Why did the Franks stop using the Germanic language when the Anglo Saxons did not?

Why did the Franks stop using the Germanic language when the Anglo Saxons did not?

Both where foreign invaders into a largely Latin Celtic speaking areas.

British vulgar latin was a much younger and less established language than Gaulish latin.
Latin started imposing itself as the lingua franca in Gaul ever since Rome provinced Gallia Narbonensis, meaning it suffered latinization twice as long as Britain.

Cultural strength.

Sometimes an invader has a stronger culture than the natives, and thus the natives adopt the invaders language and culture.

Sometimes its the opposite, the invaders have a weaker culture than the invaded, so they adopt the language and culture of the natives.

The Gauls adopted Latin from the Romans, who were invaders, but the Franks adopted Latin from the Latinised Gauls.

The Roman civilization in Roman was still very important in Gaul, while the Roman retreat from Britain pretty much caused the collapse of the urban (and thus most "Roman") Britain.
So the Roman heritage still has a great prestige an influence on Gaul, a prestige which had dissapeared in Britain.

Charlememe consciously wanted to unite his franks with the natives to create a stronger more centralized rule, it made sense for the frankish minority to adapt to the preexisting culture than vice versa

Anglos however spent centuries in Britain as minor power with barely a foothold in the island and expanded slow af

>the Roman retreat from Britain
/thread

There was no Roman 'retreat' or withdrawal. We have NO evidence for it, and moreover, every free-born Briton had been a Roman citizen, and thus a ROMAN since 212 AD.

So which Romans left? And which home did they go to? If you read anything written on the end of Roman Britain written in the last twenty years, you will see how thoroughly this Victorian meme has been destroyed.

>What is the Merovingian dynasty?

Jesus m8, ur ignorance is showing.

Old frankish was spoken from Austrasia to Lorraine to Franconia up to 9th century, you fucking nigger

>The point
>Your head

What are you talking about nigga. We know that.

But control and support from the central authority was withdrawn.

>"suffered"

>suffered
WHAT HAVE THE BLOODY ROMANS EVER DONE FOR US ANYWAY

The Roman Administration.

You know, I'm romeboo as fuck and all, but from the point of view of celtic culture latinization is inevitably something to be suffered. Assimilation is a cultural death sentence afterall.
I mean the celts themselves gained from annexation to the empire, but not celtic culture.

I don't know what you expect that to be. All the civilian administration in the province was limited to local magistrates, generally rich landowners who surely were not going to just leave their property to go be beggars without wealth nor rank elsewhere.

We don't even know that for certain. Zosimus 6.5.2, the so-called 'Rescript of Honorius' is, on linguistic grounds - and the context of the chapter - unlikely to refer to Britain. Indeed, if you look at histories written close to 410 - like Orosius or Olympiodorus of Thebes (c.418 and c.425 AD respectively) - there is no mention of the loss of Britain or its abandonment. Indeed, Orosius - whose history was decidely anti-Roman state, in the Augustinian vein and took every opportunity to point out Roman weakness, perfidy, loss and blunder - says that after 410 the entire empire was restored to central control.

The visit of Germanus of Auxerre in 429 (and possibly again in 446) to settle a religious dispute by request of British authorities, and the appeal to Aetius as late as 446 certainly show that parts of Britain continued to see themselves as Roman, with their allegiance remaining to Rome - a Rome that they clearly believed as late as the mid-fifth century could still effectively protect the province.

The Romans too seem to show that they continued to see the island as Roman. Prosper's Chronicle talks of a papal mission to convert the 'barbarian island' - Ireland - and to 'keep the Roman island' Christian.

TLDR it is EXTREMELY unlikely that support and control were withdrawn in any official capacity. What is far more likely is that the structures of provincial administration slowly broke down, probably only finally in the second half of the 5th century when, post the 446 appeal, it became clear FINALLY that Rome would not be returning. It is important to look at sources closer to 410, and to look at contemporary geopolitics (for want of a better word). The 410 date is both arbitrary and a hindsight induced stumbling block to our understanding of the wind down of Roman authority. Roman Spain is probably the best analogue to Britain; it was certainly never officially abandoned, but the state could only project power there temporarily and sporadically.

As per the provincial administration in Britain c.410 would have been almost entirely native born, with immovable wealth concentrated in the province. This is made almost a certainty by the usurpation of Constantine III in Britain in 407. To bolster his local support and to ensure he left no fifth column behind, any 'foreign' (and that is an extremely anachronistic term to use) administrative elements - perhaps the provincial governors themselves or the vicarius - are likely to have fled or been deposed by Constantine.

>"suffered"

otherwise this, also Gallia was war more populated than Britannia

I think that it was Régine Pernoud who suggested that it could have been the arrival of the Germanics instead of that of the Romans, the one which actually killed the various pre-roman languaes.
To be fair, the peoples who kept their languages in Western Europe. Basques, Bretons and Welsh were peoples who were Romanized but that fought against Goths, Franks and Saxons. So its a suggestive idea.

>muh caracalla

the argument of every retard on this board

What evidence do you have that widespread enfranchisement did not mean that the vast majority of free born provincials post-212 didn't consider themselves Roman?

You don't.

Sometimes the story is better than the truth.

The Anglo-Saxons that fought the Vikings in the late Dark Ages considered themselves Christian Romans fighting pagan barbarians.

Who are we to tell them they weren't Roman?

True as that is, it shouldn't be the mantra of the diligent historian.