Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Napoleon Vs. Louis XIV

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Poll Question: Which one is the greater French leader?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
19 [67.86%]
7 [25.00%]
2 [7.14%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Winterhaze13 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 716
  Quote Winterhaze13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Napoleon Vs. Louis XIV
    Posted: 21-Dec-2004 at 17:09
Originally posted by Winterhaze13

Originally posted by Temujin

Charlemagne is much overrated, in fact he was an illiaterate barbarian that slaughtered infidels en masse on the eastern border like Saxons, Slavs and Avars. only contemporary cleric chroniclers made a saint out of him since he spread catholic faith with the sword.

Well your opinion of his is not incorrect, but Charlemagne is important because he protected European civilization from invasions by the Saracens or Muslims. If not for him, Europe would have become just another extention of the Muslim world.

What I meant was that Europe may never have become the centre of military and economic power if the Muslims were allowed to conquer it. Seeing how Europe flourished what it still be a major power hub if it succumbed to Saracen invasions.

There is a section in the Economist named after Charlemagne and it is dedicated to the European Union, which strengthens his position as the defender of European civilization. 



Edited by Winterhaze13
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Dec-2004 at 13:28

regarding education: i ahve yet to see archaeological proof regarding all thsoe fancy palaces, universities and whatnot Charlemagne was supposed to ahev built durign his reigns, that soemhow seem to ahve dissappeared as time went along...also, don't forget that latin was the official language of the time and only a very small group of people, that is nobles and clerics woudl ahev profited from that kind of education, but in fact the only centre of medieval civilization were european christians and muslims from the enar east were peacefully exchanging ideas was the kingdom of sicily, it was the cultural heart of medieval europe.

about Charlemagne today: I know that charlemagne has been romantizised greatly, especially in France and Germany were especially in todays world of a close Franco-Allemanic friednhsip Charlemagne has ebcame the figurehead of the Eu, but as logn as Chinggis Qaan is ragearded as savage barbarian rider that killed thousands of people and burnt hudnreds of cities, I can't accept a depiction of Charlemagne as Humanistic demigod of a common european idea. if I'm not mistaken the idea of an all encompasing european entity was first propelled by Hitler, at least he used the term europe very often in his speeches, like "Germany as the head of europe is supposed to stop the bolchewist thread commign from central asia blabla etc"...

Back to Top
Winterhaze13 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 716
  Quote Winterhaze13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Dec-2004 at 17:00
I do believe that Charlemagne was illiterate but that was not unusual for the time and he is credited with aiding the development of western civilization. Also, apparently Charlemagne was German, but the Carolingian Empire that he lead was sited in modern day France. 

Edited by Winterhaze13
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 16:04

Originally posted by Slickmeister

I perfer Charlemagne

French?

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 16:18

Originally posted by Winterhaze13

I do believe that Charlemagne was illiterate but that was not unusual for the time and he is credited with aiding the development of western civilization. Also, apparently Charlemagne was German, but the Carolingian Empire that he lead was sited in modern day France. 

Charlemagne was an Alleman Frank, born in what is now France (Thionville) and died in what is now Germany (Aachen), which was where his court was. Since the French call the Germans 'Allemands' after the Alleman Franks, and the Germans (and most people) call the French French after the Franks, it's a little confusing.

The remaining fragment of the Alleman Franks are basically the inhabitants of historical Luxembourg. It's not too good an idea to use 'French' and 'German' as different peoples before around the tenth century.

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jan-2005 at 17:16
what Alleman Franks are you talking about? the Allemans lived in southwest Germany, not at the lower Rhine. Luxemburg was inhabited by Ripuarian Franks.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Jan-2005 at 12:27

Originally posted by Temujin

what Alleman Franks are you talking about? the Allemans lived in southwest Germany, not at the lower Rhine. Luxemburg was inhabited by Ripuarian Franks.

I grant you it's not clear-cut, because we're talking about the borderland between the two. However my Luxembourger friends claim Alleman Franks as their ancestors.

I'm away from home so don't have specific references, but the Alemanni certainly occupied territory as far north as Koblenz and the Moselle valley, which  puts them in the area.  I'd suggest myself that the borderland between the two groups on a north vs south basis was probably the Eifel, or, in Luxembourg specifically, the Oesling. 

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 17:36

I grant you it's not clear-cut, because we're talking about the borderland between the two. However my Luxembourger friends claim Alleman Franks as their ancestors.

 

 Alleman Frank?? What is that. The Allemani weren't Frank, they were a separate entity (and one of the largest tribes in the region the romans called Germania) and the Franks even went to war against them. They were conquered but they were clearly separate.

  Frank is really a loose terms itself. The original Franks were from Germania, therefore Germanic (which is a loose term itself), but by the time of Clovis everyone in neustria (northern France and belgium) were known as Franks. And here the Franks were more gallo-Franks,  a mixture of celts, germanic and romans. However for some reasons,  to the east of the rhine they identified themselves as german or deusche ( Deusche and germanni were also two different tribes, but from English POV people in Germania are Germans)

 Charlemagne from neustria would have simply been gallo-Franks, pretty much like your average modern French in northern France especially the aristocratic family in ile-de-France, normandy as well as perhaps lorraine, alsace, and germans people in the region of Aachen and Trier.

 



Edited by Quetzalcoatl
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2005 at 18:35

Originally posted by Temujin

Charlemagne is much overrated, in fact he was an illiaterate barbarian that slaughtered infidels en masse on the eastern border like Saxons, Slavs and Avars. only contemporary cleric chroniclers made a saint out of him since he spread catholic faith with the sword.

 

I so happen to like illeterate barbarians who slaughter people, lol

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 11:40


Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl


I grant you it's not clear-cut, because we're talking about the borderland between the two. However my Luxembourger friends claim Alleman Franks as their ancestors.


 Alleman Frank?? What is that. The Allemani weren't Frank, they were a separate entity (and one of the largest tribes in the region the romans called Germania) and the Franks even went to war against them. They were conquered but they were clearly separate.

  Frank is really a loose terms itself. The original Franks were from Germania, therefore Germanic (which is a loose term itself), but by the time of Clovis everyone in neustria (northern France and belgium) were known as Franks. And here the Franks were more gallo-Franks,  a mixture of celts, germanic and romans. However for some reasons,  to the east of the rhine they identified themselves as german or deusche ( Deusche and germanni were also two different tribes, but from English POV people in Germania are Germans)

 Charlemagne from neustria would have simply been gallo-Franks, pretty much like your average modern French in northern France especially the aristocratic family in ile-de-France, normandy as well as perhaps lorraine, alsace, and germans people in the region of Aachen and Trier.


A preliminary point: the phrase 'Allemand Frank' is a direct translation from the French 'franc allemand' and therefore could just be translated as 'German Frank' - i.e. simply mean a Frank from the area still known as Franconia, which runs east until it overlaps into Bavaria. That would make it the opposite of your term 'gallo-Frank'.

In that sense, the first Germanic settlers of Luxembourg may have been 'allemand Franks' whether they are identified with the Allemani or not, or whether the Allemanni were Franks or not. The important part is that they came from the south and east, not the north and west. If the Allemanni were not Franks, then the original Germanic settlers were not Franks, just Allemanni. If the Allemanni were Franks, the they were Alleman Franks.

When Clovis established his Frankish kingdom, he first defeated the 'Allemans' who had established themselves west of the Rhine in the Moselle valley and thereabouts. That includes the area of modern Luxembourg. After the murder of Chloderic, he established his rule over the Ripuarian Franks, more or less in the strip between the Meuse and the Rhine, north of the Ardennes/Eifel/Oesling line. Then he defeated Chararic to cement his control of the Salian Franks.  Finally he defeated another group of Franks from the region around Cambrai, under King Ragnachar.

The original Luxembourgers were in the first group, the Allemans.

As to whether the Allemanni were Franks or not:

The Merovingians themselves held that they came from Scythia, and Gregory of Tours records that the Franks originated from Pannonia, which seems more probable. From there they spread west and north along the borders of the Empire, frequently in alliance with the Romans against the northern German tribes. There's no real reason to suspect that spreading was a migration in the strict sense: i.e. they could well have settled along the way - no-one was chasing them. 

During the period of that migration the Allemanni first appear in Roman records (early third century). It seems to me very likely that they represented part of the Frankish people in their early wanderings. The alternative would presumably be that they were Swabians, but in that case why would they not have been heard of before?

On other points:
East of the Rhine the Franks never stopped referring to themselves as Franks. That's why the Holy Roman Empire had the circle of Franconia (Franken in German), and there are still the districts of Upper, Middle and Lower Franconia in Bavaria, as well the Frankenwald, the Frankenthal and, notably, both Frankfort and Frankfurt.

Luxembourg historically has always looked east rather than west for its political relationships: apart from the period of Burgundian and then Spanish rule (and the brief episodes of French rule under Louis XIV and Napoleon) it was always an integral part of the Holy Roman Empire, and indeed contributed a dynasty of emperors. In 1842, just after it regained independence, it became a member of the German Zollverein, though it escaped incorporation in the German empire in 1871.

After WWI Luxembourg joined in a monetary union with Belgium, which lasted until the coming of the euro, and later the Benelux customs union. But in earlier times, Luxembourg went its own way when the northern Netherlands started seeking independence from Spain. In fact Luxembourg has never really been part of the Netherlands, other than nominally: the real, geographic and cultural, boundary of the Netherlands is the inhospitable area I've referred to: the Ardennes/Oesling/Eifel.

This is especially obvious linguistically. While Luxembourg has two official languages, German and French, the native language, Letzebuergesch[1], is undoubtedly Germanic and while it has some similarities to Kolsch to the north (and while it is rich in French loanwords), relates much more closely to the dialects of Trier and the Saar - at least to my ear.

[1] Still also spoken to the east around Bitburg, south around Thionville, and west around Arlon and in the Ardennes.

 

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2005 at 16:48
the real Allemans WERE Swabians, actualyl all early Germanic tribes the Romans encoutnered were Swabians, the Swabians were the largest of all Germanic groups... and what you udnerstand as Allemann Frank is apparently as you pointed out yourself, just the Franks not being part ofFrance, it has nothign to do with real allemans, it's just that the french call germans allemans, that's what all the confusion is about.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2005 at 10:29

Originally posted by Temujin

the real Allemans WERE Swabians, actualyl all early Germanic tribes the Romans encoutnered were Swabians, the Swabians were the largest of all Germanic groups... and what you udnerstand as Allemann Frank is apparently as you pointed out yourself, just the Franks not being part ofFrance, it has nothign to do with real allemans, it's just that the french call germans allemans, that's what all the confusion is about.

The point I was challenging was that Luxembourg was settled (from a Germanic point of view) by Ripuarian Franks. The area was in fact first settled by Allemani, who were subsequently conquered by Clovis. So if the Allemanni were Swabian, not Frankish, the the first Germanic Luxembourgers were Swabian.

The important point is that, despite modern[1] politics, Luxembourg's ethnic ties are to the east and south, not to the north and west.

[1] Counting 'modern' as 15th century onwards.

 

 

 

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2005 at 20:48

I'd go for Richelieu,

He turned France from a collection of loose provinces into a centralised state and developed an administrative policy that both suceeded his death and turned France into the richest country in Europe. He helped destroy the hold the pope had over catholic countries. He had the forsight to take the protestant's side in the Thirty Years War, which alarmed most of France, but destroyed Hapsburg power and eliminated his two main rivals, The Holy Roman Empire and Spain.

Napoleon lead a million of his countrymen to their death for nothing but his own ego. Louis's legacy was the pampered, leach-like aristocracy that blead the country dry and France was only saved by the guillotine.



Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2005 at 22:06

A preliminary point: the phrase 'Allemand Frank' is a direct translation from the French 'franc allemand' and therefore could just be translated as 'German Frank'

 Qcle thanks for your reply it was very informative, learn a lot from it. But I doubt you can translate "allemand Frank" into "German Frank" not if you are looking at it from a historical POV. From a modern POV it's all fine but it will lead to confusion if we are discussing about it historically. I believe the Allemanni was a clearly a separate entity in a region of the western part of what is modern germany.  The french (earlier Frank) has most contact with the allemanni, that's why from a french POV, everyone in germany is inaccurately referred to as Allemanni. 

 

  The problem here is that we are using the English language to communicate, this lead to a very complex situation where tribes are described as from an angle and saxon POV as pass to the new generation. So if historians are looking for records in germany or in France this can lead to further confusion. Thing is history isn't an exact science, and is almost speculation mixed with myths. Like when some the Merovingians declared they are descendents of Troys (truely this is clearly wrong). 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.