Comments by "" (@sebe2255) on "Biographics" channel.

@wolfgangpagel6989 No, the actual origins of the Franks is very mirky and interpretations are made of sparse Roman sources. That is the origins before they settled in what is now Utrecht as fedorati. Logically they came from east if the Rhine, but exactly what tribes made ip the Franks is mostly unkown with some exceptions like the Chatti. The Dutch were part of the HRE sure, but they left, and as such the local language of the Netherlands which is directly descendant from Frankish became the standard language, which of course as you said did not happen in Germany. You don’t have to get semantical about old Frankish, specifically the Salian variety. Obviously they weren’t standardized, but the term is used to describe their language continuum as a whole. The languages of Nothern Germany are similar to Dutch because they, like Dutch did not experience the High German consonant shift, making them closer in terms of their sounds. That being said Low German is mostly made up if Saxon, whereas Dutch, again, is Frankish. Simply put, the Dutch are the direct descendants of the Franks with minor Frisian elements (Frisian elements in Dutch, they are themselves of course still separated). There have of course been many many cultural changes, but as a people the Dutch are the descendants of the Franks
1
@wolfgangpagel6989 Late means very little. Also the Dutch separation from the HRe has been a very long term political change which among other things has led to German and Dutch being very different languages, if related. You keep doing semantics about language terms, I know lower German is not one language but I am not going to name every dead or dying north German language And yeah I know, that is what I said. You were the one claiming we know exactly where the Franks came from. We don’t know that, but we do know what happened to them
1
@wolfgangpagel6989 It is a Dutch separation, no Dutch person would identify with Germans or vise versa and the standardized languages are not similar enough to be mutually intelligible. The separation from the HRE was done for inheritance reasons by Charles V, but the consequences are that there is now a cultural, linguistic and identity separation. Idk why some Germans insist on this pan-German(ic) enforced uniformity, when Dutch people don’t do that at all
1
@wolfgangpagel6989 Lol, no dutch person would consider themselves german except for weird nazis types. Dutch people are not German anymore, that identity only lasted from about the 12th till the 17th century The Netherlands were separated from the HRE when Emperor Charles the Vth gave the low countries to his son and the empire to his brother on hos abdication. However they were officially recognized as an independent entity at the treaty of Westfalen. At this point they were functionally independent for almost 100 years though. So no, they weren’t in the HRE till its dissolution
1
jonnyneace8928 If you had studied it you would have known that what you said isn’t remotely correct and you would hVe saved yourself the embarrassment. The Franks who settled in Rome (called Salian) are the ones that would lead to Dutch, not French. Some of them would later, after their conquest of Gaul, settle in Gaul and then adopt the Latin of Gaul though. But still, they didn’t mix with Allemanic peoples to become Dutch. That makes no sense, Dutch isn’t Allemanic at all. If anything they would assimilate the Frisians in some areas along the Northern coast. Oh and and top of that, Franks mixing with Allemanic tribes did not lead to Saxons, Saxons already existed independently from the Franks. In fact it was the Saxons who drove the Franks out of what is now the Eastern Netherlands. Again, all your comments are a bit embarrassing and betray a lack of knowledge and geography (the Low Countries are not east of rhe Rhine lmao)
1
@Diev-Et-Mon-Droyt House Anjou, or as they have been called by historians to distinguish them from the other Anjous house plantagenet, is incredibly relevant for English history But no they would absolutely not be speaking English. France would have become the cultural center again, as the lands were far richer and has like 5 times the population
1
@Diev-Et-Mon-Droyt It doesn’t matter, they were French speaking anyway. And the house of Anjou does matter, they ruled England until Richard III. And the English kings were always more focused on France and French culture until their loss of continental lands (basically Henry IV) made them adapt. Had the English monarchs been able to usurp the French throne you can be sure that their focus would again switch to France. Whether or not you consider France a cultural hub or not is irrelevant, the fact is that due to the large difference in population and prosperity, the English would have stood no chance of culturally assimilating the French, the opposite is far more likely.
1
@N0Time Lmao Joan of arc and the church? Look if for some reason you have attached your religious beliefs to this concept of French existing centuries before it did, that is fine, but just admit it
1
@N0Time I am the historian. Look if you want to be a source bitch, fine, you don’t have to engage with arguments or historical claims if you don’t want to
1
@N0Time Difference is that there were much more anglo saxons in Britain than Burgundians and Franks in Gaul. Genetic testing (and linguistics) prove that there was significant migration to the British isles
1
@N0Time I don’t even care enough to unpack this nonsense. I will just say that anglo saxon dna is on average 30% in the UK which is vastly more than Frankish generic legacy in France. The french aren’t even Franks, not based on language, genetics or culture lmao
1
@N0Time English people have 30% on average. Idk about Isle de France (and those numbers would not be accurate now due to huge waves of migrations to Paris, but I do know that over-all the Frankish genetic impact on France is completely insignificant when compared to the Anglo saxon impact on England. Idk where you got your numbers from but the most recent comprehensive genetic studies out the average at 30%, with more in the south and less in the west. In any case, this whole argument is irrelevant, my initial point is that Clovis was not the first king of France (a Kingdom that didn’t even exist in the 5th century) and nor was he was French, as again that culture literally did not exist. This is not opinion, it is fact, there is no reference to France or French people, and if anything the only connection Clovis has to what is mow France is that he conquered a large part of it and is the first link in the chain of the process that would lead to France centuries later. There is literally no historian who would seriously suggest that France existed in the 5th century, at least no historian who isn’t also a revisionist french romantic lmao. It is like your operating under 1880s french romanticism interpretations of history.
1
@N0Time Oh and like I said I am the historian 😎
1
@N0Time You haven’t highlighted any errors. You seem to be operating under a delusion that France and Frankia are the same. Btw You don’t have to verify historians, if you don’t even know that france as an entity didn’t exist in the 5th century then idk what to tell. Just start with the basics Also imagine basing your views on the writings of monks, any historian would tell you to not just trust on biased sources (like the church). But even if you do that, they wouldn’t have called Frankia France either. The term France wasn’t adopted until 987, but I will grant you that the continuity between West Frankia and France is there, it was basically just a name change, so you can start with West Frankia. Absolutely not with Hlodowig Anyway, I am done talking, it is like talking to a wall. Just go and read any book about the Franks that was written in the last 20 years, or even Wikipedia will do
1
@N0Time Contradict? Bruh, West Frankia was established after the death of Lious the Pious, it is separated from Clovis by about 4 centuries. You really lack even basic knowledge about the timeline. If you want to call Charles the Bald the first king of France, no one will have much disagreement there, though technically the first king of a country called France was Phillip II. Anyway it is obviously not a contradiction lot of things happened in those 4 centuries, like the development of French culture From your last paragraph there I can tell though that you prefer to see history as simple narratives, that your probably simple brain can easily put into a nice story. Talking about actual historical details is pointless. Next time though, at least doa quick google of the timeline and the figures involved, which would avoid you confusing West Frankia with the Frankish kingdom under Clovis, it will help you not reveal your impressive lack of knowledge
1
@N0Time 🤡
1
@jadawin10 You couldn’t be more wrong if yoh tried lol
1
@jadawin10 French people couldn’t be more obnoxious if they tried
1