Frankreich & Allemagne

 

TSZ:-)

 

What duchy are you talking about? The only Duchy of Alamannia I'm aware of was set up by Charlemagne some 300 odd years later than when we are discussing. I also thought that was in Swabia, and different from the Duchy of Alsace.

 

That there were Alamans even further north than even historic Luxembourg is evident from the battle of Tolbiac, if nothing else. By Charlemagne's time, when the boundaries of the duchies were fixed, the Franks had been ruling the whole area for centuries: in Clovis's time though they were, in effect, invaders.

 

The Moselle and the Meuse both flow northwards from established Alaman territory in Alsace, forming easy migration routes; it would seem likely that the Alamans moved down them as well as down the left bank of the Rhine until they confronted the Franks coming in the opposite direction.

 

It's worth noting that the Alamanni were much more Romanised than the Franks, and it would seem likely that confrontations recorded as being between Franks and 'Romans' are probably quite often between Franks and Romanised Alamans. On that issue http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-06-24.html

is interesting.

 

On the language issue, L�tzebuergesch is recognised as belonging to the same group as what are known as the 'Moselle Franconian' dialects (though I don't advise trying to tell a Luxembourger that it is 'only' a dialect). One would expect centuries of Frankish rule to lead to general adoption of Frankish linguistics, but the interesting thing is why this group of languages (which cover pretty well the area of historic Luxembourg) should warrant distinction from other Frankish ones. It's part of a linguistic cline that runs on down into established Alaman areas (though of course still much closer to Frankish origins.

 

I'm not aware of a Palatinate dialect though when I was working in Cologne I had an occasional stab at k�lsch (in both senses). Anyway though, the Palatinate is not between Alsace and Luxembourg, Lorraine is, and in Lorraine (when they're not talking French) the language is pretty well L�tzebuergesch.

 

You mean, I take it, north of Alsace?

 

Why would they have stopped there? What were they doing fighting at Tolbiac then, which is to the north-east of historic Luxembourg? Or, put another way, who do you think Clovis was fighting thereabouts?

 

Until you came along I'd never heard anyone dispute the account as given at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tolbiac

 

If the Alamanni weren't trying to colonise north of Alsace, why didn't Clovis meet them down near Strasbourg instead of Z�lpich? If the Alamanni had won the battle (and the war) what do you think would have happened.

 

Who do you think were inhabiting the Moselle valley and the surrounding countryside when the Franks arrived?

 

It may be that Gregory of Tours was exaggerating the religious aspect of the battle, but why should he have had said 'Alamanni' rather than whoever else it was?

 

For a starter I think we should consider Wikipedia rather unreliable (as in hardly verifiable, not necessarily false). Though one of the principles of the project requires the claims to be explicitely sourced, many times they are not, not to say that even the sources themselves might be unreliable, outdated, or controversial. Also, the heterogenous community responsible for this project makes that the information written in different articles to reflect different views, and thus an inconsistency within the project. For instance, the article on Trier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier) gives with absolutely no reference the date 459 AD for the final(?) Frankish conquest, while the article on the history of Trier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Trier - an expansion of the history section of the former article) gives, with a vague reference (a 20 pages reference for a paragraph encompassing the history of the city for about 150 years, a reference which may not be support all the claims from it), the date 475 AD. Needless to say this is valid for today, September 12, 2007, as I am writing this post here, later the articles might get changed.

 

The comes Arbogast was a rather autonomous ruler, perhaps an ex-Roman official like Aegidius. His "Romanhood" praised by Sidonius Appollinaris was, AFAIK, based on two aspects - his exquisite Roman culture and education (e.g. speaking a Latin free of "barbarisms") and being a Christian. If he was indeed a descendant of the magister militum Arbogast (Flavius Arbogastes) from the 4th century, I don't think that would make him actually Frankish. His ethnicity would have been at best mixed, and his self-awareness, his identity, his culture probably would make him more of a Roman than of a "barbarian". Penny MacGeorge writes  in Late Roman Warlords (Oxford University Press, 2003) at p. 75 about this Arbogast browsing the possible hypotheses on his identity (check on GoogleBooks: http://books.google.com/books?id=7iNqpYo9Qd0C&pg=PA75&dq=%22Sidonius+Apollinaris+lauds+Arbogast+as+an+educated+man%22&sig=TaGgUJ69mOVBb4iWMvVCZrBOB10).

 

When you have said mid-century I've assumed you have thought of the attack on the city in the late 450s (I've seen the dates 457 and 459 given for it). My intervention was just for the sake of the accuracy. The Frankish sacks and conquests of Trier started at the beginning of 5th century, probably in 406. Salvianus in the 440s knows the city was sacked 4 times by the Franks. I do not know how many were in the entire century, but I tend not to take Arbogast's rule as a evidence of the Frankish rule on the city, on the contrary. Also the conquest of the northern Gaul and the left bank of the Rhine was not that smooth. In Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages (edited by Andr� Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Michael Lapidge and published in 2000), at p. 570,  it is said that by mid-century the Franks (the Ripuarian Franks more exactly) took possession several times of Cologne, Trier, Mainz without actually controlling the left bank of the middle Rhine. They certainly had some possessions in northern Gaul because AFAIK cities like Tournai or Cambrai (looking on the map, probably they were reached over the lower Rhine) were in Frankish control since the first half of the century. However, moving to the end of the century, during the times of the Clovis' conquests here are also some mentions to be made. The drawing of the Frankish border should take account of several cities. Soissons was conquered by Clovis in the 5th year of his reign from Syagrius. The life of the Saint Mesmin of Orl�ans says Clovis conquered Verdun. The Ravenna Cosmography (written in the 6th-7th centuries) places Worms in Alamann control (Worms is on the Rhine, at about the same latitude with Trier).

But most important is that the map of the political control and the map of demographics (from linguistic point of view, from what I know these studies are on toponyms, inscriptions, etc.) do not match. The Franks infilitrated Gaul probably since 3rd century or so (with the first foeduses, in the 4th century we already find Franks in Roman army - see Notitia Dignitatum). But the main demographical component in Gaul remained the "Galo-Roman" one. The Germanism (linguistically) spreaded over the Rhine to the west gradually between 5th and 9-10th centuries reaching the linguistic borders we see today (on all the maps I've seen is a line hard to define as it follows almost no geographical pattern). However in these centuries, there were many enclaves of Romanism, like the one around Trier. Certainly at the end of the 5th century, the beginning of the 6th - the times of the battle of Tolbiac, the actual Luxembourg was not just a battlefield between Franks and Alamanns, had a mixed population of both Galo-Romanic and Germanic stock.

 

At page 13 is the map I was mentioning above. As you can see, in the early Middle Ages (the times we're talking about), Luxembourg as well as the entire territory west and south of Rhine was still in the "Romanic" area. It will pass centuries until it will "Germanize" following the today borders.

I'm quite confident the early Middle Ages to which this map refers is later than ~500 AD. But border (1) is the Roman limes on Rhine and Danube, which was definitely broken only in the 5th century. The dates 73/85-260 only refer to border (2) which is the limes including the Agri Decumates, a much more ephemerous possession of the empire than Gaul and the territories we're discussing. Our comparision is however between border (1) and border (3). That's why I said Luxembourg (even the territory of the duchy) was on the map at this date still in the "Romanic" area. Actually most probably it was a transition between the two borders, which would mean the linguistical aspect of the areas in discussion is best described as mixed.  

 

I also "am not alone". Lucien Musset (in a four decades old book, however much more recent than Guizot and having access to much more scholarship!) uses such references to argue for the linguistical phenomena in this area: Gysseling, Ewig, Jungandreas (the latter two especially for the linguistical Romanic enclaves I've been mentioning above). If you need detailed titles, I'll be happy to provide them.

 

My point is not that Franks or Alemanni are not part of Luxembourg's heritage, nor am I focusing only on today Luxembourg, but that the actual Luxembourg as well as the neighbouring area (with cities like the aforementioned Trier) during 5th century, but also in the centuries after still preserved important Romanic elements. Therefore a perspective on its inhabitants cannot ignore this.

 

 

 

Temujin, on what grounds can you definitely rule out the Alemannic element in the 5-6th century demographics?

 

 

 

If you look for evidences, maybe you can find a study on toponymy which can show the Alemannic demographic elements. Perhaps you'll have some suprises and find some where you are not expecting them.

 

I've tried to draw some coordinates on the linguistic situation in the area in the early Middle Ages and to point out the persistence of linguistic Romanic lements. Then as I've said the Germanization stretched to the border mentioned above. The L�tzeburgesch, no doubt, a German dialect was formed. However, even in the modern age, being at the border between Germanic and Romance languages (dialects), the Romance influences (from standard French or from other Romance dialects - like the one from Lorraine) were significant on the language. That not to say that the elite of the duchy of Luxembourg was actually French speaking until the 19th century. And I believe French was also the official language until a certain date. gcle maybe can tell you more on these topics.

 

 

As for their stability, many linguistical maps of the ancient world are drawn based on toponymy. Which means that if a group succeeded to imprint a lasting name on a place they once inhabited, I think it can be considered stable enough, don't you?