[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

@ Rockin Robbins: Sorry this side-thread developed within your topic. I'll answer this one here, but if it goes any further we'll get our own.

Maybe we should... I too will make only one last reply, unless a new thread is made.

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I see I read more into this post than when I read it now, but, here is part of the Strasbourg Oath (842) as written, and then older and newer forms.
[......]
Charlemagne or Carolus Magnus was German.

but what does this have to do with germanic languages? All I can see are latin languages, none of them even closely related to English or any other Germanic language. As Sailor Steve points out only the church and some government officials used those languages.
The Franks did rule over most of western Europe once, but it's been just Germanic influences. France remained a Gaullish land as Sailor Steve says. However, the Germanics do not stem from the Gauls. The Gauls had an entirely different culture/language. They were a Celtic people while the Germanics are, well, Germanic (big surprise, eh?). Both Roman historians of the time and modern Historians agree on their cultures being totally different. As Sailor Steve says most Germanic tribes were never defeated and as a result were never part of the Roman empire, and thus Roman influences are much less apparent in Germanic territories than in Gaulish territories.

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

And yes, English evolved from the proto-germanic, but what written forms when only the Church could write?

well, in continental europe there were the Elder and Younger Fuþark and later on the Fuþork (still being used in mid 16th century) while in the UK the Anglo-Saxon Fuþork was used up until the 9th century. (FYI, these are all runic alphabets)
Also, I don't know about the West-Germanic territories (even though I'm Dutch) but in Scandinavia the Younger Fuþark/Fuþork was common knowledge during the Viking age, a great amount of Scandinavians could write at the time.