Were there any legitimate kings before Charlemagne?
Charlemagne is a meme.
>The hypothesis suggests a conspiracy by the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II, and possibly the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, to fabricate the Anno Domini dating system retrospectively, so that it placed them at the special year of AD 1000, and to rewrite history, inventing the heroic figure of Charlemagne among other things
Not confirmed he existed outside of Gregory
>Merovech was the son of the queen, Chlodio's wife; but his father was a sea-god, bistea Neptuni.
>disproving the existence of Charlemagne with a hypothesis from a non-historian
One of my profs was actually one of the few guys fighting this bullshit.
Ah come one now. To put it in simple terms: Maybe the people wanted a king and were happy with him. Even by today's standards this is hard to describe as illegitimate.
The main questions is: What is legitimacy. The idea that only the people can legitimate stems from Western modernity (I know there were "democracies" before but in one of them were the people ruling since at least 51% always excluded from democratic rights).
Many Germanic legendary/barbarian leaders of the first millennium AD were certainly appropriated by later histories and genealogies as kings. Their legitimacy would definitely vary though. Theoderic the Great would be a good example.
>What is Gilgamesh
>What is Hammurabi
>What is Xerxes
>What is any of the breddy gud Babylonian/Persian kings
There were plenty of Kings before Charlemagne.
East Asia: Qin Shi Huang, before becoming Emperor was "King of Qin".
Slavs: Alexander the Great was "King of Macedonia".
Middle East: Nebuchadnezzar was "King of Babylonia"
Western Europe: There were Merovingian Kings. Pippin, the father of Charlemagne was a King.
regardless if you gone to Charlemagne's court and declared him the only legitimate king in history he'd probably be upset
lot of Frankish kings before him that you are probably shitting on