Yaaayyy!

Love your videos

Any updates on Hannibal?

darn

The avar khanate still had Slavic vassals at the borders of the khazars and as far as north Poland. You map is wrong

So true

its a lie to call roman catholicism ''The True Christian Faith'' because the romans paganised The True Faith beyond recognition.

and the lack of jokes are a great plus too as they kind of break the immersion imho

Indeed, even the Netherlands shore line and inner waters, which have changed a lot over the centuries, are period correct.

A racist that didn't open his land to Muslims and Africans

Made me laugh. I love that very much.

A true racist that didn't open up the land to mass Muslim and African migration 😭

No LGBTQ++ community 😭

@@iowastate358 take that nonsense somewhere else, you're ruining an otherwise brilliant channel with your narrow minded blinkered self.

@@iowastate358 what African immigration are you talking about ? Learn your 8th century history, because you are talking bs

Glad you noticed. Thank you for the nice words.

@@HistoryMarche I can only hear any reply or posted comment from HistoryMarche in the narrators voice. I know it isn't right, but I can't help it!

@@Matthew10950 The commander ordered the men to drink a cup of milk and then to charge forward! As the two armies clashed they began tickling each other to death. Many men fell, but it was a lot of fun and a lot of laughter!

@@HistoryMarche lol, undoubtedly a quote from the upcoming series "Hugh Hefner, and the siege of the Playboy Mansion"

for real I have been waiting for a video about Charlemagne for a loong time

For real! It just their viewers isnt as massive as KnG. I think HM need to work on their thumbnail more. The content are way way better than the thumbnail. It could be more tempting to click. Hope HM team see this and working more on the thumbnail

@@edishasora5200 True, I will remember the animation from the fall of the west for the rest of my life

Bad day for me. Diagnosed with an inoperable cancer. I have 6 months at most. But I'll be watching these videos to my last breath.

@@nervachadikus yea it was lit. For me its battle of Ain Jalut, Mongol defeated near jerussalem. Feels like watching a movie. The narration and the struggle it was spot on

bruh we just got Charlemagne, this is a victory... patience

they already did it

@@bahaataleb7725he never covered the battle of Zama so I hope they will continue the series.

R u kidding me !? It’s their biggest series .. they already did it

@@midoelshafaey8026 nah its just started

Yes but the much important groundwork was laid by his father Pepin, I don't think you can't talk about charlemagne and dismiss Pepin so easy.

@@joachimverbruggen6062 You're right my friend. Pepin set the basis from which the carolingian dinasty could grow its influence throughout most of Europe, especially the close ties established with Church, from which they gained the necessary legitimicy to rule.

Others are Julius Caesar, Hannibal Barca, Alexander the Great, Nader Shah though 🤨

Literally every European monarch after Charlemagne were in some way trying to replicate his career.

That is why even Napoleon went to the Pope for his coronation. Legitimacy is always the question.

@@ru4582 yeah, and Charlemagne wasn’t the first man in Europe to conquer different lands?

@@MikhailTabigay Rome?

And then fell apart gain after his death.

@@thhseeking he left a basis for a state in Germany and France, to put into perspective again, there was no unity in what we call France now or Germany, he unified these towns and their economies.

Thank you sir.

😀

The character details are very challenging.

@@jezm7828 :}

Interesting, I did not know this. Thank you.

what's wrong with silly channels? Plenty of room for both to be appreciated!

@@AeneasGemini hungry for argument much? watch jake paul and the likes of him, if there is room for them in your time, but not mine dear aeneas, not mine

Thank you so much for the positive feedback. Truly appreciated!

Mhm.

Play CK2 then or use a mod

Don't worry, you'll get it in a DLC for 20$. That's Paradox for you.

@@TheMops14 20$ just for maps, without skins of units

@@TheMops14 and not problem for me if the content of the expansions or vanilla game is good. What it is your problem? do you prefer that paradox focus in release sequels each X years???

@Austin Based dudes?

Papist schismatic🤢

well, there are few that documented further than the result... the one that would be documented would be a defeat, in Ronceveau...

true, every European colonizers execute natives that worships other Gods. Good old days.

What did Charlemagne ? Destroying the places of worship was also used as an alternative method of conversion when peaceful means of persuasion ( preaching , miracles , etc. ) or social factors ( rewards , etc. ) seemed insufficient ". ARTICLE : Christian Attitude towards Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries page - 49 AUTHOR : Helen Saradi - Mendelovici SOURCE : Dumbarton Oaks Papers , Vol. 44 ( 1990 ) , pp. 47-61

Christianity spread by sword: Charlemagne conducted his first campaign against Saxons in 772 AD .His forces advanced rapidly to the castle of Eresburg and destroyed the major Saxon shrine called the " Irminsul " The Royal Frankish Annals for 772 triumphantly claimed that huge amounts of treasure , consisting of gold and silver had fallen into Charlemagne's hands , plunder that may have been pagan sacrificial offerings ; this booty also seemed to fire the enthusiasm of the king's retinue for waging war . BOOK : CHARLEMAGNE . Author : Johannes Fried . Translated by Peter Lewis . Edition 2016 page - 99 .

Under Charlemagne rule : " Many people died in infancy , some in maturity and others in old age " . " Many of the poor found themselves forced by sheer poverty to kill their infant offspring , above all , girls . Many other babies were exposed and left to die- archetypes for the fairy tale of Hansel and Gretel . It was just a fact of life then that some times people found it impossible to feed their children . People lived in their respective world's , rich or poor , sated or hungry , and not a few of them in desperate need . " BOOK : CHARLEMAGNE . Author : Johannes Fried . Translated by Peter Lewis . Edition 2016 page - 57 .

Coming soon!

I've always wondered what race / linguistic group the Avars belonged to. Were they Germanic, Magyar, Turkic, Slavic or something else?

Basil the Hellenic sator!

@@user-ll9hb3sd8h More like Basil the Bulgar Slayer!

Had they had this sort of presentation of his greatness, they wouldn't have balked at embracing him and joining him to restore the Roman Empire in it's full ancient glory.

Betty!!

Very rare of you praising the barbarians of the west my liege.

Too bad you left your own empire an over-extended, bankrupt and depopulated shadow of its former self.

You’re not even Roman bro

@@sijanshamsulalam4243 Well, the credit should be given where it is due. Sure, Charlemagne is a barbarian and a wicked one (he stole the one and all title of the Roman Emperor), but there was never a greater barbarian in the medieval Europe.....that is, as much "great" as barbarians can achieve greatness.

@@nonnayerbusiness7704 Or perhaps famine, dozens of dammed earthquakes and, you know, a FRICKING SECOND WORST PANDEMIC OF PLAGUE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY did that, huh? Also, I didn't really left my Empire bankrupt, since I managed to recover the economy in 550's, so I don't know from whom you heard that story of bankruptcy? At least my Empire existed for another 9 centuries, while Charlemagne's fell apart just 29 years after his death.

Except the most ancient cloisters which started hosting valuable books, were built by the Lombard in Italy and by the Visigoth in southern France, both of which, by the VIII were fully converted to Catholic Christianity. Most of the new monastry came from Ireland to the mainlad, on which Charles had little to do with. Fact is that spreading of Christianity had little to do with Charles politics except to enforce control. As all of Germany was already catholic christian, the only "spread" Charles did of Christianity was over Saxony, a very small part of Germany, using faith as a tool to submit the tribes he had not completely genocided or deported.

My pleasure 😊 Arabic subtitles added.

@@HistoryMarche We have benefited a lot from the history of your channel and I hope all your historical videos are from all over the world Chinese and European to translate into Arabic

His legacies were way way more influential than Napoleon. Just maybe not as dramatic and entertaining. The post-industrial world simply doesn’t allow the existence of a large, all encompassing empire, Charlemagne style.

@@ru4582 Charlemagne didnt have an empire, he had a kingdom compared to actual empires like the Persians, Parthians, Romans, Macedonians/Greeks/Illyrians, etc.

@@johngallagher9151 Charlemange could literally eradicate the entire world of "illyria" if it still existed then and leave not a single trace of it left.

@@johngallagher9151 Are you blind kid? comapre the size of the Charlemagne Empire vs the common kingdoms of previous time. Beside, an Empire is an empire when under its state have other lesser states/ranks inside, and the one of Charlemagne achieved all of this.

@@johngallagher9151 don’t see the difference here. His realm was comprised of several constituent kingdoms and it was gigantic af in the scope of Western Europe, encompassing several realms that later would have been developed enough to themselves be empires.

Just call him Charlie the Great.

Karl the Great sounds less impressive than Charlemagne

Whenever I see the name Charlemagne, I try to think of it as "Charles the Magnificent" since it shares the root of that word.

@@BillGreenAZ magnificent comes from magnificentior “great in deeds”, from magnificus, from magnus + facere “to act great”, magne comes from just magnus “(the) great/big”. So Karl the Great, in the same row as Alexander and Peter, not in the same row as Suleiman.

@@Nielsly So Charlemagne means "large Charles" and not "magnificent Charles"?

Actually that would be the germanic Holy Roman Empire, not the same thing as the Holy Roman Empire

the actual Holy Roman Empire is the one Otto The Great created i guess but it wasn’t called Holy until Fredreich Barbossa one of the greatest if not greatest Holy Roman emperors, he was the one who named it holy

I would say a more German context. The Frankish Empire definitely had a Germanic character, given that the Franks themselves were and still are Germanic.

@@sebe2255 It doesn't have much to do with the differences between the Carolingian empire and the HRE. But since you're mentioning it, I'd argue that the early Franks didn't that much to do with the later Franks. During Charlemagne time, "frank" had been a term designing the people in a lot of places including modern day France for centuries. And there are a lot of Germanic ancestry in the northern half of France. French itself was influenced by germanic dialects even if it's a latin language.

@@xenotypos Not really. Frank became a general term to refer to people from western Europe because of the success of the Frankish Empire. Other cultures labeling a very broad region of western europe as Frankish has little relevance to determining who the Franks were ath that point. When you say early Franks were little like later Franks, that is true and untrue. In the sense that later Franks were more organized christians, they were little like early Franks. But they still spoke their language and continued many cultural practices. Of course over hundreds of years cultures change, but that applies to every culture, and in that way, no culture is like it was 1000 years ago. Neither Franks, nor French of Germans or anyone beyond those regions. As for the Germanic heritage in northern France, of course there is some, but it is limited to the very north and the Alsace. And not all of them are Frankish in nature, the Alsace for one is/was Allemanic.

Welcome to the channel.

@@HistoryMarcheThanks

Honestly pretty ridiculous

No? He missed so much land from the actual "Western Roman Empire" that it's almost ridiculous... Don't forget literally illirya, the rest of Spain, England, and well, Africa

@@laonch6073 I meant more in status rather than physical boundaries.

@@youvebeengreeked even status wise, it wasn't an empire like the WRE used to be, he didn't start any process of Romanisation (or Frankisation) (I mean, not many empires did that though). Status wise was just a big chunk of land, without a centralised or consolidated power. What then makes it similar or comparable to what the WRE was?

@@laonch6073 Yeah like in comparison was the franks even really roman? They did not have roman culture instead have a mixed one.

They were pagans… For the ignorant morons out there… Even IF the pagans were not raiding civilized lands, they were always fighting each other, so inevitably 1 if the various groups will try to get help from the civilization closest. Providing ample reason for conquest.

@@nightrunner3701 "Pagan" is an exonym.

@@nightrunner3701 I thoughts exactly!

Thanks 👍

Well, medieval Islamic world was way better. It's now that the Muslim world is a mess

@@shahsaud2625 industrialization definitely brought many more sources of division into the Muslim world than the previous millennia. The abbasids didn’t have to deal with imperialism and weird borders and had a relatively united caliphate under their governance. Hell, they had an actual caliphate to work with, whereas the position has been vacant nowadays ever since the dissolution of the Ottomans.

If I'm not mistaken, they sent a living elephant in this mission, as one of the gifts.

it lasted at least trough his son Louis the Pious, who ruled for 27 years, it wasn't quite alexander and the diadochi

@@AlexC-ou4ju Yeah but Louis barely held it together and by the end of his reign his sons were tearing the empire apart for the second time

Charlie got the mil stats high but didn't do enough cul tech to reach past gavelkind. A newbie mistake if you ask me

Well some French nationalist argue that the Frankish Empire and the Kingdom of France were the same with East Francia becoming independent from the Empire rather then the Empire splitting up into East and West.

@@DeutschlandMapping From Hugh Capet to Phillip Augustus, all the kings titled themselves "King of Franks". Would you consider them Frankish or "French".

@@katsuieshibata7493 Charlemagne held the title of "Roman Emperor". Was he Roman? No.

@@DeutschlandMapping So they were not Franks, then they were French? What makes Hugh Capet French and his predecessors not?

@@katsuieshibata7493 the Franks of Hugh Capet and the French from Philip Augustus are the same people. Only the name has been changed or modernised. The territory called Kingdom of the Franks and the people called France at the beginning of the reign of Philip are exactly the same than those at the end of his reign

Glad you enjoyed!

@Drake Hashimoto (MV) I second your opinion. However one question I would like to put out there for anyone who would like to clarify. But since the Byzantium is the Eastern Roman Empire, why did they have an issue with a new Emperor in the west? Since before the fall of west rome, there was 2 emperors already. I get that the pope was trying to delegitimize the East but if they remembered their own history, Constantinople was always the "second" part of rome.

@Drake Hashimoto (MV) yes this seems to be an ongoing argument. I dont mind the label since the ERE at that point was quite a different beast from the previous years of classical urban society around the mediterranean, at least culturally. There was a lot of draining of what was Roman or non-Christian during Justinians reforms in the 6th century, the closing of the Academy of Athens and the end of the so called "Second Sophistic". After that a new kind of identity was created for society in the east which i think with some justification can be called Byzantine.

@@canadious6933 but it became the "New Rome" after the WRE fell. So there is always just one "Rome". But it's true there were two emperors and before that the Tetrarchy after Diocletians reform with a senior and junior emperor in both west and east. I assume this is about an issue that there could only be one Christian emperor after Constantine the Great but im not entirely sure. Well Charlemagne was probably viewed as an imposter by the Byzantines as this Frankish strongman could not claim any direct line as they could in the east

Greeks aren’t Roman Constantinople isn’t Rome They spoke Greek not Roman Latin

Thank you sir. Much appreciated!

a ok

@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva Until 476 maybe. Afterwards the Byzantines were deeply Hellenized.

@Marcelo Henrique Soares da Silva ;o

100% truth.

yeah i agree with that

How sad

Yes. It's called the Massacre of Verden. And they were all Saxon nobles.

Pagans killed Christians…Christians killed pagans 🤷‍♂️ thats history

Yes.

And Holy

@UCDvp9RkhpTl45oWatdqbB0g why are you being so rude about it, just summarize it yourself or say nothing. No need to be so cross.

To be fair, he did better than the second one

@@AeneasGemini England was not interfering in French/Frankish affairs back then. They were too Weaks. Charlemagne reign is a golden age for Europe. Like Napoleon.

Charlemagne was not French. He has little in common with the French and his relationship to them is as a man who ruled over them from a foreign Germanic elite.

@@marvicwhitehorse8766 French people is historically a mix of Latin and Germanic people …

@@freewal No, the French are a mix of Celtic, Latin and in northern France some Germanic influences. Charlemagne was extracted from a Frankish elite which was purely Germanic, which makes him significantly more closely related to Germans, Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic groups than to the French.

Does your wife have younger sister ?

@@makahmed7130 Jesus man

Wtf