Tell me about the Franks, /his/
How did they manage to be from a small irrelevant germanic tribe to conquering most of what is today France?
Also why isn't Nederlands called Frankia since that is their ancestral tribe name and language?
I can't answer the last question (I think it has something to do with Frisians) but I can answer the first one as best I can.
Romans left a power vacuum in their European holdings that was replaced with irrelevant, short lived states that were almost unanimously conquered by Germanic Barbarians, the Franks being the conquerors of France just as the Saxons/Jutes/Angles conquered England, Visigoths conquered Spain, etc etc. The Franks are probably the most successful example of this.
>How did they manage to be from a small irrelevant germanic tribe to conquering most of what is today X European country?
A variety of factors led to x German tribe conquering x former Roman province to become x modern European country, but the factors are usually agreed upon as primarily this
>political instability within tribes
>climate change ( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/environment/was-the-roman-empire-a-victim-of-climate-change/6724/ )
The fall of the Roman Empire was so perfect you could have thought that God had to have connected all of the pieces himself.
>Also why isn't Nederlands called Frankia since that is their ancestral tribe name and language?
Because the Netherlands isn't the ancestral land of the Franks. Tht Netherlands were originally Frisian lands, slowly conquered, settled and assimilated by Frankish speaking peoples.
>Because the Netherlands isn't the ancestral land of the Franks
Umm, yes it is?
Also most people speak dutch, a franconian language. Frisians just blended in.
Not really. The first inhabitants that we have any written records of were the Germanic tribes that lived there during the Roman conquest of the souther Netherlands, mostly Frisians and Batavians.
Later came the Migration era, and basically everyone moved anywhere they liked, which included a large influx of Saxons and Franks into the Netherlands.
As for the language, Dutch is a Germanic language, related most closely with German and Danish.
1) that is a map from roughy 700 a.d. (Roman empire gone, modest saxon and angli holdings in England). That places it after the migration era.
2) It shows that the Franks arent in the Netherlands, save for a corner of the South-east. The Frisi have the mayority of it.
>How did they manage to be from a small irrelevant germanic tribe to conquering most of what is today France?
By killing everyone that got in their way.
They also converted to catholisism pretty early, and could ride the wave of conversion through Europe, making their path a bit easier.
Their tribal confederation showed great deal of cohesion and ability to absorb other peoples, while lead by a powerful and undisputed dynasty making them very fit for a great conquering campaign.
As it has been mentioned, the Catholic conversion of king Clovis made him likable by his Roman subjects, peoples who were used to deal with Germanics (who had acted as agents of the Roman state, just like Childeric, father of Clovis) and could have help him in his conquest of the Arrianic Visigothic lands in the Southern France. As, back in the day, the Goths were the leading Germanic force, but Clovis managed to defeat the Visigoths secluding them to Hispania (and Narbonensis) after killing their king.
Then, the Franks absorb much of their subjugated into the Franksih identity, such process was not as successful in the South yet, it managed broadly linked all the Gaulish lands to the Merovingian kings, through royal foundations, the use of Saints, the role of the royal court as power-stage...
About why the Netherlands did not identify with the Franks... Well, one of the reasons must be "cause they chose not", the great Frankish civilization did not arose among them, but in the area between the Seine and the Rhin and their heritage was early claimed by the later French (and to a lesser extend Germans), thus making them unsuitable by the Netherlands if they wanted to look for their "own" ancestor different of that of their powerful neighbors, Even if their own language is related to that of the Old Franks. And, as someone has already said, there were other peoples suited to fulfill the role of ancestors of the Dutch, who after all saw themselves as sea people, and as the other pics shown Frisians not Franks, were settled on the Dutch coasts.
In all seriousness, I dont know with which people do you identify, it was just an example.
But I would want to add that such "National Ancestors" change over time. Few Spaniards would identify themselves as Goths today, despite what their ancestors did during the Middle Ages, pic related too.
Here it is: Julius Civilis greatest ever fuck romans
1000 year silence until Karolus V United Netherlands.
William of Orange greatest ever fuck Spaniards
Napoleon comes, William of Orange greatest ever fuck French
Hitler invades, Wilhelmina of Orange greatest ever fuck Germans
And that's basically Dutch history class
We also completely ignore our civil wars in 1795 and 1830
>We also completely ignore our civil wars in 1795 and 1830
No we don't, you just didn't pay attention. Especially as 1795 wasn't a civil war, but a french invasion. The 'civil war', the conflict between patriots and orangists, was a decade earlier. And that definitely gets attention.
Franks were always a minority in French/Gallic Latin speaking lands. They were always present in the Netherlands and Flanders (not the coastal areas) and in the area near Cologne and Aachen.
Their men are known as huge cucks and their women love getting raped by muslims and worship muslim dicks.
Because they were the only Germanic tribe that assimilated with the local population.
While the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Vandals etc all kept their separate identities, religions, languages etc, Clovis sought to acquire the support of the Gallo-Roman population. He converted to Catholicism, split up the land equally between Franks and Gallo-Romans, and maintained the Gallo-Roman nobility. Religion was the most important aspect since it allowed for the two groups to intermarry.
This way Franks and Gallo-Romans quickly became a single people (collectively referred to as Franks). And the Franks already had the implicit support of Gallo-Romans in Aquitaine or Burgundy who much preferred Catholic Clovis who had the support of the Church to the heretical Visigoths and Burgundians who gave Gallo-Romans no participation in power.
Oh and about the Netherlands, how exactly would that come about? The Dutch renaming themselves "France" because a tribe that used to live in the Netherlands became successful in France? Setting aside how dumb that is, there's already a France.
> the Franks have been speaking Latin/French almost as long.
Starting in 486 the Franks spread out over Gaul and adopted the local language very quickly, as they dissolved into the Gallo-Roman population and "Frank" came to refer to all inhabitants of Francia. The only exception was regions where the local population was Frankish speaking, like Eastern Austrasia, which is why Charlemagne (late 8th century) is believed to have been Frankish speaking. But by then the vast majority of the realm already spoke Latin/French, and the Germanic speaking regions were lost soon after (843), at which point all Franks spoke French (or Occitan).
Yes, in Vita Karoli Magni:
>In speech he was fluent and ready, and could express with the greatest clearness whatever he wished. He was not merely content with his native tongue but took the trouble to learn foreign languages. He learnt Latin so well that he could speak it as well as his native tongue; but he could understand Greek better than he could speak it. His fluency of speech was so great that he even seemed sometimes a little garrulous.
>He also wrote out the barbarous and ancient songs, in which the acts of the kings and their wars were sung, and committed them to memory. He also began a grammar of his native language.
>He gave the months names in his own tongue, for before his time they were called by the Franks partly by Latin and partly by barbarous names. He also gave names to the twelve winds, whereas before not more than four, and perhaps not so many, had names of their own. Of the months, he called January Winter-month, February Mud-month, March Spring-month, April Easter-month, May Joy-month, June Plough-month, July Hay-month, August Harvest-month, September Wind-month, October Vintage-month, November Autumn-month, December Holy-month. The following are the names which he gave to the winds:—The Subsolanus (east) he called East Wind; the Eurus (east by south) East-South Wind; the Euroauster (south by east) South-East Wind; the Auster (south) South Wind; the Austro-Afric (south by west) South-West Wind; the Afric (west by south) West-South Wind; the Zephyr (west) West Wind; the Corus (west by north) West-North Wind; the Circius (north by west) North-West Wind; the Septentrion (north) North Wind; the Aquilon (north by east) North-East Wind; the Vulturnus (east by north) East-North Wind.
>Their names (in the original) are as follows:—Wintarmanoth, Hornung, Lentzinmanoth, Ostarmanoth, Winnemanoth, Brachmanoth, Hewimanoth, Aranmanoth, Witumanoth, Windumemanoth, Herbistmanoth, Heiligmanoth.
A lot of competence and a lot of luck. I think the turning point was when Clovis annexed the Roman rump state of Syagrius. It was relatively well maintained and had good infrastructure. They didn't fuck around with it too much, so that gave them a pretty solid power base for further expansion.
Nigga are you retarded? The Frankish influenced Frisians became the modern day Dutch, while even today the northern Netherlands and extreme northwest of Germany Frisians still survive as a culture and language
Because the Frisians were there. No, seriously - and they sure as hell weren't going to get assimilated. They're one of histories unsung people because of this interesting center point they form in regards to linguistics and trade in Northern Europe along with the Dutch.
Frisian linguistically is like a bridge language between German, Dutch, Danish, and English, primarily because they were the bridge between all these peoples for a long, long time. The Frisian coasts, floods and islands developed a solid culture of mariners and resilient farmers that even after Pepin conquered them remained highly independent of any other authority - the vaunted 'Frisian Freedom' is an example, where they refused to acknowledge any lord sent to rule them and instead ruled themselves under Charlemange and his successors.
For that matter, the Frisian peoples held land stretching into where the Jutes and Angles came from, and without a doubt interacted, traded, and influenced the Saxons heading over to the British Isles in their invasions. It went further than that, Frisian traders heading all around the North Sea and down the Channel, providing a link between the north and south of Europe.
The rise of the dutch and other more successful germanic states eventually caused them to be a historical footnote, but up to the mid 15th century they were still alternating between piracy and trade on the seas as they tilled the flatlands cleared by the dykes.
He's right though.
The West might have been the heart-land but legally it didn't cease to exist until Mehmed conquered Constantinople.
Perhaps you could put the dissolution at the establishment of the Latin Empire too.
>Why is Italy named Odoacer
He ruled Italy at the time and while clearly not Roman he didn't represent a tribe or confederation. His reign also only lasted as long as himself and he was replaced by the Ostrogoths.
Great response, a shame your pic is an image for ants. Would like to see a bigger version.
Only additions to your list of causes for the fall of Rome would be infighting, corruption, and possibly over-expansion, the issue there being too many fronts to fight on.
Its argued that he may have been in touch with the Arianism before becaming Catholic
>This article reexamines the text and interpretation of three crucial passages in Avitus of Vienne’s Ep. 46, the only contemporary document attesting the baptism of Clovis, and one passage in Gregory of Tours’Decem Libri Historiarum. The following conclusions relative to the date and circumstances of the baptism can be drawn. A. Avitus addresses Clovis not as if he was a pagan convert, but as if he was a recent Arian sympathiser, possibly even a catechumen.