>Criticizes the Holy Roman Empire
>Constantly cucks to Voltaire
>Examines the Empire centuries after its formation
>Doesnt realize the title of Holy Roman Emperor was given to based Charlemange after he kicked the muslims out of France and saved Europe from Islam, something pretty holy and deserving of a Roman Emperor
Of course it'd turn to shit much later on, but still better than the Byzantines
His grandfather was much more based, Charles Martel the kebab remover.
Charles was based but not as based as Charles the Based.
>Doesnt realize the title of Holy Roman Emperor was given to based Charlemange after he kicked the muslims out of France and saved Europe from Islam, something pretty holy and deserving of a Roman Emperor
Except it wasn't. The pope gave Charlemagne the title of "Roman Emperor" cause he was scared shitless and wanted to get in good with Charlie. "Holy" was only added in 1157 by Frederick Barbarossa to fuck with the Pope.
>Charles Martel
>More Based
another retarded Frankish Gavelkind douche.
>the title of Holy Roman Emperor was given to based Charlemange after he kicked the muslims out of France and saved Europe from Islam
What? I don't think he ever really fought any Muslim force seriously, his one attempt being a botched campaign (to help some Muslim emirs rebelling against Cordoba mind you) that got hit bad by some Basques.
Even his grandfather got his titles and prestige from fighting the Pope's enemies in Italy. Charlemagne actually had pretty cordial relationships with Muslim powers, which is why the Caliph in Baghdad gifted him a pet elephant while he funded the construction of a pilgrim's lodge in Jerusalem.
Finally someone who dosn't fucking whine and shit gab the lad.
>but still better than the Byzantines
I disagree Byzantine did have as much land but they were usually richer than them also were legitimate seeing their emperors can in fact be traced back to the Romans.
Likewise they were the main ones making the sure muslims didn't enter Europe from the east (then the crusaders stabbed them in the back).
>after he kicked the muslims out of France and saved Europe from Islam
When did this happen?
>saved Europe from Islam
>douche
No
>Byzantine Empire
>still the same continuation of the Roman state it was in the 3rd century
>Holy Roman Empire
>DAS IST RICHTIG MANN WE WAS ROMANS AND SHEEEEEEEISSE
Not at all. Charlemagne essentially united all of Western Europe and promoted the first major Western scholarship since the Roman era.
Charles Martel just beat a raiding party of Moors in one small battle, which is only remembered because the losers were Muslim.
A good chunk of Europe was under Muslim rule at that time. The Battle of Tours involved just one of many small raiding parties. It wasn't a planned conquest.
>kicked the muslims out of France
But there are loads of muslims in France.
btw charlemagne pretty much started the reconquista by taking barcelona, corsica, and the balearic islands
The "raiding party theory" is highly debated. If they had defeated Charles at tours there would have been no force in Europe to stop the advancement of the muslin hordes. He also stop multiple Muslim invasions, not just at the battle of tours.
Those weren't even taken by him. His son fought the Muslims in Spain.
The byzantines fought longer and harder, and were closer to the source of the evil. Charlemagne never fought off Bulgar hordes and burn an arab armada in the same battle. Aside from the spaniards western europe didn't really do shit until centuries later with the crusades.
>Highly refuted
By whom? If it was a full invasion force, why wouldn't they have occupied Aquitaine before going all the wag up to Tours?
The chance for a decisive victory over the main enemy force certainly beats wasting away months occupying foreign lands far from your shores. Besides, there were negotiations with dukes and counts, I think Toulouse was scheming, and once Charles Martel is out of the way the Franks can be divided and conquered like the visigoths.
Maybe so that they could destroy any opposition? They had been undefeated by that point in France, they didn't expect anyone to stand up to their heavy calavary. If Charles had lost at tours than there would have been no force to stop the Muslim conquest of Europe. The uyymad even took cities on the southern coast of France after, which shows a pretty clear intention to establish a base of operations for further conquest in the future.
he took barcelona for sure, to make the spanish march, but apparently not corsica and the balearic islands, you're right
While Charlemagne may have started the reconquista, it was only possible because his grandfather had spent the end of his life defeating the uyymad and stopping any chance for them to invade France again.
>Muslim hordes
/pol/ detected
While the Moors were aggressive conquerors, they were still more organized and literate than the Frankish tribal military.
The Frankish kingdom was incredibly decentralized. Charles Martel's army probably wasn't bigger or more formidable than the individual armies of his dukes.
>moors more organized
Look at all the good that did them against based Charles Martel.
>implying Charles Martels army wasn't formidable
He had the only trained, standing army in Europe at the time.
>Charlemagne secures a small strip of Iberia
>rest of Iberia has to deal with muslims for the rest of the Middle ages
t-thanks Charlemagne