I've had this alternate history in my mind for a while. Don't know if I'll ever do anything with it except to amuse and torment myself. Basically it reverses the historical place of the Romans and the Thracians, so that the former are a once formidable but now forgotten band that once roamed Italy, while the latter ruled most of the known world from east of Greece. I won't go into all the differences, which are quite capable of shifting in my head anyway. But here are some key ones.
- Southeastern Europe, and a little bit of Asia Minor, is considered the height of Western Civilization. So that's where the prestige is, at least through the Middle Ages and early Renaissance.
- But the countries of Western Europe still become global powers during the exploration and colonization of the Americas. This is because they're right on the Atlantic so don't have to cross other people's territories for access.
- Odrysos did settle these places, but it wasn't the same kind of unifying force that far west as Rome was in our timeline. So the equivalents of, say, France, Spain, and Britain are more disparate. Thus, so is their influence in the Western Hemisphere.
- Otherwise things are just different, sometimes in unpredictable ways.
Anyway, thinking along these lines has made me also think about the relations between language, culture, and nationhood. There's an adage, attributed to linguist Max Weinreich, that "A language is a dialect with an army and navy."
This is pithy and witty, but not quite accurate. The United States, Mexico, and Brazil all speak languages that originated in countries that they could wipe out militarily. Catalan and Occitan are among the languages that don't have their own nations, although they might wish otherwise. India is a stew of thousands of languages, with the middle classes retaining English to smooth things over. And of course China is a whole can of worms.
It's more that a dialect is a language that hasn't started thinking of itself as a separate language. The US, again, is a prime example. The various strains of American English differ from British dialects on a number of matters. "Separated by a common language" and all that. But despite being separate from the British Commonwealth for about 2.5 centuries, Americans still think of themselves as an English-speaking people, and thus remain so. The same is true in a number of former colonies, including some that have also managed to preserve their native languages.
The same is true of old literary language. Shakespeare's English being called "modern" for example. It takes nothing away from his accomplishments to say that he remains "modern" in large part due to the efforts of good teachers, actors, directors, etc. Because they approach his words as revealing psychological dialog instead of pretty-sounding metered gibberish.