Why Germany's name is not France.

Oct 2013
13,152
Europix
I'm no linguist, but I'd bet the English term "Germany" comes from the Italian "Kingdom of Germania" - which in turn is derived from the Latin based "Germania" used during the Roman Imperial period as a designation for Netherlands, Belgium, some of France, and a bit of Germany (and occasionally applied to all Germanic realms by modern historians, I am unsure if the Romans applied the name "Germania" to ALL German lands though, or just those West of the Rhine).

Anyway, the "Kingdom of the Teutons" was a term which came about for political reasons to designate different nationalities in the HRE - the Kingdom of Italy was the other major designation (since West Francia was no longer a part of the Empire). This is the same entity that in English became "Kingdom of Germany" and the heir of the Holy Roman Empire would first be granted the title of "King of Germany" in a similar way to how the heir of the Kingdom of England is granted the title "Prince of Wales" - just with one level of Nobility downward. Then the various other names (Tyskland, Allemagne, Deutschland, Saksa) have other histories and/or etymological (Germany equivalent origins) reasons for the names. But because the HRE effectively broke up into multi-ethnic groups, the designation for Germany survived its end.

In short, East Francia sort of transformed into the HRE, and the HRE formed Kingdoms based on ethnicities, so rather than keeping "Frank" as the basis, it went with German and Italian.
True.

"Germania" (it.)/"Germany" (engl.)/"Γερμανία " (gr.) - from the Latin "Germania", the territories north of Alps.

"Allemagne" (fr.)/ "Alemania" (esp.)/"Alemanha" (port) - from Alamans, Germanic tribes living between Rhine and Danube. (the name would come from German "alle" (all) + "man" (man) = all people= tribe federation)

"Saksa " (fin.)/"Saksamaa" (est) - from "Saxony"

"Niemcy" (pol)/"Německo" (cz.)/"Német" (hu.)/"Немецкий" (rus.) - from slavic "mute" -> cannot speak (our language)

"Deutschland " (germ.)/"Duitsland" (nl.)/"Tyskland" (su.dk.) - from theudisk -> thiot =people



The funny think would be the real answer to the OP:

Why Germany's name is not France?

Because it's Deutschland!


;)
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,949
I'm no linguist, but I'd bet the English term "Germany" comes from the Italian "Kingdom of Germania" - which in turn is derived from the Latin based "Germania" used during the Roman Imperial period
Yes, Germania, referring to the land of the germans, is mentioned in Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People and comes from ecclesiastical latin. In Book V Ch9 Bede mentions that the Britons use a corrupted form, 'garmani'.

EO tempore uenerabilis et cum omni honorificentia nominandus famulus Christi et sacerdos Ecgberct, quem in Hibernia insula peregrinam ducere uitam pro adipiscenda in caelis patria retulimus, proposuit animo pluribus prodesse; id est inito opere apostolico, uerbum Dei aliquibus earum, quae nondum audierant, gentibus euangelizando committere; quarum in Germania plurimas nouerat esse nationes, a quibus Angli uel Saxones, qui nunc Brittaniam incolunt, genus et originem duxisse noscuntur; unde hactenus a uicina gente Brettonum corrupte Garmani nuncupantur.
 
Germany and France both have derived from Franks state. Furthermore HRE was the core descendant of this state. Modern France was quite secondary. But it got name of Franks (even Frankreich = Frank's Empire in German language).

Why?
Why?

Quite simple.

France is the original Frankish state, the Merovingian's took over Gaul from the Romans and other Germanic tribes slowly but surely and called it Francia.

At this time it did not control Germany or as it was called then "Germania".

When the Franks expanded to include Germania it was split between West Francia (France) and East Francia (Germania).

West Francia was eventually ruled by non Frankish dynasty's like Otto while back in West Francia traditional Frankish families and nobility continued to rule so to summerize ..............

Francia i.e France was the original Frankish state not Germania, Germania even when it was East Francia was always seen as a secondary frontier because it wasn't a united state like Francia was, and wasn't ruled by old Frankish nobility, it was a new territory full of Duchy's and presided over eventually by a noble family from Saxony.

Remember the Franks had to invade Germania and create East Francia, France has always been the core state.

HRE means nothing, this was a political title shifted over the years from Francia, to East Francia (Germany) to Spain and back again.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2014
990
Rus
Why?

Quite simple.

France is the original Frankish state, the Merovingian's took over Gaul from the Romans and other Germanic tribes slowly but surely and called it Francia.

At this time it did not control Germany or as it was called then "Germania".

When the Franks expanded to include Germania it was split between West Francia (France) and East Francia (Germania).

West Francia was eventually ruled by non Frankish dynasty's like Otto while back in West Francia traditional Frankish families and nobility continued to rule so to summerize ..............

Francia i.e France was the original Frankish state not Germania, Germania even when it was East Francia was always seen as a secondary frontier because it wasn't a united state like Francia was, and wasn't ruled by old Frankish nobility, it was a new territory full of Duchy's and presided over eventually by a noble family from Saxony.

Remember the Franks had to invade Germania and create East Francia, France has always been the core state.

HRE means nothing, this was a political title shifted over the years from Francia, to East Francia (Germany) to Spain and back again.
Austrasia, which was the main part of Franks state, stayed in "Germany"
 
Austrasia, which was the main part of Franks state, stayed in "Germany"
Firstly half of old Austrasia became part of Germany / Belgium, Metz and the immediate territories around that were part of France.

Secondly there was a third Francia, the Middle Kingdom which was one of three Francia kingdoms split between the brothers, which eventually was shared between East and West.

Your trying to simplify things too much without taking into account hundreds of years of treaties, territory shifts etc.

To top it off Austrasia may of been "the main part" of Frankish territory in the times of Clovis, but by the time of Charlemagne Austrasia was more of a frontier territory compared to Paris which was now "the main part" of Francia.

The Franks began their migration from Austrasia but settled main land France, they were moving West from the outset.

That's like saying Virginia is the "main part" of America just because Jamestown was the first colony, they were eclipsed by Plymouth and New England within the century.
 
Jan 2014
990
Rus
To top it off Austrasia may of been "the main part" of Frankish territory in the times of Clovis, but by the time of Charlemagne Austrasia was more of a frontier territory compared to Paris which was now "the main part" of Francia.
If it was so than the issue is resolved and things become clear. But how can you prove that Paris's region was main part by the time of Charlemagne?

Charlemagne himself lived in Aahen, but not in Paris.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
4,949
If it was so than the issue is resolved and things become clear. But how can you prove that Paris's region was main part by the time of Charlemagne?

Charlemagne himself lived in Aahen, but not in Paris.
You have to look at the previous generation. Charlemagne succeeded Pepin the Short and was coronated at Noyon, just north of Paris.

The royal families had many estates and estates throught their realm and toured. So, whilst he had a large palace at Aachen, he travelled extansively. We have his instructions for the estate managers, what foods they should keep and what they should prepare. It is called the Capitulare de Villis.
 
Last edited:
If it was so than the issue is resolved and things become clear. But how can you prove that Paris's region was main part by the time of Charlemagne?

Charlemagne himself lived in Aahen, but not in Paris.
Again you need to appreciate moving with the times rather than be fixed on such an absolute position.

Clovis made Paris his capital, and it stayed that way from 508–768, over 200 years.

The only reason Charlemagne moved the capital from Paris to Aahen was more strategic than anything else, if you look at Charlemagne's campaigns its easy to understand why, Charlemagne had spent his Kingship bringing Germania and the Saxons under his rule, it was because of Charlemagne that the Franks acquired East Francia.

Staging this campaign he moved the capital into a more central position between his new lands, you'll note that when Francia was divided among the three Francia's West, East and Middle that the West Frankish capital (the original Frankish Kingdom) reverted straight back to Paris in 843 AD .......... where its remained so to this day.

Aahen was not even the capital for 100 years while Paris has been the capital for 260 years before and 1,175 years since.

I don't think you can really compare to be frank (no pun intended).
 
Oct 2013
13,152
Europix
If it was so than the issue is resolved and things become clear. But how can you prove that Paris's region was main part by the time of Charlemagne?

Charlemagne himself lived in Aahen, but not in Paris.
Just an advise: try to "erase" from Your head the things You know about French, Germans, France, Germany, capital. Those are modern "images".

If You aproach all that period of time without the modern things You know, I believe You will understand easier everything.

Just my two cents worth ....
 
Likes: authun