The Franks: the Birth of Modern Europe 

More like "Realm of the Franks"

@@giovannimartin9576 Realm is the best approximation. Reich means either part or all of Empire/Realm/State. It is a terrible word to have to translate accurately.

@@PipoZePoulp Realm is literally an accurate translation of Reich or Rijk

@@sebe2255 Yes, both are accepted

@@sebe2255 Maybe I have a wrong feeling for the words. But to me English "realm" feels like it refers more to the land (ruled by the empire/state) while the German word "reich" feels like it refers more to the political entity (the state itself). Doesn't feel like a 1:1 translation to me, although it's very close.

Indeed he is way to great of a great Charles 🤣🤣

😆it's either Charles the Great or Karl der Große. Maybe Karl der Große the Great 😉

Correct lol It's redundant 🤭

@@nicolasiiiletzar7984 Yes, Carolus Magnus in latin, but in his mother tongue it must have been something like Karl de Grode (or Groode).

Chai tea

The pope wanted to keep his power and break away from the original church, why the Eastern Romans were after to cut his toungue

Making france the heir of Rome

By having himself coronated by the Pope he made it so that the pope would legitimize the Emperor for centuries

@@strandedphilosopher The Pope didn't want to break away from the original church; the papacy was and is the original church. It is the Orthodox who broke away from the original because they went along with elevating the see of constantinople to primacy because that is where the Eastern emperor ruled from. From the establishment of the church on St. Peter was recognized as the head of the church; and after his death the bishop of Rome was recognized as the legitimate heir of St. Peters authority (even by the remaining Apostles). It was the power hungry/political prelates of the East who falsely elevated the see of constantinople and shifted spiritual authority to the emperor.

This is Carolingian humility propaganda lol. You don't just get ambushed on a ceremony and get crowned emperor by the pope without prearranging it prior

charlemagne definitely knew how to read and write, he was fascinated by and promoted the various liberal arts in his subjects and officials. i mean his reign isnt associated with the carolingian rennaissance for nothing. you can see all this in eginard's (charlemagne's court chronicler) biography of charlemagne.

@@exodoalcunhaabridordemares He didn’t know how to write that is a well documented fact. He promoted education indeed and spoke multiple languages but couldnt read much and write. You can even see pieces of paper where he tried.

​@@exodoalcunhaabridordemares There are currently debates amongst historians concerning the Carolingian renaissance. It definitely saved quite a few texts and introduced a lot of innovations such as the "minuscule Caroline" which we still use today in writing, but the reason behind this entreprise Can be reinterogated. It is believed that many new texts and innovations were born because the Pippinids/Carolingians needed the extra prestige and legitimacy to strengthen a somewhat weakened position due to Pippin's coup. The reason Charlemagne was even crowned emperor would be to show that he himself was a rightful successornto the Roman throne, which was never doubted for Merovingian kings as they always administered their lands as Roman officials. Chideric (Clovis' father) was even an official in the Roman army and Clovis himself was named "consul" by the Emperor in Constantinople. Bruno Dumézil spoke about this in many scholar conferences that you can find on youtube. You can also read Alain Dierkens, Hartmut Hatsma, Regine Le Jan for more coming from German, Belgian or French academics.

They were lazy as in powerless. Just like Charles the Bald wasn't bald, he was born without a crown to his name (unlike his brothers).

​@@exodoalcunhaabridordemares No. Charlemagne is associated with the carolingian rennaissance because he couldn't read. He did that because he wanted to be able to read. Until his reign being able to read was seen as an unimportant task. More like a juggler. If you want to be entertained you call the reader and the writer. 😉 That way on looking on reading and writing was also a thinking a long time after the carolingian rennaissance under nobles. Probably out of the same reasons why children hate school today. It's hard to learn for most people and there are so many things to be done that are more fun.

Thanks for supporting)

Mass-produced garbage.

its autogenerated ai garbage bro

The translation is a little bit misleading they were called (by people with an agenda) faineants, with exactly mean "do nothing." That actually doesn't mean that they were lazy but #1 not much survived of their work #2 they had little power and were prevented for example by the mayors of the palace from doing anything.

Non aix la chapelle n'a été capital que 795 a 814 c'est tout 😊

There were no capital cities at the Frankish time. The center of power was Paris / Saint-Denis. Charlemagne developed his estate and spent more time in Aachen because it was convinient to fight the almost constant Saxon rebellions. The city of Aachen itself barely existed at that time.

The first frankish capital was in Belgium. Tournai

@@kenpe1455 Yeah back then you also had the kolenwoud/Silva Carbonaria now nothing is left only a few small forest in flanders or wallonia and biggest is Zoniënwoud/Sonian Forest..

Das Wort haben wir hier in Franken auch… Frank und frei…👍

Get used, I think is gonna be the new norm for this kind of content.

@@discoverymoi I didn’t finish this video, and I won’t finish others that do this. There are plenty of other videos with this information that don’t do it.

Charlemagne is a bullshit name. His real name is Karl der Größe (Charles the great). He was a German and spoke German - the reason why he was so successful in rallying together ordinary various Germanic tribes in rising up against their germanic kingdoms(dutchies/rulers). France comes from the Germanic word frank(means free) from the German tribe Franken(free man). France in German is called Frankreich (Franken kingdom or the West German Kingdom) Deutschereich (German Kingdom). Österreich (East Kingdom), Öst means East, known as Austria in English today. Note: The Franks learned and adopted Latin generations later, just like the other Germanic tribes "the Lombardi" who ransacked Rome and settled north of Italy to the Alps.

@@filipieja6997nope he’s actually Karel de Grote since he’s Ripaurian Frankish and the low lands are the actual legacy of the Frankish empire. He spoke a predecessor of Dutch

@@pannenkoek3985 predecessor of Dutch or duitch/deutsch are of all the same during that time - Germanic languages with dialects. Karl der Große's birthplace place was one of these two places in modern day Aachen or in Prüm (Germany) - Franks are modern day north of France, Belgium, Western Germany's region including Frankonia and Frankfuhrt regions.

@@filipieja6997 No, by then old Frankish was already evolving into Old Dutch. The Salian Franks lived only in the Low lands and the birthplace of Charlemagne is not known. Looking at where the bulk of the Frankish lands are and who the actual descendants are, it’s more Low lands heritage and only regional German heritage.

@@filipieja6997 Proto Germanic was long gone then. And the Duchy of Austrasia which is the homeland of the Franks lies mostly in the Low Countries.

Of course, if we see interest in this topic from the audience under your comment 🫡

@@History_Mapped_Out I support that.

​@@TheRezro Me too !

It’s not difficult to know where these places are, modern day France, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy & Slovia. Maps face North.

In France, slavery was made illegal by Queen Bathilde, wife of Clovis II, in 657 A.D. She decreed that any slave who entered French territory would automatically become free. The queen herself bought back several slaves from their masters to free them.

I must always encourage and applaud an appreciation of past times and the lessons within them. Keep in mind though, no historians are without bias (even if it is a necessary bias). So when you read the sources, treat them the same way you treat sponsored content mowdays

We arabs called them الفرجنة which means the Franks !

This is true.

Even if he did start the viking period, which is a highly questionable claim, he still took out a significant part of the pagan Germanic world (all of northern Germany) and because of this his descendants were eventually able to convert Denmark and later all of Scandinavia. The raids and invasions of Britain, while definitely a major setback for them, did ultimately lead to a viking defeat as well. And wouldn’t really be the concern of Charlemagne anyway

@@sebe2255 Yes and that Viking defeat was the battle of Hastings, 1066AD, The Norman Conquest. The Normans did much for Europe!

Charlemagne’s dad*

Western Europe is best Europe.

@leonarddonohue1418 only in the last 250 year for more that 2,000 years southern Europe was the best

It's more birth of the first proper nation state

@@GeorgiosLeoWestern Europe sometimes includes half of Southern Europe, and it does here because the Franks controlled Italy too ;)

@@sebe2255 I am not talking about italy but about Greece and Anatolia

Nope ! In french it's "Pepin le Bref" which meant small. You're mistaken by his german name "Pippin der Jüngere" because he was not the first Pepin of his family !

Translations could be tricky !

He didn't say they conquered the Iberian peninsula then. He said they invaded the franks then

Childeric

@@janbayart2250 ay yo dis my man chill Derrick.

He said that : a new name, in reference of Charles ! And it is a résumé of centuries so, no other choice to do things quickly I guess.

No they weren't the same, they were just under the same empire. Each region had their own identity since then.

@@midare39 but they came from the same place originally

​@@starfox300 No they don't

@@kimashitawa8113 they did

@@starfox300 The French were mostly Romanised Gauls, the Germans Germanic. How were they ever the same people? Being under the same empire doesn't really mean anything here.

Neither Germans nor the French actually do. He is just seen as a significant figure for both of them. France goes back even further with their ridiculous claims to Clovis

@@sebe2255 It is not a ridiculous claim. Clovis is the first King of France. It is history.

@@phlm9038 Except king of the Franks in the 6th century and king of West Francia (later France) aren’t remotely the same thing. Reframing history to fit a modern nation state perspective is not history, it is ridiculous

@@sebe2255 It is not reframing history at all. Clovis was the first King of France and at the same time a descendant of the Kings of the Franks of the 6th century.

@@phlm9038 He was an ancestor to the Merovingian Frankish kings sure, but none of them were kings of France and neither was Clovis. He wouldn’t even have known what France is

It seems to me that it's more of a javelin than an axe

@@Kamonohashiii fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisque_(arme)

but the word frank comes from javelin in proto Germanic. Francisque surely drifts there because it is a thrown weapon.

Yes in 1066 by the frankish Guillaume 1° the conqueror. William the first

Questionable comment… the franks are a German tribe and Franken is still a part of Bavaria in Germany. The throne from „Karl, der Große“ still standing in Germany…first franks that went to nowadays France, were brought there by Rome as auxiliary troops…

​@@erikschlangenauge7514 l'Allemagne a commencé à exister seulement grâce au prussiens qui et eux même sont un peuple venus de l'est le mot France signifie paye des francs et Francfort la gue des francs les l'allemand sont juste des saxon il ont aucun héritage des francs le seule c'est la France ta qu'à voir les différentes dynastie de l'Allemagne autrichien etc

@@erikschlangenauge7514 Your comment is questianable. Franks are geneticly the dutch, the belgians, nothern french, and a very small part of germany. Stop believing BS from WW2 propaganda you germans are as ridiculous as the algerians.

​@@erikschlangenauge7514the Franks are a GERMANIC tribe, not a german one. It makes all the differences. Germans people have nothing to claim about the glories of the French (may I mean Franks ? Because French is just the modern term for Frank) because they come from differents Germanic tribes. Those germanics tribes made the Germans, while the Franks and the gallo-romans made the French. And it's the Franks who invade the others germanics tribes. Charlemagne was a Frank, even tho it's capital is in nowadays Germany. People changed over time, the Franks of 500 and the French of 2020 are not the same, the ancestry is for some not existent but our culture and occidental culture come from the Franks.

@@flamma9034 im a Frank, sry that you didn’t get the point. And I’m livin in a region that is frankish since almost 2000 years and when Paris was attacked by Vikings the German original franks came to help you. That doesn’t change the fact that they all originated in Germania, first were brought to you as auxiliary troops for Rome and are german and a germanic tribe at the same time bc they are existing without interruption here. The difference of Germanic and German is important for French and for Britains also😅, bc you all dislike the historical facts. Germanophobia, complexes, and stereotype arrogance…

The Franks built a false narrative around the battle and cast the Basques as ‘Arabs’ in order to make their battle appear more righteous in the eyes of their Christian subjects.

@@thebrocialist8300 actually, the story was really invented centuries later. Although set in the Carolingian era, the Song of Roland was written much later. There is a single extant manuscript of the Song of Roland in Old French, held at the Bodleian Library at Oxford. It dates between 1129 and 1165 and was written in Anglo-Norman. There are eight additional manuscripts and three fragments of other poems on the subject of Roland.

You're right, Europe has enough diversity

Theyre still white. It's the other kind-of diversity that's dumb.

Did you miss the constant warfare and burning of towns?

The tribes of Europe were still genetically and culturally close to one another

All white

Well it is actually quite simple but slightly convoluted. The Empire created by Charlemagne was just the Roman Empire, sometimes called Frankish Empire to distinguish it from the Western and Eastern Roman Empire. But he would have just been seen as Roman Emperor in his time. Berengar of Italy is generally considered to be the last direct successor of this Empire, as after his death the Title went defunct. In essence Charlemagne’s “Empire” died here in 924. Otto the Great then, as king of East of East Frankia even though he was a Saxon, gets to pope to again crown him in 962. This is where your confusion lays because he tries to portray himself as a direct continuation of the Frankish Roman Empire that died in 924. There is some continuous flow of titles because he was king of East Frankia but there is no direct continuity of the actual Imperial title. In essence he recreates Charlemagne’s Imperial title but it is technically a different Empire. Now, even Otto the Great wasn’t actually Holy Roman Emperor. Much like Charlemagne he was just Roman Emperor. The Holy part was added during the reign of emperor Frederick I. Because of these Emperors trying to tie themselves to Charlemagne’s Empire for prestige and because of early modern Nationalist German historians these titles have become conflated. But neither Charlemagne not Otto were “Holy” Roman Emperors and technically there is no direct continuity of the Imperial title between Charlemagne and Otto. So Charlemagne’s (Roman) Empire gets founded in 800 > dies in 924 Otto’s (Roman) Empire gets founded in the Spirit of Charlemagne’s Empire in 962 > this empire adopts the name Holy Roman Empire in 1157

@@sebe2255 I really appreciate that explanation. I always heard the phrase, "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman." I understood the meaning of that for the most part. It makes sense that the title holy was added later. I've watched documentaries on Charlemagne, at least one, that was called, "Father of the Holy Roman Empire." But honestly, I get distracted with these as I often use them as background noise. And of course, these stories always involve 1000 battles. But seeing that the Frankish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were in a sense the same entity, puts it in perspective. I don't think I really learned of or knew of the Holy Roman Empire until I was in my 20s (now 44). It always appeared to me to be the first German confederation, and Bismarks the second. But I know that's not how history really sees it. I've always been interested in German history and WW2. So when I discovered that the Holy Roman Empire was largely German, I thought that was cool. It's just that I found the history and origins of France with relation to it confusing.

@@sebe2255 The franks took over the roman empire before Charlemagne and most likly started before Clovis, I think maby somewhere between 300AD until 500AD many tensions in roman empire and roman empire also split somewhere in 500AD because of great migreation period caused by the Huns...

@@michaelcooreman3509 Charlemagne was the first to be crowned emperor after the fall of the Western Roman Empire though

@@sebe2255 So since you are so knowledgeable on the subject, I just want to clarify and also ask: 1. Basically the eastern Frankish Empire basically became the Holy Roman Empire. 2. At one point after the fracturing of the Frankish Empire did the country of France come into being. I find this history very interesting. It's like the German states and France were one country at one point.