/Early Middle Ages/ Thread

So what are early middle ages? Like, the age of Francia?

Franks=/=French
Francia=/=France

Depends who you ask.
Probably right after western rome fell

Why must every potentially interesting discussion be ruined by ethnoautism, WHY

Because nobody wants to admit that he wa, in fact, a Dutchman.

You're so delusional faggot that it makes me sad

Ssshhh, the more you talk about it the more likely it is that the Pannonian autist will arrive

>uses a dictionaries translation as an argument
>calls others delusional
Languages are not consistent with each other and have never been. Come up with a better argument, Pierre.

He wasn't crowned 'Holy Roman Emperor'. There is nothing redeemable about the stupidity on this board.

Goths rule most west for a brief time, then Franks defeat the Visigoths and having conquered peoples like the Burgundians they became the leading force in Gaul while the Ostrogoths stay in Italy and Visigoths in Iberia.
Frankish realms are divided and reunited among Merovingian princes, so the infight is assured.
Ostrogoths try to keep the Roman order the best they can.
Visigoths reunite most of Iberia (and a bit of Southern Gaul) through the conquest of the Suevii and campaigns agaist other independent peoples.

This. The foundations of basically all modern European countries were laid in the early middle ages.

>Use the latin word Francia to make it seems different from France
>Francia is just the latin word for France
>Show him

AYO HOL' UP
UR WRONG PIERREBOI
WE WUZ FRANSOSISCH UND SHEIT
NOT U

>stupidity
talking about stupidity, Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the romans at christmas day 800.

>At Mass, on Christmas Day (25 December), when Charlemagne knelt at the altar to pray, the Pope crowned him Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans") in Saint Peter's Basilica. In so doing, the Pope effectively nullified the legitimacy of Empress Irene of Constantinople:
Thus he became the first of the Holy Roman Emperors. Deal with itbrainlet.

>Francia or Frankia, also called the Kingdom of the Franks (Latin: Regnum Francorum), Frankish Kingdom, Frankish Empire, Frankish Realm or occasionally Frankland, was the territory inhabited and ruled by the Franks, a confederation of West Germanic tribes, during late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.
Francia is simply the most commonly used term of the ones listed.

The Holy Roman Empire became an entity not even in Louis the Pious' lifetime. How could Charlemagne become emperor of something which did not exist?

Emperor of the Romans =/= Holy Roman Emperor, 'brainlet'.

Franks wheere a lower Rhine germanic tribe that conquered large parts of what is today the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and France. France derives its name from said germanic tribe.

>Francia is simply the most commonly used term of the ones listed.
It is only used by butthurt Anglo-Pakis and Turkic-Rapemans

For the very simple reason that "Holy Roman" at first was fix political therm to indicate supremacy over Europe and Christendom. Charles claimed this and thats why he went to Rome and had himself crowned by the Pope. Holy Roman Emperor has nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire, but with the Frankish dominance of Europe.

>WE WUZ FRENCH N SHEIT

Fuck off LARPERS

Go LARP as Greeks or Romans like you used to do but don't touch to our heritage

In my opinion its 476 to 1066

Ohayo gozaimasu frogsan, triggered much?

He was a Belgian, not some Netherlandish heretic.
Charlemagne is the first Holy Roman Emperor, not the first monarch of the Holy Roman Empire, which became a polity during Otto's reign. The office proceeds the state

>Charles claimed this

the 806 divisio regnum makes no reference to his title as 'Holy Roman Emperor' because a Holy Roman Emperor was the monarch in charge of the Holy Roman Empire, and Charlemagne's use of his 'emperor' title was actually far more ambiguous

its pop history that names him first in the line of Holy Roman Emperors, and its about as accurate as saying he was the first leader of the third reich/EU.

>Implying Hastings was more important than Lechfeld.
>Implying England was relevant at the time

>genes
>an argument

see here
>Charlemagne is the first Holy Roman Emperor, not the first monarch of the Holy Roman Empire, which became a polity during Otto's reign. The office proceeds the state.

Charles claimed the title of "Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium" to be exact. The title and institution predates and was in continuous use for well over 150 years and 5 different dynasties of emperors before Otto I. claimed the prestigious title.

It's where many say the Viking age ended so it is a significant event

I consider anything from 500 - 1000 AD to be "The Early Middle Ages" or the Dark Ages as they are often called.

i dedicated a year of my undergrad to charlemagne my man i understand what you are saying but his use of his emperor title was far more ambiguous in nature so saying he was crowned the first 'Holy Roman Emperor' is very misleading

Hi, user

>Still posting my old Trojan shitsposting
Should be updated desu

Our Pannonian origin is now established and our potential Near Eastern(Anatolian/Trojan) is also established

I'm sure Trojans will cluster with French like Pannonian BR1 and BR2

>shitsposting
no, you're just uneducated

Fair point, but then Lechfeld ended the Magyar age, and they where more relevant to medieval Europe than the Vikings. Like the Magyars devastated the most fertile parts of Europe with their raids. Their impact on population was way higher than the vikings ever where, also, their constant attacks where a main point for the solidification of the feudal system.
So yeah, singling out Hastings is a very Anglocentric world view.

So far you didn't refute any of my claims

You sounds like the average Barbarian, always hysterical but never providing any sources backing your DELUSIONAL CLAIMS

He claimed continuation with the Roman empire, as highest worly instance of Christendom. This also in sharp contrast to the Byzantine Empire.
That practice continued with his heirs, until Otto got the title, and thanks to saxonian inheritance laws and political ability managed to shape a lasting political entity from parts of the old Frankish empire.
I mean its not like Otto invented the title or something, he just claimed the same thing like the guys before him.

there is no point in refuting to anything you say, mostly because you have an agenda and don't really understand the things. you act like an emotional bitch on period and no one normal takes you serious because of it.

>DELUSIONAL CLAIMS

>Still posting my old Trojan shitsposting
>our potential Near Eastern(Anatolian/Trojan) is also established
Is this the same person?

Bla bla ad hominem

Neutral people agree with me because i back all my theories with several genetic studies, as well as countless primary sources and history books.
.
G*rmanics on the other hand are hystical about me and my theories because your entire history is about stealing French accomplishements

>Bla bla ad hominem
it's what you use in almost every post you make. that's why no one takes you seriously, whether you're right or not.

>Magyar
Like full steppe nigger mode all over Europe

Dude Justinians Conquests and the Wars of Heraclius were still in the Late Antiquity stage. If anything it'd be the Conquests of Islam as the starting point of the Middle Ages

>PAINFUL REALITY

Ummm no sweaty, the fall of Rome marks the beginning of the Middle Ages.

Cherrypicking

>and our POTENTIAL Near Eastern origin(Anatolian/Trojan) is also established

Imho I count Fall of Rome- Battle of Lechfeld as early medieval, for one because this sums up the migration age period which ended with the defeat of the Hungarians, but more importantly because the Medieval Warm Period kicked in just around the year 950.
This MWP marked a time of population growth and lasted to around 1250, which coincides with the death of Frederick II and the political turmoil that followed.
1250-1500 is late medieval, with freak weather, starvation, plague and war, and a complete change of society.

This, Greece is not relevant for Europe.

>sweaty

bump

Fall of WRE is a good starting point and the Battle of Hastings for the conclusion to it.

>Subject is about ancestry
>Use genetics to prove my claim
>ahahahahhaahahah not an argument

Smells like butthurt

>Subject is about ancestry
No it isn't, go back and read again

>Hastings
Is not relevant for most of Europe and came to late to conclude the early medievals. IT is relevant if you are Briton tho.

What about fall of Rome to Great Schism?

What I find the most interesting of the Early Middle Ages, though it does share some time with Late Empire, is Christology, the various Councils, the fighting between the early Christian sects and groups.

It is relevant for Nords too, it basically put an end to the Viking Age

The battle of Stamford bridge did that but it's the same fucking year

...

>the fucking Bretons

The discussion started with :

>Franks=/=French (ancestry)

based Bretons resisting Frankish yoke

did Franks fear the Breton warrior?

Meme map

The Bretons were quickly subdded and became duke of Britanny(instead of king) as well as missi dominici

Nobody ever said anything about ancestry

Let's talk about the real Great here

Really nice country you got there. What a shame if something would happen to it.