A "German" France?

Is it possible to have a PoD that causes France to have a Germanic identity? They share common national history with Germany when it comes to Charlemagne and the original Holy Roman Empire (seen as the First Reich in Germany).
 
Are you serious ? The french language is mainly latin. And the french viewed themselves as the heirs of Rome during their revolution.

The fact as that the marginal part of the french population that was of germanic origin was assimilated the same way the diverse asian tribes that conquered power in China were assimilated by the chinese.
 
Are you serious ? The french language is mainly latin. And the french viewed themselves as the heirs of Rome during their revolution.

The fact as that the marginal part of the french population that was of germanic origin was assimilated the same way the diverse asian tribes that conquered power in China were assimilated by the chinese.

The question is how to make France Germanic. That means a POD. Maybe a larger German population coming in to make the future French more like English is, where it's a Germanic language with Latin overtones.
 
Germanic identity is strange as a concept but people would get the idea.
Would having all East Germanic People go in France instead of invading Iberia,Italy and North Africa? This would increase the Germanic population and make for them harder to claim to be the heir of Rome when the later still is in a better shape.
 
Last edited:
The population of Gallia was simply too Roman for this to work. There are very few Frankish words in modern French, plus a smattering of Norse from the Normans. Absent some serious die off, I don't see it.
 

Deleted member 1487

Germanic identity is strange as a concept but people would get the idea.
Would having all East Germanic Empire go in France instead of invading Iberia,Italy and North Africa? This would increase the Germanic population and make for them harder to claim to be the heir of Rome when the later still is in a better shape.

Basically this; have the Franks conquer all of the other Western Germans that went to Spain and North Africa and then you've got a shot.
 
The two main options would be...

In a France of the same territorial extension OTL is not possible to prevent the assimilation of the Franks.

: Cool::
Ensure that the rule is not divided between Charlemagne's grandsons and this has better and more skilled successors in achieving OTL keep the empire united several generations more.

Although according to contemporary chroniclers both kingdoms were already well advanced in the process of diversification and in the case of the Western Franks of assimilation between the Gallo-Roman population.

Occidental probably stay together and share the same ruler East France and possibly those trends and to reverse in part the asimilizacion of the Franks, especially in northern France that was the seat of power of the Frank.

Since the Germanization in OTL was more potent in the disputed regions linguistically that cultural romanization.

It is likely that both kingdoms are finally talking variants as its official language Germanica some common in northern France and southern Germany OTL language. and share many cultural, economic and political ties in OTL, even though eventually the Imperial estrucutura these ties would remain collapses.

Could finally achieve the goal: if the Franks did not achieve or conquer and subdue Aquitaine, where arise the Langue d'Oc that gave its name to the region in OTL, nor to Provence..

This could be achieved either by preventing the Visigoths are defeated and expelled from Gaul or later during the last stage of the Merovingian Dynasty,


*Whether because of the Duchy of Aquitaine it has managed to become a stronger than OTL and able to preserve their independence because of its intrinsic strength or because of their possible alliance with a foreign power as the Emirate of the Andalusian regional power, a stronger and aggressive course would be in OTL, without Frank state to stop its incursions and prevents them from possible and probable political and religious expansion in Septimania and Provence.


This was the most intensely Romanized and longer survival of Culture and Roman civilization in Gaul in OTL regions.

Without these regions and their cultural influence assimilations forces in a smaller and much of its territories on the other side of the Rhine Frankish kingdom, a kingdom would be politically and culturally oriented Germania.


**The most likely option would be a situation in which Austrasia and Neustria will fail to unite in a single kingdom and managed to reverse the weak Merovingian not their replacement by the Heristal dynasty.

**But this dynasty fails to unite the Franks and so finally the Franks western kingdoms were subjugated and ruled from the Duchy of Bavaria or any other German state that would fill the power vacuum left by the failure and defeat of Pepin II and his heir or directly by the non-emergence of this family of Mayors of the Palace, as another possible Pod.
 
Very hard to do as the Franks were already Romanized, having lived in Roman lands since 358 and been in contact with Roman civilization for far longer. You would need Gaul to be severely depopulated to de-Romanize the area; a combination of war, famine and disease.
 
Very hard to do as the Franks were already Romanized, having lived in Roman lands since 358 and been in contact with Roman civilization for far longer. You would need Gaul to be severely depopulated to de-Romanize the area; a combination of war, famine and disease.

There's Romanized and there's Romanized, to some degree every Germanic tribe on the border with Roman Empire was Germander. By settling in Roman Lands that didn't decrease, however they were also fully aware that their tribe had subdued the once so proud Romans.
Also the Franks, like the Anglo-Saxons did manage to 'Germanicize' the thinly Romanized areas close to the Rhine and Meuse.
Deeper into Gaul that became harder, but it didn't exclude the Franks had, like the Romans, a national pride of their own, they were the Franks, who ruled over other Germanic tribes and Romans alike.
 
Well...Have Western Francia being named, for any reason, Gaul and Franconia being named Francia.

See, Frankish Gaul wasn't really germanic in first place.

"Ethnic" Franks only represented a minority of the overall population (5 to 10 % in Northern Gaul, far less in southern parts), and as Roman elite and population (North of Loire, as Aquitains and Provencals kept calling themselves "Romans" up to the IXth century, and their language "Roman" during all the Middle-Ages).

And even these were importantly romanized, culturally and liguistically.

Granted, German element still represented a good part of the population in Austrasia and (surprisingly) Merovingian Germania, but it was only a part of Francia (even by the more restricted meaning of the name, aka the region between Loire, Atlantic Ocean and Elbe/Danube border with Saxons) and critically not its demographic center.

So you'd need either France to be called by another name, or either Franks dominating a mainly Germanic area (as in, maybe, being stuck in Belgica and Low Countries, which would still imply a strong romance presence regionally)

There's Romanized and there's Romanized
Of course we're talking of a different creolisation : but for what matter Frankish ethnogenesis, we're talking not only about hugely Romanized population (remember they were largely part of Romania for centuries at the point "Franks" became a political thing) but composed by Romans since the IVth century.

You have to remember that Barbarian identity wasn't an ethnic identity, but a political one : Frankish citizenship was considered as coming down from royal alligeance and self-identification as Frank. A Frank by the IVth/Vth have really important chances being a Gallo-Roman playing Barbarian.
And of course, the huge presence of laeti or non-federated Franks within Late Roman Gaul (just look at Arbogast) greatly helped.

however they were also fully aware that their tribe had subdued the once so proud Romans.
Not until some centuries : up the VIIIth century, the distinction wasn't that historical (just look at Gregorius of Tours), but...fiscal and political.
You had actual riots in some cities when people refused to be considered as Romans, because it meant more taxes.

And having access to benefices or closeness from who was delegated the imperium, the king, meant being considered as Frank to enter the "truste".
It's no mere coincidence if "typically" Frankish features began to appear with the Vth, being largely inexistent before (francisca, Frankish laws, typical dress, etc.) : the distinction with Gallo-Roman required to make up such things.

For most of what caractherised Franks, it simply didn't appeared before they entered in Romania or even in Gaul.

Also the Franks, like the Anglo-Saxons did manage to 'Germanicize' the thinly Romanized areas close to the Rhine and Meuse.
That's more complex than that : the germanisation of the area close to Rhine and Meuse was a long process, less due to Franks (it's painfully obvious linguistically on the Rhineland*) than a general Germanic presence on the region even before the Roman conquest of Gaul.
There's entiere places we can't seriously assume were Celtized linguistically, especially in Belgica. And marvelling that places with a lasting Germanic populations (whatever from the Ist century BC, or the Ist/IIIrd laeti) looks a bit silly.

The only place we know that was romanised (and not "thinly") and then largely Germanised was Rhineland, a region with the most obvious Roman presence in Northern Gaul, due to the long military presence and consequently, urban and Roman.
Remember it was Frankish presence on Germany that was thin : Frankfurt or other establishments appeared only in the mid or late VIIIth century. Before, peoples as Thuringians or Alemans were directly present if under Frankish tutelage.

Pressure from these people, large use of some of them to resplenish countryside (Trier kept a Romance-speaking population apparently later than its countryside) and mix between Austrasian nobility and these people (look at the strong links between Peppinids and Bavarian nobility) did most of the rest.

*Charlemagne didn't spoke Frankish, but most probably an High Germanic dialect, maybe Alemanic


The question is how to make France Germanic. That means a POD. Maybe a larger German population coming in to make the future French more like English is, where it's a Germanic language with Latin overtones.

No matter how much Germans you could pull out : Gaul was certainly the most inhabited place in Romania, and giving that a very large part of Germanic people's ethnogenesis is due not only to Roman influence, but as well to a mix of populations even before they entered within...
It's not like these people were foreign to local populations : you had a Germanic settlement presence since the Ist century, that increased with the IIIrd (with much mutual influence), and that while making Romans influenced by Barbarians, clearly romanized the latter : Clovis wasn't just a Barbarian king, full of its supremacy over Romans (this precise picture would be blatantly wrong), but the Romano-Barbarian general of Belgica Secunda, acknowledged as such by Gallo-Roman elites.
 
Last edited:
Well...Have Western Francia being named, for any reason, Gaul and Franconia being named Francia.

See, Frankish Gaul wasn't really germanic in first place.

"Ethnic" Franks only represented a minority of the overall population (5 to 10 % in Northern Gaul, far less in southern parts), and as Roman elite and population (North of Loire, as Aquitains and Provencals kept calling themselves "Romans" up to the IXth century, and their language "Roman" during all the Middle-Ages).

And even these were importantly romanized, culturally and liguistically.

Granted, German element still represented a good part of the population in Austrasia and (surprisingly) Merovingian Germania, but it was only a part of Francia (even by the more restricted meaning of the name, aka the region between Loire, Atlantic Ocean and Elbe/Danube border with Saxons) and critically not its demographic center.
Danube? I think you mean the Rhine. As for Merovingian Germania, maybe that's because regions were Germanic, before the Franks?


So you'd need either France to be called by another name, or either Franks dominating a mainly Germanic area (as in, maybe, being stuck in Belgica and Low Countries, which would still imply a strong romance presence regionally)

Of course we're talking of a different creolisation : but for what matter Frankish ethnogenesis, we're talking not only about hugely Romanized population (remember they were largely part of Romania for centuries at the point "Franks" became a political thing) but composed by Romans since the IVth century.

You have to remember that Barbarian identity wasn't an ethnic identity, but a political one : Frankish citizenship was considered as coming down from royal alligeance and self-identification as Frank. A Frank by the IVth/Vth have really important chances being a Gallo-Roman playing Barbarian.
And of course, the huge presence of laeti or non-federated Franks within Late Roman Gaul (just look at Arbogast) greatly helped.
Germanic identity by this point is even tricky, since well known tribes like the Franks, Alemannians and Saxons were actually tribal confederations, so yes it's more political.

Not until some centuries : up the VIIIth century, the distinction wasn't that historical (just look at Gregorius of Tours), but...fiscal and political.
You had actual riots in some cities when people refused to be considered as Romans, because it meant more taxes.

And having access to benefices or closeness from who was delegated the imperium, the king, meant being considered as Frank to enter the "truste".
It's no mere coincidence if "typically" Frankish features began to appear with the Vth, being largely inexistent before (francisca, Frankish laws, typical dress, etc.) : the distinction with Gallo-Roman required to make up such things.

For most of what caractherised Franks, it simply didn't appeared before they entered in Romania or even in Gaul.
Certain things might be there, but only have been written down later as a mark of distinction.
That's more complex than that : the germanisation of the area close to Rhine and Meuse was a long process, less due to Franks (it's painfully obvious linguistically on the Rhineland*) than a general Germanic presence on the region even before the Roman conquest of Gaul.
There's entiere places we can't seriously assume were Celtized linguistically, especially in Belgica. And marvelling that places with a lasting Germanic populations (whatever from the Ist century BC, or the Ist/IIIrd laeti) looks a bit silly.

The only place we know that was romanised (and not "thinly") and then largely Germanised was Rhineland, a region with the most obvious Roman presence in Northern Gaul, due to the long military presence and consequently, urban and Roman.
Remember it was Frankish presence on Germany that was thin : Frankfurt or other establishments appeared only in the mid or late VIIIth century. Before, peoples as Thuringians or Alemans were directly present if under Frankish tutelage.

Pressure from these people, large use of some of them to resplenish countryside (Trier kept a Romance-speaking population apparently later than its countryside) and mix between Austrasian nobility and these people (look at the strong links between Peppinids and Bavarian nobility) did most of the rest.

*Charlemagne didn't spoke Frankish, but most probably an High Germanic dialect, maybe Alemanic

Germania Superior, Germania Inferior and parts of Belgica had a Germanic presence before the Roman Conquest. As for the Rhineland that was mixed too Monschau was known as Montjoie unti HRE days.

As for Charlemagne he probably didn't spoke Alemanic. Germanic Frankish itself too partially underwent the High Germanic Consonant shift, apart from the Low Countries and adjacent areas. OTOH it didn't entail Alemannic or Bavarian, the powerbase of the Carolingians was in the border region of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands.

No matter how much Germans you could pull out : Gaul was certainly the most inhabited place in Romania, and giving that a very large part of Germanic people's ethnogenesis is due not only to Roman influence, but as well to a mix of populations even before they entered within...
It's not like these people were foreign to local populations : you had a Germanic settlement presence since the Ist century, that increased with the IIIrd (with much mutual influence), and that while making Romans influenced by Barbarians, clearly romanized the latter : Clovis wasn't just a Barbarian king, full of its supremacy over Romans (this precise picture would be blatantly wrong), but the Romano-Barbarian general of Belgica Secunda, acknowledged as such by Gallo-Roman elites.

I don't disagree with that. :)
 
Danube? I think you mean the Rhine.
Yes, indeed. Cursed my hands and my eyes.

As for Merovingian Germania, maybe that's because regions were Germanic, before the Franks?
Maybe, and/or knowing regular waves of germanisation with migrants since Gallic or Roman times in countryside, eventually swallowing up Romance enclaves.
Giving the rarity of sources, the only real tool would be historical linguistics, but even there sources are rare and mostly appearing centuries earlier.

The only real linguistical source about Germanic speeches in Francia is the Strasbourg' Oath, and it seems we have a more or less artificial mix on Old High German bases.

Doesn't mean Franks had no linguistical influence at all (I think, but should check, they had an important role in dialectal distinction), but it might explain the disprencies.

Certain things might be there, but only have been written down later as a mark of distinction.
Thing is, we simply don't have anything about them, while they should be quite obvious, as typical, material culture. The fransisca is completly absent prior the Vth, either archeologically or by sources.

And most of what was considered as characteristic of Merovingians, such as funeral rites or political divisions (the "Frankish Kingdoms") are today mostly considered as at least heavily coming from Late Gallo-Roman/Roman structures or uses.

As for laws, we have quite enough sources pointing that they were made within Romania and with the help of Roman nobles (the Burgundic Law and the influence of Syagrius of Lyons, "New Solon" for Appolinarius).

Don't get me wrong : you had a real Germanic influence, that would be foolish to deny it, that particularly exerced its presence since the IIIrd century.
But what characterised peoples as Franks from, say Alamans, whom ethnogensis was the product of their interaction with Romans, is largely absent archeologically or litterarily.
Eventually one can wonder if, considering that almost all made Franks "Franks" in latter period was a recent enough social construct, what made a Frank a Frank wasn't its integration into Barbarian political structures (that we agreed were determining in their ethnogenesis).

It goes as far as religion : Burgundians were Niceans before switching to Homeism, for exemple. Or, of course, histories of the origin that are largely coming from Aeneid, Bible or other basic sources of the time.
The myth of trojan origins of Franks is quite interesting on this regard : it reached a point where the myth made Franks not Germans, or at least not just Germans (and occulting totally their origins, you clearly mentioned above).

Frankish identity was an "ungoing project", a whole set of identitarian features by the Vth century, and while the anti-Romanism was quite a thing by the Carolingian period, Merovingian period was certainly less so, would it be by sheer political necessities.

I'll use the exemple of the francisca* : absent before the Vth, appearing in the same time as an handful of other "ethnic" features, disappearing while the fusion of population is largely made.

*I know, again.



As for Charlemagne he probably didn't spoke Alemanic.
Germanic Frankish itself too partially underwent the High Germanic Consonant shift [/QUOTE]
Problem is that Frankish didn't lived on very long : I trust you on what Charlemagne could have spoken (I think, tough, that it may have been a Rheinish speech), but it likely couldn't have been old Frankish, expect speculating on the large survivance of a language that simply didn't appeared on sources since the Vth.

The language may have virtually disappeared as an everyday language by the VIth century, surviving mostly as a ceremonial one as in sentences in Salic Law. Simply said : we don't have anything past this point. (It's hardly a sole case, Gothic was barely used in Spain).

That everything remotly Germanic looking in French was labelled Frankish at some point isn't exactly a stellar proof. These Germanic influences can be attributed to a lot of Western Germanic peoples, including ones that never had the chance to form a state.

Does that means that Franks didn't had a direct cultural/linguistic influence? Of course not. But we can nuance it, giving the re-study of their presence and Germanic legacy.

apart from the Low Countries and adjacent areas. OTOH it didn't entail Alemannic or Bavarian,

the powerbase of the Carolingians was in the border region of Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands.
It fits too well with the map of Carolingian palaces during Charlemagne's reign to be entierly safe to me, in all honesty. These had vocation to form a power network for the empire, rather than to point a powerbase.

While present in Lower Rhine, Peppinids/Arnulfids (the latter took over the sippe with the fiasco after Grimoald's misguided attempt) had a real importance on Rhineland proper : their familial network (Arnulf of Metz, for exemple but as well the aformentioned Agilofings of Bavaria), the political focus gaven to Alemania, Thuringia, etc., or the charges they recieved from Merovingians (Champagne, parts of Bourgogne).

Overall, I'm under the impression of a sippe going from modern Wallonia up to modern Switzerland (not at all unrivaled as Hugobertides and Ethiconids can point) and with eventually more familial ties with Rhineland families than Flemish. It's no clear proof, but it makes me leaning towards a Rheinish speech that admittedly could be more likely Middle-High German than Alemanic.

I guess I overestimated its early medieval expansion that I tought reached Middle Rhine.
 
Top