in italics.)


Finland
Sapmi
Karelia
Greater Ingria (including the Vepsian and Votic areas)
Estonia
Livonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Iceland
The Kingdom of the Isles (Faroe Islands, Orkney islands, Hebrides, Islan of Man - a multilingual confederation)
The Celtic League (a multilingual confederation of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Brittany)
Ulster (consisting only of the Protestant majority areas; minor population swaps may be advised)
England
Frisia
The Netherlands (a confederation of several Low Franconian provinces)
Saxony (a Low Saxon confederation, consisting of the four traditional Saxon marks: Engria, Nordalbingia, Westphalia and Eastphalia)
Lower Germany (consisting of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania and Lower Prussia)
Luxemburg
Middle Franconia (Rhine Franconiam and Central Franconian areas, minus Luxemburg)
Hesse
Thuringia
Upper Saxony
German Silesia
Prussia
Upper Franconia
Swabia
Alemannia
Liechtenstein
Bavaria
Tyrol
Austria
France
Arpitania
Occitania
Monaco
Andorra
Catalonia (including Valencia)
Aragon
Spain / Castille
Asturias
Leon
Extremadura
Portugal
Galicia
Euskal Herria / Basque Country
Padania
San Marino
Tuscany
The Restored Papal States
Naples
Corsica
Sardinia
Sicily
Malta
Greece (extended east to the Bosporus)
Cyprus (fully Greek)
Czechia
Slovakia
Poland
Slavic Silesia
Kashubia
Slovincia
Sorbia
Russia
Belarus
Ukraine
Crimea
Ruthenia (Rusyn state in far western Ukraine, east of Slovakia)
Slovenia
Serbia
Croatia
Bosnia
Montenegro
Bulgaria
Macedonia
Hungaria
Székely
Banat
Wallachia
Moldavia
Albania


As one can see, this would mean that Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania and Moldova cease to exist in their current form. Ireland and Scotland are united in the Celtic League (an idea I have always liked, and it gives Cornwal and Man a place to exist). Yet even if Europe loses seven countries that exist in OTL, it contrarily gains no fewer than 45 that don't exist in modern-day OTL. A net gain of 38. Each of these countries could plausible have its own language, and some could be multilingual.

Europe would be a far more diverse place, without becoming some totally unmanageable mess.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Are you not confusing dialect and language? What I listed concerns languages. While many of those listed have largely faded out, and/or have adopted more and more characteristics of the dominant language of the country, back around 1800 or so, these were certainly languages. Not just different ways of spelling words and things like that. There is a tendency among some people to dismiss local languages as mere dialects. That tendency is a legacy of the same development that led to the standardisation of 'national' languages in the 19th century. Those advocating for standardisation often deliberately misrepresented local language as boorish, backwards dialects of little value or distinction.

What has been suggested in this thread, by myself and others, is the possibility that instead of dominant languages becoming the standard, a situation where the many local languages each undergo their own standardisations would be preferable. The idea that it's impossible for them to standardise is ludicrous. Dutch could standardise, couldn't it? If around 1800, Frisia had been split off from the Netherlands, I assure you Frisian would soon have achieved a standardised form. It is the lack of independence and the decline of the language (specifically, the ensuing lack of institutional support) that caused the failure to standardise many local languages in OTL.

Supposing that in 1800, an ASB flaps its majestic wings over Europe, and all the etnho-cultural-linguistic groups in Europe magically get their own sovereign states and the corresponding recognition by their peers, I assure you that their languages would soon achieve standardisation. Depending on the borders drawn, the shape of that standardisation may of course vary. For instance, Frisian has three distinct forms. If these all get their own country, they'll almost certainly each standardise separately. If they become one united Frisia, I'll bet you'll see a single standardised Frisian language emerge before long.

Needless to say, while independence fosters the formation of a national identity, and such an identity fosters the cultivation of one's own language, it is still a fact that closely related languages often borrow from each other, and grow to be more alike. The increasing interconnectedness of our world would see to that in spite of our designs, whatever they might be. So for instance, I consider the lasting existence of Bressan, Dauphinois, Forèzien, Jurassien, Lyonnais and Savoyard as fully distinct languages very unlikely. Even if they were to be split off from the political power of Paris entirely, it's still to be expected that they would grow closer politically and linguistically, eventually becoming the colourful dialects of an emerging Franco-Provençal / Arpitan language, within a country covering that same area.


Taking all that into account, a vaguely 'realistic' projection of my own decentralist ideal ('realistic' as in: these countries could all survive independently) could give you a modern-day Europe looking like the list below. (ATL countries in italics.)


Finland
Sapmi
Karelia
Greater Ingria (including the Vepsian and Votic areas)
Estonia
Livonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Iceland
The Kingdom of the Isles (Faroe Islands, Orkney islands, Hebrides, Islan of Man - a multilingual confederation)
The Celtic League (a multilingual confederation of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Brittany)
Ulster (consisting only of the Protestant majority areas; minor population swaps may be advised)
England
Frisia
The Netherlands (a confederation of several Low Franconian provinces)
Saxony (a Low Saxon confederation, consisting of the four traditional Saxon marks: Engria, Nordalbingia, Westphalia and Eastphalia)
Lower Germany (consisting of Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, Pomerania and Lower Prussia)
Luxemburg
Middle Franconia (Rhine Franconiam and Central Franconian areas, minus Luxemburg)
Hesse
Thuringia
Upper Saxony
German Silesia
Prussia
Upper Franconia
Swabia
Alemannia
Liechtenstein
Bavaria
Tyrol
Austria
France
Arpitania
Occitania
Monaco
Andorra
Catalonia (including Valencia)
Aragon
Spain / Castille
Asturias
Leon
Extremadura
Portugal
Galicia
Euskal Herria / Basque Country
Padania
San Marino
Tuscany
The Restored Papal States
Naples
Corsica
Sardinia
Sicily
Malta
Greece (extended east to the Bosporus)
Cyprus (fully Greek)
Czechia
Slovakia
Poland
Slavic Silesia
Kashubia
Slovincia
Sorbia
Russia
Belarus
Ukraine
Crimea
Ruthenia (Rusyn state in far western Ukraine, east of Slovakia)
Slovenia
Serbia
Croatia
Bosnia
Montenegro
Bulgaria
Macedonia
Hungaria
Székely
Banat
Wallachia
Moldavia
Albania


As one can see, this would mean that Belgium, Germany, Italy, Romania and Moldova cease to exist in their current form. Ireland and Scotland are united in the Celtic League (an idea I have always liked, and it gives Cornwal and Man a place to exist). Yet even if Europe loses seven countries that exist in OTL, it contrarily gains no fewer than 45 that don't exist in modern-day OTL. A net gain of 38. Each of these countries could plausible have its own language, and some could be multilingual.

Europe would be a far more diverse place, without becoming some totally unmanageable mess.

But what I don't see is why standardising a local language is somehow better than standardising a national language. Take the Vepsians, for instance. They are closer related to Karelians, but you have them in Ingria. And even then, why wouldn't they get their own country by your standards? Or for that matter the Ludic Karelians, the Livvi-Karelians, etc.? Why should the Ludic Karelians have to speak standard Karelian? Basically, what's the difference between that and having the Karelians speak Standard Finnish in some Greater Finland? In the end, you're just making new dominant languages.

Also, here is an interesting account of an edit war on the Ripuarian language Wikipedia which seems relevent to this discussion.

That country list is kinda odd too. Cyprus, fully Greek? What about the Turks? Banat, where it's a nice mix of Romanian, Serbian, Hungarian, and German? Cornwall? Where basically no one spoke Cornish in 1800? Greece with the Bosporus despite all the Turks and Bulgarians (and Macedonians I suppose)?

 

[BellaGerant]

In terms of linguistics, isn't there that saying that 'a language is just a dialect with an army'? And with how muddled everything gets with settlement and the chaos that would ensue if nations were defined by language (how easy it would be, then, to declare war for the sake of some oppressed minority/majority or an enclave. Or the administration of an enclave), it'd be like HRE v2.0.

Personally, I'd prefer something like this:

The United Kingdom of Britain, Scotland, and Wales
United Ireland
Iberian Union
France (natural borders, to the Rhine!)
Italy (from the Piedmont up to Trieste)
Germany (Rhine to Vistula, Jutland and Funen to Alps, plus Bohemia)
Danubian Federation (roughly Kingdom of Hungary minus the Croatian coast plus Romania)
Commonwealth (Vistula to Dnieper, Baltic to Black)
Nordland (Neman to Onega, plus the rest of the Danish Isles and the rest of Scandinavia. In order to compensate for their massive borders, they'll build a wall)
Balkans League (SE Europe, effectively, plus the islands closer to Europe)
Turkey (Anatolia plus the islands closer to Asia Minor, up to the Taurus Mountains).
Muscovy (Dnieper to Volga)
Caucasia (all of the Caucasus Range)

Doesn't make anyone happy but, let's face it, there's no situation where everyone's going to be happy. This way, the borders can be held somewhat effectively and there's plenty of nations to play off of each other for some semblance of a balance of power. You avoid situations where one nation controls both sides of a strait so international commerce gets to stay a bit more independent of national conflicts and where an island nation is unrestricted by its landbased neighbors and gets to conquer half the known world. Avoids the Pollock-esque map resulting from truly ethnic/linguistic borders in Eastern+Southern Europe in the 1800s and forces more countries to actually compromise with minorities or stop existing altogether. Each region has some decent farmland and some coastline to try to improve the economic state of Europe as a whole while keeping some spirit of competition. But the main goal is, of course, to make offensive wars at least somewhat more difficult for everyone involved.

 

[Kirook]

Ideal European borders? Okay, here goes:

 

[Skallagrim]

But what I don't see is why standardising a local language is somehow better than standardising a national language.

And that's the crux, isn't it? You see no added value in simply adding more languages and distinct cultures for the sake of it. I do. That's a difference in approach that's going to lead to wildly different notions of what's ideal. Which is fine, isn't it?

Take the Vepsians, for instance. They are closer related to Karelians, but you have them in Ingria. And even then, why wouldn't they get their own country by your standards? Or for that matter the Ludic Karelians, the Livvi-Karelians, etc.? Why should the Ludic Karelians have to speak standard Karelian? Basically, what's the difference between that and having the Karelians speak Standard Finnish in some Greater Finland? In the end, you're just making new dominant languages.

That country list is kinda odd too. Cyprus, fully Greek? What about the Turks? Banat, where it's a nice mix of Romanian, Serbian, Hungarian, and German? Cornwall? Where basically no one spoke Cornish in 1800? Greece with the Bosporus despite all the Turks and Bulgarians (and Macedonians I suppose)?

Do not take the listing here to literally. I only sought to point out that lots of viable countries and distinct cultures could conceivabl emerge with a relatively early POD, so as to illustrate that added diversity doesn't have to mean hopeless chaos. I've outlined my far less easy-to-implement preferences earlier: they involve even more extreme decentralism, all within a huge confederation of peoples. The confederal framework exists to secure human rights, but within that framework, essentially everyone should be free to seceded from any member state and join another, or form a new one.

The thing about the Greeks was mentioned in the thread way before, and regfers to my philhellenic inclinations. We are, after all, speaking of ideals here. The Greeks have my sympathy in many instances, and in a world I consider ideal, certain things are just going to go in their favour. I'm sure there are people who would love to see a lasting Ottoman Empire that includes all of Greece, and I certainly don't begrudge them their preferences.

Also, here is an interesting account of an edit war on the Ripuarian language Wikipedia which seems relevent to this discussion.

To me, the apparently childish behaviour of certain people is in no way relevant. It hardly changes my opinion on the intrinsic merits of radical decentralism, after all.

I frankly admit that should my fond wishes get implemented, it is indeed true that:

it'd be like HRE v2.0.

...at least in certain ways. But I happen to think that's a good thing. Huge, sprawling, tesselated amalgations of countless tiny member states! (We all have our preferences. I greatly enjoy seeing the wildly differing suggestions in this thread. Everything has its own merits.)

 

[Ivoshafen]

@Skallagrim
I love you for that.

 

[BellaGerant]

@Skallagrim

However, students in your ATL world will curse you every time they have a European geography quiz. All those poor secondary school students, trying to color in the map only to realize to their horror that there aren't enough color pencils and they accidentally coloured two small principalities together, forcing them to reprint the whole mess.

 

[DrakonFin]

In terms of linguistics, isn't there that saying that 'a language is just a dialect with an army'? And with how muddled everything gets with settlement and the chaos that would ensue if nations were defined by language (how easy it would be, then, to declare war for the sake of some oppressed minority/majority or an enclave. Or the administration of an enclave), it'd be like HRE v2.0.

Personally, I'd prefer something like this:

The United Kingdom of Britain, Scotland, and Wales
United Ireland
Iberian Union
France (natural borders, to the Rhine!)
Italy (from the Piedmont up to Trieste)
Germany (Rhine to Vistula, Jutland and Funen to Alps, plus Bohemia)
Danubian Federation (roughly Kingdom of Hungary minus the Croatian coast plus Romania)
Commonwealth (Vistula to Dnieper, Baltic to Black)
Nordland (Neman to Onega, plus the rest of the Danish Isles and the rest of Scandinavia. In order to compensate for their massive borders, they'll build a wall)
Balkans League (SE Europe, effectively, plus the islands closer to Europe)
Turkey (Anatolia plus the islands closer to Asia Minor, up to the Taurus Mountains).
Muscovy (Dnieper to Volga)
Caucasia (all of the Caucasus Range)

Doesn't make anyone happy but, let's face it, there's no situation where everyone's going to be happy. This way, the borders can be held somewhat effectively and there's plenty of nations to play off of each other for some semblance of a balance of power. You avoid situations where one nation controls both sides of a strait so international commerce gets to stay a bit more independent of national conflicts and where an island nation is unrestricted by its landbased neighbors and gets to conquer half the known world. Avoids the Pollock-esque map resulting from truly ethnic/linguistic borders in Eastern+Southern Europe in the 1800s and forces more countries to actually compromise with minorities or stop existing altogether. Each region has some decent farmland and some coastline to try to improve the economic state of Europe as a whole while keeping some spirit of competition. But the main goal is, of course, to make offensive wars at least somewhat more difficult for everyone involved.

So if everyone can't be made happy, then let's make almost everyone unhappy, with a special emphasis on smaller nationalities?

Personally, I think making Europe into a collection of megastates each amounting to the Austro-Hungarian Empire writ large, in the age of nationalism (as long as we are still talking about circa 1900), is a par excellence example of asking for trouble and risking continent-wide instability.

But that's probably just me.

@Skallagrim

However, students in your ATL world will curse you every time they have a European geography quiz. All those poor secondary school students, trying to color in the map only to realize to their horror that there aren't enough color pencils and they accidentally coloured two small principalities together, forcing them to reprint the whole mess.

I'd wager having to learn so detailed maps in school would be as likely as Europeans currently learning the provinces and towns of foreign nations in detail - that is, not likely at all. Probably the smaller statelets would be teached mainly as bigger groupings, roughly the size of OTL nations, according to political, cultural or linguistic unifying features.

 

[Skallagrim]

@Skallagrim

However, students in your ATL world will curse you every time they have a European geography quiz. All those poor secondary school students, trying to color in the map only to realize to their horror that there aren't enough color pencils and they accidentally coloured two small principalities together, forcing them to reprint the whole mess.

It'll sharpen their minds and improve both their fine motor skills and attention to detail. They'll thank me in the end!


But a bit more seriously, I rather imagine it like boxes stacked one in another. For instance, I know this fellow who lives in the municipality of Tubbergen, in the province of Overijssel, in the Netherlands, which is of course in the EU. Nearly all laws and regulations that apply to him are made on the national level, and ever more is in fact decided by the EU (often indirectly, by determining which laws national governments must implement via directives, but sometimes more directly, via EU-regulations). The provinces and municipalities have practically zero autonomy. In fact, the municipalities in the country have been forced to merge into ever larger "fusion municipalities". Tubbergen, for instance, consists of ten formerly autonomous townships (and three hamlets).

Now we get to my alternative. My friend lives in the township of Geesteren. Rather than in the quite-recently-invented province Overijssel, that township would be located within the ancient shire of Twente. Which in turn is one of the westernmost areas of the Mark of Westphalia. Which is part of (Low) Saxony-- which is a member state of the great big European Confederation. In this model, every township is its own municipality again. Most of the laws and regulations are made there, locally, by the people of the community, preferably in some sort to confederal-Switzerland-style popular assembly. Anything too big to be handled by the township is handled by the shire. Only things too big/complex for that get dealt with on the level of the Mark (or whatever the equivalent is elsewhere). Very, very few things get handled on an even higher level (so there's only a handful of laws that apply to all Saxons), and the over-arching Confederation is only there to deal with foreign affairs, the military and the security of fundamental human rights for all its inhabitants.

So from a Tubbergen-Overijssel-Netherlands-EU system where nearly all political power is at the top, we go to a Geesteren-Twente-Westphalia-Saxony-EC system where nearly all power is right at the bottom. The idea being that Geesteren could at ant time vote to secede from Twente and joing another shire. And that Twente could vote to secede from Westphalia (and join nearby Engria, for instance). And that if Twente opts to secede, some of its townships could vote to countersecede (because, hey, they might like living in Westphalia). The main point is that whatever happens, the will of some distant majority has as little influence as possible on any local community. Self-determination is localised. You hold your political destiny in your own hands again, and the people who make like 80% of the laws live next door, rather than in a distant capital you rarely even visit.

Still, in spite of all that decentralist fervour, I rather suspect that just as @DrakonFin pointed out, only the youthful school-going inhabitants of Saxony itself will be taught in class where exactly Geesteren and Twente are. A student in Wallachia, for instance, would likely only be taught where Saxony and Westphalia are, and what the major cities are.

(Why, yes-- I have given this some thought. )