When Paris became capital?

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,395
Netherlands
You see, it was a kind of rebirth of the Roman - Gaul soul. I could make a parallel with Northern Italy. Here [well, now I'm in London, I mean in my homeland, Piedmont] the "Lombards", a Germanic population, dominated for centuries and they controlled almost all the peninsula. They made something similar to what Franks did in France. They left a legacy and they even gave the name to a wide region: the Lombardia [the land of the Lombards]. Today it's the richest Italian region with about 10,000,000 inhabitants. But Northern Italy has kept its Roman - Gaul soul. Like modern French is "Latin", also modern Italian [developed in Northern Italy starting from the Florentine school] is "Latin". Both the languages are well far from being "Germanic".

Probably in both the regions they felt also the cultural / social need to differentiate themselves from the Germanic invaders / rulers.
I am unsure of the Longobards (as we call them here) pattern of occupation, but my guess is that it is similar to the Goths in Italy and Spain, with a "foreign" aristocracy which didn't intermingle with the locals. That was not the pattern of the Franks.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,395
Netherlands
What about the population? Germanic speaking rulers were the case throughout the Frankish period but how much of the Gallic population was affected? In fact literacy was defined as being able to speak, read and write the the Vulgate (ecclesiastic form of Latin) throughout post Roman Europe. Since literacy was so rare, we probably will never know how much the population's speech was influenced. I've always wondered how illiterate populations of that time experienced Mass.
probably the same as me, praying that it is over soon ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevev

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,531
Las Vegas, NV USA
probably the same as me, praying that it is over soon ;)
That too!:halo: But I wonder what the value of sitting there hearing the priest mumbling in a language they don't understand is. Perhaps it would encourage some degree of literacy ? I'm sure at least the sermons were in the local language. The time we are talking about was before the great cathedrals were built. I consider them to be truly amazing. By that time Mass might have been more pleasurable compared to the rest of their daily lives.
 
Last edited:

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,395
Netherlands
That too!:halo: But I wonder what the value of sitting there hearing the priest mumbling in a language they don't understand is. Perhaps it would encourage some degree of literacy ? The time we are talking about was before the great cathedrals were built. I consider them to be truly amazing. By that time Mass might have been more pleasurable compared to the rest of their daily lives.
My guess is that the local priest would just babble a bit in the local tongue, whereas the service for the higher nobles may contain a lot more Latin. It was before the Cluniac reform movement so I am not even sure Latin was required.
 
Oct 2018
26
Belgium
"King of Franks" and "King of France" is a very different things (Which is unnecessary to know for modern French schoolkids :)).
No, they aren't. The Kings of France kept on using the title King of the Franks for centuries after that tribal designation had lost all relevance. That they switched the formal titulature to King of France in the reign of Philippe Auguste is completely unimportant. The change could equally well have been made many monarchs earlier. Or it could never have been made, and they could have kept on calling themselves King of the Franks right until the end of the monarchy. As it is, the last King of France wasn't called King of France at all, but King of the French. So what? Nothing would have changed if they'd continued using the old title. The Emperors of Austria kept on calling themselves Roman Emperors until 1806. Again, so what? What you're right about is that knowledge about such trivia is quite unnecessary, for anyone.

"King of Franks" and "King of France" is a very different things (Which is unnecessary to know for modern French schoolkids :)).
No, they aren't. The Kings of France kept on using the title King of the Franks for centuries after that tribal designation had lost all relevance. That they switched the formal titulature to King of France in the reign of Philippe Auguste is completely unimportant. The change could equally well have been made many monarchs earlier. Or it could never have been made, and they could have kept on calling themselves King of the Franks right until the end of the monarchy. As it is, the last King of France wasn't called King of France at all, but King of the French. So what? Nothing would have changed if they'd continued using the old title. The Emperors of Austria kept on calling themselves Roman Emperors until 1806. Again, so what? What you're right about is that knowledge about such trivia is quite unnecessary, for anyone.

So, when it happened?
You seem to have an obsession with every kingdom having to have a formal capital, and an exact date on which this city became the capital. In a feudal system, where there is almost no centralised power or administration, "capital" at best means something like "a place where the monarch spends most of his time". Monarchs tended to have multiple residences, and some monarchs barely spent time in the countries they supposedly ruled over, let alone in their supposed "capitals". There were places that for some reason became the standard location for certain rituals, like the Roman Emperor being enthroned at Aachen, and the King of France at Reims, or the Kings of Scotland (who of course called themselves King of Scots, which you no doubt find highly significant, and something completely different from King of Scotland) at Scone near Perth, but that didn't mean those places had some kind of special political status. As it happens, the Kings of France tended to spend a lot of time in Paris, because that was at the heart of their personal domains. You can always try and make a detailed study of their whereabouts through the centuries, and decide for yourself when you consider them to be spending enough time there to start calling Paris "the capital". Or decide for yourself whether or not you still consider Paris to be the capital in the period between Louis XIV moving to Versailles, and Louis XVI being forced to return, or instead consider Versailles to have been the capital during that interval. Or whether or not it was the capital between 1940 and 1944, when there was no French government based in Paris. It's up to you.
 
Jan 2014
1,095
Rus
You seem to have an obsession with every kingdom having to have a formal capital, and an exact date on which this city became the capital. In a feudal system, where there is almost no centralised power or administration, "capital" at best means something like "a place where the monarch spends most of his time". Monarchs tended to have multiple residences, and some monarchs barely spent time in the countries they supposedly ruled over, let alone in their supposed "capitals". There were places that for some reason became the standard location for certain rituals, like the Roman Emperor being enthroned at Aachen, and the King of France at Reims, or the Kings of Scotland (who of course called themselves King of Scots, which you no doubt find highly significant, and something completely different from King of Scotland) at Scone near Perth, but that didn't mean those places had some kind of special political status. As it happens, the Kings of France tended to spend a lot of time in Paris, because that was at the heart of their personal domains. You can always try and make a detailed study of their whereabouts through the centuries, and decide for yourself when you consider them to be spending enough time there to start calling Paris "the capital". Or decide for yourself whether or not you still consider Paris to be the capital in the period between Louis XIV moving to Versailles, and Louis XVI being forced to return, or instead consider Versailles to have been the capital during that interval. Or whether or not it was the capital between 1940 and 1944, when there was no French government based in Paris. It's up to you.
I think, it have to exist some architectural signs of capital. Some big stony palace or fortress or something like.
 
Apr 2018
278
Italy
If i'm not wrong the court was itinerant until Philip II, so it was around the beginning of the XIII century that Paris became the cpital of the french kingdom
 
Jan 2014
1,095
Rus
Sorry, what is "itinerant"? I think this misprint, but i cannot understand it, becuse my English is not fluent.
 
Apr 2018
278
Italy
Sorry, what is "itinerant"? I think this misprint, but i cannot understand it, becuse my English is not fluent.
I mean that the court followed the king during his movements, so the capital was where the king staied in the moment.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
Sorry, what is "itinerant"? I think this misprint, but i cannot understand it, becuse my English is not fluent.
(although it's translated more commonly by wandering, errant)

Although it's translated more commonly by "wandering", "errant", I'd say the closest could be:

бродячий
  • не имеющий постоянного места жительства, передвигающийся с места на место в связи с характером работы или с поисками ее; странствующий ◆ Отсутствует пример употребления (см. рекомендации).
(not having a permanent place of residence, moving from place to place due to the nature of the work or the search for it
  • связанный с постоянной переменой места жительства или с постоянными переездами (об образе жизни человека) ◆ Отсутствует пример употребления (см. рекомендации).
(associated with a permanent change of residence or with permanent travels (about a person’s lifestyle) )

[бродячий — Викисловарь]

The difference would be that in English "wandering", "errant" normaly implies the idea of "without a goal", "random", while "itinerant" implies usually the existence of a goal, something "organised".

Hope it helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slavon