Let's talk about the Franks

Since recently i saw many Germans claiming my ancestors, let's about the Franks.

WHAT ARE THE FRANKS ?

The Franks ARE SAID TO BE a Germanic tribe but it don't withstand even a blow from a learned man, here is why :


>Now, when I said Frankland just above, I meant all the provinces north of the Alps; for as it is written: “In those days ten men shall take hold out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew,” so at that time, by reason of the glory of Charles, Gauls, Aquitanians, Æduans, Spaniards, Germans, and Bavarians thought that no small honour was paid to them, if they were thought worthy to be called the servants of the Franks.
From Eginhard, Vita Karolini

As you can see the Germans are clearly distingished from the Franks in fact they are called "servants of the Franks", thus, calling them Germans is blablant revisionism.

Which lead to the Question who are they ? There are three theories(all based on primary source) :

Firstly is the Sicamber Theory, Clovis while being baptized was called a Suvcamber by St Remis which lead some to propose that he was Sicamber

>Bow your head proud Sicamber! Worship what you burnt ! Burn what you worshipped!"
From Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks

Secondly is the Pannonian Theory, the Franks are said to come from Pannonia a province with diverse tribes(Celts, Phrygians, Illyrians, and so on)

>The historians whose works we still have give us all this information about the Franks, but they never record the names of the kings, It is commonly said that the Franks came originally from Pannonia and first colonized the banks of the Rhine.
From Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks

Other urls found in this thread:

nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n5/full/ejhg2013211a.html
cedricfrancoisleclercq.blogspot.ro/2015/08/la-gaule-gallia-en-latin-disparu-il-y-3.html
rutube.ru/video/154030eb53a09d7f7af70d608bc87982/
dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000692_00069.html?sortIndex=010:060:0012:010:00:00&zoom=0.75
gutenberg.org/files/48870/48870-h/48870-h.html
dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000728_00043.html?sortIndex=010:070:0025:010:00:00&zoom=0.75
oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-210/lecture-11
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarians
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Franks were Romanized Germanics from the Lowlands who mixed with the local Roman nobility of Gaul.

let's be frank OP, these guys don't have any history

Thirdly is the Trojan Theory, it is a theory first mentioned in Book of the History of the Franks and in Fredegar's History of the Franks, although it can seem pretty unreal at first, a learned man will be less decisive about it :

>The origin of the Franks is due to these events. They had Priam as their first king. It is writtenin books of history how afterwards they had Frigas as king. After this, they divided into two parts. One part went to Macedonia and they are called Macedonians after the people by whom they were received and the region of Macedonia. They had been invited to give assistance to the Macedonians, who were being overwhelmed by neighbouring peoples. Afterwards when united with that people, they gave birth to a great many offspring and from that stock the Macedonians were made into the strongest of fighters. In the future, in the days of King Phyliphy [Philip] and his son Alexander, report confirms what kind of courage they possessed. For the other part, which advanced from Frigia [Phrygia], had been deceived by the fraud of Olexo [Ulysses] and, though not taken captive, had nevertheless been cast out from there. Wandering through many regions with their wives and children they chose from amongst themselves a king by the name of Francio; from him they are called Franks. Francio, it is said, was very strong in war, and for a long time fought with a great many peoples, but in the end, after devastating part of Asia, he entered Europe and settled between the Rhine or the Danube and the sea.
From Fredegar, History of the Franks

Note that NOBODY never proposed that the FRANKS WERE GERMANIC, and that it is blablant revisionism as well as the fruit of German romanticism.

>Trojan Theory

WHAT THE FRANKS LOOKED LIKE ?

The phenotype was always a way to distinguish people, the Jews as an example are distinguished by their hooked noses, the Nordic by their blond hair and blue eyes, the Africans by their black skin, and the Asians by their slant-eyes.

Since the Germans claim that the Franks are Germanic, surely they musthave looked like Germanic, right ?

Then let's look how Germanic looked like, then how Franks looked like !

>For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce BLUE EYES, RED HAIR, HUGE FRAMES, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.
From Tacitus, Germania

>The RED HAIR and LARGE LIMBS of the inhabitants of Caledonia PONT CLEARLY TO A GERMAN ORIGIN. The dark complexion of the Silures, their usually curly hair, and the fact that Spain is the opposite shore to them, are an evidence that Iberians of a former date crossed over and occupied these parts. Those who are nearest to the Gauls are also like them, either from the permanent influence of original descent, or, because in countries which run out so far to meet each other, climate has produced similar physical qualities.
From Tacitus, Life of Agricola

>The colour of the Ethiopian is not singular among his countrymen, nor is RED HAIR tied up in a knot a peculiarity AMONG THE GERMANS.
From Seneca, on the Germans.

>He now concentrated his attention on the imminent triumph. To supplement the few prisoners taken in frontier skirmishes and the deserters who had come over from the barbarians, he picked the TALLEST Gauls of the province —'those worthy of a triumph' — and some of their chiefs as well, for his supposed train of captives. These had not only to grow their hair and DYE IT RED, BUT ALSO TO LEARN GERMAN AND ADOPT GERMAN NAMES.
From Suetonius, On Caligula


As you can see what characterize a Germanic is a TALL BODY and RED HAIR, now it the turn of the Franks.

First, THERE IS NO PRECISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FRANKS, but let's look at a few quotes about them btw some quotes are not about them but the Germanic supremacist claim that they are about them.

>but a little later ye fought together where
Cloio the Frank had overrun the helpless lands of
the Atrebates... As chance would have it, the echoing
sound of a barbarian song rang forth from a hill near the river-
bank, FOR AMID SCTYHIAN dance and chorus a YELLOW-HAIRED
bridegroom was wedding a young bride of
like colour. Well, these revellers, they say, he laid
low. ... FOR THIS YOUTH LIKEWISE SUBDUE
MONSTERS, on the crown of whose
red pates lies the hair that has been drawn towards
the front, while the neck, exposed by the loss of its
covering, shows bright. Their eyes are faint and
pale, with a glimmer of GREYISH BLUE. Their faces
are shaven all round, and instead of beards they
have thin moustaches which they run through with
a comb. Close-fitting garments confine THE TALL LIMBS OF ALL MEN;
they are drawn up high so as to expose the knees, and a broad belt supports their
narrow middle.
From Sidonius Apollinaris, Panegyric to Majorian

This quote is frequently falsely-partially quoted, while indeed this quote does speak about blond hair and greyish blue eyes and tall limbs, these are the Scythians who are described as that.

>He now concentrated his attention on the imminent triumph. To supplement the few prisoners taken in frontier skirmishes and the deserters who had come over from the barbarians, he picked the TALLEST Gauls of the province —'those worthy of a triumph' — and some of their chiefs as well, for his supposed train of captives. These had not only to grow their hair and DYE IT RED, BUT ALSO TO LEARN GERMAN AND ADOPT GERMAN NAMES.
From Suetonius, On Caligula

As you can see what characterize a Germanic is a TALL BODY and RED HAIR, now it's the turn of the Franks.

First, THERE IS NO PRECISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FRANKS, but let's look at a few quotes about them btw some quotes are not about them but Germanic supremacists claim that they are about them.

>but a little later ye fought together where Cloio the Frank had overrun the helpless lands of the Atrebates... As chance would have it, the echoing sound of a barbarian song rang forth from a hill near the riverbank, FOR AMID SCTYHIAN dance and chorus a YELLOW-HAIRED bridegroom was wedding a young bride of ike colour. Well, these revellers, they say, he laidlow. ... FOR THIS YOUTH LIKEWISE SUBDUE MONSTERS, on the crown of whose red pates lies the hair that has been drawn towards the front, while the neck, exposed by the loss of its covering, shows bright. Their eyes are faint and pale, with a glimmer of GREYISH BLUE. Their faces are shaven all round, and instead of beards they have thin moustaches which they run through with
a comb. Close-fitting garments confine THE TALL LIMBS OF ALL MEN; they are drawn up high so as to expose the knees, and a broad belt supports theirnarrow middle.
From Sidonius Apollinaris, Panegyric to Majorian

This quote is frequently falsely-partially quoted, while indeed this quote does speak about blond hair and greyish blue eyes and tall limbs, these are the Scythians who are described as that.

>He now concentrated his attention on the imminent triumph. To supplement the few prisoners taken in frontier skirmishes and the deserters who had come over from the barbarians, he picked the TALLEST Gauls of the province —'those worthy of a triumph' — and some of their chiefs as well, for his supposed train of captives. These had not only to grow their hair and DYE IT RED, BUT ALSO TO LEARN GERMAN AND ADOPT GERMAN NAMES.
From Suetonius, On Caligula

As you can see what characterize a Germanic is a TALL BODY and RED HAIR, now it's the turn of the Franks.

First, THERE IS NO PRECISE TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FRANKS, but let's look at a few quotes about them btw some quotes are not about them but Germanic supremacists claim that they are about them.

>but a little later ye fought together where Cloio the Frank had overrun the helpless lands of the Atrebates... As chance would have it, the echoing sound of a barbarian song rang forth from a hill near the riverbank, FOR AMID SCTYHIAN dance and chorus a YELLOW-HAIRED bridegroom was wedding a young bride of ike colour. Well, these revellers, they say, he laidlow. ... FOR THIS YOUTH LIKEWISE SUBDUE MONSTERS, on the crown of whose red pates lies the hair that has been drawn towards the front, while the neck, exposed by the loss of its covering, shows bright. Their eyes are faint and pale, with a glimmer of GREYISH BLUE. Their faces are shaven all round, and instead of beards they have thin moustaches which they run through with a comb. Close-fitting garments confine THE TALL LIMBS OF ALL MEN; they are drawn up high so as to expose the knees, and a broad belt supports theirnarrow middle.
From Sidonius Apollinaris, Panegyric to Majorian

This quote is frequently falsely-partially quoted, while indeed this quote does speak about blond hair and greyish blue eyes and tall limbs, these are the Scythians who are described as that.

As i said we don't learn much about the phenotype of the Franks by the TEXTUAL EVIDENCES, but we have A LOT OF DEPICTION OF THEM AND THEIR KINGS thanks to the CAROLINGIAN ILLUMINATIONS (pic related is Charles II ans his court), the previous pics were also depiction of the Franks as you can see THEY don't HAVE BLOND HAIR NOR BLUE-GREY EYES BUT DARK AND BROWN HAIR and BROWN EYES.

Let's resume :

We know that the Germanic were RED HAIRED, TALL, and BLUE EYED.
We know that Franks were BROWN AND DARK, BROWN EYED, and NOT TALL.
Thus the Franks aren't Germanic both in race(as proved at the beginning) and by the phenotype(as proved now)


WHAT ARE THE FRANKS GENETICALLY ?

Contrary to the previous question this one is very simple to answer because we have Frankish samples, via the French kings (btw Capetians are a Frankish family) who are R1B-Z381.

>Results
>The three Bourbon males were correctly assigned to the main Y-chromosomal haplogroup R1b (R-M343) using the Whit Athey’s Haplogroup Predictor as it was confirmed by Y-SNP typing. The individuals were further assigned to sub-haplogroup R1b1b2a1a1b* (R-Z381*) based on the latest update of the Y-chromosomal phylogenetic tree of AMY 1.2.31 The 38 Y-STR haplotypes of the living donors were compared to each other (Table 1). A maximum of four mutational differences out of 38 Y-STRs was found between the living donors, namely between samples A and JH (Table 2). Next, these haplotypes were also compared with the haplotypes from the blood sample and the head (Table 1).
nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n5/full/ejhg2013211a.html

pure autism

Haplogroups are transmited from father-to-son which mean that if two people have the same haplogroup it mean that they have a common ancestor btw this why haplogroup are used for tracing back ancestry.

In Europe, R1B is considered a a Celic Marker because every HISTORICALLY Celtic land are predominantly R1B, as for HISTORICALLY German land like Denmark(Germanic Homeland) they are predominantly I1-I2 .

As you may see Germans pitifully reach 30-40 R1B% while French are around 80-90 in the Westernmost part and 60-70%% in the Easternmost part.

>Use Genetic and Primary Source
>Get called autist

You're just a low IQ Germanic mongrel i BTFO'd you with my first post but i want to CLEANLY BTFO YOU then turn all my posts into a pic called "French are Franks"

FINAL POST

For this one i used the research of a Poles who studied "Germany's demography" during the Carolingian Era and i added a genetic map of Germany on the right.


tl;dr Franks are French; Germanic aren't Franks; Germans are French rape babies

As promised the File "French are Franks" pls post this pic is someone beside the French, the Belgians, and the Flemish claim Frankish ancestry.

Forgot the Quote of Eginhard :

>But in the end with God's help the Christians had the victory. It is said that Northmen of a beauty and size of body NEVER BEFORE SEEN AMONG THE FRANKISH PEOPLE were killed in this battle.
Eginhard, Annals of Fulda

Here the Franks are clearly distinguished from the Nordic, and lack the TALL BODY of the Germanic.

Franks are the Germanic tribe that conquered France. They originated from the Rhineland where the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany meet. The ancestors of the French are the inferior natives that were conquered by the superior Germanic Franks.

>i used the research of a Pole to study the history of Germany

>The Franks ARE SAID TO BE a Germanic tribe but it don't withstand even a blow from a learned man, here is why :
To be perfectly frank, I don't think the distinction is really notable enough to be worth acknowledging. Frankly I think the whole thing is just silly.

Italians are as well except with Ostrogoths/Lombards. Does everyone from europe descent from Germans.

The Franks aren't French.

French comes from Frankish mixed with latinised celtics.

Define Germans, btw. Original franks came from 'German' regions, yes. But then later 'germans' such as Saxons are seen as different to the franks.

>They originated from the Rhineland where the Netherlands
Nope
As proved above using textual evidences they originated either from Pannonia or Troy, they merely colonized Rhineland.

Hopefully, they didn't racemix with G*rmans and kept their physical features so we can distinguish them from these cucks.

>The Franks aren't French.

Already refuted that argument both by genetic and historical evidences.

>Define Germans

I already defined them using textual evidences see my previous posts,

>Original franks came from 'German' regions
Nope

Themselves are clear that they come from Pannonia or Troy.

>this buttflustered frog back with his shennanigans.

Franks are germanic. This doesn't mean that they're german. The only thing worse than the autistic screeching of people thinking franks are latin is the autistic screeching of people thinking they're 100% Deutschen Volk

>History
strikes again

Improved version

Actually, Franks never existed as presented by mainstream chronology and Charlemagne was a fictional characters.
"France" was literally Gaul just 300 years ago.
The myths of the Frankish conquest and Carolingian empire were created by the French kings to justify their rule and the existence of their "kingdom".

cedricfrancoisleclercq.blogspot.ro/2015/08/la-gaule-gallia-en-latin-disparu-il-y-3.html
rutube.ru/video/154030eb53a09d7f7af70d608bc87982/

Franks aren't Germanic

Read this post

This thread is fucking hilarious.

On the one hand you've got OP frantically mixing together primary sources that are centuries apart or just plain questionable(Suetonius, Fredegar) and he's also clearly not read much about the sources themselves.

Then you've got this kid

I have, over and over again. Germanics are tall and red, franks are short and brown, I get it. THat said, it's 100% pseudoscience.

>I have, over and over again. Germanics are tall and red, franks are short and brown

Average siszed and brown

>THat said, it's 100% pseudoscience.

It seems you ddin't read it cause i sourced every quotes.

And every source is just people like yourself, speculating.

>And every source is just people like yourself
>Roman authors lived with Germanic
>Gregory of Tours with Franks
>Eginhard was a Frank himself
>The Carolingian illuminations were made by Franks to describe Franks
>The Genetics DNA are made by Geneticists

Pick one


There is no speculation here, just facts

Feels free to prove me wrong if you do have arguments or evidences

>>Now, when I said Frankland just above, I meant all the provinces north of the Alps; for as it is written: “In those days ten men shall take hold out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew,” so at that time, by reason of the glory of Charles, Gauls, Aquitanians, Æduans, Spaniards, Germans, and Bavarians thought that no small honour was paid to them, if they were thought worthy to be called the servants of the Franks.
From Eginhard, Vita Karolini

Okay, wannabe historian. First of all, that text is from not from Eginhard but from Notker's Gesta Caroli Magni.

Secondly, the translation is wrong. Alamanni should not be translated as "German" but as Alemanni or maybe Swabians.

dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000692_00069.html?sortIndex=010:060:0012:010:00:00&zoom=0.75

>proved
>Troy
son, you have much to learn how proofs work in academic areas

You're wrong here is the source that i have used


Here is the Source :
Now, when I said Frankland just above, I meant all the provinces north of the Alps; for as it is written: “In those days ten men shall take hold out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew,” so at that time, by reason of the glory of Charles, Gauls, Aquitanians, Æduans, Spaniards, Germans, and Bavarians thought that no small honour was paid to them, if they were thought worthy to be called the servants of the Franks.
gutenberg.org/files/48870/48870-h/48870-h.html

>they came from pannonia
>they couldn't be germans or Celtic, therefore that have to be original balkanics
It is so obvious, the Franks were Albanians.

You used an English TRANSLATION from 1922 of parts of Eginhard's and Notker's work. The original Latin source is posted above and it shows that the translator has made a mistake. You've based your argumentation on that mistake so I suggest you to adapt your autism collage.

>Pannonnia or troy

Boy, did no one ever tell you how to use primary sources?
The troy myth is piggybacking off the Roman's own 'we wuz trojans' myth. The medieval english do the same thing.

>Frankish (reconstructed Frankish: *Frenkisk), Old Franconian, or Old Frankish was the West Germanic language spoken by the Franks between the 4th and 8th century. The language itself is poorly attested, but it gave rise to numerous loanwords in Old French. Old Dutch is the term for the Old Franconian dialects spoken in the Low Countries until about the 12th century when it evolved into Middle Dutch.

>poorly attested
ty for the free argument, lad

You're the Wannabe historian Alemani is used by foreigners to designate all Germans, which is also why Thuringians and Saxons weren't mentioned while they were servants of the Franks at that time.

>byzantine sources call the Germans franks

>t-they're not franks guys!

>Roman authors talking about the sterotypes of some barbarian groups they've seen = ALL those barbarians, even those hundreds of years later had to look the same.

wew lad.

And Germans weren't 'one' thing or tribe. The romans just labeled them as such because
>barbarians.

Eginhard was wanking over Charles the Great and building his legend
Tours was repeating the old roman cultural myth of >we wuz trojans

Tours didn't mention the German myth lad

You need to read more carefully

It was Fredegar who mentioned it first

>German myth
The Trojan myth*
French are R1B-M269 which is Hittites in origin see my post and there was Phrygians(Briges) Illyria near Pannonia

Nope

Only French, Norman, and Italians were named Franks

Germans were named Alamanoi

Notker wasn't a foreigner from Italy or France but an Alemannic himself

Tell that to 10th/11th century ones

Also
>this secondary source says that this primary source says this!
Never mind the fact that it's Simpson that is saying that Alamonoi are Germans.

Try citing directly from the source instead of a French wankfest.

Isn't it that they kinda just call the barbarians by whatever the old ones were?

e.g. Italians are Lombards, Sassasinds are Persians, French/Normans are Kelts, Germans are the old tribals etc

Are French posters the worst we wuz on Veeky Forums?

Thankfully, there aren't all of us that are imbued with as much autism as OP.

You simply wouldn't notice the less "we wuz" French on here, since we make it less blatant that we're French anyways. For example, I'll prattle on about the French sometimes, without ever using "we", since that's silly.

Meaning that you'll have your image for the French on here shaped by autistic chaps like the OP.

In fairness, us Brits aren't much better.
From medieval 'we were trojans' to victorian 'Jesus totally walked here in his life we're the new kingdom of god c:'

>From medieval 'we were trojans' to victorian 'Jesus totally walked here in his life we're the new kingdom of god c:'
These might as well be ironic, what with how unimaginable it'd be that you'd ever be able to bring over some to your beliefs? I mean, I can picture them ever being used outside of the context of being a joke. But then again, so would "the franks totally weren't from germany!!", and it's happening right here.

Anyways, apologies on OP's behalf. He's probably a tourist from reddit or 9gag, and doesn't yet realize that people here are friendly with us.

Anyways

What a load of tosh.

>Clearly demonstrate that Franks weren't Germanic
>Germaniggers don't argue but cry like little btiches


Apart from the Alamani-thing that i have quicly refuted do you have any other arguments ?

I don't find the text in Greek so i can't but i don't see why i need a quote for such a non-controversial topic.

I did find a translation(pic related)

A German tax is called Alamanikon

>Apart from the Alamani-thing that i have quicly refuted

You haven't. The French and others eventually used the term Allemands for Germans as a whole, though you haven't shown yet that the term Alemanni was used pars pro toto for all German tribes in the 9th century already.

It's not important anyway, since Notker was from modern day Switzerland, thus a Swabian/Alemmanic himself; people from the German language area never used the term Alemanni for all Germans.

Explain why Franks and Byzantines used Allamani-Allamanoi to designate Gemans then ?

Anyway you can be butthurt all you want the Academy will still keep to translate Alamani/Alamanoi by Germans.

Also you keep saying Notker while it is Eginhard.

Checked in my own copy, shit, you're right.

Could have sworn they didn't see a difference between them and Franks... Might be thinking of ealier texts. (Since 'Franks' ends up sticking to the French, who are known to be different thing to the German Empire)

He loved the color Red

The French used it and the Byzantines perhaps got it from them. There's not much to explain, the Alemanni were neighbours of the French and thus they called all other Germans like that

>Anyway you can be butthurt all you want the Academy will still keep to translate Alamani/Alamanoi by Germans.

It's a legit translation for Byzantine texts from the 12th century but not for Notkers text. Eginhard also uses the word Alemanni and it becomes clear from the context that it means the specific Alemannic tribe and not Germany as a whole.

>Lechus...Is fluvius Baioarios ab Alamannis dividit.

dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb00000728_00043.html?sortIndex=010:070:0025:010:00:00&zoom=0.75

The Lech forms the border between the old Bavaria and Swabia. Translating Alamannis as Germans instead of Swabians is not very plausible here (though that English translation by AJ Grant you use does it anyway: "the river Lech, which separates Bavaria from Germany."). Wattenbach's German translation correctly translates it as Alemanni.

>Also you keep saying Notker while it is Eginhard

Monk of St. Gall = Notker. Just read the table of contents of your own post

oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-210/lecture-11

Look at the Merovingians. Before the Carolingians really brought in Latin and non-Germanic influences into the Frankish court and culture the Franks really were a Germanic people. Germanic not meaning the modern Germans, no. They share a common ancestry but it was already diverging by the time the various Frankish tribes migrated into Western Europe

plot twist: OP migrated to France from Poland. Otherwise this faggotry is unexplicable.

No, just their nobility and their states.

>It's a legit translation for Byzantine texts from the 12th century but not for Notkers text. Eginhard also uses the word Alemanni and it becomes clear from the context that it means the specific Alemannic tribe and not Germany as a whole.

It's a possibility but the other possbility is that Alamani has two sense : one deisignating the Alamani themselves and ther other the Germanic as a whole

Take a look at how Eginhard use the term Gauls


>As I am going to found this narrative on the story told by a man of the world, who had little skill in letters, I think it will be well that I should first recount something of earlier history on the credit of written books. When Julian,73 whom God hated, was slain in the Persian war by a blow from heaven, not only did the transmarine provinces fall away from the Roman Empire, but also the neighbouring provinces of Pannonia, Noricum, Rhætia, or in other words the Germans AND THE FRANKS OR GAULS.

Here he call the Franks "Gauls", yet he call them "servants of the Franks" on the other hand, it seems plosible that the it is the same for "Alamani"

>Monk of St. Gall = Notker. Just read the table of contents of your own post (You)
Nice cherrypicking :

EARLY LIVES OF
CHARLEMAGNE BY
EGINHARD AND THE
MONK OF ST GALL
EDITED BY PROF.
A. J. GRANT

> They share a common ancestry but it was already diverging by the time the various Frankish tribes migrated into Western Europe


Barbarians(tall-red haired-blue eyed) have nothing to do with based (brown haired-brown eyed-average sized) Franks.


>Carolingians really brought in Latin and non-Germanic influences into the Frankish court and culture the Franks really were a Germanic people

Carolingians were Ripuarians, whose modern descents are the Flemish people.

People from the Lombardy province in Italy are descents of the Lombards tho

>franks
>not barbarians

You realise that same text distinguishes Bavarians from Germans and that German = /= Germanic?

Bavarians ar the descents of the Celts Boii.

Bavarii or Baiuvarii was the term for a population from the Bohemian Forest area (which had been the territory of the Boii during antiquity) from the 6th century; the name is Latinized from a possible self-designation *Baio-warioz, apparently intended to mean "men of Bohemia". "Bohemia" (Boiohaemum), apparently meaning "Boii home" in a Germanic language, was a term already mentioned by Tacitus in his Germania at the end of the 1st century AD), by which time the Celtic Boii had already long left the area, leaving it to be settled by Suevic Germanic groups in close contact with the Romans, such as the Marcomanni. On the southern side of the river Danube was the Roman controlled province of Raetia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarians

qft

like, even a brief scan of wikipedia will help you understand the terms germanic, german, germanic peoples, and so on. why must we continue to appeal to the silliness of racial theories for the sake of humor?