This thread is meant for the discussion of Franks...

>. They got conquered, got a Germanic ruling aristocracy, got Germanic laws and Germanic speaking rulers. making absurd tl:dr infographics wont change that.

Go back on earth, Robert
You're merely little barbarians that we vanquished

t. Charlemagne

reminder that you're arguing with this delusional retard

The Trojan part was just a joke

The Pannonian part is true tho

omfg, I laughed so hard, what an autistic fuck.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Benedikt_(Mals)

>falling for the "Frankish" meme

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

...

The linguistic argument is ridiculous. Of course the Franks didn't used Frankish as official language. Frankish was only spoken by the Franks whereas Latin was known by a lot of different subjects. However, the Franks still spoke Frankish among themselves.

>the Frankish language just didn't fucking exist
What a joke of an image, all cherrypicked bullshit to try and run contrary to a well established and accepted narrative.

...

>South Tyrol
It is a Lombard terrtiory, it has nothing to do with the Franks

Please elaborate

Do you have any proof to back up your claim

Cause the so called language Frankish language was reconstructed using French world

If the so called Frankish language existed, where the text wrote in it ?
Why didn't the Franks write their customs laws (Salic law) into it ?

Both Brits and Germans are actually sons of French and so Gauls from Pannonia who by the way came from Troy and practiced Zorotastrianism.

>was reconstructed using French world
was reconstructed using French words

>where the text wrote in it ?
where are the texts written in Frankish ?

>write their customs laws (Salic law) into it ?
write their customary laws (Salic law) into Frankish?

>South Tyrol
>It is a Lombard terrtiory, it has nothing to do with the Franks

nope, annexed by Charlemagne, the time fits 800, here's another source that says it's Frankish
nzz.ch/gesellschaft/attraktionen-vinschgau-ld.151428

>annexed by Charlemagne

Do you really think because the territory is annexed it somehow make it Frankish ?

The land of the Franks, our land, is between the Loire and Rhine(see ) not in fucking Lombardy.

>here's another source that says it's Frankish
Just checked

it inded say he was Frankish, my guess it that he mongrelized with Lombards which would expalin his blond hair

yes, the annexed territories back then were ruled by the nobility of the victors (Franks)

Also, the medieval (12th century I think) pics of these blond Frenchmen still doesn't go along with your theory that northern and middle Frances population was completely replaced by NOT BLOND Franks... they can't be that racially homogenous when few centuries later all their nobles were blond I think....

maybe your book and your theory is simply wrong when you constantly have to rely on assumptions and there's a reason the notion of Franks being Germanic is widely accepted

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Clotilde_partageant_le_royaume_entre_ses_fils.jpg

>he mongrelized
his father mongrelized*

FTFM

Your pic is a non comtemporary depiction of Clovis not of French nobles

French nobles looked like that (my pic is contemporary btw)

>Franks
>Charlemagne
>Early Middle Ages

Wew lads

>especially their origins
ok, as I understand it the Franks were heavily romanized

During the crisis of the 3rd century the Franks were among the tribes making incursions into the Roman Empire, having been displaced themselves by the Saxons from their homeland north of the Rhine close to the coast of the Zuiderzee (or Lake Flevo). Afterwards, with Roman power restored, the Franks reached an accord and were settled around the mouth of the Rhine as a buffer state.

During the turbulent reign of Constantius II the Franks rose up and took Cologne and other territories but were promptly put down by future Emperor Julian the Apostate. Due to new Saxon incursions he allowed the subjugated "Salian" Franks to settle west of the Meuse in 358 in exchange for military service.

A few years later a certain Teutomer enters the records fighting for Julian against the Sassanids, likely a prominent noble commanding the Frankish auxiliaries raised to fulfil their obligation to the empire.

Teutomer's supposed heir Richomeres followed in his father's footsteps and excelled, serving the Emperor against the Goths (Adrianople 378) and Magnus Maximus (388) and rising to the rank of Consul. His last mission was to stop his usurper nephew Arbogastes.

Richomeres' son Theodemer is described by Gregory of Tours as King of the Franks. The Franks had transformed from a tribe to a more organized body, though he reigned in the utterly chaotic period after the sack of Rome, was possibly denied office due to his usurper cousin Arbogastes and later executed for supporting the usurper Jovinus.

Theodemer's possible son was Chlodio Longhair who contended with the Romans until Flavius Aetius blocked his path, but it is telling that Aetius couldn't finish the job.

Here we arrive at Merovech, Chlodio's possible son, said to have allied with Aetius against the Huns at the battle of Catalaunian fields, though Merovech doesn't appear in the historical record, maybe due to all the chaos.

french
ajcarlisle.wordpress.com/tag/twelve-noble-peers/

french
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Les_Très_Riches_Heures_du_duc_de_Berry_avril.jpg

french
historyofeuropeanfashion.wordpress.com/category/medieval-1100-1450/

FUCKING READ THE NAME OF YOUR OWN PICS

It is written that it is a depiction of Charlemagne from the 14th CENTURY

redhead joan of arc
why would medieval frenchmen depict their ancestors as blond when they weren't blond themselves?

there's also a blonde version if you prefer that

cerbi.ldi5.com/IMG/pdf/Ou_est_donc_passe_le_Moyen-Age.pdf

so did all these frenchmen get fucked by Germanics/Celts during the middle ages or why did the medieval french often depict themselves as blond/red haired?
protip: possibly the franks were actually germanics

The king in your pic is not blonde

Now it is my turn to post pic

can you answer that ?

They fucked saxon women and lost their racial purity

Pic related Louis XIII didn't tho

Franks were described as swarthy by their contemporaries which BTFO your entire theory

no, it doesn't: of course there were many brown/black haired frenchmen, but your theory of the pure franks/frenchmen of the middle ages relies entirely on them being not blond/red haired like germanics/celts.
this is an assumption

in conclusion: stop larping

I said that on another thread that 80% of the French were Franks, the blond haired 20% being Gauls/Saxons/Alans/Frisians/and so on

I never claimed that French race as a race is only composed of Franks onl

Cherrypicking the few blonds that you can find is BIAISED

Pic related is what happen when you gather all the pics depicting the serfs and the nobility

ok then, if only the franks were these pure brown/black haired pannonians, how come this frankish nobleman was depicted as blond in 800?

stop larping

the region were he was depicted in 800 was conquered in 788 btw, so if he was the son of a frank mongrelizing with lombards (which is an assumption) this pic would depict a 12 year old with a beard...

stop larping

As i explained above, he is most likely some kind of mongrel

His father was outside of his country and all the blond haired lombard women were ready to be fucked so he mongrelized and produced this blond haired abomination

Historians usually distinguish between them by calling everything up to the treaty of Verdun Franks, and everything after the election of Hugh Capet French, with some interchangeable use of both terms during the century and a half in between.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense though. The people didn't change at that time, and continued to be referred to as Franks in their own time for many more centuries. Meanwhile it confuses Merovingian and Carolingian Franks, who are the inhabitants of the whole Frankish realm, with ancient Franks starting from the 3rd century, who were a Germanic tribal confederation and thus something very different.

What would make a lot more sense would be to refer to the tribal confederation as Franks, and refer to the people of France as French starting with Clovis and the unification of Gaul.

you rely on assumptions once again...
stop larping, your theory doesn't make sense

they sound like black people

>stop larping

It is you that is LARPing

You're Northmen at most but you have nothing to do with us

"But in the end with God's help the Christians had the victory. It is said that NORTHEMEN OF A BEAUTY AND SIZE OF BODY NEVER BEFORE SEEN AMONG THE FRANKISH PEOPLE were killed in this battle."
-Eginhard, Annals of Fulda, Year 884

His father mongrelized with Gauls or Gemans and it's all

The core of the Franks/French is still brown haired and dark haired

OK man: you believe that your people is 80% frank, a tribe which according to you stems from pannonia and is neither germanic nor blond ("nordic"). Your evidence is one roman gravestone from pannonia that mentions franks and the fact that in one frankish grave, weapons akin those of pannonian avars were found. Also you cite one or two books all the time that only support your statements partly.

When people disagree with you and show indications that don't match with your thesis, like the fact that franks and their descendants were definitely not solely brown/black haired, you either start insulting them or come up with new assumptions on top of your initial thesis.

Do you seriously believe that is enough evidence to dismiss a narrative held by the overwhelming majority of historians, and that is backed by all these sources on just one of it's wikipedia articles alone?

If pure Franks have dark brown hair and eyes, then why is it that the origin of the empire (Belgium, Southern Netherlands, bits of Germany) have a relatively high percentage of blondes compared to France?
And how did they end up speaking Franconian languages?

>and that is backed by all these sources on just one of it's wikipedia articles alone?

You're confusing something here

My sources aren't wikipedia pages unlike you but academics sources

iFurthermmore the DNA of the Franks is not Germanic but ANATOLIANS

eupedia.com/europe/frankish_influence_modern_europe.shtml#Origin

no need for wikipedia

where does it say anatolian, exactly?

> it that the origin of the empire

The origin of the Empire is in France

Merovingian capitals were all French cities, namely,oSissons Orleans, Reims and Paris

your own source says the franks were a west germanic people

i think you're just trolling, aren't you?

These are BENELUX DNA not Frankish DNA

Mine are actual Frankish DNA

END YOURSELF BLONDUCK LARPING FAGGOT

Why are you avoiding my question, how do you explain that the Franks are 100% J2 while Germanic are 1-4% J2

The site you cite (eupedia) calls them a west germanic people...

>What would make a lot more sense would be to refer to the tribal confederation as Franks, and refer to the people of France as French starting with Clovis and the unification of Gaul.

There was no France in the sense of today, the Frankish Empire included large areas inhabited by Germanic speaking people in present-day Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany. Referring to them as French is absurd. Furthermore, Franks as a Germanic tribal entity still existed during the time of Clovis in Gaul, Lex Salica makes a distinction between them and the Romance speaking majority. The West Frankish language, the branch of Frankish spoken by (segments of) the Frankish upper class in present day France, is thought to have died out in the 9th or 10th century.

Your own map shows that france have on average 5-10% j2 while wiki says that haplogroup is only present in middle east , turkey and southern balkan

What you say doesn't make sense, i'm sorry

>1185AD

The origin, aka the Frankish empire in 481 looks really Belgian to me tbqh

Obviously the Franks weren't just J2
I'm just pointing out that the Frankish DNA that we show a non Germanic origin and confirm what i was saying since the beginning

>, Lex Salica makes a distinction between

Lex Salica was written in Semi French Latin by French

You're merely lowly mongrels that we conquered,

>the Frankish upper class in present day France
No such thing as Frankish upper class

But you were indeed ruled by a French nobility

Verden is the sweetest day of my life and the rape of modern Germany fulfil my deepest desire

^

'So called' just means that they were called like that. Maybe learn English?

Just accepted the fact that your ancestors got FRANKED by Germanics

>Frankish empire
There is no such thing as Frankish empire

The name of our kingdom was Regnum Francorum aka Kingdom of the French

>Lex Salica
Was written in Latin like most documents of the time and contains a few Germanic fragments

Semi-French latin written your French overlords

Yes, and Lex Salica apart from being clearly a Germanic set of laws also explicitly differs between Germanic Franks and Gallo-romans, clearly discriminating the Gallo-Romans in favor of the Franks.
OP is one sad little autistic twat, he goes against well established facts of history and would get laughed out of every university in France, yet here he finds his audience.
>muh they where not blonde
>muh Pannonia

>French overlords
>discriminate Gallo-Romans
>cements the power of the Germanic upper class
Hey, you just spent another beautiful summer day home alone in front of your computer trying to argue some shit no one will ever believe.
Visit a shrink, maybe meds can help make your life less shit.

You sounds butthurt, lad

Is this because we bombed Lybia and Syria alliowing the non-whites to rape their way through your countries ?

Not really, your autism just hurts. Also, nice changing subjects when your {{{arguments}}} hit a dead end again.
>guess what country in Europe is most mudslime infected

>>guess what country in Europe is most mudslime infected
Germany

2 million enter your country every year and they're doing what we did to you during Middle age which mean ruthless rape :)

youtube.com/watch?v=FRtMrJ34b7A

Stop mentioning the Franks, there's a "French" autist always something on how they were not Germanic and actually as swarthy looking as southern Italians. He's an idiot that should not be discussed with.

There are different transcripts of the Lex Salica, some written in the Merovingian era while most others were written in the 8th and 9th century. Obciously the latter, when written down by a Romanic scriptor, would contain some characteristics of Old French. Doesn't change anything about the Germanic glosses.

> "French" autist always something on how they were not Germanic and actually as swarthy looking as southern Italians.

It's not me that say it but Eginhard, a Frank himself and their contemporaries

see >There are different transcripts of the Lex Salica

And all are in Semi French Latin; the only difference is the number of tituli
>Doesn't change anything about the Germanic glosses.

>A gloss (from Latin glossa; from Greek γλῶσσα (glóssa), meaning 'language') is a brief notation, especially a marginal one or an interlinear one, of the meaning of a word or wording in a text. It may be in the language of the text, or in the reader's language if that is different.

So you admit that your language and the language of the Salian French is different

Good

...

>If the so called Frankish language existed, where the text wrote in it ?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergakker_inscription

I created the thread to dismiss his theory.
You have problems man, you're larping and don't even talk about history but come up with /pol/ tier bs so i guess that's were you might be better off.

Never ever, Franks

Bergakker is in the Betuwe aka the Country of the Batavians

It is a Batavian inscription not a French one

>dismiss his theory

You didn't dismiss anything, gayrmanic friend

Doornik?

>Doornik

You mean Tournai, a French city

You can also mention Cambrai which is a French city too

Or also Héristal , homeland of the Carolingians, which also a French city

Even back then when we have yet to conquer Gaul, we still inhabited French speaking zone
Dutch-larping is sad

The oldest Frankish text was written in runes and dates back from 425-450. It was found on a scabbard in Bergakker (Netherlands). As said before the important laws were written in Latin, because it was important for the whole empire and not just for the Franks themselves.

>). As said before the important laws were written in Latin, because it was important for the whole empire and not just for the Franks themselves.

NO

At the time of the Merovingian and Carolingian French, law was tribal

If you were a Roman you followed Roman law, and if you were a Salian French you followed the Salic Law

The Salic Law was only used by Salian French and only intented for us

>Things i don't like aren't real

>implying Tournai, Cambrai, and Heristal aren't French cities
You're in denial, Jan

I don't want to mention Tournai was a Frankish speaking town at the time of the Franks, but it was. (During these days the language barrier was in Artois/Atrecht) And now it's a town in Belgium, not in France. The only time Tournai was in France was during first empire and when Louis XIV tried to conquer it, but failed. Same can be said for Cambrai, although that's French managed to conquer that town. My family had to flee from Cambrai with other families after French annexation, so I don't think the people there did feel themselves French around that time.

Without reading further I can already sense that this thread is about we wuz french and we wuz germans because that's the only thing Veeky Forums cares about. Really interesting discussion

>During these days the language barrier was in Artois/Atrecht)

WE

>And now it's a town in Belgium, not in France.

WUZ

>so I don't think the people there did feel themselves French around that time.

FRANSE RATTEN
My god your lie are so hilarious, shall i remind you again you call Walloons

Kek

It may be hilarious, but those are facts, not lies. When you doesn't agree with facts there's nothing I can do for you. We only call the French Franse ratten. The walloon have actual Frankish heritage,

>The walloon have actual Frankish heritage
Indeed, the Wallons they the same blood with us, as opposed to Batavianiggers know as Flamerdes
youtube.com/watch?v=Ck7LRzXKkkk

If you entirely have heritage from the territory of the former Lotharingian lands or Flanders/Artois. Then you have a lot of Frankish blood. Otherwise you're just another Gaul.

>There was no France in the sense of today, the Frankish Empire included large areas inhabited by Germanic speaking people in present-day Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany. Referring to them as French is absurd.
19th century France included Alsace-Moselle and French Flanders, does that mean that referring to 19th century French people as French is also "absurd"?

>Furthermore, Franks as a Germanic tribal entity still existed during the time of Clovis in Gaul
Yes obviously, since Clovis was the head of that tribe before he conquered Gaul. But then it disappeared instantly as Clovis was no longer tribal chieftain but king of the new realm of France, and any sort of distinction between Franks and Gallo-Romans dissolved within a generation or two.

>The West Frankish language, the branch of Frankish spoken by (segments of) the Frankish upper class in present day France, is thought to have died out in the 9th or 10th century.
No it isn't, where on Earth did you get this from? The upper class in the West already spoke Old French same as the rest of the population since Merovingian times.

this book is the memetical red pill on the Franks:
scribd.com/document/106343138/Frans-J-Los-The-Franks