"Occitania" is latin, the direct equivalent to "Languedoc" in French.
Not exactly : Occitania (as in "Pars Occitaniae") is an hybridation of "Aquitainia" and "Oc" to designate the region, stressing Capetian claims over southern France, and had a vague definition until the XIVth. It does have a linguistical component, but is quite political and in relation with the Kingdom of France (basically it was claimed that the French king ruled both Occitania and Oilitania: the concept, obviously, didn't last)
"Langudeoc" comes from other uses such as "Patria Lingua Occitaniae" (the land of the Occitan language), but stress more the linguistical part, which is understable as Estates Generals up to the late XVth were divided in French speaking and Occitan-speaking assemblies.
Eventually, as Capetians took more and more Occitanophone regions, Occitania fell into disuse in favour of expanded regional names as Gascony, while Languedoc was "specialized" into the regions first conquered (and without a clear toponym even in the XIIth, apart Tolsan).
So, indeed, both names have a common origin, aren't entierly similar in use altough largely overlapping themselves : but Occitania does predate Languedoc.
The idea of a linguistic divide is not however only a Capetian creation.
Which was not what was argued : Catalan linguistic differenciation is a by-product of the establishment of Barcelonese and Aragonese chanceries and the firmly established and definitive political differenciation.
While the Crusade was certainly the last and more radical last straw on this regard, it's likely IMO that Catalan would have gone a similar way than Bearnese (a sub-dialect of Gascon) in Navarre-Bearn, that is its own chancery and intellectual basis, making it quite distinct up to the XVIIth century. See, the distinction between transpyrenean and cispyrenean Occitan comes from a long way that can be traced at least from the Xth century (geopolitically wise) and the
Great Southern War (which is a conflict barely known, but basically it's a Occitan HYW that last from the XIIth to the very early XIIIth century between the Raimondins and the House of Barcelona, with Trencavel and other lords switching sides, and Plantagenets and Caetians playing guests stars) was another sign of this growing distinction.
Count Raymond VII of Toulouse did grant to the consuls of Toulouse the right of repraisal against "men of our language" taking the side of the Crusaders. He did not use any political/feudal distinction ("fideles nostri"), but a cultural/linguistic one.
Which is a bit irrelevant : at this point, the problem in Toulouse was that a part of the population was supporting Crusaders (for exemple, the White Company led by the bishop) and the city had to deal with this kind of disorder. Toulouse being a remarkably free city, a part of the population was
It says nothing about the differenciation between Occitan and Catalan.
As Languedoc kept its own institution until the modern era (States Generals, written law instead of customary law, fiscal autonomy etc)
You're mixing a lot of stuff there.
- Estates Generals were a general gathering of notables, which were divided on French and Occitan speaking assemblies (and not specifically Languedoc), and they were merged in 1484.
- Provincial Estates tended to became, from the XVIth onwards, administrative chambers rather than deliberative (or even less representative), and suppletive/supportive of the bureaucratic state, rather than autonomies. The same could be said about the Particular Estates (sort of sub-Provincial Estates) which were both plethoric and not that relevant in Languedoc.
- Fiscal autonomy was technically coming from Provincial Estates, but in truth, were more issued from the balance of power between nobility and royal authority (such as the conflict between Richelieu and Montmorency highlights).
- Written Law, such as the Custom of Toulouse, was only formalized during the Crusade, by Simon de Montfort. Not that you didn't have written codex, but it was rather a mix of Theodosian and Alaric Laws applied diversly.
There's other apparatus in Languedoc (or, arguably, in all the regions of France as it was far from being a sole case), but the rule is that by the XVth onwards, they're growingly symbolic, tied to the royal state apparatus, heavily frenchified, and not really identitarian based.
This is the great misunderstanding on this board and the Anglo-American members particulary about the Ancien Régime administration ; these institutions were created in stages, by the royal power, as for its affirmation.
if early modern France went a different, proto-parliamentary, way,
If it was the case, it would be with a Parliment of Paris which would be hegemonic, and with fewer regional Parliments being created.
Your best chance would be to have the equivalent of a 1940s-German style total defeat, with the victorious allies carving out the south of France in to another state.
The problem is that, the time for a totalitarian regime to appear, you have to wait the XIXth century at best. And at this point, French identity is firmly rooted in southern France. Again, people there should accept that languages doesn't make a national or ethnic identity, would it be for southern France, Asturias, Alsace-Moselle, Wallonia, Low German, etc.
How strong were 16th century national identities in most villages anyway?
Before the contemporary era, and what it carried in manners of cultural transmission (education, mass-medias, etc.) the cultural transformation is a matter of elites : upper and middle classes, essentially.
Pointing that remote villages doesn't participate to the movement in the XVIth, and therefore there is no national identity is as intellectually dishonest than arguing that before the XIXth you had no firm political affirlation in lower classes and therefore no firm political affiliation.
For what matter the XVIth century, when you look at which languages are sued by these upper and middle classes (essentially French), how they kept referring to themselves (it's not Languedocian), on which state apparatus they were growingly tied (there's no real alternative, so the answer is obvious), etc. It's pretty much clear which the identity was where it mattered.
I mentioned above the
Provinces de l'Union, which were an attempt at political regionalism during the Wars of Religion (in 1573 exactly) and that, besides encountering only a weak support at best, never advanced the idea of a distinct identity but at the contrary upheld the idea of a royal rule supported by provincial assemblies.
These things can come out of nowhere if the political structures change.
Not in the contemporary era : a nation, or even a regional identity, is built on the sense of common history, territory (in the broad sense, could be vague geography or economic horizon) and language (again, in the broad sense, it doesn't ask much for considering your dialect is very, very different from another one, even if pretty close). Of course it's tied up with political change and the presence of a distinct state apparatus (or a potential state apparatus).
It doesn't come out of nowhere, or PoD=random stuff happens, but is an historical and social build-up. You can't just assume it would appear out of thin air.
A strong cultural spread of Catalan language and culture in Languedoc (i.e. Cultural hegemony). It would replace Occitan or whatever it remained with Catalan as the prestige language and cultural medium.
At this point, tough, it would lead pretty lead to a re-occitanisation of Catalan, as such a cultural spread would imply a political control of at least part of Languedoc.
Rather than Visca el Llenduadoc independent (keeping in mind that Languedoc as a toponym is a by-product of the Capetian takeover), we would rather have something akin to
Que Viva le Lengadoc Independent!
Que Viva(as in the old "Viva Tolosa", altough I kept the "que" in order to mirror Visca which does exist in Lengadocian, but would be seen as a pedantism)
Le (Tolosan/Lower Languedoc system of definite article)
Lengadoc
Independent
Actually, Provencals also called themselves Catalans..
I never saw it, actually. Don't you confuse with either the fact that Barcelonese took over Provence several times, or with the fact that Catalan sometimes called themselves Pro(v)encals (as it was customary in a large part of the Occitan-speaking ensemble)?
Then to simplify, is it possible to preserve the Occitan sub-languages as the predominantly spoken language in Southern France, and/or the reduction of Catalan to a state resembling modern Occitan?
As others had pointed out, the distinction between Catalan and Occitan is political : roman languages spoken one side of the frontier were called "occitan", while the neighbours south of the line spoke "catalan". So, any "Catalan spread" in southern France would be because the Counts of Barcelona actually succeeded in putting the Toulouse and the Trencavel under their authority.
I mostly agree, but this is not really going to happen unless we tweak enough with the Xth century. Southern France was particularily divided territorially, due to the War of Succession of Auvergne/Aquitaine in the Xth century (which more or less broke the region into three distinct political ensemble : Auvergne, Aquitaine, Tolsan), the conflicts between Toulouse and Barcelone in the XIth/XIIth century, and the Great Southern War, aformentioned.
While Barcelone maintained a certain unity, when Raimondins attempted it, it provoked a set of nasty conflicts, as the region was simply too divided to really be more than locally unified. Think Italy in Middle-Ages scale.
The only reason why Raimondins acknwoledged Peire II's authority in 1212 was because they needed an ally and that the French king refused to take sides even when asked. On a political takeover sense, neither Raimondins and Barcelonese/Aragonese had a real possibility putting this, especially as their conflict already began to create a distinction.
Now, it's not impossible to see an Occitan principalty pulling a Milan and at least attempting to form a regional hegemony with enough luck. Truth to be told,
@phil03 is working on such TL (I really should focus on making the skeleton of the tl this week) with a PoD during the Crusade.
