Of course each of us — and I’d love to recruit more — should work on their own language(s) and be free to make their own decisions. Likewise with the alternative history. The thing about having a shared alternative world is not to take all decisions by committee — that would rather ruin the fun — but to ping-pong ideas about the various mighthavebeens. IMHO it is not even necessary to nail down what ‘actually’ happened in the ATL or get as full a picture of the world. After all the whole idea with ATLs is that time forks continually. Actually I think the most interesting results are reached with small occasional divergences from OTL, rather than big and drastic ones. It is tempting to try to set history right in an ATL, but it seldom leads to the most interesting, or believable, results since real history tends to be so very more complex than imagination can come up with.
The funny thing is that an earlier Roman split-up with less internal strife for supremacy might have made each part more consolidated and able to resist barbarian invasions, as well as given the barbarians less room for playing out different emperors against each other as Alaric did with such skill. A more advanced border to begin with in Germany would of course have meant fever barbarians to deal with, since Franks, Longobards and Alamans would have been Romans already! Still eastern Suebians, Goths, Huns and Vandals might have done their thing much like in OTL.
Indeed there need not be any difference at all in Roman history before the Constantinians1, except for the different outcome in Germania late in the reign of Augustus. Indeed nothing need go different even if the border Julian had to defend had been the Elbe rather than the Rhine, except that the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain and the Longobard one of Italy would never have happened, and of course that Germany and Britain would have been Romance- speaking! But what, then might have caused a Romance language on an Anglic substrate to be spoken in Britain? A large number of Germanic troops in Roman Britain might of course do the trick with minimal difference in the course of history. But the idea of a breakaway pagan-reactionary Julian empire in Germany which expells its Christians, with those from the north going to Britain, is alluring!
Surely if the West Germanic tribes had been Romanized that would have reduced the extent and range of the migrations. True the Goths and Vandals of OTL toured almost all of the Roman world except northern Gaul which was only invaded over the Rhine ny the Franks and Burgundians. A more easterly border and Romanized West Germanians would surely mean that only the East Germanians would have migrated. Perhaps the Burgundians and Gepids would have ended up in Roman Germania, but likely they’d become Romanized in speech like the Franks in Gaul in OTL.
Gaul remains the most important Roman successor state in the West, largely untouched by invasions. Unlike OTL the south remains or becomes dominant. In MGR Gaul Tolosa is the place to be and the Oc language (GALLIENSEM > ? or GALLICANUM > ?) the one to speak. The Northern speech, nowise called French in MGR, is a patois, spelled according to southern conventions when written at all! The Normans eventually conquer the North, lending it what glory it briefly has. Germania is conquered by the Suabians but remains Latin in speech. Christianity never becomes dominant there, or at least takes longer, because Julian gets some three decades to set things the way he wants it there. Thus many Jews and Manicheans too in Germania/Suabia. Britain initially is cut loose from the empire like OTL, but no pagan invasion! Rather many Christians from northern Germany go there, bringing with them their ‘Anglian’ form of Latin. Brithenig in MGR too would be a blast!
-
There were actually nine males in the generation after Constantine I (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_dynasty ). Even if not all of them survive the possibility that the empire remains split in several parts is clearly there. ↩
You’re leaning against an open door there… The other big problem with major divergences is that change is cumulative, and the further away from form OTL you get, the harder events become to predict, and since language is affected by history and culture, that impacts on the conlang. As a lingusitic project, my view is the althistory is only relevant insofar as it is needed to give some context/bones to the language - how it came to be and roughly where it is going, so the althistory can be kept nice and fuzzy from my point of view.
My knowledge of Roman history is only rudimentary, but what you say seems to make sense.
As an alternative to a cohort of Emperors, I could also imagine a scenario where you have the OTL E/W split of the empire, but with a weak western Emperor becoming purely a figurehead as the various provinces assert more and more defacto indepndence from central control and gradually develop into separate states under the control of their respective Proconsuls. Sort of an early “Holy Roman Empire” (no pun intended). One can imagine a state of long term, low intensity civil war as the leaders of different provinces ‘act only to ensure the security and stability of the empire/emperor’ (i.e. vie for greater control for themselves and to keep other provinces in their place).
Perhaps instead of some of the babrian invasions we ‘lose’ in the ATL,we find instead the Romano-Franks find it necessary to march on Gallia, or the Lombards on Italia, to “restore the Emperor’s authority” or somesuch.
Or you could have it the other way round, Britain returns to a celtic/pagan religion, and Germania launches a missionary or military ‘crusade’ to restore them to the Roman Church.
Another alternative, the British Roman leader tires of the pretence of being a Roman ‘province’ and declares himself Emeperor of Brittannia and refuses to recognise Rome’s sovereignty, prompting an invasion and occupation from NW Europe to bring them back under Imperial ‘control’.
The one that migration that would be quite different and would need to be considered I think would be the Burgundians. We can explain away Franks moving into Northern Gaul, or Angles to Britain using something like discussed above. I don’t think any of the other migrations would affect the geographical area we are looking at, so we can just leave it all vague and fuzzy until someone decides they want to look at those areas in more detail.
There may even be no Northern French at all, but a larger Romano-Franconian area providing an ATL analogue to OTL-Dutch/Flemish that also includes OTL-Wallonian, -Picardian etc. All depends on what those Franks and Burgundians do!
My thoughts on possible language regions are on this sketch (the OTL political frontiers obviously have no bearing here, but serve as a familiar reference). I could forsee:
Brithenig would slot very nicely into this ATL as an alternative to Welsh. If the Romans never left Britain, the chance of Welsh bing a Roman tongue would increase a lot I’d say.
Pete
Comment by pete — 25 January, 2008 @ 17:01
Is this why you want IVLIVS running Germania, because it is only one behind AVGVSTVS? ;)
I’d have thoght there was a good case for PRINCEPS - I think that was an old title for the Emperors themselves, before they got grander ideas.
Or perhaps someone will like the idea of being DUX. Or maybe they will look North, or East, and realise anybody who is anybody these days is called REX (or perhaps *CUNINGU will sound better to their Germanic-ish ears. The Fins borrowed Kunningaz after all, and Kingship is a particularly German thing in these times).
DOMINU would probably be taking things too far, I don’t think Augustus would stand for that, even if he was just a figurehead. The Pope might have something to say about it too.
Comment by pete — 27 January, 2008 @ 21:25
It has just occured to me, that if the Empire’s border is at the Elbe, and it is Romano-German(ian)s who invade Britannia, they will not be Anglians (they lived further along the coast).
If you limit yourself to OTL invaders from within the ATL empire, you’re left with Saxons and Frisians.
Comment by pete — 28 January, 2008 @ 0:50
Titles of rulers
I want Julianus (sc. the Apostate) to run Germania, because he was the one among the Constantinians who averted a Germanic invasion across the Rhine OTL, so I think it would be a nice touch if he does the same at the Elbe in MGR.
<
dl>
was a somewhat lower administrative and/or military title in the late Empire:
I would not rule out that the Dux per Diocesem might come to the fore; it might even be likely!
Comment by melroch — 28 January, 2008 @ 21:40