The Frankish and the French

[Lutiferre]

Are the French descendants of the Frankish? The Frankish were a Germanic tribe, which was relatively early to become Christianized and take on a heavily Roman culture. The French speak a Romance language, which would classify their meta-ethnicity as Romance of course, but my question is not related to their current meta-ethnicity, but that of the Franks, who are potentially their ancestors?

[Carnyx]

The French people is the product of a symbiosis.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

The French people is the product of a symbiosis.

I am aware, but I am not aware of its extent, and I am just wondering why you have seemingly taken the name of this Germanic ancestor, and whether that suggests you are predominantly Frankish today?

In other words, the extent of your non-Frankish "blood".

[Menydh]

Is it not more like the Flemish or Southern Flemish (and NW French) who would be descendants of the Franks?

And then there is also the Burgundians, who were East Germanic. I don't think that this is shared with any other nation.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Is it not more like the Flemish or Southern Flemish (and NW French) who would be descendants of the Franks?

Maybe, but then why is it called "France", if the Franks today are a minority?

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Maybe, but then why is it called "France", if the Franks today are a minority?

Lombardy took its name from the Langbardians, who had come here from your lands (previous name, Winnili): all their artifacts are strikingly germanic, from combs to belt buckles etc, not to mention the fact that tehir history is well documented.

There are many remains of them, mostly cemeteries.

However only a minority of lombards look reasonably scandinavian, the majority is alpinid and dinarid.

Despite this this last migration gave its name to Lombardy.

Just as for France, where most of the populace descends from the old gaulish - roman stock.

[Cirrus]

It seems that the Franks were assimilated to the Gallo-Roman stock. So, there are surely French people who are their decendents, probably more in Northern France where their culture also influenced the local Law (with Germanic customary and habits) for example.
But I don't know if they were numerically strong compared to locals.

Of couse, this is less true for the Southern part of the country.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I am aware, but I am not aware of its extent, and I am just wondering why you have seemingly taken the name of this Germanic ancestor, and whether that suggests you are predominantly Frankish today?

In other words, the extent of your non-Frankish "blood".

The Franks assimilated, adopting a new language, new habits, etc. you know that. But first there has been a period of bilinguism (frankish/latin) among the Franks and the Gallo-Romans (among the nomenclatura, that is). But IMO, the assimilation was mutual, so to speak. Germanic names became very common among natives, names of which many ended up as family names, etc. Our romance language was "re-shaped" (pronounciation, the add of lots of new words from germanic and the grammar). And finally the non-germanic Gallos from north of France recognized themselves as "Francis". Those of the south were "Romanis".

Later in the crusades, the knights of the French kingdom, already known as France, were knew by the name of "Francs" (Franks); which didn't mean they were Franks, though.

Still, as some member like Cirrus have already mentioned in another threads, it's only recently that the Gauls have definitively been granted the rank of ancestors of the French, then the version has been approved by the Republic ("Nos ancêtres les Gaulois..." = our Gallic ancestors) and became official, somehow.

For it was when we got into trouble with our German neighbour that the Gauls reappeared in our history (Napoléon the IIIrd); before the XIXth century, the Frankish ancestry was more fancied. Oh of course there was some precedent in the Renaissance and with romanticism in the XVIIIth c., when the Celts were re-discovered and somewhat fantazised.

It's hard to evaluate with accuracy what part of our ancestry is dominant or not. Anyway, it's pretty evident we are predominantly non Frankish (it just takes you a pare of eyes to notice that), even though the Germanic impact on our history and destiny can't be denied. I know some like to claim our population has changed much since the time of the Franks, that France lost its "germanicity" -well, I hope they mean in the Oïl countries only- ("degermanized" or whatever the name you give to the phenomenon) which is quite... I don't know... ridiculous may be an appropriate word.

Maybe, but then why is it called "France", if the Franks today are a minority?

Today? They have always been. A little % I'd say. They were the ones who made us a great nation, led us, the first kings were Frankish. By extension the name of the inhabitants was changed from Gauls to Francis, we became "Francs", the inhabitants of the country ruled by the Franks. That's the only reason why.

After Charlemagne's death (notice the two Francie)

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Is it not more like the Flemish or Southern Flemish (and NW French) who would be descendants of the Franks?

Indeed.

And then there is also the Burgundians, who were East Germanic. I don't think that this is shared with any other nation.

And Alamans, Vandals, some Sueves and even a few Saxons and your all time fav', the Goths. Oh and while we are at it, some non-Germanic guys, the Allans (they left a print in many localities: alains). It was full of diversity back then.


I agree with Breha and Cirrus here.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Maybe, but then why is it called "France", if the Franks today are a minority?

We are not alone in Europe in this case. Why do Hungarians call themselves Magyars?

[Menydh]

Alright, my take is..

You cannot speak in terms of a "minority" for any of those old (ex-)germanic peoples, today. They are dissolved in the host populations, at different degrees (at least in Francia). And even when you think that one looks like "predominantly" of Frankic ancestry, you cannot call him "a Frank" as if he belonged to a different people to those native in France today.

Cirrus has mentioned "The South". I would ask which south. As you move towards the South of Francia (north of Pays d'Oc), I would expect this element to be weaker. But I don't know this for certain so I'm just speculating here.

However, I can well imagine that by "The South" he meant Occitania. Any Frankish element there has to be extremely weak, if it exists at all. Unless we assumed that the Franks were touring around with something else in their hands than the sword. I'm sure that you know what I mean.

In that "South" (Occitania) it was the Goths who settled there. First in Aquitania (West) and then in the Narbonensis (East).

Before speculating on how the Franks came to dominate those regions (and the regions north of them first), it would be useful to have some pointers to the terms of the hospitalitas in the Gallia (which I believe that they are quite well documented) and then not forget that the Franks (like the Goths) intention was to assimilate themselves in the Roman administration, through substituting the imperial power. Not to destroy it. In fact the Goths and Franks competed for the same, the re-creation of the Western Roman Empire. The Franks adopted Catholicism while the Goths were Arianists. How much of the maitenance of the old Roman administration they achieved is a matter for another discussion.

Carnyx has also mentioned the Alans, who in Hispania they arrived as federated to the Vandals. But I believe that in Gallia they also raided on their account.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Cirrus has mentioned "The South". I would ask which south. As you move towards the South of Francia (north of Pays d'Oc), I would expect this element to be weaker. But I don't know this for certain so I'm just speculating here.

However, I can well imagine that by "The South" he meant Occitania. Any Frankish element there has to be extremely weak, if it exists at all. Unless we assumed that the Franks were touring around with something else in their hands than the sword. I'm sure that you know what I mean.

Ha ! Again this debate about the Frenchness of Occitania.
It seems to be become reccurent between us.

Anyway, I will just add that the term Francia just mean "the territory where the Franks exercise their authority", so, like you can see in the map posted by Carnyx, it could have been a very large land (and so, not only Northern Gaul).

Originally Posted by Mynydd

In that "South" (Occitania) it was the Goths who settled there. First in Aquitania (West) and then in the Narbonensis (East).

Yes, but Franks (with Clovis) conquered Aquitania in 507 (battle of Vouillé) and Provence in 536. So, there was also a Frankish presence there since those times.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Ha ! Again this debate about the Frenchness of Occitania.

Well, not really. It is just that your words were causing a little confusion.

It seems to be become reccurent between us.

Ad aeternum.

Anyway, I will just add that the term Francia just mean "the territory where the Franks exercise their authority", so, like you can see in the map posted by Carnyx, it could have been a very large land (and so, not only Northern Gaul).

Gallia Celtica then?

Yes, but Franks (with Clovis) conquered Aquitania in 507 (battle of Vouillé) and Provence in 536. So, there was also a Frankish presence there since those times.

And that's also a reason why I mentioned what's to be taken into account.

When is the "Frank", a Frank and when is he a Gallo-Roman in the Frankish administration?

At a time, the Franks used the terms Gothia and Hispania indistinctively. Isidore of Seville and his brother are consistently referred as "Goths" in nearly all texts. Except for the history books which, more realistically, refer to them as Hispano-Goths. However their father was a Hispano-Roman, not a Goth. The Dux Claudius is mentioned as the dux militaris who led the Gothic army to the greatest defeat of the Franks. Yet he was a Hispano-Roman dux provinciae of the Lusitania. And if he was the commander, how many of those "Goths" would be Goths?

It is absolutely necessary to understand the momentum. The populations of Gallia and Hispania had long forgotten their tribal monarchies, at large. It was Roman imperial administration that they were used to. And though the effectiveness of such administraton would never return, The Franks and the Goths had suplanted the imperial power and therefore the Roman (Gallo-Roman, Hispano-Roman) people of the administration had to look now at Aquisgran, Tolosa or Toledo.

[Ricardo Reis]

We call the country Ghallia till today. We call (used to in an extent) Fraggia the part of Europe west to Adriatic Sea. Fraggos (Frank) is used for Catholics-Protestands as a whole.

[Kernunnos]

We were also ruled by teh franks after the langbardians (the franks defeated them) however we neevr got that name.

One shall call us germanics with some difficulty, if not in zones where langbardians were extremely concentrated.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Breha

We were also ruled by teh franks after the langbardians (the franks defeated them) however we neevr got that name.

One shall call us germanics with some difficulty, if not in zones where langbardians were extremely concentrated.

Do you think there is another reason for that?