WI:Germanic instead of Romance France?

Mookie

Banned
What would be the biggest differences today and in history if France remained Germanic culture/language rather than Romance?
 
What would be the biggest differences today and in history if France remained Germanic culture/language rather than Romance?

remained? I don't think that France ever had a majority German(ic)-speaking population.
I think LSCatilina might be able to go into more detail about that ... he should show up any minute :p
 
Yes, but in Neustria they were the aristocracy, not the general population as they were in Austrasia.
 

Mookie

Banned
Yes, but in Neustria they were the aristocracy, not the general population as they were in Austrasia.

But it wasnt only the aristocracy that was Germanic. They came there as a tribe so they had a people to call upon. I think it had more to do with their desire to rebuild Roman empire, than with demographics.
 
But it wasnt only the aristocracy that was Germanic. They came there as a tribe so they had a people to call upon. I think it had more to do with their desire to rebuild Roman empire, than with demographics.

Even counting the rest of the tribe, they were a small elite in Neustria, when compared to the general Romance population.
Still even when the language of the majority was eventually adopted, certain Frankish traditions (and laws) survived longer.
Even then it basically only applied to the elite in northern France. Linguistically the odds are heavily against them.
Unless like in Flanders the majority of the population spoke a Germanic language (Low Frankish/Franconian).
Some changes might have happened in border regions provided Frankish kings divide their lands a bit different amongst their sons. Some Romance language enclaves in the Rhineland eventually adopted the surrounding German dialect in the middle ages.
Still the main picture would remain roughly the same.
 

Mookie

Banned
Even counting the rest of the tribe, they were a small elite in Neustria, when compared to the general Romance population.
Still even when the language of the majority was eventually adopted, certain Frankish traditions (and laws) survived longer.
Even then it basically only applied to the elite in northern France. Linguistically the odds are heavily against them.
Unless like in Flanders the majority of the population spoke a Germanic language (Low Frankish/Franconian).
Some changes might have happened in border regions provided Frankish kings divide their lands a bit different amongst their sons. Some Romance language enclaves in the Rhineland eventually adopted the surrounding German dialect in the middle ages.
Still the main picture would remain roughly the same.

Would there exist the Franco-German rivalry that existed troughout history if they had a more or less common language/culture?
 
Would there exist the Franco-German rivalry that existed troughout history if they had a more or less common language/culture?
The Franco-German rivalry has not existed throughout history, only from the early 19th century, when Napoleon did manage to turn the enthusiasm with which a majority of the german populace had greeted the french revolutionary troops for ending centuries of aristocratic oppression through his heavy-handed administration and the massive forced conscriptions in the Confederation of the Rhine states for his Grande Armée into an anti-french fervour, until about the middle of the 20th century.
 
The issue with this scenario is that it requires the Franks, a small fraction of the Gallic population, to assimilate all the Gallo-Romans first. That would be difficult to pull off given the immense prestige of Roman identity that usually caused assimilation to go the other way, plus again the population issue.

I suppose the Arabs and Turks are good examples of groups that overcame both issues, but there were significant other factors coming into play in those scenarios. For instance, in the Abbasid Caliphate, conversion to Islam was necessary for social advancement, which was then often accompanied by the adoption of Arabic culture. I'm not sure if that also applies to pre-Ottoman beyliks, but in that case I know that parts of Anatolia were already being depopulated and that Eastern Anatolia was very diverse, with Slavs, Greeks, and various other groups being settled there at the time of conquest.

Again looking at the Frankish state, there wasn't a religion you could use to facilitate assimilation, as historically the Franks went from paganism to Catholicism. If you could get them to adopt Arianism as a state religion, like some other Germanic tribes, that might be a good first step, although I still can't see them holding out in the long run.
 
Last edited:
The Franco-German rivalry has not existed throughout history, only from the early 19th century, when Napoleon did manage to turn the enthusiasm with which a majority of the german populace had greeted the french revolutionary troops for ending centuries of aristocratic oppression through his heavy-handed administration and the massive forced conscriptions in the Confederation of the Rhine states for his Grande Armée into an anti-french fervour, until about the middle of the 20th century.

A longer Franco-German rivalry would require a PoD for East Francia,German Kingdom and/or the HRE staying more unified. If that happens, then they are bound to get into conflicts at some points.

IOTL once France got unified after the 100 yrs' war, France had a few centuries of expanding at the expense of the HRE. A fact IOTL remembered by the 19th century German nationalists.
 
What would be the biggest differences today and in history if France remained Germanic culture/language rather than Romance?
Frankish Gaul wasn't really germanic in first place.

Ethnical 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).

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.

Werent Franks a Germanic tribe?
Originally yes, but the name took a different meaning since the VIth century, basically designating all nobles north of Loire whatever their origin.

Bruno Dumézil quite recently summarized the process that lead to this mix, as "Gallo-Romans played Barbarians", naming their children with Germanic names, and with Frankish customs but actually romanizing Franks including in linguistical matters where Roman element was tronger (It can be argued that Franks established in Gaul since the IIIrd century were quite romanized already).

It can be safely assumed that the Frankish nobility of northern Gaul was at least bilingual before the IXth century, and by then it's certainly the case (troops of Charles the Bald using a romance speech, as highlighted in the Oath of Strasbourg).

But it wasnt only the aristocracy that was Germanic. They came there as a tribe so they had a people to call upon. I think it had more to do with their desire to rebuild Roman empire, than with demographics.

Actually, Franks weren't a people but a confederacy of peoples. It's usually divided into Ampsivarians, Bructari, Hatuari, Hamavi, Salians, Sicambri, Tincteri, Tubantès and Usipians.
And by the time they entered in Gaul, depsite being still divided, they were usually grouped among two groups : Salians and Ripuari (Rhenan Franks).

We're talking of a proteiform identity (as it was much the case of all western germanic confederacies and peoples), and of a really limited demographical group (estimated around 5% of the total Gallo-Roman population).

Conversion to catholicism was pretty much unavoidable at this point, and even if it was delayed, the fusion between GR and Frankish population would have happened eventually (as "Goths" designated since the VIIth century the overall Hispanic nobility).

---

For France to be germanic, you'd need a completly changed definition of France (as in, Franks never settle and dominate Gaul, but instead remain in Germany). At this point, it's possible that they would either disappear from History , remain a marginal group (Frisians) or only last by giving their name to a german region (Saxony).
 
Yes, but in Neustria they were the aristocracy, not the general population as they were in Austrasia.
Neustria and Austrasia didn't appeared, conceptually, before the VIIth century.
At this date, the fusion between northern Gallo-Roman and Franks were achieved.

The issue with this scenario is that it requires the Franks, a small fraction of the Gallic population, to assimilate all the Gallo-Romans first. That would be difficult to pull off given the immense prestige of Roman identity that usually caused assimilation to go the other way, plus again the population issue.
The prestige of the roman "identity" is to be really lowered there.
In fact, it would be more the contrary when it comes to most of provincial population, Roman being (more and more as Gallo-Romans identified themselves as Franks in Northern Gaul) synonymous of tyranny, fiscal oppression and such.

The case is a bit different in southern Gaul that was much more romanized to begin with. Even that wouldn't have made that of a difference, if they didn't actually searched to differenciate themselves to northern elite, calling them "Barbarians" and themselves "Romans".

For ethnical Franks, Romans was a "looser" identity, explaining why the fused GR and Frankish nobility eventually took the name of Franks.
 
What would be the biggest differences today and in history if France remained Germanic culture/language rather than Romance?

Maybe Ariovist of the Suebi tribe crosses the river Rhine, subdue the Helvetii and conquers parts of Gaul before the Romans. After that the Suebi dominated Gaul and threatened Cisalpine provinces of the Roman Empire . This scenario requires a early defeat of Ceasar.
 
Last edited:
Britain was also peopled by Romans. Why did the Anglo-Saxons succeed in leaving their linguistic mark in a way the Franks did not?

One way may be the population ratios. IIRC, there is evidence that a plague devastated the Celtic and Romanized population of the island shortly before the Saxons began migrating. If a similar plague took its toll before the Franks installed themselves the rulers of France, they might be able to outnumber Gallo-Romans, at least in the North of France,if not the South. IDK if the South of France would consider itself a part of this *France, I don't think Romance languages would be eradicable there given its independent tendencies.
 
The franks were no more than 200,000 people and most probably closer to 100,000 than 200,000 (including children and old people). Gaul numbered around 8 million people.

This arae never could have been culturally germanized by this number of migrants. Germanized areas were those were Frank and other Germanic tribes concentrated : Alsace and the rest of Rhineland.

For England things were very different : Germanic and Scandinavian invasions lasted more than 6 centuries : from the middle of the 5th century to the end of 11th century.
 
Top