Plausibility Check: Could the Frankish Kingdom develop stiff resistance in post-Roman Gaul?

I made a map about a rebellion of the Romano-Gaulish population and "upper class" against their Frankish rulers, forming a kingdom which claimed to be the heir to Rome. This rebellion would happen sometime in the seventh century. The primary reason why I created this map was too see how the culture and language of otl France would develop absent of most Frankish influence.https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/8mwbd1/postroman_gaul_in_850_ad/. The alt history is quite weak and lacking in lore, I'm wondering if this is plausible, if so, I wonder how I can make the lore more detailed?
 
First of all, welcome to AH.com!

By the IXth century, all of northern France population considered itself as Frankish, and spoke an Old French dialect.
Gallo-Roman population really quickly mixed up with Franks (in no small part because Franks were partly made right from the IVth century from Gallo-Roman population, and because they were as most of Barbarian ensemble, romanized themselves) to the point the city of Rheims revolted in the VIth century against fiscal requirement arguing they were Franks and that they didn't had to pay taxes.
The distinction Franks and Romans maybe survived up to the late VIth, but that's it.

Not that it couldn't an interesting cultural/allohistorical experiment, but that is definitely not doable with the PoD or the basic principles of your proposal.
 

Deleted member 114175

By the IXth century, all of northern France population considered itself as Frankish, and spoke an Old French dialect.
The distinction Franks and Romans maybe survived up to the late VIth, but that's it.
Didn't the Oaths of Strasbourg refer to the inhabitants of West Francia as speaking 'Roman'?
 
First of all, welcome to AH.com!

By the IXth century, all of northern France population considered itself as Frankish, and spoke an Old French dialect.
Gallo-Roman population really quickly mixed up with Franks (in no small part because Franks were partly made right from the IVth century from Gallo-Roman population, and because they were as most of Barbarian ensemble, romanized themselves) to the point the city of Rheims revolted in the VIth century against fiscal requirement arguing they were Franks and that they didn't had to pay taxes.
The distinction Franks and Romans maybe survived up to the late VIth, but that's it.

Not that it couldn't an interesting cultural/allohistorical experiment, but that is definitely not doable with the PoD or the basic principles of your proposal.
I suppose a better pod would be a revival of the Soisson kingdom in the early 6th century, when the Frankish realm was split into multiple parts.
 
I suppose a better pod would be a revival of the Soisson kingdom in the early 6th century, when the Frankish realm was split into multiple parts.
Thing is, the so-called Soissons kingdom might not have an historical reality to begin with.

Gregory of Tours does mention (really, really briefly*) Syagrius as a king in Soissons, and there's little doubt he might have enjoyed a special influence (would it be only trough his prestigious family ties) in northern Gaul outside the region he immediatly controlled (no other leader is mentionned, except Arbogast of Treves that was probably independent of Syagrius) but he was an "unofficial" ruler since years, unacknowledged by the imperial courts, while Clovis was still acknowledged as the "official" ruler of Belgica Secunda (it's even possible that Syagrius took back Soissons, a military arsenal location, from Childeric at some point).

In some geopolitical aspects, the Gallo-Roman situation was close to what existed in post-Imperial Britain, with divided loyalties and local forces having to supply their own defenses. But while in Britain, thecommand went to military leaders with if ambiguous clear de facto legitimacies (Ambrosius Aurelianus is a good exemple), in Gaul it remained with clearly identified and, at least from a far, sanctioned individuals : when Syagrius became a rogue ruler after the fall of WRE, Clovis became the onle "official" Roman military ruler in northern Gaul and, from this, the only more or less legal ruler in the region, as were other Romano-Barbarian kings.
Of course, Syagrius certainly didn't see things this way, but several Gallo-Romans may have, like several Gallo-Romans or Hispano-Romans nobles joined Gothic or Burgondian courts (there is nothing indicating that the integration of Gallo-Roman nobility was anything but smoothles under Merovingians).

Eventually, Syagrius ruled a small territory in Northern Gaul (probably along a Noyon-Soissons-Senlis triangle), contrary to the unsourced idea of a Gallo-Roman state spawning from Channel to Meuse (which was essentially a way to "fill the gap" on a map by XIXth cartographers).
Syagrius was hardly unique, while arguably the best known of these regional Roman rulers that may have fought but eventually joined with Barbarians. A non exhaustive list would include Vicentius in Taracconensis; Apollinaris Sidonius and Ecdicius in Auvergne; Victorius, Desiderius and Namatius in Aquitaine; Syagrius (same family, different guy) and Avitus in Provence, Arbogast in Germania, etc.

In fact, it could be considered that before the Battle of Déols, Northern Gaul was ruled by an imperially sanctionned Britto-Gallo-Franco-Roman continuum, on which the Franks played a decisive part since the IVth century (many Franks, possibly related to Merovingians, were master militiae in Gaul and for the WRE). Childeric and Clovis seems to have beneficied both from their prestige as Merovingians over the smaller Frankish kingdoms (let's remember from the Vth and VIth century that division among Franks never really was that of a geopolitical hinderance among Franks) and relations with Gallo-Roman ensemble.

And of course, even at this points, Franks (as virtually all Barbarians within Romania) were importantly romanized and made of provincial Roman populations : material culture-wise, it's really difficult to see the difference between a Franko-Roman and a Gallo-Roman, and most of the distinctive features attributed to Franks in the Vth were either made up on the spot (fransicae were "borrowed" from eastern Barbarians, and virtually unknown beforehand, special clothing features) or part of late Roman culture ("Merovingian" burials, Frankish laws, etc.).
Frankish language disappeared as an actually used one since the late Vth at best, even if it survived in ceremonial and legal uses, while Franks still in Germany probably switched to related German dialects.

It's quite important to understand that Franks, as Barbarians in general, mostly inherited a late Roman civilisation that was significantly Barbarised, but that much more significantly romanized Barbarians right from the beggining.

Not that Frankish hegemony was a given : we discussed a bit about it with @SeaCambrian few days ago.


Didn't the Oaths of Strasbourg refer to the inhabitants of West Francia as speaking 'Roman'?
In the early IXth century, romance languages were called "Rustic Roman language" but that was appliable for mostly every romance speech in Carolingia, as you didn't yet have a differenciation between Northern and Southern Gallo-Romance speeches (and I agree with Cantalusa when he argues the romance part of the Oath is a composite of proto-Oil and proto-Oc languages).
The romance part of the oath specify the language is "romana lingua" Roman/Romance language, but this is not referring to inhabitants or peoples. Even late in the middle ages, French and Occitan were called as such without any identitarian value.

The identitarian ethnonymy and endonymy between northern and southern population was rather Franks/Aquitains-Goths up to the XIth century (altough before the VIIIth century, southern populations tended to call themselves Romans)
 
Last edited:
@LSCatilina
I agree with you except for this bit:
while Franks still in Germany probably switched to related German dialects.
At this time we can't really distinguish German as a distinct label inside the (West) Germanic language continuum like we can Frankish or Continental Saxon. Franks outside Gallic administration would have continued speaking their own Frankish dialects. These would have been labelled "German" to distinguish from the "Roman" dialects.
 
At this time we can't really distinguish German as a distinct label inside the (West) Germanic language continuum like we can Frankish or Continental Saxon. Franks outside Gallic administration would have continued speaking their own Frankish dialects. These would have been labelled "German" to distinguish from the "Roman" dialects.
You're right that we can't really distinguish Western Germanic dialects, being rather a continuum without chanceries or administratic features to really distinguish it : but it means we can't really this distinguish a Frankish or Saxon language except trough a cultural structure which very quicly was in Latin for most Franks (Riuparian or Salians) since the Vth century.
For simplicity's sake, I said "switched to", but indeed, it's rather a matter of transrhenan Franks and Frankish speeches to be integrated into other Germanic speeches ensembles : Thuringian, Alaman, and further Saxon or Bavarian ensembles.
 
You're right that we can't really distinguish Western Germanic dialects, being rather a continuum without chanceries or administratic features to really distinguish it : but it means we can't really this distinguish a Frankish or Saxon language except trough a cultural structure which very quicly was in Latin for most Franks (Riuparian or Salians) since the Vth century.
For simplicity's sake, I said "switched to", but indeed, it's rather a matter of transrhenan Franks and Frankish speeches to be integrated into other Germanic speeches ensembles : Thuringian, Alaman, and further Saxon or Bavarian ensembles.
And the Frankish that evolved into the Dutch dialects.
 
And the Frankish that evolved into the Dutch dialects.
I indeed forgot about Frisian language and "near" Saxon speeches : but the point is that what distinguished/could have distinguished a Frankish language didn't really existed anymore, and thus it disappeared being integrated (while influencing) new linguistical ensembles.
I agree the disappearance of Frankish is thus less clear cut than Gothic in Spain or Italy, or in Aquitaine for Gothic and what Burgundian spoke (probably a mix itself IMO)
 
I indeed forgot about Frisian language and "near" Saxon speeches : but the point is that what distinguished/could have distinguished a Frankish language didn't really existed anymore, and thus it disappeared being integrated (while influencing) new linguistical ensembles.
I agree the disappearance of Frankish is thus less clear cut than Gothic in Spain or Italy, or in Aquitaine for Gothic and what Burgundian spoke (probably a mix itself IMO)
No no. Dutch descends from Frankish. It's labelled Low Franconian to distinguish from the "High Franconian" [1] of the Franks in Gaul but it's certainly considered Frankish and not Frisian nor Saxon by linguists.

[1] technically this term is/should be used for the Franconian dialects in Franconia rather than Old Frankish but well ;)
 
Last edited:
No no. Dutch descends from Frankish. It's labelled Low Franconian to distinguish from the "High Franconian" [1] of the Franks in Gaul but it's certainly considered Frankish and not Frisian nor Saxon by linguists.

Thing is, when you realise than languages labelled Franconian can belong to either of the two/three groups of German languages, their linguistical unity and origin can be taken with a grain of salt, especially as their linguistical stabilisation, at least geographically, really happened in the general period of linguistical differenciation (VIIIth to Xth century) rather than with Late Antiquity.

As for Dutch, it is one of the branches of an ensemble that included both Old Frisian and Old Saxon, most probably at least : not that germanic-speaking Frankish influences weren't decisive into making it apart of course, but Dutch isn't modern Frankish.
Now it's an analysis I'm comfortable we disagree on (especially as we agree on most other points), it's fairly minor, and probably not entierly determinable : but it's fitting, IMO, the general socio-cultural situation.
 
Last edited:
Thing is, when you realise than languages labelled Franconian can belong to either of the two/three groups of German languages, their linguistical unity and origin can be taken with a grain of salt, especially as their linguistical stabilisation, at least geographically, really happened in the general period of linguistical differenciation (VIIIth to Xth century) rather than with Late Antiquity.

As for Dutch, it is one of the branches of an ensemble that included both Old Frisian and Old Saxon, most probably at least : not that germanic-speaking Frankish influences weren't decisive into making it apart of course, but Dutch isn't modern Frankish.
Now it's an analysis I'm comfortable we disagree on (especially as we agree on most other points), it's fairly minor, and probably not entierly determinable : but it's fitting, IMO, the general socio-cultural situation.
I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on your non orthodox classification since I'm not totally orthodox myself at times. And Old Frankish itself is appallingly ill attested. I will continue to mention it occasionally as needed though :winkytongue:.
But I assume you agree on the 3 continuums model for modern continental West Germanic excluding the modern Frisian languages? Where there's a northern "Saxon" continuum from Dutch to Low Saxon, a western "Franconian" continuum from Dutch to Upper German, and an eastern "German" continuum from Upper German to Low Saxon.
With said model roughly/generally in place since IXth/Xth.
 
I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on your non orthodox classification
Debated, non-conclusive and open to new analysis and demonstrations, certainly. While I sawabout other theories, I saw as well analysis and hypothesis going in the sense I tried to point. I'm rather favouring the latter so far. Now, maybe some discoveries will confirm or infirm : all the same, it's pretty interesting.

But I assume you agree on the 3 continuums model for modern continental West Germanic excluding the modern Frisian languages?
I saw several arguments that includes Old Frisian in the same board continuum than Old Saxon and Old Dutch. Arguably, it's based on the poor account of Istvaeonic languages in Late Antiquity and Early Middle-Ages, and that the distinction of proto-Old Dutch (more specifically the linguistical mix that would become Old Dutch) is a later happenance due to a Frankish superstrate, with the Utrecht Baptismal Vow being considered as one late exmple of a continuity with Frisian and Saxon.
 
Debated, non-conclusive and open to new analysis and demonstrations, certainly. While I sawabout other theories, I saw as well analysis and hypothesis going in the sense I tried to point. I'm rather favouring the latter so far. Now, maybe some discoveries will confirm or infirm : all the same, it's pretty interesting.
Oh it's all interesting indeed. Feel free to point any new ones my way you come across!
I saw several arguments that includes Old Frisian in the same board continuum than Old Saxon and Old Dutch. Arguably, it's based on the poor account of Istvaeonic languages in Late Antiquity and Early Middle-Ages, and that the distinction of proto-Old Dutch (more specifically the linguistical mix that would become Old Dutch) is a later happenance due to a Frankish superstrate, with the Utrecht Baptismal Vow being considered as one late exmple of a continuity with Frisian and Saxon.
Part of the problem is where to draw a distinction between Ingvaeonic and Istvaeonic. Most of Frisian fits with English under Ingvaeonic but obviously it's had a lot of Istv influence since settlement there in the migrations.
 
Dutch and Flemish are Low Frankish, which was likely the dialect of Frankish that Karl the Great himself spoke, Letzemburgsk are High Frankish as in the language spoken up the river. That's what define the difference between German dialects. Low dialects are spoken down river and high dialects are spoken up river. It's why a similar distinction doesn't exist in Scandinanian language as the dialect aren't defined as coast land vs. inland. It's also why only Frankish and Saxon are split in a low and high variant, as Swabian and Bavarian lacked coastal areas, while Frisian and English lack inland areas, but if the Bavarian march in northern Italy had end up speaking German, they dialect would likely have been known as Low Bavarian.
 
Top