France and Germany

[Don Corleone]

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?

[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,...

[Don Corleone]

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?

[Marshal Murat]

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 )
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.

[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?

[Rodion Romanovich]

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?

[KARTLOS]

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.

[Conradus]

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

[Franconicus]

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.

[Geoffrey S]

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.