Karl der große or Charlemagne?
 

I think it should be more widely known in the German name, since the Franks were a Germanic tribe.


His empire eventually split up and made both countries, but why did the French name for him take hold throughout the centuries?

I feel like the Germans got a raw deal here, as when I was in school it was taught to me he was French, here I am 20 something years later, and found I was betrayed by the school system again.

#standwithGermany

Just my history nerd rambling. Don't mind me.:O:

Surely it should be Carolus Magnus...? :hmmm:

Hmm.....I say,amazing.:D

He himself preferred to use Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium.

I say we should honor his wish. :yep:

Well, no-one knows for certain where he was born. :hmmm:

I think though that considering that the Frankish Empire lends more of its name and history towards the creation of modern France than it does to modern Germany, despite the Franks having originated in Germany, then it makes some sense to associate Charlemagne with France.

While we're here, have a picture of a descendent of Charlemagne dressed as Charlemagne:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...e_2154270i.jpg

That is not easy to teach to grade schoolers.:o

No matter what he calls himself he was a great man, bringing literacy to Europe, and one of the many cogs to making the modern world.

That coronation thing did not go well in 800, Napoleon himself remembered this and was sure to crown himself, rather than let the Pope do it.

His whole story is interesting, he pretty much invented crusades, because he loved smiting heretics and pagans.

Franks are Germanic. (edit: they are mentioned in the Stategikon [a military manual] written by Emperor Maurice (of the ERE/ Byzantines), in the same classification as other Germanic peoples, "light haired peoples) Clovis was the man who set it up, then when the Merovingian dynasty fell due to weird traditions. They had a puppet king, and the "mayor of the Palace" who really ruled. Pepin went to the Pope and got holy agreement, that the man who truly rules deserves to be king (divine right).

He (legally under divine right from the Catholic Church) overthrew the "fake" and established the Carolingian Dynasty, which is famous today. It also propelled Catholicism to being a huge force in early feudal politics.

I think if you are from Europe, or New Worlders from Europe (like me), then you got a lot of German in you, they overran the continent when the Western Roman empire fell.

Franks are indeed Germanic, most of modern Europe is, but the name itself Frank and Francia was what became the modern name of France. Even Germany calls France 'Frankreich' IIRC.
I'm from England, so there's definitely Germanic lineage here, as well as...well, just about every other race from Europe. :haha:

I bet that he comes from the north.:hmmm:

Angles lent thier name to your fine island, and our language. Also your famous King Arthur came about in this time period this thread discusses.

No I do not believe that he was real, but with what was going on there, with all the invasions going on, I can see a medieval urban legend popping up to give people hope. :)

You can chuck in a few other continents as well while you're at it :03:

I'd say that there probably was an 'Arthur' (although I doubt he was actually called that), but things like Merlin, Camelot and the Knights of the Round table are stretching it a little. :haha:
More likely Arthur was a figurehead in sub-Roman Britain, but certainly never rose to Bretwalda or the like. Still, makes for good reading, and L'Morte d'Arthur is good reading. :yep:

I must admit I've had a growing interest over the past couple of years in regards to sub-Roman Britain, and the era of 'Bretwalda', but it's not the easiest era to get firm information on, thanks to Norsemen burning our records. :/\\!! But it's definitely a very interesting time, and the likes of 'Brytenwalda' for Mount and Blade: Warband, and 'The Rood and the Dragon' for Civilization III awakened my interest in the era.

Arthur almost certainly existed in some form. The modern character of King Arthur is surely the creation of people like Geoffrey of Monmouth, but earlier references to him in Welsh and Breton poetry as well as other early Medieval literature were quite likely based on a historical person (or maybe several).

Charlemagne was the subject of much of the same fiction as King Arthur (he's supposedly 200 years old in The Song of Roland, for example), it just happens that we have much more surviving evidence of his reign than we do anything that happened in Britain in the early Dark Ages (thanks in no small part to Charlemagne himself).

Post Romano British history is so elusive due to massive raids from Proto vikings and angles and saxons, like you said, due to destruction of records.

I am not saying a man who rallied the populace, and gave hope in a time of pillage and rape, never existed.

I just don't think he pulled a sword out of a rock.

I am more in opposition to the supernatural crap attributed to this person. I understand how legends can pop up, considering the supernatural/religious state peoples of that era held dear.

Arthur was certainly based on someone, no idea is original, I just think he was given more gravitas than he deserves.

I am horrid in French, but don't they call the Germans, Allemand?

There was a German tribe called the Allemani.

Euro history, and history in general, has always fascinated me, because it is my history, all the way over here in America, things that happened back then influence my life today.

We still live with remnants of Roman traditions today, Look at Washington D.C's architecture, look at alot of republics constitutional systems. Look at the catholic church., they filled a void after the fall of Rome.

I am always amazed at how little we change, despite how much we have changed.

On the nature of the bishopric of Witenie
 

I read a weighty novel years ago by Rosemary Sutcliffe, called "Sword At Sunset". She was heavily into researching how things really were in the Dark Ages, and she was probably one of the first to postulate that Arthur was a heavy cavalryman of some social rank, levied by the Romans from the native population (as was their practice).

He would have retained his high status after the occupation and, as in her novel, maybe have come to chieftainship or kingship; there seem to have been 'kings' all over the place back then, one highly tangible example being King Raedwald of Sutton Hoo fame.

I'm fortunate enough to live in East Anglia.

The land of the Eastern Angles, thank you, although technically I believe in that era your neck of the woods was primarily swamp land. :hmmm:

You guys got some scandinavian in ya, you are not pure Germanic like the continentals.

A guy named Harald almost made Angles and Saxons a moot point.:O:

But he was an idiot militarily, he had the chance.

A LITTLE LUTEFISK WITH THAT BRATWURST und Hamm's BBY!