Re: Iron-banded, Silver-tipped, Golden-bladed 3/3
anonymous
August 30 2009, 01:49:10 UTC
if Finland had conquered Sweden their relationship would've been healthier?
Not necessarily. If conqueror!Finland co-opted the Swedish ruling class by putting his own king on the throne, then you would have gotten a ruler (and his retainers) speaking a certain language that was not the majority language of the country (because Sweden has historically been not only more densely populated but also more populous than Finland). This was common in Europe for centuries, and in real history the educated class in Finland spoke Swedish.
In this particular AU there's likely to be a conflict between the royal court (Finnish-speaking) and major landholders (they know what side their bread is buttered on - though most nobles with large estates in history!Finland were Swedes) and, if you will, the petty landholders, who would be likely to speak the local language.
What this authoranon is particularly interested in is the development of universities and the effect of the Reformation and the Wars of Religion, because those will ultimately dictate how things fall out. Because in this AU Sweden and Finland were never Christianized, it seems unlikely that they would have developed universities in the same way the rest of Europe did, where the Catholic Church was instrumental in the development of medieval educational facilities. It's possible that the development of cities, trade guilds, and the like (as also happened elsewhere in Europe) would become the primary impetus to the development of a bourgeois/educated class, in which case the more urbanized parts of the country would seem to be likely to dictate what languages dominated in public service (local government), and if a representative or popular government ever developed, in the popular government as well. Basically, it comes down to "where do they build the cities?"
Obviously, my obsession with "who gets the dominant language" is rooted in real history, where the language issue was deeply divisive in Finland over a number of centuries (and can still sometimes be touchy, I hear). Without language, education is difficult; without an education, integration is impossible. If AU!Finland and AU!Sweden don't address this issue, it will drive them apart.
(sorry to barf theory on you, but you've brought up a legitimate criticism that did occur to me as I was writing it, and I still don't feel that I've answered it to my own satisfaction. Hope I didn't bore you!)
tl;dr: I do seem to be implying that, don't I. I wish I weren't; it's unrealistic.
reCaptcha: ing doable. Mr. Tulip of The Truth has Opinions on the subject of either of the protagonists of this story....
Not necessarily. If conqueror!Finland co-opted the Swedish ruling class by putting his own king on the throne, then you would have gotten a ruler (and his retainers) speaking a certain language that was not the majority language of the country (because Sweden has historically been not only more densely populated but also more populous than Finland). This was common in Europe for centuries, and in real history the educated class in Finland spoke Swedish.
In this particular AU there's likely to be a conflict between the royal court (Finnish-speaking) and major landholders (they know what side their bread is buttered on - though most nobles with large estates in history!Finland were Swedes) and, if you will, the petty landholders, who would be likely to speak the local language.
What this authoranon is particularly interested in is the development of universities and the effect of the Reformation and the Wars of Religion, because those will ultimately dictate how things fall out. Because in this AU Sweden and Finland were never Christianized, it seems unlikely that they would have developed universities in the same way the rest of Europe did, where the Catholic Church was instrumental in the development of medieval educational facilities. It's possible that the development of cities, trade guilds, and the like (as also happened elsewhere in Europe) would become the primary impetus to the development of a bourgeois/educated class, in which case the more urbanized parts of the country would seem to be likely to dictate what languages dominated in public service (local government), and if a representative or popular government ever developed, in the popular government as well. Basically, it comes down to "where do they build the cities?"
Obviously, my obsession with "who gets the dominant language" is rooted in real history, where the language issue was deeply divisive in Finland over a number of centuries (and can still sometimes be touchy, I hear). Without language, education is difficult; without an education, integration is impossible. If AU!Finland and AU!Sweden don't address this issue, it will drive them apart.
(sorry to barf theory on you, but you've brought up a legitimate criticism that did occur to me as I was writing it, and I still don't feel that I've answered it to my own satisfaction. Hope I didn't bore you!)
tl;dr: I do seem to be implying that, don't I. I wish I weren't; it's unrealistic.
reCaptcha: ing doable. Mr. Tulip of The Truth has Opinions on the subject of either of the protagonists of this story....
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment