France and Germany

The more I read about early Medieval history (600AD-1100AD), the more confused I become about European cultural traditions.

Take the above mentioned neighbors, Germany and France for example. Or, to describe them slightly differently, the Kingdom of the Eastern Franks and the Kingdom of the Western Franks. In other words, each of the two countries is descended from Charlemagne's realm (along with Northern Italy, of course). But there are such radical differences between the two countries: language, interpretation of Salic law, the form that feudalism took, the list goes on and on.

And as far as I know, there were no major migrations into one or the other country since they were united. What gives? If nothing else, I'd really like to nail down the language issues.. why do the French speak a Romantic language (with minor German influences) while the Germans speak a Teutonic langague (with minor Latin influences).

Also, is modern French a combination of Langue d'Oc and Langue d'Oil or did one win out over the other... Why?

Isn't the language issue due to romanisation?
Germany, or those lands that would form the HRE, were never a part of the Roman Empire, Gaul was. So that would explain why Frech became a language based on Latin, with German influences, due to invasions, migrations,... and German became a Germanic language, with latin influences due to their technology, the church,...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

Isn't the language issue due to romanisation?
Germany, or those lands that would form the HRE, were never a part of the Roman Empire, Gaul was. So that would explain why Frech became a language based on Latin, with German influences, due to invasions, migrations,... and German became a Germanic language, with latin influences due to their technology, the church,...

---

Right, but large parts of Germany were in fact part of the Roman empire, such as Switzerland and Austria. Yet they speak German.

I guess I'm asking if even though they were ruled by one man, were Western Franks and Eastern Franks always two distinct places?

Definitely.
While the East and West Frankish kingdoms were once united, there were different influences on each. As posted, Germany has alot more un-Romantic influences (they also speak a language not derived from Latin :2thumbsup: )
France has the Latinization of the Gauls.

The Germans were far less civilized and more tribal and community oriented, not so in France. The French had different people and origins, true. However they were farther from relying on family and friends than the Germans were. You still had a pre-feudal chief/clan organization. The French were able to homogenize more easily, not the case in Germany. Also, the Roman laws formed the basis for most laws in Romanized countries. The Germans had laws that varied with region.

I also think that the Swiss just speak German in the northern areas. Some speak Italian, others French. It's simple immigration.
The Austrian area (Noricum) was Romanized and became really a focal point of the rule in southern Germany after the invasions. The Austrians slowly assimilated and joined the Germans in speaking German.

You're speaking about the people living in France in 650AD as though they were different than the people living in Germany in 650AD. But Gaul does not equal France.... there was a major migration of the Franks that turned France from Celtic stock (Gauls) to Germanic stock (Franks).

So, why were the pre-migratory inhabitants in France (the Gauls) able to have such a dramatic influence on the newly arriving Franks, Goths, et. al.? And what's more, why were they able to exert such an influence when their Celtic cousins to the North in Britain were unable to exert similar influence on the Germans moving in to their lands (the Angles and the Saxons)? France was a land of Celts that got settled by Germanic tribes moving in that managed to keep their Roman administered heritage and Roman based language. Likewise, Britain was a land of Celts, also administered under Roman law, that abandoned their ways and adopted the culture and language of the Germanic tribes that moved in....It wasn't duration of Roman rule... Gaul wasn't really under Roman rule until ~40BC... Britain was roughly 80 years later.

I mean, the way I read it, if you make a genetic map of a guy living in Orleans and a guy living in Frankfort, they're going to look pretty much the same, right? The differences between the two have all evolved due to cultural differentiation after the split-up of Charlamagne's kingdom, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Right, but large parts of Germany were in fact part of the Roman empire, such as Switzerland and Austria. Yet they speak German.

---

Romanization wasn't spread equally throughout the Empire. Here in Belgium we have a french-speaking southern halve and a dutch(germanic)-speaking Flanders. The south was more intensly populated by romans, while the north was left quite 'wild'. I think the same applies to various regions of Switserland and Austria. And considering that these aren't the most accessible regions and they had a lot of german migration passing through them later, it's no wonder they speak german now.

I think the difference between Roman Gaul and Roman Brittain is that the Saxon invaders were pagans, and deliberately segregated themselves from the subjected population. The Franks had already converted to Roman christianity before they invaded, and they didn't have a similar policy AFAIK.

Don, I do not know how good your German is, but many if not most German words have Latin origin. There are many words that are very similar in French and German (as it is in English) although the prononciation is different.

I doubt that the realm of Charlemagne was very homogeneous. The western part wasn't for sure.

There had not been a common German language before Luther. His bible was more or less the definition of German. Before that, there had been a lot of local dialects. Even today, after the tourbulences of WW2 and the standardization via TV and bokks there are still several dialects left and sometimes it is hard to understand someone from another part of Germany.

Also I think that you are not right with the idea, that there had been no migration, or no contacts. I am not very familiar with the early middle ages, but in modern times there had been many contacts, for example the Huguenots. Or the time of the Napoleonic wars. I know that esp. in Bavaria, that was allied with France for a while, French was very popular. Even my grandmather used to use a lot of French words, that had entered the German language. Most of them are gone, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You're speaking about the people living in France in 650AD as though they were different than the people living in Germany in 650AD. But Gaul does not equal France.... there was a major migration of the Franks that turned France from Celtic stock (Gauls) to Germanic stock (Franks).

So, why were the pre-migratory inhabitants in France (the Gauls) able to have such a dramatic influence on the newly arriving Franks, Goths, et. al.? And what's more, why were they able to exert such an influence when their Celtic cousins to the North in Britain were unable to exert similar influence on the Germans moving in to their lands (the Angles and the Saxons)? France was a land of Celts that got settled by Germanic tribes moving in that managed to keep their Roman administered heritage and Roman based language. Likewise, Britain was a land of Celts, also administered under Roman law, that abandoned their ways and adopted the culture and language of the Germanic tribes that moved in....It wasn't duration of Roman rule... Gaul wasn't really under Roman rule until ~40BC... Britain was roughly 80 years later.

I mean, the way I read it, if you make a genetic map of a guy living in Orleans and a guy living in Frankfort, they're going to look pretty much the same, right? The differences between the two have all evolved due to cultural differentiation after the split-up of Charlamagne's kingdom, correct?

---

A lot of Germanic people moved into Gaul before Rome fell, and learnt to speak latin. Remaining Celts in Gaul spoke latin. So did romans who had settled there. Even though the Frankish migration into Gaul was a massive one, they were most likely still a minority in the province compared to Celts, and other Germanic people, who were already speaking latin. I don't think the Frankish tribesmen saw any good purpose in trying to enforce speaking of their own language upon the province population since the risks of revolt* etc. were too big compared to the (very small) gain possible to make from it.

* not a revolt out of a language conversion alone, but along with other similar measures such moves could stir up sentiments that the Franks were foreign cruel conquerors who needed to be overthrown. Instead, mixing with the conquered province was a better way of not angering the locals with being the upper class who must have enjoyed some privileges over the local population in their position as political leaders of the region. But many franks probably also saw the already previously settled germanic population in their area as friends and didn't have the sentiment to conquer and subjugate them, but also wished to "meet them halfway", thus being prepared to adapt to these men who had probably helped them a lot during their migration into the province, and been good hosts to them.

Of course, the Gallic latin was probably already at that time a very different accent from the Roman one, and the gallic and germanic population had most likely already before the fall of Rome added some words from their own languages into the latin accent spoken there.

Later, the Frankish rulers also got ambitions of being the rulers of a surviving Rome, rather than conquerors of/liberators of/immigrants to a single previous province of it: they tried to claim the Italian peninsula and the Iberian one as well (though moderately successful with the Iberian one). Among a Christian population in Gaul and Italy, it would be useful to receive some "Christian mandate" to holding this power. Although the Pope at this time was a controversial figure: most non-roman Christians wanted to kill this usurper and false prophet, a pact between Franks and the Pope enabled the Franks to confirm his authority and militarily protect him, while the Pope in return would use his previously existing and newly gained power to coronate Charlemagne "Holy roman emperor" and give him some mandate to conquer and become a political ruler of all Christians who had previously been romans. Another part of this "mandate" was to speak a latin-derived language or latin. So if any ideas would have arisen to carry out a conversion to Germanic language at this time, there was now even better reason to not do it. When Charlemagne started his campaigns eastwards, he had political usage of being able to switch between being the "latin-speaking man with roman-Christian authority to be everybody's leader", and "being the man with germanic origin who united all germanic people".

So basically there are two simple reasons the French don't speak a Germanic language today: at first, there was no reason for the Franks to convert the population to a Germanic language, and later, there was even a purpose to speaking latin or a latin-derived language.

Charlemagne's control further east was so weak and short-lived that after his death, and the splitting of his empire, the eastern rulers probably saw it best to not enforce the language of the western part, since there was now no real justification for it: why convert to a language that doesn't exist anywhere within your borders, but rather within the country of your brother, who happened to (shortly after the splitting) become your military enemy?

Two things: the migration of Germanic peoples westward, while huge in military impact, was relatively small in absolute numbers, meaning that there was a far greater chance of cultural/linguistic combinations in what is now France, or at least a slower filtering down from a Germanic elite into the lower echelons of society; secondly, there never was a real clear cut divide between the two (later even more) realms. A large part of this can be attributed to the "banale revolutie" (don't know the English word, basically the devolution of power to smaller lords who held 'banum' from the king) all over the former Frankish empire, which happened differently in the Eastern and Western Frankish kingdoms and led to more importance of different groups.

In any case, witness the whole controversy over Alsace-Lorraine even in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, where the division over language and culture was anything but clear cut and both France and Germany had some claim and some support. If even so late in history there was little clarity over something as large as language, you can imagine that before then (with many different minor states) things were even more confusing. There wasn't a distinct border between what you could call French or German.

Thank you everyone. I'm really enjoying this discussion....:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You're speaking about the people living in France in 650AD as though they were different than the people living in Germany in 650AD. But Gaul does not equal France.... there was a major migration of the Franks that turned France from Celtic stock (Gauls) to Germanic stock (Franks).

So, why were the pre-migratory inhabitants in France (the Gauls) able to have such a dramatic influence on the newly arriving Franks, Goths, et. al.? And what's more, why were they able to exert such an influence when their Celtic cousins to the North in Britain were unable to exert similar influence on the Germans moving in to their lands (the Angles and the Saxons)? France was a land of Celts that got settled by Germanic tribes moving in that managed to keep their Roman administered heritage and Roman based language. Likewise, Britain was a land of Celts, also administered under Roman law, that abandoned their ways and adopted the culture and language of the Germanic tribes that moved in....It wasn't duration of Roman rule... Gaul wasn't really under Roman rule until ~40BC... Britain was roughly 80 years later.

I mean, the way I read it, if you make a genetic map of a guy living in Orleans and a guy living in Frankfort, they're going to look pretty much the same, right? The differences between the two have all evolved due to cultural differentiation after the split-up of Charlamagne's kingdom, correct?

---

no.

you are misinterpreting the effect of the frankish migration.

when the germainc tribes such as the francs started moving into the territory of modern france, they were moving into a highly civilised, fairly urbanised country with a large population.
the franks didnt replace the large indiginous (latin-french speaking) population, they merely formed the new ruling class.
the genetic effect of the germainc migrations in france will have been fairly minimal.

i should add, thereason i mention that gaul was highly developed/civilized/urbanised, much more so than the germainic homelands, is that it is natural that the germanic people coming into contact with such a culture and living amongst it would be impressed and won over by it. i am sure this partially explains why the franks in france started speaking the romance language. To them it would have seemed the langauge of high cluture ( and religion) . Also it was already a developed written langague which is helpful in terms of administration.

I don't know much about the origins of French or German, but the origins of modern day English were directly influenced by the Norman invasion of 1066.

That invasion resulted in the replacement of most of the existing Anglo-Saxon aristocracy with Norman nobles who supported Williams claim to the English throne, and as a consequence Norman French became the language of both court and government.

However, Saxon English remained the language of trade and commerce and was not completely replaced by French. The theory is that as Norman noblemen married Saxon women and had children these children grew up learning both French and Saxon, whilst traders learnt to introduce French words into their normal language when dealing with their Norman overlords.

So, what England actually ended up with was a hybrid language which includes duplicate words, of both French and Saxon origin for essentially the same thing. The traditional use of these words being French = Formal, Saxon = Executive. Thus, Respond (derived from French) is a polite word e.g. 'please respond', whilst Answer (derived form Saxon) is a more direct and potentially blunt word that means the same thing e.g. 'Answer me'.

Whether a similar process applied on mainland europe I can't say, but if it didn't then I'm curious why not.

For information: first use of primitive french in a scripture in 812 ad, in the "oaths of Strasbourg" something between Charlemagne and his sons if I remember well.

English, Didz, English. The term Saxon should not be applied to the greater language or culture of England prior to the Norman conquest. Please note, that this is a personal quibble, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. :drama1: It's a Celtic mistake to make. You aren't a Celt, are you? :inquisitive:

I don’t know if you could have easily found a more complex subject but just the same…..


In the middle ages most language and identity was based on regionalism and not nationalism. Almost every region had a separate language and Latin was sort of a common tongue between the educated. Most monarchs only controlled the people they could scare and in France this wasn’t very much.

Those vast tracts that were the Roman Empire never all spoke Latin exclusively and Germanic invasions helped to reshape the spoken languages in what is Germany/Austria etc. today.

Most of what we think of as National Languages didn’t come about until fairly recently. While English was influenced by French it was Norman French and not what we think of as French today. Most countries didn’t concentrate on the matter until the 1600-1700s with a few exceptions.

The Romance Languages are just where the vernacular Latin went in that region after several hundred years or so and diverged into another Language all together.

The Franks in the west evidently switched to the Latin of their Gaulish neighbors, as the Normans after a hundred years or so switched to English.

The English speaking world tends to measure everything in comparison to our own popular history. England was actually called the first nation in terms of unity and people thinking of them selves in that sort of light. Most others did not. Remember Germany as a nation only came together in the 19th century. Greek was still the main language in southern Italy only a century or so ago. Alsace was still part of Germany until the end of WWI and spoke German. Some still think of them selves as more German than French…

Anyway all this came about in the rise of Nation States and that was very very much later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

English, Didz, English. The term Saxon should not be applied to the greater language or culture of England prior to the Norman conquest. Please note, that this is a personal quibble, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. :drama1: It's a Celtic mistake to make. You aren't a Celt, are you? :inquisitive:

---

Can't think of a better term when dealing with the matter of the English language. English is a hydrid language, predominantly based upon north european languages that were carried over the north sea with Angle and Saxon settlers and Norman French words introduced after the Norman invasion. The Celtic language barely features in English and is preserved more in Welsh than English as the Celtic culture was driven out to the west by my ancestors.

I still find it amusing that I can understand a lot of Danish people I meet in MP games simply by direct word association, there are so many similarities in the language.

How about Old English? :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

How about Old English? :sweatdrop:

---

Old English are mints:laugh4:

“Alsace was still part of Germany until the end of WWI "Alsace was annex by Louis the XIV… Treaty of Nijmegen where SPAIN ceded Franche-Comté, Cambrai, Valenciennes, Alsace comes under the influence of French sovereignty.
Alsace was never GERMAN until the 1870 war when it annex it from France…

and spoke German.: Nope, they speak Alsatian, (well they speak French) which is a kind of Germanic language…


"Some still think of them selves as more German than French…”
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Probably the reason why during the WW2 the Germans built a concentration camp (the Strutoff) to “persuade” the Alsatians to stop to desert…They were know as the “malgres-nous”, the “against our will”.
By experience, never say to an old generation Alsatian is or she is German… They resent this very badly…

There are similar conflicts of culture in Belgium so I'm told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

There are similar conflicts of culture in Belgium so I'm told.

---

In what way?

There is a German speaking part in Belgium. This region was donated (I know it's not the right word) by the Germans to Belgium after WWI as compensation. But I don't believe they have a hard rooted problem with Germany or France or Belgium for that matter.

Maybe you're refering to Flandres-Wallony situation. Apparently a lot of foreign journalists and foreign 'expert' (read non Belgians) seem to think that Belgium is on the verge of a seperation. Most experts here are convinced that this won't happen just yet. Believe me when I say that Belgians have a history of original and unorthodox solutions to whatever problem arises between cultures.

Interesting thoughts about languages and how they influence peoples view of nationality.

I remember reading years ago that in the early 17th century an Englishman from south Lincolnshire/north Norfolk could actually hold a conversation with folks from Holland. In fact there are several places along the east coast of England (and elsewhere) called Up/Lower Holland. I actually lived in a town next to a place called Up Holland.

If memory serves, the language was only really 'set' when the printing press arrived.

There was a program on TV by Adam Hart Davis who researched this. A man from Yorkshire had an awful lot of problems understanding a man from, say, Cumbria. The dialect and pronunciation was so different it was really another language.

Indeed I have read recently on these boards that some German accents are so different that other Germans have great difficulty understanding them.

Fascinating topic Don :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

In what way?

---

We had a couple of Dutch girls staying with us a few years ago, and they were talking about the internal divisions that exist in their country between the people and culture of those with French and German ancestry. I just got the impression from what they were saying that there was a lot of resentment simmering under the surface between those who spoke Flemish and those who spoke Dutch. Apparently, this was not helped by the Nederlandse Taalunie (The Dutch Language Union) which was/is attempting to standardize the language and therefore making choices between dialects. The spelling reform they imposed in 2005 was not very popular apparently.

But as I say I don't know much more about it than what I was told by these young ladies. I just recall them both being quite angry about it at the time, particularly about the growth of German influence.

Bit of an aside . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

A large part of this can be attributed to the "banale revolutie" (don't know the English word, basically the devolution of power to smaller lords who held 'banum' from the king)

---

From how you describe it, I think 'feudalization' (probably feudalisation if you're a Brit) would be the best English term.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Alsace was still part of Germany until the end of WWI "Alsace was annex by Louis the XIV… Treaty of Nijmegen where SPAIN ceded Franche-Comté, Cambrai, Valenciennes, Alsace comes under the influence of French sovereignty.
Alsace was never GERMAN until the 1870 war when it annex it from France…

and spoke German.: Nope, they speak Alsatian, (well they speak French) which is a kind of Germanic language…


"Some still think of them selves as more German than French…”
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Probably the reason why during the WW2 the Germans built a concentration camp (the Strutoff) to “persuade” the Alsatians to stop to desert…They were know as the “malgres-nous”, the “against our will”.
By experience, never say to an old generation Alsatian is or she is German… They resent this very badly…

---

Spain also owned the southern Netherlands and Milan; this does not mean these territories were Spanish. Besides, if you look more closely, you will find that Alsatia was always part of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation).

Alsatian is a dialect of German, like Swiss German, and not a completely seperate language.

“Besides, if you look more closely, you will find that Alsace was always part of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation).” It doesn’t make Alsace German because as you stated “Spain also owned the southern Netherlands and Milan; this does not mean these territories were Spanish.”
The village where I born was in the Holly Roman German Empire and I don’t particularly feel German…
And before Alsace was in Charlemagne’s Empire…
And the Francs were a Germanic Tribe…

Prior to its annexation by France, Alsatia was as German as neighbouring Baden, the Palatinate or Brandenburg. Its inhabitants had Germanic names (and many still do), its places German names and its people spoke a dialect of German, none of which can be said of any of the Spanish possessions outside of Iberia.

On the subject of why the native Celtes never had much influence over the invading Saxons in Britain, there is a reason for this. Although first of all, you can't really talk about it as Britain, as obviously the level of Celtic influence throughouth Britain varies hugely from area to area. Anyway, when the Saxons landed on the eastern shores of England and southern Scotland, they often massacred entire villages, killing men and children and marrying their wives. Most of the Celts fled to Wales, Cornwall, and Strathclyde in southern Scotland / Northern England, as well as Britanny (many of whom returned with William the Conqueror, and formed 1/3 of his army IIRC). In additional to the Picts of north-east Scots, these formed the p-celtic population of the British Isles. Meanwhile, the q-celtic Gaels inhabited Ireland and north-west Scotland. Basically, the Saxons drove the Celts out of England before they could even be influenced by the culture.

I'm not so sure about Gaul, but from what I have heard here it seems that the Frankish migrants integrated more into the society there.