Talk:Franks

This article fails pretty badly.

One major thing the article fails at is staying away from french propaganda. It basically parades around the idea that the french, besides the name of the modern country, are the descendants of the Frankish conquerors who ruled Gaul.

The reality looks very different. The Franks spoke Germanic languages and usually comprised of the upper ruling class until they eventually got absorbed (or died out) into the gaulish population. They saw themselves as a distinct people from the romaized gaulish population, this is something they themselves wrote down in their codes of law.

Their names were Germanic names and they spoke Frankish dialects, language in continouation with modern Dutch and German. This linguistic practice eventually died out relatively early in the middle ages. One can also see that the names of the Franks living in Gaul had no meaning to the population they ruled over and eventually turned into the strange forms still used nowadays in the french and partly the english language.

For example Clovis.

Actual name, Chlodowig (or something similar). The Ch being pronounced as the Germanic x. Modern Germanic Names, Lodowig (Dutch), Ludwig(German).

The article tries to suggest some kind of Frankish continueation far beyond the actual decline of the Franks in Gaul. It starts using the Terms French and Frankish interchangeably and fails to note that despite the name used for western Europeans in the mid to late middle ages, there is hardly anything Frankish anymore in the former Frankish ruled territory in the west besides it's name, France.

All Europeans including the French saw France as a Frankish "continuation". The language did die out in many Frankish areas which had been bilingual, though no one seems to have seen that as interesting at the time. Clearly being Frankish was not defined by language by that time. Language is not the same as ethnicity, and neither is biological descent. Ethnicity is based on how people see themselves, so modern scholars now realize that it was pointless of 19th century scholars, who are apparently your source, to try to redefine the ethnicities of historical peoples as if they were wrong, and can be corrected. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no clear continuation. "All Europeans" and a lot of Non-Europeans had been deeply impressed by the Frankish kingdom as leading super power and cultural, as well as economic, power house of that time - but this doesn't allow any conclusions on ethnic questions. Obviously, a large portion of old Frankish nobility lost their original roots - but this doesn't allow the conclusion that they didn't care or that nobody cared about this, either. You are also wrong in your views on "ethnicity", as "ethnicity" is not "based on how people see themselves" or which narratives they tend to accept. Okay, if you believe so, you might be able to partially explain "modern" 19th century nation building efforts that abused "ethinicty" as "justification" for harsh nationalism and racist theories, including "modern" British-style national occultism, but nevertheless, you still have no clue about medevial or ancient societies and cultures. 188.99.27.209 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster is entirely correct here, including that ethnicity is based on how people see themselves. That's what we mean when we use the term here on Wikipedia because that's what the consensus among scholars is. Furthermore, telling others that they "have no clue", especially when they clearly have a WP:CLUE, is not considered persuasive. Generalrelative (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The lede, and how to handle the later medieval concept of a Frank

I have shortened a messy part of the lede about medieval terminology.[1] The information was not reflected in the body, goes way of topic, and contains questionable assertions. (For example, it confuses the lingua franca with French, and its remarks about most crusaders being "French" is unclearly defined or sourced. Many of these "French" people came from Lorraine for example.) I also post a remark about the edit here on talk because it raises more issues about how WP should handle the medieval concept of a Frank. As recently discussed at Godfrey of Bouillon we currently have a situation on WP where the typical medieval usage of the term is not really explained anywhere. Where is the "main article" for this? On the dab page Frank, "Franks" (this article) is supposedly about "a medieval Germanic people" (which is not really what this article is about) while for "Frank", "a term in the Muslim world for all western Europeans, particularly during the Crusades", our readers are directed to Farang which is seems to have started out as a term purely about the Persian term, but now also contains remarks about some other languages (but not for example Greek or Arabic). I would say that the second usage is not only one in the Muslim world but also one used more generally about crusaders and that period of the middle ages. The way I see it, the explanation about later usage should for now be on this article. We already have a section for it, and so when we need to link to an explanation about the ethnicity of someone like Godfrey we could eventually hope to have a section here for that? I am not sure what Farang article should be about, or whether it should exist. How do others see it? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a short article on Franks (High Middle Ages) or Franks (Crusades) would be the way. Or just a linkable section in Crusades or Crusading movement. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to begin with, I am thinking there won't be any quick miracle cure to be honest and so for now I have at least made sure that this article will point people in the right direction. Coming to your proposals, I would not focus it only upon the crusades. Making it about the High Middle Ages is maybe a bit better but it seems to imply that there is an easy dividing line between the earlier and later uses. Already during Merovingian times the concept had started spreading beyond any purely ancestral idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I do think a separate article is needed. Perhaps Frank (term), an article that could cover how the meaning of "Frank" (and its relations in other languages) has evolved over time? Srnec (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That may well be. The Farang article (which I think shouldn't exist in its current form) and the strange little list at the end of this article could perhaps be the basis of something. OTOH upon reflection I think this article can't avoid dealing to some extent with the evolution in meanings because they start so early, and there is a real continuity "behind" the change which is important to what the Franks are for history.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that a month or so after this discussion someone created Name of the Franks. I think it needs work, but it might be the best home for deeper discussion about the use of the term to refer to western/catholic europeans.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups section is a mess

First of all, not even mentioning how the scope of this article covers how the term “Frank” also referred to Latin Christian Western Europeans in general for centuries, but the Franks were absolutely not related to all of the peoples listed, it was unsourced and extremely broad and confusing and doesn’t improve the article in anyway, so I removed it for now. Thoughts? Aliy Dawut (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is meant to summarize the actual contents of the article itself, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I would recommend removing the section entirely and rebuilding it based on what the sourced material in the article actually says. Remsense诉 18:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I also don't see infoboxes as essential in such articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Remsense诉 20:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure about removing the infobox all together as they are typically helpful and standard on ethnic group articles, but I appreciate the agreement on the related ethnic groups section being unnecessary and not helpful here Aliy Dawut (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

generally we (should) decide these things on a per-article basis per WP:OTHERCONTENT Remsense诉 04:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Again I agree. We do not NEED to remove this infobox. I just wanted to note that it is an option. The practical point is that we have flexibility. We can keep it if it makes the article better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Aliy Dawut (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure Aliy Dawut (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

linking to articles about third century

@Tobby72 you seem to think it is very important to link a particular sentence about one event to articles which are about the whole third century[2][3], in the sentence which mentions the first mentions the Franks. Can you please explain your thinking? Of course we often add context such as the name of the emperor who was ruling, or events which were happening at the same time, but I'm worried that directing readers to articles about the whole century is a bit distracting, because it is not really strongly connected to the event itself. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the text, but I don't see why readers shouldn't be informed in a few words about the Crisis of the Third Century, when various Germanic tribes, including the Franks, repeatedly crossed the Roman borders and ravaged Roman territories. I would say that the Frankish invasion of Roman territory was connected to the crisis of the third century. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There are so many things we could post links to, for every event we mention. Why do you think is important in this case? What kind of connection are you thinking of? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Franks were Romans

I do not want to seems as a spammer, but apparently I have to write the same topic in every Talk page of every germano-roman people.

Yes, Franks like Goths (and Vandals and Suebi and etc.) had a Germanic origin, but throughout their centuries of history, they underwent a cultural evolution, even greater if we take into account that they were a nomadic people until their final settlement in Gallia.

The franks of the Third century weren't the same ones that the ones of the Seventh century. The first ones were pagans and spoke a germanic language (frankish); the second ones were christians and spoke latin. So again, franks had a germanic origin but after being romanised they became a latin / romance people.

Also, you forget that they became foederati and according to the Constitutio Antoniniana, any freeman that was born inside the Empire was a Roman citizen, therefore Childeric I (Flavius Childericus) first and later his son Clovis I (Flavius Chlodovechus) like his men, were Romans, if they weren't Clovis could never have become consul per Gallia, title granted with the Roman emperor Anastasius I Dicorus. And later, with Augustus Carolus Magnus (Charlemagne), they achieved emperorship, Roman emperorship. 83.58.151.88 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

There is some truth to what you say, but it is a bit debatable or simplified in parts. But can you suggest any concrete article changes that would be uncontroversial improvements?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Should we move this section to the Name of the Franks article?

Should we move "Crusaders and other Western Europeans as "Franks"" to Name of the Franks? I think that it is not part of the core of this article here, but it is connected to the topic that article. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)