I live in the UK, we have a german language as our main language and various celtic languages as minor languages.
The Cornish speakers of cornwall were nor crying out for Breton to become the language of choice in England.
The Silver Knight, a Lithuania Timeline
- Thread starter Augenis
- Start date
I live in the UK, we have a german language as our main language and various celtic languages as minor languages.
The Cornish speakers of cornwall were nor crying out for Breton to become the language of choice in England.
Are the Cornish (Breton) speakers the majority in England? No?
From all I know, they are the tiny minority in England.
But the Slavic speakers are the majority in Vishegrad.
These measures will revitalize french republic and Constantin Gounelle seems to make what he want so his party didn't seem to have any reason to stay in power so it's normal they loose power quickly without their leader and without purpose , but I am curious to see what party will succede in power.
Yes but they don't all speak the same Slavic languages, which is my point.
Bohemians being Slavic would prevent them joining a war against poles in your opinion. And the serbs and croats would automatically rebel in that situation because they'd rather be ruled by poles than Hungarians due to closer languages.
I was comparing that scenario to the situation in the uk where none of that ahs happened.
Like Breton is a celtic language they speak in France. Cornish, Welsh, manx, Scots gaelic and irish gaelic are celtic languages they speak in the uk.
In your metaphor if the Scottish and the Bretons were fighting against the English than the Welsh and Cornish wouldn't join against their fellow celts, except in history they did. No Cornish man has ever wanted welsh or Breton rule rather than English rule.
And when the irish rebelled against the English, the welsh and Scottish were disproportionately represented in the armies that fought them rather than refusing to fight their celtic brothers. And you didn't really ever see sympathetic pan celtic rebellions.
You seem to view language families as the be all and end all when it comes to loyalties. And I don't think that's true in real life.
Also have to remember Ireland now speaks English even through the vast majority of the population has always been Irish. Other factors such as prosperity, trickle down from above and government policy can change a regions language without changing its ethnic makeup.
Switzerland does OK as well with German , French and Italian as national languages , Belgium has French and Flemish so having multiple languages is not an issue that breaks up countries.
Switzerland does OK as well with German , French and Italian as national languages , Belgium has French and Flemish so having multiple languages is not an issue that breaks up countries.
Last edited:
Well, you're probably from England, I guess, and your language is English, I presume.
That makes it pretty hard to explain my point to you.
But I'll try.
You, the Englishmen don't have the related languages which are mutually intelligible with your language, English. From all I know, the Frisian languages are the closest living language group to the English language; but they are not mutually intelligible with English.. The other West Germanic languages are not also mutually intelligible with English.
Now I want you to be very attentive:
- the Slavic languages are not only related languages but they are mostly mutually intelligible (especially neighboring Slavic languages).
So in Vishegrad it's not important that the Slavs don't all speak the same Slavic language, the point is that any Slavic language chosen as the official Vishegradian language is intelligible for any Vishegradian Slav.
* Sorry for the bold text here, but I explained this a dozen times in this thread, and kind of losing hope to make clear this peculiarity of the Slavic languages. It seems to be an exercise in futility to explain the phenomena of mutually intelligible related languages to the people(s) who don't have mutually intelligible related languages. I am kind of getting desperate here...
Last edited:
No, no, no, no, language family is not all and end all when it comes to loyalties.
I just highlighted one issue (the linguistic language question) in order not to get things too complicated.
I am pretty certain, that the linguistic situation in Vishegrad is pretty aggravated by the religious differences tearing this Union apart. You may ask a topic starter to be more specific on that.
But on the other hand, it's the end of the XVIII century in Vishegrad, it's time when ethnic issues are becoming important.
How long did it take? Millenium? Half of millenium?
And if I remember correctly most of the time the English didn't have to ask the Irish, the English treated the Irish in the most brutal way mostly.
But now in Vishegrad we have a liberal government, constitution, etc. The Hungarians cannot genocide the Slavs to teach them a lesson. The Slavs have 200 seats in the central Vishegradian parliament and the Hungarians have only 100 seats. So constitutionally the Slavs have the upper hand in the Union's parliament.
I am afraid it became an issue, try google search if you don't trust me on that.
That's the only exception. As they say: "if it is one exception it does prove the rule".
They do say that but the phrase means that the existence of an exception confirms that the rule applies in cases not excepted.
It's a latin legal term which says that if you say 'the sons of roman citizens are given special dispensation to enter this town' it implies that other non roman citizens cannot enter it.
So for instance if the King of Visograd was to say 'Hungarian soldiers do not have to learn a Slavic language to serve in Poland' that exception would prove that all other non Slavic soldiers (germans, etc.) would have to.
That's what the term means.
Ok, you're right here. That was written too binding, too obligating. My bad.
So I edited my post, to put it in milder terms:
I am afraid you misunderstood me here. I guess I am to blame. English is not my first language, so sometimes it's difficult to get what I mean, I am nebulous, unclear and fuzzy sometimes. Especially when in rush.
What I meant was:
- there is one example in the history of the humankind - Switzerland, where the nations live in peace and harmony with no problem about language of government and ethnicities, and no linguistic problems - one big happy family; that is an exception to the general rule.
- there are literally thousands of examples of countries in which different ethnicities/nations/peoples don't (didn't) get on too well and where there are/were linguistic language problems; that is a general rule.
Ummmm.
Got quite a few problems with your post, to be honest.
First of all, I think the Swiss won`t consider themselves as four different ethnicities or nations, but as one nation.
Secondly, I think there`s a good helping of nationalsit fallacy here. Looking at pre-1800 history gives you thousands of examples of countries where different ethnicity and languages were not an important problem at all, and even after 1800, when the ugly ideology of nationalism has infected the planet, there`s still plenty of examples of linguistically and ethnically heterogeneous societies where conflicts are not necessarily along these lines.
Many countries which could be invoked as examples of conflict along ethno-linguistic lines could at the same time be quoted as examples of peaceful co-existence, just by choosing which groups you focus on. Look at former Yugoslavia: the violence between Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Kosovarians, and the former three are arguably speaking the same language, too - but then again, there`s peaceful coexistence between speakers of Serbian and Hungarian in Serbia. Or take Russia. For every ethnic conflict à la Chechens, you have dozens of ethnic groups from the Far Siberian East to the North-West who leave peacefully together. Or India: while there`s certainly conflict along politico-religious lines, just look at the hundreds of languages and ethnic groups living together without ever having fought a nationalist war against each other. Really, Switzerland is no exception at all.
Ok. It depends on your definition of nation, ethnicity, people (and this definition is a controversial complicated issue among academical historians now).
But my point was that there is a country where there are several groups, speaking different mutually unintelligible languages. And in this country they don't have any linguistic language problems at all whatsoever. One big happy family for many centuries... which is an exception to the general rule of history.
Ummmm, I do hope I made myself clear this time
I never said that the conflicts inside the countries are necessarily along linguistic and ethnic lines. Never.
The difference between Russia and Vishegrad is that in Russia the official language is Slavic and the majority is Slavic speaking; in Vishegrad the official language is Hungarian but the majority is Slavic speaking.
See the difference?
And there are problems between different groups speaking different languages, serious problems.
I am a Russian, I live in Russia, I know.
There are no nationalistic wars so far (god forbid). But the situation may blow up any minute. Actually it did blow up a few times with real street fights between groups, speaking different languages, whole towns paralyzed for days; it was suppressed by extensive use of special services and special police units. You may search using google, preferably BBC pages, they're most reliable. If you cannot find - ask me.
Ye, they did not fight a nationalistic war.
I hate to disappoint you, but there are problems between Indian groups speaking different languages. They are mostly under surface; but some say, that India might not survive as a single country because of that; it might break apart like Spain might disintegrate.
So it is not one big happy family, sorry again.
And Hindi speakers are the overwhelming majority if compared to any other Indian linguistic group; so in India they have a distinct undisputed language majority, they are the backbone of the country. (I know that there are other official languages in India, before you ask; and I know that there are a few definitions of Hindi, complicated as it is).
And in order not to repeat myself and save some breath for my porridge:
I want to highlight that I never said that the countries with linguistic language problems are destined to fight nationalistic wars, to disintegrate, go down in flames, no, no.
My point concerning Vishegrad situation was - the Hungarians are a minority, but the Hungarian language is an official language of the Union; the Slavs are the majority, but they have to learn Hungarian (totally unrelated language); that is a relic from the Vishegradian imperial non-liberal past and that might cause the problem.
Last edited:
That's why I said, some consider India doomed to disintegrate.
Language problem is a serious shit.
edit: And when I said 'majority' I meant that they are the biggest linguistic group if compared to any other Indian linguistic group. I know, that Hindi speakers may not make 51% of the total India's population.
Last edited:
OK, @Russian , we`ll have to agree to disagree. Of course I´m not saying that there`s never any conflict along ethno-linguistic lines. In my view, though, this is to a very large degree an outflow of the nationalism of the past 220+ years, and overemphasising it, even in the context of alternate history, is only doing the job of the nationalist arsonists: namely to make it appear like a universal, quasi-natural phenomenon, instead of one purposefully created by specific groups who, in OTL, had specific aims.
But we ought not derail this thread. It`s Augenis`s timeline, and an awesome one at that, too. If necessary, let´s discuss the question of historicity vs. universality of ethnic conflicts and the question of the inherent instability of states in which the elites speak a different language from that of the majority of the population in a separate thread.
But we ought not derail this thread. It`s Augenis`s timeline, and an awesome one at that, too. If necessary, let´s discuss the question of historicity vs. universality of ethnic conflicts and the question of the inherent instability of states in which the elites speak a different language from that of the majority of the population in a separate thread.
I feel like my take on this is that most countries aren't stable whether they are multi lingual or not.
Like if Belgium, India and Canada aren't stable in your view point are North Korea, Colombia and Somalia, which are countries which are much more monolingual?
Do I think Visograd, the Ottomans and Lithuania have a chance of collapsing due to their multi lingual nature? Yes, I do.
Do I also think more monolingual countries like south Germania could also collapse? Yes that too.
Running a country is tough. A lot of them fall into internal conflict. It's always a risk, no matter who you are.
Like if Belgium, India and Canada aren't stable in your view point are North Korea, Colombia and Somalia, which are countries which are much more monolingual?
Do I think Visograd, the Ottomans and Lithuania have a chance of collapsing due to their multi lingual nature? Yes, I do.
Do I also think more monolingual countries like south Germania could also collapse? Yes that too.
Running a country is tough. A lot of them fall into internal conflict. It's always a risk, no matter who you are.
Well then, if some of you didn't notice, I released a new chapter in the last page.
While technically correct This really means something more like in front or ahead (just FYI)
Great update I'm loving the way this to is progressing
Actually it's Scots and we all know is how well the English and the Scots get along
Special Chapter: The Outpost of Liberty
Special Chapter
The Outpost of Liberty
The Free State was founded in 1762 after a bloody war of independence, and while it started out as a subservient state under the Netherlands, this overlord relationship was not meant to last. Vespucia successfully broke it's ties with the homeland in 1775, during the heat of the German Revolutionary Wars, when the Netherlands were on the brink of bankruptcy and far more focused on the possibility of a French or German invasion. The VFS was one of the few nations in the world who openly supported Germania and it's struggle for independence - after all, the Vespucians still remembered their Liberty Legion and how it helped them acquire independence - which almost drew them into a war with France after Germania's capitulation. But both countries were quick to realize that such a war would be meaningless because of the vast distances and oceans involved, so in the end, the European powers left Vespucia alone, even though it was in many ways just as radical as Germania itself.
Much like many European countries, Vespucia moved forward towards constitutional law - however, she was, in fact, the first in the world to do so. The Constitutional Act of the Free State was signed by the Vespucian Assembly in 1775, and among many other things, it established the system of government of the republic. The highest authority in the nation was the Democrat of the Free State of Vespucia, the head of state, elected by popular vote every four years. The Assembly believed that a democracy is the complete opposite of a monarchy, and thus, if a monarchy (autocracy) is ruled by a monarch (autocrat), a democracy must be ruled by a democrat. Under the requirements of the division of power, the Democrat would have to share his powers with the Assembly (Vergadering), a single-house parliament and the legislative organ of the nation, elected through proportional party representation a month after the Democratic Election. A number of other organs of the system were also created, like an independent court system and administrative divisions.
In VFS's first democratic election in 1778, the race boiled down to two main candidates - the head of the Vespucian Assembly and the first man to sign the Constitutional Act, Florentijn Nije Blokvoort, representing the more moderate forces within the country, and an officer from the Independence War, Jan-Willem Nijhout, representing the radical Republican faction. Being a much more experienced politician and campaigner, Blokvoort won the election with 54% of the vote, becoming Vespucia's first Democrat.
Florentijn Nije Blokvoort, first Democrat of the Free State
Despite it's name implying control over the entire continent, the VFS was an isolationist state. Far from the concert in Europe and untouched by the Revolutionary Wars and the Paris System, it saw the Old World as none of it's business, especially when there were vast untamed lands to the west to take care of beforehand. Vespucia's western expansion started out as a necessity - from it's creation, it was a very attractive land to immigrants and refugees, it was a land of opportunity and liberty, where there are no oppressive autocracies, long military service, slavery or serfdom, wars or conflicts... By 1850, the Free State's population had tripled due to high immigration and some natalist policies, and since the East Coast was not enough to feed this rapidly rising population, expanding west was a natural answer. The first Vespucian settlers crossed the Appalachians in the 1780s, conflicting with the local natives who were usually just left alone by the Dutch. As VFS pushed more and more west, it soon came into conflict with Spain and it's colony Luisiana. Spain claimed a large portion of the lands around the river Mississippi, and even wished to take over all of the Great Plains, even if their resources and budget didn't allow it. Vespucia, meanwhile, also wanted to take control over the river. In 1809, this resulted in the outbreak of a war between Spanish Luisiana and the Vespucia Free State, dubbed the Second Dutch-Spanish War, a large-scale conflict in the plains and Appalachians. In the next three years, the Vespucian Army successfully defeated it's opponent, securing complete control over the upper Mississippi and nearby Spanish claims, and the Europeans were eventually forced to sue for peace.
The Second Dutch-Spanish War was the first war the VFS won after it's establishment, and it helped secure it's position as a strong secondary power in the Vespucias - not to mention that it caused the beginning of the disintegration of the Spanish colonial empire. Vespucia was free to expand even beyond.
---
The next chapter will be about a new colonial empire.