Impact of Language on Culture

Well, first, excuse any noobages; as much I like history and linguistics,I do not have any formal study on them. Bear with me:p

I've been thinking about the impact of language on a frontier zone and its cultural effects. How much a different language would change the culture/ethos of a certain group?

For example: how much difference would it make if the Prussians haven't been Germanized, much like Courland/Livonia/Estonia? How different would Saxony be with a Slavic/Lusatian-speaking substract? How different was Cantabria/Asturias from basque-speaking Navarre? What difference would a Uralic Norway or a Germanic Hungary make?

I'm not talking about changing the royal lines, but merely changing the language of the populace. Would it have any difference on history before the age of Romantic Nationalism?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Well, first, excuse any noobages; as much I like history and linguistics,I do not have any formal study on them. Bear with me:p

I've been thinking about the impact of language on a frontier zone and its cultural effects. How much a different language would change the culture/ethos of a certain group?

For example: how much difference would it make if the Prussians haven't been Germanized, much like Courland/Livonia/Estonia? How different would Saxony be with a Slavic/Lusatian-speaking substract? How different was Cantabria/Asturias from basque-speaking Navarre? What difference would a Uralic Norway or a Germanic Hungary make?

I'm not talking about changing the royal lines, but merely changing the language of the populace. Would it have any difference on history before the age of Romantic Nationalism?

No, cultural the Czech are more like their German neighbours than their Slavic cousins, the Lowlands and the German-parts of Lorraine had more in common with the French than with their easten countrymens. The Westen Latins carry clear traces of their Germanic conquers in their culture, while their easten relatives have more in common with Greeks, Slavs and Turks.
 
Last edited:
No, cultural the Czech are more like their German neighbours than their Slavic cousins, the Lowlands and the German-parts of Lorraine had more in common with the French than with their easten countrymens. The Westen Latins carry clear traces of their Germanic concuers in their culture, while their easten relatives have more in common with Greeks, Slavs and Turks.

Very interesting, I suspected the Czechs werehiding something:p.

But, cultural influence of conquerors aside, would it make any difference pre-XIXth century if the Netherlands were Romance-speaking, Bohemia-Moravia German-speaking, northern Spain basque-speaking, Greece Slavic-speaking (or Albanian-speaking), North Italy Germanic-speaking or Austria Slavic-speaking? How much does the language, and the language alone, would influence on said culture, prior to romantic nationalism?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Very interesting, I suspected the Czechs werehiding something:p.

But, cultural influence of conquerors aside, would it make any difference pre-XIXth century if the Netherlands were Romance-speaking, Bohemia-Moravia German-speaking, northern Spain basque-speaking, Greece Slavic-speaking (or Albanian-speaking), North Italy Germanic-speaking or Austria Slavic-speaking? How much does the language, and the language alone, would influence on said culture, prior to romantic nationalism?

Very little, people who spoke Polish as their first language called themself Germans without anybody caring, Charles V spoke French first, but saw himself as German, Germans celebrated their Danish heritage in Schleswig-Holstein, (some) Danish speakers in Schleswig saw and still see themselves as Germans. Language has little to do with culture, the Hungarians is as cultural Indo-European as the rest of us, even through their language ain't related to Indo-European in any form, the West Slavs has adopted many cultural traits from their westen neighbours.
 
I've been thinking about the impact of language on a frontier zone and its cultural effects. How much a different language would change the culture/ethos of a certain group?

For example: how much difference would it make if the Prussians haven't been Germanized, much like Courland/Livonia/Estonia? How different would Saxony be with a Slavic/Lusatian-speaking substract? How different was Cantabria/Asturias from basque-speaking Navarre? What difference would a Uralic Norway or a Germanic Hungary make?

I'm not talking about changing the royal lines, but merely changing the language of the populace. Would it have any difference on history before the age of Romantic Nationalism?

None whatsoever!
Empires were conglomerates without problems before Nationalism. At least as long as subjects would remember as to who they owed allegience!
Language wasn't the cultural barrier it is often viewed as today BECAUSE of Nationalism.

Example:
Denmark in the 18. century was a conglomerate of Danish, German and various Norwegian dialect speakers.
The King of Denmark was the Monarch who was also King of Norway, Duke of Slesvig and Holstein as well as Count of Oldenburg.
State administrative language was German, the army was commanded in German except the Guards who were Norwegians(mostly) commanded in Danish. The Navy was commanded in Danish.
Nobility used French as their daily language as did diplomats, everybody(well almost) of importance spoke German and only peasants only their native tongue.
This had been the norm of 800 years. (of course the lingua franca being Latin earlier)
 

Susano

Banned
Very little, people who spoke Polish as their first language called themself Germans without anybody caring, Charles V spoke French first, but saw himself as German, Germans celebrated their Danish heritage in Schleswig-Holstein, (some) Danish speakers in Schleswig saw and still see themselves as Germans. Language has little to do with culture, the Hungarians is as cultural Indo-European as the rest of us, even through their language ain't related to Indo-European in any form, the West Slavs has adopted many cultural traits from their westen neighbours.

I think Charles V saw himself as Burgundian foremost. Maybe even rather Spanish than German. Still of course your point stands - to a degree. Especially in Europe, language has always been a national identity giver. Of course, it does make little difference if the Netherlands speak a Germanic or a Romance language, as long as its an own language. If Bohemia spoke German, then there might still be an own Czech identity (like with the mostly anglophone Irish) - or there might not be. It can really go both ways... so, language CAN be important, but its not really tied to culture.
 
Very interesting, I suspected the Czechs werehiding something:p.

But, cultural influence of conquerors aside, would it make any difference pre-XIXth century if the Netherlands were Romance-speaking, Bohemia-Moravia German-speaking, northern Spain basque-speaking, Greece Slavic-speaking (or Albanian-speaking), North Italy Germanic-speaking or Austria Slavic-speaking? How much does the language, and the language alone, would influence on said culture, prior to romantic nationalism?
Honestly, IMO it would make a huge difference. Not because the language of the peasants mattered, but mainly because the butterflies required to instigate these changes would have to be large enough or far enough in the past to radically alter the time period you are focusing on.
 
Honestly, IMO it would make a huge difference. Not because the language of the peasants mattered, but mainly because the butterflies required to instigate these changes would have to be large enough or far enough in the past to radically alter the time period you are focusing on.

Exactly.

Different language distribution implies a different past - whether conquests, migrations or social trends. Ergo if the languages are different, the history is likewise.

A more true test would be to hire some ASBs to mix up some language distribution while not changing much else the moment before your PoD.
 
None whatsoever!

Very little

Honestly, IMO it would make a huge difference. Not because the language of the peasants mattered, but mainly because the butterflies required to instigate these changes would have to be large enough or far enough in the past to radically alter the time period you are focusing on.

Different language distribution implies a different past - whether conquests, migrations or social trends. Ergo if the languages are different, the history is likewise.

A more true test would be to hire some ASBs to mix up some language distribution while not changing much else the moment before your PoD.

Well, it seems the debate is wether butterflies should really take that hard stance. While at first thought I may agree the possibilities of history taking the same course, given different dynamics between peoples, prior to the XVIIIth, XIXth century, some exceptions givens, socio-cultural changes that don't affect the bulk of the nobility aren't that noticeable. Either way, there's artistic license for a fictionized world, ain't it?:D
 
I've been thinking about the impact of language on a frontier zone and its cultural effects. How much a different language would change the culture/ethos of a certain group?

I would think that it would depend on the type of external influences on the parent language. For example, say that there was a Swedish colony in the Americas. Naturally, the Swedish that develops in the Americas is going be a bit different, since Swedish at the time didn't have words to describe things that were uniquely 'American', i.e. "chipmunk", "toboggan", etc. However, if the Native American influences become strong enough (combined with other external influences and some internal development within this Swedish), it might transform this 'American' Swedish into a dialect or even a full-fledged language in its own right.

In the end, though, I think it will be the culture that will dictate the usage of any speech. Culture influences language a lot; the converse could be true in some cases, but that's it.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I would think that it would depend on the type of external influences on the parent language. For example, say that there was a Swedish colony in the Americas. Naturally, the Swedish that develops in the Americas is going be a bit different, since Swedish at the time didn't have words to describe things that were uniquely 'American', i.e. "chipmunk", "toboggan", etc. However, if the Native American influences become strong enough (combined with other external influences and some internal development within this Swedish), it might transform this 'American' Swedish into a dialect or even a full-fledged language in its own right.

In the end, though, I think it will be the culture that will dictate the usage of any speech. Culture influences language a lot; the converse could be true in some cases, but that's it.

A lot of very good points.

Afrikaans comes in like that. With the Boer people, language was really their primary unifying force. It was influenced very much by the English and Zulu that they encountered, so even though it came from Dutch, it did change after they got to the Cape.
The same could be said about the Basques in Spain, or the Quebecois in Canada. Language in those places has in a way stood in for nationhood.
 
Well, it seems the debate is wether butterflies should really take that hard stance. While at first thought I may agree the possibilities of history taking the same course, given different dynamics between peoples, prior to the XVIIIth, XIXth century, some exceptions givens, socio-cultural changes that don't affect the bulk of the nobility aren't that noticeable. Either way, there's artistic license for a fictionized world, ain't it?:D
But my point was that the nobility (in most cases) was drawn from the people. IE Saxon nobility in Saxony, Aquitainian nobility in Aquitaine, Italian nobility in Italy, etc. Any change that led to a different people in a territory would thus lead to an altered nobility.
 
But my point was that the nobility (in most cases) was drawn from the people. IE Saxon nobility in Saxony, Aquitainian nobility in Aquitaine, Italian nobility in Italy, etc. Any change that led to a different people in a territory would thus lead to an altered nobility.

Not always - a lot of nobility in Denmark, Sweden, the Baltic states etc. was actually of German descend.

Remember nobility went where the ruler would grant them office, estates and wealt in return of services provided!

This was the real era of opportunity (if you were of noble birth) and could provide something of value like political or financiel or military skill! In that case there was no boundaries and you would be able to rule peoples anywhere in the world.
Remember:
Diplomats, Monarchs and Nobility communicate in French. Military and administration in German (well in central and nothern Europe :D). And only rabble use the native tongue - and we don't like to mess with the rabble, do we then?
 
For much of history, it didn't make that much difference. But with the 19th century, with the rise of nationalism (Herder-style) it started making a much bigger difference, because people decided it would in many places. So linguistic minorities weren't a big problem for the Hapsburgs until then.

Interesting that this wasn't true everywhere, though, as earlier posts point out. Plenty of times nation-states were disappointed that not everyone in the linguistic area ached to join Greater Whateveria. The Germans were genuinely surprised and disappointed that the Alsace-Lorraine German speakers never, in over 40 years, warmed to the Kaiserreich.
 
Top