Why didn't Arabs conquer all of Europe? Did they fear

>>3034106
They invaded for the loot

File: charlemagne-hero-AB.jpg (95KB, 334x250px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 334x250px

>>3034106

WE WUZ WHITE KANGS

>>3034106
combination of internal infighting/fragmentation and the various tribal polities getting the shit together and checking there advance (khazars Charles Martel)

>>3034113

Tell that to Constantinople and Vienna.

Literally yes.

File: 1498922761806.png (25KB, 669x514px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 669x514px

>>3034119
>arabs
>constantinople and vienna

File: 1497963802635.jpg (17KB, 542x540px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 542x540px

>>3034106
>white warrior

you mean retarded cave beast? lmaoooooooo

>>3034119
This is either retarded, or terrible bait.
The map in op is the Umayyad Caliphate. Vienna and Constantinople were the Turks

The got btfo, in several battles against the Franks and the Byzantines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Toulouse_(721)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avignon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Narbonne_(752%E2%80%9359)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717%E2%80%93718)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Akroinon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Damietta_(853)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cephalonia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Euripos

>>3034106
The Arab war machine was based on promoting and legitimizing adventuring tribal leaders and mercenaries under the nominal authority of Medina. By the time it reached Spain and India, the Umayyads had taken power and consolidated their rule in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt by forcing out rival families into North Africa, Spain, and Transoxiana. Once there, these tribes were no longer out to conquer and settle a new region under the Umayyad banner, but instead set down roots and consolidate their own local power bases, which meant more internal struggles within these regions. Whenever they did try and expand further into France, India, or Anatolia, it was at this point under the command of regional powers attempting a raid in order to pay off their local troops and nobles. They didn't expand because their governments could not handle expansion.

You would still get some Arabs to gather up a small war band to conquer and settle in Southern France, Italy, or the Aegean every now and then, but for the most part these went unsupported by the more major powers nearby for political reasons.

>>3034106
They just had luck with the visigoths cuz they were involved in a civil war

File: karl-martell3.jpg (5KB, 126x138px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 126x138px

Because of Karl "the hammer" Martell

wonder how he got that name...

they were already stretched out trying to invade Hindu kingdoms on the east, if they had put all the strength in one direction or the other, they would have succeeded

>>3034287
*Charles Martel

>>3034287
>wonder how he got that name...
Smashing Lombards for the Pope.

File: 1499008562158.png (701KB, 550x734px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 550x734px

>>3034150
>>3034219
>the Arabs didn't invade Constantinople

>>3034106
>Why didn't Arabs conquer all of Europe?
Because back then it was a shithole and nobody wanted a piece of it. Why do you think the Mongols avoided it?

File: bradley.png (78KB, 240x228px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 240x228px

>>3034287
>Karl "the Hammer" the Hammer

>>3034311
Turks aren't Arabs.

>>3034324
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(674%E2%80%93678)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717%E2%80%93718)
>inb4 I was only pretending to be retarded

>>3034310
Kek, nice to know
>>3034321
What language? Google tells me in latin hammer means malleo

>>3034319
>Why do you think the Mongols avoided it?
because the generals were all called back before they could reach the Atlantic like they were previously instructed you absolute moron

>>3034335
The Latin is Carolus Martellus.

It was an allusion to Judas Maccabeus, another "Hammer".

>>3034339
Why do you think they were called back? They had a closer look and found an impoverished people not worth conquering.

>>3034365
>Why do you think they were called back?
Ogedei's death required the election of a new Khan

>>3034332
>Decisive Byzantine victory

>>3034408
so the Germans never invaded Russia because they eventually lost?

>>3034311

WHERE THE FUCK DID THE BUTTER GO?

>>3034432
his wife cleared the table while he was reading

>>3034402
They still could have kept most of their forces in place just in case the new ruler wanted to continue. The fact is Europe (well most of it) at that time was not a prestigious target nor were they filled with enough riches.

>>3034477
and there weren't any great grasslands in Europe either

>>3034311
>Constantinople and Vienna
Please fuck off, it's clear he meant the Turks, not the Arab invasions

>>3034485
Then maybe those replies should've just greentext Vienna only

>>3034335
Probably some old French dialect, "Martelle" litterally means "To hammer" in french.

File: i.jpg (34KB, 600x340px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x340px

>>3034106
Why didn't Arabs conquer all of Africa?
Did they fear the black warrior?
This question is more important. Such a big continent and still undeveloped.

>>3034504
Except they did.

They tried to but were fucked by the Byzantines and the Bulgars and then they went to try their luck on the other end, ended up conquering Iberia and then were stopped in France, which now allows Western autists to say "we wuz saviors of Europe"

File: Covadonga.png (228KB, 313x833px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 313x833px

>>3034106
Pretty obvious

>>3034519
lolwat

>>3034554
>this is what europeanmoors actually believe
Natural borders, inner strife and the cost of further conquest prevented the arabs, not the battle that your learned in your spanish high school

>>3034554
Wasn't it more like 124,000,000 dead on the muslim side?

File: Screenshot_20170703-165430.jpg (1006KB, 806x3681px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 806x3681px

>>3034554
Nice shoop.

File: indian call center.jpg (22KB, 608x378px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 608x378px

>>3034637
>>3034645
>>3034671
>Goatfucker defence force.How may I help you sir?

>>3034504
Probably much the same reasons they didn't conquer Europe, plus the Sahara.

>>3034671
>>3034645
>>3034637
>REEEEEE IT'S OBVIOUSLY FAKE!111
>heh heh fucking byzantines LOL!1 look at these anti-heraclius and muslim accounts telling how they lost with an army somehow bigger than their pre-sassanid war army to a bunch of Arabs!

How did the Arabs have the manpower to conquer and hold so much land so quickly?

They went as far as they could reasonably hope to. They weren't going to be making any serious inroads into France, regardless of how Tours turned out, and the Ottomans reached the limit of their abilities at Vienna

>>3034873
They didn't. They instead had the political ability to organize themselves and integrate themselves into local politics, usually exploiting local aristocrats who were eager to throw off or resist a more onerous neighbor.

>>3034561
Enslaving people and converting them to your religion sounds like conquest to me.

File: image.jpg (25KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 258x245px

>>3034554
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
>the absolute fucking STATE of Arab """""warriors"""""

>>3035696
in north africa, but that's about as far as the arabs got

>>3034106
They tried but were stopped. First by Leo the Isaurian, then by Odo of Aquitaine, then by Charles Martel and finally by the Berbers (who thus saved Europe from future invasions)

>>3034113
this is also true. They were pillagers more than conquerors, just like the Huns

>>3034426
Besieging a city and failing to take it is not an invasion of said city

>>3034767
>goatfucker

Zoophilia is actually outlawed in islamic countries while several wester countries and US states allow it.

File: laughing-pepe.jpg (27KB, 399x385px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 399x385px

>>3034554

>>3034873
Most "soliders" they recruited in their conquests, especially europe, were local tribes that were recruited on the promise of pillaging cities

>>3035719
It's faked numbers. For fucks sake does no one cross check images posted here?

>>3034637
>>3034645
>>3034671
S E E T H I N G

>>3034249
>against the Franks
FUCK OFF SNOWNIGGER MONGREL


IT'S WE FRENCH THAT BTFO'D THEM AND NOT THE "FRANKS"

ITT: Stupidity
More Stupidity
Some More Stupidity
Historical Inaccuracy
Made up numbers

For the fools in this thread whose sole achievment was reaching the higher levels of ignorance, keep in mind the following:
1- Arabs fought and destroyed simultaneously the Byzantines and the Sassanids, despite the superioty of those in terms of numbers, conquering the Levant, Egypt, Iraq and Persia roughly the same decade, surpassing most of those "Empires" you love talking about on this board.
2-This was followed by the conquest of North Africa, Sindh and Iberia.
3- After the many defeats of the "native" Iberians facing the Arabic armies, they apparently succeeded in the Battle of Covadonga, with the sources cited being christians under the Arabic rule.
4-This "reconquest" of Iberia took the "native" Iberians around 450 years to complete.

>>3037200
The reconquista was defacto over after Covadonga. The muslim states just became vassals of the christian kingdoms, and that is why they survived for so long

>>3037215
The Arabic Al-Andalus wasn't even at the peak of its power at Covadongo. What you stated is not an accurate description of the aftermath of the supposed battle.

File: Kung_pow_betty_laugh.jpg (84KB, 491x414px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 491x414px

>>3037200
>1- Arabs fought and destroyed simultaneously the Byzantines and the Sassanids, despite the superioty of those in terms of numbers, conquering the Levant, Egypt, Iraq and Persia roughly the same decade, surpassing most of those "Empires" you love talking about on this board.
and then you talk about made-up numbers

>>3034106
>its a /his/ thinks real life is a video game and you should at all times attempt to conquer all the land

>>3037232
>Arabic Al-Andalus
No such thing. Obviously you haven't study the period as you are what is commonly known as a "brainlet"

>>3037237
Elaborate your point.

>>3037243
Like it or not, Arabic was the language of humanities, science and literature in Al-Andalus as was the case in Persia. The racial origins of the Andalusians are irrelevant and even then it was a mix of Arabic principally and Berber.

>>3037270
It was mostly iberian onverted to Islam anon, then berbers, then arabs.

>>3037270
muslims and anti-heracleus Byzantine sources aren't things you can take for granted

>>3037198
Gonna need some source on that, the nations of France and Germany only emerged after the late 9th century

>>3034106
>100 years after the death of their prophet, Jihads were being called to regions north of the Loire,
>100 years after the death of the prophet, the lightning fast conquests of his followers had covered 19/20 of the the miles between Mecca and London.
There are a lot of reasons why conquest passed the Pyrenees wasn't very tenable though.
>Completely hostile populations (no Berbers to convert, no Spanish Jewry to conspire with (not kidding))
>Stark climatic differences, dense and dank forests weren't as familiar to the jihadists and were more conducive to attrition, they were basically just desert hordes that demanded the submission of the people they encountered like Dothraki.
>The Umayyads were still beholden to Damascus which wasn't terrible interested in rural France, communication times with cordoba were already obscene and it made more sense to prioritize the more formidable, familiar, wealthier and closer domains of the Byzantines.
Basically the profits wouldn't have justified the costs.

>>3037270
>Arabic was the language of humanities, science and literature
Barely anything was written in arabic.Like nothing.I am sorry to tell you my goatrapist friend that you are just dumb

>>3034150
>Implying the Arabs didn't besiege and fail to capture Constantinople tons of times.

>>3037279
A society is evaluated by the impact of its prominent men, not by its general populace. Most scholars, scientists, poets and philosophers were at the very least culturally Arabic if not racially, and even then most of them had mixed Arabic and Berber origins even though they were born in Iberia.

>>3037319
If you don't want to to rely on the sources, then try to use logic. Which of these two would have a bigger population, and thus a bigger army? The byzantines, occupying some of the most fertile land in the Old World or the Arabic people, living in an infertile land?

>>3037332
There is no point in debating you. Your attachement to ad hominems seems to be superior in your being to the search for truth.

>>3037342
You say it like this erases all previous military achievment. You evaluating a military power based on their ability or inability to capture the capital shows your low standards. Seems that to you admirers of the byzantine empire, the "empire" is effectively constantinople.

File: 636.png (83KB, 300x249px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 300x249px

>>3037354
>that one butthurt Arab quoting everyone and expecting anyone to take him seriously

>>3037354
>Tell a lie
>Get call out for your bullshit
>lmao XD I will just make another thing up.
Are Ayyyyyrabs actually this pathetic irl?

>>3037370
>>3037376


> That troll who has absolutely nothing meaningful to say, but has the urge to hijack the thread, which leads to him choosing to attack someone defending his opinions with reasonable arguments. He feeds on replies like this one, yet ignores that his trollish hunger will not be satiated, the endgame for him is self-loathing and a deep sadness for his miserable state of being.

File: French dominion.png (367KB, 1232x850px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1232x850px

>>3037319
>need source for that

The kingdom was literally called the Kingdom of the French(regnum francorum), and France(francia) is first mentioned during the the third century.


Frank is a bullshit term invented by anglos during the renaissance, there is no such thing as franks only French

>>3037200

The reason that paved the way for Arab saracens managing to kick out Byzantines from Levant, North Africa and Egypt and conquer the sassanids was because both of those empires were engaged in a 343 year long bloody struggle. After the victory of the Byzantines the Sassanids were basically greatly reduced in strength, troops and most of their cities had been sacked. The Byzantines were also shortly afterwards the war, preoccupied with a full Slavic/Bulgaria/Avar invasion in Macedonia, Thrace and central Greece.

The Arabs were very lucky the Byzantines were at their weakest during that time, as it was an empire with more soldiers,a large navy, better technology, and better military infrastructure.

>>3037387
Do you have any sources for your alternative history speculation?

Speaking of, just checked duolingo.
Why is there no arabic course, lol?
I realise their speech and alphabet is a bit weird, but c'mon, russians and chinese have one.
Fucking dothraki and high valyrian as incubated courses, as well(there are however german and swedish courses for arabs, because of course)

>>3037387

Also not to forget the Byzantines during the reign of Constans II were also engaged in fighting off the Lombards in southern Italy, while at the same time he was fighting off the Arabs.

File: X6d5ar.jpg (11KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x300px

>>3037392
>yfw the last Byzantine Sassanid war was alternate history

>>3034106
South Euros kept them at bay.

File: Rex Francorum.png (2MB, 1408x1036px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1408x1036px

>>3037319
>>3037386
By the way here is a source

>>3037407
straw man much? I'm talking about what you stated as a possible aftermath. The war you mentionned may have weakened both sides, but you seem to forget that there was a six year gap between this war and the Arabic conquest, and that the Arabic armies were invading both empires at the same time.

>>3037417
>6 years are enough to recover from a 30 year war that left the entire middle east in devastation

>>3037420
Sufficient enough when the Arabic armies were still numerically inferior and had worse equipment, adding to that the two fronts that these armies were facing.
And a genuine question: why do you admire the byzantine empire so much?

>>3035933

Retard!
Most laws come because of occuring incidents.
Western countries do not have zoophilia laws because it basically does not happen here.

>>3037386
>>3037415
Well the Franks/French did come from Germania. Were the "eastern Franks" then conquered or were they the same people? I read they were the same tribe but the eastern population didn't settle in former Roman urban areas and therefore didn't adopt Latin laguages, later becoming the Germans.

>>3037427
>still numerically inferior and had worse equipment
nice memes
>And a genuine question: why do you admire the byzantine empire so much?
Because they compose half of my country's history. Here's a better question, why do you like the Arabs so much?

>>3037437
There's no point in debating if you are going to bring up the classical "nice memes" response.

> Because they compose half of my country's history. Here's a better question, why do you like the Arabs so much?

Your country being? I assume it's Greece. I'm Arabic. Now here's another good question. Why do you hate Arabs so much?

This thread is proof that you'll never have a good thread when people, for some reason, take pride in or support historical entities like sports teams.

>>3037444
>dismisses that the Byzantines and the Sassanids were weakened from one of the longest wars in history
>expects to have a serious discussion

>Why do you hate Arabs so much?
I don't hate the Arabs, just how they're called to be so great because they took advantage of two handicapped empires, one being bankrupt and overextended from also having lands that weren't secure in the west and the other suffering from disease and civil war. The Arabs on the other hand were also more motivated from the rise of their new religion and if there's one thing that gives them an advantage over the Byzantines and the Sassanids is that they were much more efficient in the desert since they live in it while also having extreme mobility with light cavalry compared to the Byzantines and the Sassanids who relied on more heavy troops.

File: France.png (209KB, 1482x860px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1482x860px

>>3037435
Eastern Franks carry various meaning

It can refer to the Riparian Franks as opposed to the Salian Franks aka Western Franks.

It can also refer to the Riparian Franks that settled into Thuringia, these are the Franconians.

Finally, it can also refer to all Germans(meaning East of the Rhine) as opposed to the Gauls(West of the Rhine) regardless of Ethnicity.

The genuine Eastern Franks are the Franconians btw.

>>3037460

>dismisses that the Byzantines and the Sassanids were weakened from one of the longest wars in history

I did not dismiss it. I'm just saying that both empires were still formidable forces at the time of the conquest.

>I don't hate the Arabs, just how they're called to be so great because they took advantage of two handicapped empires, one being bankrupt and overextended from also having lands that weren't secure in the west and the other suffering from disease and civil war. The Arabs on the other hand were also more motivated from the rise of their new religion and if there's one thing that gives them an advantage over the Byzantines and the Sassanids is that they were much more efficient in the desert since they live in it while also having extreme mobility with light cavalry compared to the Byzantines and the Sassanids who relied on more heavy troops.

Every force in history made use of what it had available, why resent my people for doing as such? And let's not deceive ourselves. Not my people, nor the byzantines, nor the persians had any valid claim to the the Levant and Egypt.

>>3037451
Are you american?

>>3037498
Thanks for the insight. I know a large portion of the French population is ethnic Gaul/Celtic, but it's not like the French/Frank rulers weren't Germanic, is it?
What I've read is that the Franks came from Germania and established a Kingdom in modern France, then expanding east.

File: Franks.png (120KB, 1096x756px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1096x756px

>>3037606
>What I've read is that the Franks came from Germania and established a Kingdom in modern France, then expanding east.

That's the dominant and accepted theory

But the reality is that "Frank" is a term created in the Renaissance


Clovis was a French not a "Frank"

>Thread about arab conquest
>Turns into another ouiaboo discussion
Ouiaboos are literal colon cancer

>>3037516
>Formidable forces.

They were, no denying that, however consider that Heraclius went into Mesopotamia with perhaps a big maximum of 50k professional (and by professional I mean they still got training before getting in there, considering the rest of the field armies were out of the picture), and came out with around 25k men iirc.

Now consider that the empire was broke, had lost the tax revenue of the levant and egypt for a decade, had had the avars pillage Thrace for the same amount of time, and Heraclius had to put everything back together again while paying back the church """"loans"""" and securing the frontiers with what able bodied young men hadn't been killed off by the recurring plague.
Whatever he managed to scramble to send down to Yarmouk when the Arabs invaded must have been the only field army of professionals the whole empire could muster at that point, and he still had to put it together, it wasn't actually already operational and ready to go.

The Roman Empire was still formidable sure, but it's army was at its lowest point since a very long time,

And they were the winners, imagine the state of the persians.

>>3037976
Wikipedia says there was no French language at the time and his original name was Chlodwig, definitely Germanic, and that the Franks spoke Germanic languages at this time.

If you think the French nation emerged from Gallo-Roman culture without Germanic influence, can you back that up with some English sources (my French is pretty bad, unfortunately)?

>>3038059
>>3038059
I agree that the Romans and the Persians were not in the best shape, but neither was the Arabic nation. Don't forget that that shortly before the invasions there was a civil war with different factions competing for power and some having seperatist objectives after the death of the Prophet.

File: 1385234295374.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>it's a muh Byzantine-Sassanid War gives both empires a pass for getting pummeled by some sand niggers-thread

>>3039106
The Arabic nation had Khalid Ibn-al-Walid and were fighting two fatigued empires on their borders and in the fringes of their military projection in the case of the Byzantine Empire and an empire in the throes of death (Sassanid Empire). Not to take away from the achievement of their conquests, but it was incredibly opportunistic. Imagine a world where a Mexican-Revolution triggered in the Western US states and territories after the US Civil War and then went on to conquer all lands west of the Mississippi and south of Kentucky. That's basically what went down.

>>3034106
the whole point of christianity was to gang up on any foreign reigion that tried to get in their lands

>>3034254
that explains some things

the whole warlords thing always felt weird to me, then again it also happened in rome. I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of a random army of foreigner just defeating the locals and living there.

>>3034106
They conquered plenty of it.

>>3039366
>I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of a random army of foreigner just defeating the locals and living there.
Usually this is because our concept of local vs foreigner is on a scale unimaginable by a lot of people in the past. To an 8th century Gallo-Roman landowner in Provence for example, Saracens wouldn't be any more foreign than Norsemen or Magyars, and only barely more foreign than Salien Franks or Lombards. What usually mattered more in this period were personal alliances in the form of family marriages, adoption and patronage, or sworn oaths and contracts.

The Arabs were generally organized into semi-independent warbands who were readily accepting of all of the above, moreso than nobles of other neighboring kingdoms who already had complicated personal alliances and a more domineering central authority above them.

This was why Spain could be invaded just a few years after the Arabs arrived in North Africa with a majority Berber army, why the armies of the Abbasids could raise forces from allied Zoroastrian Persian families against the Umayyads, and why Avignon allowed an Arab force to peacefully enter its gates whereas Charles Martel burned it to the ground.

>>3035004
Were they actually good to their collaborators or did they stab them in the back after they were done with them?

>>3037354
I don't mean to meme or anything, but the vast majority of Muslims in Iberia. Like literally 90% were Iberian converts to Islam. Very few arabs actually settled in Iberia. It was Iberians and Berbers. Andalusian scholars were likely just Iberians.

File: rdvrtAX.jpg (198KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1280x720px

I'm doin it right now in my game. Problem is the empire is becoming exceptionally hard to manage and may implode

>>3034106
no real reason to fight anymore.
the north africa campaign started to eradicate the byzantine presence.by the time we had conquered iberia the byzantine empire (our sole enemy after the defeat of the persians) had been reduced to a pathetic empirelet and any military action against it wouldnt pay of as in
>no added security
>no loot
>loss of manpower
any attempt that came after the umayyad empire was a half hearted and non necessary one that usually found no support at the court of the caliph

i feel like im the only arab answering lmao

>>3040065
give us an update when it does.

>>3035983
see >>3034858

Muslims, especially the /his/ larpers, deserve it. They wank to over exaggerated victories way too much.

>>3034106
>didn't

they are right now

>>3040065
>the empire is becoming exceptionally hard to manage and may implode
Such realism when playing arab empires.

File: aksum.png (4MB, 1918x1080px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1918x1080px

>>3040065
Do you know how to play the game, anon? You're so much over your vassal limit that you're getting like 10% of the vassal levies you should be getting. Also remember that if your decadence gets too high you'll get a strong revolt.

Also download HiP vanilla sucks

>>3039106
I"d argue that the difference is in some way the arab civil war helped forge the arab army of conquest and make it into the formidable force that would conquer both empires, while the war in the two other's case actually ended up downsizing their military. Plus remember Bedouin warriors are born on the saddle or on the camel, roman cav was expensive to train and equip and still could be outmatched by a born and raised warrior. That's the eternal struggle between professional field armies and warrior armies. The Romans were caught with their pants down and a single field army with many fresh recruits, while the experienced men hadn't seen a fight in 6 years (if they were still in fighting condition, who knows how many vets were still in the amry). The Arabs cavalry didn't have the problem of "raw recruits" and I'd wager their army had come out strengthened (in terms of experience) rather than weakened from the civil strife.

>>3037200
>Sassanid Empire/Persia lost half their population to a plague that lasted seven years on top of a famine that wracked the entire empire due to the inundation and flooding over the Tigris and Euphrates
>Byzantines were also affected by the return of Justinian's plague
>"superior numbers" while unironically talking about made-up numbers
Retard.

People are too hung up on the idea of war exhaustion and numbers when the issue was much more specific. The Germanic tribes that overran Western Rome also took advantage of an empire that had demographically and politically stretched by famines, plagues, and endless civil wars and invasions. Yet the Legions of the WRE continued to fight and win in the field till the very end.

The issue wasn't manpower, the issue was loyalty. Whole sections of the army, and whole provinces and their governors, began to defect to the Arabs, sometimes without a fight.

People nowadays like to think of the Arab Conquests as an invasion, when really it comes across as a mass revolt that got out of hand.

>>3041694
Were you there to know the effects of those disasters? You tell me why I should trust your estimates and not the historians' estimates.

>>3041772
Al-Tabari for one > your shitty estimates and hyperbole from the Koran or SWORDOFALLAH.COM sources. You know, the guy who actually measured and researched the soil, had access to the Persian royal archives before they got torched, who examined major areas and had access to Greek and Byzantine sources that weren't lost yet, you dumb Araboo.

>>3041796
Why are you angry? And again, what is your source? Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word source. You have named a historian, but you have not named the document produced by said historian. My previous question still stands too, why should I trust the estimates of a persian?

>>3041796
Not to mention the Byzantine historians hated Heraclius and wanted to smear his name every chance they got. Which is why they said he fielded armies larger than the Eastern Romans had ever fielded, despite the devastating plagues and losses

>>3034432
>>3034449
And it was cheese

>>3034858
Reading the Muslim accounts you'd think Heraclius only had Cannae sized armies lmao

The Arabs came after Rome

After Rome you were too late in dominating continents

>>3041766

This

Also important to note the Justinian plague devestated whole swathes of human society. And the governmental response was poor at the best of times.

The local christian populations often welcomed the arab conquerors. I get why people idolize the Byzantines but they were just as incompetent and backstabbing as the Romans they descended from. Their fall is entirely on themselves.

Also another note

Why exactly are people triggered by Franks/The French? Modern nations arent a thing until the 19th century. Video game maps of control are completely wrong, the "King" would control a large but small piece of land and local lords would pledge fealty to their king but the control was tenuous at best.

The ruling class were descended from the Frankish barbarians from Germany. And indeed under Charlemange it was indistinguishable from the modern French and Germany sides of the border.

>>3037976
Stop larping you fuck, French didn't exist yet

>>3039505
They were generally better behaved in the beginning

>>3041804
He already gave a source, you dong.

>>3041887
I think he's actually asking for Al'Tabari's sources, as if any of them had survived.

>>3041887
No, "he" (you) did not.

>>3041840
>cuck spotted

>>3041895

Human history is about the strong asserting themselves over the weak. The Byzantines were weak. Sorry these facts don't correlate to your safe space.

File: FRANCUS EGO CIVES.png (209KB, 1890x1528px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1890x1528px

>>3041855
>French didn't exist yet

Pic related nigger

We exist since at least 250 AD

>>3041904
>Frankus
>Latin for Franks

Wow you sure showed him.

File: BTFO.png (225KB, 448x663px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 448x663px

>>3041910
Firstly, francus mean French in latin see pic related

Secondly, it is franCus

Thirdly, Franken(Frank in German) is francoNICUS in latin
,

>>3041925
>>3038810

>>3041925

Are you seriously fucking using the NORMANS from the 10-11th century and the Domesday book to debate the ethnic identity of the Franks from the 4-6th century?

You only blown yourself out

>>3041890
Several of them did, google them.

>>3041894
Wrong, Mahmoud.

File: Franks are not Germanic.gif (969KB, 734x8286px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 734x8286px

>>3041939
>claim francus doesn't mean French
>get disproved
>I-IT DOESNT COUNT !!!!

You got BTFO'd by me, you can resume sucking abdul's cock now

Pic related is my killing blow btw

>>3041840
>Modern nations arent a thing until the 19th century
not true,nations didn't sprout out of nowhere in the 19th ct
they just gained importance again after "the spring"

>>3041981
Why are you angry?

>>3038810
>you think the French nation emerged from Gallo-Roman culture without Germanic influence

You're misuserstanding my view

I view the the so-called "Franks" (my nacestors :) as non-Gemanic both in race and in language

As for the Gallo-Romans it is the ancestors of the Occtian people not ours

File: Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire.png (139KB, 1954x1362px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1954x1362px

>>3042073
>non-Gemanic both in race and in language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
So you say all the sources of these articles are bullshit?

>Gayrm*anic
Why are you so angry?

You say just because there are depictions of Franks with brown hair and Tacitus talking about blond Germanics the Franks were not a Germanic tribe (in the beginning, I know they later mixed with the local poplation)?
Where did they come from then?

>>3041982
Not him, I have a question: why is it a common conception that Franks are germanic?

>>3042094
> have a question: why is it a common conception that Franks are germanic?

During the Renaissance people thought that Franconia was the Homeland of the Franks while it was just a duchy created around Charlemange's time on the land of Thuringia

Then during the 19th century, after being humiliated at war by the French, the Germans compensated by claiming that they had conquered Gaul/France in the past as Franks, Anglos backed their claim cause at that time Pan-Germanism was strong in England.

>>3042092
Where did they come from then?
Pannonia

> I know they later mixed with the local poplation)
Gauls were blond haired , if they did mix they would have become more blond haired and yet their dark haired

>>3042129
So why do all these articles and sources propagate bullshit?

(Note that I wouldn't consider the fact that one found "Avar-like" horse equipment and some painitings with brown-haired people sufficient evidence against the common conception of Franks being an originally Germanic tribe.)

File: Clotilde_partageant_le_royaume_entre_ses_fils.jpg (1MB, 1324x1204px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1324x1204px

>>3042186
btw, these hairs don't appear very dark to me

File: Clotilde_partageant_le_royaume_entre_ses_fils2.jpg (16KB, 78x76px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 78x76px

>>3042198
source
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Clotilde_partageant_le_royaume_entre_ses_fils.jpg

>>3042129
>>During the Renaissance people thought that Franconia was the Homeland of the Franks while it was just a duchy created around Charlemange's time on the land of Thuringia

Why is there a resemblance to the demonym in the name of the duchy? Or is it rather that the people were named as such because it was thought that they came from that region. Is there an explanation for the slight resemblance between the modern word "francais" (in the french language) and the name of the region?

>Then during the 19th century, after being humiliated at war by the French, the Germans compensated by claiming that they had conquered Gaul/France in the past as Franks, Anglos backed their claim cause at that time Pan-Germanism was strong in England.

Do you know which war precisely? As there was no single german entity during the century aside from the German Empire, which suffered no defeat against the French in the 19th century, with its predecessor (Prussia) being victorious in the war fought against the french in 1870-1871. I would have thought of the wars waged by Napoleon, but I think those wars preceded the rise of German Nationalism.

>>3042129
>Then during the 19th century, after being humiliated at war by the French, the Germans compensated...
>Gayrm*nic


Man, I know we didn't have a nice history but I've only got love for my French neighbors. No need to denigrate history.

File: SO CALLED Eastern Franks.png (605KB, 1232x2084px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1232x2084px

>>3042198
My pic is contemporary yours is from the 13th century

You sounds very butthurt by the way ? Is this because we vanquished your ancestors and raped your ancestors ?

>>3037200
Much of muslim iberia nobiliy was germanic converts at the time

>>3042228
no need insult or anything, genuinly interested why you are that anti-German/Germanic?

Also, please reply to this question.
>>3042186

File: Les_Francs_entre_400_et_440.svg.png (416KB, 1280x953px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1280x953px

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Les_Francs_entre_400_et_440.svg/1280px-Les_Francs_entre_400_et_440.svg.png?uselang=fr

>>3042237
My antigermanism comes from the fact that g*rm claim that we're gauls and that they conquered us

The day when the day cease their LARPing will be the day i cease to hate Germanic.

I have nothing against the Scandinavians btw, just the g*rms and the angl*s

>>3042277
Ok man, German here, I disagree on your theory of the origins of the Franks (you didn't answer all my questions and didn't convince me) but there's no need to spout all this snownigger/g*erm bullshit here (unless you're just memeing, thats fine)...

>>3042046
Why are you projecting?

>>3042300
>convince me


i don't seek to convince anyone

i'm just stating facts


>So why do all these articles and sources propagate bullshit?

Simply because German historiography dominate the West

Another example of Germanic domination on history are the Cimbrians despite they spoke a celtic language and had celtic names and worshipped celtic gods they're still claimed as Germanic by historians

>>3042327
Not him. You didn't respond to my questions:
>>3042220

File: DSC00553.jpg (796KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 1920x1080px

>>3042220
>Why is there a resemblance to the demonym in the name of the duchy?

Simply because French tribes settled there
>Do you know which war precisely?
Napoleonic Wars

It led notabely to the creation of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica whose primary goal was for the Love of the Fatherland and to glorify Germans at all coast

>>3041840

The local christians, and Jews welcomed the Arabs in the Levant because of excessive taxation as well as because of religious reasons, as many in the east were part of a whole array of heresies like arianism, manichaeism, and gnosticism. The Byzantine empire was pretty much as centralised as the Roman empire was, their problem was that they had been exposed to many enemies.

A nice analogy would be the Zenobia's third century revolt and the Palmyrene empire, which had it succeeded would have split the middle-east from Rome much earlier. But it didn't happen because it was nipped in the bud very early by Aurelian.

>>3042385
So to sum up your viewpoint, you think that today's french people are descended from a non-germanic tribe from pannonia? What about the people living in the south of France?

You have mentioned that you hate the English and the Germanic, why is that specifically?

>>3042417
>So to sum up your viewpoint, you think that today's french people are descended from a non-germanic tribe from pannonia?
Yes

>What about the people living in the south of France ?
Mostly Gallo-Romans but they're also Iberians, Vascons, Romans, and Ligurians, some also have a bit of Gothic and Burgundic blood in them.


You have mentioned that you hate the English and the Germanic, why is that specifically?

Germans created the lie, and Anglos spred it.

>>3042509
Do you see the multiple french entities throughout History as descendants of the Franks? To what extent could you define the origins of the Franks? What about the exact nature of the language used by the Franks? How was it before the latin influences? To what linguisitc family does it belong?

>>3042509
And what is exactly the distinction between french and frank to you?

>>3042544
>Do you see the multiple french entities throughout History as descendants of the Franks?
To clearer i only use "Frank" because it is conventional
I consider that there is no distinction between the "Franks" and the French


>To what extent could you define the origins of the Franks?
>How was it before the latin influences?
I do no understand these questions, please reformulate it
>What about the exact nature of the language used by the Franks?
They orignally spoke a Celtic language
When Pannonia was conquered by Rome they adopted Latin.
Then they moved into Germania, here, they partially adopted the language of the Thuringians(which became later know as Franconian)
Then they moved into Gaul
The Ripuarians kept Franconian while the Salians kept Latin

>>3042580
>To clearer i only use "Frank" because it is conventional
To be clearer i only use "Frank" because it is conventional

>I do no understand these questions, please reformulate it
I do no understand these questions, please reformulate them*

Fixed

>>3042580

>To what extent could you define the origins of the Franks?
Meaning: What was the history of the Franks before settling in Pannonia?

>>How was it before the latin influences?
Meaning: How was the language before Latin influenced it. You have already given your response to this question.

So you regard the term "franks" as a word created to seperate french and frankish identity while in your opinion they are the same? Do you find it possible that the Frankish text in pannonia was simply written by a Frankish soldier serving Rome stationned there? Assuming you're french, what is your opinion of the Bretons and the modern people living in the south? Do you think of them as your fellow countrymen?

What lead you to developping this theory? Did you believe in the past that the Franks were germanic and that the modern French are a mix of Gallic, Roman and Germanic?

File: The Shaping of German Identity; Authority and Crisis, 1245-1414.png (305KB, 501x753px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 501x753px

>>3042655
>Meaning: What was the history of the Franks before settling in Pannonia?
I'm not very clearc about it but some historians speculated that the Franks were in fact the Pannonian Breuci

>So you regard the term "franks" as a word created to seperate french and frankish identity while in your opinion they are the same?
I don't "regard it as", it is a fact
Until the 18th century in France nobody claimed that Clovis or Charlemagne were Franks, they were uniservally saw as French same goes for every other "Franks"
It was the same for other Europeans during middle age(pic related), nobody saw a discontinuity between us and the "Franks"

>Do you find it possible that the Frankish text in pannonia was simply written by a Frankish soldier serving Rome stationned there?
It is a possiblity but it is quite unrealistic that a legionary would elevate a costy stone in a place that he was temporary placed in

>Assuming you're french, what is your opinion of the Bretons and the modern people living in the south?
I consider them as cucks and as a burden for my people
I'm writing a second post to answer to your other questions as well

>>3042655
>Do you think of them as your fellow countrymen?
Since we're being invaded by non-whites, like other Western Europeans, i'm pragmatic and consider them as fellow whites, BUT i only consider the Oïl Speakers as sharing the same "Frankish" blood with me and as fellow French.


>What lead you to developping this theory? Did you believe in the past that the Franks were germanic and that the modern French are a mix of Gallic, Roman and Germanic?
You need to understand that in France, Franks are presented us as blond-haired blue-eyed Germanic/Nordic invaders coming either from Netherland or from Scandinavia, and that they ruled over us(swarthy Gauls) as the nobility

I basically believed this bullshit because most of the French are indeed not blond(although a lot are during their youth)

One day, i decided to read what the contemporaries of the Gauls had to say about them, it was then that i realized that they were Nordic ! I thought we were descendants of the Romans but i learned that the Roman colonies were mostly in Southern France and around the Rhine and not numerous enough to replace the Gauls, i was extremely confused and believed firmly at that time that the Franks were Nordic so even yet i didn't thought of them as our ancestors.

Much later on, i deciced to look at depiction of the French nobilities and they were mostly dark haired(this crushed the myth of the Nordic Franks in my heart) then i decided to search for description of the Franks and i stumbled upon the CAROLINGIAN ILLUMINATIONS, it was then that i realized that Germanic Franks is a myth

Finally i read about my genuine ancestors :)

I read the Salic Law and how the countries of the Franks is between Carbonnarian Forest and the Loire which match the Langue d'Oil country

i also read that the Frankish Homeland and Country is between Rhine and the Loire and that Neustria is the purest part of it

It was how i realized it

>>3042768

>I consider them as cucks and as a burden for my people

How do they constitute a burden exactly?

>Since we're being invaded by non-whites, like other Western Europeans, i'm pragmatic and consider them as fellow whites, BUT i only consider the Oïl Speakers as sharing the same "Frankish" blood with me and as fellow French.

What makes you sure that the southern people are not frankish?

>>3042867

>How do they constitute a burden exactly?
They vote left wing,

If France was only composed of the Oil Speaking part FN would have been elected long ago

>What makes you sure that the southern people are not frankish?

Several facts

The sources tell us that Franks never settled there

Only the Oil language is heavily influenced by Germanic, while Arpitan and Occitan have very little influenced

At the time of the Merovingian and the Carolingians, the law was personal, which mean that a Roman followed the Roman law and a Frankish follow the Frankish law ! Which resulted in France being divided into two part the Pays de Coutume(customary law, modified version of the Salic law) and Pays de droit écrit(Roman law) if the Southern French were descendants of the Goths or the Burgungians they would follow Gothic or Burgundian customs and not Roman Law

File: 1200px-Carte_du_pays_de_droit_coutumier_et_du_pays_de_droit_écrit_(fr).png (527KB, 1200x1201px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1200x1201px

>>3042867
>At the time of the Merovingian and the Carolingians, the law was personal, which mean that a Roman followed the Roman law and a Frankish follow the Frankish law ! Which resulted in France being divided into two part the Pays de Coutume(customary law, modified version of the Salic law) and Pays de droit écrit(Roman law) if the Southern French were descendants of the Goths or the Burgungians they would follow Gothic or Burgundian customs and not Roman Law

Pic related is a map to illustrate what i'm saying

>>3034106
They weren't afraid they were defeated

>>3042951
Why do you place a heavy emphasis on the link between race and identity even though no race is "pure"?

Only two departments in the north were won by Le Pen in the north, why do you blame the rest of your country for voting left?
I may be mistaken, but I think I read somewhere that Le Pen thought of himself as a descendant of the gauls. Doesn't it bother you that he is from brittany? What do you think of the various french regimes throughout history beginning with the monarchy?

>>3034365
You dense fool, the generals had to return because the khan died.

>>3037427
Pretty much everyone with high school level education loves them for some reason

>>3042951
>Why do you place a heavy emphasis on the link between race and identity even though no race is "pure"?
French historiography is heavily racialized, since the revolution, so i'm just following the French way of doing history.

Anyway, i put an emphasis on the race of the Franks to disprove the Germanic theory and disprove the myth of the Frankish noblity ruling over the Gauls
>I may be mistaken, but I think I read somewhere that Le Pen thought of himself as a descendant of the gauls. Doesn't it bother you that he is from brittany?
It does, but what i care the most is that she may help to fix France.
>What do you think of the various french regimes throughout history beginning with the monarchy?

Merovigians were our best kings

Carolingians were still good but became heavily christianized(they partially dropped the Salic Law, and they also dropped polygamy)

Early Capetians are god-tier, but later Capetians are shit, they're ones that turned the Nobility against the French thanks to their centralization-policy, and they were mongrelized with Germanic(think of Maria Josepha of Saxony and Mary-Antoinette of Austria) too

Early Republic was good

Napoleonic Empire was shit and useless

Third Republic is UTTER shit, they are the ones that endocrinated the French into thinking that they're Gauls and pushed laicty

Fourth/Fifth Republic are not worth mentioning...

>>3043024
this >>3043185 was meant for you

>>3043185
From a religious point of view, what were the franks?

>Merovigians were our best kings
What do you think of the nickname "fainéant" that was attributed to some of thosekings?

>Carolingians were still good but became heavily christianized(they partially dropped the Salic Law, and they also dropped polygamy)

Why do you view the christianisation of the carolingians negatively? (I'm not christian and I'm not trying to defend christianity.)

>they're ones that turned the Nobility against the French thanks to their centralization-policy

What do you mean by that exactly?

>they were mongrelized with Germanic(think of Maria Josepha of Saxony and Mary-Antoinette of Austria) too

Inter-marriages with other ethnic groups existed before with the french monarchy.

> Early Republic was good
Why

>Napoleonic Empire was shit and useless
Why

>Third Republic is UTTER shit, they are the ones that endocrinated the French into thinking that they're Gauls and pushed laicty

How did the achieve that? And why are you against secularism?

What makes you 100% sure that you're descended from the Franks and not the native Gauls? Sure, franks have invaded the north of Gaul, but what exactly confirms to you that you are part of the the tribes that migrated?

>>3034858
>me being a liar is okay because other people are lying
I don't even care about this discussion or any side in it, but fuck you dude

>>3043264

It is the last time i answer to your questions !

>What do you think of the nickname "fainéant" that was attributed to some of thosekings?

You must understand that Frankish sources are biaised and can be divided into three types Neustrian type(favorable to West Franks), Lotharingian type(favorable to West Franks), and the Austrasian type(favorable to East Franks) the rois fénéants comes from Fedegar's chronicle which of the Austrasian type

The Carolingians were Austrasians, after replacing their predecessors obviously needed to decrebilize the Merovingians, to accomplish that they used people from their country like Fredegar.


>From a religious point of view, what were the franks?
Gregory of Tours tell us that they worshipped elements (sun, moon, river, and so on) and in the tomb of Chilperic as found a Golden Bull Head

Their religion is unclear

>Why do you view the christianisation of the carolingians negatively? (I'm not christian and I'm not trying to defend christianity.)
Christianity is a weak religion so it can only produce weak people
>What do you mean by that exactly?
As i said before, the idea of the Franks as a distinct people of the French started more or less during the renaissance

It started with the centralization-policy of the kings, at first the nobility(especially protestant) claimed that we wuz gauls because among the Gauls the royalty was weak and elective, to know more about it you can read Francogallica of François Hotman

When the Gallic bullshit failed, the nobility started to claim that they and the kings wuz both Franks , and as Franks they were equal(meaning less centralization and more power for the nobiltiy), this theory flourished contrary to Hottman's theory, and made the nobility more and more foreign to the French which led to the French Revolution.

>Inter-marriages with other ethnic groups existed before with the french monarchy.
mongrelizing with germanic is not allowed tho

>>3034484
>what is the Hungarian plain

>>3043446
You didn't respond to all of my questions.

>>3043264
> Early Republic was good
>Why

Because it removed the traitorous nobility and it manged to conquer our "natural borders"

>Napoleonic Empire was shit and useless
>Why
It ended in failure and cost us both the Rhine and 40% of our men in age of fighting

It was meaningless

>How did the achieve that? And why are you against secularism?
Read about the Hussards Noirs de la République and the Affaire des fiches

If you didn't follow the rules and believe what the Republic told you to believe you would have a hard life

>What makes you 100% sure that you're descended from the Franks and not the native Gauls? Sure, franks have invaded the north of Gaul, but what exactly confirms to you that you are part of the the tribes that migrated?

I already mentioned numerous times why

But to put it simply AGAIN

>Gauls were Nordic
>French are not Nordic
>Therefore French are not Gauls

Romans had no colonies outside of the Provincia Narbonensis
>Romans were brown skined
>French aren't brown skined
>Therefore French are not Romans

>"Franks" were brown haired/black haired + pale skined
>"Franks" are reported to have settled in Northern France meaning (Between the Carbonarian forest and the Loire)
>Therefore French are "Franks"

AS I SAID BEFORE IT IS MY LAST POST

>>3043505
>What makes you 100% sure that you're descended from the Franks and not the native Gauls? Sure, franks have invaded the north of Gaul, but what exactly confirms to you that you are part of the the tribes that migrated?

I understand your viewpoint. I mean by "you" you personally. Meaning: How are you sure that you as a person are descended from the franks not the gauls?

What is the alternative if you are against christianity and against secularism?

>mongrelizing with germanic is not allowed tho

But the french royal families married with members of the english royal family before the hundred years war. Why is the problem specifically with germans?

>When the Gallic bullshit failed, the nobility started to claim that they and the kings wuz both Franks , and as Franks they were equal(meaning less centralization and more power for the nobiltiy), this theory flourished contrary to Hottman's theory, and made the nobility more and more foreign to the French which led to the French Revolution.

You mean they saw themselves (as franks) germanic franks and not those of your hypothesis?

I must say this is a very interesting discussion.

>It ended in failure and cost us both the Rhine and 40% of our men in age of fighting

It was meaningless

If Napoleon had won against the coalitions what would be your opinion of him, him being Corsican?

>>3034106
They failed when they invaded Rome(Byzantines) and Gaul (Franks).

They also didn't have a naval background, so they depended upon Christians to launch naval expeditions.

Also they didn't share technological continuity with the peoples/territories they conquered, and stagnated.

>>3037386
Charlemagne spoke German.

>>3037386
Now you know how the byzaboos feel when people call their empire not-roman

>>3040065
That's probably the only reason i stopped playing CK2, eventually you will implode thanks to RNG gods giving you a revolt, adventurer, plague and lots of ambition vassals.

>>3044866
That makes it the only realistic paradox games. Real states don't snowball into unstoppable map painting juggernauts. They eventually reach a point where it costs more to maintain what they have than they take in and they fall apart.

>>3034304
Isn't Karl the Germanic version of Charles? Like Christoph is the French version of Christopher

>>3035730
and how did they never convert Ethiopia?

File: De l’origine des Français et de leur établissement dans la Gaule.png (174KB, 528x938px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 528x938px

>>3043683
And the Merovingian spoke French, so what's your point ?


>>3043578
>I understand your viewpoint. I mean by "you" you personally. Meaning: How are you sure that you as a person are descended from the franks not the gauls?

I shall not bother to answer that cause i already mentioned why

>What is the alternative if you are against christianity and against secularism?
Paganism obviously

>You mean they saw themselves (as franks) germanic franks and not those of your hypothesis?
As i said before nobody made a disctintion between French and Franks until the 18th century in France

When i said they claimed to be "Franks", i meant that they claimed to be French and claimed that the pleb was Gaul

Nicolas Fréret, the principal author that claimed the nobility was "Frank" and the people Gauls, explained this theory in the book know as "On the origin of the French and of their establishment in Gaul"


>If Napoleon had won against the coalitions what would be your opinion of him, him being Corsican?
Still a meaningless war

The monarchy slowly conquered Germany for centuries and with minimum casualities while Napoleon's war were incredibly deadly for the French

Imo if the monarchy was still around we would have achieved the conquest of the Rhine although much later on

>THE WHITE WARRIOR

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

>>3045068
So to sum it up your evidence against the widely accepted notion that the Franks were a Germanic tribe is that there's a painting depicting them as brown haired, there's a Frankish grave with Avar-like horse equipment and you think history was rewritten by Germans/Brits?

File: Middle-Ages-Costumes-013.jpg (146KB, 605x799px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 605x799px

It is a Frankish tradition that they come from Pannonia and it is further attested by the facts that oldest frankish inscription was found in Pannonia Inferior, and the presence of Pannonian equipments in their graves

As for their physical appareance EVERY CONTENPORARY DEPICTIONS SHOW BROWN AND BLACK HAIRED FRANKS and they described themselves as different from the Nordic


Now let's sum up your theory

A people that claimed to be Pannonian and never claimed to be Germanic, whose physical appareance is distinct from the Germanic, and whose presence is indeed attested in Pannonia is in fact Germanic because you decided it so

Lastly even the Greeks named Pannonia φραγγοχοριων aka the Country of the Franks/French


You sounds like a butthurt g*rm to me

Logistics. It's easier to traverse vast and open desert with a people who don't like being Roman already than it is to cross the Bosporus or the Caucasus or venture into dangerous steppes full of Turkic nomads.

File: Map_pigmentation_in_Europe.png (1MB, 1137x871px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1137x871px

>>3045213
so how come there are apparently still "nordic" people in France?
What happened to all the Gauls in the area?

>>3045229
This map is greatly exagerating and is most likely confusing light brown hair with blond hair

Northern French are at most 20% blond and these are most likely the remnants of the Gauls, Alans, Saxons, and Frisians
but 80% of the French is purely Frankish

>>3035931
yes it is.

File: CHILDERICI_REGIS.jpg (97KB, 457x359px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 457x359px

>>3045238
ok, fine, regardless, what is the "french" name of Hlōdowigs (or as you like to call him: Clovis') father, Childeric?
Why does he have a Germanic name, even in the French Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childeric_I

>>3045245
Early French names were Celtic (Marcomer, Merovicus, Teutomer, Sunno, Samo, etc)

We simply adopted Germanic names while passing through Germania

File: 1280px-Frankish_arms.jpg (131KB, 1280x727px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1280x727px

>>3045255
why are most Merovingian remains Germanic, like these arms?

>>3045245
By the way some were even Latin like

Silvanus
Bonitus
Flavius Richomeres
Flavius Bauto
Arigius

and so on

File: NOT GERMANIC.png (335KB, 1071x938px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1071x938px

>>3045257
You're making shit up

There is no such thing as Germanic graves among the Franks(pic related)!

>>3045272
right, these graves don't exist, just ignore them

so the Franks came from Panonnia, right?
When did they first settle in Germania?

>>3045278
Read the History of the Franks of Gregory of Tours if you want to know more


This is the evidence that the historians who have been named have left us about the Franks, and they have not mentioned kings. Many relate that they came from Pannonia and all dwelt at first on the bank of the Rhine, and then crossing the Rhine they passed into Thuringia, and there among the villages and cities appointed longhaired kings over them from their first or, so to speak, noblest family. This title Clovis' victories afterwards made a lasting one, as we shall see later on. We read in the Fasti Consulares that Theodomer, king of the Franks, son of Richimer, and Ascyla his mother, were once on a time slain by the sword. They say also that Chlogio, a man of ability and high rank among his people, was king of the Franks then, and he dwelt at the stronghold of Dispargum which is within the borders of the Thuringians. And these parts, that is, towards the south, the Romans dwelt as far as the Loire. But beyond the Loire the Goths were in control; the Burgundians also, who belonged to the sect of the Arians, dwelt across the Rhone in the district which is adjacent to the city of Lyons. And Chlogio sent spies to the city of Cambrai, and : they went everywhere, and he himself followed and overcame the : Romans and seized the city, in which he dwelt for a short time, and he seized the land as far as the river Somme. Certain authorities assert that king Merovech, whose son was Childeric, was of the family of Chlogio.

File: aurelian franks.jpg (68KB, 914x127px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 914x127px

>>3045302
One of your previous posts:
>>3042768
>Until the 18th century in France nobody claimed that Clovis or Charlemagne were Franks, they were uniservally saw as French same goes for every other "Franks"

Why did the Romans in the 3rd and 4th century then talk about Francos = Franks?

(Life of Aurelian, likely written by Vopiscus)
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/texts/historia_augusta/aurelian/1*.html

What happened to all the Germanic tribes from the Rhine region that are said to have formed the Frankish tribe/people?

>>3045318
>Why did the Romans in the 3rd and 4th century then talk about Francos = Franks?
They didn't

They said Franci aka French

I'm just using the term "Frank" to be clear as i said before

>What happened to all the Germanic tribes from the Rhine region that are said to have formed the Frankish tribe/people?

The Batavians and Chattians became Dutch, the others were slaughtered by us

File: implying implication.jpg (48KB, 921x86px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 921x86px

>>3045328
>They didn't
...yes they did, here's the original text
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Aurelian/1*.html#7

hahaha sure, they were completely erased from existance, just like all Gauls in northern France or what?

>>3045328
btw should I create another thread, this gets a little off topic?

>>3045359
>Barbarian "education"

There is in Latin somthing called the CASE SYSTEM

Francos is a plural form of the accusative case of Francus/Franci

Francus/Franci itself mean French see pic related here >>3037415
>>3045364
True

>>3045378
i made a thread,
you can present your arguments there

>>3044932
Vicky 2, on other hand, is a rebel fest it's almost unbelievable.

>>3045424
The jacobins especially

>>3045068

>Paganism obviously

What type? Do you genuinely believe in paganism or see it as a way to maintain order?

>>3043683
>8th century
>German
Charlemagne spoke Frankish, a Germanic proto language of Flemish and Dutch, not German. The German language only started to develop around the 15th century, and there was no standard German language before the German unification.