HOWDY GERMANIC SERVANTS
In the end, it had to be non-german unifying germany.
>"Germanic" king
>Germans can't even pronounce his name
>>1000699
10/10 vid desu
>>1000699
Karl was a German you autistic faggot.
>>1000699
>
>
>
>>1000759
>King of the Franks
>German
>>1000767
The Franks were a German tribe desu senpai
>>1000767
>Franks
>Not Germanic
2/10 made me reply
he was from belgium
>>1000799
>not all Germanics are German.
8/10
>>1000819
>"The Germanic peoples (also called Teutonic, Suebian or Gothic in older literature) are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group of Northern European origin,[1] identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Proto-Germanic starting during the Pre-Roman Iron Age.[2]"
>"Modern Germanic peoples include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Flemish, Frisians, GERMANS, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Norwegians, Swedes and others (including diaspora populations, such as most European Americans).[3][4][5]"
>>1000837
What word do you think GERMANic is derived from?
This entire discussion is retarded and ill-founded. OP clearly said Germanic. Karl was a Frank thus Germanic.
>>1000847
Yes, but was he German?
>>1000848
By shorthand.
>>1000799
>not all Germanics are German
k
>>1000841
The fuck does that matter? Not all Germanics are German, this is a fact.
>>1000852
>Modern Germanic peoples include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Flemish, Frisians, GERMANS, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Norwegians, Swedes and others (including diaspora populations, such as most European Americans).[3][4][5]"
>>1000841
Germania, the area where they lived
>>1000857
>Not all Germanics are German
>>1000851
>>1000858
What word do you think GERMANia is derived from?
>>1000865
It is derived from a Celtic word, by which Julius Caesar named the territory east of Rhine.
>>1000867
>not all Turkic people are Turks.
What word is TURKIC derived from?
>>1000941
Rude.
>>1000957
by ur mum getting schtuped by a cockroach lmao
>>1000770
The Franks were Germanic, not Germans. There was no concept or nation identity of "Germany" back then. And the Franks are more culturally and historically tied to the French then they are to modern Germans.
>mix with Romanized Gauls and Latins
>wait for results
>???
>French
>>1000773
Chlodovech too
>>1000799
>All Germans are Germanic, but not all Germanics are German.
and the franks were (german)
>>1000848
YES
>>1001235
>There was no concept or nation identity of "Germany" back then.
There was no national identity yet, but the states or tribes that would later adopt that identity all existed back then.
The Jutes and the Danes for example were both Germanic, but the Jutes were German and the Danes were not. The Danes later became the nation of Denmark and the Jutes became part of the nation of Germany. The border between Germany and Denmark was formed by the border between the Jutes' and the Danes' tribal territories
>>1001235
>the Franks are more culturally and historically tied to the French then they are to modern Germans
How so? They came from the Rhineland and their language was Frankish. What makes them more French than German?
>>1001390
Because their culture was related to that of the Romanized Gauls, and had been for centuries by the time Charlemagne lived, while their contemporary Saxons were still living like savages.
>>1001458
you really think the way romanized gauls and saxons lived differed in any substantial way?
>>1001468
Yes.
>>1001458
so when the other germanic people became more romanised as well did they stop being germanic?
>>1001472
explain
>>1001474
Only if their countries stopped being Frankia and started being France.
>>1001499
Charlemagne lived in a big stone palace and took communal baths while listening to passages read from the Bible, while his German countrymen lived in huts and prayed to Wotan.
The common Frank may have been very similar to the common Saxon, but Charlemagne was more similar to a Roman ruler.
>>1000699
>Charlemagne
>Beard and long hair
he didn't look like a lombard degenerate, franks had short hair and shaved, fucking barbarians stop falsifying history reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>1001390
>They came from the Rhineland
The territory of the Salian Franks sand the first Frankish foederati were in Northern Belgium
>>1000819
Cretin
>>1001640
But he did
>>1001640
>>1002151
Still taking the bait, they probably made the profiles like that to harken back to Roman coinage. Rome must have seemed magical to all the kingdoms of Western and Central Europe. The first Romanboos
>>1001378
The modern French can trace their lineage directly to the Franks and Romanized Gauls, even the name "France" is derived from what the Franks called their kingdoms in Gaul. Genetically, culturally, and even language wise they were assimilated and form the basis of the modern French people.
Its that simple.
>>1000799
>All Germans are Germanic
I'm a proud berliner turk and this offends me.
And now to become the greatest servant of the Pope and give him all of my money.
>>1002394
PLEASE EXCUSE ME
>>1002356
If your referring to the Guals Ceasar conquered then yes but the Frank's themselves were a tribe that crossed the Rhineland in what today is Cologne Germania into France around the time that the Population rates went up and tribes went in search of better soil.
Frankia Ain’t free. The tree of christan conversions gotta be litterd with the blood of Saxons. Karloman aka “Karlofag” is not my brother. he is illegitemate bastard and probbaly pagan as well :DD. GERMAN roman empire not ROMAN roman empire ok. praise the pope.
>>1002493
Did you miss the part about "Romanized Gauls"? Gaul was hugely and densely populated by them and Roman colonials by the time the Franks set themselves up. And the Franks while playing a huge influence on modern French genetics and race, never dominated the population in terms of numbers or settlements.
Although their influence was greatest in Northern France and around the Rhine and Somme rivers.
So it's basically true that France itself was an artifical concept that derived from a German Saxon hating King
>>1002519
Yeah but Guals and Frank's did intermix. There were a lot of Kings in France until one guy Frank basically united all the various tribes into one. Guals themselves is just a Roman term for a person that lived in Guals and the Guals themselves had many lineages from celts, britons ect.
>>1002540
Gauls are Celtic, the Franks are Germanic. The Romans under Caesar specifically identified three separate Gaulic states in Gaul that were dominated by the Celtic tribes. And no, the Franks never represented a majority in French population at any time in its ancient history.
The Franks were assimilated by the Romanized Gauls and Roman population, just like how the Anglo-Saxons and Normans were essentially assimilated by the Romanized Celtics and English people.
>>1002519
Pretty sure up until the Germania Frank's came Gaul was not so densely populated maybe only in the southern regions.
Germania =/= German
Germanic =/= German
>>1002556
That's not true. Gaul and Hispania were hugely populated by the time the Western Roman Empire fell. And the reflection of this in modern genetics repeats that the Franks were outnumbered by their Roman-Gaulic subjects. France is still majority Celtic, not Germanic.
>>1002576
Were your census data? Dont you agree that Germanic =/= German?
>>1002556
Roman Gaul was one of the last provinces to fall and one of the biggest sources of manpower for the Romans by the 4th and 5th century until they permanently lost it. It was pretty hugely colonized all over by the Romans since its conquest by the Romans about 500 years earlier.
I think given its importance to the Roman Army and how much Rome was invested in Gaul commercially as well, it was pretty heavily populated. Hispania/Iberia as well, those areas generally outside of Italy were the most developed and colonized in Western/Southern Europe.
>>1002582
Have you looked at modern French genetics? You have that data posted here, just scroll up.
And I never said German ! = Germanic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Language
>Charlemagne himself probably spoke a Rhenish Franconian dialect of Old High German
Suck it, frogs, Charlemagne was German.
>>1002602
>Charlemagne was German
>German
>>1002615
>born in Germany
>spent most of his time in Germany
>spoke the ancestor of the German language natively
>not German
>>1002621
>Germany
There was no Germany back then.
>spent most of his time in Germany
No he didn't. Your autism like claiming Goths and Vandals in Spain and North Africa are also Germans because their Germanic.
He was no German.
Why can't Frogs handle the fact that all of 'their' great rulers were Germans or Italians?
>>1002644
Oh shit I'm sorry I mean of course the geographical region comprising the modern state of the federal republic of germany
>>1002651
You do realize its considered equally valid that he was born in Belgium then Germany right?
>>1002644
No, it's nothing like that. Charlemagne spoke Old High German not some other Germanic language.
It's like saying Alfred the Great was Germanic and not English.
>>1002621
Germany didn't exist, and the Germanic peoples he came from were nothing like the Germans that came later.
Charlemagne was a Frank who were basically a thing unto themselves at that point, whose individual traits later became impressed onto the later French and German.
Basically, he was progenitor to both.
>>1002791
Yeah, I'm good with that.
No one of any worth has ever been German. Even Beethoven had Flemish blood.
>>1002816
Charles the 5th and Clovis (most likely) were also born in Belgium.
We could probably solve the issues of European integration by proving everyone of note is from there
>>1002816
t. inferior froglet
>>1002151
>>1002158
Depends on the phase of his life. This is a contemporary mosaic from church of St. John in the Lateran, although reconstructed it's quite possibly his visage from time of Lombard conquest. (If you exclude the absurdly ridiculous chance of falsification)
>>1003554
>dat grin
what a lad
>>1003567
That's a mustache
>>1003601
He's still grinning.
>>1000000
>>999999
>>1002570
not really if you are talking about the germans of the modern age.the germanic people are a huge group,genetically and culturally its like saying that all slavs are russians or all turkic people are turkish.imagine if the bulgars(which are,at least before mixing with slavs, a semi turkic people) are the same with people that inhabit turkey the last 500 years and identify with the turkish nationality both genetically but more important culturally)
>>1001235
>Franks are more culturally and historically tied to the French then they are to modern Germans
actually, they are with Franconian languages, so that leaves the Dutch and Flemish at the No 1 contenders for the spot.
>>1002621
>>1002644
>>1002615
Franconian languages derive from the Franks, so take a gander at the ones that descend from it. these are the modern Franks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Franconian_languages
>>1003897
Bulgars are literally Turks turned Slavs
they spoke a Turkic language, and now they speak their own Slavic one
>>1004062
They are of turkic origin but they mixed withs slavs and they are also orthodox christian because of conversion by the byzantines.but to say they are literally turks turned slavs is a simplistic view and far from right.
By the way it is revisionistic to say that all nations as we define them today are the same with tribal group they came for.
especially germanic tribes wich underwent a serious transformation depending on the place they migrated to.
There was no german tribal identity for a lot of years after 800.
Casually talking we say the ''germans'' when refering to franks or even goths or vandals but there was not a unified idenity even lingustically between them and they changed in a matter of less than 300 years so Germanic=German is dubious at best.The same goes for all tribes and origins
>>1004135
i think you misunderstand me
Bulgars were literal Turkic people, but unlike some /pol/ish folk here i fully believe that culture is the defining element of your people, once you change culture, you're as foreign as can be. Bulgars began as Turkic peoples, but have changed into Slavic ones since then and to call them otherwise is silly.
and yes, there may have not been a "Germanic identity" back then, nor was there an Italic or Celtic or Slavic one since folk are ultimately divided along political lines. They do however stem from a common language and proto-culture, and so there are group together, even if they are not friends they are kin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgar_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_language
i also don't refer to Franks or Goths or such as Germans, only as Germanic, usually West, East, or North.
>>1004298
Apologies,i jumped to the conclusion you call them turks.
I totally agree with the with the distinction of the germanic tribes and their origin in accordance to the place they originated and how they migrated .After the treaty of verdun the states of franks that imerged change so in 200 years they were practically strange to each other.
>>1004062
Not really.
>>1004401
yes really
>>1002644
>There was no Germany back then.
was is under a sea or something?
>the Germanic peoples he came from were nothing like the Germans that came later.
how so?
>>1003897
Most of the germanic tribes' territories are part of modern germany or were within germany's borders at some point in the past.
>>1002791
Belgians were an actual tribe of their own
>>1002356
Just because france is named after the franks doesn't mean french people descend from them in any large part. All you have to do to realise that isn't true is look at french people. Even the gauls didn't look like french people. Most french people descend from romans
