Discussion: Culture of Salzburg

[Palando]

Greetings. I would like to discuss a topic bothering me for quite some time, namely the culture of the Salzburg province. I would propose to change it to Bavarian instead of Austrian, because I'm of the opinion that the culture distribution here is based on modern borders.

Although, I'm not really content with the split into Bavarian and Austrian, as the latter culture tried to distinct itself from German and also a bit from Bavarian only after the World War II. But I guess that I have to accept this design choice as such a big culture probably would not be good for gamemplay reasons. One could also argue here that the different ruling dynasties (Wittelsbach <-> Habsburg) are enough to warrant this split into two cultures. However, this argument can not be applied to Salzburg.

The general consensu seems to be that culture is (mostly) based on the following three aspects:

• language
• traditions
• politics

The first two can be used to argue for both - Austrian and Bavarian, because in both "Bairisch" is spoken. There are some minor differences between the various varieties, but then we would need a seperate culture for Tyrol+Carinthia, Styria, the Upper Palatinate, Regensburg, and maybe for every village, too. Considering them as the same is the best approach here. As for traditions an example is Salzburg's Rupertikiritag, a so called "Dult". A "Dult" is something like a fair in south-eastern Germany (mostly Bavaria). Other Dults take place for example in Regensburg, Au(Munich), Landshut, Passau, ... . I have to admit, that I don't know any (bigger) Dult in Austria (except obv. Salzburg), but maybe someone can help.


I would regard the politics as a deciding factor. Historically, Salzburg was a part of Bavaria, and the archbishops gained more and more sovereignity and independence in the 13th and 14th century. This culminated into Ortolf von Weißeneck(1343-1365) becoming the first archbishop to become prince of the HRE. Throughout nearly the whole time span of the game, Salzburg was also considered as a political part of Bavaria (-> Circle of Bavaria, this was at least considered for putting Salzburg into the Upper Bavarian territory).
During the last 15 years of the game, Salzburg was part of Austria (1805-1810, 1816-1820) and of Bavaria (1810-1815).

In total, Salzburg had a political past with Bavaria, a political presence with Bavaria (Circle of Bavaria) and only a common future (last few years, but mostly out of the game's time) with Austria.


What do you think? Which is the more suitable culture for Salzburg? Maybe even someone from the team (@Trin Tragula ) can explain the reasoning behind Salzburg being Austrian?

 

[creativitypersonified]

Salzburg having Austrian culture is better gameplay-wise. If it had Bavarian culture there would be no reason not to conquer it. Right now it's better to let it be because it's the only other HRE state with Austrian culture so it will vote with Austria if you keep relations relatively high.

 

[Zerodv]

If Austrian and Bavarian are so similar, what's wrong with having Salzburg Austrian?

 

[Zerodv]

Err, no. It represents the territory of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, thus the relevant question is whether that historical territory should rather be Austrian or Bavarian.
As far as I am concerned, the best solution would be to merge Bavarian and Austrian. If they remain separate cultures, Salzburg being Austrian is anachronistic. It had been subject to the Duchy of Bavaria until 1328, it had never been part of Austria before 1444, it became part of the Bavarian Imperial Circle (and not of the Austrian one) when the Reichskreise were created, and there were no Austrian attempts to conquer Salzburg before the end of the HRE.
Gameplay-wise, there is no need to give Austria an incentive to conquer Salzburg, either (to the contrary, it would be desirable to somewhat discourage Austrian conquest).

Neither the Reichskreis and Salzburg being part of Bavaria a century before should matter IMO, but only the geographic, cultural and linguistic part of it.

 

[Twoflower]

Salzburg having Austrian culture is better gameplay-wise. If it had Bavarian culture there would be no reason not to conquer it. Right now it's better to let it be because it's the only other HRE state with Austrian culture so it will vote with Austria if you keep relations relatively high.

This argument certainly doesn't hold true for the AI, which (I think) prefers conquering same-culture provinces over others. Making Salzburg should make AI Austria less likely to attack it.

Whether your argument makes sense for an Austrian player seems highly doubtful to me. Staying Emperor as Austria isn't that much of a challenge either way, and one electoral vote doesnt't really seem to justify not conquering a wealthy same-culture province (letting alone the fact that Salzburg doesn't even start as an electorate - which, admittedly, you can usually change early on).

 

[Twoflower]

If Austrian and Bavarian are so similar, what's wrong with having Salzburg Austrian?

I think Paland0 already made a lengthy and excellent argument, but I'll reiterate: there is no linguistic or cultural reason to divide Austrian and Bavarian.
The dialects spoken in today's Bavaria (proper, not Franconia and Bavarian Swabia), Austria (except Vorarlberg) and South Tyrol are all part of the Bavarian dialect group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_language), and the dialect spoken in Salzburg is much closer to that of Upper Bavaria than either is to, say, Styrian or Tyrolean - which includes mutual intellegibility, i.e. a dialect speaker from Salzburg would have a much easier time communicating with someone from Berchtesgaden or Rosenheim than with someone from Innsbruck or Graz.
It should be noted that the modern countries of Germany and Austria have developed distinct "national" varieties of standard and especially written German, but that did not happen before the creation of a national border between Germany and Austria (hence certainly not before 1871).

The only reasons to divide Austrian and Bavarian into separate culture are gameplay and a distinct political identity.

Gameplay is a matter of opinion, however as for political identity, the fact of the matter is that Salzburg was more closely aligned to Bavaria than to Austria. It had been a subject to the Duchy of Bavaria until relatively recently before game start, and it was assigned to Bavaria's and not to Austria's Imperial Circle - which indicates that people at the time did consider it part of the larger geopolitical area of Bavaria - and not of the Austrian lands.

 

[Palando]

Neither the Reichskreis and Salzburg being part of Bavaria a century before should matter IMO, but only the geographic, cultural and linguistic part of it.

Ever since, the language spoken in Salzburg was and is Bavarian (Bairisch). If you want to specificate it even more, then it is Mittelbairisch (Middle Bavarian).

One has to keep in mind that there is no uniform Bavarian dialect. Even those three groups on their own are no blocks. The spoken dialect can (and quite often does) differ even between two villages which are only a few km (3-5) apart from each other.

I don't think that geography is that important at all. Its not like that Bavaria and Salzburg are thousands of kilometres apart.

The common past of Bavaria and Salzburg (and the strong ties during nearly all years between 1444 and ~1800) would rather lead to the common folk to think of itself as Bavarian than Austrian. Though granted, we can only guess what they thought back then but why should they feel Austrian if noone considered them to be?

And now a penny for your thoughts: If an Austrian (Emperor Maximilian I of Habsburg) has put Salzburg into the Circle of Bavaria, what can one conclude from that?

 

[Zerodv]

And now a penny for your thoughts: If an Austrian (Emperor Maximilian I of Habsburg) has put Salzburg into the Circle of Bavaria, what can one conclude from that?

Literally zero, because the Austrian circle had mostly the land under the Hapsburg, as did the Burgundian one. Nothing about culture.

 

[AirikrStrife]

The cultural differences are generally too small to really matter, What if maybe Salzburgians did have austrian folkdances? I dunno but the only clear cut boundary between austrians and bavarians is a political border (which also did change quite a few times). Salzburg originated from Bavaria, developed from Bavarian lands. Then was it's own land on the frontier for 500 years, developing a bit of a local indentity. Still today the parts of Salzburg that ended up in modern Germany/Bavaria exhibit distinct cultural traits and identity as a historical part of Salzburg. Obviously there can't be it's own Salzburgian culture, rather it has to be argued what side of Austrian or Bavarian it should be.

Now look at it a bit like this Bavarian is the "original" culture. Austrian is a break off culture from the core Bavarian, defined by bavarian lands that came to be part of the Habsburg realm. As we can see from the dialect map, the dialectal cut is not between Austrian and bavarian, but between central and south bavarian meaning if we went by linguistic criteria bayern and northern Austria would use the same culture while Tyrol and Carinthia would get it's own seperate.

While Austria had become independent from Bayern hundreds of years before the Habsburgs ruled the territory it is very much them who created Austria, uniting a number of former Bavarian territories, including the former Meinhardiner territory of Tyrol.

Salzburg were not, hadn't nor would it for a long time in 1444 be part of the Habsburg realm. It had never been gathered into the "Austrian culture" i.e. the Habsburg realm.

 

[Twoflower]

Literally zero, because the Austrian circle had mostly the land under the Hapsburg, as did the Burgundian one. Nothing about culture.

Now you are just trolling.

 

[Palando]

Literally zero, because the Austrian circle had mostly the land under the Hapsburg, as did the Burgundian one. Nothing about culture.

So tell me, why do you think that Salzburg should be Austrian? You base culture on geography, traditions and language, so what can you tell regarding these? If you have proper convincing arguments, I would gladly hear them.

Whereas, I base culture on traditions, language and politics. I have already made arguments why the first two are not suitable to differentiate between Austriand and Bavarian (both are too similiar to do so). The nuances differing are not even consistent, as Upper Austrian is different from Salzburgian, Salzburgian is different from Tyrolian, Palatine Bavarian is different from Bavarian, etc pp. Every village is different in this regard.

Thus I base my argumentation on a common history. If one accepts Austrian and Bavarian are close, to whom would you think Salzburgians would feel more related? To those with whom they share a political council (and a common history) or to the Habsburgs which did not even care about Salzburg (that much). Compare Salzburg to Brixen and Trent - the Habsburgs tried to subjugate both of these. Getting Salzburg into their influence sphere would round up their posessions, wouldn't it?

The cultural differences are generally too small to really matter, What if maybe Salzburgians did have austrian folkdances? I dunno but the only clear cut boundary between austrians and bavarians is a political border (which also did change quite a few times). Salzburg originated from Bavaria, developed from Bavarian lands. Then was it's own land on the frontier for 500 years, developing a bit of a local indentity. Still today the parts of Salzburg that ended up in modern Germany/Bavaria exhibit distinct cultural traits and identity as a historical part of Salzburg. Obviously there can't be it's own Salzburgian culture, rather it has to be argued what side of Austrian or Bavarian it should be.

Now look at it a bit like this Bavarian is the "original" culture. Austrian is a break off culture from the core Bavarian, defined by bavarian lands that came to be part of the Habsburg realm. As we can see from the dialect map, the dialectal cut is not between Austrian and bavarian, but between central and south bavarian meaning if we went by linguistic criteria bayern and northern Austria would use the same culture while Tyrol and Carinthia would get it's own seperate.

While Austria had become independent from Bayern hundreds of years before the Habsburgs ruled the territory it is very much them who created Austria, uniting a number of former Bavarian territories, including the former Meinhardiner territory of Tyrol.

Salzburg were not, hadn't nor would it for a long time in 1444 be part of the Habsburg realm. It had never been gathered into the "Austrian culture" i.e. the Habsburg realm.

Folkdances and "traditional" dresses should be neglected - at least for EU4. Both were more a thing of the 19th century. Dirndls, leather trousers and the Schuhplattler (most common folkdance) were an invention of this century, but maybe one can just deduce this: All of these three are widespread across all of (Old) Bavaria and Austria, so that the ingame Austrian and Bavarian had to be pretty close (at least at the end of the 18th century) to develop a common tradition.

(I know that you brought it up as a humurous example but yet I wanted to share my opinion on this matter )

 

[Zerodv]

Now you are just trolling.

No I'm not, the Austrian emperor didn't put Salzbur outside the Austrian circle because they thought it was Bavarian and not Austria, but because they liked to have circles that were mostly confined to their hereditary lands.

So tell me, why do you think that Salzburg should be Austrian? You base culture on geography, traditions and language, so what can you tell regarding these? If you have proper convincing arguments, I would gladly hear them.

Whereas, I base culture on traditions, language and politics. I have already made arguments why the first two are not suitable to differentiate between Austriand and Bavarian (both are too similiar to do so). The nuances differing are not even consistent, as Upper Austrian is different from Salzburgian, Salzburgian is different from Tyrolian, Palatine Bavarian is different from Bavarian, etc pp. Every village is different in this regard.

Thus I base my argumentation on a common history. If one accepts Austrian and Bavarian are close, to whom would you think Salzburgians would feel more related? To those with whom they share a political council (and a common history) or to the Habsburgs which did not even care about Salzburg (that much). Compare Salzburg to Brixen and Trent - the Habsburgs tried to subjugate both of these. Getting Salzburg into their influence sphere would round up their posessions, wouldn't it?

Geography: While the city sits on a plain, most of the province is on the Alps and is either hilly or mountanious, like Tyrol(in-game Austrian). In itself while the city I can accept being Bavarian, the fact the province controls so much of the valleys in the Alps would not only make it weird have to it be Bavarian while Tyrol is Austrian but also hideous to look at.

Thus I base my argumentation on a common history. If one accepts Austrian and Bavarian are close, to whom would you think Salzburgians would feel more related? To those with whom they share a political council (and a common history) or to the Habsburgs which did not even care about Salzburg (that much). Compare Salzburg to Brixen and Trent - the Habsburgs tried to subjugate both of these. Getting Salzburg into their influence sphere would round up their posessions, wouldn't it?

I don't understand why you think the Reichkreis is so important, they had arbitrary borders(arbitrary to any geographic, linguistic or cultural areas). Brixen was basically a bunch of exclaves inside Austria, is not weird to have the Austria incorporate those and Trent is the same, divided with exclaves surrounded by Austrian land and obviously the fact they don't border any other Kreis outside Austria influenced the outcome even more.

Even then, they had Imperial Immediacy so they handled with the Austrian Imperial directly(I think) and not through Bavaria.

I mean at the end of the day it could be very well be both, personally I don't find the Reichkreis thing to be as important, but I guess other would disagree.

 

[Twoflower]

Geography: While the city sits on a plain, most of the province is on the Alps and is either hilly or mountanious, like Tyrol(in-game Austrian). In itself while the city I can accept being Bavarian, the fact the province controls so much of the valleys in the Alps would not only make it weird have to it be Bavarian while Tyrol is Austrian but also hideous to look at.

So you think common geographic features should be relevant to culture? Why? Especially since geography is already represented by, you know, the map. I am quite sorry, and perhaps it's me being dense, but I really, really don't get your argument, and I still feel that you're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

 

[Palando]

No I'm not, the Austrian emperor didn't put Salzbur outside the Austrian circle because they thought it was Bavarian and not Austria, but because they liked to have circles that were mostly confined to their hereditary lands.


Geography: While the city sits on a plain, most of the province is on the Alps and is either hilly or mountanious, like Tyrol(in-game Austrian). In itself while the city I can accept being Bavarian, the fact the province controls so much of the valleys in the Alps would not only make it weird have to it be Bavarian while Tyrol is Austrian but also hideous to look at.

You know that this would be even more arbitrary? You basically suggest that: "Flat" (its not that flat to begin with ...) land should be Bavarian, whereas mountainous land should be Austrian? Well, then Upper and Lower Austria should have Bavarian culture, as both have the same height structure like Bavaria (although Bavaria still had quite some mountains -> Zugspitze with close to 3000m).

And why should this kind of geography have an impact on traditions and language? Just because they might play alphorns, doesn't make them a different culture.

I don't understand why you think the Reichkreis is so important, they had arbitrary borders(arbitrary to any geographic, linguistic or cultural areas). Brixen was basically a bunch of exclaves inside Austria, is not weird to have the Austria incorporate those and Trent is the same, divided with exclaves surrounded by Austrian land and obviously the fact they don't border any other Kreis outside Austria influenced the outcome even more.

Even then, they had Imperial Immediacy so they handled with the Austrian Imperial directly(I think) and not through Bavaria.

I mean at the end of the day it could be very well be both, personally I don't find the Reichkreis thing to be as important, but I guess other would disagree.

Ok, so others and I have made the following clear but maybe I have to stress it even more:
Culture and Language are so close that there is no possibility to properly differentiate between Bavarian and Austrian

This leads to focusing on the different history and political realities, thus the Circle of Bavaria is notable in this regard.

BTW, you know that ingame Salzburg is part of the Upper Bavaria territory?

 

[Zerodv]

So you think common geographic features should be relevant to culture? Why? Especially since geography is already represented by, you know, the map. I am quite sorry, and perhaps it's me being dense, but I really, really don't get your argument, and I still feel that you're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

Because geography determines lifestyle, that part of the culture we can in this case more easily distinguish.

Well if you feel like I'm being contrarian, I could say the same and say this is change for change sake and it's not really needed. I genuinely think having Salzburg as Austrian is the best option between Bavarian and Austrian, I would have better things to do than drag a discussion without actually having a position on it.

You know that this would be even more arbitrary? You basically suggest that: "Flat" (its not that flat to begin with ...) land should be Bavarian, whereas mountainous land should be Austrian? Well, then Upper and Lower Austria should have Bavarian culture, as both have the same height structure like Bavaria (although Bavaria still had quite some mountains -> Zugspitze with close to 3000m).

In this case, you are taking it a bit too literally. I'd say the valley of the Salzach is more akin to Tyrol than to Bavaria, and given we don't have Tyrol culture(yet) and we put Tyrol under Austrian, it would follow that outside the city of Salzburg and its immediate surrounding the culture and/or lifestyle is more akin to Tyrol, ergo to what "Austrian" is in-game.

And why should this kind of geography have an impact on traditions and language? Just because they might play alphorns, doesn't make them a different culture.

Why do you put your main point on bold and make it big when you yourself forget about them? It's true that it's a pointless task to try and distinguish were Bavarian ends and Austrian begins but here it's more about the Alps-Upper Donau distinction where I think you can make at least barely some disntinction that stem from how the geography shapes the lives of the people(that still largery are similar to one another)

This leads to focusing on the different history and political realities, thus the Circle of Bavaria is notable in this regard.

For you the political geography is more important than the physical, I can't see how we are going to change this disagreement, I'm not really going to put a tantrum if PDX changes this province but from my perspective it really feels like an unnecessary change when taking the whole of the province.

While of course Bavaria has mountains, it has them mostly as borders and only a very small part of the valleys in the Northern part of the Alps were since the late Middle Ages under Bavarian control.

I still agree that Salzburg would be properly Bavarian(consider also that Innviertel was not yet Austrian) kinda like Roseheim is, but like I said the Salzach valley would be more Tyrolese in lifestyle.

People disagree apparently on correlating geography with culture or sometimes linguistics(but of course linguistics don't always correlate with culture even when you can see examples of strong correlation) but in Germany the 2 are quite correlated, from the Alemmanic-Swabian border following the Black Forest and Rhien, the 3 dialectal division following altitude more or less.

BTW, you know that ingame Salzburg is part of the Upper Bavaria territory?

Yeah, I guess I should just give up, it seems way more people care more about it being changed than me in remaining like it is now...



I think I said everything I had to say, what remains for me is to see what the devs think, luckly this is not the Balkans we are talking about >_>

 

[creativitypersonified]

This argument certainly doesn't hold true for the AI, which (I think) prefers conquering same-culture provinces over others. Making Salzburg should make AI Austria less likely to attack it.

Whether your argument makes sense for an Austrian player seems highly doubtful to me. Staying Emperor as Austria isn't that much of a challenge either way, and one electoral vote doesnt't really seem to justify not conquering a wealthy same-culture province (letting alone the fact that Salzburg doesn't even start as an electorate - which, admittedly, you can usually change early on).

Yeah the AI goes culture mad. But Salzburg isn't just an electoral vote , you can get those easy through allies. It also votes easier for reforms when Austria is emperor. It's really hard to get reforms after the reformation because protestants and reformed hate you . I recently tried forming the hre and Austrian Salzburg is so easy to get to vote for you you'd be a fool to annex it. Even if you don't aim for HRE unification getting reforms is super helpful and you need quite a few voters to support you.

 

[AirikrStrife]

Yeah the AI goes culture mad. But Salzburg isn't just an electoral vote , you can get those easy through allies. It also votes easier for reforms when Austria is emperor. It's really hard to get reforms after the reformation because protestants and reformed hate you . I recently tried forming the hre and Austrian Salzburg is so easy to get to vote for you you'd be a fool to annex it. Even if you don't aim for HRE unification getting reforms is super helpful and you need quite a few voters to support you.

I don't think this is a very relevant issue. It is still easy to pass reforms, even after the reformation if you'd played aggressively enough. Making it slightly (almost null) harder for Austria is not a problem. Especially not if Austria get's some new provinces and the HRE get some new states which have also been suggested.

 

[Caezx]

Why do we actually need to have Austrian and Bavarian as separate cultures? If the language and traditions are so similar, maybe Austria and Tirol should be made Bavarian Culture, and Styria made Styrian Culture(a new culture in the German culture group), which would start out accepted in Austria. I say this because Styria had far more cultural differences in relation to Bavaria than upper Austria did, and it was mentioned in many of the Add Slovenian Culture threads that Styria had a significative Slovenian influence.

 

[Palando]

Because geography determines lifestyle, that part of the culture we can in this case more easily distinguish.

So different lifestyle = different culture? Cities and the land side always had a different lifestyle. I know what you will reply to this: "We have to consider both seperately. Countryside culture has to be compared to other countryside cultures, and similiarly for the city culture."

You conclude that lifestyle is what can distinguish cultures, but then every region, every small settlement can be different, just because you have a different surrounding.
Look, goods produced can determine this by a lot. You always compare Salzburg to Tirol, so here you go: Tirol had many sheeps and a lot of wool, they therefore made felt clothing, e.g. the most prominent being their shoes. Isn't that a difference in lifestyle if those kind of shoes were mostly worn in Tyrol?
Salzburg on the other hand had a lot of salt, thus making it cheaper and more accessible for burghers. Southern Bavaria also had quite a lot of salt .

Well if you feel like I'm being contrarian, I could say the same and say this is change for change sake and it's not really needed. I genuinely think having Salzburg as Austrian is the best option between Bavarian and Austrian, I would have better things to do than drag a discussion without actually having a position on it.

Are you from Salzburg or the region?

The idea behind is that now the Austrian culture is just based on modern borders, whereas Salzburg was neither a part of Bavaria nor of Austria between 1444 and 1800. However, Salzburg was a part of Bavaria for around 500 years until the beginning of the 14th century.

In this case, you are taking it a bit too literally. I'd say the valley of the Salzach is more akin to Tyrol than to Bavaria, and given we don't have Tyrol culture(yet) and we put Tyrol under Austrian, it would follow that outside the city of Salzburg and its immediate surrounding the culture and/or lifestyle is more akin to Tyrol, ergo to what "Austrian" is in-game.

Tyrolese would burn you for this on the stake (literally). Culturally, Salzburg is a lot closer to the "plains" of Bavaria and Austria (Upper and Lower) than to Tyrol.

Don't forget that the Flachgau was/is the most populated region of Salzburg. This part of Salzburg is as flat as most of Bavaria.

While of course Bavaria has mountains, it has them mostly as borders and only a very small part of the valleys in the Northern part of the Alps were since the late Middle Ages under Bavarian control.

Nope. Kufstein was a part of Bavaria until 1505. This land is big enough to disprove you.

So let's look at the situation of Austria and Bavaria from the beginning.

The population of Austria and Bavaria originate from the Bavarii (Bajuwaren) which settled in the corresponding regions during the Migration Period. Thus back then we had the same ethnicity and thus also the same culture. If you come around with your lifestyle argument here, we would need to have Bavaria and Upper+Lower Austria (attention: anachronistic names!) as "flat" Bavarian and the rest as "alpine" Bavarian.

At the beginning of the HRE these lands were still united: Duchy of Bavaria in the 10th century

And now we have to ask, what did happen between the 10th century to possibly warrant a split in culture. The answer are the various land partitions of the Duchy of Bavaria.
The one part we would nowadays call Bavaria was in the possession of the von Wittelsbachs since 1180. So let's call this offspring of the original Bavarian culture "Wittelsbach Bavarian" (Bavaria + Salzburg).
The rest was partitioned among many different dynasties until the Habsburgs acquired Upper + Lower Austria and Styria during the reign of Rudolf of Habsburg (1273 - 1291) . That would then be "Habsburg Bavarian". The rest which wasn't owned permanently by either of these dynasties would be Tyrol and Carinthia (call it "South Bavarian" if you wish).

From 1300 until 1444, only two things happened: Tyrol and Carinthia came to the Habsburg dominion, so to the "Habsburg Bavarian".
Salzburg became independent from Bavaria, so you could call it "Salzburg Bavarian". Surely they didn't join the Habsburg's dominion for more than 500 years, so never were they part of a "Habsburg Bavarian" culture. Although, they were no longer part of the Wittelsbach dominion, they were at least part of it for quite some years in the past. It is therefore better to represent them as part of that culture (a one province culture would be excessive).


The difference between modern Austrians and Bavarians arose, because both were parts of a different dominion for that long. The Wittelsbachs and the Habsburgs were the main driving factor to differentiate. Both of these dynasties fostered a sense of national identity to legitimise their rule in the 19th century. The distinction you might know from nowadays originates even later (Dirndl, leather trousers and Schuhplattler come to mind, as these were made part of Austrian and Bavarian culture).
The birth of this pursuit of a cultural break away was the end of World War II. From then only, Austrians didn't consider themself to be German and try to search for as many differences as possible. As Bavaria is a part of Germany, there are some who deny the close link between Bavaria and Austria.

 

[Zerodv]

Whoops, I forgot Kufstein, with that in mind it makes more sense, although ideally it seems like it's better to have the a Danube valley Austrobavarian and an Alpine Austrobavarian, although having them follwing linguistic borders would be weird as well.

 

[Palando]

Whoops, I forgot Kufstein, with that in mind it makes more sense, although ideally it seems like it's better to have the a Danube valley Austrobavarian and an Alpine Austrobavarian, although having them follwing linguistic borders would be weird as well.

I tend to the following two possibilities:

Differentiate politically, thus Wittelsbach <-> Habsburg. In this case Salzburg would become Bavarian.


Differentiate linguistically and culturally within Bavarian. In this case there would be Donaubairisch/Mittelbairisch and Südbairisch in the German version of the game. I would like to point out that there is a difference between bayerisch and bairisch - the former is associated towards the state and the second one to the culture group as a whole (the language spoken in Austria is therefore Bairisch). As the English language doesn't allow to differentiate here, it might be justified to call it Danube(austro)bavarian and South(austro)bavarian to stress the difference between country and language/culture.

Danubeaustrobavarian would be Bavaria as it is (though we might misrepresent the northern part of the Upper Palatinate (Amberg)) and the provinces of Salzburg, Linz, Wien, Ostmark and Steiermark. Southaustrobavarian would then be Graz, Carinthia, Tyrol, Lienz and South Tyrol (if the province got split into two).
Krain should be split into two, Cilli split from the Graz province and together these three could get Slovene culture. Görz is up to debate. Otherwise give them Southaustrobavarian if Slovene is not implemented.

From a gameplay perspective, Danubeaustrobavarian would have a comparable total development like Austrian now has, and Southaustrobavarian would have nearly the same total development like Bavaria now has. We should only talk about giving Austria +2 max promoted cultures as ambition to compensate. The current ambition could very well become a permanent modifier granted by a flavour event (A.E.I.O.U. - Austriae est imperare orbi universo).
Or Austria could get Southaustrobavarian as an additional accepted culture through an event. Bavaria should not (-> Hofer).