Im pretty conflicted on how i feel about German history. I mean on one side of the coin they had some of the best military leaders and one of the most interesting cultures imo. Yet they have a habit of fucking up Europe to amazing levels and losing then letting others clean their shit up, only to fuck it up again.
>>1234994
>Germany fucking up Europe
More like Europe fucking up German every time they get big. See : HRE, Prussia, 3rd Reich.
>>1234994
just in case you think germans destroyed the roman empire like everyone who starts these threads claims, it was goths who sacked roman and they were scandinavian in origin and spread to eastern europe
The English ruined Europe by being scared of mainlanders uniting
barbarians
>>1236125
> that background
Goths werent german or naked
>>1234994
Spaking of Germans I have a stupid question. Were Franks more German or French? I know it's a bit anachronistic to ask a question about nations before the nations even existed but as everyone knows, the French were latinized Gauls and people living in what today is modern Germany weren't conquered by Rome so even before the Frankish Empire there was something to separate the two.
>>1237593
The Franks were a Germanic group of peoples speaking the Frankish language, a Germanic language. Modern German though is not descended from Frankish but from Old High German which was a contemporary language.
Saying the Franks were German is like saying Breslau is historically Polish clay because people once spoke a Slavic language there. It's just revisionist crap.
>>1237593
The Germanic tribes; Alemanni, Franks, Saxons, Frisii, Danes, were quite different despite being put under the same portmanteau nomenclature. However, I'm afraid Franks were nonetheless much closer to Germans than modern French. (Links to Franconia, Nürnberg area?)
I'm French-speaking from Belgium, and so we've been taught that Charlemagne was French and so forth, but the empire he built was predominantly and undeniably German. It's quite obvious after some succint observation.
>>1237593
Franks when? And by what measure are we deciding whether they're "French" or "German"? Linguistically? Culturally?
Anyways, the best claimants to the Frankish identity would probably be the Dutch, Flems, and Luxemburgers (they actually do have their own language), as well as affiliated tongues in Germany. If you want to know more about this, I suggest checking the wiki page on West Germanic languages.
"Germany" pre-unification was pretty good. Prussia was a mistake.
>>1237621
Well everyone would like to have Charlemagne in your pantheon. For us in the age of nation states it's confusing that we can't tell apart people who use such different languages. From what I understand, the Franks, who originated from what is today known as Germany, moved west but the population still spoke their Gallo-Roman language, which was allowed to flourish after the break up of the Frankish Empire.
Charlemagne himself spoke Old High German.
I hope I got that right.
>>1237641
Perfectly right indeed.
>>1237621
>(Links to Franconia, Nürnberg area?)
So, we're pretty sure that the Franks came from north of the Rhine, probably in the Utrecht area of the Netherlands, but here's their land from when they became Roman foederatis. Given that the Franks were probably one of many linguistically similar tribes, they can probably be generalized to the broader Benelux/Rhineland region.
>>1237659
Continuing, here's the German dialects/languages @ 1ad. Blue are the Scandis, and Green are the Eastern Germans (Goths and such). The Franks would fall in the orange camp, modern German in the yellow, and Saxons are the red.
Germany is the whiny, pissy, drunk crybaby of Europe.
>>1237665
>Germany after unification always was the principle power in europe
>muuh no culture whiney muuh
Spotted the polish person.
