@@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.
@@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.
Charlemagne was offered the title of Emperor by the Pope; it wasn't his idea, though some of his advisors might have suggested it. The Pope wanted a powerful backer so it was in his interest as much as anything else, especially since the Roman Emperor was the one who appointed / recognised Popes in the first place at that time.
@@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
The popular belief around « lazy kings » is a wrong analysis of history. 1. They were qualified as lazy much later when the Carolingians wanted to solidify their dominance. 2. They were thought lazy because we lost most source of their reign (due to conservation issues), but we know that all the Merovingian kings knew how to read and write, a thing that Charlemagne never achieved. Finally they held the Kingdom together without major civil war through smarter land division in very troubled times while the Carolingians disappeared soon after the death of Charlemagne.
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.
@@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.
I like the maps and the video in general. Good information. I do NOT like the AI-generated images when there are faces in them. Extremely off-putting the way they melt and morph, like a nightmare
What great content! The presentation method is innovative and comfortable for the eyes and helps to understand the explanation, in addition to the wonderful narration method and the background music is more than wonderful. Keep it up !!!
For the lazy kings, it only started in 639 (Clovis ruled between 481 and 511 and the first lazy king was his great great great grandson) but it happened because the merovingians dynasty succession laws. Every time a king died, his kingdom was split between all his sons so when Clovis died, his kingdom was split between all his sons in 511 but the last one alive (Clotaire 1) survived/killed all his brothers and nephews and unified it again in 558 but died soon after in 561. The kingdom was once again split in four and began the "faide royale" (royal feud) between 561 and 613 with Clotaire sons. Two of them (Sigebert and Chilpéric married quickly two wisigoths princess sisters (Brunehaut and Galswinthe) but Chilpéric mistress (Fredegonde) killed later Galswinthe then Chilpéric remarried with Fredegonde and really started the war between between Sigebert/Brunehaut and Chilpéric/Fredegonde while Gontran (Sigebert and Chilpéric's brother) was the third player in this war. The war ended in 613 when Clotaire 2 (Chilpéric and Fredegonde son) murdered Brunehaut and her great grandson. Unfortunately for the dynasty, the mayors of the palace (the frankish medieval prime ministers) gained political powers because of the faide royale and became more powerful than the kings after Dagobert 1 (Clotaire 2 son) death in 639, which leads to the erovingian kings being figure head.
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.
Incroyable cette vidéo ! Je me souviens des cours d'histoire à l'école, en France. Ton travail est très très bon, très bien illustré, ça pourrait servir dans l'éducation ! Beau travail, vraiment 👏
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.
@@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..
Full plate armor doesn't exist until after 1420. "Heavy cavalry" doesn't exist until the bigger horses appear (thanks to selective breeding) a couple hundred years later after Charles Martel. The arab cavalry is considered lightweight cavalry.
History videos need constant placement along the timeline. Could you have put a year in the corner of your maps so we know when exactly you are talking about?
I wonder if the hill this video speaks of is the same hill as the one that held off the west-word counter attack by the WW2 Germans (hill 630 or something like that) after the DDay invation.
I am sure the franks name came from their weapon the 'francisca' throwing axe, only after their conquest of Soisson that the salian confederation came to be known as Franks, the famous french saying "step into France soil, and be a freeman" is thought to have originate from this era, a reference to Franks abolishing slavery in northern Gaul.
Very well summarised. Thank you! Im french and had a hard time getting a proper grasp of this period. Especially given the historiography of this period, even modern, is very tainted with pious and nationalist interpretations of everything.
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
Consider Charlemagne a brute whose expansionism and forced conversion of Saxony and Frisia 770s to 800s likely caused Scandinavian vikings to commence raiding Catholic holdings during the 790s. (Lindisfarne 793 - had close ties to the Franks - Charlemagne supposedly visited the monestary), Ireland 796, Aquitaine 799 the most known) Saxon and Frisian ties to Scandinavia were centuries old thru trade and intermarriages. Pretty sure Catholic expansion was viewed an existential threat by King Godfred of Denmark and his fellow pagan Scandinavians as fortifications (Dannevirke) was reinforced just North of Saxony across the main land and construction of ring-fortresses was begun at least five different locations inside Denmark in the immediate aftermath (Aggersborg, Fyrkat, Trelleborg etc.) Charlemagne essentially caused a 2 centuries long all-out war between Nordic pagans and Catholics (The Viking Era) - A war that lasted until King Harold bluetooth of Denmark converted to Christianity around 985 after loosing a battle to the Holy Roman Empire on the border to Saxony. When Harolds grandson Knut/Canute became king of England 1016 - Now a Christian - The Viking Era was de facto over. Hastings 1066 being the end is a later adoptation probbably made by the Plantagenet Dynasty as propaganda for their rule. The history as most know it is very biased by Christian narratives.
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 defense a major setback for them, did ultimately lead to a viking defeat as well. And wouldn’t really be the concern of Charlemagne anyway
10:14 'in 777 the Saxons agreed to peace at Paderborn.' did this place even exist back then? some say, the town was founded in 795 by Charlemagne as a bishopric.
@@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.
Charlemagne, Karl der Große, Carolus Magnus or Charles the Great. It's always funny to me how Germany and France see him as the Father of their States but always being at war with eachother. Still, a little bit like Charlemagne's own children. Like toddlers. For over thousand years trying to prove who is the better son...and just failing on a daily basis.
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 !
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.
Charles martel is the grand father of charlemagne. Peppin the short and charlemagne change the family name from "peppinide" to "carolingian" to refere themselves to charles martel. There is alot of errord and approximation in this video, be careful people.
“Frank” comes from “Frankon”, that became “Francisque”, and it’s an axe. That was the name of their axe. Nothing to do with “frei” or “free”. Please check your sources. Ps: I’m French and my first name is Francois.
Historically speaking this is good content and a nice video... but maybe you should tone down the use of AI (or "AI"), because it shows to the point of being off putting... and more importantly, inaccurate, because for example, there's an Asian in the court of Clovis
This is an amazing video… I often hear people say diversity isn’t a strength but look how diverse Europe was.. more tribes there than Africa at one point
Some people are not aware yet or just learning our history. So they may be confused of the numbers you throw in the video. you should state B.C. and A.D. or BCE and CE otherwise this video is just another hearsay...
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…
I don't know why it's so hard to find the exact time the Frankish Empire became the Holy Roman Empire or part of it. I've even googled this. The history is so unclear and convoluted that I actually thought the Holy Roman Empire began before the Frankish Empire. I thought this video would answer the question. When Charlemagne was crowned, I thought, this is it! Nope, just emperor of the Franks. I assume it was the Eastern Frankish empire that became the Holy Roman Empire? I was always interested by the fact that the Franks were a Germanic tribe. But jeeze the history is too complicated. I love history. But I seem to gravitate more towards the wars of the 20th century. Who can keep track of allllllllll of these Europeon wars and kings from like 700 to 1800. Jesus Chr!st!
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...
Well, so much wrong. There was no mass migration, the barbarians at best were about 5% of the population. The original Romans are the ancestors of the people there today. The Franks came into the empire in 300AD or thereabouts as an ally. Clovis in 480 AD defeated the last Roman governor of Gaul, but there was no western empire so it was a rump country. Then about 510 AD Clovis beat the Visigoths and they moved from Southern France to Spain but they numbered 200,000 while the Roman population of Spain was 10 million. The western Roman empire went the way of the USSR and just broke up.
I cannot fully agree with some statements made. “The birth of Modern Europe”? Europe never was and will never be only the Western part of the continent and people should stop ignoring the full history of our common continent by slicing it somewhere in the middle. The Byzantine empire stopped many times the invasions of Arabs at the same period, returned lands in Italy and North Africa, created the codexes of Justinian, converted half Europe and etc. Bulgaria and Kievian Rus have been established as big countries, not less important than the Kingdom of Franks, and therefore for the establishment of modern Europe. Bulgarians and Byzantines smashed Arabs near Constantinople in 718 - way earlier in a greater and more important battle for the city of world desires! That’s why Arabs moved to Iberian peninsula. And then the Franks had battles with them.
Good point Kiyv was one of the world's largest cities up untill the Mongolian invasions when it was utterly destroyed. And worked as a trade route between Northern and eastern Europe to the Mediterranean.
@@thegoon33 i guess ya in the vid it showed the roman-gual tribes getting conquered by the germanic-franks whose original lands were contested for centuries... makes sense
@@thegoon33 It depends on the Franks. They were Germanics, but not necessarily German, especially as we hear today. In exemple, the Old Frankish dialects spoken by the Salian Franks in Gaul were more ancient version of Old Dutch, Flemish, or even Limburgish.
@@thegoon33 Germanic people were extremely diverse. You wouldn't find much similarities between modern Germans and the old Franks. French and Belgian people are closer to what the old Franks were
@@sebe2255 i didn't find your reply, so i ll make mine here. Actualy Germany genetic is a huge mix and yes the west part of Germany have a been influence by the Franks a little part of the genetic of western Germany can come from Franks, but just a little one. You are making confusion between being a ruler and being the citizens of a kigdom. The Franks weren't a part or at least a small one of the East Frankish kingdom. But they were citizen of the west frankish kingdom and a bit of the central one. Saying that Germans are from the Franks is kinda similar to say that Espagnol are from the Arabs, it's true for a little part. Futheremore Franks comes from what now is a region neer Netherland, that don't make them Dutch. They became what they are after moving to the south by a mix with the Gallo-Romans. Basicly Franks became mostly a part of the Belgian and northern French.
@@ulfr5347 You are the confused one. The Franks had a major kingdom based around Cologne. These people weren’t just ruled by Frankish king, these was their core population center along with the low countries. As for the Dutch, their language is literally a direct continuation of old Frankish. Cities like Brussel, Antwerp, Maastricht, Mechelen and Brugge were firmly Frankish and they were the origin of early Dutch culture. Obviously some Franks settled in Gaul, but most did not. Which is why West German dialects and Dutch are actually still Frankish, unlike French. The Gallo Roman population was simply far too large for the Frankish settlement to change this. The language spoken natively by every Frankish king from Clovis to Charlemagne would be an ancestor of Dutch (the Merovingian dynasty) and Rhineland German (the Karling dynasty) dialects, not French, which most of them didn’t speak until the 11th century. Instead of course the Frankish kings in Gaul would often learn Latin instead of Old French If anything what you say is the reverse. In Northern France they have some Frankish ancestry, but the Low Countries and the Lower Rhine are a direct continuation of the Frankish people. This is undisputed Oh and you are right the East Frankish kingdom at its founding had barely any Franks, the only ones being in what is now Hesse. But with the annexation of large parts of Middle Frankia (which had most of the Frankish population with regions like of Lower and Upper Lorraine) East Frankia gained the largest population of Franks again. And saying that most French are Frankish is just as false as saying that most Germans are. A gallo Roman peasant in northern france and a fisherman in southern France were just as much conquered by Franks as a Bavarian. The difference is that Germany and the Low Countries especially had large and majority Frankish population centers, modern France (outside of Lille-Calais and tiny part in the Moselle region) did not because again the Gallo-Roman population was far too large for the settlers to change the demographics here.
@@sebe2255 ok thank you, i migh know less thingh than you about the part of Dutch and west Germany, but one things i know well is that people from the nothern part of France, the part the you obtain by a split of France by its middle are by genetics half Germans those franks, bc as i know Franks were the sole german tribe in northern France. Which i don't consider a small part.
You could imagine Charlemagne as an old man on his knees screaming every 5 minutes..........
SAXONNNNNYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!
France's name in German is "Frankreich" , which means "Empire of the Franks".
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.
Saying Charlemagne the Great is like saying Karl the Great the Great
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).
Charlemagne was offered the title of Emperor by the Pope; it wasn't his idea, though some of his advisors might have suggested it. The Pope wanted a powerful backer so it was in his interest as much as anything else, especially since the Roman Emperor was the one who appointed / recognised Popes in the first place at that time.
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
The popular belief around « lazy kings » is a wrong analysis of history.
1. They were qualified as lazy much later when the Carolingians wanted to solidify their dominance.
2. They were thought lazy because we lost most source of their reign (due to conservation issues), but we know that all the Merovingian kings knew how to read and write, a thing that Charlemagne never achieved. Finally they held the Kingdom together without major civil war through smarter land division in very troubled times while the Carolingians disappeared soon after the death of Charlemagne.
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.
Your videos are so visually pleasing and neat - - keep up the excellent work!
Thanks for supporting)
Mass-produced garbage.
Excellent stuff, I've been looking for something that explains the movements of the Empire and this goes above and beyond!
Just subbed. Always love finding a good historical channel. Excellent work. Really enjoyed it.
I like the maps and the video in general. Good information. I do NOT like the AI-generated images when there are faces in them. Extremely off-putting the way they melt and morph, like a nightmare
What great content! The presentation method is innovative and comfortable for the eyes and helps to understand the explanation, in addition to the wonderful narration method and the background music is more than wonderful. Keep it up !!!
Just discovered this awesome channel! 👌🏼👌🏼 Blessings!
I swear there is always a little known mountain pass.
For the lazy kings, it only started in 639 (Clovis ruled between 481 and 511 and the first lazy king was his great great great grandson) but it happened because the merovingians dynasty succession laws.
Every time a king died, his kingdom was split between all his sons so when Clovis died, his kingdom was split between all his sons in 511 but the last one alive (Clotaire 1) survived/killed all his brothers and nephews and unified it again in 558 but died soon after in 561.
The kingdom was once again split in four and began the "faide royale" (royal feud) between 561 and 613 with Clotaire sons.
Two of them (Sigebert and Chilpéric married quickly two wisigoths princess sisters (Brunehaut and Galswinthe) but Chilpéric mistress (Fredegonde) killed later Galswinthe then Chilpéric remarried with Fredegonde and really started the war between between Sigebert/Brunehaut and Chilpéric/Fredegonde while Gontran (Sigebert and Chilpéric's brother) was the third player in this war.
The war ended in 613 when Clotaire 2 (Chilpéric and Fredegonde son) murdered Brunehaut and her great grandson.
Unfortunately for the dynasty, the mayors of the palace (the frankish medieval prime ministers)
gained political powers because of the faide royale and became more powerful than the kings after Dagobert 1 (Clotaire 2 son) death in 639, which leads to the erovingian kings being figure head.
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.
Incroyable cette vidéo ! Je me souviens des cours d'histoire à l'école, en France.
Ton travail est très très bon, très bien illustré, ça pourrait servir dans l'éducation ! Beau travail, vraiment 👏
This was great. Good job!!!
Quality graphics and suitable pacing! Good job!
Roland and his legenday sword Durandal mentioned! i like!
Nice content
Appreciate the video. I was wondering if there's a reason why you prefer to say AD instead of CE? Keep up the good work!
In the video, at some points, the capital is incorrectly stated:
Paris (c. 509-771)
Aachen (771-840)
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..
this is actually very well told storywise. very clear and causal. thank you
The greatest franks were from what is now called Belgium. Clovis, the first king of the franks. Charles Martel and of course his grand son charlemagne
Full plate armor doesn't exist until after 1420. "Heavy cavalry" doesn't exist until the bigger horses appear (thanks to selective breeding) a couple hundred years later after Charles Martel. The arab cavalry is considered lightweight cavalry.
This channel is great! I love the way you utilize the maps!
you deserve more followers
Wij in Nederland hebben een gezegde , frank en vrij , maar dat betekent dus allebei hetzelfde , interessant .
Das Wort haben wir hier in Franken auch… Frank und frei…👍
Nice video actually
Great video! Earned a new subscriber! :)
Hey bud, cool video, there is a mistake though…you keep calling Harold of Bavaria Gerald…or maybe the graphic is a typo
Anyway..not a big deal
Could you do something about Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
Of course, if we see interest in this topic from the audience under your comment 🫡
@@History_Mapped_Out I support that.
@@TheRezro Me too !
I love history
Great video !!
Another great video,great job 🤙
Hello, your videos are very good. How do you make photos animated? Is there a program etc? 1:28
In contrast to what this video implies, "Charlemagne" was not his name, it was Charles (or Karl). He was later called "le Magne" (the Great).
Très bien imagé. Magnifique carte ! : )
Thank you for excellent and audible English skills
History videos need constant placement along the timeline. Could you have put a year in the corner of your maps so we know when exactly you are talking about?
It’s not difficult to know where these places are, modern day France, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy & Slovia. Maps face North.
I wonder if the hill this video speaks of is the same hill as the one that held off the west-word counter attack by the WW2 Germans (hill 630 or something like that) after the DDay invation.
the AI footage really dropped me. could be a nice video tho.
This is a very good history video 👏👏👏
I am sure the franks name came from their weapon the 'francisca' throwing axe, only after their conquest of Soisson that the salian confederation came to be known as Franks, the famous french saying "step into France soil, and be a freeman" is thought to have originate from this era, a reference to Franks abolishing slavery in northern Gaul.
Very well summarised. Thank you! Im french and had a hard time getting a proper grasp of this period. Especially given the historiography of this period, even modern, is very tainted with pious and nationalist interpretations of everything.
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
thank u but info, numbers are not correct for the battle of poitiers
Pepin the short wasn't actually short that was just a nickname that his critics gave him many years later he was actually taller than average
The details are cool, the summations not well founded.
Consider Charlemagne a brute whose expansionism and forced conversion of Saxony and Frisia 770s to 800s likely caused Scandinavian vikings to commence raiding Catholic holdings during the 790s. (Lindisfarne 793 - had close ties to the Franks - Charlemagne supposedly visited the monestary), Ireland 796, Aquitaine 799 the most known) Saxon and Frisian ties to Scandinavia were centuries old thru trade and intermarriages. Pretty sure Catholic expansion was viewed an existential threat by King Godfred of Denmark and his fellow pagan Scandinavians as fortifications (Dannevirke) was reinforced just North of Saxony across the main land and construction of ring-fortresses was begun at least five different locations inside Denmark in the immediate aftermath (Aggersborg, Fyrkat, Trelleborg etc.) Charlemagne essentially caused a 2 centuries long all-out war between Nordic pagans and Catholics (The Viking Era) - A war that lasted until King Harold bluetooth of Denmark converted to Christianity around 985 after loosing a battle to the Holy Roman Empire on the border to Saxony. When Harolds grandson Knut/Canute became king of England 1016 - Now a Christian - The Viking Era was de facto over. Hastings 1066 being the end is a later adoptation probbably made by the Plantagenet Dynasty as propaganda for their rule.
The history as most know it is very biased by Christian narratives.
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 defense a major setback for them, did ultimately lead to a viking defeat as well. And wouldn’t really be the concern of Charlemagne anyway
10:14 'in 777 the Saxons agreed to peace at Paderborn.' did this place even exist back then? some say, the town was founded in 795 by Charlemagne as a bishopric.
Wonderfully told 😊
Mistakes only make you stronger….
The person who founded France being ACTUALLY STRONG 💀:
⚜️ ⚜️
⚜️
* Western Europe not all of Europe
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
You kinda sound like David Cross
Crazy that French and Germans used to be the same people. Imagine what could have been if the Frankish empire had prevailed
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.
Saxony. 400 years old. Hobbies include Rebelling
Charlemagne, Karl der Große, Carolus Magnus or Charles the Great.
It's always funny to me how Germany and France see him as the Father of their States but always being at war with eachother. Still, a little bit like Charlemagne's own children. Like toddlers. For over thousand years trying to prove who is the better son...and just failing on a daily basis.
Pepin the short was not of short ht. The term short here means young or third
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 !
You have made plenty of mistakes but the presentation was good
Ridiculous, at Ronceveau, the enemies were the Basques not the Arabs.
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.
King: hey, I'm a king
Charlemagne: nope, you're a monk
Charlemagne’s dad*
well done.
Please continue the frankish video until the Capetian usurp the west frankish throne
Super interesting
Clovis and Charlemagne rock 🪨 😂
1:30 I don't think that's a half. XD
La mixture germanico-ostrogoths..
Did he just say Chill Derrick the third?
Childeric
@@janbayart2250 ay yo dis my man chill Derrick.
Too much AI, they usually just made anachronistic images everywhere
Charles martel is the grand father of charlemagne. Peppin the short and charlemagne change the family name from "peppinide" to "carolingian" to refere themselves to charles martel. There is alot of errord and approximation in this video, be careful people.
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.
“Frank” comes from “Frankon”, that became “Francisque”, and it’s an axe. That was the name of their axe. Nothing to do with “frei” or “free”. Please check your sources. Ps: I’m French and my first name is Francois.
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.
Great animation, but the boring music and monotone narration really let it down
I didn't know the Muslims influenced the French army thats amazing ❤
Historically speaking this is good content and a nice video... but maybe you should tone down the use of AI (or "AI"), because it shows to the point of being off putting... and more importantly, inaccurate, because for example, there's an Asian in the court of Clovis
Why wasent Brittany (Bretagne) not conquered?
ROMANVM IMPERIVM
I found gold
This is literally just a ck 3 campaign
This is an amazing video… I often hear people say diversity isn’t a strength but look how diverse Europe was.. more tribes there than Africa at one point
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
Some people are not aware yet or just learning our history. So they may be confused of the numbers you throw in the video. you should state B.C. and A.D. or BCE and CE otherwise this video is just another hearsay...
Vive la France 💙🇫🇷⚜️
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…
Fort of the Franks
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Hopefully random, meaningless comments help the algorithm notice this underexposed channel
Oh, just terrible. @1:05 there were no fleur d'Lys
being an ai enthusiast, it warms my heart that the technology is already used to simplify the production of such videos!
You like those misshapen faces and unnatural movements? I think it's gross and uncanny
Why are you calling them Arab? They were Muslim but not necessarily Arab
I don't know why it's so hard to find the exact time the Frankish Empire became the Holy Roman Empire or part of it. I've even googled this. The history is so unclear and convoluted that I actually thought the Holy Roman Empire began before the Frankish Empire. I thought this video would answer the question. When Charlemagne was crowned, I thought, this is it! Nope, just emperor of the Franks. I assume it was the Eastern Frankish empire that became the Holy Roman Empire? I was always interested by the fact that the Franks were a Germanic tribe. But jeeze the history is too complicated.
I love history. But I seem to gravitate more towards the wars of the 20th century. Who can keep track of allllllllll of these Europeon wars and kings from like 700 to 1800. Jesus Chr!st!
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
Worst thing that ever happened to England
Is this… entirely AI?
"Charlemagne the Great" lmao
The Romans don't expell pope the pope leave the Romans
The ai voice is okay i guess. But blud has to get his facts straight
We don’t use ai voice :(
Frankly awesome lol
Well, so much wrong. There was no mass migration, the barbarians at best were about 5% of the population. The original Romans are the ancestors of the people there today. The Franks came into the empire in 300AD or thereabouts as an ally. Clovis in 480 AD defeated the last Roman governor of Gaul, but there was no western empire so it was a rump country. Then about 510 AD Clovis beat the Visigoths and they moved from Southern France to Spain but they numbered 200,000 while the Roman population of Spain was 10 million. The western Roman empire went the way of the USSR and just broke up.
I cannot fully agree with some statements made. “The birth of Modern Europe”? Europe never was and will never be only the Western part of the continent and people should stop ignoring the full history of our common continent by slicing it somewhere in the middle. The Byzantine empire stopped many times the invasions of Arabs at the same period, returned lands in Italy and North Africa, created the codexes of Justinian, converted half Europe and etc. Bulgaria and Kievian Rus have been established as big countries, not less important than the Kingdom of Franks, and therefore for the establishment of modern Europe. Bulgarians and Byzantines smashed Arabs near Constantinople in 718 - way earlier in a greater and more important battle for the city of world desires! That’s why Arabs moved to Iberian peninsula. And then the Franks had battles with them.
Good point Kiyv was one of the world's largest cities up untill the Mongolian invasions when it was utterly destroyed. And worked as a trade route between Northern and eastern Europe to the Mediterranean.
By 718, the arabs had already been 7 years in Hispania
They funded Europe through christianity extension and the salic law spread.
Check out their video called The Migration Period, the birth of Europe. They cover all of those items you mentioned.
All the portraits look like romance novel cover art; weird af.
It's all AI Art. A huge time and money saver for history channels like this. I'm seeing it more and more these days.
Christ / divine central authority unity with substantive human rights choice is emperor
Frankfurt was a Frankish Fort, but its sooo German now! cool.
Well the Franks were a Germanic people who spoke a Germanic language and had a Germanic culture. Its not a surprise that its very German.
@@thegoon33 i guess ya in the vid it showed the roman-gual tribes getting conquered by the germanic-franks whose original lands were contested for centuries... makes sense
@@thegoon33 It depends on the Franks. They were Germanics, but not necessarily German, especially as we hear today. In exemple, the Old Frankish dialects spoken by the Salian Franks in Gaul were more ancient version of Old Dutch, Flemish, or even Limburgish.
@@thegoon33 Germanic people were extremely diverse. You wouldn't find much similarities between modern Germans and the old Franks. French and Belgian people are closer to what the old Franks were
@@JJ-ml9sjthe gauls have nothing to do with romans
waaayyy too ai even the voice.
So the Franks are Belgians???
French not Belgian
@@h.i.v.e_4496Dutch not French
@@sebe2255 i didn't find your reply, so i ll make mine here.
Actualy Germany genetic is a huge mix and yes the west part of Germany have a been influence by the Franks a little part of the genetic of western Germany can come from Franks, but just a little one. You are making confusion between being a ruler and being the citizens of a kigdom. The Franks weren't a part or at least a small one of the East Frankish kingdom. But they were citizen of the west frankish kingdom and a bit of the central one. Saying that Germans are from the Franks is kinda similar to say that Espagnol are from the Arabs, it's true for a little part.
Futheremore Franks comes from what now is a region neer Netherland, that don't make them Dutch. They became what they are after moving to the south by a mix with the Gallo-Romans. Basicly Franks became mostly a part of the Belgian and northern French.
@@ulfr5347 You are the confused one. The Franks had a major kingdom based around Cologne. These people weren’t just ruled by Frankish king, these was their core population center along with the low countries. As for the Dutch, their language is literally a direct continuation of old Frankish. Cities like Brussel, Antwerp, Maastricht, Mechelen and Brugge were firmly Frankish and they were the origin of early Dutch culture. Obviously some Franks settled in Gaul, but most did not. Which is why West German dialects and Dutch are actually still Frankish, unlike French. The Gallo Roman population was simply far too large for the Frankish settlement to change this. The language spoken natively by every Frankish king from Clovis to Charlemagne would be an ancestor of Dutch (the Merovingian dynasty) and Rhineland German (the Karling dynasty) dialects, not French, which most of them didn’t speak until the 11th century. Instead of course the Frankish kings in Gaul would often learn Latin instead of Old French
If anything what you say is the reverse. In Northern France they have some Frankish ancestry, but the Low Countries and the Lower Rhine are a direct continuation of the Frankish people. This is undisputed
Oh and you are right the East Frankish kingdom at its founding had barely any Franks, the only ones being in what is now Hesse. But with the annexation of large parts of Middle Frankia (which had most of the Frankish population with regions like of Lower and Upper Lorraine) East Frankia gained the largest population of Franks again. And saying that most French are Frankish is just as false as saying that most Germans are. A gallo Roman peasant in northern france and a fisherman in southern France were just as much conquered by Franks as a Bavarian. The difference is that Germany and the Low Countries especially had large and majority Frankish population centers, modern France (outside of Lille-Calais and tiny part in the Moselle region) did not because again the Gallo-Roman population was far too large for the settlers to change the demographics here.
@@sebe2255 ok thank you, i migh know less thingh than you about the part of Dutch and west Germany, but one things i know well is that people from the nothern part of France, the part the you obtain by a split of France by its middle are by genetics half Germans those franks, bc as i know Franks were the sole german tribe in northern France. Which i don't consider a small part.