Who is Really a Frank?

The Franks as an early modern people really interest me. They are in my opinion the most influential of all the Early Middle Ages (500-800ish in my opinion) peoples. Their impact in creating modern Europe is huge. France, obviously, claims to be the successor to Francia, yet it speaks a romance language and includes only half the old Frankish heartland. The Dutch, on the other hand, are mostly descended from Franks and speak a language that is basically an evolution of Old Frankish. Germany as a polity can trace its history back to East Francia, a Frankish successor state. So, I ask you, fellow history lovers, which polity is most "Frankish"?
Scipio
P.S: This is obviously an open ended question, and I intend it that way to promote discussion.
 
They all are, however the Dutch and the Flemish clearly speak a language, which developed from Lower Frankish, so that must count for something. Concluding a narrow win for the Dutch and the Flemish.
 
The Franks as an early modern people really interest me. They are in my opinion the most influential of all the Early Middle Ages (500-800ish in my opinion) peoples. Their impact in creating modern Europe is huge. France, obviously, claims to be the successor to Francia, yet it speaks a romance language and includes only half the old Frankish heartland. The Dutch, on the other hand, are mostly descended from Franks and speak a language that is basically an evolution of Old Frankish. Germany as a polity can trace its history back to East Francia, a Frankish successor state. So, I ask you, fellow history lovers, which polity is most "Frankish"?
Scipio
P.S: This is obviously an open ended question, and I intend it that way to promote discussion.

It's kinda complicated, really. A good number of the Franks weren't even 'Germanic' to begin with, although most of their noted leaders were; it was kinda like Roman Britain in a lot of ways, in terms of how the social structure was set up(i.e. the rulers were mostly Roman but the people were largely Celtic, in that example). Hell, the same thing can even be said for what was Spanish Mexico, and even South Africa pre-1994.

Also, the Dutch, for the most part, are NOT descended from the Franks, but rather, the Frisians, Chatti, and other tribes that made this area home back in that era.
 
It's kinda complicated, really. A good number of the Franks weren't even 'Germanic' to begin with, although most of their noted leaders were; it was kinda like Roman Britain in a lot of ways, in terms of how the social structure was set up(i.e. the rulers were mostly Roman but the people were largely Celtic, in that example). Hell, the same thing can even be said for what was Spanish Mexico, and even South Africa pre-1994.

Also, the Dutch, for the most part, are NOT descended from the Franks, but rather, the Frisians, Chatti, and other tribes that made this area home back in that era.

Ehh the Chatti were one of tribes, which merged into the Franks; and the Frisians mainly lived in the coastal regions. The Franks just as the Vandals, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Anglo-Saxons.... all developed from mergers or cooperations of smaller tribes. All the densely populated areas have either a mixed Frankish heritage (North (a bit more Frisian) and South(a bit more Frankish)) Holland, Utrecht and Zeeland are Franko-Frisian, Gelderland and Overijssel (in fact the Sallian Franks once lived in Salland (a part of Overijssel))) are Saxon-Frankish or have a Frankish heritage (North Brabant and Limburg).
However linguistically Dutch clearly developed from Lower Frankish.
 
Last edited:
Scipio Africanus said:
France, obviously, claims to be the successor to Francia, yet it speaks a romance language and includes only half the old Frankish heartland.
The French do have a certain number of cities that played an important role in Frankish History like Soissons, Paris, Reims, Metz or Orléans. Each one of these cities was at one point a capital of a Merovingian (thus Frankish) Kingdom. Plus, most of the Frankish territory was formed on what remained of Roman Gaul, a territory which nowadays is occupied at 70% by France (the remaining 30% being parts of Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherland, Germany and a bit of Italy).

France also had the luck of keeping Charlemagne's bloodline on its throne for the longest time: the Middle Francia branches (descendants of Lothair I) died in 875 while the Eastern Francia one (descendants of Louis the German) was dead in 911. For its part, France kept Carolingian Kings on its throne up until 987 and the coronation of Hugues Capet.

Finally, the French kept a long tradition of claiming themselves the true heirs of Clovis and Charlemagne. That's one of the reason the French King were always crowned in Reims and the sword used in the ceremony was called Joyeuse, which was Charlemagne's sword. There was also the Sainte Ampoule, a vial which contained a liquid used to anoint French Kings during the Sacre, and was rumored to have been used during the Baptism of Clovis in 496 AD. The latter date is also considered by most French historians as the day France was born, although 481 AD is another possibility (coronation of Clovis) while it can be argued that the true date would be 843 AD.
One last event is that after Philip II Augustus, all Capetian Kings (which were his descendants) claimed to have the blood of Charlemagne as Philip II had married Isabella of Hainaut, who had Carolingian blood: they used this argument to legitimize the Capetian family (who had after all been elected against Charles of Lower Lorraine, the last male Carolingian alive in 987) but also because it held a lot of prestige. One last event is that the French claimed Salic Law was an inheritance of old Frankish customs and laws.

Of course, that doesn't mean that France is the most "Frankish" but it does show the French have an old tradition of considering themselves the heirs of the Franks. Truthfully, it's partially justified in my opinion even though the language is not a Germanic one (like Frankish language probably was). Spiritually, France is probably the strongest heir of the Franks.
In terms of "ethnicy", the Germans and Dutch could fill the description better though.
 
No one, since the Franks don't exist anymore.

Having ancestry among them does not make one a Frank anymore than having Spanish ancestry makes me a Visigoth.
 
Anyone who's French, particularly the old French nobility of the sword.
OH COME ON.
What are you, "old noble" historian from XVIII? Aren't you supposed to be all guillotined?

For the Franks, there's two definitions at my sense.

Ethnic : The Frankish apport is clearly more important in the zone between Loire/Rhine/Saône. Not only you have more toponimy elements (as the most famous L'Ile de France, from Liddle Franke "Little Francia") but in the names of nobility you have far more typical and localized Frankish names until a quite recent date (by recent, i mean the XII). The gallo-roman elements was not really present in these zones (contrary to the west, and obviously the south) and they were quickly assimilated into Frankish nobility (as the quick constitution of the great domains of Austrasia seems to show).
Finally, the greatest Frankish families, the royal then imperial fisc, the palaces are almost all situated in this zone.
So, maybe you had another Frankish settlement in border zones (Frisia, Alemania), but that not overnumbered the local nobility. But, you can consider the Austrasia, plus a third of Neustria as being ethnically populated by Franks, and as the original population wasn't that big (Gaul at the VI, it's maybe 8 millions of inhabitants) Frankish identity overruled.

That's is the second definition : identification.

Since the VI, chronicles made a clear distinction between the Franks (population of the north) and Romans (maybe Gascons) in the south. These texts are comically modern regarding xenophobia and stereotypes. Little by little, the northern population began to assimilate itself to the Franks, in their law basis, customs almost all except 1. Religion 2.Language that will be eventually assimilated by Franks.
At the contrary the southern population showed a more loyalty towards the local dynasties, even if they were Franks as the Guilhemids.
It's not for saying that the southern romans and the gascon always fought the Franks, no Provencal patrices, dukes of Gascony as Lupus II, some monasteries allied themselves with the Pippinids : but they were always a clear distinction regarding identity.
A Frank, or a Frankish noble of VIII (or even from XIII after the crusade) would say he's a "Frank mann", which gave the occitan word "Franciman" for name french or "devoyed" southerner.

During all the Middle-Ages, and beyond, you'll have 4 great regions :

West (Neustria until Paris, Normandy, Maine, Berry) where people can call themselves Franks but where the gallo-roman element is really present (more alleus in Maine by exemple)

Francia (all between paris, Rhine, Loire and Saône) : with a far lesser important gallo-roman element, where Franks mix with a more close (for them) Celtic element.

Aquitaine-Provence : A gallo-roman element that is extremly present, and even if it knows an eclipse during the X-XII, it preserves carachteristic traits, and "returns" to roman traditions regarding law since the XII thanks to the proximity of Italy.

Others : Britanny, Gascony, Navarre : all that is not entering in other zones.
 
Belgium, the mix of the two things in the OP. :D
Seriously, not sure. The Franks were pretty much just one of the many Germanic tribes; as such, Germany and the Netherlands have about equally good claims (France a little less so).
I'd say that if the Flemish part of Belgium was a separate state (Flemia? Flamandia?), it would've had the single best claim. But as is, nothing really counts (except maybe Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and I'm sure Luxembourg could easily invent a claim if they had tried).
 
It's interesting to note that the Swedish name for France is Frankrike, literally the "realm of the Franks" considering that the Frenchmen aren't called Franker in Swedish, but Fransmänn.

So, out of that reason alone, I'd go with saying that the French are the true heirs to the Franks.
 
Top