Apparently this is a thing that gets debated on Veeky Forums but tell me

Apparently this is a thing that gets debated on Veeky Forums but tell me.

But as far as I understand the Franks were originally a germanic tribe that settled into a region that encompasses both modern France and Germany. They would later expand and create various dynasties and empires.

During this time did the germanic peoples take up roles as the leaders and local lords and slowly intermarried and integrate overtime? Or did they move in such numbers that they displaced local peoples? Or did they move in and their culture overtook the local ones?

If you read the estimates for local and migrant population you will see that only the first of the options you give make any sense.

Don't be fooled, I'm sure it's possible to find an example where germanic migrators came to replace a greater number of the population. But in general they were not large enough groups to replace anyone.

It should also be noted that intermarry wasn't that common. At least the goths discouraged it.

A combination of
>During this time did the germanic peoples take up roles as the leaders and local lords and slowly intermarried and integrate overtime?
and
>Or did they move in and their culture overtook the local ones?

this shit
>Or did they move in such numbers that they displaced local peoples?
barely ever happens

Fuck you better read this.

OK so yes originally the Franks were a Germanic tribal confederation that lived around the Rhine. Some of them, the Salian Franks, became foederatii of the Romans, meaning they fought for Rome and in exchange were allowed to settle within the Empire, on the left bank of the Rhine, in Roman Gaul. That was in the 3rd century AD.

Then as Western Rome collapsed, the Franks who at the time were led by Clovis conquered the rest of Gaul, starting with Northern Gaul in 486. Clovis established his capital in Paris, and most importantly converted to Catholic Christianity. This meant that the Franks could systematically intermarry with the local Gallo-Romans (although that was already happening since the 3rd century AD, since the Franks were already in Gaul). In the immediate aftermath of the conquest of Gaul, the land was split about 50/50 between Gallo-Romans and Franks, and Franks had some privileges over Gallo-Romans. But within about two generations the two had mixed to such an extent that they no longer existed as separate groups. By the late 6th century, Frank simply meant inhabitant of France, and there was nobility of both Frankish and Gallo-Roman patrilineal extraction, with Frankish lineages usually being dukes and Gallo-Roman lineages usually being counts. The nobility spoke the same language as the local population of wherever they were, which was usually some kind of late Latin or old French/Occitan, or Germanic Frankish in the Northeastern corner.

The Frankish conquest of Germany and Northern Italy only happened much later, in the late 8th century under Charlemagne. That's when the empire you posted formed (and collapsed again soon after), before that only a small part of modern Germany was part of France.

When did they actually overtook the local culture? In most cases it seems like there's a clear continuation from roman times, with some germanic influence that varies depending on the kingdom but never manages to overcome the local heritage. At best the newcomers manage to keep their traditions relatively untouched, but only by "isolating" themselves.

>kingdom of the bulgarians

werent they khans and sheit?

>At best the newcomers manage to keep their traditions relatively untouched, but only by "isolating" themselves.

Do you think the Franks had some kind of Germanic ghettos in the middle of France or were living in the forests or some shit?

The avars too. But this is medieval Europe, nobody fucking cares about your snowflake title. Even the mongol monarch is called "King of the Tatars" in all sources I've read.

I'll accept that I know more about goths, and maybe I'm making a mistake by assuming early franks worked by the same rules. For most of their reign goths had a different religion as well as a different culture and language after all.

Goths, specially in early times, did voluntarily segregate themselves from the rest of the population. They acted as a separated caste with their own niche, separated from the common people and from the local elites of roman heritage (but in alliance with them). Intermarriage was discouraged or even illegal.

Yep in 814 the ruler would have been either Kanasubigi Krum the terrible or Kanasubigi Omurtag the builder, Kanasubigi is generally transliterated as khan though nobody knows where it comes from. Both of them were referred to as Archons. Bulgaria did not become a kingdom until 50 years later when it was Christianized and the ruler became a Tzar.

That's exactly the reason why France is the only one of those dark age kingdoms that survived, instead of getting conquered by some foreigner invaders. From the very start Clovis did everything necessary to merge the Franks and the Gallo-Romans into a single people. The conversion to Catholicism was of course key to that, and the Franks were the only ones who did it that early.

>Kanasubigi is generally transliterated as khan though nobody knows where it comes from

I know it comes from some rock where they wrote it, and that its either "warlord eternal" from turkic, or "king under god" from slavic.
Both make some sense in the context, and people fight over if Krum's dynasty was turkic or slavic.

And by people I mean exactly 20 people in the whole world, all bulgarians over the age of 50, probably all in the same building in this very moment.

The Visigoths were kinda trying to do that after they adopted catholicism much later. But the dynastic interf-fighting didn't end and then the muslims came.

There's a third group who claims he was a Wallachian

OP Here,

Very interesting answers. Thank you!

Operating so far away and surrounded by many foreign peoples probably didnt help either

So then the Franko-Romano-Gallic dynasty was replaced by Charlemange who was a pure germanic from the other side of the Rhine.

Did the same level of assimilation take place again? The eastern Franks took control but worked alot with local elites. But intermarriage eventually blurred the line so that people were indistinguishable?

Is there a reason the map is colored the way it is? Are those light blue areas tributary states to the Frankish empire or something?

t. Brainlet

I dont think so, they dont seem to share similarities to each other except maybe places the Franks fought.

Even the fully coloured places would be nominal at best.

What, no

It wasn't an invasion. And Charlemagne wasn't from the other side of the Rhine, he was from around modern day Liege, right on the linguistic border within France. His family had been majordomos (like a kind of chancellor or prime minister) first of Austrasia since the 7th century, then of all of France. In the late Merovingian era all the real power slowly shifted from the king to the majordomo (these kings are known as the "lazy kings"), and so when king Theuderic IV died, the majordomo, who was Charles Martel, didn't bother to crown a new one, and just kept ruling while dating all edicts from the date of the king's death. Charles' son Pepin the Short briefly crowned a Merovingian king, but then deposed him again, and was crowned king himself with the approval of Church and nobility. Charlemagne in turn was Pepin's son, and just inherited the throne.

It was just a dynasty change, other than that there was complete continuity.

Okay, thanks. I was sitting here trying to figure out the color scheme and it still doesn't make sense to me.

By the late 6th century, Frank simply meant inhabitant of France

Except that the Frankish empire and France aren't synonymous.

>Kanasubigi
that's literally 'Kniaz ot boga' and nothing to do with a khan title
or am i wrong?

Geopolitics aside, this map is complete trash anyway, starting from numerous typos and naming errors:
>vasdomia, did he mean vasconia?
>aux la chapelle
>austria instead of austrasia
I'll forgive dubious spellings like Cordova, Petchenegs and Chazars because they're probably the preferred forms in his native language
Then there's absurdities like pretending "Ireland" wasn't just a bunch of tribal lands like most of North and East Europe.

Knjaz is used at later periods for "prince", lesser monarch, in the area.
"U bigi" is used in southern Ukraine, where the ruling dynasty of Bulgaria at the time comes from, to mean "christian king".

There was no "Frankish empire" back then, calling it that makes absolutely no sense. It's only called an empire after 800 because Charlemagne had been crowned emperor.

quality post

It's a big fucking mess to be fair. First of all nobody knows who actually wrote the script as it is in greek from a time bulgars and slavs living under the first empire did not have their own script. As such it might be considered that the author just used a word he was familiar with or made up a new one ie "ruler by god" or some such. To make things worse there's a manuscript from the 15th century which is a copy of a manuscript from the 10th century called "Nomilia of the Bulgarian Khans" in which the early rulers of both Danube and Volga Bulgaria are listed. The word "khan" is not used in the text itself pointing that the title might be from the 15th century instead all of the early rulers were referred to by the Slavic title of "knyaz"

I don't want to mess uo your theory of course, but around the time of Charlemagne Liège was Néerlandophone. The people there spoke old-Dutch/Low Franconian.

>Nomilia of the Bulgarian Khans
>The word "khan" is not used in the text itself

Why call it that then?
Also, isn't this a generic "we wuz sons of Attila" made up family tree with people living 400 years, like all the settled nomads had to give themselves credibility by linking with a recognized by Rome monarch?

...

We Wuz: The MS Paint Chart.

Nah Bulgars don't claim to be related to Atilla in any way apart from this manuscript which says a cousin of Kurt is somehow related to Attila. The 300 years long lifespan is to the rulers prior which could be to emphasize their legendary status (Ragnar saggypants sort of lulz) 680 AD and after it's rather accurate.

Avitohol might be referring to Attila and his son Irnik to Attilas son Ernah

Was Avitohol a wizard?

yes

that's why he lived for 300 mortal years

It is actually a really interesting question and it is still an on going debate. I will broaden the discussion to germanics in general.

There are several things to consider.
>Germanic and Roman was not a clear distinction
The frontiers of rome and Germania grew up next to each and they influenced each other and moved towards a singular culture. Childeric the father of Clovis was burried in a Roman uniform. And the villas of the late Roman era became increasingly militarized like the Germans. Often the difference between a Germanic army and Roman was mearly who they swore loyalty to at that moment.
>Most Germanic invaders would most likely be a small percentage of the population.
The invaders in most areas with the possible acception of Britain never ammounted to anything more than a small percantage of the population often taking on the role of a warrior elite. They would often use Roman elites (Especially in Italy) to run their governments. As time went by however the differences between the two groups decreased even more as the Romans lost contact with their networks and educations while the Germanics grew up as rulers in the new lands. All the area that the Germanics conquered except Britain faetured little influence in the language because of the invaders. However their was a long term influence to law which dominated the early middle ages.

It really is interesting and worth looking into. Their are million books on the subject and the fall of rome podcast does an excellent job of giving a broaf overview of the time period.

i believe the biggest distinction between them was their religion, the germanics were pagan, but after their christianisation they were romanized

By the time they took over all of them again except the Angle Saxons and Jutes were Christians, albiet mostly Arian which kept them distinct from the populace.

Most of the Germanics who conquered Rome were Christian Arians, whose tribes had been converted by Ulfilas. The ones who conquered Britain were the only real pagans.

Exactly

Like I said it was right on the linguistic border. People there spoke Frankish.

>Liège was Néerlandophone
Netherland was Francophone therefore Netherland belong to France

Weren't the suebians of Gallaecia and Lusitania also at least partly pagan?

What about alans? (Not germanic but they're always there mentioned amongst germanics).