Why did the Franks disappear?

[Emperor Goblinus]

The most successful Germanic people in the early Middle Ages, they basically had vanished as a distinct ethnic group by at the latest the eleventh century. Any reason why this was? These are my theories:

 

1. Inherent instability of the empire: The political structure of the empire made it constantly on the verge of dissolution for centuries, and was only held in check by the continuity of the Merovingians and the Carolingians and the vigor of a few notable kings. Given the tradition of the kings to divide up the kingdom among their sons, it was probably inevitable that separate dynasties would eventually sprout up and go their separate ways, and form separate indentities.

2. Absorption into the conquered territories: From what I know, the original Frankish homeland was in the Low Countries, a small fraction of what their later empire was. Unlike the Romans, they could not successfully assimilate the vast majority of their conquered populace. The name France comes from the region of the Ile de France (which probably was taken from the name of the Franks), not the Frankish people themselves. Outside of the elite, the people largely continued to live life as they always had, spoke their own languages, and were loyal largely to their local rulers. Franks that moved out of their traditional homeland became acclimated to their new homes, not the other way around. Once the aristocracy and royal family splintered after the mid-ninth century, there was little to keep the empire together. Northern Italy and the Spanish March especially were held simply by royal power, not cultural bonds. As for the original Frankish homeland, it became part of the doomed kingdom of Lotharingia, and was pulled among various loyaltiesfor centuries. This could have had a major impact on the original Frankish people.

3. Unwieldy size: This is coupled with the previous answer. Much of Frankish territory was very underdeveloped and had little established infrastructure. Gaul and Italy had the Roman roads, but these did not extend deep into the Franks' eastern territory. Outside of a forceful ruler like Charlemagne, the increasingly large empire just could not be sustained in light of the lack of central planning and the Frankish dynastic system. When the empire was carved up by Louis I's sons in 834, they weren't the smaller fiefs of earlier centuries, but large kingdoms that were able to assert their own dominance; East and West Francia especially had their own unique traditions that made it easy for them to split apart once their no strong ruler to bind them together, as West Francia was largely Gallic and Romance-speaking, while East Francia was almost exclusively Germanic. Lotharingia, meanwhile, was ripe to be cut up into principalities that were not necessarily Frankish in tradition and were forced to form their own identities amongst ever-changing political shifts.

4. The Normans: The settlement of the Normans probably went a long way in breaking down Frankish identity in the North of France. While they did adopt the local language and much of the customs, they kept their own identity. The area which is now Normandy had been one of the Franks' original Gallic possessions, and its loss probably helped to undercut Frankish identity in the region. When Normandy was brought back under royal control, it was under first English and then French royal domination, not Frankish.

5. Formation of the the Holy Roman Empire under Saxon rule: In some ways, the Carolingian Empire was mostly restored under the Ottonians in the tenth century, as West Francia constituted less than a third of overall original Frankish territory. This new empire had many similarities to the old, but it was now under the control of Germanic peoples who never considered themselves to be truly Frankish. Indeed, much of the early Saxon identity was framed around opposition to the Franks. Also, much of the formation of the Franks' early cultural and political identity was tied in with that of Late Rome; they were one of the most romanized Germanic peoples, as it opposed to the Saxons, Frisians, Bavarians, and Swabians who ultimately inherited the empire. With a new empire formed around a largely German aristocracy, minus the Latinized Franks in the West, the exclusively German and religious/imperial identity would have quickly outstripped any sense of "Frankishness." This would have been coupled with the empire's Italian possessions, who had even less in common with the Franks and were only united with the Germans through imperial power that was expressed through translatio imperii and the original Carolingian mission of protecting the papacy (hence the empire being called "Holy"). In this atmosphere, being a Frank would have meant little. As for the western kingdom, the southern portions of France had largely resisted Germanic cultural influence except at the aristocratic levels, and they largely remained romanized. The northern portions were more Frankish, but even there, deep Germanic identity had not taken hold. After the election of Hugh Capet, the Germanic practice of electing kings largely disappeared in favor of strong dynastic rulers. Even though the kings continued to call themselves rex francorum for some time, the increasingly local nature of France probably broke down any lingering Frankish identity that could have taken hold.

 

What are your thoughts?

[DecimusCaesar]

I think that Frankish culture combined with the Romano-Celtic one to create modern France. I'm not sure that the Franks disappeared; after all, the country which they occupied is today named after them - France- as is the people - the French. The same can't be said about the Gauls, whose language and culture became completely extinct in the years following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Nobody who now lives in the territory of what used to be ancient Gaul call themselves Gauls, Celts, Belgae or Aquitani. In that respect the Franks were much more successful than the natives, although the Romans ultimately triumphed as the French language is derived from Latin. I suppose the biggest losers in this sense are the Gauls, who lost their language, culture, religion and identity. At least the Romans influenced the future language of France, and the Franks its culture and identity.

[Emperor Goblinus]

I think that Frankish culture combined with the Romano-Celtic one to create modern France. I'm not sure that the Franks disappeared; after all, the country which they occupied is today named after them - France- as is the people - the French. The same can't be said about the Gauls, whose language and culture became completely extinct in the years following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Nobody who now lives in the territory of what used to be ancient Gaul call themselves Gauls, Celts, Belgae or Aquitani. In that respect the Franks were much more successful than the natives, although the Romans ultimately triumphed as the French language is derived from Latin. I suppose the biggest losers in this sense are the Gauls, who lost their language, culture, religion and identity. At least the Romans influenced the future language of France, and the Franks its culture and identity.

 

The name of France definitely comes from the Franks, but I think it was more from the gradual political imposition of the Ile de France and Paris on the rest of the country than a general, wide-spread identity, though I could be wrong. Northern France was definitely more Germanic in its political and cultural character than the other Latin peoples, and the Gallo-Romance languages are significantly influenced by Old Frankish. Still, it's strange that the original homeland of the Franks, the Low Countries, abandonded that identity. As for the Gauls, they did pretty much go extinct culturally, although I think that there were still some Gaulish speakers in the seventh century. Also, although the original Gauls were a predominantly Celtic people, I do think that the area in the north of Gaul, particularly the Belgae, were partly Germanic, so the Franks might not have seemed that alien to them and this may partly account why they were so quickly acclimated to the region.

 

One thing also to keep in mind was that Gaul was not wracked with the ethno-religious disputes that were seen in Italy, Spain, and North Africa. Arianism never really took root among the Franks, and under Clovis, Romans and Franks were placed under the same religion and given the same citizenship status. Class was really the big divider, and continued to be until the French Revolution, but you did not see in Gaul the crippling religious conflicts that you saw under the Goths and Vandals. This probably helped to break down the overall Frankish and Roman identities, and create the new local ones that eventually united under France. Nevertheless, considering how massive the Frankish Empire came to be you would think that they would have maintained a larger presence for a longer time.

[DecimusCaesar]

One thing also to keep in mind was that Gaul was not wracked with the ethno-religious disputes that were seen in Italy, Spain, and North Africa. Arianism never really took root among the Franks, and under Clovis, Romans and Franks were placed under the same religion and given the same citizenship status. Class was really the big divider, and continued to be until the French Revolution, but you did not see in Gaul the crippling religious conflicts that you saw under the Goths and Vandals. This probably helped to break down the overall Frankish and Roman identities, and create the new local ones that eventually united under France. Nevertheless, considering how massive the Frankish Empire came to be you would think that they would have maintained a larger presence for a longer time.

 

I agree, it is odd that the Franks seem to have lost their Germanic identity, when much smaller ethnic groups managed to hold on to theirs for much longer. Perhaps the Germanic Franks were a much smaller elite group rather like the Normans in England. Just like the Normans they might have held control of the country, but they eventually adopted the language and culture of the native population.

[docoflove1974]

I agree, it is odd that the Franks seem to have lost their Germanic identity, when much smaller ethnic groups managed to hold on to theirs for much longer. Perhaps the Germanic Franks were a much smaller elite group rather like the Normans in England. Just like the Normans they might have held control of the country, but they eventually adopted the language and culture of the native population.

 

Not to mention the Visigoths in Iberia, who seemed to adopt many Roman customs fairly early, and seemed to use Latin and/or Iberian-Romance almost from the start in their documents and daily habits.

[Emperor Goblinus]

Weren't the Goths pretty Romanized even before they entered Spain? That was my understanding.

[cinzia8]

In Katherine Scherman's The Birth of France: warriors, bishops and long-haired kings. She begins with Roman Gaul and moves to the Germans and Merovech (Meroveus) and the rise of the Merovingians to Childeric II King of all the Franks.

 

She ends the book with these lines:

 

"Looked at from a historical perspective the flowering of the monastic genius was only one aspect of the fluid evolution from the Gaul of the Roman Empire to the Gallo-Germanic empire of Charlemagne, out of which, other results was born the nation of France.

 

An unimpressive group of barbarians, inching over the northern borders of Gaul, had metamorphosed themselves into Europe

[Kosmo]

Franks didn't lost their identity.

They were a german people located on both sides of the Rhine. They eventually controlled politically a much larger region but they didn't settled far from the Rhine. What we call France is just the western third of their state. The other two thirds became the Holy German Empire that existed for another 1000 years after France broke out of the frankish state. The core of the frankish state during Merovingians and Carolingians was always in the Rhine lands while western regions like Aquitania and Bretagne were independent and/or hostile. A similar hostile situation was in Southern France from the time the Goths of Septimania were caught between arabs and franks until the crusades against the cathars in the High Middle Ages. The western third was not the most important part of the frankish state despite France-centric historians.

Franks and medieval France are different things that don't overlap and despite modern French drive East the core Frankish region, that included Lotharingia, still has many german speakers that are maybe descendants of the franks.

[Emperor Goblinus]

Franks didn't lost their identity.

They were a german people located on both sides of the Rhine. They eventually controlled politically a much larger region but they didn't settled far from the Rhine. What we call France is just the western third of their state. The other two thirds became the Holy German Empire that existed for another 1000 years after France broke out of the frankish state. The core of the frankish state during Merovingians and Carolingians was always in the Rhine lands while western regions like Aquitania and Bretagne were independent and/or hostile. A similar hostile situation was in Southern France from the time the Goths of Septimania were caught between arabs and franks until the crusades against the cathars in the High Middle Ages. The western third was not the most important part of the frankish state despite France-centric historians.

Franks and medieval France are different things that don't overlap and despite modern French drive East the core Frankish region, that included Lotharingia, still has many german speakers that are maybe descendants of the franks.

 

While I agree on the fact that their homeland was around the Rhine, the areas of northern and central France were very important to the Franks. Many Merovingian kings like Clovis made cities like Orleans and Paris their capitals, decisions crucial in the Latinization of the Frankish elite. Aquitaine was often hostile and had its own identity, but since the late fifth century, most of it was part of Francia, and Septimanian I think was incorporated in the late eighth century. Brittany stayed mostly independent until the Late Middle Ages. But the areas which we consider to be the heart of French culture were very important to the Franks.

[Artimi]

wrong thread.

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2011 by Artimi

[bitparity]

How have they vanished? I don't think they've vanished at all.

 

Can't we simply say the Franks evolved as a culture over the hundreds of years since their emergence as a barbarian tribe, to a ruling warrior aristocracy over a predominantly differently cultured (gallo-romanic) population, to finally a hybrid nation?

 

I mean look at the evolution of the Normans into Anglo-French then ultimately English. Their situations are actually pretty analogous. Invasion, replacement of the ruling caste. After hundreds of years, cultural integration to form a new hybrid culture with a hybrid language. End culture does not look much like the first culture, but maintains a continuous lineage.

 

Critical question, how are you defining vanished?

 

Are you talking about genetic lineage? There is a continuous genetic lineage of French (as well as most of europe)'s descent from charlemagne.

As a unified state? One could argue a non-bureaucratic kingdom could only be held together by the strength and will of the king by rule of conquest or the threat of it. Without which a weak king naturally devolves administration to his vassals with their hereditary claims, which results in feudalism. In which case, a unified state is the anomaly, not the norm to regress to.

As an ideology? Early frankish history and culture is celebrated as an integral part of medieval and modern france.

 

I disagree with your assertion that the Franks have "vanished." They have merely evolved like all other civilizations evolve. Frankish->French. Just like Norman->AngloFrench->English.

 

Just like the culture of the Rome of 14 AD was not the same as the Rome of 285, 476, 1204, and 1453.

Edited October 18, 2011 by bitparity