Playable factions: which is the "most German" and "most British"?

[pratolano]

This is a terrible over-simplification, I realize, but if I were to ask you who is the most "German" playable faction, or the most "British", for example (as regards the modern states or culture), what would your answer be? Would the Franks be considered the most German, or perhaps the Langobards, Alamans or Burgundians? Are the Saxons the most British?

I guess I began wondering because I play Paradox's Hearts of Iron game frequently and enjoy playing as Germany or UK, so I was wondering who are the most comparable Attila-era equivalents.

Before I began reading up on this era, I always thought Franks = France, but now I believe that they may actually be the precursors to modern Germany, and/or the Dutch even. And I suppose the Eastern Romans might be the closest in ATW to the Greeks from Rome II. What are your thoughts? Feel free to draw any modern or ancient equivalents.

[Aeratus]

The concept of "British" obviously doesn't exist in this period, and this concept won't exist for over a millennium from Attila's time. By name, maybe the Angles and Saxons may be closest.

As for Germans, well half the factions in the game are "Germanic." Maybe the best representative of modern Germans is the Alamans, since they did not migrate into distant lands and become integrated with the locals there.

- Ostrogoths: Migrated into Italy, but their kingdom faded into history after Roman reconquest
- Visigoths: Migrated into Spain, but their kingdom and culture faded after Arab conquest
- Saxons: Migrated into Britannia, but not all of them did
- Franks: Germanic people, but nowadays associated with the French rather than the Germans
- Burgundians: Settled in France
- Langobards (Lombards): Founded a kingdom in Italy, but "Lombardy" is now associated with Milan and northern Italy

[pratolano]

Thanks for the response. Yeah, it's interesting to me that the Franks are associated with modern day France, especially via the name (Frankreich, etc.) although the modern day French are kind of descended from Gallo Romans, not Germans.

[Aeratus]

Well, the name "France" comes from "Francia" (land of the Franks). The Franks were completely assimilated and make up a small percentage of the modern French genetic identity. However, whoever is the conqueror gets (a chance) to name the conquered land after them. England (land of the Angles) is another example.

Also, in support of my Alamans thesis, the term for "Germany" in French is "Allemagne" and the term in Spanish is "Alemania." So purely as a matter of name, the Alamans is probably the closest you get.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

Before I began reading up on this era, I always thought Franks = France, but now I believe that they may actually be the precursors to modern Germany, and/or the Dutch even. And I suppose the Eastern Romans might be the closest in ATW to the Greeks from Rome II. What are your thoughts? Feel free to draw any modern or ancient equivalents.

The dutch are a mixture of franks, frisians and saxons, the germans franks, saxons and a whole lot of other germanic tribes, the flemish I would guess are mostly of frankish origin

Thanks for the response. Yeah, it's interesting to me that the Franks are associated with modern day France, especially via the name (Frankreich, etc.) although the modern day French are kind of descended from Gallo Romans, not Germans.

you do learn some interesting stuff playing these games, I hadn't realized that the franks only formed an elite in what is now France and that dutch is modern franconian and that the dutch (and flemish) must be direct decendents of the franks

[pratolano]

I hadn't realized that the franks only formed an elite in what is now France and that dutch is modern franconian and that the dutch (and flemish) must be direct decendents of the franks

I didn't realize that either. Thanks!!

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

I didn't realize that either. Thanks!!

haha and instead of deducing it from info in wikipedia on germanic languages, the fall of the roman empire and the franks, I could have just looked up the wiki article on the dutch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_people#Specific

[ImperatorAndreas]

I do not know where you read or heard that the French were mostly GalloRomans. I was always taught that the Franks mixed with the GalloRomans and French people are descendents of the Franks due the centuries of occupation that lead to the slow disappearance of the Celts in France. Actually some French are criticized by some for teaching in primary schools that the Gauls were their ancestors while very little amount of French have Celtic origins. I am just saying.

[Aeratus]

The Franks were only the ruling class. In terms of the overall population of the area, the number of Franks was low compared to the native population. The majority of the genetic mix in modern France are probably derived from the Gauls.

The association of the ruling class with the majority of the population of a region is one area where history is misleading. Another Example is that the modern English were traditionally associated with Germanics, since the Angle-Saxons and other Germanic peoples ruled large areas and English is a Germanic language. However, it turned out that the genetic composition of modern English is not very Germanic.

[ImperatorAndreas]

Genetically speaking, when considering that most French people today have Germanic ancestry, it is wrong to say that French people are mostly from Gallo Roman origins. In fact, very little amount of French people have Celtic ancestry today. Saying that French are descendents of Gallo Romans is like saying that Spanish people are descendents of Iberians, (which is also wrong).

[Darios]

If some guy from Eastern Europe were here right now asking the same question about which faction is the "most Serbian" or "most Romanian" then the overwhelming amount of criticism and arguments regarding "ethnic complaints" or "nationalism" would lead to the said thread being shut down by moderators. I find it very ironic how such terms do not apply when people are discussing nations in NW Europe.

In any regard, modern studies have shown that invasions rarely lead to significant changes in a country's gene pool. Sure language and cultural identity will always change with the times but the same people who call themselves "French" today had ancestors that referred to themselves as "Franks" in 800 AD, "Romans" in 300 AD, and any number of Celtic tribes in 200 BC.

A recent study also showed that English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish people are all mostly descended from the same Paleolithic peoples that originally settled the British Isles eons ago. Trying to equate modern day entities with Dark Age tribes is ridiculous. The only thing you can say for sure is that a very primitive version of the English language arrived in Britannia via the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes during the 5th century. Even so, only linguists who avidly study Old English are capable of reading Beowulf in its original script. That's how "British" the Saxons were.

[Aeratus]

Genetically speaking, when considering that most French people today have Germanic ancestry, it is wrong to say that French people are mostly from Gallo Roman origins. In fact, very little amount of French people have Celtic ancestry today. Saying that French are descendents of Gallo Romans is like saying that Spanish people are descendents of Iberians, (which is also wrong).

Modern french have both Gallic and Germanic ancestry, but the amount of Gallic ancestry should be significantly greater.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

I do not know where you read or heard that the French were mostly GalloRomans. I was always taught that the Franks mixed with the GalloRomans and French people are descendents of the Franks due the centuries of occupation that lead to the slow disappearance of the Celts in France. Actually some French are criticized by some for teaching in primary schools that the Gauls were their ancestors while very little amount of French have Celtic origins. I am just saying.

That's not what wikipedia says, the french sure don't look like dutch/flemish or germans, especially the further south you go. The surely have a good dose of germanic stock in them and an important part of that is frankish but they are not the modern franks, I think the flemish would be the most frankish, after that the dutch and third the germans and the french come fourth (i am unsure where the walloons fit in but their name suggests a celtic background)
.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

A recent study also showed that English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish people are all mostly descended from the same Paleolithic peoples that originally settled the British Isles eons ago. Trying to equate modern day entities with Dark Age tribes is ridiculous. The only thing you can say for sure is that a very primitive version of the English language arrived in Britannia via the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes during the 5th century. Even so, only linguists who avidly study Old English are capable of reading Beowulf in its original script. That's how "British" the Saxons were.

If you transliterate it to our modern alphabet I am able to figure out a little bit, without any training but so can I from the scandinavian languages....

And from some studies I have read, the english (not british) are mostly (>=90%) germanic (anglo-saxon), not celtic

[ImperatorAndreas]

Modern french have both Gallic and Germanic ancestry, but the amount of Gallic ancestry should be significantly greater.

And this is where I have to disagree or at least show my doubts, I am not sure this is the case, all the research I have done right now suggests that French people are mostly Germanic with some areas like Brittany where people are still indeed Celtic. This is a minority however.

[Aeratus]

And this is where I have to disagree or at least show my doubts, I am not sure this is the case, all the research I have done right now suggests that French people are mostly Germanic with some areas like Brittany where people are still indeed Celtic. This is a minority however.

Take, for example, the Franks. As shown in Attila TW, the Franks during this time occupied only a small region. Given that the population density of barbarian settlements was even lower than that of Romanized Gaul while also being significantly smaller in geographical area than Romanized, it is impossible that the Franks were populous enough to change the genetic makeup of Gaul. The Franks, of course, did change the cultural identity of Gaul, but cultural identity is not the same as genetics.

Also, a lot of older studies are misleading, because they don't focus on modern genetics, but more on the concept of "identity" and culture. Again, cultural identity and genetic identity have been mixed, because genetics are not easily discernible prior to modern testing. People take on the cultural identity of their conquerors all the time. This was the reason why the English was originally (and incorrectly) thought to have been mostly Germanic until modern genetics studies were conducted.

[pratolano]

Thanks for all of the answers. Great discussion and I've learned a lot. Another selfish driving force behind my question was trying to figure out where I'd fit in genetically if I was placed in that time period. Although American, I'm of Irish, English, Italian and German descent. A bit of everything, like many of us! So I can look at the game's timeframe and as nerdy and unrealistic as it is, pretend that I'm "me back then" as a WRE Roman, Celt, Saxon, etc. (Jute? Geat? due to later Viking invasions of England - probably!) Was not sure about the Franks, so I was glad to uncover some clarification here. This game has certainly piqued my interest in researching my various ancestries.

[ImperatorAndreas]

Take, for example, the Franks. As shown in Attila TW, the Franks during this time occupied only a small region. Given that the population density of barbarian settlements was even lower than that of Romanized Gaul while also being significantly smaller in geographical area than Romanized, it is impossible that the Franks were populous enough to change the genetic makeup of Gaul. The Franks, of course, did change the cultural identity of Gaul, but cultural identity is not the same as genetics.

Also, a lot of older studies are misleading, because they don't focus on modern genetics, but more on the concept of "identity" and culture. Again, cultural identity and genetic identity have been mixed, because genetics are not easily discernible prior to modern testing. People take on the cultural identity of their conquerors all the time. This was the reason why the English was originally (and incorrectly) thought to have been mostly Germanic until modern genetics studies were conducted.

However in France quite the opposite happened. The Franks adopted Gallic/Roman culture. This is why today French is a Romance language with minimal Germanic roots and not the other way around. It is true that there weren't many Franks to begin with compared to the number of the romanised Celts, however, here we are talking of centuries of 'occupation' and 'mixing' which apparently led to a majority of French people today being of German ancestry mainly. But I guess you are right, genetics weren't as reliable as they are today, however, I am not basing my arguments on old sources only.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Well the root of Germany are the Saxons which remained on the continent. After they were conquered by the Franks they remained the dominating group in the are and it was them who changed the Eastern Frankish Empire in to the Holy Roman Empire. Even after they stopped beeing king and emperors saxons remained a core factor within the realm. Although i agree that the Alemanns are still of importance of name and the point that they remained in the same are almost the entire time, there significance was somewhat lower on history

[pratolano]

Well the root of Germany are the Saxons which remained on the continent. After they were conquered by the Franks they remained the dominating group in the are and it was them who changed the Eastern Frankish Empire in to the Holy Roman Empire. Even after they stopped beeing king and emperors saxons remained a core factor within the realm. Although i agree that the Alemanns are still of importance of name and the point that they remained in the same are almost the entire time, there significance was somewhat lower on history

Were the Saxons really responsible for changing the Eastern Frankish Empire to the HRE? That's very interesting. I will have to read into that!