I heard that all Western Europeans are related to Charlemagne in the same way all mainland Asians are related to...

>I heard that all Western Europeans are related to Charlemagne in the same way all mainland Asians are related to Genghis Khan.

Is this bullshit or is there some truth to it?

Statistically its literally true, but we are also related to everybody else alive at the same time

All living organisms on earth share a common ancestor.

I am talking about direct relations.

Well, technically Alaska is connected to Panama.

You have to drive for a really long time though.

If you mean a line of descent from Genghis and Charlemagne, no, only like 1% of Asia is in the line of Genghis, and I dunno about Europe.

Every european alive today is a direct descendant of charlamagne. They are also a direct descendant of every person living in europe at the time

Only some central Asians have descent from Genghis Khan, in Europe everybody is descended from Karl der Große though.

The reason why people share the same Y chromosome as Genghis Khan is because he and his family took a lot of women for themselves. Everyone of the Khans probably had a giant-ass harem

I don't know if Charlemagne, being the devoted Christian that he was, had a large-ass harem. he probably had concubines and the European royalty are all genetically linked what with the inbreeding but I doubt your normal peasant descent had any genetic resemblance

So let's settle this once and for all. Where exactly was Charlemagne from?

>I am talking about direct relations

Yes, you are directly descended from Charlemagne and so am I (probably).

And everyone on Earth is directly descended from Egyptian pharaohs.

Frankreich.

Hol up, so you be sayin' we wuz Charlemagne an sheit?

Not all Western Europeans maybe, but certainly a considerable majority.
Think of it this way: you have two parents. Your two parents had two parents, so you have 4 grandparents. 8 great-grand parents. 16 great-great-grand parents. You can see where I'm going with this. Suppose the time difference between two generations is about 25 years. 25 years ago, you had 2 direct ancestors. 50 years ago, you had 4. For X years in the past, you had 2^(X/25) ancestors.
Charlemagne lived about 1200 years ago. Thats 48 generations of 25 years. This gives you 2^48 = 2.81*10^14 - 281 TRILLION - ancestors. Obviously, there weren't that many people alive back then, which means you're a product of inbreeding (no suprise there). On top of this, you have to consider geographic factors. If you're from Western Europe, a very large parts of your ancestors will have come from Western Europe, because Thai mail order brides didnt exist yet and people didnt commonly travel very far. Suppose every generation introduces on average 10% non-European in it(some of your inbred ancestors got BLACKED,KHAN'D, JIHAD'D or whatever) - that leaves you with (1.9)^48 = 23 trillion ancestors from Western Europe, way more than there were Western Europeans - again, you're undoubtedly the result of (probably a whole lot of) inbreeding.
To add to this, Charlemagne did a pretty good job of enriching the continent, having (at least) 18 children himself. His descendants were aristocracy, meaning they would've likely had plenty of children living to adulthood as well, and they would've been geographically over much of Western Europe, meaning that Charlemagne's line probably isnt restricted by inbreeding to a high concentration in one area.
This doesn't mean that necessarily every European is a descendant of Charlemagne - either through a freak chance or being from a very secluded population you could be 100% European and still not be from Charlemagne's line. Iceland seems a likely place for this.

>And everyone on Earth is directly descended from Egyptian pharaohs.

No, only black people.

It's a mathematical certainty.

>all mainland Asians
mayhaps east asia + central adia.
almost 1/3 of Asia is Indian which in latge part managed to steer clear of the Mongol rape train

I am appearently directly related to him, so I guess it could be trough. Though records dating that far back are not the most reliable.

>Statistically its literally true
Only if you assume anybody mixes with anybody else.

All those numbers prove is obviously you'll find the same people a lot in your family tree, doesn't mean that anybody will be in there. If your ancestors were Berry peasants then it just means a lot of your Berry peasant ancestors interbred.
>inb4 muh prima noctis meme

The number of direct patrilineal descendants of Genghis is not very high. But he and his descendants had daughters too. Most of his descendants come this way. In 8 generations, only 1/64 of your descendants are patrilineal.

Charlemagne has no known patrilineal descendant.

>things that make you go hmm
another meme stolen by black twitter

>If your ancestors were Berry peasants then it just means a lot of your Berry peasant ancestors interbred.
True. But its a numbers game - all it takes is for one Charlemagne descendant to breed with the Berry peasants and you're a Charlemagne descendant. Over enough generations, the odds of being a pure Berry peasant and exclusively non-Charlemagne descendant become very small.
>Charlemagne has no known patrilineal descendant.
Charlemagne had four legitimate and four non-legitimate sons.
His son Louis had four sons.
Those four sons had thirteen sons.