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.

“Prior to its annexation by France, Alsatia was as German as neighbouring Baden, the Palatinate or Brandenburg.” Yep, with the small details that Germany was created in 1870.:beam:
Do you link the nationality with the spoken language? Because in doing that part of Belgium, part of Swiss and Italy and Quebec are French?
Austria is German? You know where it led in the past…

“Its inhabitants had Germanic names (and many still do), its places German names and its people spoke a dialect of German”: And? I lived in Alsace during 5 years and believe it or not, they all speak French…A great number of French politicians and Generals were and are from Alsace (Kleber and Kellerman for probably the best known…). The song for the “Army from the Rhine”, written by Rouget de l’Isle, was compose in Strasbourg and will become the Marseillaise…
Alsace was French before Savoie, and at the same time than Franche Comte

“none of which can be said of any of the Spanish possessions outside of Iberia.” You mean in Europe…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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 Alsace was always part of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation).

---

Though I agree that Alsace (sp?) was and is still somehow germanic, the fact it was part of the HRE has nothing to do with that. Most part of nowadays eastern france were included in the HRE at some point, yet these place do not share a germanic culture with Alsace.

As for Don's question, as people explained, the Franks invaded a strongly latinized and highly populated country, and quickly understood that adopting local customs was the best way to be accepted as rulers.
As such, they followed the path of previous germanic invaders. Southern France for example was mostly composed of Romano-gallic kingdoms rulled by other germanic peoples.

Edit : Brenus, while it's true that most if not all people from alsace speak french, a lot of them also speak the local dialect, which sound more like german. A large part of my familly live and has always lived in Alsace, and they all - children included - speak alsacian.

Brenus/Meneldil

Is that the difference between Langue d'Oc and Langue d'Oil? One is Latin mixed with the language of the Gothic-Germans and the other is Latin mixed with the language of the Franco-Germans? Is modern French a blend of the two, or is it more heavily one or the other?

“Brenus, while it's true that most if not all people from alsace speak french, a lot of them also speak the local dialect, which sound more like german. A large part of my family lives and has always lived in Alsace, and they all - children included - speak Alsatian.”
I spend 4 years I Alsace (Mutzig, 153 RI) and yes, they speak Alsatian. I remember receiving the “Dernieres Nouvelles d’Alsace” –local newspaper- in this language… However, that doesn’t make the Alsatians German, just because a Germanic Dialect. My neighbours, Alsatians were quite upset each time they were associated to the Germans, and we even had one soldier under disciplinary procedures because he said to an Alsatian he was German (boche).
One of my colleagues had his uncle drafted in the SS (1.SS-Pz.Div "Leibstandarte Adolph Hitler" because he was tall) and deserted. Sad story, one the others who deserted was killed in France after the war because in coming back from the Russian Front and avoiding all towns and villages, they didn’t know thewar was over.
However, back to the subject, he was not proud of his “German origin”, and you know that they were the “Malgres Nous”, even if his name had a German sound.
France, the nation, is not described by a language, but by the sharing of common values… Basques, Corsicans, Alsatians, Lorrains (Joan of Arc) and Britons speak (less and less) what we call now a local language. However they are still French.

“difference between Langue d'Oc and Langue d'Oil”. The Langue d’Oc was spoken in the South, and the langue d’Oil in the North, the limit being roughly Lyon (Rhone and Garonne Rivers).
The confrontation between the Counts of Toulouse and what will become the Kings of France determined what will become French, with more Germanic and Saxon words. The Trouveres (Oil) and the Troubadours (Oc) were the same persons but in Oil and Oc languages…
The “Song of Roland” was a langue d’Oil poem, the Chanson de Gestes, telling the Geste, the epopee of the heroes.
The troubadours (Chretien de Troyes) are better known for the Amour Courtois, the love stories, in which the basic rules are
Who is not jealous can’t love
Open love is not to live long
Love increases or decreases
Easy success diminishes love
Obstacles give love values

Exemple of Oil poem :

Biaus m'est estez, quant retentist la bruille,
Que li oisel chantent per le boschage
Et l'erbe vert de rosee se muille,
Qui resplandir la fait lez le rivage.
De bone amour vuil que mes cuers se duille,
Que nuns fors moi n'a vers li son corage;
Et nonpourquant trop est de haut parage
Cele cui j'ain; n'est pas droiz qu'el me vuille.

Modern French translation :
Beau m'est l'été quand la broussaille retentit,
Que les oiseaux chantent dans les bosquets,
Et que l'herbe verte se mouille de rosée
Qui la fait resplendir à côté du rivage.
De bon amour je veux que mon cœur se conforte,
Que nul autre que moi n'ait tourné vers elle son esprit.
Et cependant, celle que j'aime est de trop haute naissance;
Il n'est pas concevable qu'elle veuille de moi.

I will NOT translate in English, sorry:shame:

We still study theirs texts, from both sides of the rivers.
And believe me, it is not easy…:sweatdrop:

@Caledonian-Rhyfelwyr
Yes...I think thats a good explanation. The main goal of the Angle/Saxon 'invasion' (for want of a better word - it was more like mass immigration with menances) was to acquire land and resettle. Therefore, unlike the Norman invasion many centries later it did not merely replace the ruling aristocracy with its own leaders who happened to speak another language. It actually drove the existing farmers, and villagers off their land and replaced them with Angle/Saxon families.

Therefore, entire populations of were driven west taking the Celtic Language with them and were replaced with 'Anglish' speaking immigrants and their offsprng. There must be some underlying magic number at work in this equation whereby the ratio of celtic speaking people living in Angleland after this period of settlement was not enough to effect a noticeable influence on the develop of English, whereas the ratio between Anglish speakers and Norman French speakers after the Norman invasion was, but exactly where the dividing line is for influence to be exerted is difficult to determine.

Iffy. The English didn't just arrive one day, give the natives the boot, and then start squatting in their homes. I'm of the opinion that, to begin with at least, it was something more akin to an exagerated modern Tibet situation with the flood of Han chinese into the region, drowning out native blood, "repressing" local culture and religion, and slowly killing off the language by simple means of necessity.

As to why the English kingdoms expanded so rapidly after their creation (or seizure, in the cases of Kent and Bernicia), I don't think it's so simple as "bad men done it". I'd put it down to three things: The need to accomodate the sudden, rapid rise in population. Individual ambition allowed to flourish in a frontier-like scenario. And more than anything, I'd say it was of paramount importance to their survival. Had they not expanded they wouldn't have attracted so many of their mainland kin, they'd ultimately have stagnated and become easy prey for their Briton rivals, who certainly had the means to defeat them - in the North particularly.

And I don't buy the theory that every "Celt" in the east simply packed up and went trumping off to the safety of Wales. The elite, definately, but the average joes? Nah.

@justiciar
The English didn't arrive from anywhere. The English are a hybrid race which are still evolving on a day to day basis as they absorb new races and cultures into their mix.

The issue we were discussing was the evolution of the English language, which, is also still evolving on a day to day basis which is really sketchy.

('Av-it' 'Gravy' and Yohurt-top')

The issue I was addressing in my earlier post was an attempt to rationalise why Norman French had such an influence upon the evolution of the English language, whilst the earlier native Celtic language did not. The rational expanation seems to me to be exactly the point I made. Namely that the Norman invasion only replaced the aristocracy of England leaving the majority of the population still speaking Anglish, whereas the earlier Anglo-Saxon/Viking incursions were about land acquisition and thus displaced the native population in favour of germanic and northern european speaking immigrants.

Thus, the celtic speaking natives WERE driven east, at least in sufficient numbers that they ceased to have much influence over the language spoken in the resettled area's like East Anglia. If that were not the case then we would have to consider what other factors resulted in the Celtic language being driven westward into Wales, Ireland and Cornwall.

Heh, sorry. I wasn't trying to debate the language issue. I was just going off on a short and rather pointless rant about the over-simplified - though ultimately accurate - explanation.

Quote:

---

If that were not the case then we would have to consider what other factors results in the Celtic language being driven westward into Wales, Ireland and Cornwall.

---

I can't really dispute the first half of that paragaph, though the second half quoted above, I'd certainly like to make a go of. Brythonic languages weren't "driven" westwards, they were already the dominant languages in Wales and Cornwall (and Rheged and Strathclyde, though the dialects/languages in those regions died off, again, by way of necessity). Even Welsh and Cornish began a significant decline without influencing English after those nations were conquered, and only really clung on to survival in extremities, and with the help of concerned linguists. And Irish? They were the ones doing the driving, much of the time. :whip: Though again, after Ireland was conquered that language too came dangerously close to extinction. Politics can shape language just as easily as language can shape politics.

What I was trying to propose in the last post I made was that Brythonic languages made little impact on English because those who spoke them weren't great enough in number or social standing to make a difference. Now it certainly is possible that vast numbers of Britons went refugee and wandered to the safety of their Christian neighbours to the west; it's just my personal opinion that it being anything near to a majority is unlikely. If that were the case then about half the people in Wales and Cornwall would ultimately have spoken other Brythonic languages, and - please someone correct me if I'm wrong - there isn't really much evidence that those two tongues were influenced by their eastern kin around this time, and they're much more likely to have made an impact there than in the Germanic east or increasingly Gaelic north.

I'll say here and now that I'm not an expert, and so about 90% of what I'm saying can't be backed up, and can be ignored at your leisure. :2thumbsup:

Other than that.. yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

What I was trying to propose in the last post I made was that Brythonic languages made little impact on English because those who spoke them weren't great enough in number or social standing to make a difference.

---

That was the point I was trying to make also, so in that respect we seem to agree. The Norman French influence was obviously higher because the Normans formed the ruling class after the the invasion. Nevertheless, the fact that the entire trading and labouring class of the country continued to speak Anglish (Anglish btw: is my invented term for whatever hybrid language was being spoken in England prior to absorbing Norman French) seems to have been enough to prevent Norman French displacing it as the native language and instead English emerged as a mixture of the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

Now it certainly is possible that vast numbers of Britons went refugee and wandered to the safety of their Christian neighbours to the west; it's just my personal opinion that it being anything near to a majority is unlikely. If that were the case then about half the people in Wales and Cornwall would ultimately have spoken other Brythonic languages, and - please someone correct me if I'm wrong - there isn't really much evidence that those two tongues were influenced by their eastern kin around this time, and they're much more likely to have made an impact there than in the Germanic east or increasingly Gaelic north.

---

In the interests of those who (like me) may not know what a Brythonic language is I would first like to clarify that according to wiki. Brythonic language is one of two branches of the Celtic language. The other being Goidelic which was the basis for later day Gaelic (as spoken in Scotland and Ireland)

So, having established that we are still talking broadly about the same thing then what you appear to be saying is that the Celtic spoken in what is now England was somehow different to the Celtic spoken in what is now Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

I'm not sure what evidence there is of this. My assumption has always been that all the Celtic tribes spoke pretty much the same language, with only minor dialect differences. In fact I'm surprised to find that a distinction existed sufficient to declare the two insular branches of Brythonic and Goidelic.

However, I have always assumed that the division between England and Wales never existed in Celtic times and that links between the Eastern tribes through what is now Wales to the holy island of Anglesea were pretty much in constant use and therefore language and influences were transported right across the country.

The borders of what is now England were first formed by the unification of what prior to that were Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Thus, England evolved from the consequences of Anglo-Saxon displacement of Celtic tribes.

So, to put this into context.....when Boudicca shouted charge, I always imagined that she must have shouted it in a langauge which sounded pretty much like Welsh. It also means that sadly my family heritage has no connection with the Boudiccan revolt, as we didn't on this island until after it was over.


I accept your point that this does not necessarily mean that all the Celts went West and crammed themselves into Wales. Indeed the current mix of Saxon and Celtic place names in England suggests that at least some Celtic settlements remained in Angle occupied territory, but coming back to the point we both seem to agree upon.

Brythonic language (and Goidelic Language), in fact Celtic in general made little impact on English because those who spoke them weren't great enough in number or social standing to make a difference within the newly former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

Like you I am not an expert, in fact I'm learning more as we discuss this, but this seems to be make sense and it explains why Welshman speak Welsh and Scotsmen and Irishmen speak Gaelic, and why Englishmen have such trouble trying to pronounce the words of either.;-)

Shame that these forums' celtic language whizkid Anthony hasn't shown up yet to tell it like it is.

Brythonic as a term applies to the p-Celtic languages dominant in Britain, usually south of the Antonine Wall, though I have heard the Pictish language put into the category.

Quote:

---

... you appear to be saying is that the Celtic spoken in what is now England was somehow different to the Celtic spoken in what is now Wales.

---

Am I? In that case, not intentionally. Older forms of Welsh were most certainly akin to those of the pre-English east. I'm just not sure to what extent.

Oh aye, and... Old English; they're not just mints! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

Oh aye, and... Old English; they're not just mints! :2thumbsup:

---

Yeah, it's a malt liquor.:laugh4: