Which ethnic groups could have been fully assimilated into larger ethnic groups?

Isleifson

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,780
Lorraine tudesque
#11
Also, I can absolutely see all of the tiny European micro-state languages ("Luxembourgish" for example) becoming totallt extinct had the great power politics of the 1800s looked a bit different.
Mir wëlle bleiwe wat mir sin.

That's Luxemburgish. It is my language too. Luxembourg was much bigger once.
 
Oct 2016
1,081
Merryland
#14
Bible mentions a bunch of peoples lost to history; Midianites, Edomites, Philistines, etc.
presumably they intermarried with each other and are now the Arab people.

there was a Native American nation called the Eerie. many of them were killed off by the Iroquois; the rest presumably melded with other nations (Delaware).

are the Ainu and Hmong still separate peoples?
 
Likes: Futurist

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,648
Iowa USA
#15
Bible mentions a bunch of peoples lost to history; Midianites, Edomites, Philistines, etc.
presumably they intermarried with each other and are now the Arab people.

there was a Native American nation called the Eerie. many of them were killed off by the Iroquois; the rest presumably melded with other nations (Delaware).

are the Ainu and Hmong still separate peoples?
The examples of "marginally viable" Native American chiefdoms being absorbed into their neighbors are probably too many to count.

On the other hand, somewhat representative of a regression back towards the 13th and 14th century larger mound-building people?
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,069
SoCal
#16
The Czechs and Slovaks could plausibly have remained one nation, given how close they are and how amicable their relations still are.
I meant being one ethnic group as opposed to merely being one country.

Visigothic panzer mentioned the Finns: while I am not sure if they could have become totally assimilated, I can see a multilingual Swedish Kingdom, with Swedish being the dominant language.
OK.

Another interesting case is what would have happened to the Swedish language hade the bible not been translated into Swedish when it was. While not a case of ethnic assimilation per se, much of the Swedish elite and the early modern equivalent of the "middle class" was effectively German speaking. Given the large regional differences, perhaps Swedish might have been similar to some of the weirder North german dialects.
When was the Bible translated into Swedish?

Otherwise, I can see the Sami being completely assimilated had Germany won WW2 (or perhaps had no WW2 come about).
Into Finns?

Perhaps the Alsatians could have become completely French (even more so than today... And quicker) had the French not lost in 1871.
Possible.

I think minorities across the West would have been treated quite differently if it hadn't been for World War 2 to be honest, as a general rule.
You mean worse--with a focus on forced or coerced assimilation, correct?

Also, could Latvians and Estonians have been transformed into Germans had the Russian Empire demanded that the Baltic Germans be in charge of the education system in these two territories?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,069
SoCal
#17
Had Slovenes embraced the Illyrian theory, they might have merged with the Croats. Or they could have all get germanised, italianised and magyarised.

Rusyns are another ethnic group that will probably get absorbed fully by the majority of the countries they live in.

Kashubians in Poland (although historically they could have been fully germanised as well), Lusatian Sorbs in Germany too.

Friulians in Italy.
Why didn't Slovenes embrace the Illyrian theory?

Also, what about the Slovaks?

As for the Kashubians, aren't a lot of them already heavily assimilated into Polish culture and life?
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,564
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#18
Why didn't Slovenes embrace the Illyrian theory?

Also, what about the Slovaks?

As for the Kashubians, aren't a lot of them already heavily assimilated into Polish culture and life?
There was quite a lot of talk about that in the Slovene Lands in the 1830s and 1840s. You had supporters of various ideas. The big slavist Jernej Kopitar wanted Slovene to be used only for simpler songs and texts with which you could teach the peasents something, while for intelectual texts you would use German. Stanko Vraz became a supporter of Illyrism after realising his Eastern Styrian dialect was closer to "provincial Croatian" (Kajkavian) than the Slovene used in Carniola. Vraz was a friend of France Prešeren, who is considered to be our greatest poet. The two wrote letters to each other in German (which was very common though) and in one of the letters Prešeren said that he cannot get Vraz's poems published anymore because the people in Ljubljana are complaining they can't understand the language, as Slovene wasn't fully standardised until cca 1860 or 1870 and everyone was influenced in his writing by his dialect. I guess that was a motive for Vraz to be in favour of the Illyrian idea, as then everyone would use the same literary language - Štokavian - which Croatia actually started using around the middle of the century. Before that they used Kajkavian in Zagreb. Vraz moved to Zagreb and started writing in Croatian. France Prešeren and his friends, known as the "čbeličarji" (they published a literary paper called Kranjska čbelica - The Carniolan Bee), were the main oponents of all these ideas about using foreign languages and new scripts (many people deemed the 16th century Bohorič script as outdated and not fully fitting our language). Prešeren's circle advocated for Slovene to be used in all matters while still using the old script. Prešeren's poetry proved that Slovene is just as good as German or Italian, his A Wreath of Sonnets and other works are masterpieces. Although his genious was recognised only by the next generation after his death, he and his friends seem to have been influential enough, for the majority not to accept the Illyrian theory. And by 1848 you had ideas like United Slovenia and so on, after which there was basically no turning back as Slovene nationalism (nothing radical) was slowly but surely on the march.

I guess you could merge the Slovaks with the Czechs, if they came under Czech influence earlier. At least in the West. In the East, Slovaks could even merge with Ruthenians.

Sure, Kashubians are heavily influenced by Poles. I like how they're described in Günter Grass's novel Die Blechtrommel: not quite Polish enough for the Poles and not quite German enough for the Germans, or something like that. You had another group there called the Slovincians (Lebakashuben in German). They lost their languages completely and spoke German, but still considered themselves Slavic and often learned a different Slavic language. I think they were called Wends in America. Today they are no more, the last of them were expelled to Germany after ww2, their identity is gone now.
 
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
#19
I meant being one ethnic group as opposed to merely being one country.
Right.


When was the Bible translated into Swedish?
The new testament came out in 1526, all of it a decade or so later.


Nope, into Swedes more likely. Sami and Finnish are not that close, and the Finns are not nomads.

Or if you spoke about the Finnish sami, yeah, sure, they would probably become Finns. The Norwegian Sami might well become Norwegians etc.

Oh! Or if you meant "In case of a multi-lingual Swedish kingdom"... maybe? I still think a transformation into Swedes seems more likely even then.


You mean worse--with a focus on forced or coerced assimilation, correct?

Also, could Latvians and Estonians have been transformed into Germans had the Russian Empire demanded that the Baltic Germans be in charge of the education system in these two territories?
Exactly, I don't see minorities having the same kinds of rights to cultural autonomy, or reparations or being taken up as examples and stories worthy of recognition the same way we saw in the West post 1945. I think chances are the general trend that started in the 1800s in Europe towards "cultural centralization" (i.e. nationalism, extinction of regional languages etc.) would probably have continued instead. So that might be called "forced assimilation" I suppose.

The Baltic Germans were, as far as I know, de facto in charge of all tiers of the education system up until Russification seriously became a thing around 1890, as much as is realistically possible for a small aristocracy to be in charge of such a system without making lots of irrational busy-body decisions (like trying to homogenously "germanize" village schools or something). Most newspapers in Estonia were in German and Russian well until the beginning of the 1900s. The Russian Empire governed the Baltic region in a very decentralized way, with the Baltic Germans being in charge of practically everything - until Russification. Under the previous more German-dominated rule there had generally been more cultural autonomy for Estonians (at least if we take the early 1800s as a starting point) then there was after 1890. Some more idealistic and national-romantically inclined Baltic Germans actually sponsored the "national awakening" during the 1800s - although these are probably not the norm, there seems to have been a certain bi-lingualism to the entire place. In fact, literacy among Estonians seems to have dropped quite a bit once Russian rather than German/ Estonian was instituted as the norm, if recruitment records are anything to go by. A nice symbol of Estonian national obstinacy I think ;)

I don't think what you say is realistically possible, unless "Germanization" starts early. I also don't think the Russian Empire has any motive here: why would they want to strengthen the feudal aristocracy, and Germanize (their most serious competitor and geo-strategic threat) one of their entire provinces? Maybe Peter the Great would like it, or Catherine the Great would have during the 1700s - but I don't see such a policy being realistically continued over the long periods of time necessary for it to work. One the Russians decided they wanted to "Russify" their Empire the cat was already out of the bag and it was too late - everyone else had caught the bug of nationalism as well, many even earlier than the Russians.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,069
SoCal
#20
There was quite a lot of talk about that in the Slovene Lands in the 1830s and 1840s. You had supporters of various ideas. The big slavist Jernej Kopitar wanted Slovene to be used only for simpler songs and texts with which you could teach the peasents something, while for intelectual texts you would use German.
Sounds like a Germanophile. :)

Stanko Vraz became a supporter of Illyrism after realising his Eastern Styrian dialect was closer to "provincial Croatian" (Kajkavian) than the Slovene used in Carniola. Vraz was a friend of France Prešeren, who is considered to be our greatest poet. The two wrote letters to each other in German (which was very common though) and in one of the letters Prešeren said that he cannot get Vraz's poems published anymore because the people in Ljubljana are complaining they can't understand the language, as Slovene wasn't fully standardised until cca 1860 or 1870 and everyone was influenced in his writing by his dialect. I guess that was a motive for Vraz to be in favour of the Illyrian idea, as then everyone would use the same literary language - Štokavian - which Croatia actually started using around the middle of the century. Before that they used Kajkavian in Zagreb. Vraz moved to Zagreb and started writing in Croatian. France Prešeren and his friends, known as the "čbeličarji" (they published a literary paper called Kranjska čbelica - The Carniolan Bee), were the main oponents of all these ideas about using foreign languages and new scripts (many people deemed the 16th century Bohorič script as outdated and not fully fitting our language). Prešeren's circle advocated for Slovene to be used in all matters while still using the old script. Prešeren's poetry proved that Slovene is just as good as German or Italian, his A Wreath of Sonnets and other works are masterpieces. Although his genious was recognised only by the next generation after his death, he and his friends seem to have been influential enough, for the majority not to accept the Illyrian theory. And by 1848 you had ideas like United Slovenia and so on, after which there was basically no turning back as Slovene nationalism (nothing radical) was slowly but surely on the march.
Excellent and very well-detailed explanation! Thank you! :)

I guess you could merge the Slovaks with the Czechs, if they came under Czech influence earlier. At least in the West. In the East, Slovaks could even merge with Ruthenians.
What about having the Slovaks merge with Hungarians?

Sure, Kashubians are heavily influenced by Poles. I like how they're described in Günter Grass's novel Die Blechtrommel: not quite Polish enough for the Poles and not quite German enough for the Germans, or something like that. You had another group there called the Slovincians (Lebakashuben in German). They lost their languages completely and spoke German, but still considered themselves Slavic and often learned a different Slavic language. I think they were called Wends in America. Today they are no more, the last of them were expelled to Germany after ww2, their identity is gone now.
Sad, isn't it? :(