Ah yes indeed, the US got their independence when they defeated the Egyptians lead by Napoleon at the battle of Tokyo. Charlemagne was a great president, too bad he was actually communist like Milton Friedman.
@@Viguier89 Netflix has given green light to a movie about the battle of Tokyo. I hope they represent accuratley the final duel, where Charlemaigne wielding Joyeuse faced Napoleon who was armed with Hame no Murakumo that he stole from the imperial palace.
Well, not quite. Hes Frankish which was a germanic ethnic group that later lead to ethnic groups like French or German, I could be wrong in my wording though.
May I be frank with all of you ? My first name is Frank. My mom gave me the name of my tribe. The name Olav Tryggvason I took after a Viking king from Norway. It is not my real name.
@@obvioustroll3899 Not technically. It's a typical german/germanic surname. If you recognize this name mostly from jews the reason might be that they or their families fled from germany during the 3rd Reich (many names that are considered jewish in the US are actually just german).
Venice, the Teutonic order, The Polish-Lituanian commonwealth, The Swedish empire, Moscowy were all non-western important states of Europe, so no, I don't feel any ties with this man. Nor do I see how he would be relevant for Britain, Spain, Portugal or Genoa.
@@lewistaylor2858 it is not western, but rather central european. Its empire was on the balkan coast around the adriatic sea - which people consider to be eastern europe today. Yugoslavia is eastern Europe, so by that logic should Venice also be called eastern europe.
The Franks (I am one myself) were a large Germanic tribe from the beginning. Those who later settled in what now is France (Neustria) began to use the local language of Roman origin, which developed to modern French. Those who settled in the East (Austrasia) continued with their Germanic language, whiche developed modern German. Neustria became France, Austrasia became Germany. Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus) was much aware of the lingual division in his empire. He initiated the concile of Tours in 813, where it was decided that the preeches (homilies) in the catholic services should be held in the languages of the common people: "in linguam rusticam aut romanam, aut theodiscam". Which means: In the rural language, either Roman(French) or Dutch (German). The word "theodiscam" is the origin of the word "Dutch", which originally meant the German language, not Netherlands. Charlemagne knew that he was the ruler of an empire where at least three - probably more - languages were spoken: proto-French, proto-Italian and proto-German. The nationalities "French" or "German" in modern meaning did not exist in his time.
"Dutch" as a language is a Variety of dialects known as lower German spoken in all the Northern states. In the German unification process it was replaced by the standardiced "Hochdeutsch" (translating as high German) which is a mix of the german dialects that Luther used for his Translation of the bible. In Germany there was also the slavic tongue and there are Flamish and frisian people. Other Germanic languages are more different from the German language (svedish, Danish, Norvegian). The Roman language served as a lingua franca meaning the language for understanding. The word frank means also 'free' as in places like Frankfurt, not related to the Frankish people.
@@rumbigaming In German the dialects are called "Niederdeutsch" or "Plattdeutsch" referring that they are spoken in the flat lands close to the coast. The Nederlands are only a small part of these. So dutch is the nether German version of deutsch. In Germany (and what is the lost lands in the East) the lower german dialects were almost erased as a spoken language when the school teached in Standard German (Hochdeutsch), especially in Prussia, the largest German state.
@@louisf2654 wtf? Don't you know the word AUSTRIA? Burgundy already existed as that, the land of the Burgundian tribe that was resettled by the Romans from their kingdom at the river Rhine to the region that is now known as Burgundy. It is Germanic but not the Franks. The realm of the Franks was divided into Austria and Neustria, meaning East and West, and there was no "central" in this. The important part is the time stamp.
People back then belonged to tribes, clans, family lineages. The diversity of languages and dialects from village to village was incredible. There was no notion of nation as we know it today.
Nah, this is nonsense. Ofcourse there are large differences - nothing changed with regards to that. I can drive 10 minutes east and they talk a completely different dialect than 10 minutes west. Same with north and south. The only thing different with Germanics is that our loyalty goes outwards instead of inwards. Family>community>region>province>country. It is also well known how averse Germanics were to outsiders. They intermarried with other Germanics but seldom outside. This can be seen most pronounced in the nordic countries where they have very little non-Germanic dna. These are the facts - not that globalist idealism.
@@Thomas-xd4cx 🤓☝️ “axthually” like history was the same for the entirety of it there was definitely times where culture was very diverse from village to village.
THAT..... was an excellent video, sir. I've never heard that question answer in such a brilliantly concise yet informative way. A lot of stuff has made sense in my head now, because of that video. Thank you.
The concept of German and Germany existed long before the country of Germany itself. This video gives a weak answer to please the most amount of people.
@@reschi56 du überschätzt das Alter dieses Konzeptes allerdings deutlich. Die Nationen so wie wir sie heute verstehen sind im ausgehenden 18./ frühen 19. Jhd. entstanden, vorher gab es die Idee der ähnlichen Sprache, "deutsch" bedeutet wörtlich "des Volkes" und ist auf die Sprache bezogen, nichts anderes, aber auch eher erst seit Luther. Hättest du einen Münchener in der Vormoderne gefragt, ob er sich einem Hamburger, einem Amsterdamer, einem Brüsseler oder einem Pariser näher verbunden fühlt, hätte er vermutlich geantwortet, das er mit all diesen Herren nichts am Hut hat, die Frage ob er sich als "deutsch" sehe würde eher wohl kaum verstehen. Zur Zeit Karls des Großen sind diese Konzepte von deutsch oder französisch völliger Quatsch, da hat das Video nicht die einfache, sondern die einzig korrekte Lösung präsentiert.
Just wanted to add this : in North west Germany, Charlemagne is seen as a bloodthirsty invader who slaughtered their ancestor for 30 years and converted them by force to christianity. Which is historically .. pretty accurate.
Yep, iam born in lower saxony which is the old Saxon tribes land, we know all what he (Karl) did here and yes he was a bloodthirsty invader, he and his troops destroyed holy sites, Villages, killed, raped, converted with the sword and relocated parts of the Population, even minor violation like not visiting the Sunday mess were punished with the death by Karl and his Men. It was a time of sheer terror! Remember the bloody day at verden/Massacre at Verden. Near my home town in an old forrest with very old oak tree there was once a Saxon Fortress named "Duniburg" destroyed by Karls Troops during their 30 years war against the Saxon tribe
Yeah I can only imagine all these ancestral memories running back 12 centuries. Gimme an effing break dude. This is neopagan bs dating back to the Nazi propaganda.
@@stfclm Facepalm!!!! Your Post is simply useless , another example only for you every Brits Kid knows that their country was invaded by Vikings and what they did in Lindisfarne. Thats not Propaganda Its History ( of your Region or Country) and you can learn it in the Schoo, it has nothing to do with memoriesl.
I love what you do. You answer so many questions I have that is not explained anywhere else besides amongst the highest levels of historians. Thank you for being you.
This video was remarkably well done, and came to the same conclusion I thought it would upon starting. He was neither. I wish more people would come to realise that modern terms, morals, and other such things, largely, can't be applied to our ancestors in the same way. Thank you for this video, much like the rest, they're flawless and objective.
I’d say he was more German. Franks where a Germanic people and he was king of the Franks, a Germanic confederation/nation. The French inherited the demonym “French” from the Franks and France from the Frankish realm but at the end of the day i feel like the soul of the French is not Germanic. The French are Latinized Celts with some Germanic influence. But I’ve always felt that the French aligned more with the Latins and their Celtic roots than with their Germanic influence from the Franks. Charlemagne wasn’t either Celtic or Latin. He as Germanic. The French don’t speak a Germanic language and have only some Germanic influence. Charlemagne would have had closer affinity to the Dutch/Flemish (who speak a language descended from the Franks) or the Germans who are Germanic speaking
At the end of the day you would struggle to scientifically explain what soul mean. You call Germany from Cesar Germania, an approximate geographic definition. You, englishmen, we frenchmen, and germans both call us franks, in their respective language. We call german Allemand from alémans or alamans wich means all mann, the way a germanic tribe call themselves located at the east of the Franks during Clovis time. Nowadays germans call themselves deutsch : the people.
@doczg88 genetically they're mostly Gauls. It makes sense anyways, since Gaul has always been a wealthy urbanized region, not some tribes in the forest. Foreign conquerors could impose their culture but never really displaced the native Gauls physically.
The French are gallo-romance despite the name, just like the Turks aren´t really central asian ethno-culturally, but levantine, middle eastern. Both got their names from invading ruler tribes.
The term "Franks" still causes discussions among historians and philologists. It is first found in the form of Lat. francus. Diefenbach believed that the root was of Celtic origin
The famous anthropologist Carlton Kuhn attributed most of the Franks and Alemanni to the Celtic type, which is a Nordic subtype containing a Dinaric and Alpine admixture, and is characterized by mesocephaly, a low arch, a protruding nose and darker pigmentation:
Quick sidenote. While the Franks migrated into Gaull, parts of the tribe also stayed in Germany. There is in fact still a large region in the centre of germany called Franken (Franconia, Francia) and all the dialects spoken in this area, as well as the western german areas along the upper rhine are classified as frankish dialects, including luxemburgish and the dialect spoken in Lothringen (Lotharingia) and also Flanders and parts of the Netherlands. So roughly from Nürnberg to Duinkerke (Dunkirk) the people still speak a form of frankish. So to say, that the Franks were germanic but became the ancestors of the French is only half the truth. Many germans are also descendents of the Franks and partly consider themselves Franks to this day. The Franks also ruled both the western and the Eastern Frankish empire for a time, but in the east, the frankish rulers were replaced by ones from the saxon tribe. Therefore the eastern frankish empire dropped the frankish name and the western frankish empire was the only state left to keep the name, and is today known as France for this reason.
"but in the east, the frankish rulers were replaced by ones from the saxon tribe. Therefore the eastern frankish empire dropped the frankish name" well, they didn't initially. The Saxon Ottonians kept the name all the way to Henry II who was the last king of that dynasty. Funnily enough it was during the time of the following dynasty, the Salians, who were also Franks that the name was gradually replaced by "regnum teutonicum" (roughly kingdom of the Germans) while the title of the king was changed to "rex Romanorum" (king of the Romans).
Low Franconian, i.e., Dutch, is not a dialect of the Frankish spoken in Germany, which is a form of High German. It is a separate language that in particular has not undergone the consonant shift.
And this gives me the right to call myself a Frank. Born in Fürth beside Nürnberg in the frankish region in today northern Bavaria. We were "given" to the Bavarians in 1806 AD by Napoleon. We are no Bavarians and will never be.
I am French and I totally agree that Charlemagne was neither French or German but Frank, so an ancestor for both of us on whom you can't apply modern nationalist definitions. He was politically and historically equally important for both countries. The Franks are ancestors of many people accross Europe but for non-French people, here is the reason why they are important for the French : they founded the country, we start speaking of "France" after their arrival. They mixed with the Gallo Romans to form the foundation of modern French people on which other people have added up since then. They (Clovis) created the state and chose Paris as capital. And more importantly the 3 royal dynasties that ruled France or its ancient form are all Frankish.
So if then the counting of the kings Louis’ wrong? You’d have to substract the Louis’ prior to 843 or Hugues Capet, no? I mean, then when was France founded if Charlemagne doesn’t count as French?
Another living language closely to Old Frankish in terms of linguistic phylogeny is Modern Dutch, a descendant of old low Franconian (albeit with substantial Frisian and Saxon substrates)
Born in Herstal (Belgium). Crowned, died and buried in Aachen (Germany). That’s cyclable in one afternoon, through southern Limburg (the Netherlands). Charlemagne most likely spoke a southern Low Franconian dialect, similar to Limburghian. Karel de Grote was een Limburger.
Crowned in Reims,in france, just like clovis, the first king of the francs. In french history, charlemagne isnt even the beginning, he is simply the first of the second big dynasty of kings we had. Now we can share, as he is also a very important figure for germans. Edit: my bad, he wasnt crowned in reims like most french kings including clovis. The rest stands tho.
@@erik5374 he isnt. But every french learns the history from the sacralisation of clovis as first king of the franks to today. Charlemagne is the founder of the holy roman emperor but to us french he is simply the most eminent of the second dynasty of kings we had, the carolingiens. Since his empire was divided in 3, the remains became over time france and germany. Saying he was born in an area that belongs to you nowadays is insufficient to claim him over france as a part of your history. But since we shared that empire, or kingdom for that matter, it belongs to both. And also belgium ect
@@popkhorne5372 Very true. Him being the first medieval Roman Emperor is basically the only reason he is being listed as one of the German kings. The later German dynasties of the Ottonians, Salians and Staufers were big fans of him and always stressed their relation to him whenever they could. Frederick Barbarossa even managed to canonise him.
you would also better understand old French than a modern French person. Old French holds more resemblance to German than to modern French. And the language is poor indication of ancestry, ie: one tribe moves from region A to region B, adapting to the local language with time. Then the tribe separates in 2 over the different sides of a river, one of which is home to culture B and the other a mix of B, C and D (a mix of 3 cultures but mainly still B, so they still speak B) Then the branch on the side with mixed cultures proceeds to conquer a whole lot of land on their side, moving its capital and aristocracy to region C where the culture is mainly C with D influence. Then proceed to conquer the other side of the river, the side where culture/language group B is dominating and once again moving the capital near the river. Then the kingdom divides in 3, one part mainly culture C with D influence, one part B, and the last one being the middle part where the culture is mainly B but has C&D influence. Heirs raised on the east and middle parts speaking B and west part speaking C&D even while unified. Which culture does that tribe/kingdom belongs to? and which of the 3 divided parts or, in later times, 2 parts (both side parts having shared the middle between them) is able to claim it history. Answer is a mess, but to me it's its own culture or a foreign one ruling over both B&C cultures and the language spoken by the current ruler is irrelevant as that just depends in which region the royal family has resided for a while not to mention they all actually speak language D. And all 3, later on 2 can claim its history as they both are branches of that kingdom. However the western part kept a clear line of succession from the man who turned the tribe into a kingdom, throughout it's whole feudal/autocratic era whereas the eastern part kept getting more decentralised until the monarchy was elective and any powerful noble could become monarch. Thus the people of the western part claim to feel closer. Language follow Kingdoms/Empires through colonization type conquests not the kind where the whole aristocracy follows, at least long term, just like the Norman Dukes who adapted to French, spread French in England when they treated it like a colony and later adapted to English when they really moved to England or rather when the nobility in France lost power when France reconquered France. As you can guess that's an oversimplified version of the Frankish tribe/kingdom and yes they are not native to the Germanic area but to Pannonia. They are invaders who settled along the rhine.
Aaahhh. San Franciscans. Germanic colonizers that went the furthest to the west. Like greedy for the leftovers. Mostly descendant from Germans. Now are Tofu eating bearded hippies with titties and a dress on flip flops. Taking a shit on the sidewalk.
The French are Germanic-Celts who speak a Romance language. I have an Italian friend who always tells me the same thing, my cousins are the Spaniards, NOT the French, they are "germans" jajajaja XD
Funny, as modern italians are probably more germanic than the French. Goths, vandals, Langobards, franks, normans, plus later vast immigrations of e.g. german miners. Coupled with rome inviting countless of germanic tribes and mercenaries into its territory before its fall...
@@boahkeinbockmehr You are crazy the Italians have the same phenotype as the Spaniards. The Germanic tribes that invaded Italy or Spain were small groups. The Germans and Dutch have a very different look to the Mediterranean.
@@ROBERTOCARLOSVEN well, spain was also settled by numerous germanic tribes (suebi, alans, vandals, goths). In fact the muslims defeated a germanic kingdom (wesi goths) when they conquered the Iberian peninsula. Haven't you ever heard of the migration period? The huns pushed the east germanics and some west germanics (to which the dutch and most germans belong) from eastern and central europe all the way into the Mediterranean and partially even as far as northern Africa. Also note, i didn't say all italians were predominantly germanic, just probably more than the french, as galia had already strong defensive bulwarks before the migration period, was more stable and even survived the fall of rome for some years. When the franks were finished conquering gaul they bordered already established germanic kingdoms in hispania (goths) and northern italy/ po delta (langobards -> Lombards)
Burgundians .....from Burgundaholm ....Goths from Gottland .....Franks...named after the francisca axe saxons named after the Saeax knife ....Allemani .....meaning All men .......Lombard...long beards... etcetcetc
He was born in Belgium and they spoke Low Franconian, which is Old Dutch. It was once spoken up to Paris. The fact that Flanders still speaks Dutch testifies to the fact this was the language the Franks proliferated.
Love your videos man, just wondering could you make a video about the first crusade? (just a suggestion) i'm sure most of us would love to see a video about it.
Since noone mentioned it before... The text at 7:13 is the lords prayer. The text is actually pretty similar to modern german and (if you speak german) you can understand ~90% of the words
If you're talking about present borders, he was Belgian from the province of Liège. Though the area around the borders of BE/NL/DE share much history together and have been part of many nations in the past.
Since Salian Franks are from the modern day Netherlands, Ripuarian Franks are from the modern day Netherlands and Germany, and other tribes that confederated with the aforementioned Franks during their conquest of Europe were also from the modern day Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, it can be said that when compared to modern day ethnicities Charlemagne would be closest related to people in the eastern and southerm Netherlands by blood. The Dutch language spoken in these parts is similarly the closest language we have to old Frankish since the two were one and the same before the Franks moved into modern day France.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Je suis mort de rire charlemagne et francs née d'un père née en Belgique ou France et mère du palais de neustrie et d'une Mère née en France samoussi la dinastie carolingienne et la fusion de la dinastie de l' évêque de Metz francaise et belge rien avoir les pays Bas Allemagne etc..... Tous enterré en france dont les sépulture sont toute en France pas ailleurs 🤣🤣🤣 seul charlemagne et enterré dans la ville qu'il a créé malgré qui est fait ses vœux d'être enterré en france près des siens chose qui a pas était respecté c tout il a fait son pouvoir la bas pour mieux contrôler son empire et par ce qu'il a passé 30ans à faire la guerre au Germain qu'il a soumis et qu'il y avais une source thermal et c tout même le nom Aix la chapelle et un hommage à l'histoire de France le St Remis évêque de tour 🤣🤣🤣 Vous les allemands et Pays Bas vous avez tendance à oublier que sont frères et née à soisson et à été couronné à soisson et que charlemagne et couronné à noyon roi des francs et probablement né ou il a été sacré à noyon voir soisson ou querzy voir Paris ou il a passé toute son enfance 🤣🤣🤣
The Franks, at a time when their leaders were Gennobavd, Markomir and Sunnon, rushed to Germany (here we mean the Roman province of Germany on the left bank of the Rhine) and, crossing the border, killed many residents, devastated the most fertile areas, and also brought fear to the inhabitants of Cologne. When this became known in the city of Trier, the military leaders Nannin and Quintin, to whom Maximus entrusted his young son and the protection of Gaul, having recruited an army, came to Cologne. Many historians report that the same Franks came from Pannonia and first of all settled the banks of the RhineThe conclusion to be drawn from this comparison is this: the Franks acquired their Celtic-like general physical form in the Rhineland or in the southwestern part of Germany before the Saxons forced them into France and the lower countries. Here, whatever the mixture between them and the preceding Celtic population, their type has changed little or remained the same. This conclusion is confirmed by the evidence from Baden that the Alemanni were mixed with the Celts in the same way from the very beginning of their joint journey in southwestern Germany. With the exception of the area along the English Channel coast, the German conquests of France and southeastern Belgium brought nothing new to the original racial composition of these countries. On the other hand, the Celtic conquests, reinforced by the Merovingians, had some significance. Conclusions from the information we have about the racial origin and dispersion of the ancient Germanic peoples can be stated briefly and clearly. At the beginning of the local Iron Age in North-west GermanyIn the Frankish state Latin was the main languageThe term "Franks" still causes discussions among historians and philologists. It is first found in the form of Lat. francus. Diefenbach believed that the root was of Celtic origin
@Atheistrix unless you really really want your country to remain a submissive protectorate of the USA, then so called Europe of the nations is the perfect answer.
They were Germanic tribes. That’s how the Romans saw them and that’s what they spoke. Anglo-Saxons were also German tribes which is why you have to wonder why the British referred to the Germans as the hon during world war two. We are the same people who have the same God and that should be enough.
Same people, no question. The English betrayed their own kind and have reaped their reward. Goodbye London. The rest of England soon to follow. I pray for Scotland. Jacob’s Pillow, the Stone of Scone is in our hands again!
Mostly due to the so called "Hunnenrede". All the weird ways they actually tried to portray the Germans as hunnic looking on the propaganda posters, i never understood either. It's so far from reality that i belive the Germans back then didn't really get the reference either. On top of that, the huns were some truly bad ass people so using that as an insult is bizarre in itself.
I agree, although something I think you might have missed pointing out is franconian dialects and regions in germany today. You mention luxembourgish, of course. But I just thought it was worth pointint out when you said that the french identify more with the 'franks' as the country i also called 'land of the franks' and so on. this is of course not true for germany... or at least not all of germany. But in parts of germany, people call themselves 'Franken' or speak franconian dialects. How comparable those are to franconian is a different matter I guess, but it's just something I wanted to point out. In the part of your video where you talked about 'Frankish' influences or heritage today in those countries, it was odd, that you didn't even mention that.
Ich bezweifel, das der Text authentisch ist. Das ist ja fast modernes Hochdeutsch. Hätte das Vergnügen an der Uni mittelhoch und Niederdeutsch (ca. 12 JH) zu lernen. Schon Niederdeutsch ohne hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung ist kaum zu entziffern. Ein Text aus dem 9 JH sollte eigentlich für den Laien kaum zu entziffern sein...
@@thomashering1482 Ja schon klar Text aus der Zeit des Buchdrucks ist ja für mich schon unlesbar. Und Hochdeutsch als Sprache ist ebenfalls recht jung. Er hat ja gesagt das es ein Beispiel ist und Karl der Große kommt ja aus dem Jahr 800. Das der Text nicht autentisch ist schon klar. Sprachen ändern sich über 1200 Jahren sehr stark.
@@FlyFishingChronicles was ne Erklärung. Kann ja sein, dass es luxemburgisch ist, aber nicht aus dem 9. Jh - es sei denn, die waren da dem deutschen Sprachraum Jahrhunderte voraus
@@FlyFishingChronicles ja, weil es dank des Herzogtums eine Mitteldeutsche Variante ist, die es heute zur Amtssprache geschafft hat. Der Vergleich ist aber so sinnig, wie das Foto eines Huhns als dem T-REX ähnlichsten Tier
@@julianelbers5229 er war ja klar aus Germanischen Vorfahren und hätte als Muttersprache "Luxemburgembisch" gesprochen. Die Franken waren aber seit ca. 300 Jahren in heutigen Frankreich, er war voll doppel-sprachig und gewöhnt die ganze Zeit Latein zu benutzen.
@@sylvainb2366yes but the interpretation is bad: our common DNA ancestors are first Gauls, then a bit Germanic. It happened that the Germanic tribes who conquered Germany changed the language as well as the Roman changed the language in french part, and also a part of Germanic blood was brought to France and more in Germany but at the end of the day, the main DNA substrate comes from Gaulish times.
If anything, Charlemagne was some kind of proto-Limburger/Ripuarian from the triangle Aachen (Germany)-Liège(French-speaking Belgium)-Maastricht (The Netherlands)
Germans definitely identify themselves with Charlemagne (or Karl der Grosse) and see him as part of the shared heritage with the French, Dutch and Belgian people. The Saxons (Widukind) are seen as rebels and pagans and were finally overthrown by Charlemagne. So it's not correct to say, that today's or 20th century Germans identified more with Widukind than with Charlemagne. Let's not forget that Charlemagne's tomb is located in Aachen in Germany.
Maybe some local people in Lower Saxony do. But you're right: on the whole hardly anybody in Germany even knows who Widukind was. If there ever was such a stereotype that Charlemagne was French while Widukind was German it would be a purely French fabrication in order to have good old Karl all for themselves. Charlemagne is commonly regarded as an important stepping stone for the history of Germany. I don't think I've ever heard him being described as "German" per se, aside from historical texts.
The term "Franks" still causes discussions among historians and philologists. It is first found in the form of Lat. francus. Diefenbach believed that the root was of Celtic originThe famous anthropologist Carlton Kuhn attributed most of the Franks and Alemanni to the Celtic type, which is a Nordic subtype containing a Dinaric and Alpine admixture, and is characterized by mesocephaly, a low arch, a protruding nose and darker pigmentation:
Friedrich der Große As an American who knows some German, so can I. It’s the Lord’s Prayer. If it was spoken to me I don’t think I could understand it though. When it os written I have longer to recognize the words.
@@lecram59 wen Du dass Verstanden Hast ohne Katholisch zu sein dann Hat Deutschland Definitiv verdient Elsass Lorraine (Lothringen) zu rück zu bekommen .
I think an interesting reference would have been the Oaths of Strasbourg in 842 , where two grandsons of Charlemagne seem to have had already two different mother tongues, indicating that Charlemagne and his son were indeed still heads of a united Frankish kingdom but that a western and an eastern identities seem to have originated right after them.
Charlemagne is an integral part of German history as well. The throne of Charlemagne is standing until today in the German city of Aachen since 790, and some 30 German kings were crowned on this throne. Also, the "First German Reich" with its proclaimed rule of 1000 years (on which Hitler based his idea of a Third Reich on) began by its definition with the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 as Emperor and ended with Napoleon dissolving the Holy Roman Empire in 1803.
That's true. Medieval Germans made a huge deal about Charlemagne being their first emperor and would always count him among their kings. The famous painting by Albrecht Dürer even reads "this is a depiction of emperor Charles who had brought the Roman empire upon the Germans."
@@Siegbert85 Charlemagne wanted to re-build the western Roman empire which had ceased in AD 476. Under his government and under the leadership of the tribe of the Franks.
@@olavtryggvason1194 Sure, I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying that later generations of Germans tried to claim him for their cause just as the French did.
@@partlycurrent yep, and they have its own dialect not the Bavarian one. I met many Men from Franken during my Service time in the armed Forces and this folks was really angry when you called them Bavarians
@@rogink its part of todays Bavaria but the frankian folks are wider spread, when i vistited my Sister near Sonneberg Thuringia (Thüringen) i was astonished that the old people in the villages living there were also speaking with a frankonian Dialect, and my sister lives deep in Thuringa ca. 90Km away from the Bavarian Border
France birthday is 496 with the baptem of Clovis, king of franc and birth of catholic religion. the Franc salique tribes who was located in actually Belgium, by GAULES TRIBES in left of Rhin. Who protect the Roman Empire against German ? The Franc Charlemagne fight against Alamans tribes who are still in French the name of actual German’s (Allemands). So please germans who think is German because him capital are Aix-la-Chapelle and not Paris.
*Laughs in a combination of Frankish, Saxon and Frisian heritage.* Comming from the Islegow or Hamaland during the rule of Charlemagne we got a little bit of everything.
As a German that is enthusiastic about history, I have never ever heard of this Saxon leader, but I did grow up with hearing stories about Charlemagne.
@@Delta2414 I know people from Lower Saxony and they know about him, I guess the Rhineland might look more favorably on Charlemagne considering he was literally from there.
Let me point out that not only do we Germans call France "Frankreich" - "the Frank's empire" - but also our state Bavaria has a region whose people call themselves, and their region, "Franken" - "Franks" - and are emphatic that they aren't Bavarians, and the German dialect they speak is different from Bavarian. (So, in that sense, the Franks are living in an area that is different from the Frank's empire 😲)
That is because they are Ripuarian Franks, not Bavarians. Most modern Germans have a very poor grasp of their own history. It would help if all children would learn in school that Germany came into existence in the 9th century as a federation of five major tribes : The Saxons, Thuringians, Franks, Alemans and Bavarians.
@@roodborstkalf9664 you're exactly right, i found a guy from Luxemburg that argued their language was super different from the German language and had nothing to do with it, needless to say, he thought German was only a single centralized language when in reality, German is a mix of many different dialects that differs from many regions and Austrians also thinks the same way a lot
7:14 Oh my god, I read it and understood it but it took me a while to get that it's a prayerXD (I'm german btw, so I understand dutch and luxemburghish for the most part)
It's way more complicated, and one has to understand that a French and German national identity already existed in the Middle Ages. They developed out of the differences between East and West Francia. During the 12th and 13th century, both peoples already had distinct identites and were aware of these differences. Pierre Videil, f.ex., a medieval troubadour, wrote songs claiming the Germans were uncultured barbarians to which Walther von der Vogelweide, a Minnesänger, replied that German culture was supreme ("tiutsche zuht gaht vor in allen"). And both peoples fought about Charlemagne's nationality from the start. I'm not an expert on the French side, but Fire of Learning highlighted their ideas. The earliest record about claiming Charlemagne for Germany stems from Norbert von Isenburg in the 13th century who retrospectively ascribed to Charlemagne the intention to unify all German(ic) lands. To stress it: this wasn't a historian of the 19th, but of the 13th century who did that. And in the world famous painting of Charlemagne by Albrecht Dürer, which Fire of Learning also used in this video, there's a little poem on the frame reading in English: "This is by stature and in painting / Emperor Charles [Charlemagne], who made the Roman Empire, / subservient to the Germans", thus alluding to the concept of translatio imperii which was the idea that the Roman Empire was wandering from one people to the other: from the Italians to the Greeks and finally to the Germans (or the French or the Russians :-) ). To keep it short and simple: the message of the video is true. Charlemagne was neither. But the concepts of being French and German didn't develop that long after his death, and both peoples claimed him.
Herr Wagnerianer national identities didn’t exist until the modern age. There was not such a thing back then, especially in the Middle Ages. Countries were pretty much private properties at that time. His death was a clear example of it.
@@ea635 He just gave a very clear example for national identities existing in the middle ages. They did exist in ancient times, in medieval times and in modern times, no matter what some people want you to believe.
Lukas Stilp it’s not about what “some people want us to believe”, it’s about the shift of perception that we had about nations that came during the late 18th century. The thing is we are discussing a different time with a modern view. Franks were the de facto ruling minority at the time, same as happened in many places before and after, but they were not the “main population”, this politics had little in common with the current affairs of normal people. Look at the aftermath of Karloman’s death. National political autonomy as we know it won’t be around until the 18th century, and that’s what I was referring to.
@@ea635 German, French, English, Polish identities have existed since the Middle Ages, long before the advent of nation states in the late 18th century. Call these identities and groups however you like: national, ethnic, or something else. But they existed. And they already mattered. That's why the discussion about Charlemagne's nationality (or, if you prefer, ethnicity) did not start in the 18th or 19th, but rather in the 12th/13th century.
I'd say he's ethnically much closer to Germans than the French, due to him being of Frankish origin, rather than being a Gallo-Roman (which is who most French people decend from).
The famous anthropologist Carlton Kuhn attributed most of the Franks and Alemanni to the Celtic type, which is a Nordic subtype containing a Dinaric and Alpine admixture, and is characterized by mesocephaly, a low arch, a protruding nose and darker pigmentation:The term "Franks" still causes discussions among historians and philologists. It is first found in the form of Lat. francus. Diefenbach believed that the root was of Celtic origin
@@Aquila476 The history of the Franks is also closely intertwined with the Meotian swamp and Pannonia. They came together with Francion to the Sycambria near the Tanais River, near the Meotian marshes, and lived there for many years and grew into a large tribe. they passed through the marshes of the Meotids in whose vicinity they finally arrived in Pannonia and built a city, which they gave, in memory of their ancestors, the name Sicambria, where they lived for many years and became a great people ("THE BOOK OF THE HISTORY OF THE FRANKS"). Pay attention to the mentions of Sycambria (near the Tanais River) and the city of Sycambria (in Pannonia). The Franks will one day split into two branches. One will remain on the Rhine, the other will enter Belgium and acquire the name "Salic Franks".
@@augth Yes, France is a great nation, and Alsace is part of it. But what about the time prior to 1648...? And the Germanic dialect "Alsacian"? Yes, Alsace is French, but the Alsacian dialect belongs to the Alemannic dialects, spoken in the north west of Switzerland, and south west of Germany. The Alemannic culture contains some elements of French, and German origins, like in other border areas. Even the German Alemannic contains French components, some words, some expressions, which no other Germans understand. After WWII, the French government made great efforts to promote the French language in Alsace (with the slogan "C'est chic, parler Francais"), and tried to suppress the Alsacian dialect, because it is closely related to German. Nowadays Alsacian is on the brink of dying out, like many other languages in France (and in many other countries of the world). Yes, there is something like a French culture, but Alsacian, Occitanian, Bretonian, Burgundian, Provencal, Catalan, have particular elements which are not ncessarily shared by all other French. Their languages vanished as well, more, or less, in favor of standard French. Similar to what happens in many other countries. Sooner, or later, I'm afraid, we will all speak a kind of English (Frenglish, in France, Denglish, in Germany, etc.), and become (hopefully not!) closer of the American type of culture. I guess in about 100 years Alsacian will be forgotten by all, but a small group of language enthusiasts, and scientists. I hope, noboy will care to whom it belongs then, because it belongs to a peaceful Europe, where people, from Malaga can live in Munich, or people from Prague can live in Paris, or vice versa. Theoretically possible today. My ancestors come from an area which used to be Germany, but now belongs to Poland. I was there last year, and I met friendly people which spoke Polish. If I want, I can move, and live there, and frankly, I don't care, if this land of my ancestry belongs now to Poland, or to Germany, or to France, or to Luxemburg, or Italy, because it is Europe, and within its borders I can move wherever I want to, and live there. In France, in Germany, and many other countries, young people prefer the standard languages of their respective countries, or English, the lingua franca of the world. Of course, Alsace belongs to France, nobody should try to revise borders - or deny facts about languages, dialects, and cultures. Vive l'Europe! Es lebe Europa!
Romans, Celts and Germanics mixed to become the french. But in the case of England, the Anglo-Saxons were predominantly over the rest, the culture, language and genetics were as Germanic as Germany.
@s1 Normans/Vikings were Germanic peoples as well. They were important, but the people and culture were still fundamentally Anglo-Saxon after William I.
@@adamthetired9319 Yeah but thr Celtic party is less than 40% in average. The austrians are Germanic and are only 35-40% Germanic. Southern Germans are only 40% Germanic. The average German is 60% Germanic, the same for the English. Eastern Anglos and Northern Germans are the same of Frisians, Dutch and Danes. If Austrians and Germans are Germanic the English are too.
@@lysoutrighter8260 no the average german is only about 30-40% germanic. Celtic and slavic are mixed into the ancestry to an almost equally big part. and trace elements t of baltic,magyar and italic are also mixed into it
@@Lukas-xb7cx The average austrian and southern germans are around 40% Germanic, central Germany is around 60%, northern Germany is obviously even higher, just give a look at the haplogroups or DNA tests.
@@dreisaum9916 no. Frank's were gaulish tribes defeated by rome regrouped around rhein river. Frank salian west side, Frank rheinan east side. Only rheinan Frank's partially mix with Germanic. That's why when allamany (Germanic) attack the west, they loose against Frank's at battle of tolbiac. Allamany vs Frank's wasn't German vs German.
7:16 seeing this as a German, I can understand most of this. However, if this was spoken I would probably have a harder time but still understand it. Our local dialect in Cologne belongs to the Ripuarian sub branch of Germanic to which - to my knowledge - the Luxembourgish belong as well. However, Vlaams (Belgians), Luxembourgish and Dutch people and would probably understand it even more better. 8:00 It is true that the Frankish part of Germany has mostly lost the identity of being Frankish - except for the region - Franconia. Franconia is today a northern part of Bavaria and they hate being called Bavarians. 8:52 However, it is oversimplified that all Germans rather took the Widukind (Saxon, Germanic) identity over the Frankish one. Napoleon and the revolution had many adherers in West Germany for a time, it later culminates into the Rhineland separatist movement. The intellectuals even talked French and read French newspapers. It is a bit forgotten chapter in history, although e.g. Konrad Adenauer, the first federal chancellor of Germany was a separatist in his youth.
@@charlemagne5931 Very influential was Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German, and that was Saxon German. So it's fair to say it is Saxon. It is funny because you would think this makes Saxon a straight forward or sober sounding dialect of German, but instead it sounds really funny to most Germans
As someone who knows a bit of French and is German. The test was the Lord’s Prayer in a old German dialect. I could understand everything. And also German has retained more of its Germanic words then French. So you could say it’s more German in language then French. But, the dialect from my regional guess, would be some where around the Rhine area. I myself speak high German but my grandmother spoke Bergisch Deutsch or mountain German translated.
During many centuries, the Roman Empire made 2 sorts of franks. The Riparians Franks (East Rhin river) The Salians Franks (romanized Gaulish franks from Belgica in the West Rhin River). After Rome, in front of the germanics invasions (vandales, saxons, angles, wisigoths…) , the Saliens Franks succeeded to become the new aristocracy in the old gaulish Belgica (Belgium, Lorraine, Alsace, Champagne, Flandre…) with the Merovingians, Clovis the First. It's Important to remember the Merovingian aristocracy in the old Gaulish Belgica to understand who was the Carolingians dinasty.
7:12 The Lord's Prayer is very close to German. I can actually read it even though it's not modern Hochdeutsch. A lot of the words are spelt differently but pronounced similarly.
The legacy of Franks and Charlemagne are still present. For example the city of FRANKfurt, another city called KARLSruhe (Karl is in German for Charlemagne). Many places with "Franken" and all thoses places are In Germany/Belgium/Luxembourg/France
You forgot to mention the region in Germany called "Franken" or "Franconia" in Englisch. And the "Franken", as in people that live there today, is the same as the historical "Franken" as in people in history.
That was an important oversight, because it shows that there is still a "Frankish" people in Germany today (even if many post-war Germans have become so nihilistic they barely even want to call themselves German, much less refer to their regional identity).
@@Alsayid Its the other way arround. Most Germans identify themselves with their own country and then with Germany, since Germany is not a country but a federation. And this behaviour goes back until the holy roman empire and even further.
@@hanszimmer9224 true Tho the eastern frankonians are not synonymous with the franks obviously although related. The thuringian and bajuwarian activities in that region still predate the Frankish aspirations. In layman's terms the peoples along the nether Rhine are much more closely linked to the original franks than both the French and Frankonians which is hilarious.
and also: he mentionend Karl der Grosse to speak something alike Luxemburgian. Luxemburgian is of course just Moselfränkisch, same stuff spoken in Rheinland-Pfalz
That's not true. Those are descende from the Ribuarii, or Ripuarian Franks. There exists no evidence as far as I know that the two are related in anything but name.
The text at 7:16 is completely for a speaker of the german language, quite interestingly there are some french and dutch words mixed in there. Goes to show how closely these languages are related.
The Franks spoke a ancestral language of Dutch so I guess Charlemagne/Karl Der Grosse ate cheese (as opposed to sausages if he was German or snails if he was French), drank beer (as opposed to wine if he was French) and wore wooden shoes (as opposed to lederhosen if he was German or a beret if he was French).
@@flemishnationalist-prayfor9809 The Franks left there lands and went in France so no lol and Charlemagne son was the first to sign a document written only old French so it's pretty sure Charlemagne spoke it
@@flemishnationalist-prayfor9809 Well anyway in the 15th century and the wars of religion in France when it was by far the most populated country in Europe and 3rd in the world the French huguenot migrated enough to make all cities in Europe like Berlin, Hamburg, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Dublin and London partially Francophone in just 30 years, from this point European eastern and western countries became all all a bit French with interesting culture influence like the Osterbrunnen and many others.
He probably didn’t even speak Latin. There was no ‘outrageous’ accent. Just Frankish. All his letters were composed by monks, because they were the only ones that could write. And they wrote in Latin only.
Romans: *He's a barbarian*
@Sam A3
Eastern Romans: We're right here!
Like Conan
No, the Barbarians came from Bavaria, hence the similarity in name.
@@sturlamolden You do know Barbarians have got nothing to do with the word Bavaria, do you?
The Pope sayd he wasn't, and the Pope controlled the roman senate.
Well no he's actually American and was the first US president
Ah yes indeed, the US got their independence when they defeated the Egyptians lead by Napoleon at the battle of Tokyo. Charlemagne was a great president, too bad he was actually communist like Milton Friedman.
@@Viguier89 you could write a novel with that.
@@jerricklittle3306 Charlemagne, the mummy's slayer.
@@Viguier89 Netflix has given green light to a movie about the battle of Tokyo. I hope they represent accuratley the final duel, where Charlemaigne wielding Joyeuse faced Napoleon who was armed with Hame no Murakumo that he stole from the imperial palace.
@@yisu575 People are shocked already that the world is flat.
How should they be able to comprehend facts like that?
How to know if someone who is both French and German?
He goes on strikes but only during his holidays
And is peaceful on Christmas Day
So Swiss ;)
@@fluffypancakes7626 or Belgian, but he gets bullied by his bigger brothers.
"These lands would never be reunited except briefly twice about a thousand years later"
Napoleon and Hitler: Allow us to introduce ourselves.
What's the time stamp?
@@cedricl.marquard6273 4:05
@@OAlemaozinho thank you very much
Yo that moment had me bewildered too
Funny that the two that repeated Charlemagne's feat were french and german, emphasizing again how just they both take after the frankish empire.
The true question is... *Who was the first Holy Roman Emperor? This guy or Otto the First?*
el agente de medianoche what do you think?
This man
Well according to Charlemagne, his grandad.
Charlemagne was the first, but the Holy Roman Empire didn't come into existence until Otto the Great
Divus Augustus :).
His real name was O Charlemagne he was irish
Of course
Close.
th-cam.com/video/cvKRbi2ovDY/w-d-xo.html
this cracked me up
He was Harlemagne from Harlem.
@@pwao I didn't know all the people in Harlem were Irish like obama his family are from county wicklow
fun fact: both germany and france had a battleship named after him at the same time in the 1890's... charlemagne and kaiser karl der grosse
I watched BBC and learned that he actually was a proud woman of Colour
good one
Which is brave and beautiful. 😂
I'm so offended how could you forget to say he was a vegan
You can also find that type of information on PBS.
Best. Comment. Ever.
Was Charlemagne French or German?
Yes.
lol
@@Reichsritter yes
Was Charlemagne French or German?
No.
@@DaveTheVader perhaps?
Well, not quite. Hes Frankish which was a germanic ethnic group that later lead to ethnic groups like French or German, I could be wrong in my wording though.
Noble man: "Can I be frank with you?"
Charlemagne: "Okay, as long as I can still be Charlemagne."
In your sentence frank means free, oh wait ! free-hench :)
*Karl der Große
@@thelastprussian6491 🤦♂️
@ blank stares from the Saxons and Lombards sitting in the room
May I be frank with all of you ? My first name is Frank. My mom gave me the name of my tribe. The name Olav Tryggvason I took after a Viking king from Norway. It is not my real name.
He wasn't french or germans, he just was Franc
Frank is a typical jewish surname so...
@@obvioustroll3899 haha my bad, i wanted to say Franc, The Germanic Group
@@obvioustroll3899 Not technically. It's a typical german/germanic surname. If you recognize this name mostly from jews the reason might be that they or their families fled from germany during the 3rd Reich (many names that are considered jewish in the US are actually just german).
Who are Germans. Franks are spelled with a k in english btw.
@casey Family name.
"His brother who died of natural causes soon after"
*Me, a CK2 Scholar: DOUBT
"When his son Louis died..." Well, I found the start of France's problems.
Too many Louis's?
Naaaah it's fine. We like that.
@@kylemohs8728 only 18, not much
@@deadchannel1943 Louis is actually a condensed version of the name Clovis, so that means there are 20 Louis
The big papa of Europe
Western europe
As if there is an important part of Europe that isn't the West
Venice, the Teutonic order, The Polish-Lituanian commonwealth, The Swedish empire, Moscowy were all non-western important states of Europe, so no, I don't feel any ties with this man. Nor do I see how he would be relevant for Britain, Spain, Portugal or Genoa.
@@nattygsbord how us Venice non-western?
@@lewistaylor2858 it is not western, but rather central european. Its empire was on the balkan coast around the adriatic sea - which people consider to be eastern europe today. Yugoslavia is eastern Europe, so by that logic should Venice also be called eastern europe.
The Franks (I am one myself) were a large Germanic tribe from the beginning. Those who later settled in what now is France (Neustria) began to use the local language of Roman origin, which developed to modern French. Those who settled in the East (Austrasia) continued with their Germanic language, whiche developed modern German. Neustria became France, Austrasia became Germany. Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus) was much aware of the lingual division in his empire. He initiated the concile of Tours in 813, where it was decided that the preeches (homilies) in the catholic services should be held in the languages of the common people: "in linguam rusticam aut romanam, aut theodiscam". Which means: In the rural language, either Roman(French) or Dutch (German). The word "theodiscam" is the origin of the word "Dutch", which originally meant the German language, not Netherlands. Charlemagne knew that he was the ruler of an empire where at least three - probably more - languages were spoken: proto-French, proto-Italian and proto-German. The nationalities "French" or "German" in modern meaning did not exist in his time.
Source? I'd like to read more about it.
Also it probably was "deutsch" and not "dutch". This gets mixed up pretty often
"Dutch" as a language is a Variety of dialects known as lower German spoken in all the Northern states. In the German unification process it was replaced by the standardiced "Hochdeutsch" (translating as high German) which is a mix of the german dialects that Luther used for his Translation of the bible. In Germany there was also the slavic tongue and there are Flamish and frisian people. Other Germanic languages are more different from the German language (svedish, Danish, Norvegian).
The Roman language served as a lingua franca meaning the language for understanding. The word frank means also 'free' as in places like Frankfurt, not related to the Frankish people.
@@rumbigaming In German the dialects are called "Niederdeutsch" or "Plattdeutsch" referring that they are spoken in the flat lands close to the coast. The Nederlands are only a small part of these. So dutch is the nether German version of deutsch. In Germany (and what is the lost lands in the East) the lower german dialects were almost erased as a spoken language when the school teached in Standard German (Hochdeutsch), especially in Prussia, the largest German state.
Didn't Austrasia evolve into Burgundy? Don't you mean the eastern realm rather than the central one?
@@louisf2654 wtf? Don't you know the word AUSTRIA?
Burgundy already existed as that, the land of the Burgundian tribe that was resettled by the Romans from their kingdom at the river Rhine to the region that is now known as Burgundy. It is Germanic but not the Franks. The realm of the Franks was divided into Austria and Neustria, meaning East and West, and there was no "central" in this. The important part is the time stamp.
People back then belonged to tribes, clans, family lineages. The diversity of languages and dialects from village to village was incredible. There was no notion of nation as we know it today.
Nah, this is nonsense. Ofcourse there are large differences - nothing changed with regards to that. I can drive 10 minutes east and they talk a completely different dialect than 10 minutes west. Same with north and south. The only thing different with Germanics is that our loyalty goes outwards instead of inwards. Family>community>region>province>country. It is also well known how averse Germanics were to outsiders. They intermarried with other Germanics but seldom outside. This can be seen most pronounced in the nordic countries where they have very little non-Germanic dna. These are the facts - not that globalist idealism.
@@Thomas-xd4cxno use trying to inform these people, they can only interpret history according to their weird politics and beliefs 😂
@@Thomas-xd4cx You're delusional
@@bakielh229 cope and seethe lowlife
@@Thomas-xd4cx 🤓☝️ “axthually” like history was the same for the entirety of it there was definitely times where culture was very diverse from village to village.
He was actually Mexican
So a he was a spaniard.
VIVA LA MEXICO!!!!!!!!!!!!
he was serbian
He's actually Chinese
Nah
th-cam.com/video/cvKRbi2ovDY/w-d-xo.html
Wasn't he from North Carolina
Yes, i belive so.. i think he was arrested in Texas for fishing from the back of a giraffe in one of their lakes!
He was Mexican
No, as a matter of fact, he's from Florida!
Carolinian Empire
He was actually Cambodian many reports and scholars have proven this
Legend has it he is still travelling back to Aachen.
Rumours say that he's still out there.
Yall are dumb Charlemagne is Arab
@@iqbalbarokah5860 So why did he fight the Arabs in Spain ?
@@olavtryggvason1194 because he fights for the sake of fighting
THAT..... was an excellent video, sir. I've never heard that question answer in such a brilliantly concise yet informative way. A lot of stuff has made sense in my head now, because of that video. Thank you.
He was Sudanese
Lmmfao
Eus
He was a trans woman of color
Charlemagne was a hipster, muslim & gay...
idk why this made me laugh 🤣🤣
I adore Charlemagne the great's quote, "To have another language is to possess a second soul."
And since I have a second soul it's ok to lose one so we can bloody a river red and kill all those heathens.
00:04 me when i finish building a lego set, which i‘m proud of
this should have 100+ likes
If by a miracle Germany and France were truly united, it would be the most incredible country ever
French style and way of life and german efficiency and engineering combined😍😍
No one can stopped this union.
French and German together is supremacy.
Well with the EU ...
they were 4 times
This union will be called: 4th Reich
Before watching let me guess; he was neighter there was no France nor Germany at that time so he was Frank.
Yeah that was it.
Abacaxi Satânico did you just reply to your own comment?
Que porra em
The concept of German and Germany existed long before the country of Germany itself. This video gives a weak answer to please the most amount of people.
@@reschi56 du überschätzt das Alter dieses Konzeptes allerdings deutlich. Die Nationen so wie wir sie heute verstehen sind im ausgehenden 18./ frühen 19. Jhd. entstanden, vorher gab es die Idee der ähnlichen Sprache, "deutsch" bedeutet wörtlich "des Volkes" und ist auf die Sprache bezogen, nichts anderes, aber auch eher erst seit Luther. Hättest du einen Münchener in der Vormoderne gefragt, ob er sich einem Hamburger, einem Amsterdamer, einem Brüsseler oder einem Pariser näher verbunden fühlt, hätte er vermutlich geantwortet, das er mit all diesen Herren nichts am Hut hat, die Frage ob er sich als "deutsch" sehe würde eher wohl kaum verstehen.
Zur Zeit Karls des Großen sind diese Konzepte von deutsch oder französisch völliger Quatsch, da hat das Video nicht die einfache, sondern die einzig korrekte Lösung präsentiert.
Just wanted to add this : in North west Germany, Charlemagne is seen as a bloodthirsty invader who slaughtered their ancestor for 30 years and converted them by force to christianity. Which is historically .. pretty accurate.
Yep, iam born in lower saxony which is the old Saxon tribes land, we know all what he (Karl) did here and yes he was a bloodthirsty invader, he and his troops destroyed holy sites, Villages, killed, raped, converted with the sword and relocated parts of the Population, even minor violation like not visiting the Sunday mess were punished with the death by Karl and his Men.
It was a time of sheer terror!
Remember the bloody day at verden/Massacre at Verden.
Near my home town in an old forrest with very old oak tree there was once a Saxon Fortress named "Duniburg" destroyed by Karls Troops during their 30 years war against the Saxon tribe
Later Saxon kings had no problem wholly embracing his legacy though.
@@Siegbert85 i guess at some period it might have been politically convinient for them to do so ^^.
Yeah I can only imagine all these ancestral memories running back 12 centuries. Gimme an effing break dude. This is neopagan bs dating back to the Nazi propaganda.
@@stfclm Facepalm!!!!
Your Post is simply useless ,
another example only for you
every Brits Kid knows that their country was invaded by Vikings and what they did in Lindisfarne.
Thats not Propaganda Its History ( of your Region or Country) and you can learn it in the Schoo, it has nothing to do with memoriesl.
I love what you do. You answer so many questions I have that is not explained anywhere else besides amongst the highest levels of historians. Thank you for being you.
Love your stuff Justin! Great video!
I literally haven't even watched this video yet but, thank you for making this, I greatly appreciate it
This video was remarkably well done, and came to the same conclusion I thought it would upon starting. He was neither. I wish more people would come to realise that modern terms, morals, and other such things, largely, can't be applied to our ancestors in the same way. Thank you for this video, much like the rest, they're flawless and objective.
I’d say he was more German. Franks where a Germanic people and he was king of the Franks, a Germanic confederation/nation. The French inherited the demonym “French” from the Franks and France from the Frankish realm but at the end of the day i feel like the soul of the French is not Germanic. The French are Latinized Celts with some Germanic influence. But I’ve always felt that the French aligned more with the Latins and their Celtic roots than with their Germanic influence from the Franks. Charlemagne wasn’t either Celtic or Latin. He as Germanic. The French don’t speak a Germanic language and have only some Germanic influence. Charlemagne would have had closer affinity to the Dutch/Flemish (who speak a language descended from the Franks) or the Germans who are Germanic speaking
At the end of the day you would struggle to scientifically explain what soul mean. You call Germany from Cesar Germania, an approximate geographic definition. You, englishmen, we frenchmen, and germans both call us franks, in their respective language. We call german Allemand from alémans or alamans wich means all mann, the way a germanic tribe call themselves located at the east of the Franks during Clovis time. Nowadays germans call themselves deutsch : the people.
@doczg88 genetically they're mostly Gauls. It makes sense anyways, since Gaul has always been a wealthy urbanized region, not some tribes in the forest. Foreign conquerors could impose their culture but never really displaced the native Gauls physically.
The French are gallo-romance despite the name, just like the Turks aren´t really central asian ethno-culturally, but levantine, middle eastern. Both got their names from invading ruler tribes.
The term "Franks" still causes discussions among historians and philologists. It is first found in the form of Lat. francus. Diefenbach believed that the root was of Celtic origin
The famous anthropologist Carlton Kuhn attributed most of the Franks and Alemanni to the Celtic type, which is a Nordic subtype containing a Dinaric and Alpine admixture, and is characterized by mesocephaly, a low arch, a protruding nose and darker pigmentation:
Quick sidenote. While the Franks migrated into Gaull, parts of the tribe also stayed in Germany. There is in fact still a large region in the centre of germany called Franken (Franconia, Francia) and all the dialects spoken in this area, as well as the western german areas along the upper rhine are classified as frankish dialects, including luxemburgish and the dialect spoken in Lothringen (Lotharingia) and also Flanders and parts of the Netherlands. So roughly from Nürnberg to Duinkerke (Dunkirk) the people still speak a form of frankish.
So to say, that the Franks were germanic but became the ancestors of the French is only half the truth. Many germans are also descendents of the Franks and partly consider themselves Franks to this day.
The Franks also ruled both the western and the Eastern Frankish empire for a time, but in the east, the frankish rulers were replaced by ones from the saxon tribe. Therefore the eastern frankish empire dropped the frankish name and the western frankish empire was the only state left to keep the name, and is today known as France for this reason.
"but in the east, the frankish rulers were replaced by ones from the saxon tribe. Therefore the eastern frankish empire dropped the frankish name"
well, they didn't initially. The Saxon Ottonians kept the name all the way to Henry II who was the last king of that dynasty. Funnily enough it was during the time of the following dynasty, the Salians, who were also Franks that the name was gradually replaced by "regnum teutonicum" (roughly kingdom of the Germans) while the title of the king was changed to "rex Romanorum" (king of the Romans).
Low Franconian, i.e., Dutch, is not a dialect of the Frankish spoken in Germany, which is a form of High German. It is a separate language that in particular has not undergone the consonant shift.
@@danieltoet7447 True, but its still a form of frankish.
And this gives me the right to call myself a Frank. Born in Fürth beside Nürnberg in the frankish region in today northern Bavaria. We were "given" to the Bavarians in 1806 AD by Napoleon. We are no Bavarians and will never be.
@@Siegbert85 Really funny since the historic teutons were a tribe from the northwest part of Jutland, the landscape Thy, povince capital Thisted.
I am French and I totally agree that Charlemagne was neither French or German but Frank, so an ancestor for both of us on whom you can't apply modern nationalist definitions. He was politically and historically equally important for both countries.
The Franks are ancestors of many people accross Europe but for non-French people, here is the reason why they are important for the French : they founded the country, we start speaking of "France" after their arrival. They mixed with the Gallo Romans to form the foundation of modern French people on which other people have added up since then. They (Clovis) created the state and chose Paris as capital. And more importantly the 3 royal dynasties that ruled France or its ancient form are all Frankish.
skiteufr the Franks are German so he’s German
@@WTFisDrifting German is one thing, Germanic is another.
..as explained in the video.
Religious candy bar and french
So if then the counting of the kings Louis’ wrong? You’d have to substract the Louis’ prior to 843 or Hugues Capet, no? I mean, then when was France founded if Charlemagne doesn’t count as French?
David André Melchor Zavala they consider clovis to be the first king,but if I remember correctly,he was frrankish
“Was Charlemagne French or German?”
Yes.
when you steal comments like they're the bounties of constantinople
“ Disptach! We found the comment stealer. He recently stole one about a day ago! 104.”
No*
No.
th-cam.com/video/cvKRbi2ovDY/w-d-xo.html
Another living language closely to Old Frankish in terms of linguistic phylogeny is Modern Dutch, a descendant of old low Franconian (albeit with substantial Frisian and Saxon substrates)
Old East-Walloon are kinda of a bastard between a langue-d-oc language and platte and limburgian and thereso a bastard grandson of frankish
Awsome vid man. Thankyou for this.
Charlemagne's throne is located in Aachen situated in Germany right next to the Belgian-Dutch border.
Born in Herstal (Belgium). Crowned, died and buried in Aachen (Germany). That’s cyclable in one afternoon, through southern Limburg (the Netherlands).
Charlemagne most likely spoke a southern Low Franconian dialect, similar to Limburghian. Karel de Grote was een Limburger.
Crowned in Reims,in france, just like clovis, the first king of the francs. In french history, charlemagne isnt even the beginning, he is simply the first of the second big dynasty of kings we had. Now we can share, as he is also a very important figure for germans.
Edit: my bad, he wasnt crowned in reims like most french kings including clovis. The rest stands tho.
Pop Khorne: Some French think Vincent van Gogh was French too.
No.
@@erik5374 he isnt. But every french learns the history from the sacralisation of clovis as first king of the franks to today. Charlemagne is the founder of the holy roman emperor but to us french he is simply the most eminent of the second dynasty of kings we had, the carolingiens. Since his empire was divided in 3, the remains became over time france and germany. Saying he was born in an area that belongs to you nowadays is insufficient to claim him over france as a part of your history. But since we shared that empire, or kingdom for that matter, it belongs to both. And also belgium ect
@@popkhorne5372 Very true. Him being the first medieval Roman Emperor is basically the only reason he is being listed as one of the German kings. The later German dynasties of the Ottonians, Salians and Staufers were big fans of him and always stressed their relation to him whenever they could. Frederick Barbarossa even managed to canonise him.
I'm German and I can perfectly well understand the text at 7:13. IF that was supposed to be what Charlemange spoke, yes that IS German.
He sproke Ripuarian Frankish, very similar to the old "Kölsch" dialect.
Nja eher holländisch aber man kanns lesen
Ist das Vater unser^^
Ik dacht al, het lijkt wel Limburgs :)
you would also better understand old French than a modern French person. Old French holds more resemblance to German than to modern French.
And the language is poor indication of ancestry,
ie:
one tribe moves from region A to region B, adapting to the local language with time.
Then the tribe separates in 2 over the different sides of a river, one of which is home to culture B and the other a mix of B, C and D (a mix of 3 cultures but mainly still B, so they still speak B)
Then the branch on the side with mixed cultures proceeds to conquer a whole lot of land on their side, moving its capital and aristocracy to region C where the culture is mainly C with D influence.
Then proceed to conquer the other side of the river, the side where culture/language group B is dominating and once again moving the capital near the river.
Then the kingdom divides in 3, one part mainly culture C with D influence, one part B, and the last one being the middle part where the culture is mainly B but has C&D influence. Heirs raised on the east and middle parts speaking B and west part speaking C&D even while unified.
Which culture does that tribe/kingdom belongs to? and which of the 3 divided parts or, in later times, 2 parts (both side parts having shared the middle between them) is able to claim it history.
Answer is a mess, but to me it's its own culture or a foreign one ruling over both B&C cultures and the language spoken by the current ruler is irrelevant as that just depends in which region the royal family has resided for a while not to mention they all actually speak language D.
And all 3, later on 2 can claim its history as they both are branches of that kingdom.
However the western part kept a clear line of succession from the man who turned the tribe into a kingdom, throughout it's whole feudal/autocratic era whereas the eastern part kept getting more decentralised until the monarchy was elective and any powerful noble could become monarch. Thus the people of the western part claim to feel closer.
Language follow Kingdoms/Empires through colonization type conquests not the kind where the whole aristocracy follows, at least long term, just like the Norman Dukes who adapted to French, spread French in England when they treated it like a colony and later adapted to English when they really moved to England or rather when the nobility in France lost power when France reconquered France.
As you can guess that's an oversimplified version of the Frankish tribe/kingdom and yes they are not native to the Germanic area but to Pannonia. They are invaders who settled along the rhine.
Great explanation, thanks!
US studies show that he was a vegan yoga teacher from San Francisco
and BLM supporter
@@texdiddyable And a transgender pygmy lesbian.
Aaahhh. San Franciscans. Germanic colonizers that went the furthest to the west. Like greedy for the leftovers. Mostly descendant from Germans. Now are Tofu eating bearded hippies with titties and a dress on flip flops. Taking a shit on the sidewalk.
The French are Germanic-Celts who speak a Romance language. I have an Italian friend who always tells me the same thing, my cousins are the Spaniards, NOT the French, they are "germans" jajajaja XD
Yah but there's lots of Mediterranean endotypes there as well...
Funny, as modern italians are probably more germanic than the French. Goths, vandals, Langobards, franks, normans, plus later vast immigrations of e.g. german miners. Coupled with rome inviting countless of germanic tribes and mercenaries into its territory before its fall...
@@boahkeinbockmehr You are crazy the Italians have the same phenotype as the Spaniards. The Germanic tribes that invaded Italy or Spain were small groups. The Germans and Dutch have a very different look to the Mediterranean.
@@ROBERTOCARLOSVEN well, spain was also settled by numerous germanic tribes (suebi, alans, vandals, goths). In fact the muslims defeated a germanic kingdom (wesi goths) when they conquered the Iberian peninsula. Haven't you ever heard of the migration period? The huns pushed the east germanics and some west germanics (to which the dutch and most germans belong) from eastern and central europe all the way into the Mediterranean and partially even as far as northern Africa. Also note, i didn't say all italians were predominantly germanic, just probably more than the french, as galia had already strong defensive bulwarks before the migration period, was more stable and even survived the fall of rome for some years. When the franks were finished conquering gaul they bordered already established germanic kingdoms in hispania (goths) and northern italy/ po delta (langobards -> Lombards)
Burgundians .....from Burgundaholm ....Goths from Gottland .....Franks...named after the francisca axe saxons named after the Saeax knife ....Allemani .....meaning All men .......Lombard...long beards... etcetcetc
One of the five famous Belgians
Who are the other 4? JCVD, Hergé, Brel and Hallyday?
@@TheMoviePlanet leo II
There are famous Belgians?
He was born in Belgium and they spoke Low Franconian, which is Old Dutch.
It was once spoken up to Paris. The fact that Flanders still speaks Dutch testifies to the fact this was the language the Franks proliferated.
Love your videos man, just wondering could you make a video about the first crusade? (just a suggestion) i'm sure most of us would love to see a video about it.
Since noone mentioned it before...
The text at 7:13 is the lords prayer. The text is actually pretty similar to modern german and (if you speak german) you can understand ~90% of the words
If you're talking about present borders, he was Belgian from the province of Liège. Though the area around the borders of BE/NL/DE share much history together and have been part of many nations in the past.
He was born in Herstal.
@@phlm9038 And in which province, my dear friend, is Herstal located? 😂
@@dennisengelen2517 Province of Liège, just as you said. My maternal grand-father was born in Herstal.
Awesome explanation and very accurate, at least according to my knowledge.
Since Salian Franks are from the modern day Netherlands, Ripuarian Franks are from the modern day Netherlands and Germany, and other tribes that confederated with the aforementioned Franks during their conquest of Europe were also from the modern day Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, it can be said that when compared to modern day ethnicities Charlemagne would be closest related to people in the eastern and southerm Netherlands by blood. The Dutch language spoken in these parts is similarly the closest language we have to old Frankish since the two were one and the same before the Franks moved into modern day France.
Les Francs ont créé la France donc sont les ancêtres des français 🤷♂️
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Je suis mort de rire charlemagne et francs née d'un père née en Belgique ou France et mère du palais de neustrie et d'une
Mère née en France samoussi la dinastie carolingienne et la fusion de la dinastie de l' évêque de Metz francaise et belge rien avoir les pays Bas Allemagne etc..... Tous enterré en france dont les sépulture sont toute en France pas ailleurs 🤣🤣🤣 seul charlemagne et enterré dans la ville qu'il a créé malgré qui est fait ses vœux d'être enterré en france près des siens chose qui a pas était respecté c tout il a fait son pouvoir la bas pour mieux contrôler son empire et par ce qu'il a passé 30ans à faire la guerre au Germain qu'il a soumis et qu'il y avais une source thermal et c tout même le nom Aix la chapelle et un hommage à l'histoire de France le St Remis évêque de tour 🤣🤣🤣
Vous les allemands et Pays Bas vous avez tendance à oublier que sont frères et née à soisson et à été couronné à soisson et que charlemagne et couronné à noyon roi des francs et probablement né ou il a été sacré à noyon voir soisson ou querzy voir Paris ou il a passé toute son enfance 🤣🤣🤣
i was looking for this comment
The Franks, at a time when their leaders were Gennobavd, Markomir and Sunnon, rushed to Germany (here we mean the Roman province of Germany on the left bank of the Rhine) and, crossing the border, killed many residents, devastated the most fertile areas, and also brought fear to the inhabitants of Cologne. When this became known in the city of Trier, the military leaders Nannin and Quintin, to whom Maximus entrusted his young son and the protection of Gaul, having recruited an army, came to Cologne. Many historians report that the same Franks came from Pannonia and first of all settled the banks of the RhineThe conclusion to be drawn from this comparison is this: the Franks acquired their Celtic-like general physical form in the Rhineland or in the southwestern part of Germany before the Saxons forced them into France and the lower countries. Here, whatever the mixture between them and the preceding Celtic population, their type has changed little or remained the same. This conclusion is confirmed by the evidence from Baden that the Alemanni were mixed with the Celts in the same way from the very beginning of their joint journey in southwestern Germany. With the exception of the area along the English Channel coast, the German conquests of France and southeastern Belgium brought nothing new to the original racial composition of these countries. On the other hand, the Celtic conquests, reinforced by the Merovingians, had some significance. Conclusions from the information we have about the racial origin and dispersion of the ancient Germanic peoples can be stated briefly and clearly. At the beginning of the local Iron Age in North-west GermanyIn the Frankish state Latin was the main languageThe term "Franks" still causes discussions among historians and philologists. It is first found in the form of Lat. francus. Diefenbach believed that the root was of Celtic origin
Imagine if Charlemagne's Empire would have stayed united all along. Would have been the best country ever
This is why European Union integration into a proper federation is so important.
@Atheistrix unless you really really want your country to remain a submissive protectorate of the USA, then so called Europe of the nations is the perfect answer.
So an empire stretching from Paris to Berlin, Bordeaux to Brussel.
How does that compare to an Empire from London to Cape Town, Vancouver to Sydney?
I rather be 5% ruled by USA, than 100% ruled by EU.
@@kakab66 the European Union is a fraud, a massive fraud that vassalize European countries to the American economical and political interests.
"Well, FRANKLY..."
Mary Gebbie 🗿
They were Germanic tribes. That’s how the Romans saw them and that’s what they spoke. Anglo-Saxons were also German tribes which is why you have to wonder why the British referred to the Germans as the hon during world war two. We are the same people who have the same God and that should be enough.
David Baillie. The Germans and the English are as close as close can be.
Same people, no question. The English betrayed their own kind and have reaped their reward. Goodbye London. The rest of England soon to follow. I pray for Scotland. Jacob’s Pillow, the Stone of Scone is in our hands again!
Mostly due to the so called "Hunnenrede". All the weird ways they actually tried to portray the Germans as hunnic looking on the propaganda posters, i never understood either. It's so far from reality that i belive the Germans back then didn't really get the reference either. On top of that, the huns were some truly bad ass people so using that as an insult is bizarre in itself.
I agree, although something I think you might have missed pointing out is franconian dialects and regions in germany today. You mention luxembourgish, of course. But I just thought it was worth pointint out when you said that the french identify more with the 'franks' as the country i also called 'land of the franks' and so on. this is of course not true for germany... or at least not all of germany. But in parts of germany, people call themselves 'Franken' or speak franconian dialects. How comparable those are to franconian is a different matter I guess, but it's just something I wanted to point out. In the part of your video where you talked about 'Frankish' influences or heritage today in those countries, it was odd, that you didn't even mention that.
so the "fater unser" in luxenbourgisch at 7:16?
We germans can totally read it the french not
Ich bezweifel, das der Text authentisch ist. Das ist ja fast modernes Hochdeutsch. Hätte das Vergnügen an der Uni mittelhoch und Niederdeutsch (ca. 12 JH) zu lernen. Schon Niederdeutsch ohne hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung ist kaum zu entziffern. Ein Text aus dem 9 JH sollte eigentlich für den Laien kaum zu entziffern sein...
@@thomashering1482 Ja schon klar Text aus der Zeit des Buchdrucks ist ja für mich schon unlesbar.
Und Hochdeutsch als Sprache ist ebenfalls recht jung.
Er hat ja gesagt das es ein Beispiel ist und Karl der Große kommt ja aus dem Jahr 800.
Das der Text nicht autentisch ist schon klar.
Sprachen ändern sich über 1200 Jahren sehr stark.
@@FlyFishingChronicles was ne Erklärung. Kann ja sein, dass es luxemburgisch ist, aber nicht aus dem 9. Jh - es sei denn, die waren da dem deutschen Sprachraum Jahrhunderte voraus
@@FlyFishingChronicles ja, weil es dank des Herzogtums eine Mitteldeutsche Variante ist, die es heute zur Amtssprache geschafft hat. Der Vergleich ist aber so sinnig, wie das Foto eines Huhns als dem T-REX ähnlichsten Tier
@@julianelbers5229 er war ja klar aus Germanischen Vorfahren und hätte als Muttersprache "Luxemburgembisch" gesprochen. Die Franken waren aber seit ca. 300 Jahren in heutigen Frankreich, er war voll doppel-sprachig und gewöhnt die ganze Zeit Latein zu benutzen.
Looks like french and germans have some common origins
That's what DNA tests say.
But I would say the whole of Europe more or less. It depend how far back you go.
All of the Europeans (barring true European natives like the Basques and the Etruscan descents) have common origins
@@sylvainb2366yes but the interpretation is bad: our common DNA ancestors are first Gauls, then a bit Germanic. It happened that the Germanic tribes who conquered Germany changed the language as well as the Roman changed the language in french part, and also a part of Germanic blood was brought to France and more in Germany but at the end of the day, the main DNA substrate comes from Gaulish times.
If anything, Charlemagne was some kind of proto-Limburger/Ripuarian from the triangle Aachen (Germany)-Liège(French-speaking Belgium)-Maastricht (The Netherlands)
My german colleague called him Big Chuck. Loved your aside about Alsace Lorraine. Lol
Germans definitely identify themselves with Charlemagne (or Karl der Grosse) and see him as part of the shared heritage with the French, Dutch and Belgian people. The Saxons (Widukind) are seen as rebels and pagans and were finally overthrown by Charlemagne. So it's not correct to say, that today's or 20th century Germans identified more with Widukind than with Charlemagne. Let's not forget that Charlemagne's tomb is located in Aachen in Germany.
Maybe some local people in Lower Saxony do. But you're right: on the whole hardly anybody in Germany even knows who Widukind was.
If there ever was such a stereotype that Charlemagne was French while Widukind was German it would be a purely French fabrication in order to have good old Karl all for themselves.
Charlemagne is commonly regarded as an important stepping stone for the history of Germany. I don't think I've ever heard him being described as "German" per se, aside from historical texts.
The term "Franks" still causes discussions among historians and philologists. It is first found in the form of Lat. francus. Diefenbach believed that the root was of Celtic originThe famous anthropologist Carlton Kuhn attributed most of the Franks and Alemanni to the Celtic type, which is a Nordic subtype containing a Dinaric and Alpine admixture, and is characterized by mesocephaly, a low arch, a protruding nose and darker pigmentation:
as a german i can read the text at 7:14
Bisst du Katholisch ?
Friedrich der Große As an American who knows some German, so can I. It’s the Lord’s Prayer. If it was spoken to me I don’t think I could understand it though. When it os written I have longer to recognize the words.
@@killerkraut9179 nein
@@lecram59 wen Du dass Verstanden Hast ohne Katholisch zu sein dann Hat Deutschland Definitiv verdient Elsass Lorraine (Lothringen) zu rück zu bekommen .
@@killerkraut9179 Es ist Deutsch, halt nur besetzt.
Great job!!
Learned a lot thanks
I think an interesting reference would have been the Oaths of Strasbourg in 842
, where two grandsons of Charlemagne seem to have had already two different mother tongues, indicating that Charlemagne and his son were indeed still heads of a united Frankish kingdom but that a western and an eastern identities seem to have originated right after them.
And his great grandfather was from Herstal (modern days Belgium)
7:20 cool back scratcher!
Charlemagne is an integral part of German history as well. The throne of Charlemagne is standing until today in the German city of Aachen since 790, and some 30 German kings were crowned on this throne. Also, the "First German Reich" with its proclaimed rule of 1000 years (on which Hitler based his idea of a Third Reich on) began by its definition with the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 as Emperor and ended with Napoleon dissolving the Holy Roman Empire in 1803.
That's true. Medieval Germans made a huge deal about Charlemagne being their first emperor and would always count him among their kings. The famous painting by Albrecht Dürer even reads "this is a depiction of emperor Charles who had brought the Roman empire upon the Germans."
@@Siegbert85 Restitutio Imperii Romani.
@@olavtryggvason1194 What are you trying to tell me?
@@Siegbert85 Charlemagne wanted to re-build the western Roman empire which had ceased in AD 476. Under his government and under the leadership of the tribe of the Franks.
@@olavtryggvason1194 Sure, I'm not arguing against that.
I'm just saying that later generations of Germans tried to claim him for their cause just as the French did.
We have a Region in todays Germany called Franken
When you say 'region' you mean 'not a region - or laender'.
What about the Franconian Germans which exist is modern day northern Bavaria?
@@rogink it's a region, because it is part of the Bundesland Bavaria
@@partlycurrent yep, and they have its own dialect not the Bavarian one.
I met many Men from Franken during my Service time in the armed Forces and this folks was really angry when you called them Bavarians
@@rogink its part of todays Bavaria but the frankian folks are wider spread, when i vistited my Sister near Sonneberg Thuringia (Thüringen) i was astonished that the old people in the villages living there were also speaking with a frankonian Dialect, and my sister lives deep in Thuringa ca. 90Km away from the Bavarian Border
I am learning more about my French Heritage than ever before.
France birthday is 496 with the baptem of Clovis, king of franc and birth of catholic religion.
the Franc salique tribes who was located in actually Belgium, by GAULES TRIBES in left of Rhin.
Who protect the Roman Empire against German ? The Franc
Charlemagne fight against Alamans tribes who are still in French the name of actual German’s (Allemands).
So please germans who think is German because him capital are Aix-la-Chapelle and not Paris.
*Laughs in a combination of Frankish, Saxon and Frisian heritage.* Comming from the Islegow or Hamaland during the rule of Charlemagne we got a little bit of everything.
Loved this one! We try to preserve history too!
As a German that is enthusiastic about history, I have never ever heard of this Saxon leader, but I did grow up with hearing stories about Charlemagne.
Strange that you never heard about Widukind. He was a very major player in the second half of the 8th century.
@@roodborstkalf9664 Maybe he is big in other parts of Germany, but definitely not in the Rhineland
@@Delta2414 I know people from Lower Saxony and they know about him, I guess the Rhineland might look more favorably on Charlemagne considering he was literally from there.
Let me point out that not only do we Germans call France "Frankreich" - "the Frank's empire" - but also our state Bavaria has a region whose people call themselves, and their region, "Franken" - "Franks" - and are emphatic that they aren't Bavarians, and the German dialect they speak is different from Bavarian. (So, in that sense, the Franks are living in an area that is different from the Frank's empire 😲)
That is because they are Ripuarian Franks, not Bavarians. Most modern Germans have a very poor grasp of their own history. It would help if all children would learn in school that Germany came into existence in the 9th century as a federation of five major tribes : The Saxons, Thuringians, Franks, Alemans and Bavarians.
@@roodborstkalf9664 you're exactly right, i found a guy from Luxemburg that argued their language was super different from the German language and had nothing to do with it, needless to say, he thought German was only a single centralized language when in reality, German is a mix of many different dialects that differs from many regions and Austrians also thinks the same way a lot
@@roodborstkalf9664ohh allemagne
7:14
Oh my god, I read it and understood it but it took me a while to get that it's a prayerXD (I'm german btw, so I understand dutch and luxemburghish for the most part)
For Dutch I would understand but Luxemburgish, as a Walloon speaking french and dutch, that shit of a language men, this is pure consanguine cancer
What's the name of the background music. Thanks
It's way more complicated, and one has to understand that a French and German national identity already existed in the Middle Ages. They developed out of the differences between East and West Francia. During the 12th and 13th century, both peoples already had distinct identites and were aware of these differences. Pierre Videil, f.ex., a medieval troubadour, wrote songs claiming the Germans were uncultured barbarians to which Walther von der Vogelweide, a Minnesänger, replied that German culture was supreme ("tiutsche zuht gaht vor in allen").
And both peoples fought about Charlemagne's nationality from the start. I'm not an expert on the French side, but Fire of Learning highlighted their ideas. The earliest record about claiming Charlemagne for Germany stems from Norbert von Isenburg in the 13th century who retrospectively ascribed to Charlemagne the intention to unify all German(ic) lands. To stress it: this wasn't a historian of the 19th, but of the 13th century who did that.
And in the world famous painting of Charlemagne by Albrecht Dürer, which Fire of Learning also used in this video, there's a little poem on the frame reading in English: "This is by stature and in painting / Emperor Charles [Charlemagne], who made the Roman Empire, / subservient to the Germans", thus alluding to the concept of translatio imperii which was the idea that the Roman Empire was wandering from one people to the other: from the Italians to the Greeks and finally to the Germans (or the French or the Russians :-) ).
To keep it short and simple: the message of the video is true. Charlemagne was neither. But the concepts of being French and German didn't develop that long after his death, and both peoples claimed him.
I mean 13th century is already around half a millenia after his death so the "not so long after his death" is kinda relative
Herr Wagnerianer national identities didn’t exist until the modern age. There was not such a thing back then, especially in the Middle Ages. Countries were pretty much private properties at that time. His death was a clear example of it.
@@ea635 He just gave a very clear example for national identities existing in the middle ages. They did exist in ancient times, in medieval times and in modern times, no matter what some people want you to believe.
Lukas Stilp it’s not about what “some people want us to believe”, it’s about the shift of perception that we had about nations that came during the late 18th century. The thing is we are discussing a different time with a modern view.
Franks were the de facto ruling minority at the time, same as happened in many places before and after, but they were not the “main population”, this politics had little in common with the current affairs of normal people.
Look at the aftermath of Karloman’s death.
National political autonomy as we know it won’t be around until the 18th century, and that’s what I was referring to.
@@ea635 German, French, English, Polish identities have existed since the Middle Ages, long before the advent of nation states in the late 18th century. Call these identities and groups however you like: national, ethnic, or something else. But they existed. And they already mattered. That's why the discussion about Charlemagne's nationality (or, if you prefer, ethnicity) did not start in the 18th or 19th, but rather in the 12th/13th century.
He was a Serb
This comment wins
Lmao. I'm sure there are "historians" saying that.
he was a turk, armenians bad
Blacks be like " charlemagne was black. Its the white lying about history to control us" 😂
@@mathewvanostin7118 I've never understood the people who say that 😂😂😂
"Merci or Danke or Merda..." :D You made my day... :D
It's a good question, thank you for raising it.
I'd say he's ethnically much closer to Germans than the French, due to him being of Frankish origin, rather than being a Gallo-Roman (which is who most French people decend from).
The famous anthropologist Carlton Kuhn attributed most of the Franks and Alemanni to the Celtic type, which is a Nordic subtype containing a Dinaric and Alpine admixture, and is characterized by mesocephaly, a low arch, a protruding nose and darker pigmentation:The term "Franks" still causes discussions among historians and philologists. It is first found in the form of Lat. francus. Diefenbach believed that the root was of Celtic origin
@@adrienrabiot3624 who? I searched this "Carlton Kuhn" up and, well, nothing!
@@Aquila476 The history of the Franks is also closely intertwined with the Meotian swamp and Pannonia. They came together with Francion to the Sycambria near the Tanais River, near the Meotian marshes, and lived there for many years and grew into a large tribe. they passed through the marshes of the Meotids in whose vicinity they finally arrived in Pannonia and built a city, which they gave, in memory of their ancestors, the name Sicambria, where they lived for many years and became a great people ("THE BOOK OF THE HISTORY OF THE FRANKS"). Pay attention to the mentions of Sycambria (near the Tanais River) and the city of Sycambria (in Pannonia). The Franks will one day split into two branches. One will remain on the Rhine, the other will enter Belgium and acquire the name "Salic Franks".
Alsace-Lorraine, or rather Elsaß-Lothringen, should be an independent duchy, lead by Habsburg-Lothringen!
It's Lorraine not Lothringen in lorrain language... The lorrain are ethnically french !!!
Wtf Alsace is French, never was German except 1871-1918 ; part of France since the 17th century
L’Alsace est essentielle à l’identité française.
@@augth Yes, France is a great nation, and Alsace is part of it. But what about the time prior to 1648...? And the Germanic dialect "Alsacian"?
Yes, Alsace is French, but the Alsacian dialect belongs to the Alemannic dialects, spoken in the north west of Switzerland, and south west of Germany.
The Alemannic culture contains some elements of French, and German origins, like in other border areas.
Even the German Alemannic contains French components, some words, some expressions, which no other Germans understand.
After WWII, the French government made great efforts to promote the French language in Alsace (with the slogan "C'est chic, parler Francais"), and tried to suppress the Alsacian dialect, because it is closely related to German.
Nowadays Alsacian is on the brink of dying out, like many other languages in France (and in many other countries of the world).
Yes, there is something like a French culture, but Alsacian, Occitanian, Bretonian, Burgundian, Provencal, Catalan, have particular elements which are not ncessarily shared by all other French.
Their languages vanished as well, more, or less, in favor of standard French. Similar to what happens in many other countries.
Sooner, or later, I'm afraid, we will all speak a kind of English (Frenglish, in France, Denglish, in Germany, etc.), and become (hopefully not!) closer of the American type of culture.
I guess in about 100 years Alsacian will be forgotten by all, but a small group of language enthusiasts, and scientists.
I hope, noboy will care to whom it belongs then, because it belongs to a peaceful Europe, where people, from Malaga can live in Munich, or people from Prague can live in Paris, or vice versa. Theoretically possible today.
My ancestors come from an area which used to be Germany, but now belongs to Poland. I was there last year, and I met friendly people which spoke Polish. If I want, I can move, and live there, and frankly, I don't care, if this land of my ancestry belongs now to Poland, or to Germany, or to France, or to Luxemburg, or Italy, because it is Europe, and within its borders I can move wherever I want to, and live there.
In France, in Germany, and many other countries, young people prefer the standard languages of their respective countries, or English, the lingua franca of the world.
Of course, Alsace belongs to France, nobody should try to revise borders - or deny facts about languages, dialects, and cultures.
Vive l'Europe! Es lebe Europa!
He was a Frank, so closer to Dutch.
Romans, Celts and Germanics mixed to become the french.
But in the case of England, the Anglo-Saxons were predominantly over the rest, the culture, language and genetics were as Germanic as Germany.
@s1 Normans/Vikings were Germanic peoples as well.
They were important, but the people and culture were still fundamentally Anglo-Saxon after William I.
Genetically, the English are Germano-Celtic, I believe. But their identity is Germanic, that's for sure.
@@adamthetired9319 Yeah but thr Celtic party is less than 40% in average.
The austrians are Germanic and are only 35-40% Germanic.
Southern Germans are only 40% Germanic.
The average German is 60% Germanic, the same for the English.
Eastern Anglos and Northern Germans are the same of Frisians, Dutch and Danes.
If Austrians and Germans are Germanic the English are too.
@@lysoutrighter8260 no the average german is only about 30-40% germanic. Celtic and slavic are mixed into the ancestry to an almost equally big part. and trace elements t of baltic,magyar and italic are also mixed into it
@@Lukas-xb7cx The average austrian and southern germans are around 40% Germanic, central Germany is around 60%, northern Germany is obviously even higher, just give a look at the haplogroups or DNA tests.
Charlemagne was neither French or German but was a Frank as there was no France and Germany back then in the 800s AD to put it short.
France existed since Clovis 1, under the old French name ''Francia''.
@ but the francs were a germanic people sooo
An apt summary
@@dreisaum9916 no. Frank's were gaulish tribes defeated by rome regrouped around rhein river. Frank salian west side, Frank rheinan east side. Only rheinan Frank's partially mix with Germanic. That's why when allamany (Germanic) attack the west, they loose against Frank's at battle of tolbiac. Allamany vs Frank's wasn't German vs German.
@@gringologie9302 but it was germanic vs germanic. You can't deny that Karl was germanic... That would be ignorant
This puts Frankenstein's monster in a whole new light.
Country names explaining part2 plZ!
His real name was Kralj Karlingov and he was RUSSIAN
7:16 seeing this as a German, I can understand most of this. However, if this was spoken I would probably have a harder time but still understand it. Our local dialect in Cologne belongs to the Ripuarian sub branch of Germanic to which - to my knowledge - the Luxembourgish belong as well. However, Vlaams (Belgians), Luxembourgish and Dutch people and would probably understand it even more better.
8:00 It is true that the Frankish part of Germany has mostly lost the identity of being Frankish - except for the region - Franconia. Franconia is today a northern part of Bavaria and they hate being called Bavarians.
8:52 However, it is oversimplified that all Germans rather took the Widukind (Saxon, Germanic) identity over the Frankish one. Napoleon and the revolution had many adherers in West Germany for a time, it later culminates into the Rhineland separatist movement. The intellectuals even talked French and read French newspapers. It is a bit forgotten chapter in history, although e.g. Konrad Adenauer, the first federal chancellor of Germany was a separatist in his youth.
Öcher auch.
what Germanic tribe's language what we know today as standard German comes from?
@@charlemagne5931 Very influential was Martin Luther's translation of the Bible into German, and that was Saxon German. So it's fair to say it is Saxon. It is funny because you would think this makes Saxon a straight forward or sober sounding dialect of German, but instead it sounds really funny to most Germans
Genial wie einige Wörter seit knapp 1300 Jahren noch heute verwendet werden, wie Himmel oder Versuchung
Actually they spoke dutch, but I believe that they we’re united kinda even if the capital was paris
As someone who knows a bit of French and is German. The test was the Lord’s Prayer in a old German dialect. I could understand everything. And also German has retained more of its Germanic words then French. So you could say it’s more German in language then French.
But, the dialect from my regional guess, would be some where around the Rhine area. I myself speak high German but my grandmother spoke Bergisch Deutsch or mountain German translated.
4:08 yeah, I heard of that
Stable video👍
During many centuries, the Roman Empire made 2 sorts of franks. The Riparians Franks (East Rhin river) The Salians Franks (romanized Gaulish franks from Belgica in the West Rhin River). After Rome, in front of the germanics invasions (vandales, saxons, angles, wisigoths…) , the Saliens Franks succeeded to become the new aristocracy in the old gaulish Belgica (Belgium, Lorraine, Alsace, Champagne, Flandre…) with the Merovingians, Clovis the First. It's Important to remember the Merovingian aristocracy in the old Gaulish Belgica to understand who was the Carolingians dinasty.
charlemagne was indonesian
7:12 The Lord's Prayer is very close to German. I can actually read it even though it's not modern Hochdeutsch. A lot of the words are spelt differently but pronounced similarly.
He was a Fränkisch German who spoke Fränkisch Theodisc and early Hallo Romanic French as well as Latin.
The legacy of Franks and Charlemagne are still present. For example the city of FRANKfurt, another city called KARLSruhe (Karl is in German for Charlemagne). Many places with "Franken" and all thoses places are In Germany/Belgium/Luxembourg/France
Well the most obvious legacy is the name of the France country, Frank->Francia->France
You forgot to mention the region in Germany called "Franken" or "Franconia" in Englisch. And the "Franken", as in people that live there today, is the same as the historical "Franken" as in people in history.
That was an important oversight, because it shows that there is still a "Frankish" people in Germany today (even if many post-war Germans have become so nihilistic they barely even want to call themselves German, much less refer to their regional identity).
@@Alsayid Its the other way arround. Most Germans identify themselves with their own country and then with Germany, since Germany is not a country but a federation. And this behaviour goes back until the holy roman empire and even further.
@@hanszimmer9224 true
Tho the eastern frankonians are not synonymous with the franks obviously although related. The thuringian and bajuwarian activities in that region still predate the Frankish aspirations. In layman's terms the peoples along the nether Rhine are much more closely linked to the original franks than both the French and Frankonians which is hilarious.
and also: he mentionend Karl der Grosse to speak something alike Luxemburgian. Luxemburgian is of course just Moselfränkisch, same stuff spoken in Rheinland-Pfalz
That's not true. Those are descende from the Ribuarii, or Ripuarian Franks. There exists no evidence as far as I know that the two are related in anything but name.
The text at 7:16 is completely for a speaker of the german language, quite interestingly there are some french and dutch words mixed in there. Goes to show how closely these languages are related.
@Lukas Merlin
Well this was actually just the Lord’s Prayer in modern luxembourgish, so...
The Franks spoke a ancestral language of Dutch so I guess Charlemagne/Karl Der Grosse ate cheese (as opposed to sausages if he was German or snails if he was French), drank beer (as opposed to wine if he was French) and wore wooden shoes (as opposed to lederhosen if he was German or a beret if he was French).
Long story short: he was a Frank, so both proto-French and proto-German
The Franks were Proto-Dutch/Flemish/Luxembourgish.
@@flemishnationalist-prayfor9809 The Franks left there lands and went in France so no lol and Charlemagne son was the first to sign a document written only old French so it's pretty sure Charlemagne spoke it
@@ommsterlitz1805 only a small minority migrated to Germany. The vast majority remained in their homeland in the modern Low Countries.
@@flemishnationalist-prayfor9809 Well anyway in the 15th century and the wars of religion in France when it was by far the most populated country in Europe and 3rd in the world the French huguenot migrated enough to make all cities in Europe like Berlin, Hamburg, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Dublin and London partially Francophone in just 30 years, from this point European eastern and western countries became all all a bit French with interesting culture influence like the Osterbrunnen and many others.
@@ommsterlitz1805 that has nothing to do with the Franks.
I'm French! Where do you think I got this outrageous accent?!
-Charlemagne
He probably didn’t even speak Latin. There was no ‘outrageous’ accent. Just Frankish.
All his letters were composed by monks, because they were the only ones that could write. And they wrote in Latin only.
EXCELLENT! I watched it twice. Subscribed.
1.42 seconds into the video who is the artist of the painting and what is the painting called?.Thanks ☕UK