328 - 

“syncretism”78 of ethnic groups and a growing similarity between the

peoples and cultures. This can be observed in the fact that the same
public functions (for example the offices of comites or bishops) were
open to both groups almost from the beginning though in differing
ratios.79 The Gallo-Roman senatorial aristocracy emphatically sup-
ported the Frankish state, particularly in southern France. The his-
tories of Gregory of Tours at the end of the sixth century provide
one of the best examples to prove this statement. This holds true
even though Gregory did not apply the term “Roman” to the “Ro-
man” population of Gaul, but from his perspective distinguished,
in a much more precise manner, between the different regions or
territories of southern Gaul (and their respective population),80 where-
as the Franks were seen more as a whole. Even the social structures
did not seem so different as they may appear at first sight (and dis-
tinctions become even fewer when we take into account the “Ro-
manization” of the Germanic war-leaders long before Clovis’s time).
There was some kind of Germanic aristocracy long before Clovis
(and, in spite of a long controversy, it was not dissolved under Clo-
vis’s reign, but survived).81 With regard to the ornate grave goods,
archaeologists speak of “aristocratic graves” (Adelsgräber) or even of
“hereditary aristocratic graves” (adlige Erbgrabanlagen).82 It has been
claimed that, at least from the point of view of the Gallo-Roman

78
Cf. F. Rexroth, “Culture”, Ament et al., “Franken”, p. 452.
79
According to M. Weidemann, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit nach den Werken
Gregors von Tours (Mainz 1982) vol. 1, pp. 30 and 64, the majority of comites (27)
mentioned in Gregory of Tours bore Roman names, only 12 had Germanic names.
Among the duces, however, 19 had Germanic and only 11 Roman names.
80
Gregory distinguishes only twice between a Frank (Francus genere) in contrast to
someone from Arles (Historiae 10,2, p. 482) or from Clermont (Historiae 4,40, p. 173:
Arvernus). It is also significant that not only the names of “peoples” were territo-
rialized, but, for example in southern Gaul, territorial names were “gentilized” (such
as Turonici or Biturgici ); cf. W. Pohl, “Zur Bedeutung ethnischer Unterscheidungen
in der frühen Karolingerzeit”, Studien zur Sachsenforschung 12, pp. 193–298, here p. 201.
81
Cf. F. Irsigler, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des frühfränkischen Adels, Rheinisches
Archiv 70 (Bonn 1969); cf. Schmauder this volume. It need not concern us here
whether this political “elite”, whose existence as such is not disputed, may already
be called an “aristocracy” or rather an upper class (Oberschicht); cf. the controversial
statement of H. Grahn-Hoek, Die fränkische Oberschicht im 6. Jahrhundert. Studien zu
ihrer rechtlichen und politischen Stellung, Vorträge und Forschungen Sonderband 21 (Sigma-
ringen 1976).
82
Cf. H. Ament, “Archaeology”, id., “Franken”, pp. 400–1. For separate burial
grounds of a Germanic leading class, cf. H.W. Böhme, “Adelsgräber im Frankenreich.
Archäologische Zeugnisse zur Herausbildung einer Herrenschicht unter den mero-
   () 329

senatorial aristocracy, there was still a difference between the Roman

aristocracy and the Frankish leaders in Gregory’s time, and that
Gregory had a clear notion of these differences.83 It is significant,
though, that authors, such as Gregory of Tours and Fredegar, appar-
ently did not perceive or certainly did not emphasize an (ethnic)
contrast between the “Roman” and the “Germanic” population within
the Frankish kingdom.84
In his contemporary letter of congratulation on Clovis’s baptism,85
Avitus, the metropolitan bishop of Vienne, still sensed an “ethnic”
difference between Romans and Franks addressing the latter as ves-
tra gens!86 A century and a half later, such distinctions and similar
evidence of “ethnic” antagonism seem to have lost their impact, with
both groups becoming more and more united, a fact which is also
reflected in the process of namegiving: Whereas Roman and Ger-
manic persons’ names (anthroponyms) are regarded to have initially
been an indicator of the “ethnic” origin of men and women, from
the seventh century onwards it became increasingly difficult to infer
one’s descent in this way since Romans adopted Germanic names
(and vice versa).87 (It would be interesting to investigate this sym-
biosis further by research on changes in the naming of the Franks.)88
Another element of integration was the administration of the king-
dom. Although there were differences between the northern and
southern parts of the realm, these sectors seem to have been fairly
homogeneous as far as government and administration are concerned.

wingischen Königen”, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 40 (1993)

pp. 397–534.
83
Cf. Irsigler, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des frühfränkischen Adels, pp. 84 ff.
84
Cf. H.-W. Goetz, “Die germanisch-romanische (Kultur-)Synthese in der Wahrneh-
mung der merowingischen Geschichtsschreibung”, Akkulturation. Probleme einer german-
isch-romanischen Kultursynthese in Spätantike und frühem Mittelalter, ed. D. Hägermann,
W. Haubrichs and J. Jarnut (forthcoming).
85
See n. 97 below.
86
When later on, however, Clovis, in his letter to the bishops from 507/511
(MGH Capit. 1, no. 1, ed. A. Boretius [Hannover 1883] pp. 1–2), speaks of popu-
lus noster, he may have been thinking of the Franks, but it is more probable that
he referred to all his people as a political body, presumably including the Romans.
87
Cf. H. Ebling, Prosopographie der Amtsträger des Merowingerreiches. Von Chlothar II.
(613) bis Karl Martell (714), Beihefte der Francia 2 (München 1974); id., J. Jarnut
and G. Kampers, “Nomen et gens. Untersuchungen zu den Führungsschichten des
Franken-, Langobarden- und Westgotenreiches im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert”, Francia
8 (1980) pp. 687–745.
88
This is one of the tasks of the interdisciplinary workgroup “Nomen et gens”.
Cf. n. 38 above.
330 - 

If we may, for example, at all assume different origins for the offices
of a Germanic grafio and a Gallo-Roman comes,89 it seems to be impos-
sible to perceive differences between these offices in Merovingian
times.90 Thus, on the whole, though there may have been both
“Germanic” and/or Roman roots for the single administrative offices,
the strongest impression that we get from the sources is their struc-
tural unity, so that the administration of the Frankish kingdom must
be considered an important element of integration. It should not,
however, be forgotten that the tendency towards a certain indepen-
dence of individual officials, particularly the duces of the seventh and
eighth centuries, favoured the disintegration of certain parts of the
realm later on. On the whole, “Clovis’s kingdom from the begin-
ning experienced a much more thorough mixture of Frankish and
Roman traditions”, as Patrick Geary concludes,91 and what Walter
Pohl infers rightly from a comparison of the Germanic states is true
for the Frankish kingdom as well: “a clear distinction between Roman
and Germanic origins [. . .] would not help to understand a process
in which there was a continuum of solutions to problems that were
common to ‘Romans’ and ‘barbarians’, who were becoming harder
and harder to distinguish. The states were both Roman and bar-
barian, and so, in a sense, were most of their leading members.”92
The strongest factor of integration, however, was the “Catholic”
church because, after the baptism of Clovis—the long discussion
about the exact date need not concern us here—,93 Romans and
Franks began to experience a common religious unity. The epochal
importance of this event has always been acknowledged and em-
phasized,94 though Christianizing the Franks actually turned out to

89
For such a difference, cf. still T. Bauer, “Graf/Grafio (Historisches)”, Real-
lexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 12 (2nd edn., 1999) pp. 532–55, particularly
p. 540.
90
Cf. strictly in this view: A.C. Murray, “The Position of the Grafio in the Cons-
titutional History of Merovingian Gaul”, Speculum 61 (1986) pp. 787–805.
91
Geary, Before France and Germany, p. 89.
92
W. Pohl, “The Barbarian Successor States”, The Transformation of the Roman
World A.D. 400–900, ed. L. Webster and M. Brown (London 1997) pp. 33–47, here
p. 45.
93
For Clovis’s baptism cf. now A. Dierkens, “Die Taufe Chlodwigs”, Die Franken—
Wegbereiter Europas 1, pp. 183–91. For the liturgy of baptism, see V. Saxer, “Les
rites du baptême de Clovis dans le cadre de la pratique paléochrétienne”, Clovis 1,
pp. 229–41; for its political consequences, see A. Angenendt, “Le parrainage dans
le haut Moyen Âge. Du rituel liturgique au cérémonial politique”, ibid., pp. 243–54.
94
Cf. Geuenich, “Chlodwigs Alemannenschlacht(en) und Taufe”; M. Rouche,
   () 331

be a long process, and it was only gradually that stricter measures

against heathens were taken and began to bear fruit. Again, the bap-
tism of Clovis had been prepared not only by his wife Chrodechilde,
as Gregory wants us to believe,95 but also by his Roman-Catholic
environment, including the bishops, and we may recall the fact that
Bishop Remigius of Rheims congratulated Clovis on his succession
to the “throne” long before his conversion.96 Once Clovis and his
followers were converted, Christianization promoted a symbiosis of
Romans and Franks, there being, at least officially, no “religious
dualism” between “Catholics” and “Arians” in the Frankish king-
dom, as existed in the other “Germanic” realms of that epoch, but
a confessional unity. The letter of congratulation written by Bishop
Avitus of Vienne after Clovis’s conversion97 reveals that religious
unity at least facilitated royal government. According to Avitus, Clovis
had not really gained a new function—as stated in Remigius’s let-
ter on the occasion of Clovis’s succession to the “throne”, there had
been, or should have been, cooperation between the king and the
bishops even before his conversion—, but a (religious) strengthening
of his kingship: Now Clovis would not only reign in saeculo, but also
in caelo; and his rigor armorum would be strengthened by his belief
because God had chosen the Franks to be “his people”, thus giving
them the task to Christianize those foreign peoples who were still
living in ignorance (the externi populi paganorum). In 511, Clovis conse-
quently took over responsibility for the church by commanding the
bishops of his entire kingdom to gather for the council of Orleans,
and the bishops themselves conceded that the king’s consent granted
a higher authority to the sentences of the priests.98 The Frankish
king was always “lord” of the church and of the bishops, who were
not to be consecrated without his consent (the royal “decree of

“Die Bedeutung der Taufe Chlodwigs”, Die Franken—Wegbereiter Europas 1, pp. 192–9;
B. Fauvarque, “Le baptême de Clovis, ouverture du millénaire des saints”, Clovis
1, pp. 271–86; F. Monfrin, “La conversion du roi et des siens”, ibid., pp. 289–320.
95
Cf. C. Nolte, Conversio und Christianitas. Frauen in der Christianisierung vom 5. bis 8.
Jahrhundert, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 41 (Stuttgart 1995) pp.
72–86.
96
Epistolae Austrasicae 2, ed. W. Gundlach, MGH EE 3 (Berlin 1892) p. 113.
97
Avitus of Vienne, Epistolae 46, ed. R. Peiper, MGH AA 6,2 (München 1883)
pp. 75–6.
98
Letter of the bishops to Clovis: MGH Conc. 1, ed. F. Maassen (Hannover
1893) pp. 2–3. For the council of Orleans, see J. Heuclin, “Le concile d’Orléans
de 511, un premier concordat?”, Clovis 1, pp. 435–50.
332 - 

consecration”).99 According to Gregory of Tours, he alone, in his

defence of one of his colleagues, who was accused before King
Chilperic, dared to criticize the king. But at the same time the author
admits that his warning was a moral one because he had no legal
right to officially disagree with the king.100 Thus, as in this case, we
find at least some evidence in Gregory’s statement that the bishops
of the whole Frankish realm stuck together over certain issues, but
far more often we get the impression that they were primarily loyal
to their respective king and consequently antagonistic towards “the
church” of other, hostile Merovingian kingdoms.

4. Roman elements/“Romanization”: We must not neglect the fact (as

has been done in the past by German historians, but is now being
increasingly emphasized again) that, although the Franks were the
leading group in the Frankish kingdom, not only the Christian reli-
gion, but also decisive parts of the government had been adopted
(with adaptations) from the Romans. The (later) kings conferred upon
themselves the title of rex Francorum, but at the same time they adopted
Roman epithets (such as gloriosissimus etc.). Accordingly, Clovis’s reign
was widely based on Roman elements:101 a Roman administration,102
Roman (or Gaulish) administrational territories (civitates and pagi ),103
imperial demesnes, the fisc, the monetary system, charters, written
laws and last but not least the continuity of Roman legal practi-
ces.104 Finally, it should not be forgotten either that the church, too,

99
Cf. D. Claude, “Die Bestellung der Bischöfe im merowingischen Reiche”,
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 49 (1963) pp. 1–75;
C. Servatius, “‘Per ordinationem principis ordinetur’. Zum Modus der Bischofs-
ernennung im Edikt Chlothars II. vom Jahre 614”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 84
(1973) pp. 1–29.
100
Gregory of Tours, Historiae 5,18, pp. 219–20, for the case of Bishop Prae-
textatus of Rouen.
101
Cf. K.F. Werner, “Die ‘Franken’. Staat oder Volk?”, Die Franken und die Ale-
mannen, pp. 95–101; E. Ewig, “Das Fortleben römischer Institutionen in Gallien und
Germanien”, id., Spätantikes und fränkisches Gallien 1, pp. 409–34; I.N. Wood, “Die
Franken und ihr Erbe—‘Translatio Imperii’”, Die Franken—Wegbereiter Europas 1, pp.
358–64.
102
Cf. U. Nonn, “Zur Verwaltungsorganisation in der nördlichen Galloromania”,
Die Franken und die Alemannen, pp. 82–94.
103
Cf. S.T. Loseby, “Gregory’s cities: Urban functions in sixth-century Gaul”,
Franks and Alamanni, pp. 239–70; 270–84.
104
For this aspect, cf. now S. Esders, Römische Rechtstradition und merowingisches
Königtum. Zum Rechtscharakter politischer Herrschaft in Burgund im 6. und 7. Jahrhundert,
   () 333

was Roman in its character and administration (and contrary to for-

mer beliefs, as an element of continuity, it probably did not even
prompt a complete topographical change in the towns).105 In the
sixth century, the vast majority of the bishops were still Roman,106
and it was only in the course of time that Frankish noblemen became
bishops. Contrary to former opinions, therefore, the political system
of the Franks (as of all the “Germanic” kingdoms) seemed decisively
characterized by political continuity. Clovis, undoubtedly, was leader
of his people, but at the same time this was a federate people that
had already been integrated into the Roman Empire for a long time,
and he governed his realm by measures which he took over from
his Roman predecessors. This continuity derived from the integra-
tion of the barbarians into the Empire; in fact, it was only this
assimilation that enabled the barbarian leaders to rule parts of it.
The continuity of Roman elements, however, did not mean that
there was no change. On the contrary, it was a characteristic fea-
ture that those Roman elements on which the Frankish government
was based were transformed gradually, though we can only get a
sketchy impression of these changes through a comparison with later
situations. While the legal tradition, for example, followed the Roman
model, it was not possible to adapt the “Germanic” legal tradition
completely to this model; it was not even possible to translate all
the legal expressions into Latin so that the Lex Salica abounds with

Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 134 (Göttingen 1997),

who shows, with regard to the Praeceptum of Chlothar II of 613, that the surviv-
ing Roman legal traditions in Burgundy not only determined human life, but were
acknowledged by the kings. For the Roman origin of the Pactus legis Salicae, see
É. Magnou-Nortier, “Remarques sur la genèse du Pactus legis Salicae et sur le privilège
d’immunité (IVe–VIIe siècles)”, Clovis 1, pp. 495–538.
105
Cf. N. Gauthier, “La topographie chrétienne entre idéologie et pragmatisme”,
The Idea and Ideal of the Town Between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. G.P.
Brogiolo and B. Ward-Perkins, The Transformation of the Roman World 4 (Leiden-
Boston-Köln 1999) pp. 195–209. The same is valid for funerals and burial grounds
until the seventh century, except for the funerary basilicas over the graves of mar-
tyrs; it was not until the eighth century that cemeteries were moved from the periph-
ery and graves were regrouped around the churches; cf. A. Dierkens and P. Périn,
“Death and burial in Gaul and Germania, 4th-8th century”, The Transformation of
the Roman World A.D. 400–900, ed. L. Webster and M. Brown (London 1997) pp.
79–95, here pp. 94–5.
106
For the “image” of the bishops of Aquitania, as reflected in their funeral
epitaphs, see M. Heinzelmann, Bischofsherrschaft in Gallien. Zur Kontinuität römischer
Führungsschichten vom 4. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert. Soziale, prosopographische und bildungs-
geschichtliche Aspekte, Beihefte der Francia 5 (Zürich-München 1976).
334 - 

Germanic terms, the so-called Malberg glosses.107 Again, also in the

field of government, law, and administration, we find a mixture of
Roman and “Germanic” elements which soon developed into an
integrated whole. “Germanic” elements may have been stronger in
the “inner circle” of the “royal court”, and the Franks formed the
core of the royal army. As Patrick Geary puts it bluntly: the army
was Frankish, the culture was Roman(ized).108 On the whole, how-
ever, the Franks were as much (or even more) “Romanized” than
the Romans were “Germanized”, or, as Karl Ferdinand Werner
remarks: “Not the Romans who kept their Church and their law,
but the Franks experienced since 500 a revolution of their way of
life: the submission under the Church and the princeps-dominus, to
whom they owed obsequium in their militia.”109 Therefore, if it was
mainly the Franks who were subject to changes in the Frankish king-
dom, this should have affected the concept of the gens Francorum.

5. Concept and Development of the Frankish “people”: As a further approach

we should, therefore, investigate the role and meaning of the Frank-
ish people inside this symbiotic kingdom.110 “‘The Franks’ is a term
that has no absolute meaning, but one which changes according to
time or circumstance.”111 In Merovingian times, no doubt, in spite

107
Cf. R. Schmidt-Wiegand, Stammesrecht und Volkssprache. Ausgewählte Aufsätze zu
den Leges barbarorum (Weinheim 1991); ead., “Rechtsvorstellungen bei den Franken
und Alemannen vor 500”, Die Franken und die Alemannen, pp. 545–57, again tries to
trace back certain legal practices of the Franks to the time before the first codification
of the Lex Salica.
108
Geary, Before France and Germany, p. 93.
109
Werner, “Die ‘Franken’”, p. 100.
110
Some enlightening remarks on a “gentile” consciousness of the Franks as a
gens are made by I. Haselbach, Aufstieg und Herrschaft der Karlinger in der Darstellung der
sogenannten Annales Mettenses priores. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der politischen Ideen im Reiche
Karls des Großen, Historische Studien 412 (Lübeck-Hamburg 1970) pp. 133–7, in
regard to the early Carolingian Annales Mettenses priores. Cf. now H.-W. Goetz, “Zur
Wandlung des Frankennamens im Frühmittelalter”, Integration und Herrschaft. Ethnische
Identitäten und soziale Organisation im Frühmittelalter, ed. M. Diesenberger and W. Pohl
(Vienna 2002) pp. 133–50); id., “Gens. Terminology and Perception of the Germanic
Peoples from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages”, The Construction of Communities
in the Early Middle Ages, ed. R. Corradini, M. Diesenberger and H. Reimitz (forth-
coming).
111
Thus James, The Franks, p. 9. For the discrepancy between the modern and
early medieval understanding of a gens and the changing of peoples’ names, cf. M.
Springer, “Geschichtsbilder, Urteile und Vorurteile. Franken und Sachsen in den
Vorstellungen unserer Zeit und in der Vergangenheit”, 799—Kunst und Kultur der
Karolingerzeit. Karl der Große und Papst Leo III. in Paderborn. Beiträge zum Katalog der
Ausstellung Paderborn 1999, ed. C. Stiegemann and M. Wemhoff (Mainz 1999) pp.
224–32.
   () 335

of the widespread “Romanization” of government, language, society,

learning and culture, when one considers the role of the Franks in
this newly established, vast kingdom, they were (and remained) the
politically leading people in this realm, to a degree that for the
authors of our chronicles it was “the” Franks who acted and made
decisions in all important political questions. It is mainly in this con-
text that “Franks” were mentioned in our sources (whereas only in
a few cases was a man defined as being a Frank by birth).112 Although,
according to corresponding formulas, a consensus fidelium as the right
of an aristocracy to participate in the king’s policy may have been
a development of Carolingian rather than of Merovingian times,113
there can be no doubt about the participation of “Frankish” freemen
(or rather the leading groups among them—who again may not have
necessarily been “Franks” in the narrower ethnic sense). According
to the chronicles, it was the Franci who elected the king or met in
assemblies or courts, who concluded peace treaties or contracts114 or
who went to war: The Franks were considered as the politically
decisive group in the kingdom, together with the king. Fredegar,
when speaking of certain events, has a liking for the phrase “the
king and his Franks”.115 Accordingly, the Franks were distinguished
from the peoples outside the Frankish realm—Gregory mentions wars
and peace treaties, interventions, legations and weddings between
“Franks” and members of “foreign” peoples—, whereas they were
hardly ever distinguished from other peoples inside this realm. For
Gregory116 and Fredegar,117 the Franks were distinguishable from Romans,

112
The terms Francus genere or Francus natione are only once used in Gregory of
Tours’ Histories (Historiae 10,2, p. 482), but three times in Fredegar’s chronicle
(Chronicon 4,18, p. 128; 4,24, p. 130; 4,34, p. 133, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SSrM 2
[Hannover 1888]).
113
Cf. J. Hannig, Consensus fidelium. Frühfeudale Interpretationen des Verhältnisses von
Königtum und Adel am Beispiel des Frankenreiches, Monographien zur Geschichte des
Mittelalters 27 (Stuttgart 1982).
114
According to Fredegar, Chronicon 3,19, p. 100, for example, Gundobad, the
king of the Burgundians, made peace with “the Franks”.
115
Cf. for example Fredegar, Chronicon 2,58, p. 83: Chlodovei regis et Francis; 3,16,
p. 99; 3,30, p. 103; 4,71, p. 156; 3,21, p. 101: cum Francis meis.
116
Goths: Gregory of Tours, Historiae 2,7, p. 50; 2,18, p. 65; 10,31, p. 531; Romans:
2,9, p. 53; 2,18, p. 65; 2,19, p. 65; 10,31, p. 526; Alamanni: 2,9, p. 56; Burgundians:
2,9, p. 56; 2,23, p. 69; 3,6, p. 103; Saxons: 2,19, p. 65; 4,14, pp. 145–6; 4,16, pp.
149–50; Thuringians: 3,7, pp. 103 ff.; Bretons: 4,4, p. 137.
117
Goths: Fredegar, Chronicon 2,58, p. 82, in Alaric’s war against Clovis; 3,12,
p. 98: war of the Romani et Franci against the Goths; Alamanni: 3,21, p. 101: the Alamans
did not find a people ( gens), that would have helped them against the Franks;
336 - 

Goths, Burgundians, Alamans, Saxons, Thuringians and Bretons.

All this may indicate that the Franks were regarded as the lead-
ing class inside a kingdom which was accordingly considered to
be and was named “Frankish”: Franci corresponded with the regnum
of the Merovingians, or with one part of the divided kingdom.118
When Chlothar and Childebert made war against the Burgundians,
the Franks who were subject to Theudebert (Franci vero, qui ad eum
aspiciebant), compelled their king to join his brothers.119 “Franks” lived
in each of the divided kingdoms which all remained and were per-
ceived as regna Francorum. Consequently, Franci increasingly became
an expression used for the whole population of the Frankish realm.
The exercitus Francorum was collected from the whole kingdom.120
Therefore, “gens, the terminology of space and royal territory were
never approximately identical.” The gens Francorum was at the same
time “gentile” and “supragentile” and “made other gentes appear to
be their part and their counterpart at the same time”.121
Regarding the terminology and the usage of Franci and Francia,
therefore, it seems that in the end, that is already by the seventh

Burgundians: 3,35–36, p. 104; Saxons: 2,6, p. 46; 2,45, p. 68; 3,51, p. 107; Bretons:
4,11, p. 127.
118
The ambiguity of the term “Frankish” is now strongly emphasized by Pohl,
“Zur Bedeutung ethnischer Unterscheidungen”, esp. pp. 199 ff. Cf. also Goetz, “Zur
Wandlung des Frankennamens”. The evidence for the use of Franci and Francia
already in E. Ewig, “Volkstum und Volksbewußtsein im Frankenreich des 7. Jahr-
hunderts”, id., Spätantikes und fränkisches Gallien 1, pp. 231–73, esp. pp. 259–70. For
the later usage of political terms, see id., “Beobachtungen zur politisch-geographi-
schen Terminologie des Fränkischen Großreiches und der Teilreiche des 9. Jahrhun-
derts”, ibid., pp. 323–61. For Gregory of Tours, cf. also E. James, “Gregory of
Tours and the Franks”, After Rome’s Fall. Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History.
Essays presented to Walter Goffart, ed. A.C. Murray (Toronto-Buffalo-London 1998) pp.
51–66.
119
Gregory of Tours, Historiae 3,11, p. 107. Cf. ibid., 4,51, p. 188: The Franks
who once had obeyed the older Childebert now sent legations to Sigibert.
120
Cf. for example Fredegar, Chronicon 4,73, p. 158, regarding a campaign against
Spain. According to another report, however, King Dagobert levied troops from all
over the regnum Burgundiae for a campaign against the Basks. The leaders here were
clearly distinguished according to their descent: eight were ex genere Francorum, one
was Roman, one Burgundian, one Saxon.
121
Thus Pohl, “Zur Bedeutung ethnischer Unterscheidungen”, p. 205. H. Klein-
schmidt, “The Geuissae and Bede: On the Innovations of Bede’s Concept of the
Gens”, The Community, the Family and the Saint. Patterns of Power in Early Medieval Europe,
Selected Proceedings of the International Medieval Congress. University of Leeds, 4–7 July 1994,
10 –13 July 1995, ed. J. Hill and M. Swan, International Medieval Research 4
(Turnhout 1998) pp. 77–102, claims that the political concept of a gens was a sec-
ondary, post-migrational one.
   () 337

century, “Frankish” had lost much of its former ethnic connotation

and referred to legal, cultural and not least to political dimensions,
namely to the very kingdom of the Franks:122 Franci expanded and
developed from the people(s) on the northern margins of the former
Roman Empire to the inhabitants of the Frankish kingdom of the
Merovingians,123 though it was not until the ninth century that these
meanings became prevalent.124 Due to the growth of the Merovin-
gian realm, its name-giving people, the Franks, gained a new mean-
ing. This may be considered as an indication of a shift from a more
or less ethnic to a political association. It may also be a sign of
successful integration of peoples into the Frankish realm or, in this
respect, even of a new phase in the ethnogenesis of these peoples
under “Frankish” influence.125 If the last assumption is true, by look-
ing at the terminology of the Franci, we can detect here not only a
decisive shift of the usage of terms, but also of the everchanging
ethnogenetical process of the formation and re-formation of “the”
Franks.
It is not by chance that a territorial term Francia was, sometimes
but not frequently, used parallel to Franci from which it was derived.
Like Franci, it had a double meaning, referring to the region of the
Franks (as opposed, for example, to Burgundy or Aquitania) as well
as to the whole kingdom. In both respects, it is evidence of an increa-
sing territorial understanding, an interpretation that is supported by
frequent expressions such as fines, confinia, limes, termini, terra, regio or
partes Francorum. However, whereas in Merovingian times the “Franks”
were most frequently associated with the whole kingdom, in the
course of the ninth century they tended to become more and more
restricted to the “Frankish” territories inside the realm, namely to
Francia around the Ile-de-France in the west (that is, a territory which

122
Cf. P.J. Fouracre, “The Nature of Frankish Political Institutions in the Sev-
enth Century”, Franks and Alamanni, pp. 285–301; 301–16. Ibid., p. 297: “but what
being a Frank amounted to in the seventh century, apart from claiming certain
legal privileges, we cannot tell. The term ‘Frankish’ has a much wider application
as the adjective derived from the kingdom of the Franks, the inhabitants of which
were, of course, mostly non-Franks. It is not, therefore, a term of ethnic designa-
tion, but covers the plurality of laws and customs we have been discussing [. . .]”
123
Ibid., p. 298.
124
For the evidence from chosen authors, see Goetz, “Zur Wandlung des Fran-
kennamens”.
125
Cf. H.J. Hummer, “Franks and Alamanni: a discontinuous ethnogenesis”, Franks
and Alamanni, pp. 9–21; 21–32, here p. 32.