Melroch @ Random » Alternate history

The origin of the Borgonzay or Rhodray language

melroch — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:26:54 +0000

The first Dieophí of Burgundy moved with the whole of his Vienese court and bureaucracy to Deujó and most notably brought along all his notaries and scribes, who continued to write in Vienay, and even took in new apprentices from the Vienay area or trained apprentices from Burgundy and Lojunay to write in the Vienay dialect. Thus the language of the royal chancery became Vienay with a strong Burgundian and in particular Lojunay admixture. Each new Dieophí before his father’s death served as count of Vienay and brought with him a fresh batch of Vienay scribes, secretaries and notaries at his ascension as duke of Burgundy. The move of the court to Lojú under the reign of the n^th Dieophí — motivated by a desire to keep a close check on the powerful patriarch of Lojú — could only strengthen the use of this hybrid Vienay, because the Lojunay dialect was closer to the Vienay dialect than the dialects of Burgundy proper. Inevitably however the misnomer Borgonzay ‘Burgundian’ became attached to this princely chancery language especially after the n^th Dieophí decreed that all courts, and parliaments throughout his domain, and the university of Deujó must use the language of the princely chancery. The patriarchal and episcopal chanceries soon had to follow suit as well.

Tags: Alternate history, burgundy, dialect, dieophí, Lucus, vienay

How Corsica and Sardinia became the Mediterranean Republic

melroch — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:34:35 +0000

Lucally the unification of Italy involved a mostly¹ failed attempt (by Garibaldi) at overthrowing and annexing the Sikelian empire. Most of the population of the empire were Greek (or rather Italiot) speaking, but there was widespread discontent with the rule of Napoleon’s brothers and nephews, who with the exception of Loukianos and his family had immaculately slipped into the rôle and behavior of a Byzantine imperial family, which Garibaldi seized on. In the end the end Garibaldi failed at gaining popular support, while Loukas Napoleon Kalomeros played out Sikeliot nationalism, lambasting Garibaldi as a Latinos foreigner. In the conundrum Corsica and Sardinia seized the chance to together declare a Mediterranean Republic, with the support of the Republic of Catalonia — still a considerable naval power in the Mediterranean —, thus each revolting against one of the combatants in the Italo-Sikelian conflict. The Mediterranean Republic managed to maintain its independence after the peace between Italy and Sikelia, since both of these laid claims to both islands, and neither wanted to disturb the peace by taking military action against the islands: each would have to pass through waters claimed by the other to get to the island each of them had controlled before the war, let alone their respective claims to the other island.

Garibaldi’s only claim to success in the Sikelian campain was his successfull support of popular uprisings in the Italian-speaking border regions of Molise and Foggia which thus went over to Italy. Petros Napoleon Kalomeros, who initially opposed his imperial relatives, mockingly nicknamed Garibaldi “The Latin Hannibal”. ↩

Tags: Kalomeros, Lucus, Sikelian empire

How Burgundy became Borgonze, part one

melroch — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:45:22 +0000

There were dynastic troubles for both Burgundy and Vienay in the early 14th century, but there was one important difference: Lucally there was no rule of priestly celibate in the western churches. Rather the rule was like in the OTL Orthodox churches: if a priest wanted to marry he had to do so before he got ordained. In the Gaulish churches even bishops could be married, and although bishoprics formally could not be inherited — bishops were elected by a college of presbyters and metropolites and patriarchs were elected by a college of bishops — in practice bishoprics were often conferred on a son or nephew of the previous bishop, especially if the bishop was also the secular ruler of his diocese. The most notable such prince-bishopric was Proence.

Thus Herrig Dieophí, bishop of Meç (OTL Henri Dauphin, bishop of Metz) was married to Mary, daughter of Duke Robert II of Burgundy. Just as OTL Guighe de Vienay died young and childless and was succeded by his brother Hombert II of Vienay. Hombert was incompetent and uninterested in government and left it to his uncle, bishop Herrig, and when Herrig died in 1349 the likewise childless Hombert abdicated in favor of Herrig’s (unordained) second son, also named Guighe (1320-1386), and when Philip I of Burgundy died of the plague in 1361 Guighe IX of Vienay also became Guighe I of Burgundy. Guighe realized that the war over the succession to the throne of France, raging between the houses of Burgundy, Normandy and Valois could not be won as long as it was an all on all war with three parties.

Guighe made explicit the tendency which had been discernible from the beginning by negotiating a treaty with Charles of Valois and Edward VI the Black, Earl of Norþhumberland. The treaty stipulated that Guighe, Charles and Edward would mutually recognise each other as kings of Burgundy, France and Yngland respectively and join forces against John IV of Normandy. In spite of John’s son — also — being an able warrior he soon saw himself thrown out of Yngland and struggling to defend Normandy itself. King John saw himself forced to negotiate a disastruous peace, renouncing his claims to the thrones of both Yngland and France, and leaving his remaining three possessions of Normandy, Aquitaine and Ulster to his grandsons (who were sons of three different fathers and thus cousins to each other), with Richard of Normandy and Richard of Aquitaine having to swear loyalty to Charles of France and Humphrey of Ulster having to swear loyalty te Edward of Yngland. It was hoped that the three cousins, who had not known each other during childhood, would feel little loyalty to each other, but that hope was only partly fulfilled.

However the peace held the germ of further conflict, since Guighe with the support of Edward, who was rewarded with the control of the Pale of Calis, insisted and succeeded in annexing Picardy, which had been occupied by Burgundy since early in the war, to Burgundy. Upon the death of Edward of Yngland in 1371 Charles of France attacked Burgundy, but it was not long before the two cousins Richard of Normandy and Aquitaine, now laying claim to the titles King of France and King of Aquitaine, attacked Charles’ domain. Thus the war in France was almost back where it had been at the peace nine years earlier. Charles’ only consolation was that Richard of Normandy also hoped to take control of Picardy and thus initially had no success in forming an alliance with Burgundy. Thus this later phase of the Humndred Years’ War is called the War of Picardy, and indeed Picardy was pillaged and ravaged by armies of the three rival powers for decades.

Charles of France tried to make an alliance with the young Edmund of Yngland and have him attack Normandy across the Channel, but Yngland was now embroiled in another conflict: Edward the Black’s assuming of the title King of Yngland had enraged king Haakon of Norway and Sweden, because the earls of Norþhumberland had since 1066 officially been vassals of the kings of Norway who had claimed the title of King of Yngland in competition with the dukes of Normandy. Haakon, having political troubles to the East as well as ongoing military trouble overseas in Vinland, had no resources to attack Yngland himself, but Robert II, the new King of Scotland, was more than willing to proclaim himself as representing Haakon’s interests, hoping to be able to negotiate control of the Orkneys and Shetland in return. There also was a latent conflict between Scotland and Yngland over Ireland: although their mutual desire to oust the Normans of Ireland had earlier made allies of Scotland and Yngland on that front, but Humphrey, grandson of John IV of Normandy and Yngland and since 1362 duke of Ulster as a vassal of the king of Yngland, had cleaverly played out the rivalry between David II of Scotland and Edward IV of Yngland over Ireland. He now swiftly claimed the title King of Ireland, but was resisted by both Norman and Irish nobles in the south of the island. His plan of taking advantage of the Scoto-Inglionic conflict and even lend assistance to hin cousins in France thus faltered.

The net result was that Yngland, Scotland and Ireland each became an independent kingdom, with Yngland controlling Wales as a personal union. In France the borders of 1362 were eventually reconfirmed after decades of intermittent indecisive warfare. The peace was negotiated by the count of Tolosa who in his person combined the kingdom of Aragon and Catalonia. Thus the domains of the Count of Tolosa, later called Lenguedoc, effectively were withdrawn from French control. Aquitaine also was, through an alliance with Borgonze, able to maintain a state of semi-independence until the Norman House of Aquitaine died out in the 16th century, at a time when Borgonze was embroiled in German politics.

Tags: Alternate history, Alternate history, Borgonze, burgundy, Lucus, vienay

Philological near-omniscience

melroch — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:35:10 +0000

On Romconlang Peter Collier wrote:

Once more I find myeself torn, BP, between awe at your philological near-omniscience, and despair as yet again I find myself reconsidering linguistic points I thought I had firmly pinned down….

Trying to sort even the bare bones of this language is like trying to herd cats.

P

I sure hope I haven’t achieved even near philological omniscience. For one thing the leading passion of my life would be spent already in mid-life, and for the other I know best how many books I’ve read only cursorily or not at all — I do hope they were not written in vain!

I’m sure I can come across as a nitpicky bore — or even boor I’m afraid. I have no right, of course to hold others playing the game to the same rules of perhaps excessive naturalism as I hold myself to. To me the laws of linguistic universals and phonetic plausibility in a sense are the rules of the game of altlanging, and perhaps the point of the game to me is to explore the limits of those laws in a way that mere observation of their operation in real life cannot afford. I once said that I wouldn’t accept a hypothetical prehistoric linguistic change which didn’t have an attested parallel in the known history of some language, but as a rule for artistic development that might well be too limiting.

To other artlangers aesthetic expression, be it euphony or cacophony, is the only principle, and that is of course their prerogative. What to me is plain dadaism or even stale formalism may to its creator be the height of whatever they are out to express, and if so more power to them of course!

When people develop a game together they must of course all have a say over the rules, and it is natural that at times there is disagreement. As soccer developed they came to the realization that it was a good idea not to have trees and bushes growing on the field, but some found the no hands rule too restrictive, and so rugby parted company. If my rules don’t fit your lang you should by all means say so!

Tags: Alternate history, Languages, Opinions, philology

Northern Romance chronology and phonology

melroch — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:20:54 +0000

Date of the Gallo-Romance/Northern Romance POD.

IMHO the 2nd century is too late a date for the Gallo-Rmc.-NRmc. divergence. It is important to remember that two dialect areas which remain in contact with each other don’t break, but rather slide apart. Moreover I think we want Germanic phonology to have an influence from the outset, since that’s rather the idea with a substrate: when a language spreads into an area where it wasn’t spoken before the first generation will speak it with a broken accent, part of which will transfer to the native accent of the second and third generations. Also there is no need to assume that all Gallican innovations during the first century spread into Germania.

So we have some ‘Germanican’¹ innovations right from the outset and some Gallican innovations which do reach Germania as well as some which don’t. To a degree this means that we can pick and choose, but in so doing we should keep an eye on what was universal VL, what was only Western Romance and what was only Gallican.

Also the Germanic substrate would not be common Germanic anymore, but Early West Germanic. Some changes like rhotacism, the loss of -z and gemination before *j may probably be under way already. Which means that Latin [z] from simple /s/ between vowels will probably be equated with substrate voiceless [s] as Scandinavians do to this day.

The two changes which are most pan-Romance are of course the reorganisation of the vowel system and the palatalization of velars and dentals. As an allophonic process the latter may indeed be of indefinite antiquity. compared to that the palatalization of labials is a purely Gallican thing, and possibly also rather late, since no tell-tale misspellings are known from imperial age inscriptions AFAIK. So I think /pj bj mj/ can stand, and later develop into /pp bb mm/ as they would in West Germanic — /L/ and /J/ would probably also be equated with substrate /lj nj/ and develop into /ll nn/. I wouldn’t even rule out that /tj/ and /kj/ be treated as long and hence different from short /k/ / _{e, i} — cf. how they are treated in Italian, though given the Gallican /k;/ > /t;/ development CJ would perhaps merge with TJ, but this merged /tt;/ might stay distinct from simplex /t;/ k; > ts; > ts_m (> s_m) > [T], but the geminate remains long and ultimately is treated like West Germ. *tj/tt.

PGmc. The /s/ is [s_a], so > I suppose to be ultra precise I should list WRom [s_m] > > NRom [s_a].

That’s not a mere nitpick, since [s_a] is more [S]-like and [s_m] is more [T]-like. In fact in modern Icelandic “/T/” is [s_m] and “/s/” is [s_a], both alveolar. It is known that in the history of Spanish the following series of changes took place:

s > s_a
> z_a > s_a
k’, kj, tj > ts_m > s_m > T
k’ > dz_m > z_m > s_m > T
g’, j > dZ > S > x
S > x

and it is believed that Old French had a similar situation, although there /s_a/ and /s_m/ merged with each other instead, and likewise with /z_a/ and /z_m/.

So we can be quite assured that at some time OTL Western Romance had the following sibilant system:

Laminals	Apicals	Palatal affricates	Palatal
ts_m	s_a	(tS)	S
dz_m	z_a	dZ	(Z)

where the parenthesized items were either rare or lacking in some areas.

Comparing this to the pre-West Germanic fricatives system I’d not be the least surprised if Germans learning Gallo- Romance would equate the foreign [ts_m] with their [T], especially if there wasn’t yet any /ts/ in their Germanic language. The biggest problem to me is what they’d make of [S]. There was perhaps no x to equate it with any more, since Old High German consistently keeps /h/ from Germanic *x and /x/ from Germanic *k distinct, in which case I’d have [S] merge with /s_a/ in substratization. OTOH with a time of contact as early as the first century I’d slate [S] to be equated with *x and then develop to a /h/ distinct from the lost Latin *h.

I have wondered for long how k’ merged with tj in Gallo- and Ibero-Romance and come to the conclusion that it was not via a progression k; > c > tS > ts but rather that k’ merged with tj directly. It is believable in that at least to the naked ear the two palatalized sounds k’ and t’ sound much more similar to each other than the non-palatalized k and t. But how come then that when g’ and d’ merge they both become /dZ/ and not both /dz/? Perhaps simply because d’ was so infrequent to begin with? The variant spellings DAZA and DAIA for the same name suggest that merger in some direction did happen. An older generation of Romanists thought that g’ in all positions went through a [j] stage before becoming /dZ/, and that this together with a prestige pronunciation of the letter z as d’ worked against a merger. It is notable that the lenited reflex of k’ is dz but that of g’ is [j]!

I wonder how Romance lengthening of vowels in stressed open syllables — in Iberian of all stressed vowels — and subsequent diphthongization would affect Northern Romance. The rising diphthongization of low mid [E:] and [O:] to /ie/ and /uo/ or similar is well nigh universal in Romance, but Old French also had high mid [e:] and [o:] become /ei/ and /ou/. Since OHG had both types of diphthong it is tempting to copy the Old French pattern in Northern Romance. OTOH Germanic had a very different vowel system from the VL one, so that it seems moot whether Northern Romance would preserve the distinction between two heights of mid vowels or merge them in the first place. Of course New High Germanican would still acquire ei and au from diphthongization of /i:/ and /u:/ at a later time. It is also moot whether open syllable lengthening would produce any minimal pairs. In Rhodrese I created at least the potential by letting open syllable lengthening precede syncope.

‘pertaining to the Romans of Germania’. This is unattested, but analogous to Africanus ‘pertaining to the Romans of Africa’, Gallicanus ‘pertaining to the Romans of Gaul’. ↩

Tags: Alternate history, Mundus Germaniae Romanae, Northern Romance, phonology

MGR-Northern Romance

melroch — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:22:55 +0000

Want to post this to your blog? it doesn’t really fit in as a comment on an exisiting post, and I can’t make an original post myself of course.

With the sound changes now more or less in place, I’ve also been working on some grammar basics (pronouns, articles, etc) but I’m too tired to write up all of that right now!

Pete

Well, since I’m playing around with a Romanised ‘High German,’ and you are interested in a Roman Low German / English analogue, it seems obvious we need a common Proto-dialect, which I think of as “Northern Romance.” It’s clear these northern dialects are going to evolve from Western/Gallo-Romance, with a POD sometime in the first 2 or 3 centuries CE.

I’ve been working on phonologies and a ‘GMP’, as you know. To take us up to the point where our high and low dialects diverge sometime in the middle of the first millennium, I have two stages. The first stage applies the sound changes attested in VL to the CL lexicon. Not ideal, as the one language does not evolve from the other of course, but you need to make the best of what you have. Naturally, where there are known CL/VL differences I’ve gone with the VL and slotted it in as best I can.

The second stage considers the phoneme inventories of VL and Germanic and melds the one to the other. Hopefully, the result is the sort of Latin pronunciation that might come about from the substantial Germanic substrate that would have existed. Once that has been achieved it then continues onward, applying the OTL West Germanic sound changes (I then continue further with AHD, MHD and NHD changes, but these of course are irrelevant in the Low German areas).

Stage 1 (CL > VL, BCE up to circa 200 CE)

/j/ > /jj/ V _ V

/a, a:/ > /A/

/e, ai/ > /E/

/i, oi, e:/ > /e/

/o/ > /O/

/u, o:/ > /o/

/u:/ > /U/

/i:/ > /I/

/au/ > /o/ _ C

/I, E, e/ > /j/ _ V

/I, E, e/ > /j/ V _

V > 0 C _ /l, r/

/E/ > /e/ _ $ /i/ #

/O/ > /o/ _ $ /i/ #

/e/ > /I/ _ $ /i/ #

/o/ > /U/ _ $ /i/ #

/h/ > 0

/m/ > 0 _ # Except monosyllables

/w/ > /B/ (i.e. semivocalic /) /kw, gw/ not affected

/adg/ > /agg/ # _

/adl/ > /all/ # _

/adr/ > /arr/ # _

/adp/ > /app/ # _

/adsc/ > /asc/ # _

/inl/ > /ill/ # _

/inm/ > /imm/ # _

/inp/ > /imp/ # _

/inr/ > /imr/ # _

/conr/ > /corr/ # _

/conl/ > /coll/ # _

/mpt/ > /nt/

/tl/ > /kl/

/lnj/ > /nj/

/ns, ps, ks, ls, sB/ > /s/

/tB, pt/ > /tt/

/kt/ > /t/

/gn/ > /n/

/mn/ > /m/

/sp/ > /Esp/ # _

/st/ > /Est/ # _

/sk/ > /Esk/ # _

/rk/ > /rts/ _ /E, I, e, i/

/rg/ > /rdZ/ # _ /A, E, I, e, i/

/nk/ > /nts/ _ /E, I, e, i/

/j/ > /dZ/ # _

/pj/ > /tS/

/tj, kj/ > /ts/

/k/ > /ts/ _ /E, I, e, i/

/bj/ > /dZ/

/dj/ > /dZ/ # _

/dj/ > 0 V _ V

/gj/ > /I/

/sj/z/

/mj/ > /ndZ/ VCC_ , VC_

/lj/ > /L/

/rj/ > /r/

/kw/ > /k/ #_

/kw/ > /B/ V_V

/skl/ > /sl/

/nkt/ > /nt/

/d/ > 0 _#

/t/ > 0 V _ #

Stage 2 (VL > PNRom, circa 200 > 500 CE)

Stress moves to word stem in all cases.

/B/ > /w/

/b/ > /B/ /bb/ and /mb/ not affected. I have been tempted to put this change first, so /b/ and /B/ collapse together.

/d/ > /D/ /dd/ and /nd/ not affected

/g/ > /G/ /gg/ and /ng/ not affected

/f/ > /T/ # _ /l/ and C _ /l/ not affected

/t_h/ > /T/ (i.e. )

/p_h/ > /p\/ (i.e. )

/pt/ > /p\t/

/kt/ > /xt/

/ks/ > /sk/

/z/ > /s/ [s_a]

/S/ > /x/ I don’t think I actually have /S/ at this point, but just in case!

/Z/ > /j/ No /Z/ yet either?

/ts/ > /s/ # _

/ts/ > /T/ Except # _

/tS/ > /t/

/dZ/ > d/

/L/ > /l/

/AA, aa, Aa, aA/ > /a:/

/EE, ee, Ee, eE/ > /e:/

/II, ii, Ii, iI/ > /i/

/OO, oo, Oo, oO/ > /o:/

/UU, uu, Uu, uU/ > /u:/

/a/ > /a:/

/e/ > /e:/

/i/ > /i:/

/o/ > /o:/

/u/ > /u:/

/Anx/ > /ax/

/Enx/ > /ex/

/Inx/ > /ix/

/Onx/ > /ox/

/Unx/ > /ux/

/E/ > /I/ _ $ /I, i:, j/ ($ being a syllable boundary, of course)

/e:/ > /i:/ _ $ /I, i:, j/

/E/ > /I/ _ N C

/e/ > /i/ _ N C

/U/ > /O/ _ $ /a:, e:, o:/ /U/ remains unchanged if followed by a N and a C, or a C- cluster with /j/

/I/ > /E/ _ $ /a:, e:, o:/ I/ remains unchanged if followed by a N and a C, or a C-cluster with /j/

/x/ > /h/ # _ V, V _ V

/Ej/ > /eij/

/Ew/ > /euw/

/Aww/ > /ouw/

/m/ > /n/ _ # Short vowels in monosyllabic words only

/n/ > 0 _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/ei/ > /i:/

/p/Va/ > /ap/V _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/t/V/a/ > /at/V _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/k/V/a/ > /ak/V _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/F/V/a/ > /aF/V _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/f/V/a/ > /af/V _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/T/V/a/ > /aT/V _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/x/V/a/ > /ax/V _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/pla/ > /apl/ _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/pra/ > /apr/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/tla/ > /atl/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/tra/ > /atr/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/kla/ > /akl/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/kra/ > /akr/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/Fla/ > /aFl/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/Fra/ > /aFr/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/fla/ > /afl/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/fra/ > /afr/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/Tla/ > /aTl/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/Tra/ > /aTr/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/xla/ > /axl/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/xra/ > /axr/ _ # Polysyllabic words only

/A, E, I, U/ > 0 Bisyllabic words only . Stressed vowels not affected. /I, U/ not affected if immediately preceded by a short vowel and single consonant.

V > 0 _ # Short vowels in polysyllabic words only

/o:/ > /U/ _ $#

V: > V _ $#

/rh/ > /rAh/ Medial positions only

/lh/ > /lAh/ Medial positions only

/rw/ > /rAw/ Medial positions only

/lw/ > /lAw/ Medial positions only

/sw/ > /sAw/ Medial positions only

/ai/ > /e:/ _ #

/ai/ > /e:/ _ /r, h, w/

/ai/ > /ei/

/au/ > /o/ _ / h, t, d, s, S, n, r, l/

/au/ > /ou/

/eu/ > /y/ _ /p, b, m, g, ng, f, B, G/

/eu/ > /y/ _ $ /u:, U, i:, I, j/

eu/ > /eo/

C /j/ > CC V _ After short vowels only. /r/ not affected

/p/ > /pp/ _ /l, r/ Except # _

/t/ > /tt/ _ /l, r/ Except # _

/k/ > /kk/ _ /l, r/ Except # _

/Bj/ > /bb/ Except # _

/Dj/ > /dd/ Except # _

/G/ > /g/ #_

/G/ > /gg/

/D/ > /d/

Tags: grand master plan, Languages, Mundus Germaniae Romanae, phonology

Thoughts on Mundus Germaniae Romanae

melroch — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:01:32 +0000

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. ↩

Tags: Alternate history, MGR, Mundus Germaniae Romanae, Roman althistory

Why I do the things I do

melroch — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:47:10 +0000

Thinking of what might have happened if the Romans had won the Battle of the saltus Teutoburgiensis I came to think of the general conditions and motives behind my preoccupation with althistory, conculture and conworlding. What is it that I’m doing and why, other than, as Tolkien rightly saw as compelling¹, providing a place to be spoken for my artlangs?

It is clear that I like the general idea of conculture and conworlding, so I came to ask myself why I became passive in Ill Bethisad? I’m basically enthusiastic about IB and admire what they have done � my own part being small and erratic �, so more power to them, but obviously there is a diffrence in interest.

Unlike the IB group I’m more interested in the possible cultural and linguistic consequences of small historical changes than the political ones. Neither am I very interested in creating an alternative contemporary world commenting with a twist on the real world, as IB has become.

I’m more for a broad canvas and a broad brush. By inclination I think history becomes less interesting once the early modern era has been entered, around 1600 or so, and things become too much like modern politics for my taste once the modern era begins. Sure they were politicking knaves then as now, but it is easier to be dispassionate even about figures as late as Elizabeth I and her contemporaries or Christina of Sweden than about Maggie Thatcher or Liz II, or at least the passion is of a different kind. Sure I’d have liked for there to be more republics² in the Middle Ages than today, but I’m more interested in discussing ways it might have happened than writing a whole fictitious history where it happened.

It is tempting to make up an utopian world, but IMNSHO not so interesting, and often boring and the worst form of escapism. For example to make up an ATL where Nazi Germany didn’t happen verges on irresponsibility, since the evils of this world should be dealt with — another lesson from Tolkien! It is better to draw a line that one doesn’t discuss the last few centuries � at least not in any detail. Linguistic developments may of course be pursued up to now and beyond. The worst thing that may happen is that someone’s fave lang happened not to have existed in some mighthavebeens. The advantage of not hurting anyone’s feelings by not selecting one mighthavebeen as the alternate reality of course applies to religion too. I’m intrigued by the idea of a less monolithic Europe emerging out of the dying Roman empire, where the various subcultures of that time may have survived in various nooks, so to speak to be able to study each of them in vitro.

This of course ultimately reflects my predilections for diversity and tolerance. Someone else may sincerely believe that Theodosius’s and Justinian’s insistence on a single, universal and orthodox church actually saved millions of souls down the centuries. Still it remains a fact that the disappearance of Arianism and the relative unimportance of Monophysitism and Nestorianism, not to mention Zoroastrianism in our world is largely a consequence of the spread of Islam. Besides Protestantism did emerge eventually despite Inquisitions and all: human nature being what it is new schisms and political ideologies, and new intolerances, would have emerged whatever course history had taken. There isn’t a single religion or ideology which hasn’t had any. Even Buddhists have made holy wars on each other! Anyway alternate history is all about taking the road not taken, even though some believe the road taken was the right one in some cases.

“The ‘stones’ were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse.” The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien #165. ↩
One thing that irks me with IB is that it largely lacks republicanism (not in the American sense!), since I’m opposed to the idea of hereditary privileges even if they don’t come with any power anymore. So how come I remain interested in Tolkien, when all his main characters are royalty or � in the case of the Hobbits � from the upper crust of society? There are obviously other reasons which I’ll need to explore. It seems I’ll find a need for this blog afterall! ↩

Tags: Alternate history

Melroch @ Random » Alternate history

The origin of the Borgonzay or Rhodray language

Related posts

How Corsica and Sardinia became the Mediterranean Republic

Related posts

How Burgundy became Borgonze, part one

Related posts

Philological near-omniscience

Related posts

Northern Romance chronology and phonology

Date of the Gallo-Romance/Northern Romance POD.

Related posts

MGR-Northern Romance

Stage 1 (CL > VL, BCE up to circa 200 CE)

Stage 2 (VL > PNRom, circa 200 > 500 CE)

Related posts

Thoughts on Mundus Germaniae Romanae

Related posts

Why I do the things I do

Related posts