It's much more complicated, by the Vth century the term no longer had a ethnic sense. Over 400 years between the arrival of the Franks and Charlemagne, some Gallic elite became nobles, some learned Frankish, some Franks lost their nobility. Without counting the very contrasted situation between regions. (Moreover the Franks weren't the only Germanic tribe that settled in Gallia, think about the Burgundians for instance ;))
I would argue less than 400 years. The integration between some Gallic elites and frankish elites were near basically instantaneous as some Gallic elites chose to ally with the Frankish invaders playing a crucial role in Clovis' success. An example of this was Aurelianus, Duke of Melun; he was a Gallo-Roman elite who became chief advisor to Clovis after he defected to the side of Clovis upon the defeat of the Romans and their allies at the battle of Soissons in 486.
@@tonyhawk94 modern day French people are still overwhelmingly Gallic by blood though, with no significant change to the French gene pool since the arrival of Celtic peoples in the Bronze Age. Furthermore, modern French people cluster directly on top of Bronze Age Gallic burial sites in PCA, to see the data I'm talking about I'd look at the study "Origin and mobility of Iron Age Gaulish groups in present-day France revealed through archaeogenomics" (Fischer et al 2022). There has certainly been a lot of cultural influence (especially linguistic) from Germany and Rome, but by blood France has changed precious little since the time of the Bell Beakers.
@@MorganCunningham-w6d Nobody says the contrary buddy, however saying "the Franks were a Germanic group ruling over Celts" is simply not true as I explained before. :)
They originated from Germany, they spoke an early version of dutch, their core terretory is Belgium, and most of their empire consisted of France, who was also named after them. Ye this shit isn't confusing at all
Ambrons came with the Cimbers, but remained in Ambrovarium (Amiens) with the rearguard, when the Cimbers went to conquer Rome...but got defeated. The military king of the Eburones is Ambiorix.... There was another King, judge and priest. Most logig is that the "later" Eburons, to protect themselves against other germanics, did hire those Ambrons... The hypotheses Celtic Ber /ver is non-sense, because it is a general proto-indoeuropean root of all what is related to male , fight, the right to speak ... ( word, woord , verbe, veritas, waarheid, vérité, vir, verrat, beer behr, varon, baron etc etc etc - war, oorlog, embrouille, heir, heer, herr, heerzoon = garçon, .... etc etc...)... Older than Celtic, common rootword. The social culture of Eburons was Celtic, the tongue Germanic and different of the Ripuarian ; Bron/braine is Eburon/Nervian, Bruoc, Broek is Salian... So , the Salian is still the Dutch... The Ripuarian gave Platt. ( Platdiets), German is close to Ripuarian ( deuten diets, make undersTOOD ...TEUTonen, DEUTCH). But we have still beduiden, duidelijk , iets diets maken,... Lieden ( Leute in German), those who do understand. So the Ambrons came from northern Germany about at - 200...
They did NOT. They originated from germania which was roughly the region where the germanic people lived, they spoke an old germanic dialect which may have evolved into dutch with time, and then they conquered gaul which eventually as they settled was named after them as time went on. If you think this is confusing, stop watching videos about history altogether because you're just not ready.
So they originated in the Low Countries and spoke an Old Dutch language, while having many Latin-speaking subjects. I think we can say they’re clearly Belgian 😂
That is completely false. So far we could say that they originated from a far larger region. They did not speak an old Dutch language but a number of dialects of Frankish. The number of Latin speaking subjects is difficult to number but of course it was rising after the defeat of the huns. But until Carolus Magnus there were many others. It is safe to say that the choice of Latin as a "lingua franka" - funny how that word gives it away - was due to the usefulness of the catholic church for the empire.I think the situation in Belgium with the languages is more like a tiny model with less languages involved.
While it's a controversial take, it might be an interesting one. When the Merovigians helped the Romans against the Huns during the battle of the Catalaunic plains, the Roman concluded a Foedus (contract of vassalization) with them. This Foedus made the Franks official governors of a part of the Roman Empire, the Northern province of Gaul, or, as it was called by the Romans, Gallia Belgica.
Arguably you could say the Franks were Southern Dutch aka Belgium and south of the modern Netherlands, that culturally still are pretty close. The Franks' main heartland (especially of the Salian Franks who unified all the seperate tribes) was in that region for a LONG time after the Romans left, the Belgians and the Dutch speak a direct descendant of their language, and they basically laid the foundation of the feudal system and the introduction of christianity in the region, as well as the foundation for the trading/merchant background the Dutch and Flemish still have to this day. Aachen, Cologne and other cities, by the way, are still considered to be technically part of the Low Countries but were not able to be brought into the modern nations of Belgium and the Netherlands.
Except the dutch didn't even exist back then? You're really special. There seriously are too many people with braindamage giving their 2 cents on this topic. If anything then the dutch are frankish, not the other way around... smh
@@SchmulKrieger True. The Saxons infact did move into the Lowlands and settled there to some degree. Especially into the territory of todays Netherlands.
"the Belgians and the Dutch speak a direct descendant of their language"... "the Flemish and the Dutch speak a direct descendant of their language" would be more accurate, as 40% of the Belgian population are French speakers.
So, you're saying that, as Charlemagne / Karel die Große / Karel de Grote spoke an early form of proto-dutch, he really properly belongs to the Dutch, and thus the Netherlands has a historical duty to restore their 1.000 year old state, to regather their ancesteral lands, to bring peace, justice and prosperity to their old empire? Damm, we made a mistake in going for Indonesia, we should just have conquered Europe. well, we did help found the EU together with the Belgiums, Luxembourg, France, Italy and Germany. So I guess in the end it all worked out fine.
Indeed the Dutch are the true successors of Charlemagne. Charlemagne was a certified Dutch man who ruled also over barbarian Germans/Gauls and lazy Latins. Its no coincidence that the lost kingdom of Lotharingia was given to his favourite son as the true hair of the Frankish empire. That despite its wealth was destroyed due to geographic inconveniences. Despite of this the people of Lotharingia tried against all odds to re-establish the Imperium. Such was the Burgundian (Not the heretic Aryan SS version) attempt that was lost due to those pesky tax evading Swiss... Realising their weaknesses Lotharingia has influenced the concert of Europe and after centuries and 2 world wars where both France and Germany were humiliatingly defeated. The oppressors and the fake hairs were finally weak enough to fall to Lotharingias trap and form the steal and coal community notably including Lotharingia in its centre and Lotharingian city as its capital. Said community will eventually become the EU ruled from Brussels (Lotharingia). This is a warning for all of You the EU is a Lotharingian conspiracy to re-establish the Lotharingian Imperium and rule all of Europe!!! While the Germans and French think they got the power Lotharingia runs supreme.
@@seanchernov7178 I'm not sure if I should laugh, cry, cry while laughing, or cringe because i've read conspiracy theories about as unhinged as this one that people actually believe in. Still, using the EU to rule all of Europe, instead of wars of conquest using that most terrible of weapons: bureaucracy. Truly a plot worthy of the Heirs of Karel
The Nazis didn’t necessarily lay claim to Charlemagne or the Franks. The name of the SS division from France was SS Charlemagne. Clearly they thought of Charlemagne as a French historical figure.
Or as part of German history in France, could be either one. Though it's peculiar how only the French,Hungarian and Kosovan ss divisions were named after historical figures ,other than the German ones ofc.
The n*zis maybe (a one off incident is a really bad example for an entire nation) did but the HRE people before and after dont! Karl had much more influence on Germany and its predecessors than ever on France. His people and himself were germanic thats why he is a german/germanic figure.
Charlemagne was the grandson of Charles Martel. Charles Martel is very famous for - arresting the Arab invasion in Poitiers in 732. He took part in many other battles in France - being the Mayor of the Palace under the Merovingian king, and maybe true leader of the country. - His son Pépin Le Bref would launch the Carolingians dynasty and his grandson would be Charlemagne.
But Pippin the Short and Charlemagne became allied to Arabs, muslims,and sold them about 2 000 000 slaves Awars Wendes ans Saxons.... it where the free man of the cities, the Jews, who had to castrate and sell the slaves to the arabs, in Arles, (ouf? Sorry : ) , Verdun, Metz, Valenciennes... so, sorry for Poitiers ! Charlemagne had not even a palace, even less a capital, he was a vagabond robber, as was Attila... the representative of the family of the Pippinides to the Abbasides was Isaac The jew... ( and how many married not a Brunhilde or Aldegonde, but Judith from Bayern?) Souriiiiire. c'est l'Histoire. N'en devenez pas Histérique, historique suffit... Un chauve ne pouvait être roi. Porter un kippa... et si Kalonymus serait Karel de Kale ?
A endless debate for a simple answerd. Our origin's : Netherlands / Germany. Creators of Frankenrijk/Frankenreich/France. Descent of the Frankish people : Belgians , the Dutch , west and central Germany , Northern France .
if you go back further the franks were not even from that area or anywhere Germanic at all, they conquered the land near the rhine, they weren't native to there.
@@qgqsrg1 well yes and no. Our people aren't native to the Netherlands/Germany... but Franks are a confederation... and Germany / The Netherlands are the Birth country's of our confederation.
@@ArienvanRijswijck Of course, later the Franks subjugated the Frisians, but for example they have a lot of influence in the northern part of the Netherlands.
Of particular interest are the Oaths of Strasbourg sworn by Charles the Great’s grandsons Charles the Bald and Louis the German in February 842 as they’re pronounced by each one in the vulgar language of the other that is proto French and proto German. They were to be understood by the respective soldiers and they clearly indicate the splitting between Western and Eastern Frankish kingdoms.
@@sebe2255 The oaths of Strasbourg are just the evidence that the unified empire of Charles the Great was already linguistically diverse. They are the first manifestation of a convergence between linguistic and national notions of a state. As such, they are considered in France as the first expression of the French language as well as of the French nation. Now, why did Frankish take over local dialects in the East and did not in the West? It's possibly due to the preexisting efficiency of the Roman administration in Gaul, largely continued by the Christian Chuch. So people in the West spoke some Romance dialects, in the East some Germanic dialects, The Frankish nobility a more standardized Germanic dialect, the Catholic Church and the administration used Latin, both for liturgical purposes and as a "lingua franca".
@@ahoj7720 "by each one in the vulgar language of the other" Actually, of the other's troops. The point was that their troops were witnesses (and would also say the oath), as you point out later in your comment. So it says very little about the language the rulers themselves actually spoke. "are just the evidence that the unified empire of Charles the Great was already linguistically diverse" It always was. "They are the first manifestation of a convergence between linguistic and national notions of a state" Well... one could consider this a form of proto-nationalism, yes, but I'd be very careful to do so. People were well aware of ethnolinguistic identities; though the idea of a nation state wasn't really a thing yet; so "national notions of a state" is a rather poor way of phrasing that. In fact, I'd even be careful to use the term state (these more like "realms" - a state implies a far more advanced administration, but let's not turn this into semantics) "As such, they are considered in France as the first expression of the French language as well as of the French nation." Okay, and now you really did take it too far. French nation? France was extremely diverse linguistically during this period. The French nation was "built" with the changes that occured during the French revolution (though surely some conception of nationhood/national identity/proto-nationalism did exist; it's very misleading to speak of a French nation). "Now, why did Frankish take over local dialects in the East and did not in the West? It's possibly due to the preexisting efficiency of the Roman administration in Gaul" No. Population. Were they a majority of minority? That's the main reason why. As for administration, Latin was used throughout the Frankish Empire/Catholic world, not just in the West. Administration was the work of a small - more educated - group and not the masses. Even in places like the Netherlands where Old Dutch was spoken Latin was used for administration and as such we have very few records of the Frankish and/or Old Dutch language. Population was the main reason why. Frontier regions were already less inhabited. The Roman Empire didn't have an absolute border, but rather a frontier region (like a buffer). In these regions, Germanic peoples had already settled for quite some time too. In most other regions they were merely the leading group, an absolute minorty, (though of course not always; for example there were some pockets of Frankish speakers as for south as the Loire valley). Also, you reversed east and west.
p0mp3y seems to forget that there's also German dialects which haven't undergone the second Germanic consonant shift. While High German definitely reigns supreme, Low German dialects are still spoken outside of the Netherlands.
In southern Germany, specifically Bavaria there's a linguistic minority called "Franken" and the region in English is called Franconia. They don't speak a Dutch related language though. I think the tribe split back in the days, just like the Suebi tribe and a part remained in southern Germany, while the other part moved westwards.
Unlikely, the region was conquered by the Franks between the 5th and 6th century, and there is no indication that the Franks recognized them as Franks in any sense. It is more likely that the region got the name in the same way France did, conquest and minor settlement. Even linguistically, the connection to Frankish is unclear.
In France, in Moselle (which is a part of Lorraine) in the border area with germany, people speaks differents Frankish language that are pretty much the same. This could also be called Luxembourgeois but it's pretty much Frankish. I don't understand why he said these things about Dutch, it's not Dutch, neither German, just Frankish language that will in the future give born to these.
@@Elijah-Bailey They are all Frankish languages, well Dutch, Luxemburgish and Moselle Franconian are. And Moselle Franconian didn’t lead to Dutch. Both Dutch and Moselle Franconian are the modern versions of the old regional Frankish languages
@@sebe2255 I meant that old Frankish gave born to Luxembourgeois and Moselle Frankish. One funny thing is that Moselle Frankish is spoken by millions of people in Brasil. This is not a joke!
Genetically : Their Haplogroup is R1b so they were Indo-Europeans Linguistically : Also Indo-Europeans, and the closest language to their is dutch Religiously : Before their conversion to Roman Catholicism, they were part of the Norse-Germanic Paganism world Culturally : Also part of the Germanics tribes (Wich played a huge part in the split of the Carolingian Empire after the death of Charlemagne, because the Frankish tradition split the property between the sons) Geo-Politically : Modern Belgium is their heartland, but they became politically significant after the conquest of what is Modern North-France, after being beaten by the Roman General Flavius Aetius who later beated Attila the Hun, they signed a Foedus with the Roman Empire and were granted rulers of the conquested territory if they defend the Empire against the Huns So to me even if the answer is they were simply Franks. We can say French, German, Belgian, Dutch, Luxembourger and even Swiss are the modern Franks. And during 1500 years they fought each other to remake the Frankish Empire under a single one authority. Those who were the closest to succeed were the Habsburg dynasty, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler.
Where they had most impact and succes was in France, hence the name of the country. So they were really Frankish but their legacy live the most through France.
I highly doubt that modern standard Dutch is the closest to them. The southern dialect of dutch spoken in North-Brabant, (which is nothing like the Dutch spoken in Amsterdam) is probably what you meant to say. To a foreigner, you might have been taught at school that Dutch is 1 language, but it really isn't. Gronings, Fries, Limburgs, Brabants and Zeeuws are all very different from whatever it is they speak in Holland (Amsterdam and such). I can guarantee you that a guy born and raised in Amsterdam cannot understand 2 brabanders speaking in dialect, which isn't even the hardest dialect tp understand in the Netherlands. And even in North-Brabant there are so many distinct dialects that I need to mentally switch sometimes in order to make sense of the sounds I hear.
@@Elijah-Bailey France would later develop out of the Frankish kingdom, but I wouldn’t necessarily say they had their biggest success in France. The Merovingian period was definitely centered around France, but in the late Merovingian period and then the Karolingian period the balance of power shifted back to the old Frankish heartland, the area around the Lower Rhine, Meuse and Moselle These people are also a direct continuation of the Franks as people. They don’t just have the Franks as a part of their heritage, they are the modern Franks
The Franks were a Germanic tribe, speaking a Germanic language and Karl’s favorite residency was Aachen in modern day Germany where he is also buried. So I think they were closer to Germans than French people. If the French people didn’t keep the name France for their country we wouldn’t even be having this debate tbh
Not wrong I always consideres them rater german as well - however from the time of the Merovingians onward the backbone of their empire was in french territory and whilst germany was more of a hinterland. In regards of customs etc. they were also more relating to the former roman populus of Gaul ^^ That makes it so fun as they probably didn't fit fully in either category but were ruling both whilst keeping a destinct frankish identity :)
Its because ultimately both claims are correct and wrong. Germany definitly can claim Frankish as their own because the Franks are closer culturally to them, and Charlemagne (im french lol) did indeed step his capital closer to keep a better controll on the frontiers (also he wanted Aachen to become a new Constantinople so it helps), though i wouldnt say just because Aachen was his favorite residency that he was closer to germany, the Kings moved courts at all time back then to keep controll of their kingdoms the closer the area they wanna keep hold on to their main residency, the easier to controll, it was logical to move the capital east really even in the case that the franks were more french than germans (which they are not culturally irl). But French people has a fully valid claim as you said because they kept the name, and we kept it for a reason. Its because whereas Germany quickly lost their Frankish ruler as other Germans gained power, France never stopped being ruled by Frankish nobility, the Karlings are obvious, but the Capet were Nobility while the Karlings ruled still and they intermarried alot. In other words France's claim isnt cultural, despite what french nationalism in the past 2 centuries light have tried to make us believe (or that we are Gallic, we are not we are Gallo-Romans, because Gallic implies we comes from celts, but our culture except in Brittany def doesnt reflect that), its because France's claim is based on its continuity from the Frankish state in the first place, its why France's history doesnt start with Charlemagne, but with Clovis, and why our kings name have so many Louis because Louis comes from Clovis (also btw, fun fact the Karlings propagated bad things on the Merovingiens to legitimate their rules, the Capetians to legitimate theirs decided to do the same and thus for legitimacy they took the names from the Merovingiens so we get more Louis as a result ever since). Conclusion: Germany has a cultural claim on Charlemagne's legacy, the French have an historic one, and the Franks were proto-Dutch. PS: also this reflects how both countries came into existance, France came to be because its rulers foreign they may be in origin, kept controll over their realm, and this realm took the name of the people the rulers ruled over Germany came to be because it is the unification of the German cultures
French people does not yet exist in that time : Gaul-romans people have been mixed with franks people and Viking people in normandie ==> People from Northern "Franconie" are close to German people during the period : Even if "Aix la chapelle" has a french name in Franconie, Frank language is spoken in many Franconian regions : elsass, lorraine (lothringen), belgium, holland in that time. Only, Aquitaine (bordeaux region), savoie (savoy), burgundy and eastern south of France remain under influence of a strong Gaul-roman culture. France or "Franconie" (Frankenreich aud deutsch, that still exist in northern Bayern today) is a multi cultural mix of influence : gauls-romans-franks-viking. Clovis , the father of charlemagne, is clearly considered as a major french King in France (not a german King) and we hesitate about the cultural link of Charlemagne with France : One is buried in paris and the other in Aix la chapelle ..... Both french and germanic, and viking (Guillaume le conquerant, king of england) is considered as a French duke and is buried in Caen ... France is already multicultural , but central in european unity during the frank empire.
Francs adopted Latin because it was the language of elite and christianity at the time. While originaly a germanic tribe, it's the unification of the celtic, latin and german tribes into 1 christian nation at the baptism of Clovis that created France. Ask yourself why France is named Frankreich in german (literraly, Frank's kingdom) So yeah it's confusing because french is mostly a latin language, but the thing is, the Franks (or Francs in latin/french, which the name France come from) was speaking latin
You are right, Charlemagne and the Franks were neither German nor French as Germany and France didn't exist. However, politically, the kingdom of France is the direct heir to the Kingdom of the Franks, even if the Franks were ethnically and linguistically closer to the Germans as they were, as you said, more like proto-Dutch. The Holy Roman Empire however held the Imperial title over the French, and was more a replacement for Charlemagne's Empire than a continuation of it. Let me explain why I think that: So the fact is that the rulers of West Francia retained the title of "Rex Francorum" (King of the Franks), while the rulers of East Francia abandoned this title. Ludwig II, the first king of East Francia, was sometimes called "Rex Germaniae", even though his official title was "rex Francorum orientalium" (King of the Eastern Franks). And when the Ottonians (a non Frankish dynasty) started to rule East Francia, they chose the title of Roman Emperor (Romanorum Imperator Augustus) and "King of the Romans" by 1356 (rex Romanorum). On the other hand, the Capetian dynasty was actually Frankish, and, as said earlier, retained the title "King of the Franks". More than three centuries after the division of the Frankish Empire, their Kingdom was still called "Kingdom of the Franks" by everyone in Europe, even by the Germans/Imperials, untill Philipp II Capet changed their title to King of France. In many germanic languages, France is still called "Land of the Franks" or "Realm of the Franks". So the Kingdom of France is a direct evolution of the Kingdom of the Franks. In the same way, the Byzantines retained the title of Roman Emperor, even though they were not Latin, but Greek. In conclusion : The Germans/Imperials retained the imperial status and the "heir to Rome" aspect (until Napoleon decided to steal the crown, but he wasn't really legitimate lol), while France is the direct continuation of the Kingdom of the Franks that started it all.
1. French is a romance language while the franks were a west germanic language so linguistically germanic. 2. Charlamagne was crowned holy roman emperor in the year 800 meaning the germans were the actual continuation 3. Charlamagne was seated in aachen, germany All france did was use the name based on the franks which is a weak argument for charlamagnes ancestry
1. I've already explained that, ethnically and linguistically speaking, the Franks were closer to the Germans than to the French. And I've also explained why this isn't so relevant, insofar as I consider political continuation to be more important (which can be debated, of course). 2. I'm going to tackle a major misconception: Charlemagne was never crowned Holy Roman Emperor. He was crowned "Imperator Augustus" and the people of the city of Rome acclaimed him by saying "To Charles Augustus, crowned by God, mighty and peaceful Imperator, life and victory". But he was never referred to as the "Holy Roman Emperor", a qualification that came only in 1157 under Friedrich Barbarossa. 3. Charlemagne seated in Aachen, in what is TODAY Germany. That's a big difference. For example, the Eastern Roman Emperors ruled from Constantinople, now in Turkey. This in no way means that the Byzantine Empire is a Turkish Empire. _"All france did was use the name based on the franks which is a weak argument for charlamagnes ancestry"_ Well, no. For it was East Francia which, of its own accord, abandoned the title of King of the Franks which had existed since Clovis, and even before. Moreover, West Francia is the continuation of the Kingdom of the Franks, because the Capetian dynasty (and by extension the Valois, Bourbon and Orléans, who are all Capetians) are, at root, an aristocratic Frankish family close to Charlemagne. The same cannot be said to the Holy Roman Empire, founded by Otto, Duke of Saxony. And I don't think I need to explain what was Charlemagne's relations with the Saxons, lol.
@@clementlarnicol 1. Ok good that we agree that tge franks were more german than french, wven though they were dutch if anything but between german and fremch they are more german 2. The holy roman empire became known as the holy roman empire after maximilian the 1. Before that it was know as the kingdom lf the romans. 3. Point being? The fact that the french call themselvs based on the franks doesnt chamge the fact that the franks from that time were fresh form germania, so they werent german per se but were more german than french so if the franks were from germany then the chrlamagne is it aswell Ok lets settle on this charlamagne was the father of germany and france but he was a frank, franks were more german than french.
1. Ethnically and liguistically, yes, but really I don't think it matters, as, in my opinion, the political continuation is more important. And the direct political continuation of the Kingdom of the Franks, is the Kingdom of France. I will explain it more clearly in my 3rd point. 2. The official denomination "Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Teutonicae" (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) came in 1512 under Maximilian der Erste, yes. However, according to historian Ildar Garipzanov, the name "Holy Roman Empire" was already informally used in the 13th century. And, anyway, all the way back since Otto der Große, the rulers were already called "Imperator Augustus" (so basically Emperor). "Rex Romanum" (King of the Romans) was the title used by rulers while WAITING to be crowned Emperor by the Pope. To take Maximilian der Erste as an example, he was elected "King of the Romans" in 1486, but was not crowned Emperor until 1508. So, before 1512, we already had the term "Emperor" as well as "Roman". As for the term " Holy ", it appeared as early as 1157 (source : _Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Band 28. Pürstinger-Religionsphilosophie, Walter de Gruyter_ (1997) . ) 3. Now. While the Holy Roman Empire was the heir to imperial dignity, the continuator of the Western Empire... It was by no means the direct heir to the kingdom of the Franks. You really need to understand that what the vast majority of historians call the "Kingdom of France", i.e. the political entity resulting from the division of Verdun in 843, then the arrival of the Capetians in 987 was *OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED* by *EVERYONE* as the "Kingdom of the Franks". It was not the Capetians who decided to claim this title for themselves. This title was naturally and directly transferred to the western part of Charlemagne's Empire, since the eastern part had abandoned it. (source : _Féodalités, 888-1180_ (2010).) And that's where you have to understand that ethnicity doesn't really matter. I'll take the Byzantines as an example: they were Romans, but they were Greeks. So don't confuse Romanity with Latinity. In the same way, don't confuse Frankishity with Germanicity. So, the most objective conclusion would be this: the Holy Roman German Empire inherited the imperial dignity and the "heir to Rome" or "Universal Christian Empire" aspect that was Charlemagne's model of governance. However, the Kingdom of the Franks itself is closer, in terms of political ancestry, to the Kingdom of France.
the french people as we know them now did not exist back then the french are a mixed folk of germanic, celtic and romanic people. the franks were germanic and they did not only rule about france but also over big parts of europe and over other germanic tribes...
Not quite. A lot of French's vowel sounds - which are quite different (i.e. cover a much wider range of sounds) than other Romance languages - are a heritage from Franconian dialects from the early Middle Ages - so closer to "Low" German/Netherlandish dialects than to the (later) "High' German dialects.
@@thepretorian5292 French are taller than Germans as well as less fat and also get much more sunlight, yet they are indistinctive from one another via genetics and are of the same haplogroup even named Franco/German haplogroup
Normally, not too many people watch my videos, which is fine (I even think it's wild when 100 people take their time to watch something I created). This one tho kinda popped off. What makes me especially happy about it is the discussion it created - So many people have brought their own perspectives and views along, and to think that a video of mine was able to serve as a starting point for something like that makes me very glad I created it. Thanks, everybody for watching, thinking, and discussing that's what it's all about 🥰
If I’m correct, (correct me if not) The franks were a Germanic people living south of the rhine during Roman times, that migrated into Gaul during the fall of the western empire. They then developed a distinct cultural identity from other Germanic peoples, and named their land France, or Francia.
Yeah there is 2 big Frankish kingdoms frank salien (romanised with Clovis) they turn Christian and the other the frank Renan they stayed pagans and very German but they were swallowed by the « romanised Christian Frankish »empire at the end. Frank means free. France litteraly means the land of freeman very poetic indeed
Tous les pays ont été envahis, mais les gènes des gens ne changent pas avec le changement d'identité, et seuls certains d'entre eux s'y sont installés, pas comme ils les décrivent.
The franks considered themselves part of the "nationes theotiscae", the "dutch/deutsch nations" wich were believed to originate from scandanavia. They obviously considered themselves franks but also recognized that they were German(ic).
The Franks were once German, but slowly became French after years of intermixing and assimilatin with the Romans who outnumbered them. Charlemagne even had denarius minted of himself. He knew Latin, which is probably used the most since it was still a very universal language
great take! He led the Carolingian Renaissance, which tried to revive many ancient Roman qualities. Latin was also a formal language, but people were not speaking it anymore other than inside the clerus. When it comes to language, there was a lot of diversity during Charlemagne's reign!
@@sebe2255 true the Franconian dialect is still spoken today in many areas (I am just not certain how closely it resembles the 9th Century Old Franconian)
@@p0mp3y73Well Franconian languages are standard/official languages in some countries. As for how close it is, it is obviously difficult to say as there are very little written examples. One can only look at Germanic loanwords in French and at linguistic developments and then reverse engineer it. Regardless, just because a language changes, as it always does, doesn’t mean that they suddenly aren’t the modern form of Frankish. Modern reconstructions (which are of course not certain to be accurate) are definitely understandable as someone who is Dutch
I like the style of your videos. They're neither too long or too short, they feel like they have just enough amount of information to make the viewer familiar with the subject. And I like the humor you put here and there. You've got yourself a sub :)
Well, Franks were really Germanic tribe. Although they weren't straight ancestors of modern Germans, nor are they ancestors of French people, they were close relatives of those who were ancestors to modern German people. Basically, it's like comparing German shepherd and Poodle, both are descendants of wolfs, but German shepherd resembles wolfes more and it's easier for them to mate due to similar size.
I would say that from the people that were ruled by the Franks, people in the west were more Latinized whilst in the east the Germanic influence was more prominent. The French ruler themself had an interesting middle position as they were leaning more toward the Germanic side heritage-wise, but their high position and comparatively good education made them also able to understand Latin and adopt a more Romanized persona. hope you have a good day :)
I think it’s a real tragedy that Europeans focus so much on their differences over their shared history. Charlemagne isn’t the father of just France or just Germany, he’s the father of most of Western Europe.
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 Except that due to the Norman conquest the nobility were largely continental transplants and the legal code was heavily developed by Norman kings like Henry I and II. Like it's not as thorough and direct of an influence but I still think it's critical in the development of England.
@@aguy3082 Yes but culturally and genetically the Normans didn't really have an impact on the English identity. The biggest impact they made was to create a "norman French" Aristocracy with their own language and culture that was completely foreign and separate from the Anglo Saxon English. Even today the difference between the Aristocracy and the average English person is massive.
It's more accurate to say that both France and Germany have Franconian roots, as West Franconia formed France, East Franconia became the HRE, and they squabbled over what was Middle Franconia (Rhine valley to the low countries) for the next millennium.
The franks were germanic foreigners that assimilated into « french » culture… as such they were lot more « german » than french before they assimilated, and lot more « french » than german after they assimilated into latin culture and converted to catholicism.
3:04 High German consonant shift. Luther and Duden lived and worked in central Germany between the Benrater and Speyer lines. That is why High German is to be found in the middle of Germany. Further south there is another sound shift in the dialects that has not entered High German.
The Franks were not Germans nor French. They were just Franks. Germany and France are modern concept that came about centuries later and did not even exist at the time.
The Franks were neither German, nor French, nor Dutch. They were none of the three. They were a Germanic (not German) people whose legacy cannot be *exclusively* claimed by any three of these countries. Their legacy can be equally claimed by all the three nations since they left behind cultural and political impact on all these three countries.
Sure, but the Dutch are the most direct descendants of the Franks ethnically and linguistically. The French are obviously barely Frankish in that sense and the Germans are a mixed bag. Some west Germans mainly in NRW and Hesse are just as Frankish as the Dutch, but they have the problem that their modern identity is a merger of many Germanic tribes, whereas for the Dutch the Franks had some other influences but they were by far the most dominant group.
@@sebe2255 In the Netherlands, the Franks remained Franks and, with relatively little merger with other groups, evolved and contributed to the creation of the Dutch identity. Because Netherlands is a tiny nation with little diversity, obviously more Dutch people can trace their ethnic heritage back to the Franks. But that doesn't mean that only the Dutch are the only inheritors of the Frankish legacy. In Germany which is a much bigger region than the Netherlands, the Franks naturally merged with other Germanic peoples and became German. Obviously, compared to the Dutch, a much lesser number of Germans can trace their origins back to the Franks. But that definitely does *not* mean that Germany has no Frankish heritage at all, given the fact that East Francia (which became Holy Roman Empire) can trace its origins back to the division of Charlemagne's empire. In France which is also a much bigger region than the Netherlands, the Franks merged with the Gallo-Romans and became French. Obviously again, compared to the Dutch, a much lesser number of Frenchmen can trace their origins back to the Franks. But that definitely does *not* mean that France has no Frankish heritage at all, given the fact that West Francia (Which became France) can trace its origins back to the division of Charlemagne's empire and arguably even before that. So, ethnically speaking, the Dutch can definitely claim to be the "purest" descendants of the Franks with relatively very little "contamination" from other Germanic peoples and with no "contamination" from the Gallo-Romans. But in the greater scope of things, the ethnic contribution of the Franks to the Dutch are not as important as the political contribution of the Franks to France and Germany. It can be undoubtedly said that France and Germany have surpassed Netherlands in history. The Franks merging with other Germanic peoples in Germany and the Gallo-Romans in France was a good thing. After all, completely "pure" salt all by itself tastes disgusting. But it definitely tastes good if you sprinkle it sparingly on frog legs or sauerkrauts.
@@AlmurTaad-gq4fd I didn’t say Germany has no Frankish history. But you have to make it more specific. Certain German regions absolutely do. But as you say it is much more watered down with other Germanic groups, and the German identity as whole is not primarily derived from Frankish. In fact it started to develop after the Saxon take over of East Frankia. France has a political Frankish legacy but their ethnic and linguistic legacy is small. The last part is just weird. Calm down lol. The Dutch republic actually had a massive influence on history even after the Frankish Empire, mainly through economic developments and its rivalry with England. Also, the Luxemburgish are definitely on the same level as the Dutch in terms if their Frankish descent. But yes the Dutch are the most direct descendants of the Franks that weren’t absorbed into a larger identity (Germans) or just a political and historical legacy (France, especially Merovingian)
@@sebe2255 I guess we agree on everything except the part where you implicitly give the credit for the Frankish Empire to the Dutch and make the claim that the Dutch apparently had a "massive' influence. The Franks were definitely not Dutch as the Dutch identity would appear much much later. Also the Dutch didn't really have as huge an influence as its greater neighbors such as Germany or France. The Dutch simply never had the size nor the population to have as big an impact as France or Germany.
@@AlmurTaad-gq4fd I never said the 9th century Franks were Dutch lol, learn to read. The Dutch are just the descendants of the 9th century Franks with a modern identity The Dutch influence I mentioned is in the 17th century when their identity absolutely did exist, and when the Dutch Republic had a significant global impact on trade, the development of early capitalism and its colonial ventures
Do you have sources? most sources claim that Charlemagne spoke Ripuarian Frankish, from the rhinelands, and the Old Dutch you refer was part of the Salian Franks, a different division of Franks. Thank you : )
The division is fairly arbitrary as standard languages didn’t exist so it would have been a local dialect anyway. Given that his family was from Herstal or Liege and that he preferred to live in Aachen (which wasn’t actually an official capital as is often said) it is likely he spoke the ancestor to today’s Limburgish
Ou alors on peut simplement aussi considérer que ca fait partie de notre histoire commune 🇫🇷❤️🇩🇪 On est pas les mêmes mais on a eu les mêmes dirigeants et les mêmes guerres, d'ailleurs Français, Allemands et Italiens sont des cultures et des peuples extrêmement proches sur bien des points
The french are not franks, The northern french are gauls with a small admixture of franks from the Netherlands, the southwestern french are mostly basques with an admixture of goths and gauls, in Burgundy they were mostly gauls and some goths(Burgundians) And Marseille is gauls with some greeks And the alcasians are predominantly allemanni like the swiss, -as opposed to Germans whom in french are called allemands but are Actually many tribes such as saxons, swabians, bavarians and germanized polabian slavs and baltic prussians, the allemanni were just the ones the french had direct access to by walking- The bretons are predominantly welsh, and the normans are mixed with Norwegian men,
By your logic lower saxony was not german 'til after WW2, when "Plattdeutsch" became rarer than high german in the region. The Franks were to the french as the Normans were to the English and possibly Europeans to the rest of the world. Language-wise "continental west germanic" can be a stand-in for german, for most of time, dutch was just a german dialect and frankish is no different.
Continental west Germanic is more specific and accurate than German as a linguistic term. German as an identity or concept didn’t exist at all before the 10th century, but last I checked the Franks, Saxons, Bavarians and all other Germanic tribes did actually have the ability to speak before that identity started to form
@@sebe2255 Germans(cwg-speakers) have been using "wendisch" to distinguish themselves from Slavs since at least 660 CE, and "welsch" for Celts and Romans is even more ancient and can also mean "foreigner" and "wrong" The Romans distinguished between Celts, Germans and Scythians. Charlemagne is as much not-german as Hitler is, and the same way as the Thirteen Colonies and Texas were, and Canada is, not-American (that is; these things are not meaningfully different, you have to nitpick hard)
@@perverse_ince What does Wendish have to do with any of this? Charlemagne literally cannot have been German as German identity did not exist. It is nationalism inspired anachronism You are just simply wrong, and West Germanic (a linguistic term) is just more accurate than German (an identity)
@@sebe2255 They used these terms to distinguish themself from those around them; us cwg-speakers vs these two different groups of people who can't talk properly. They had a distinct shared Identity that existed before: 1. old high german emerged 2. they were called thiudisc 3. before the east frankish kingdom existed And the Franks were part of that group. (And the difference is not only linguistic, but also in material culture, religion and common customs and means of warfare) German Identity precedes the term itself, as well as the creation of its own unified polity and the northern third of germany did not experience the vowel shift until the last century, so that is obviously not a necessary component.
@@perverse_ince That doesn’t mean they had a common identity, that could also mean their languages are similar. Luckily we know that the German identity literally did not exist until the 10th century These tribes absolutely had no shared identity in the 4th century lol, this is just nationalist rewriting of history
I even will not look : there weren't french nor german. The Salian were allmost sure descend of Eburon military, themselves descend of Ambrones. The salian frankish prayers of 743 are to me still easy to understand ( Brabant), but I don't know what were the attributes of Saxonoot ( God). The renan frankish were several tribes, the tongue gave the Platt ( from Plombières/Bleiburg north of Liège, to Moselle, "Lorraine Germanique" in france. German is a lot more recent. And french even not a roman language of the beginning, as were the tongueS "langues d'Oil " ( without ¨: Oil, "oall" means yes, well, okay, too ) or "langues d'Oc" ( Ok means well, okay, too) : OOK in Salian ( Dutch), Auch in German.
Franks where germanic neither french nor Germans existed at this time the Franks would become the french and the Rest germanic tribes Germans or austrians some even Italian.
Not true, Franks would become Dutch, some Germans and Luxemburgish. Those that moved were assimilated into the Gallo-Roman culture eventually, but most of them weren’t
I think you can start France and Germany a bit earlier than 987 and 919 and trace it back to the struggle between Charles the Bald and Louis the German. The treaty of Verdun in 843 basically.
Since the video's just continuously getting recommended to me: The easiest answer would be the Franks were Germanic, the kingdom they created was multiethnic & the states it broke appart into became everything from France to Austria. It could be a nice tale to serve as a rallying ground for unity in central europe, but from experience that's unlikely as since the 18th century French imperialists & later also nazis in France to this day have had a tendency to deny the germanic-multiethnic-ness part on one hand & openly hallucinate the map of the Franks as a Hearts of Iron 4 military expansion goal in irl politics...
How would a 9th century Empire function as a unifying legacy for modern Europeans? Seems far fetched to me. Yes while certain states derive from the Frankish Empire, their descendants in terms of the original ethnic group and not statehood are the Dutch, some West Germans (NRW, Hesse) Luxemburgish and some northern French people (very limited). With the Dutch and Luxemburgish being the only ones where the Franks were the absolute dominant group in determining their modern identity
@@sebe2255 Well people did not care most likely, but this "Roman" Empire as always been a goal for rulers in Europe, Carolingian Empire, HRE, and French Empire. And for the last one it is not that old.
French is not an ethnicity such aa scandinavs, germanics, iberiques, slavics.... The franks where germanic tride from actual belgium and founded a kingdom wearing their tribes name. Thats how you end with France.
@@flamma_larnaque as if that doesn't count for the Germans or the French. Modern nations as such only originated in the 19th century. That's true for the French, Germanic, and Dutch. By the time Clovis came to power, most of present day France or Germany wasn't part of the kingdom so mixing with other Germanic tribes or with the Gaulish hadn't started yet. Yet, most of the low countries WAS part of it so yeah... I still hold on to my theory :)
@@flamma_larnaque The Netherlands overall stayed relatively homogenous, even after the Migration Period. The only large migration of that period is the replacement of the Frisii from the Roman period with Angles, Jutes and Saxons who became the later Frisians. The Franks went on a path of conquest towards Gaul, but a big amount of them still stayed in the Netherlands and Belgium.
Alright, as an american, having studied this time period in a few classes in college, there seems to be 3 storylines/bias if you try and boil it down to most primary sources. English bias ppl say its like the franks were germanics ruling over french peasants, french bias people say it was germanics turning into gallo romans before rome falls, german sources bias is its a regional population replacement. And then apparently if you can read dutch they just say "yea that was us"
not really, as a dutch guy we learned about the frankish empire as foreigners. They forced the frisians to convert and weren't generally seen as dutch, we more drag our history back to batavians, who were part of the franks but only them and also the frisians who weren't part of the franks. but I'd be down to call that empire dutch, wouldn't suck to have one of the biggest western european empires be dutch yk!
@@ysbranddI remember that too from history class which is strange becuase the Frisians and Saxons only were a part of what would become the present-day inhabitants of the Low Countries. Like where do they think the Dutch and their language come from? Why did they never teach us that? Always talking about the Franks like they were foreigners entering our lands even though a large part of them come from here.
@@ysbranddLike they want to diminish our history or something, probably a result of the second world war tbh. Wanting to distance ourselves from our Germanic heritage and not wanting to give us any feelings of grandiosity.
Some of my family come from the southwest of France, an area fairly distinct from the Franks, however some of the surnames suggest ancestors from the north so I guess it's a mix.
German naturally ! the French might be french but the Franks will always stay german ! originating in Germania, spoke a north-german language related to dutch (which is the english term for duits or deutsch and basically a low german dialect), had german customs, art and their early kings unroman long hair, ergo Germans !
Germania was a ROMAN catch all term and a Roman concept. The "germanians" at the time didn't see themselves as such, as Ariovistus, Segestes and other recorded figures of the period show. There was at most a sense of shared kinship between the Visigoths and Ostrogoths but that was because they were both Goths. Germans only started to see themselves as such because they were otherized as such by the Romans and their successor states, which the Germanic states of Western Europe sought so desperately to emulate.
@@gustavoritter7321 kind of and the native name would be some ancient version of deutsch it first appears in the records with the "tribe" of the Teutoni and their leader Teutobod (a bod(o) is a ruler so to speak), continuing with other Teu/Theu/Theo-names of famous germanic kings, various gothic ones included , before it was finally recorded as theodisc for the whole ethnicity in early medieval sources this forms the base for modern deutsch/duits/dutch/tysk/tedesci etc the mythological and deified forefather of the Germans is called Tuisto in the dialect that Tacitus encountered - so theodisc/deutsch means "people of Tuisto" rather than the "of the people"-interpretation favored by most people today but them still all "Germans" and the Francs defo belonged to them ....the modern french name Thierry is crippled form of Theuderic (rics/riks/rix/rex means king in indogermanic tongues - Theude = Germans and rik = king), a name given to a few frankish kings....
@@thibaultsardet7399 dat moakt keen al to grote Ünnersched ün was her altied in Gronde de sülve Toalen, genoamt Plattdüttsch ! de westligge tweyg ward to de nedderlandse Sproak ün de oostligge tom Plattdütschen or *Low German*
Excuse me? The Franks were a Germaic tribe, therefore ancestors of the Germans at source, and partially of the French (were the name also comes from - "Frankreich", meaning "das Reich der Franken" or in English "empire of the Franks"). To be frank;-)
The Franks were Dutch. The Dutch language spoken in the western and southern Netherlands is Low Franconian (Limburgish language as well). The regional language of East NL is Low Saxon, and then there is also Frisian of course. Both are influenced by Dutch for centuries though, but very much different in phonology, grammar and vocabulary still.
language is not really a good way to determine heritage, or you can call the Normans French, which is against everything the English believe XD When a people conquers and settle in a land they do switch language over time, they are the minority after all. Vikings adapted to French in Normandy Normans adapted to English in England, especially after they got kicked out of France the first time when the ruling class rely on its influence on locals (who speak a diff language) to stay in power then they adapts their language over time, when they rely on power from a metropole (such as Colonial Empires) then it's the reverse and the local population starts adapting. that is all to say that the franks are not even home to the Germanic region they were a foreign people who migrated and conquered the lands near the Rhineland during the time of the roman empire, who later separated in 2 on each side of the rhine with Clovis from the western side forming the Frankish kingdom.
Yes, good video, but the thing that I remember about this one, is that the word "franckish" sounds oddly as "freeeench", so Charlemagne is french. And even, I think he would prefer have the name "Charlemagne" than "KARL DER GROßE", just for him. (I'm just kidding, I know after the carolagian empire division, the Germany was named Eastern France and the currently France was named Western France)
I feel like when people say were these people German they are referring to Germanic rather than German. So they were Germanic, and had Latin speaking subject that also had Celtic ancestry.
Even before Pepin the Short deposed the last Merovingian king, the Carolingian branch was growing in power under his father Charles the Hammer, who defeated the Moslems at Tours. That Merovingian king got put in a monastery where everyone's hair was tonsured. (Was he grateful that his life got spared?)
@@sebe2255 I'm from east Limburg (BE) and I can honestly say I hate how Flanders and NL act like we've been part of them forever while we've had CENTURIES of history around the Meuse-Rhine rivers where our focus was on the cities of Maastricht, Aachen, Köln & Liège long before we've had anything to do with Bruges, Brussels, Amsterdam or whatever. The wordt part is that both Flanders and NL seem to disregard our history before the province of Limburg was created in the 19th century. Yes the province was created back then, doesn't mean they should disregared the important history the region was part of.
@@Lalita_Luna you are right we shouldn't label the past with modern terms of identification that didn't apply - I just wanted to figure out in this video for which national developement the franks were more important ^^
The Franks are with the Gauls, the ancestors of the French. But the Germans are not descended from the Franks but from many other Germanic tribes. The Franks created the Kingdom of the Franks, which gave rise to the Empire of the Franks, then which gave Eastern France. The original part of the kingdom of the Franks gave France. So historically, it was France that created Germany. The history of France is older than that of Germany.
@@sebe2255 The Kingdom of Franks is the same Kingdom of France. If nowaday we say Kingdom of France instead of Kingdom of Franks it’s because in the 12th century, a king (Philippe Auguste) changed the name. That’s all. But the Kingdom of Franks, which capital was Paris and was established on the same area, is the same former kingdom of France.
@@GeoPolitique. No they aren''t the same. And both Germany and France come from the Frankish Empire, as just one of the many Frankish kingdoms that were created as a result of the Frankish succession system. During the Merovingian period there were many Frankish kingdoms in Gaul, and you can't say that the latest one (West Francia) is the original, they aren't the same
@@sebe2255 In my point of view you're wrong. The kingdom of France comes directly from the kingdom of the Franks. The Frankish administration before the creation of the Empire is the same after its disappearance. Since Clovis the kings of the Franks were buried in Saint-Denis. And nothing changed after the Empire disappeared. The kingdom of the Franks just changed its name to the kingdom of France. The kingdom of France, western France, has its origins in the kingdoms of the Franks *before the Empire* . But for Germany, before the invasion of the kingdom of the Franks which is the ancestor of France, there was no political administration, nothing. It was the Empire of the Franks at its division that created Germany. But France already existed in the form of the kingdom of the Franks. The kingdom of the Franks evolved into the kingdom of France. This last sentence sums up my whole point.
You can say both but you can't say none. The franks were germanic tribes mostly from benelux and germany. Under the merovigian dynasty they conquered most of France and mixed with the gallo-roman population which is still the people of France today. Charlemagne became emperor 3 centuries later, his kingdom at fisrt was mostly France and Benelux. He spent his life conquering Germany and Italy that's why he was nicknamed the butcher of the saxons. The frankish kingdoms/empire heart was France, France litteraly means the land of the franks, or in german Frankreich : empire of the franks French and Frank is the same, it's just the evolution of language, people try to find a difference with a specific date, there are 3 main ones : - 843 when the carolingian empire was split, but it was common for the franks to do it and they still ruled over all of the empire - 987 when the capetian dynasty took over, but it wasn't the first time a new dynasty came to power (merovingian -> carolingian), most countries have seen dynasties changes and Robertians (the same house as Capetians, Robert 1st was the father of the father of Hugh Capet) had already been kings before - 1204 when Philip 2nd changed his title of king of the franks to king of France (which as I mentioned earlier means king of the land of the franks), so not a very good choice To sumerize, of course the french can fully claim the frankish heritage, as the benelux for being their origin, but Germany and also Italy are child of the frankish empire as Spain, France and others are child of the roman empire but the true father is Italy. They can claim their heritage of course, like Germany claims Charlemagne heritage but not the merovigian one unlike France So my final answer would be french are mostly franks but germans are too.
But the French are mostly not Frankish though, because Frankish settlement in Gaul was limited, and they had almost no majorities (with the exception of a few small regions in the north where they already lived) So no French and Franks definitely aren’t the same
@@sebe2255 You're probably right on the blood percentage between gallo-roman and the germanic tribes before the fall of the roman empire. But what I mean is after Clovis conquests there was no real major demographic changes in the population of France, the mix of the gall-romans and franks is the last major thing they had. And when Charlemagne came t opower what was called a frank is this mix, so by that definition the franks more gallo-roman than frank if you want. It's like the romans, at first it means the people from the city of Rome but after their conquest it was the people from all of Italy and then as the empire grow it was the people of all the empire. But if you pick a random roman at the peak of the roman empire he would probably have no or a low percentage of blood from the original romans (from the city of Rome) still he will be called a roman.
@@volcanares9620That is only if you extrapolate Frank to mean anyone from the Frankish Empire. Allemanic Germanic people in southern and western Germany didn’t become Franks even though they were a part of the Frankish Empire for about as long as Gaul. By the same token a person from Provence or Aquitaine wouldn’t have said they were Frankish either, certainly not immediately after Clovis’ invadion. Gregory of Tours clearly makes a distinction between the Franks who rule in Gaul and the Gallo-Roman population. So I don’t think this extrapolation applies. Rome is slightly different in that they had a citizenship system, making everyone who is a citizen a Roman. But the post roman medieval states didn’t apply this. They’d often have laws for their own people, actual Franks, and laws for thwir subjects. And if you want to go by what foreigners called them, Arabs and Byzantines called everyone from western europe a Frank simply because they were the most relevant early empire they interacted with in the West, but again that doesn’t actually make everyone Frankish
@@volcanares9620 I mean they wouldn’t necessarily be. The people themselves would have seen the distinction (as they did in the primary sources we have) and the Franks would have seen the distinction too. They would have been subjects of Franks, but not Franks themselves. And that even applied to the preexisting Gallo-Roman elite, not even just the peasantry
“They were neither, German or French. They were Frankish.” In Germany, there is a region called “Rheinfranken”. It roughly fits with the area where the old Franks lived. If you ask a Rheinfranken, he will say he is feeling Frankish and of course German, too. Does that mean ... ?
Lol have you ever personally asked every Rheinfranken what he/she feels? Even then, that is not how actual experts would approach the issue. They would not go around asking what a modern inhabitant of Rheinfranken "feels" in order to determine who the Franks were 13 centuries ago.
@@frankishempire2322 Gaul doesn't exactly equate to modern day France. And my point was just that basing yourself on names was silly, obviously the OG franks don't come from what is today France. I'd add though, that the rhenan franks are not the ones who built an empire, that was the salian franks aka the "proto-dutch" ones. They were much more romanized and interested in the affairs of the empire than their ripuarian counterparts.
Were the Frank’s German or French? To be frank with you there neither as the concept of a German identity and a French identity really didn’t exist from the franks language and a tribal identity Some integrated with Latin speaking people forming the French language, others integrated with the people in the low areas for the Dutch language others stay in regions that eventually became Germany
They were one of the germanic tribes. But starting with their noble class they romanized themselves. Its not german or french, its both. Depending at which time. And that makes us germans and frenchmen brothers. Glad that after centuries of wars we grew up to become the friends we should be. 💪
It is good to see someone on UA-cam acknowledge that anachronisms like "Were X people like X" or "Our people are direct descendent of X" are kind of silly in a academic sense. Like those people were their own people and you probably would struggle to recognized them as your own people if you spoke to them somehow.
Yes the cultural differences would be staggering but if the claim of a link is mostly based on descent, why wouldn't it be valid to claim "Our people are direct descendent of X" ? Why is that silly ?
@@alienmode-s Because it means there is some direct unbroken chain between their modern culture and that ancient culture. Which is kind of crazy since it means there is a actual culture link between cultures that didn't even worship the same gods let alone speak a mutually intelligible language. Like yea their related and probably descendent at some point from those people. But to think that x people is their people but just back then is crazy. Like yea I'm probably vaguely descendent from the Visigoths if you go far back enough down my ancestry. But I'm not going to make that a part of my identity let alone a part of my country's entire identity like the Nazis might have.
@@DanVegas27 There doesn't necessarily have to be cultural links between one's ancestors and oneself for their to be a link, like if my dad grew up in some uncontacted tribe and i grew up in Germany, we'll share probably nothing in common culturally but he's still my Dad, my ancestor, nothing will change that. That's the link people talk about there's nothing gray or silly here in muh academic circles. So yeah, if culture is set aside it is "their people but just back then", that's how ancestry works. If you don't want to make that part of your identity that's fine but not everyone who does is a Nazi, most of the world thinks like this
On the contrary, the entire purpose of research and "academia" is to provide the most definitive answers possible using the most rigorous methods possible. In this case the genetic, cultural and geographic evidence is irrefutable, the "French" are "Germans" in all but language, as is virtually every "Nobel House"/Royal Family in all of Europe. That's not a "coincidence".
In term of political entity, France is still the true heir of the franks. For a long time the kingdom wouldnt even be named France, but kingdom of the Franks, it is Philippe Auguste in 1165 who would take the title "king of France" instead of king of the franks.
What does political entity even mean? Sure their state exists because of the Franks, but all Frankish elements are goneZ whereas other peoples still speak the modern descendant of Frankish, and are mostly ethnically still Frankish. Political continuity is interesting for sure, but also seems vague and sometimes meaningless when there is little left of the original people that founded it
That's kind of a dodge, frankly (pun intended). You can say the Franks weren't German because modern Germany didn't exist yet, but I think that's a given. What the Franks were, without a doubt, is Germanic. The conquered people of what became "France" (the lower classes, who were not Frankish) were not Germanic. It's as simple as that. A deeper question is to ask what became of the Franks. In that case, the ones in the eastern part of their kingdom (which is now in Germany, Netherlands, and northern Belgium) remained Germanic. Those in what is now France over time mixed with the non-Germanic locals (less in northern and eastern France, more in central and southern France). They also began speaking the Latin dialect that would become "French." Ethnically there may not be a sharp distinction from one side of the border to the other, but culturally/linguistically there is.
Oui mais tu oubli que la langue officielle des royaume mérovingien, carolingien, Capétiens francs été le latin donc finalement le latin et leurs cultures et la toujours été 😉
Dutch is Frankish, and the modern Dutch language is a direct descendent, uninfluenced by High German sound shifts, of the Frankish language from the Merovingian and Carolingian ages. it's kind of sarcastic that in modern days, it is the people of the German region of Franconia that retained the "Frank" name and identity, being heavily influenced by its High German neighbors, while the Dutch people who are the most Frankish Franks, do not.
@@ignatiusqi9736 The same goes for the French, the Franken region also got its name through the Frankish conquest of the region, not because of any Frankish origins
No they came to control the Batavians, but what actually happened to the Batavians is unclear. They either moved south or were absorbed into the Franks, who as the video said were a confederation of earlier tribes anyway
Like Sean said, we don't know that happened exactly to the Batavians, but they were probably only one of the many tribes that became part of the Salian tribal confederacy.
the dutch developed qiute late as a own nation for along time they were considered german. both dutch and germans are of germanic origin and both terms did not exist back then.
for me the francs are of dutch origins but laid the first stone of france with clovis in 496! and ruled the entire territory of Gaul for several centuries, they are at the base of France so yes Charlemagne and a historical figure and monarch in the history of France! the francs became the French thereafter! besides the germans call france frankreich!!
@@roms4154 Charlemagne is the worst possible example for this because he wasn’t even from what is now France nor were his family’s core lands. He is much less a French figure than the Merovingians (and all of them obviously weren’t actually French but are more tied to the region that is now France).
I am French and from a very young age I was taught that this is a common history between France and Germany, and therefore today's French see themselves as Germanic people rather than Latin.
IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT PART OF FRANCE THEY ARE FROM. THE FRENCH LANGUAGE HAS A LOT OF LATIN WORDS AND THE PEOPLE THERE ARE ALSO MIXED WITH THE ROMANS, WHO WERE LATIN PEOPLE. FRENCH PEOPLE ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE GERMANS. THE FRENCH ARE ALWAYS KNOWN TO BE FIRERY HOT TEMPERED AND EMOTIONALLY, VERY PASSIONATE, UNLIKE THE GERMANS. A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF FRENCH PEOPLE HAVE IBERIAN DNA IN THEM. THE SOUTHERN FRENCH PEOPLE LOOK VERY MEDITERRANEAN AND HAVE A DARK COMPLEXION SO YOU CAN'T REALLY SAY THAT THEY ARE MAINLY GERMANIC PEOPLE. FRANCE IS A VERY LARGE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE THERE, ARE VERY DIFFERENT, TO EACH OTHER, IN DIFFERENT REGIONS OF FRANCE.
YES, ESPECIALLY, IN BRITTANY, NORTHERN FRANCE. THEY'RE CELTIC. IT'S THE SAME IN BRITAIN AND SPAIN WHICH IS ALSO A MIXTURE OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT ANCIENT TRIBES.
Well well well … The Franks were clearly French or maybe a little bit West German if you consider that modern Germany is basically Prussia. That’s why France is called « FRANKreich » (empire of the franks) and not « westfrankland » in German, whereas Germany is called « Allemagne » (land of the alamans) in French, because the franks settled west of Rhine whereas the alamans stayed on the east bank of the Rhine. Moreover, if you look a little forward during the crusades era, even if most of Western Europe took part in it, it was mostly French & Angevines people (former British who were mostly French nobles of normandy or Anjou) or people from the western part of the Holy Roman Empire (Lorraine duchy, Flanders…) who were called by the Arabs …. *drump noise* the FRANJ, not Normands or Germans, because yes franks became the early French whereas their legacy was never uphold in Germany or Austria. It has basically no sens to say that the former Franks are originated from west Germany/Belgium, because with the same argument we may say that Lombards (northern Italian) are also Germans, Anglo-Saxon also, Spaniards & Portuguese are western Goths and Suevic heirs so also Germans … we may even say that Algerians and Tunisians have some vandalic legacy so they may also claim a part of their German heritage… The Merovingian dynasty was clearly not a German tribe anymore which clearly led, with the carolingians then the Capetians to France, whereas Germany originated from Prussia (and not western german kingdoms) which is not frank-French related.
As a catholic Bavarian I feel personally offended to be claimed to be basically Prussian. We never adopted their language and culture, were always loyal to the pope, had closer relationships with Paris than we had with Berlin and were forced into the German empire because they defeated us in war. Up to today in Bavaria calling someone a Prussian is an insult. They don't even understand our language!!!
@@helgaioannidis9365 yes, Bavaria & Rheinland are what I called « west Germany » and indeed they have a Frankish heritage. However, modern day Germany is in full a Prussian successor state. No centralisation, a deep Protestant culture overall (few state intervention, high emphasis on individualism) which denotes with the fact that franks were the shield & sword of nicean Catholicism since 496 AD in Western Europe. Franks were neither French nor German, indeed as neither France nor Germany existed as this period. But French are franks heirs whereas Germans are not (I’m not speaking of regional specificities : Brittany in France is Celtic and not Frankish, however France as a whole is Frankish and not Celtic)
@@huguesfalk5956 you seem to be misinformed about a few things: 1) Prussia was based on a centralised system, not federal. Modern Germany being a federal state is the result of the Holy Roman Empire, not the Prussians and of the idea of the USA, that a federal system introduces better checks and balances to avoid another dictatorship. 2) modern German politics do intervene a lot, hence the horrible amount of bureaucracy and useless regulations. They are also focused on solidarity with a very broad and solid social welfare system, obligatory insurances and special protection of marriage, family, mothers and minorities. Modern Germany is not individualistic. Specifically Bavaria even still shows some tribal culture, which makes Bavaria in fact a constant trouble maker in German inner politics. 3) Bavaria isn't located in the West of Germany, it's in the southeastern part of Germany, bordering Austria and the Czech Republic. You're probably confusing Bavaria with the Alemannic parts of Germany (fun fact, Alemannic people are heavily influenced by protestant believes, contrary to Bavarians, who are typically very catholic people). 4) the biggest parts of Bavaria don't have a Frankish heritage, people there are culturally and linguistically Bavarians, just like most Austrians. 5) the Frankish part of Bavaria is located in the northwest of Bavaria and it's pretty small. It's a protestant area and they insist on specifying that they are not Bavarians. They just ended up becoming part of the state of Bavaria due to geopolitical developments, but culturally actually are very different.
@@helgaioannidis9365 1) modern Germany was of course impacted by ww2 and then division/re-unification post 1989. However, as a German you should know that before 1918, the German empire, led by Prussia, which gave to Germany it’s modern face post the victory of 1870 was a state led by Berlin of course (following the French system of strong state rule by its core) but deeply federal with the former kingdoms still existing within it. Which led to « regional » armies disruption during ww1 (the Bavarian army for instance not supported at the right time by the Prussian corps in summer 1914) 2) I do not doubt that, such as France, Germany may suffer from an important bureaucracy. It has become an European trend. However, you are not ready to face the French bureaucracy, believe me. After Soviet & Chinese one, I guess we are among « the best » (it’s ironic) 3) I perfectly know where Bavaria is. That’s why I quoted it with Rheinland and not eluded it. However, could you state that Bavaria is culturally closer to Prussia (eastern fringe of Germany) ? Not at all, that’s why I put it with west-Germany // Rheinland. The same way I would put centre-val d’Europe loire (central France south of Paris) with northern France because those 2 regions belongs to « langue d’oïl » (Germanic French) unlike the south which is « langue d’oc » (Latin French) even if centre val de Loire may be closer to some south French region. 4) Austria : well well well. How do we call it in German ? « Osterreich » empire of the east. Have you ever heard of the eastern marches of the Frankish empire ? The first bulwark in front of the avars then Magyars :p ? As a Bavarian/ Austrian you’re are much more related to a possible frankish heritage than a Berliner or even a Hanoverian, how small it may be.
The question doesn't make sense as neither the notion of Germans nor the notion of French existed. They were a germanic tribe who settled in Gaul during the fall of the Roman Empire, converted to christianity and mixed with the local population, who were already mixed between celts and latins.
German and french history is inter twined and shouldn't be set apart. Charlemagne is both German and french historical figure because bith identities were linked at the time. France wasn't yet an established entity
Franks were Germanics ruling over Celtics, and all of them were larping as Romans.
true
It's much more complicated, by the Vth century the term no longer had a ethnic sense.
Over 400 years between the arrival of the Franks and Charlemagne, some Gallic elite became nobles, some learned Frankish, some Franks lost their nobility.
Without counting the very contrasted situation between regions.
(Moreover the Franks weren't the only Germanic tribe that settled in Gallia, think about the Burgundians for instance ;))
I would argue less than 400 years. The integration between some Gallic elites and frankish elites were near basically instantaneous as some Gallic elites chose to ally with the Frankish invaders playing a crucial role in Clovis' success. An example of this was Aurelianus, Duke of Melun; he was a Gallo-Roman elite who became chief advisor to Clovis after he defected to the side of Clovis upon the defeat of the Romans and their allies at the battle of Soissons in 486.
@@tonyhawk94 modern day French people are still overwhelmingly Gallic by blood though, with no significant change to the French gene pool since the arrival of Celtic peoples in the Bronze Age. Furthermore, modern French people cluster directly on top of Bronze Age Gallic burial sites in PCA, to see the data I'm talking about I'd look at the study "Origin and mobility of Iron Age Gaulish groups in present-day France revealed through archaeogenomics" (Fischer et al 2022). There has certainly been a lot of cultural influence (especially linguistic) from Germany and Rome, but by blood France has changed precious little since the time of the Bell Beakers.
@@MorganCunningham-w6d Nobody says the contrary buddy, however saying "the Franks were a Germanic group ruling over Celts" is simply not true as I explained before. :)
Me: Are you German or French?
Frankish person: Yes.
It seems to me they knew they were Romans but lacked the legitimacy of state to call themselves. .....
*yesn't
I hope we can become Frankish once more.
Exactly! they were both without knowing the future yet.
*Dutch
They originated from Germany, they spoke an early version of dutch, their core terretory is Belgium, and most of their empire consisted of France, who was also named after them. Ye this shit isn't confusing at all
Ambrons came with the Cimbers, but remained in Ambrovarium (Amiens) with the rearguard, when the Cimbers went to conquer Rome...but got defeated. The military king of the Eburones is Ambiorix.... There was another King, judge and priest. Most logig is that the "later" Eburons, to protect themselves against other germanics, did hire those Ambrons...
The hypotheses Celtic Ber /ver is non-sense, because it is a general proto-indoeuropean root of all what is related to male , fight, the right to speak ... ( word, woord , verbe, veritas, waarheid, vérité, vir, verrat, beer behr, varon, baron etc etc etc - war, oorlog, embrouille, heir, heer, herr, heerzoon = garçon, .... etc etc...)... Older than Celtic, common rootword.
The social culture of Eburons was Celtic, the tongue Germanic and different of the Ripuarian ; Bron/braine is Eburon/Nervian, Bruoc, Broek is Salian...
So , the Salian is still the Dutch... The Ripuarian gave Platt. ( Platdiets), German is close to Ripuarian ( deuten diets, make undersTOOD ...TEUTonen, DEUTCH). But we have still beduiden, duidelijk , iets diets maken,... Lieden ( Leute in German), those who do understand.
So the Ambrons came from northern Germany about at - 200...
They originated in the modern Netherlands lol.
They spoke an early version of what became German and Dutch.
They did NOT. They originated from germania which was roughly the region where the germanic people lived, they spoke an old germanic dialect which may have evolved into dutch with time, and then they conquered gaul which eventually as they settled was named after them as time went on. If you think this is confusing, stop watching videos about history altogether because you're just not ready.
@@me67galaxylife not 'may have evolved', it evolved into Dutch. No ifs and buts.
So they originated in the Low Countries and spoke an Old Dutch language, while having many Latin-speaking subjects.
I think we can say they’re clearly Belgian 😂
Belgium is the True Heir to the Carolingian Empire !
Middle Francia was a stupid state and everyone knows it!
Belgium is not a countrie sorry
That is completely false. So far we could say that they originated from a far larger region. They did not speak an old Dutch language but a number of dialects of Frankish. The number of Latin speaking subjects is difficult to number but of course it was rising after the defeat of the huns. But until Carolus Magnus there were many others. It is safe to say that the choice of Latin as a "lingua franka" - funny how that word gives it away - was due to the usefulness of the catholic church for the empire.I think the situation in Belgium with the languages is more like a tiny model with less languages involved.
While it's a controversial take, it might be an interesting one. When the Merovigians helped the Romans against the Huns during the battle of the Catalaunic plains, the Roman concluded a Foedus (contract of vassalization) with them. This Foedus made the Franks official governors of a part of the Roman Empire, the Northern province of Gaul, or, as it was called by the Romans, Gallia Belgica.
Arguably you could say the Franks were Southern Dutch aka Belgium and south of the modern Netherlands, that culturally still are pretty close. The Franks' main heartland (especially of the Salian Franks who unified all the seperate tribes) was in that region for a LONG time after the Romans left, the Belgians and the Dutch speak a direct descendant of their language, and they basically laid the foundation of the feudal system and the introduction of christianity in the region, as well as the foundation for the trading/merchant background the Dutch and Flemish still have to this day. Aachen, Cologne and other cities, by the way, are still considered to be technically part of the Low Countries but were not able to be brought into the modern nations of Belgium and the Netherlands.
Except the dutch didn't even exist back then? You're really special. There seriously are too many people with braindamage giving their 2 cents on this topic. If anything then the dutch are frankish, not the other way around... smh
Saxons.
@@SchmulKrieger True. The Saxons infact did move into the Lowlands and settled there to some degree. Especially into the territory of todays Netherlands.
The salian franks were souther dutchies but the ripuarian franks were western germans from nrw. And karl was a ripuarian frank
"the Belgians and the Dutch speak a direct descendant of their language"... "the Flemish and the Dutch speak a direct descendant of their language" would be more accurate, as 40% of the Belgian population are French speakers.
So, you're saying that, as Charlemagne / Karel die Große / Karel de Grote spoke an early form of proto-dutch, he really properly belongs to the Dutch, and thus the Netherlands has a historical duty to restore their 1.000 year old state, to regather their ancesteral lands, to bring peace, justice and prosperity to their old empire?
Damm, we made a mistake in going for Indonesia, we should just have conquered Europe.
well, we did help found the EU together with the Belgiums, Luxembourg, France, Italy and Germany. So I guess in the end it all worked out fine.
Indeed the Dutch are the true successors of Charlemagne. Charlemagne was a certified Dutch man who ruled also over barbarian Germans/Gauls and lazy Latins. Its no coincidence that the lost kingdom of Lotharingia was given to his favourite son as the true hair of the Frankish empire. That despite its wealth was destroyed due to geographic inconveniences. Despite of this the people of Lotharingia tried against all odds to re-establish the Imperium. Such was the Burgundian (Not the heretic Aryan SS version) attempt that was lost due to those pesky tax evading Swiss...
Realising their weaknesses Lotharingia has influenced the concert of Europe and after centuries and 2 world wars where both France and Germany were humiliatingly defeated. The oppressors and the fake hairs were finally weak enough to fall to Lotharingias trap and form the steal and coal community notably including Lotharingia in its centre and Lotharingian city as its capital. Said community will eventually become the EU ruled from Brussels (Lotharingia).
This is a warning for all of You the EU is a Lotharingian conspiracy to re-establish the Lotharingian Imperium and rule all of Europe!!! While the Germans and French think they got the power Lotharingia runs supreme.
@@seanchernov7178
I'm not sure if I should laugh, cry, cry while laughing, or cringe because i've read conspiracy theories about as unhinged as this one that people actually believe in.
Still, using the EU to rule all of Europe, instead of wars of conquest using that most terrible of weapons: bureaucracy. Truly a plot worthy of the Heirs of Karel
As a German, I would be totally fine with the Netherlands conquering all of europe
@@freddy4371 they are just low-germans after all.
@@delfinenteddyson9865 Beaver germans as I like to call them
The Nazis didn’t necessarily lay claim to Charlemagne or the Franks. The name of the SS division from France was SS Charlemagne. Clearly they thought of Charlemagne as a French historical figure.
The Nazis didn't like Charlemagne for their own ideological reasons.
Or as part of German history in France, could be either one. Though it's peculiar how only the French,Hungarian and Kosovan ss divisions were named after historical figures ,other than the German ones ofc.
@@erichamilton3373 Were the other Nazis also fascinated by islam, or was it just Hitler?
The n*zis maybe (a one off incident is a really bad example for an entire nation) did but the HRE people before and after dont! Karl had much more influence on Germany and its predecessors than ever on France. His people and himself were germanic thats why he is a german/germanic figure.
@@erichamilton3373 some, like Hitler, liked Charlie. Others, like Himmler were more Widukind fans
Charlemagne was the grandson of Charles Martel.
Charles Martel is very famous for
- arresting the Arab invasion in Poitiers in 732. He took part in many other battles in France
- being the Mayor of the Palace under the Merovingian king, and maybe true leader of the country.
- His son Pépin Le Bref would launch the Carolingians dynasty and his grandson would be Charlemagne.
But Pippin the Short and Charlemagne became allied to Arabs, muslims,and sold them about 2 000 000 slaves Awars Wendes ans Saxons.... it where the free man of the cities, the Jews, who had to castrate and sell the slaves to the arabs, in Arles, (ouf? Sorry : ) , Verdun, Metz, Valenciennes... so, sorry for Poitiers ! Charlemagne had not even a palace, even less a capital, he was a vagabond robber, as was Attila... the representative of the family of the Pippinides to the Abbasides was Isaac The jew... ( and how many married not a Brunhilde or Aldegonde, but Judith from Bayern?)
Souriiiiire. c'est l'Histoire. N'en devenez pas Histérique, historique suffit... Un chauve ne pouvait être roi. Porter un kippa... et si Kalonymus serait Karel de Kale ?
A endless debate for a simple answerd.
Our origin's : Netherlands / Germany.
Creators of Frankenrijk/Frankenreich/France.
Descent of the Frankish people : Belgians , the Dutch , west and central Germany , Northern France .
if you go back further the franks were not even from that area or anywhere Germanic at all, they conquered the land near the rhine, they weren't native to there.
@@qgqsrg1 well yes and no. Our people aren't native to the Netherlands/Germany... but Franks are a confederation... and Germany / The Netherlands are the Birth country's of our confederation.
@@ArienvanRijswijckIn the Netherlands they mainly have Frisian influences
Not Really it's the other way around. Frisians lived in the coste area from Denmark to Belgium untill the Franks took over .
@@ArienvanRijswijck Of course, later the Franks subjugated the Frisians, but for example they have a lot of influence in the northern part of the Netherlands.
Of particular interest are the Oaths of Strasbourg sworn by Charles the Great’s grandsons Charles the Bald and Louis the German in February 842 as they’re pronounced by each one in the vulgar language of the other that is proto French and proto German. They were to be understood by the respective soldiers and they clearly indicate the splitting between Western and Eastern Frankish kingdoms.
There wasn't really a splitting though. The people in those kingdoms already spoke those languages when they were still unified in one Empire.
@@sebe2255 The oaths of Strasbourg are just the evidence that the unified empire of Charles the Great was already linguistically diverse. They are the first manifestation of a convergence between linguistic and national notions of a state. As such, they are considered in France as the first expression of the French language as well as of the French nation. Now, why did Frankish take over local dialects in the East and did not in the West? It's possibly due to the preexisting efficiency of the Roman administration in Gaul, largely continued by the Christian Chuch. So people in the West spoke some Romance dialects, in the East some Germanic dialects, The Frankish nobility a more standardized Germanic dialect, the Catholic Church and the administration used Latin, both for liturgical purposes and as a "lingua franca".
@@ahoj7720 Frankish didn’t even take over local dialects in east. Also, it was blatantly obvious that the Empire was linguistically diverse
@@ahoj7720
"by each one in the vulgar language of the other"
Actually, of the other's troops. The point was that their troops were witnesses (and would also say the oath), as you point out later in your comment. So it says very little about the language the rulers themselves actually spoke.
"are just the evidence that the unified empire of Charles the Great was already linguistically diverse"
It always was.
"They are the first manifestation of a convergence between linguistic and national notions of a state"
Well... one could consider this a form of proto-nationalism, yes, but I'd be very careful to do so. People were well aware of ethnolinguistic identities; though the idea of a nation state wasn't really a thing yet; so "national notions of a state" is a rather poor way of phrasing that. In fact, I'd even be careful to use the term state (these more like "realms" - a state implies a far more advanced administration, but let's not turn this into semantics)
"As such, they are considered in France as the first expression of the French language as well as of the French nation."
Okay, and now you really did take it too far. French nation? France was extremely diverse linguistically during this period. The French nation was "built" with the changes that occured during the French revolution (though surely some conception of nationhood/national identity/proto-nationalism did exist; it's very misleading to speak of a French nation).
"Now, why did Frankish take over local dialects in the East and did not in the West? It's possibly due to the preexisting efficiency of the Roman administration in Gaul"
No.
Population. Were they a majority of minority? That's the main reason why. As for administration, Latin was used throughout the Frankish Empire/Catholic world, not just in the West. Administration was the work of a small - more educated - group and not the masses. Even in places like the Netherlands where Old Dutch was spoken Latin was used for administration and as such we have very few records of the Frankish and/or Old Dutch language.
Population was the main reason why. Frontier regions were already less inhabited. The Roman Empire didn't have an absolute border, but rather a frontier region (like a buffer). In these regions, Germanic peoples had already settled for quite some time too. In most other regions they were merely the leading group, an absolute minorty, (though of course not always; for example there were some pockets of Frankish speakers as for south as the Loire valley).
Also, you reversed east and west.
p0mp3y seems to forget that there's also German dialects which haven't undergone the second Germanic consonant shift.
While High German definitely reigns supreme, Low German dialects are still spoken outside of the Netherlands.
In southern Germany, specifically Bavaria there's a linguistic minority called "Franken" and the region in English is called Franconia. They don't speak a Dutch related language though.
I think the tribe split back in the days, just like the Suebi tribe and a part remained in southern Germany, while the other part moved westwards.
Unlikely, the region was conquered by the Franks between the 5th and 6th century, and there is no indication that the Franks recognized them as Franks in any sense. It is more likely that the region got the name in the same way France did, conquest and minor settlement. Even linguistically, the connection to Frankish is unclear.
In France, in Moselle (which is a part of Lorraine) in the border area with germany, people speaks differents Frankish language that are pretty much the same. This could also be called Luxembourgeois but it's pretty much Frankish. I don't understand why he said these things about Dutch, it's not Dutch, neither German, just Frankish language that will in the future give born to these.
@@Elijah-Bailey They are all Frankish languages, well Dutch, Luxemburgish and Moselle Franconian are. And Moselle Franconian didn’t lead to Dutch. Both Dutch and Moselle Franconian are the modern versions of the old regional Frankish languages
@@sebe2255 I meant that old Frankish gave born to Luxembourgeois and Moselle Frankish. One funny thing is that Moselle Frankish is spoken by millions of people in Brasil. This is not a joke!
@@Elijah-BaileyMillions?
Belgian/dutch. They were located in the lowlands and often had border clashes with the frisians.
Genetically : Their Haplogroup is R1b so they were Indo-Europeans
Linguistically : Also Indo-Europeans, and the closest language to their is dutch
Religiously : Before their conversion to Roman Catholicism, they were part of the Norse-Germanic Paganism world
Culturally : Also part of the Germanics tribes (Wich played a huge part in the split of the Carolingian Empire after the death of Charlemagne, because the Frankish tradition split the property between the sons)
Geo-Politically : Modern Belgium is their heartland, but they became politically significant after the conquest of what is Modern North-France, after being beaten by the Roman General Flavius Aetius who later beated Attila the Hun, they signed a Foedus with the Roman Empire and were granted rulers of the conquested territory if they defend the Empire against the Huns
So to me even if the answer is they were simply Franks. We can say French, German, Belgian, Dutch, Luxembourger and even Swiss are the modern Franks. And during 1500 years they fought each other to remake the Frankish Empire under a single one authority. Those who were the closest to succeed were the Habsburg dynasty, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler.
Where they had most impact and succes was in France, hence the name of the country. So they were really Frankish but their legacy live the most through France.
I highly doubt that modern standard Dutch is the closest to them. The southern dialect of dutch spoken in North-Brabant, (which is nothing like the Dutch spoken in Amsterdam) is probably what you meant to say. To a foreigner, you might have been taught at school that Dutch is 1 language, but it really isn't. Gronings, Fries, Limburgs, Brabants and Zeeuws are all very different from whatever it is they speak in Holland (Amsterdam and such). I can guarantee you that a guy born and raised in Amsterdam cannot understand 2 brabanders speaking in dialect, which isn't even the hardest dialect tp understand in the Netherlands. And even in North-Brabant there are so many distinct dialects that I need to mentally switch sometimes in order to make sense of the sounds I hear.
@@ericvosselmans5657
Thanks for the input. You're right I didn't know that
@@ericvosselmans5657 Some legends say Duchy of Brabant are offsprings of charlemagne...
@@Elijah-Bailey France would later develop out of the Frankish kingdom, but I wouldn’t necessarily say they had their biggest success in France. The Merovingian period was definitely centered around France, but in the late Merovingian period and then the Karolingian period the balance of power shifted back to the old Frankish heartland, the area around the Lower Rhine, Meuse and Moselle
These people are also a direct continuation of the Franks as people. They don’t just have the Franks as a part of their heritage, they are the modern Franks
The Franks were a Germanic tribe, speaking a Germanic language and Karl’s favorite residency was Aachen in modern day Germany where he is also buried. So I think they were closer to Germans than French people. If the French people didn’t keep the name France for their country we wouldn’t even be having this debate tbh
Not wrong I always consideres them rater german as well - however from the time of the Merovingians onward the backbone of their empire was in french territory and whilst germany was more of a hinterland. In regards of customs etc. they were also more relating to the former roman populus of Gaul ^^ That makes it so fun as they probably didn't fit fully in either category but were ruling both whilst keeping a destinct frankish identity :)
Its because ultimately both claims are correct and wrong.
Germany definitly can claim Frankish as their own because the Franks are closer culturally to them, and Charlemagne (im french lol) did indeed step his capital closer to keep a better controll on the frontiers (also he wanted Aachen to become a new Constantinople so it helps), though i wouldnt say just because Aachen was his favorite residency that he was closer to germany, the Kings moved courts at all time back then to keep controll of their kingdoms the closer the area they wanna keep hold on to their main residency, the easier to controll, it was logical to move the capital east really even in the case that the franks were more french than germans (which they are not culturally irl).
But French people has a fully valid claim as you said because they kept the name, and we kept it for a reason.
Its because whereas Germany quickly lost their Frankish ruler as other Germans gained power, France never stopped being ruled by Frankish nobility, the Karlings are obvious, but the Capet were Nobility while the Karlings ruled still and they intermarried alot. In other words France's claim isnt cultural, despite what french nationalism in the past 2 centuries light have tried to make us believe (or that we are Gallic, we are not we are Gallo-Romans, because Gallic implies we comes from celts, but our culture except in Brittany def doesnt reflect that), its because France's claim is based on its continuity from the Frankish state in the first place, its why France's history doesnt start with Charlemagne, but with Clovis, and why our kings name have so many Louis because Louis comes from Clovis (also btw, fun fact the Karlings propagated bad things on the Merovingiens to legitimate their rules, the Capetians to legitimate theirs decided to do the same and thus for legitimacy they took the names from the Merovingiens so we get more Louis as a result ever since).
Conclusion: Germany has a cultural claim on Charlemagne's legacy, the French have an historic one, and the Franks were proto-Dutch.
PS: also this reflects how both countries came into existance, France came to be because its rulers foreign they may be in origin, kept controll over their realm, and this realm took the name of the people the rulers ruled over
Germany came to be because it is the unification of the German cultures
French people does not yet exist in that time : Gaul-romans people have been mixed with franks people and Viking people in normandie ==> People from Northern "Franconie" are close to German people during the period : Even if "Aix la chapelle" has a french name in Franconie, Frank language is spoken in many Franconian regions : elsass, lorraine (lothringen), belgium, holland in that time. Only, Aquitaine (bordeaux region), savoie (savoy), burgundy and eastern south of France remain under influence of a strong Gaul-roman culture. France or "Franconie" (Frankenreich aud deutsch, that still exist in northern Bayern today) is a multi cultural mix of influence : gauls-romans-franks-viking. Clovis , the father of charlemagne, is clearly considered as a major french King in France (not a german King) and we hesitate about the cultural link of Charlemagne with France : One is buried in paris and the other in Aix la chapelle ..... Both french and germanic, and viking (Guillaume le conquerant, king of england) is considered as a French duke and is buried in Caen ... France is already multicultural , but central in european unity during the frank empire.
Francs adopted Latin because it was the language of elite and christianity at the time.
While originaly a germanic tribe, it's the unification of the celtic, latin and german tribes into 1 christian nation at the baptism of Clovis that created France.
Ask yourself why France is named Frankreich in german (literraly, Frank's kingdom)
So yeah it's confusing because french is mostly a latin language, but the thing is, the Franks (or Francs in latin/french, which the name France come from) was speaking latin
@@PhenecX true Sir
You are right, Charlemagne and the Franks were neither German nor French as Germany and France didn't exist.
However, politically, the kingdom of France is the direct heir to the Kingdom of the Franks, even if the Franks were ethnically and linguistically closer to the Germans as they were, as you said, more like proto-Dutch. The Holy Roman Empire however held the Imperial title over the French, and was more a replacement for Charlemagne's Empire than a continuation of it.
Let me explain why I think that:
So the fact is that the rulers of West Francia retained the title of "Rex Francorum" (King of the Franks), while the rulers of East Francia abandoned this title. Ludwig II, the first king of East Francia, was sometimes called "Rex Germaniae", even though his official title was "rex Francorum orientalium" (King of the Eastern Franks). And when the Ottonians (a non Frankish dynasty) started to rule East Francia, they chose the title of Roman Emperor (Romanorum Imperator Augustus) and "King of the Romans" by 1356 (rex Romanorum).
On the other hand, the Capetian dynasty was actually Frankish, and, as said earlier, retained the title "King of the Franks". More than three centuries after the division of the Frankish Empire, their Kingdom was still called "Kingdom of the Franks" by everyone in Europe, even by the Germans/Imperials, untill Philipp II Capet changed their title to King of France. In many germanic languages, France is still called "Land of the Franks" or "Realm of the Franks". So the Kingdom of France is a direct evolution of the Kingdom of the Franks.
In the same way, the Byzantines retained the title of Roman Emperor, even though they were not Latin, but Greek.
In conclusion : The Germans/Imperials retained the imperial status and the "heir to Rome" aspect (until Napoleon decided to steal the crown, but he wasn't really legitimate lol), while France is the direct continuation of the Kingdom of the Franks that started it all.
1. French is a romance language while the franks were a west germanic language so linguistically germanic.
2. Charlamagne was crowned holy roman emperor in the year 800 meaning the germans were the actual continuation
3. Charlamagne was seated in aachen, germany
All france did was use the name based on the franks which is a weak argument for charlamagnes ancestry
1. I've already explained that, ethnically and linguistically speaking, the Franks were closer to the Germans than to the French. And I've also explained why this isn't so relevant, insofar as I consider political continuation to be more important (which can be debated, of course).
2. I'm going to tackle a major misconception: Charlemagne was never crowned Holy Roman Emperor. He was crowned "Imperator Augustus" and the people of the city of Rome acclaimed him by saying "To Charles Augustus, crowned by God, mighty and peaceful Imperator, life and victory". But he was never referred to as the "Holy Roman Emperor", a qualification that came only in 1157 under Friedrich Barbarossa.
3. Charlemagne seated in Aachen, in what is TODAY Germany. That's a big difference. For example, the Eastern Roman Emperors ruled from Constantinople, now in Turkey. This in no way means that the Byzantine Empire is a Turkish Empire.
_"All france did was use the name based on the franks which is a weak argument for charlamagnes ancestry"_
Well, no. For it was East Francia which, of its own accord, abandoned the title of King of the Franks which had existed since Clovis, and even before. Moreover, West Francia is the continuation of the Kingdom of the Franks, because the Capetian dynasty (and by extension the Valois, Bourbon and Orléans, who are all Capetians) are, at root, an aristocratic Frankish family close to Charlemagne. The same cannot be said to the Holy Roman Empire, founded by Otto, Duke of Saxony. And I don't think I need to explain what was Charlemagne's relations with the Saxons, lol.
@@clementlarnicol 1. Ok good that we agree that tge franks were more german than french, wven though they were dutch if anything but between german and fremch they are more german
2. The holy roman empire became known as the holy roman empire after maximilian the 1. Before that it was know as the kingdom lf the romans.
3. Point being? The fact that the french call themselvs based on the franks doesnt chamge the fact that the franks from that time were fresh form germania, so they werent german per se but were more german than french so if the franks were from germany then the chrlamagne is it aswell
Ok lets settle on this charlamagne was the father of germany and france but he was a frank, franks were more german than french.
1. Ethnically and liguistically, yes, but really I don't think it matters, as, in my opinion, the political continuation is more important. And the direct political continuation of the Kingdom of the Franks, is the Kingdom of France. I will explain it more clearly in my 3rd point.
2. The official denomination "Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Teutonicae" (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) came in 1512 under Maximilian der Erste, yes. However, according to historian Ildar Garipzanov, the name "Holy Roman Empire" was already informally used in the 13th century. And, anyway, all the way back since Otto der Große, the rulers were already called "Imperator Augustus" (so basically Emperor). "Rex Romanum" (King of the Romans) was the title used by rulers while WAITING to be crowned Emperor by the Pope. To take Maximilian der Erste as an example, he was elected "King of the Romans" in 1486, but was not crowned Emperor until 1508. So, before 1512, we already had the term "Emperor" as well as "Roman". As for the term " Holy ", it appeared as early as 1157 (source : _Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Band 28. Pürstinger-Religionsphilosophie, Walter de Gruyter_ (1997) . )
3. Now. While the Holy Roman Empire was the heir to imperial dignity, the continuator of the Western Empire... It was by no means the direct heir to the kingdom of the Franks. You really need to understand that what the vast majority of historians call the "Kingdom of France", i.e. the political entity resulting from the division of Verdun in 843, then the arrival of the Capetians in 987 was *OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED* by *EVERYONE* as the "Kingdom of the Franks". It was not the Capetians who decided to claim this title for themselves. This title was naturally and directly transferred to the western part of Charlemagne's Empire, since the eastern part had abandoned it. (source : _Féodalités, 888-1180_ (2010).)
And that's where you have to understand that ethnicity doesn't really matter.
I'll take the Byzantines as an example: they were Romans, but they were Greeks. So don't confuse Romanity with Latinity.
In the same way, don't confuse Frankishity with Germanicity.
So, the most objective conclusion would be this: the Holy Roman German Empire inherited the imperial dignity and the "heir to Rome" or "Universal Christian Empire" aspect that was Charlemagne's model of governance.
However, the Kingdom of the Franks itself is closer, in terms of political ancestry, to the Kingdom of France.
@@HappyBazingaThe franks were Dutch, not German.
End of the debate
the french people as we know them now did not exist back then the french are a mixed folk of germanic, celtic and romanic people. the franks were germanic and they did not only rule about france but also over big parts of europe and over other germanic tribes...
French is Latin with German accent
No gaulish accent
Not quite. A lot of French's vowel sounds - which are quite different (i.e. cover a much wider range of sounds) than other Romance languages - are a heritage from Franconian dialects from the early Middle Ages - so closer to "Low" German/Netherlandish dialects than to the (later) "High' German dialects.
@@PeloquinDavid
French is Germanic
@@iwillnotcomplyistandformyf6642 French is not a Germanic language
@@MisterSplash29
Yes it is tbh
Franks were a German tribe that sounded more Dutch, ruling over Latin Speaking Ethnic Celts.
*Germanic
@@Dreagostini what he said
They were Celtic, to this day there is still no DNA difference between a French and a west German
@@ommsterlitz1805lol french are shorter and darker than the germans
@@thepretorian5292 French are taller than Germans as well as less fat and also get much more sunlight, yet they are indistinctive from one another via genetics and are of the same haplogroup even named Franco/German haplogroup
They were clearly Zimbabwean.
Not funny.
*Rhodesian
@@francois-emmanuelsingaye8225 Your family is Earthian
@@tommarnt I created your people
Normally, not too many people watch my videos, which is fine (I even think it's wild when 100 people take their time to watch something I created). This one tho kinda popped off. What makes me especially happy about it is the discussion it created - So many people have brought their own perspectives and views along, and to think that a video of mine was able to serve as a starting point for something like that makes me very glad I created it. Thanks, everybody for watching, thinking, and discussing that's what it's all about 🥰
🥳
You should pin your comment!🎉🎉
It was a very interesting topic you choose!
Definitely pin your comment to the top
You may not have notice but your video might be the cause for the first franco-Teutonic war after 78 years of peace
If I’m correct, (correct me if not) The franks were a Germanic people living south of the rhine during Roman times, that migrated into Gaul during the fall of the western empire. They then developed a distinct cultural identity from other Germanic peoples, and named their land France, or Francia.
Not really. Some Franks settled in Gaul, but most didn’t
Yeah there is 2 big Frankish kingdoms frank salien (romanised with Clovis) they turn Christian and the other the frank Renan they stayed pagans and very German but they were swallowed by the « romanised Christian Frankish »empire at the end. Frank means free. France litteraly means the land of freeman very poetic indeed
Tous les pays ont été envahis, mais les gènes des gens ne changent pas avec le changement d'identité, et seuls certains d'entre eux s'y sont installés, pas comme ils les décrivent.
The franks considered themselves part of the "nationes theotiscae", the "dutch/deutsch nations" wich were believed to originate from scandanavia. They obviously considered themselves franks but also recognized that they were German(ic).
The Franks were once German, but slowly became French after years of intermixing and assimilatin with the Romans who outnumbered them. Charlemagne even had denarius minted of himself. He knew Latin, which is probably used the most since it was still a very universal language
great take! He led the Carolingian Renaissance, which tried to revive many ancient Roman qualities. Latin was also a formal language, but people were not speaking it anymore other than inside the clerus. When it comes to language, there was a lot of diversity during Charlemagne's reign!
No they didn’t, there are various groups of people that still speak Frankish today
@@sebe2255 true the Franconian dialect is still spoken today in many areas (I am just not certain how closely it resembles the 9th Century Old Franconian)
@@p0mp3y73Well Franconian languages are standard/official languages in some countries. As for how close it is, it is obviously difficult to say as there are very little written examples. One can only look at Germanic loanwords in French and at linguistic developments and then reverse engineer it. Regardless, just because a language changes, as it always does, doesn’t mean that they suddenly aren’t the modern form of Frankish. Modern reconstructions (which are of course not certain to be accurate) are definitely understandable as someone who is Dutch
@@sebe2255 Thanks for the great inside Sean! :)
I like the style of your videos. They're neither too long or too short, they feel like they have just enough amount of information to make the viewer familiar with the subject. And I like the humor you put here and there. You've got yourself a sub :)
Well, Franks were really Germanic tribe. Although they weren't straight ancestors of modern Germans, nor are they ancestors of French people, they were close relatives of those who were ancestors to modern German people.
Basically, it's like comparing German shepherd and Poodle, both are descendants of wolfs, but German shepherd resembles wolfes more and it's easier for them to mate due to similar size.
Can you make a video where you talk about whether the Franks are Germanic or Latin?
I would say that from the people that were ruled by the Franks, people in the west were more Latinized whilst in the east the Germanic influence was more prominent. The French ruler themself had an interesting middle position as they were leaning more toward the Germanic side heritage-wise, but their high position and comparatively good education made them also able to understand Latin and adopt a more Romanized persona.
hope you have a good day :)
@@p0mp3y73 i mean the complete Country not only west and east
I think it’s a real tragedy that Europeans focus so much on their differences over their shared history. Charlemagne isn’t the father of just France or just Germany, he’s the father of most of Western Europe.
You mean Rome?
In England we were never part of Charlemagne's empire so it's not that important to us in comparison to say the Romans or the Anglo-saxons
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 Except that due to the Norman conquest the nobility were largely continental transplants and the legal code was heavily developed by Norman kings like Henry I and II. Like it's not as thorough and direct of an influence but I still think it's critical in the development of England.
@@aguy3082 Yes but culturally and genetically the Normans didn't really have an impact on the English identity. The biggest impact they made was to create a "norman French" Aristocracy with their own language and culture that was completely foreign and separate from the Anglo Saxon English. Even today the difference between the Aristocracy and the average English person is massive.
@@lightfootpathfinder8218gallic empire ?
It's more accurate to say that both France and Germany have Franconian roots, as West Franconia formed France, East Franconia became the HRE, and they squabbled over what was Middle Franconia (Rhine valley to the low countries) for the next millennium.
East Franconia was named kingdom of Germany for a short time before the HRE
Answer: they were Dutch/Flemish or Luxemburgish if you wanna compere them to modern nationalities
"The history of The Netherlands begins with the invasion of France."
The franks were germanic foreigners that assimilated into « french » culture… as such they were lot more « german » than french before they assimilated, and lot more « french » than german after they assimilated into latin culture and converted to catholicism.
@@fablb9006 thats a great way of putting it Sir :)
The franks are germanic, not german
3:04 High German consonant shift.
Luther and Duden lived and worked in central Germany between the Benrater and Speyer lines. That is why High German is to be found in the middle of Germany.
Further south there is another sound shift in the dialects that has not entered High German.
Yes, the worst shift, turning Gs into Ks, and Ks into Chs, thank God the Germans didn't lose their mind to adopt that shift.
Standard German not High German.
Very simply:
At that time there were no French
The Franks are Franks, not German nor French. I guess they were GERMANIC people tho
The Franks were not Germans nor French. They were just Franks. Germany and France are modern concept that came about centuries later and did not even exist at the time.
They were a Germanic tribe
The Germanic tribes come from the region the Romans called Germania
Whereas France is named after Francia
Franks originated from Germania and are considered a Germanic tribe.
French is the new name for the Franks who settled in Gaul.
@@IrishCinnsealach the germans calls france frankreich what it means for you ?
Aren't the French a melting pot of gallic-roman and frankish?
Franks were Belgian.
Yeah i have same opinion i think its weird why they would say german or france lol we created them but thats another topic....
The Franks were neither German, nor French, nor Dutch. They were none of the three. They were a Germanic (not German) people whose legacy cannot be *exclusively* claimed by any three of these countries. Their legacy can be equally claimed by all the three nations since they left behind cultural and political impact on all these three countries.
Sure, but the Dutch are the most direct descendants of the Franks ethnically and linguistically. The French are obviously barely Frankish in that sense and the Germans are a mixed bag. Some west Germans mainly in NRW and Hesse are just as Frankish as the Dutch, but they have the problem that their modern identity is a merger of many Germanic tribes, whereas for the Dutch the Franks had some other influences but they were by far the most dominant group.
@@sebe2255 In the Netherlands, the Franks remained Franks and, with relatively little merger with other groups, evolved and contributed to the creation of the Dutch identity. Because Netherlands is a tiny nation with little diversity, obviously more Dutch people can trace their ethnic heritage back to the Franks. But that doesn't mean that only the Dutch are the only inheritors of the Frankish legacy.
In Germany which is a much bigger region than the Netherlands, the Franks naturally merged with other Germanic peoples and became German. Obviously, compared to the Dutch, a much lesser number of Germans can trace their origins back to the Franks. But that definitely does *not* mean that Germany has no Frankish heritage at all, given the fact that East Francia (which became Holy Roman Empire) can trace its origins back to the division of Charlemagne's empire.
In France which is also a much bigger region than the Netherlands, the Franks merged with the Gallo-Romans and became French. Obviously again, compared to the Dutch, a much lesser number of Frenchmen can trace their origins back to the Franks. But that definitely does *not* mean that France has no Frankish heritage at all, given the fact that West Francia (Which became France) can trace its origins back to the division of Charlemagne's empire and arguably even before that.
So, ethnically speaking, the Dutch can definitely claim to be the "purest" descendants of the Franks with relatively very little "contamination" from other Germanic peoples and with no "contamination" from the Gallo-Romans. But in the greater scope of things, the ethnic contribution of the Franks to the Dutch are not as important as the political contribution of the Franks to France and Germany. It can be undoubtedly said that France and Germany have surpassed Netherlands in history. The Franks merging with other Germanic peoples in Germany and the Gallo-Romans in France was a good thing. After all, completely "pure" salt all by itself tastes disgusting. But it definitely tastes good if you sprinkle it sparingly on frog legs or sauerkrauts.
@@AlmurTaad-gq4fd I didn’t say Germany has no Frankish history. But you have to make it more specific. Certain German regions absolutely do. But as you say it is much more watered down with other Germanic groups, and the German identity as whole is not primarily derived from Frankish. In fact it started to develop after the Saxon take over of East Frankia.
France has a political Frankish legacy but their ethnic and linguistic legacy is small.
The last part is just weird. Calm down lol. The Dutch republic actually had a massive influence on history even after the Frankish Empire, mainly through economic developments and its rivalry with England.
Also, the Luxemburgish are definitely on the same level as the Dutch in terms if their Frankish descent. But yes the Dutch are the most direct descendants of the Franks that weren’t absorbed into a larger identity (Germans) or just a political and historical legacy (France, especially Merovingian)
@@sebe2255 I guess we agree on everything except the part where you implicitly give the credit for the Frankish Empire to the Dutch and make the claim that the Dutch apparently had a "massive' influence.
The Franks were definitely not Dutch as the Dutch identity would appear much much later.
Also the Dutch didn't really have as huge an influence as its greater neighbors such as Germany or France. The Dutch simply never had the size nor the population to have as big an impact as France or Germany.
@@AlmurTaad-gq4fd I never said the 9th century Franks were Dutch lol, learn to read. The Dutch are just the descendants of the 9th century Franks with a modern identity
The Dutch influence I mentioned is in the 17th century when their identity absolutely did exist, and when the Dutch Republic had a significant global impact on trade, the development of early capitalism and its colonial ventures
Do you have sources? most sources claim that Charlemagne spoke Ripuarian Frankish, from the rhinelands, and the Old Dutch you refer was part of the Salian Franks, a different division of Franks. Thank you : )
The division is fairly arbitrary as standard languages didn’t exist so it would have been a local dialect anyway. Given that his family was from Herstal or Liege and that he preferred to live in Aachen (which wasn’t actually an official capital as is often said) it is likely he spoke the ancestor to today’s Limburgish
Ou alors on peut simplement aussi considérer que ca fait partie de notre histoire commune 🇫🇷❤️🇩🇪
On est pas les mêmes mais on a eu les mêmes dirigeants et les mêmes guerres, d'ailleurs Français, Allemands et Italiens sont des cultures et des peuples extrêmement proches sur bien des points
Which Italians and which part of Italy? I wouldn't say southern Italy.
@@petera618 yes he meant the north which was in the Frankish empire.
Then give elsaß lothringen back snaileater. And stop genociding Bretons and Occitans
On n'a pas d'histoire commune avec l'Allemagne.
@@surprise_ Ah, bah va falloir te replonger dans les livres 🤣
The french are not franks,
The northern french are gauls with a small admixture of franks from the Netherlands, the southwestern french are mostly basques with an admixture of goths and gauls, in Burgundy they were mostly gauls and some goths(Burgundians)
And Marseille is gauls with some greeks
And the alcasians are predominantly allemanni like the swiss, -as opposed to Germans whom in french are called allemands but are Actually many tribes such as saxons, swabians, bavarians and germanized polabian slavs and baltic prussians, the allemanni were just the ones the french had direct access to by walking-
The bretons are predominantly welsh, and the normans are mixed with Norwegian men,
By your logic lower saxony was not german 'til after WW2, when "Plattdeutsch" became rarer than high german in the region.
The Franks were to the french as the Normans were to the English and possibly Europeans to the rest of the world.
Language-wise "continental west germanic" can be a stand-in for german, for most of time, dutch was just a german dialect and frankish is no different.
Continental west Germanic is more specific and accurate than German as a linguistic term. German as an identity or concept didn’t exist at all before the 10th century, but last I checked the Franks, Saxons, Bavarians and all other Germanic tribes did actually have the ability to speak before that identity started to form
@@sebe2255
Germans(cwg-speakers) have been using "wendisch" to distinguish themselves from Slavs since at least 660 CE, and "welsch" for Celts and Romans is even more ancient and can also mean "foreigner" and "wrong"
The Romans distinguished between Celts, Germans and Scythians.
Charlemagne is as much not-german as Hitler is, and the same way as the Thirteen Colonies and Texas were, and Canada is, not-American (that is; these things are not meaningfully different, you have to nitpick hard)
@@perverse_ince What does Wendish have to do with any of this?
Charlemagne literally cannot have been German as German identity did not exist. It is nationalism inspired anachronism
You are just simply wrong, and West Germanic (a linguistic term) is just more accurate than German (an identity)
@@sebe2255
They used these terms to distinguish themself from those around them; us cwg-speakers vs these two different groups of people who can't talk properly.
They had a distinct shared Identity that existed before: 1. old high german emerged 2. they were called thiudisc 3. before the east frankish kingdom existed
And the Franks were part of that group.
(And the difference is not only linguistic, but also in material culture, religion and common customs and means of warfare)
German Identity precedes the term itself, as well as the creation of its own unified polity and the northern third of germany did not experience the vowel shift until the last century, so that is obviously not a necessary component.
@@perverse_ince That doesn’t mean they had a common identity, that could also mean their languages are similar. Luckily we know that the German identity literally did not exist until the 10th century
These tribes absolutely had no shared identity in the 4th century lol, this is just nationalist rewriting of history
I even will not look : there weren't french nor german. The Salian were allmost sure descend of Eburon military, themselves descend of Ambrones. The salian frankish prayers of 743 are to me still easy to understand ( Brabant), but I don't know what were the attributes of Saxonoot ( God).
The renan frankish were several tribes, the tongue gave the Platt ( from Plombières/Bleiburg north of Liège, to Moselle, "Lorraine Germanique" in france.
German is a lot more recent. And french even not a roman language of the beginning, as were the tongueS "langues d'Oil " ( without ¨: Oil, "oall" means yes, well, okay, too ) or "langues d'Oc" ( Ok means well, okay, too) : OOK in Salian ( Dutch), Auch in German.
Very interesting read - thanks for sharing! :)
Pretty easy to answer actually:
They were neither. The German or French national identities or languages didn't exist at that time.
True, but the Franks today are Dutch and German (not all Germans just those along the lower Rhine and towards Hesse
Excellent video and loved the Super Mario 64 theme in at 4:33 XD Great work man!
Franks where germanic neither french nor Germans existed at this time the Franks would become the french and the Rest germanic tribes Germans or austrians some even Italian.
Not true, Franks would become Dutch, some Germans and Luxemburgish. Those that moved were assimilated into the Gallo-Roman culture eventually, but most of them weren’t
@@sebe2255 you didnt get the Point.
@@WeedmanSkirr I got the point, you just confused the Franks as a people with the Frankish Empire (which did lead to a lot of nations)
@@sebe2255 nah you clearly didnt.
@@WeedmanSkirr Or you don't know what you are talking about
The actual franks are duch in Netherland and flamand in Belgium and franconian in Germany(Frankfurt-Fort of Franks).
I think you can start France and Germany a bit earlier than 987 and 919 and trace it back to the struggle between Charles the Bald and Louis the German. The treaty of Verdun in 843 basically.
So Charlemagne was the og
G E K O L O N I S E E R D
Since the video's just continuously getting recommended to me: The easiest answer would be the Franks were Germanic, the kingdom they created was multiethnic & the states it broke appart into became everything from France to Austria. It could be a nice tale to serve as a rallying ground for unity in central europe, but from experience that's unlikely as since the 18th century French imperialists & later also nazis in France to this day have had a tendency to deny the germanic-multiethnic-ness part on one hand & openly hallucinate the map of the Franks as a Hearts of Iron 4 military expansion goal in irl politics...
really? sorry if it got annoying :(
Truee
How would a 9th century Empire function as a unifying legacy for modern Europeans? Seems far fetched to me.
Yes while certain states derive from the Frankish Empire, their descendants in terms of the original ethnic group and not statehood are the Dutch, some West Germans (NRW, Hesse) Luxemburgish and some northern French people (very limited). With the Dutch and Luxemburgish being the only ones where the Franks were the absolute dominant group in determining their modern identity
@@sebe2255 Well people did not care most likely, but this "Roman" Empire as always been a goal for rulers in Europe, Carolingian Empire, HRE, and French Empire. And for the last one it is not that old.
@@virgill2452They wanted the prestige and legacy of the Emperors of Rome, but Charlemagne or the Franks were never a unifying ideal within Europe.
The Franks were germanics They spoke proto- dutch. Some French words are an example of them, such as: guardia, guerra, jardin, etc.
French is not an ethnicity such aa scandinavs, germanics, iberiques, slavics.... The franks where germanic tride from actual belgium and founded a kingdom wearing their tribes name. Thats how you end with France.
Spoke a proto Dutch language. There you have your answer. They were neither German, nor French. They were Dutch. Simple :)
Dutch didn't exist at that time lmao.
Not simple.
@@flamma_larnaque that's indeed the definition of proto... Well spotted! 😉
@@torrawel I speak about the people, not the language.
The language could have rest the Frankish, but the people changed cause of migration, etc.
@@flamma_larnaque as if that doesn't count for the Germans or the French. Modern nations as such only originated in the 19th century. That's true for the French, Germanic, and Dutch. By the time Clovis came to power, most of present day France or Germany wasn't part of the kingdom so mixing with other Germanic tribes or with the Gaulish hadn't started yet. Yet, most of the low countries WAS part of it so yeah... I still hold on to my theory :)
@@flamma_larnaque The Netherlands overall stayed relatively homogenous, even after the Migration Period.
The only large migration of that period is the replacement of the Frisii from the Roman period with Angles, Jutes and Saxons who became the later Frisians.
The Franks went on a path of conquest towards Gaul, but a big amount of them still stayed in the Netherlands and Belgium.
This question is like asking a Roman from the late republic wether they are eastern or western roman
NOW
Alright, as an american, having studied this time period in a few classes in college, there seems to be 3 storylines/bias if you try and boil it down to most primary sources. English bias ppl say its like the franks were germanics ruling over french peasants, french bias people say it was germanics turning into gallo romans before rome falls, german sources bias is its a regional population replacement. And then apparently if you can read dutch they just say "yea that was us"
not really, as a dutch guy we learned about the frankish empire as foreigners. They forced the frisians to convert and weren't generally seen as dutch, we more drag our history back to batavians, who were part of the franks but only them and also the frisians who weren't part of the franks. but I'd be down to call that empire dutch, wouldn't suck to have one of the biggest western european empires be dutch yk!
@@ysbranddI remember that too from history class which is strange becuase the Frisians and Saxons only were a part of what would become the present-day inhabitants of the Low Countries. Like where do they think the Dutch and their language come from? Why did they never teach us that? Always talking about the Franks like they were foreigners entering our lands even though a large part of them come from here.
@@ysbranddLike they want to diminish our history or something, probably a result of the second world war tbh. Wanting to distance ourselves from our Germanic heritage and not wanting to give us any feelings of grandiosity.
@@ysbrandd Seeing your literal native ancestors as foreigners does sounds like north european education.
@@DeutschlandDenDeutschen1848 another dutch classic raaaah 🗣🇳🇱🦁
They are the Flemish ancestors
Ancestors of the Dutch in general
Better question: are the French French or German?
@miackmihie3470 mostly Gaulish though tbh, at least genetically.
Like Brits are mostly Brythonic Celts, with a slither of Anglo Saxon and an even less slither, sic, of, Franko-Norman, sic.
French are Germanic-Celts
France is the addition between the Franks and Gallo-Romans.
@@MorganCunningham-w6d both depends which part of France you are... my name Garnier comes for example from Frankish vocabulary
Clovis created France 1500 years ago. Charlemagne empire was splitted and that's how Germany was created (East Francia)
During the frank Empire, there were no french people, no german people.
Don’t try to tell this to French or Germqn nationalists
Some of my family come from the southwest of France, an area fairly distinct from the Franks, however some of the surnames suggest ancestors from the north so I guess it's a mix.
German naturally !
the French might be french but the Franks will always stay german !
originating in Germania, spoke a north-german language related to dutch (which is the english term for duits or deutsch and basically a low german dialect), had german customs, art and their early kings unroman long hair, ergo Germans !
Germania was a ROMAN catch all term and a Roman concept. The "germanians" at the time didn't see themselves as such, as Ariovistus, Segestes and other recorded figures of the period show. There was at most a sense of shared kinship between the Visigoths and Ostrogoths but that was because they were both Goths. Germans only started to see themselves as such because they were otherized as such by the Romans and their successor states, which the Germanic states of Western Europe sought so desperately to emulate.
@@gustavoritter7321 kind of and the native name would be some ancient version of deutsch
it first appears in the records with the "tribe" of the Teutoni and their leader Teutobod (a bod(o) is a ruler so to speak), continuing with other Teu/Theu/Theo-names of famous germanic kings, various gothic ones included , before it was finally recorded as theodisc for the whole ethnicity in early medieval sources
this forms the base for modern deutsch/duits/dutch/tysk/tedesci etc
the mythological and deified forefather of the Germans is called Tuisto in the dialect that Tacitus encountered - so theodisc/deutsch means "people of Tuisto" rather than the "of the people"-interpretation favored by most people today
but them still all "Germans" and the Francs defo belonged to them ....the modern french name Thierry is crippled form of Theuderic (rics/riks/rix/rex means king in indogermanic tongues - Theude = Germans and rik = king), a name given to a few frankish kings....
No the low franconian language spoken by the salian franks in Gaul was more an ancient version of Old Dutch, than German.
Which was spoken over much of what is now Germany
@@thibaultsardet7399 dat moakt keen al to grote Ünnersched ün was her altied in Gronde de sülve Toalen, genoamt Plattdüttsch !
de westligge tweyg ward to de nedderlandse Sproak ün de oostligge tom Plattdütschen or *Low German*
Excuse me? The Franks were a Germaic tribe, therefore ancestors of the Germans at source, and partially of the French (were the name also comes from - "Frankreich", meaning "das Reich der Franken" or in English "empire of the Franks"). To be frank;-)
They were German but adopted Romano-Gallo language and culture
*Germanic
The low franconian spoken by the salian franks was more an ancient version of Old Dutch.
They were Germanic, and then Romanized Germanic.
They were Celtic, to this day there is still no DNA difference between a French and a west German
@@ommsterlitz1805 we are talking about the Franks, not todays French.
@@ckeuer Witch is the same thing as northern French
The real questions is when the the Franks become Frogs?
The Franks were Dutch. The Dutch language spoken in the western and southern Netherlands is Low Franconian (Limburgish language as well). The regional language of East NL is Low Saxon, and then there is also Frisian of course. Both are influenced by Dutch for centuries though, but very much different in phonology, grammar and vocabulary still.
language is not really a good way to determine heritage, or you can call the Normans French, which is against everything the English believe XD
When a people conquers and settle in a land they do switch language over time, they are the minority after all.
Vikings adapted to French in Normandy
Normans adapted to English in England, especially after they got kicked out of France the first time
when the ruling class rely on its influence on locals (who speak a diff language) to stay in power then they adapts their language over time, when they rely on power from a metropole (such as Colonial Empires) then it's the reverse and the local population starts adapting.
that is all to say that the franks are not even home to the Germanic region they were a foreign people who migrated and conquered the lands near the Rhineland during the time of the roman empire, who later separated in 2 on each side of the rhine with Clovis from the western side forming the Frankish kingdom.
If their language was proto Dutch
They were a variant of Germanic
As a German I can say
The debate is like two brothers arguing over who has more dna from their father lol
😂😂😂
French are Frank Roman Christian with Greek Logos. A very good set up
Yes, good video, but the thing that I remember about this one, is that the word "franckish" sounds oddly as "freeeench", so Charlemagne is french. And even, I think he would prefer have the name "Charlemagne" than "KARL DER GROßE", just for him.
(I'm just kidding, I know after the carolagian empire division, the Germany was named Eastern France and the currently France was named Western France)
Francia* France is named after the Germanic Tribe of the Franks, and just because you think it sounds french in English it doesnt make it French.
I feel like when people say were these people German they are referring to Germanic rather than German. So they were Germanic, and had Latin speaking subject that also had Celtic ancestry.
Basically
They are a germanic people, but they aren't german
like the dutchs, swiss, nordics, austrians, they are germanic, but not germans
So true, they were Frankish and spoke a languague that is closest to old Dutch
Common just say it he was dutch 😂 groeten uit Nederland
I searched and Germany is tehnically bc the oldest grandson to rule was Louis the german(which ruled East Francia) and usually the oldest rules
Dutch...in a modern sense
Dutch are ethnic Germans
Even before Pepin the Short deposed the last Merovingian king, the Carolingian branch was growing in power under his father Charles the Hammer, who defeated the Moslems at Tours.
That Merovingian king got put in a monastery where everyone's hair was tonsured. (Was he grateful that his life got spared?)
both and neither beause the concept of 'frenchmen' and, to a lesser extent, 'germans', didn't exist yet.
You could even say that the Franks are ancestors of the modern Dutch & Flemish instead of the French or German
Yes, but they are also the ancestors of Germans living in the Rhineland, primarily around Cologne-Aachen
@@sebe2255 Rhine rivers peoples were the one who caused to united modern concept of German nation, shit
They were badass
@@sebe2255 I'm from east Limburg (BE) and I can honestly say I hate how Flanders and NL act like we've been part of them forever while we've had CENTURIES of history around the Meuse-Rhine rivers where our focus was on the cities of Maastricht, Aachen, Köln & Liège long before we've had anything to do with Bruges, Brussels, Amsterdam or whatever.
The wordt part is that both Flanders and NL seem to disregard our history before the province of Limburg was created in the 19th century. Yes the province was created back then, doesn't mean they should disregared the important history the region was part of.
@@dennisengelen2517 Agreed, I don’t know how it is in Belgium but that history is also mostly ignored in the Netherlands
And then us, French, have to forget all our Franks ancestors ? 🙃
Are the Settlers of the Americas European or American?
@@Lalita_Luna you are right we shouldn't label the past with modern terms of identification that didn't apply - I just wanted to figure out in this video for which national developement the franks were more important ^^
The Franks are with the Gauls, the ancestors of the French. But the Germans are not descended from the Franks but from many other Germanic tribes. The Franks created the Kingdom of the Franks, which gave rise to the Empire of the Franks, then which gave Eastern France. The original part of the kingdom of the Franks gave France. So historically, it was France that created Germany. The history of France is older than that of Germany.
Germany is just East Francia. They separated the west from the east because carolingian scum
It was Frankia that created France and Germany, not France
@@sebe2255 The Kingdom of Franks is the same Kingdom of France. If nowaday we say Kingdom of France instead of Kingdom of Franks it’s because in the 12th century, a king (Philippe Auguste) changed the name. That’s all.
But the Kingdom of Franks, which capital was Paris and was established on the same area, is the same former kingdom of France.
@@GeoPolitique. No they aren''t the same. And both Germany and France come from the Frankish Empire, as just one of the many Frankish kingdoms that were created as a result of the Frankish succession system.
During the Merovingian period there were many Frankish kingdoms in Gaul, and you can't say that the latest one (West Francia) is the original, they aren't the same
@@sebe2255 In my point of view you're wrong.
The kingdom of France comes directly from the kingdom of the Franks. The Frankish administration before the creation of the Empire is the same after its disappearance.
Since Clovis the kings of the Franks were buried in Saint-Denis. And nothing changed after the Empire disappeared. The kingdom of the Franks just changed its name to the kingdom of France.
The kingdom of France, western France, has its origins in the kingdoms of the Franks *before the Empire* . But for Germany, before the invasion of the kingdom of the Franks which is the ancestor of France, there was no political administration, nothing.
It was the Empire of the Franks at its division that created Germany. But France already existed in the form of the kingdom of the Franks. The kingdom of the Franks evolved into the kingdom of France. This last sentence sums up my whole point.
You can say both but you can't say none.
The franks were germanic tribes mostly from benelux and germany. Under the merovigian dynasty they conquered most of France and mixed with the gallo-roman population which is still the people of France today. Charlemagne became emperor 3 centuries later, his kingdom at fisrt was mostly France and Benelux. He spent his life conquering Germany and Italy that's why he was nicknamed the butcher of the saxons.
The frankish kingdoms/empire heart was France, France litteraly means the land of the franks, or in german Frankreich : empire of the franks
French and Frank is the same, it's just the evolution of language, people try to find a difference with a specific date, there are 3 main ones :
- 843 when the carolingian empire was split, but it was common for the franks to do it and they still ruled over all of the empire
- 987 when the capetian dynasty took over, but it wasn't the first time a new dynasty came to power (merovingian -> carolingian), most countries have seen dynasties changes and Robertians (the same house as Capetians, Robert 1st was the father of the father of Hugh Capet) had already been kings before
- 1204 when Philip 2nd changed his title of king of the franks to king of France (which as I mentioned earlier means king of the land of the franks), so not a very good choice
To sumerize, of course the french can fully claim the frankish heritage, as the benelux for being their origin, but Germany and also Italy are child of the frankish empire as Spain, France and others are child of the roman empire but the true father is Italy. They can claim their heritage of course, like Germany claims Charlemagne heritage but not the merovigian one unlike France
So my final answer would be french are mostly franks but germans are too.
But the French are mostly not Frankish though, because Frankish settlement in Gaul was limited, and they had almost no majorities (with the exception of a few small regions in the north where they already lived)
So no French and Franks definitely aren’t the same
@@sebe2255 You're probably right on the blood percentage between gallo-roman and the germanic tribes before the fall of the roman empire. But what I mean is after Clovis conquests there was no real major demographic changes in the population of France, the mix of the gall-romans and franks is the last major thing they had. And when Charlemagne came t opower what was called a frank is this mix, so by that definition the franks more gallo-roman than frank if you want.
It's like the romans, at first it means the people from the city of Rome but after their conquest it was the people from all of Italy and then as the empire grow it was the people of all the empire. But if you pick a random roman at the peak of the roman empire he would probably have no or a low percentage of blood from the original romans (from the city of Rome) still he will be called a roman.
@@volcanares9620That is only if you extrapolate Frank to mean anyone from the Frankish Empire. Allemanic Germanic people in southern and western Germany didn’t become Franks even though they were a part of the Frankish Empire for about as long as Gaul. By the same token a person from Provence or Aquitaine wouldn’t have said they were Frankish either, certainly not immediately after Clovis’ invadion.
Gregory of Tours clearly makes a distinction between the Franks who rule in Gaul and the Gallo-Roman population. So I don’t think this extrapolation applies. Rome is slightly different in that they had a citizenship system, making everyone who is a citizen a Roman. But the post roman medieval states didn’t apply this. They’d often have laws for their own people, actual Franks, and laws for thwir subjects.
And if you want to go by what foreigners called them, Arabs and Byzantines called everyone from western europe a Frank simply because they were the most relevant early empire they interacted with in the West, but again that doesn’t actually make everyone Frankish
@@sebe2255 yea it depends on your definition of a frank, if someone from the frankish kingdoms/empire is not a frank then you are right
@@volcanares9620 I mean they wouldn’t necessarily be. The people themselves would have seen the distinction (as they did in the primary sources we have) and the Franks would have seen the distinction too. They would have been subjects of Franks, but not Franks themselves. And that even applied to the preexisting Gallo-Roman elite, not even just the peasantry
“They were neither, German or French. They were Frankish.”
In Germany, there is a region called “Rheinfranken”. It roughly fits with the area where the old Franks lived. If you ask a Rheinfranken, he will say he is feeling Frankish and of course German, too.
Does that mean ... ?
Lol have you ever personally asked every Rheinfranken what he/she feels? Even then, that is not how actual experts would approach the issue. They would not go around asking what a modern inhabitant of Rheinfranken "feels" in order to determine who the Franks were 13 centuries ago.
Yeah and west of Germany there’s a whole country named after the Franks
@@tarraux5971 After it was conquered... as usual... formerly known as Gaul.
@@frankishempire2322 Gaul doesn't exactly equate to modern day France. And my point was just that basing yourself on names was silly, obviously the OG franks don't come from what is today France.
I'd add though, that the rhenan franks are not the ones who built an empire, that was the salian franks aka the "proto-dutch" ones. They were much more romanized and interested in the affairs of the empire than their ripuarian counterparts.
@@tarraux5971Yes and neither that country nor the German region named after them are actually Frankish hahaha
Were the Frank’s German or French?
To be frank with you there neither as the concept of a German identity and a French identity really didn’t exist from the franks language and a tribal identity
Some integrated with Latin speaking people forming the French language, others integrated with the people in the low areas for the Dutch language others stay in regions that eventually became Germany
They all wanted to be roman
They were one of the germanic tribes. But starting with their noble class they romanized themselves.
Its not german or french, its both. Depending at which time. And that makes us germans and frenchmen brothers. Glad that after centuries of wars we grew up to become the friends we should be.
💪
It is good to see someone on UA-cam acknowledge that anachronisms like "Were X people like X" or "Our people are direct descendent of X" are kind of silly in a academic sense.
Like those people were their own people and you probably would struggle to recognized them as your own people if you spoke to them somehow.
Yes the cultural differences would be staggering but if the claim of a link is mostly based on descent, why wouldn't it be valid to claim "Our people are direct descendent of X" ? Why is that silly ?
@@alienmode-s Because it means there is some direct unbroken chain between their modern culture and that ancient culture. Which is kind of crazy since it means there is a actual culture link between cultures that didn't even worship the same gods let alone speak a mutually intelligible language. Like yea their related and probably descendent at some point from those people. But to think that x people is their people but just back then is crazy.
Like yea I'm probably vaguely descendent from the Visigoths if you go far back enough down my ancestry. But I'm not going to make that a part of my identity let alone a part of my country's entire identity like the Nazis might have.
@@DanVegas27 There doesn't necessarily have to be cultural links between one's ancestors and oneself for their to be a link, like if my dad grew up in some uncontacted tribe and i grew up in Germany, we'll share probably nothing in common culturally but he's still my Dad, my ancestor, nothing will change that. That's the link people talk about there's nothing gray or silly here in muh academic circles. So yeah, if culture is set aside it is "their people but just back then", that's how ancestry works. If you don't want to make that part of your identity that's fine but not everyone who does is a Nazi, most of the world thinks like this
On the contrary, the entire purpose of research and "academia" is to provide the most definitive answers possible using the most rigorous methods possible. In this case the genetic, cultural and geographic evidence is irrefutable, the "French" are "Germans" in all but language, as is virtually every "Nobel House"/Royal Family in all of Europe. That's not a "coincidence".
Funny, other Folks get to play the "Native Pride" card with impunity. Others are not "allowed" to do so. Who makes these rules? Nobody asked me.
Man, early medieval Europe was _weird_
In term of political entity, France is still the true heir of the franks. For a long time the kingdom wouldnt even be named France, but kingdom of the Franks, it is Philippe Auguste in 1165 who would take the title "king of France" instead of king of the franks.
Although this kind of debate is honestly useless
What does political entity even mean? Sure their state exists because of the Franks, but all Frankish elements are goneZ whereas other peoples still speak the modern descendant of Frankish, and are mostly ethnically still Frankish. Political continuity is interesting for sure, but also seems vague and sometimes meaningless when there is little left of the original people that founded it
That's kind of a dodge, frankly (pun intended). You can say the Franks weren't German because modern Germany didn't exist yet, but I think that's a given. What the Franks were, without a doubt, is Germanic. The conquered people of what became "France" (the lower classes, who were not Frankish) were not Germanic. It's as simple as that.
A deeper question is to ask what became of the Franks. In that case, the ones in the eastern part of their kingdom (which is now in Germany, Netherlands, and northern Belgium) remained Germanic. Those in what is now France over time mixed with the non-Germanic locals (less in northern and eastern France, more in central and southern France). They also began speaking the Latin dialect that would become "French."
Ethnically there may not be a sharp distinction from one side of the border to the other, but culturally/linguistically there is.
Oui mais tu oubli que la langue officielle des royaume mérovingien, carolingien, Capétiens francs été le latin donc finalement le latin et leurs cultures et la toujours été 😉
So does that mean Dutch is French? From a certain point of view..
Dutch is Frankish, and the modern Dutch language is a direct descendent, uninfluenced by High German sound shifts, of the Frankish language from the Merovingian and Carolingian ages.
it's kind of sarcastic that in modern days, it is the people of the German region of Franconia that retained the "Frank" name and identity, being heavily influenced by its High German neighbors, while the Dutch people who are the most Frankish Franks, do not.
@@ignatiusqi9736 The same goes for the French, the Franken region also got its name through the Frankish conquest of the region, not because of any Frankish origins
They where transplanted Batavians from the region of Salland, hence Frankish law was referenced as “Sallic Law”.
No they came to control the Batavians, but what actually happened to the Batavians is unclear. They either moved south or were absorbed into the Franks, who as the video said were a confederation of earlier tribes anyway
Like Sean said, we don't know that happened exactly to the Batavians, but they were probably only one of the many tribes that became part of the Salian tribal confederacy.
as a French I've always considered the Franks were Dutch
If you ain't Dutch you ain't much
the dutch developed qiute late as a own nation for along time they were considered german. both dutch and germans are of germanic origin and both terms did not exist back then.
@@blackforest_fairyWell if you look at their entire history, they were seen as not German for longer than they were seen as German
for me the francs are of dutch origins but laid the first stone of france with clovis in 496! and ruled the entire territory of Gaul for several centuries, they are at the base of France so yes Charlemagne and a historical figure and monarch in the history of France! the francs became the French thereafter! besides the germans call france frankreich!!
@@roms4154 Charlemagne is the worst possible example for this because he wasn’t even from what is now France nor were his family’s core lands. He is much less a French figure than the Merovingians (and all of them obviously weren’t actually French but are more tied to the region that is now France).
They were Dutch people
Thats why its called the Netherlands
They came from the lowlands.....
I am French and from a very young age I was taught that this is a common history between France and Germany, and therefore today's French see themselves as Germanic people rather than Latin.
IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT PART OF FRANCE THEY ARE FROM. THE FRENCH LANGUAGE HAS A LOT OF LATIN WORDS AND THE PEOPLE THERE ARE ALSO MIXED WITH THE ROMANS, WHO WERE LATIN PEOPLE. FRENCH PEOPLE ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE GERMANS. THE FRENCH ARE ALWAYS KNOWN TO BE FIRERY HOT TEMPERED AND EMOTIONALLY, VERY PASSIONATE, UNLIKE THE GERMANS. A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF FRENCH PEOPLE HAVE IBERIAN DNA IN THEM. THE SOUTHERN FRENCH PEOPLE LOOK VERY MEDITERRANEAN AND HAVE A DARK COMPLEXION SO YOU CAN'T REALLY SAY THAT THEY ARE MAINLY GERMANIC PEOPLE. FRANCE IS A VERY LARGE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE THERE, ARE VERY DIFFERENT, TO EACH OTHER, IN DIFFERENT REGIONS OF FRANCE.
The French also have a lot of Celtic in them from the Gauls. They're really a mixture of several different ancient tribes.
YES, ESPECIALLY, IN BRITTANY, NORTHERN FRANCE. THEY'RE CELTIC. IT'S THE SAME IN BRITAIN AND SPAIN WHICH IS ALSO A MIXTURE OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT ANCIENT TRIBES.
@@mbd501 what thing do they have Celtic-wise?
@@SchmulKrieger Besides their ancestry, the French language has many words of Gaulish origin.
Were the Romans Italian or Romanian?
@@jeroenlouwerse7454 obviously bulgarian
Well well well …
The Franks were clearly French or maybe a little bit West German if you consider that modern Germany is basically Prussia.
That’s why France is called « FRANKreich » (empire of the franks) and not « westfrankland » in German, whereas Germany is called « Allemagne » (land of the alamans) in French, because the franks settled west of Rhine whereas the alamans stayed on the east bank of the Rhine.
Moreover, if you look a little forward during the crusades era, even if most of Western Europe took part in it, it was mostly French & Angevines people (former British who were mostly French nobles of normandy or Anjou) or people from the western part of the Holy Roman Empire (Lorraine duchy, Flanders…) who were called by the Arabs …. *drump noise* the FRANJ, not Normands or Germans, because yes franks became the early French whereas their legacy was never uphold in Germany or Austria.
It has basically no sens to say that the former Franks are originated from west Germany/Belgium, because with the same argument we may say that Lombards (northern Italian) are also Germans, Anglo-Saxon also, Spaniards & Portuguese are western Goths and Suevic heirs so also Germans … we may even say that Algerians and Tunisians have some vandalic legacy so they may also claim a part of their German heritage…
The Merovingian dynasty was clearly not a German tribe anymore which clearly led, with the carolingians then the Capetians to France, whereas Germany originated from Prussia (and not western german kingdoms) which is not frank-French related.
As a catholic Bavarian I feel personally offended to be claimed to be basically Prussian. We never adopted their language and culture, were always loyal to the pope, had closer relationships with Paris than we had with Berlin and were forced into the German empire because they defeated us in war. Up to today in Bavaria calling someone a Prussian is an insult. They don't even understand our language!!!
Well yeah Bavaria is a bit different thing ☺️
@@helgaioannidis9365 yes, Bavaria & Rheinland are what I called « west Germany » and indeed they have a Frankish heritage.
However, modern day Germany is in full a Prussian successor state. No centralisation, a deep Protestant culture overall (few state intervention, high emphasis on individualism) which denotes with the fact that franks were the shield & sword of nicean Catholicism since 496 AD in Western Europe.
Franks were neither French nor German, indeed as neither France nor Germany existed as this period. But French are franks heirs whereas Germans are not (I’m not speaking of regional specificities : Brittany in France is Celtic and not Frankish, however France as a whole is Frankish and not Celtic)
@@huguesfalk5956 you seem to be misinformed about a few things:
1) Prussia was based on a centralised system, not federal. Modern Germany being a federal state is the result of the Holy Roman Empire, not the Prussians and of the idea of the USA, that a federal system introduces better checks and balances to avoid another dictatorship.
2) modern German politics do intervene a lot, hence the horrible amount of bureaucracy and useless regulations. They are also focused on solidarity with a very broad and solid social welfare system, obligatory insurances and special protection of marriage, family, mothers and minorities. Modern Germany is not individualistic. Specifically Bavaria even still shows some tribal culture, which makes Bavaria in fact a constant trouble maker in German inner politics.
3) Bavaria isn't located in the West of Germany, it's in the southeastern part of Germany, bordering Austria and the Czech Republic. You're probably confusing Bavaria with the Alemannic parts of Germany (fun fact, Alemannic people are heavily influenced by protestant believes, contrary to Bavarians, who are typically very catholic people).
4) the biggest parts of Bavaria don't have a Frankish heritage, people there are culturally and linguistically Bavarians, just like most Austrians.
5) the Frankish part of Bavaria is located in the northwest of Bavaria and it's pretty small. It's a protestant area and they insist on specifying that they are not Bavarians. They just ended up becoming part of the state of Bavaria due to geopolitical developments, but culturally actually are very different.
@@helgaioannidis9365
1) modern Germany was of course impacted by ww2 and then division/re-unification post 1989. However, as a German you should know that before 1918, the German empire, led by Prussia, which gave to Germany it’s modern face post the victory of 1870 was a state led by Berlin of course (following the French system of strong state rule by its core) but deeply federal with the former kingdoms still existing within it. Which led to « regional » armies disruption during ww1 (the Bavarian army for instance not supported at the right time by the Prussian corps in summer 1914)
2) I do not doubt that, such as France, Germany may suffer from an important bureaucracy. It has become an European trend. However, you are not ready to face the French bureaucracy, believe me. After Soviet & Chinese one, I guess we are among « the best » (it’s ironic)
3) I perfectly know where Bavaria is.
That’s why I quoted it with Rheinland and not eluded it. However, could you state that Bavaria is culturally closer to Prussia (eastern fringe of Germany) ? Not at all, that’s why I put it with west-Germany // Rheinland. The same way I would put centre-val d’Europe loire (central France south of Paris) with northern France because those 2 regions belongs to « langue d’oïl » (Germanic French) unlike the south which is « langue d’oc » (Latin French) even if centre val de Loire may be closer to some south French region.
4) Austria : well well well.
How do we call it in German ?
« Osterreich » empire of the east.
Have you ever heard of the eastern marches of the Frankish empire ? The first bulwark in front of the avars then Magyars :p ? As a Bavarian/ Austrian you’re are much more related to a possible frankish heritage than a Berliner or even a Hanoverian, how small it may be.
Conclusion: he was Dutch
When DNA is tested, there is little difference between French and German.
Lol that's not remotely true
@@gustavoritter7321 well at least their haplogroups are the same, R1b so there is that simmilarity
@@gustavoritter7321 it is true, french are for the majority celts
@@ValeriusMagni la moitié nord de la France est d'origine Germanique, la moitié sud de l'Allemagne est d'origine celtique
Source: your meth pipe
The question doesn't make sense as neither the notion of Germans nor the notion of French existed. They were a germanic tribe who settled in Gaul during the fall of the Roman Empire, converted to christianity and mixed with the local population, who were already mixed between celts and latins.
Franks were both French and German...
Nah only germans and dutch
there was no Dutch and German at the time, but politically France is the true heir of the Franks, even the germans call France Frankreich
German and french history is inter twined and shouldn't be set apart. Charlemagne is both German and french historical figure because bith identities were linked at the time. France wasn't yet an established entity