General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Biographics
comments

Comments by "" (@sebe2255) on "Clovis I - Kings of the Franks Founding Father of France" video.

Clovis was alive long before Germany and a unified German identity existed. Clovis was a Frank, not a German. Specifically he was a Salian Frank, and the descendants of those are the Dutch and the Flemish. So not even that is connected to modern day Germany. Of course he was Germanic, but that is a more a descriptor of a very broad group of people than an identity
8
Lodewijk and Ludwig then
5
Romance. The name French and France are the last remaining parts of their Frankish Germanic heritage. France was named after the Franks because their nobility also ruled there, and because unlike the other Germanic and even the actually Frankish parts if the Frankish Empire, they had a Karling in the throne until the late 10th century. The actual Franks are the Dutch, Luxemburgish and some west Germans in the Rhineland. Dutch for example directly descends from the Salian Frankish language
5
That seems quite unlikely. Records of the female line are often vague and the Merovingian dynasty has been extinct in the male line for about 1300 years
5
More like a king of a political entity that would centuries later partly develop into France. Calling Clovis the first king if France is just weird romantic French nation building
5
The reason isn’t that he was Germanic, the reason is that when he lived, and for centuries after his death, “France” didn’t exist. Not as an identity (French) or as a state. Clovis’ actions would eventually lead to France. But he has no real direct connection to it aside from establishing a state in the same area.
4
@N0Time No it doesn’t lol. No serious historian would claim that. Because historians should know better than to enforce anachronistic notions on historical figures. French identity and statehood wouldn’t exist for centuries You might as well say French history starts with Julius Caesar because he crushed the Gauls which led to the Romanization of Gaul. And the latin heritage of France plays a much bigger role than the Frankish one. Especially because much of what is now France was already Christian before Clovis invaded
4
Neither Clovis nor Charles spoke German, they spoke Salian Frankish and Rhineland (Ripurian) Frankish respectively. For Clovis, the modern day descendant of his language is Dutch and for Charlemagne it would probably be the germanic dialects around Maastricht-Aachen, but this can’t be certain
4
@theawesomeman9821 The Franks as a people are now the Dutch, Flemish and some West Germans. Frankish settlement in what is now France was minimal. As for the name, France comes from West Francia. East Frankia became the Holy Roman Empire but under a Saxon emperor, thus losing the Frankish name connection. Middle Frankia/Lotharingia would be devided between East and West Francia. France simply held on to the Karlings the longest, that is why they retain the name. Not because they have more Frankish ancestry, because they don’t.
3
@dthird3107 In terms of culture, language and history Caesar would be more of a founding father thab clovis lol, that is a good point
3
@tibsky1396 Well I he was more like an additional step to modern England, but yes, it is a good figure to make the point that Clovis absolutely wasn’t French. One difference though is that William was at least actually king of England. Unlike Clovis who was not even actually king of France
3
@baneofbanes No there isn’t, at most it is 10% and I don’t know hiw many of those are daily use but I suspect it is no more than 5%. The Frankish impact on the people of France in terms of their language was very limited. It is not comparable to say, the Angle and Saxon invasion of Britain, or even the Norman conquest of England. It is more like the Norse presence in what is now Russia and Ukraine. A small ruling class elite that would eventually assimilate into the local population
3
Unless if you are part of some noble family it is extremely unlikely you have documentation that proves you are directly descended from Charlemagne. That being said, all western Europeans are descended from him anyway, so you are probably correct anyway!
3
@N0Time Historians don’t say that lmao. Nation building/revisionist French historians may say that. Clovis absolutely wasn’t French nor the the first king of France. France literally did not exist and it wouldn’t exist for centuries. This is not exactly comparable to Alfred. It would be more like saying Odoacer was Italin. Alfred was a Saxon and styled himself king of the Anglo Saxons. And it was his grandson who would first be the king of England. The Saxons are a Germanic people, who founded a Germanic kingdom made up predominantly of Saxons and Angles. Clovis was a Frank who invaded Gaul, and who would be king of a country that would eventually, centuries later, also lead to the creation of France and of a French culture. This French culture would have very little connection to the Frankish culture of Clovis, and not only that, it did not even exist yet. French culture as we know it today comes mainly from the area around Paris, and was adopted by the Frankish nobles that settled in Gaul a little after Charlemagne. Additionally, Clovis adopting Christianity is just a propaganda moment. Christianity obviously already existed in Gaul, that is the whole reason why the Franks converted, not the other way around. Naturally, Clovis is part of French history. You need to know about him to understand why France would develop centuries later. But the conversion of Clovis is not the beginning of France, nor was Clovis French. He was a Frank, and again it would take about 4-5 centuries for the Franks that settled in gaul to assimilate in and contribute to the creation of a French culture. Just because France ended up being a blend of some peoples (though France is mostly made up if Latinized gauls nonetheless) doesn’t mean that you can go to the beginning of this process and call all the people involved French. This is anachronism
3
@imwinningthisone7613 And Dutch
3
The Frankish kingdom split so many times that it is honestly impressive they were a great power at all
3
@ОлегВоло-с2н Amazing, every word that you just said was wrong
3
@tibsky1396 While it is true that what is now French culture was formed over centuries as a merger of mainly Gallo-Roman culture with a dash of Frankish, it is ridiculous to say that Clovis was a part of this. At best he set that process in motion. But he himself was nothing but a Frankish king that conquered most of Gaul. The state of France and even the French culture wouldn’t exist for many centuries
2
@trenttuttle603 That is more on the Capetians, but they couldn’t have done it without Charlemagne and in turn Clovis
2
More like entry 0, French didn’t exist yet and wouldn’t for centuries
2
@accaciagame1706 Most of them aren’t that Frankish. They are more Gallic with some minor Italic and Frank
2
@N0Time Bruh I just gave random names to get you to do some busy work because the “quote me a historian” thing is annoying More to the point though, of your list I only read Gregory of Tours and he never refers to France or the French (because that didn’t exist yet, again). How could Gregory say French history started with Clovis when France didn’t even exist. Gregory himself actually starts history with bible
2
@heathercopeland21 Yeah because documentation from the time period is very rare to begin with. The Merovingian dynasty especially as it is in the very early middle ages, is basically a big question mark in terms of marriages and descendants. And these videos always have dozens of people saying they found some direct documented link to a random important historical figure
2
@wolfgangpagel6989 Two languages of the Benelux are Frankish. That being Dutch and Luxemburhish. The Franks as a whole never assimilated into local cultures, they stayed were they were. In parts of what is now Belgium, the Netherlands and Nothern France.
2
Speaking broadly they are Romanized Celts. French identity is a combination of these people and a Germanic ruling class that started around what is now Paris. But French and Frank is not the same. The Franks are the Germanic tribes that conquered and settled Gaul. The Franks still exist, most prominently in the low countries, Dutch being the modern version of the Frankish language
2
@elevatormusic3421 That is just nonsense. The core Frankish lands are in the Low Countries and the Rhineland. The Franks that lived there were not oppressed, whiped out or changed through assimilation or conquest. They literally still speak modern Frankish today. They naturally developed into what are now the Dutch and some West Germans. The French can’t pretend to be a people they are not simply because the Eastern half of the Frankish Empire was more powerful and able to reform Charlemagne’s Empire. Because that is the only reason that France was the only state left calling itself Frankish. It also doesn’t matter that the Dutch state as such didn’t exist until the 16th century. The Dutch state and culture is made up of the Frankish people and language. Besides that, I used Dutch in a broader context, not in terms of statehood. The only thing Frankish about France now are the names of historical kings who’se families have long been deposed. And the French are in no way Frankish. And are we supposed to pretend that France is actually still a continuation of the Frankish Kingdom of West Frankia? Like they are somehow the same despite a thousand and more years of history with even their monarchy being overthrown? And all that just because their name sounds similar? Political continuation is a vague and useless concept. But I understand why the French would want to claim the Franks for themselves. It is a bit embarrassing to be named after your conquerors That being said they can claim the political continuation if they want, even if it is meaningless. But they should stop claiming to be a people they aren’t. Oh and as a sidenote the Dutch and Belgian regions of Brabant are also actually direct political continuations of the Frankish kingdoms. As this Duchy was born out of Lower Lorraine and they were the Dukes of Lothier (Lotheringia) until, you guessed it, the French Revolution happened. The French of course invaded and abolished the Duchy of Lothier, but Brabant still comes directly from a Frankish political entity. It is also no coincidence that the region of Brabant (as well as Limburg and Flanders) were the centers of medieval Dutch culture, and these regions are the homelands of the Franks
2
Because French Catholic propaganda needed a hero
2
@griffinmckenzie7203 Even though they make way more sensw
1
For what?
1
@baneofbanes It really isn’t though
1
@N0Time Yvon Garlan, Pascale Mormiche, Charles Robert Ageron Who argues it does?
1
@N0Time i am not interested in a source war, you can find historians with the most retarded takes
1
@jadawin10 They can believe whatever propaganda they want. Clovis wasn’t the first king of France, it didn’t even exist. It is pure anachronism, plain and sinple
1
@jadawin10 You are a clown lmao, I am not Russian
1
@elevatormusic3421 Disagreed. The Kingdom that Clovis founded underwent various changes and breakups and reunifications. France comes from West Francia and not Francia And the Dutch are absolutely Franks. The political continuation is irrelevant. Last I check France itself doesn’t even have a king anymore. And its top feudal class was always the only Frankish thing about it. The Dutch, as well as the Luxemburgish and a part of the Germans are a direct continuation of the Franks as people, Culturally, linguistically and ethnically. French people on the other hand are not Franks, and they removed all remnants of any direct Frankish legacy long ago. And just because they held onto a Karling king for a few years longer than anyone else doesn’t mean they were the only political successor to the Franks either. East Francia literally reclaimed the defunct Frankish Imperial title. And sure, that Empire may not exist anymore, but neither does the French monarchy or feudal class. Acting like French history is one line from the Franks to now is ridiculous. The French as a whole only ever had a tenuous claim to being “Frankish” meanwhile we literally just are their descendants unlike the French. It is not in France that Frankish is spoken.
1
@elevatormusic3421 language, culture and ethnicity are all far more relevant than some vague and arbitrary concept of political continuity, especially when there isn’t even a Frankish presence in France anymore. The idea that a frog could tell a direct descendant of the Franks that still speaks Frankish and is culturally a direct continuation (unlike Lebanese people or Tunesians who were radically changed top-down by arabs) that they are less Frankish is laughable. The French are Gallo Romans ruled by our kings. And I am not even saying the modern Dutch or Germans or Luxemburgish are Frankish. That is an early medieval identity that doesn’t exist anymore. I am saying we are their direct continuation as a people, culture and language. Unlike the French. There is no political continuation, you aren’t the 5th Frankish Republic. All that is left is the distant history of Kings that, when they were Frankish, ruled over a vast population of Gallo-Roman peasants. Honestly it is ridiculous to say that culture, language and ethnicity all mean less than this lmao It is a weird and offensive way to disconnect us from our history driven by French nationalism. And the only Frankish thing about France now is that the name is a derivative of the Franks.
1
@elevatormusic3421 Lmao a Frog nationalist rewriting history and stealing culture calling me an ethni-nationalist is rich. Wouldn’t be the first time the French try and destroy other ethnicities and ethnic groups though, it is perfectly in-line with the post revolution French drive for unity and nation building. The French aren’t Frankish, and the modern French state isn’t even a continuation of anything Frankish. But cope more you inbred Gallic peasant
1
@griffinmckenzie7203 😎
1
@accaciagame1706 They didn’t assimilate with the locals. Only the Franks that settled in Gaul did, and even that took centuries to develop into France.
1
@wolfgangpagel6989 First of all, there is no one German language, there is standard German which is one of many languages that are often classified as German. The distinction betwern language and dialect is political and not linguistic. Dutch is close to German sure, but Dutch (and Luxemburgish) are descendants if Frankish, in the case if Dutch Salian and in the case of Luxemburgish a Ripurian version. There is no debate about this, they are in essence Frankish languages. That is why when looking at Frankish loan words in French, they are first compared to (old) Dutch and Luxemburgish. Standard French is not “originally” Frankish, it is a form of Vulgar Latin with minor Frankish influences. As for the Franks themselves, some of them moved into Gaul and were assimilated into the Romanized Gaulic and latin population, but the Franks still exist as a Germanic group in Belgium, the Netherlands and parts if west Germany.
1
@wolfgangpagel6989 That is not a classification, languages can be mutually intelligible. For example, Portugese and Spanish are quite similar and people from both languages can have basic conversations, but they are separate languages. Besides you can also say then that Standard German is a Luxemburgish language then. As for the Franks in what is now Franconia. It is possible that they originated there, but by the 5th century it is likely that there was no significant presence there. There is also no real linguistic connection between Old Frankish as it is known to us and the regional franconian dialect. This is the case for Dutch and to Luxemburgish but to a lesser degree. Lastly idk what the point was about all the different tribes, but most of the Franks changed either into the Dutch and some west Germans. But those west Germans are themselves part of a broader German identity so they are less distinguishable from other Germans, which is obviously not the case for the Dutch
1
@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
@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