Talk:Franks

---

JHK's removals

I cut a lot of stuff repeated elsewhere and not really pertinent to the Franks per se. I am also quite concerned about the picture -- there is no attribution, and it may well be copyrighted. JHK

Maps from the Government of France are not copyright.... Suzanne L.

If that is the source of the image, then it should say so somewhere in the article -- perhaps separated by a line at the bottom of the page. This helps to protect both the integrity and the liability of the project. THanks! JHK

Suzanne L -- your statement above implies that this is a French government map -- if that's the case, why is it in English? Could you please provide a citation? Thanks! JHK

In fact, the map appears to be one from the Cambridge Medieval history. JHK

--- Came by to look something up and noticed that this was still here. I've seen this map before, or something very close, in a copyrighted source. Since no one has explained where it is from (sincerely doubting French gov't), removed the image.

Clovis and Romulus Augustus

I just removed the passage that Clovis was influenced by the deposition of Romulus Augustus. I have read this part of Gregory of Tours -- who is our primary source for Clovis -- many times, & there is nothing in Gregory that suggests this assertion. For all we know, Clovis may never have even known Augustulus even existed!

Feel free to convince me that I'm wrong. llywrch

Arianism among Frankish people

TEXT : Because they were able to worship with their Catholic neighbors, the formerly Arian Franks found much easier acceptance from the local Gallo-Roman population than did the Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians.

Actually, Franks were not "formerly Arians". They were almost all pagan. And the kingship power was based upon pagan ideology.

Acording to Michel Rouche's book "Clovis", among frankish nobility or royal family, some could have been Arians. A sister of Clovis (Lantechilde) was.

Nevertheless, it remains granted that the Franks have converted directly from paganism to the catholic orthodoxy.

That's why I propose the suppression of "formerly Arians" in the text.

--DM 21:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

DM is absolutely correct. One of the huge differences between the Franks and other Germanic peoples was that they were not already Christian. I will make the change. JHK

Fringii

Where does "Fringii" come from? I've never seen it before. JHK

I'm asking that myself. Even Google misses it entirely. I've removed it. Return Friingii if you have a quote, folks. Wetman 20:08, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Charles Martel; Clovis and Arianism

I think that the history of the Carolingians leaves out one of the most important characters in their rise to power, Pepin's father Charles Martel. Without his victory over the forces of Islam at Tours-Poitiers in 732, the office that he held - Mayor of the Palace - probably would not have gained enough prestige and followers to supersede the king as the de facto rulers of Merovingian Frankland.

Regarding Clovis, the Arians, and his family; Gregory of Tours (I think) has a rather amusing anecdote where Clovis would continually lament the fact that none of his family members would step forward and help him out. When one of his relatives did emerge, however, he would have them killed. So whether or not his family did subscribe to Arianism, they were probably not around long enough to have a big influence over the religion of the Franks.

Handofzarquon 04:11, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Belgium/Netherlands; homeland

I like the article, but it is a bit vague about two things:

• The status of Belgium and South of the Netherlands. The article focusses on the German-French bond, but these parts also belonged to it. (Aachen is pretty much on the border between Germany and the southern lowlands in general)
• The exact place of the "homeland". What was their capital and stronghold? (dependant on period probably)

Unfortunately I miss the knowledge to correct the data, and provide the remarks as a friendly hint. marcov 19 Jul 2004

Marca hispanica

"including an area in Northern Spain (Marca Hispanica) after 795)" User:Error has suppressed the link to Marca hispanica. Some local nationalist issue or something? What's the purpose of blocking the connection? Wetman 00:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ripuarian

Changed the oddly spelled Riparian to correctly spelled Ripuarian and moved/redirected, fixed links. JHK

Shimmin's edits

Reverted to the last good version before Shimmin's edits. They may be technically almost correct, but the earlier version reflected the nuances of the situation much better. JHK

My most recent edit is based on the version JHK made before simply reverting. I am curious what "nuances" of the situation JHK feels are not reflected in the more detailed account. Shimmin 03:01, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you so do not want to get snarky with me on this. You might want to look at the previous discussion and my previous contributions before jumping to conclusions and implying that my reversion was in some way unjustified. You might also want remember that I don't go rewriting articles on materials science or other fields where I am not an expert without having a good understanding of them. It's a good policy. People don't have to be experts to work here, but they should have the savvy to look at the contributors and make informed judgments before jumping in. As someone whose finished PhD thesis is on Carolingian government, I'm saying that the changes you added may be partially factual, but do not reflect a clear understanding of Frankish kingship and inheritance. Nor do they reflect an understanding of the difference between regna and nation-states. For example, the end of the Carolingian era is usually seen as disintegration or breakdown, not as dissolution (which can mean a formal act, as in the Dissolution of the Monasteries under Henry VIII).

Regarding the sons of Louis the Pious, what you wrote is vastly misleading. There was much more going on than Louis' sons resenting Charles the Bald's coming into the picture. As written, it seems that kingdoms had boundaries that were fixed, when this really isn't true. The assignment of places with names like Swabia and Franconia is at best anachronistic, and overall, the entire section reflects an imposition of the modern understanding of terms and place names on something that was much more fluid. Finally, the whole bit about places being assimilated into the Holy Roman Empire is just plain wrong. At best, some of those places became lands ruled by the Emperor, but that is a very different thing. JHK

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please calm down, I'm not looking for an argument. I do not imply that the revert was unjustified. Moreover, I agree with many of the faults you wish to point out in my version. I do, however, feel that many of the specific weaknesses you wish to point out are displayed more prominently in the article as it stands than in the edits I wished to make. And if you honestly want me to look through unarchived old discussion, you might tell me what date to look at.

Concerning Louis the Pious sons', while there was much more to it than the older brothers resenting the diminution of their potential inheritances, the present version, in my opinion, steps even further shy of the mark by presenting the Treaty of Verdun as some sort of belated last will and testament.

Conerning the impression of fixed boundaries, while I understand that these are anachronistic, I feel the present version suffers from it to a greater extent by mentioning the division of 843 and ending the story there. I attempt to, in a condensed form, give some impression of the further disintegration that occurred on the deaths of Louis' sons.

Concerning an "anachronistic modern understanding," I again feel that the present version suffers from this to a greater extent than my edits. The impression I get from it is that was a clean break in 843, and thereafter the West Franks become France, the East Franks become Germany, and the Middle Franks are for the most part unworthy of further mention.

While I freely concede that there are many people more knowledgable than I on this era of history, and I have no reason to believe you are misrepresenting yourself when you claim to be one of them, I have trouble seeing what such a person finds sastisfactory in the present version. Please help improve this article. Or, if the constraints of real life mean that you have time only to delete text you are unsatisfied with rather than compose superior text, you might amuse yourself by going over to Investiture Controversy and seeing if anything more than a stub remains when you finish with it.  :) Shimmin 19:00, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

JHK, you should be more expansive in including your well-read understanding of the Carolingian concept of regnum here and other points, and edit rather than revert Shimmin's additions, which do reflect popular conceptions of Carolingian history that many Wikipedia readers may share. An editor's job is to take those Will-and-Ariel Durant type conceptions we all suffer with and reshape them for accuracy, evocative richness and context. Your experience in the field will help you make sure that the References section has the best recent material, always keeping the Wikipedia reader in mind. --Wetman 19:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shimman -- sorry, but the "nuances" was snarky, and so set the tone. Wetman, I actually did edit the first time, although I both reverted to delete the 'list-y' part of Shimman's contribution and then edited a something else. I agree that there are things in the article that need editing, but I've pretty much left the article be, because it was a very collaborative effort. Shimman's additions were a fairly major change, though, and one that I don't think added to a better understanding. Unless someone is willing and able to devote the time to really explain all the stuff Shimman added, I think the article is better off without it, because it leaves a false impression. of tidyness. I agree that the bit about the Treaty of Verdun is not as tight as it could be, but I don't think there's anything there that implies a testament. I think the "kernel of what would eventually become" makes it clear that it's not something set in stone. It's also important to see this as part of a larger compromise (look way back in the discussion) -- there was a lot of work done to make it clear that the Frankish kingdoms cannot be seen as being "France". JHK

The old discussions you keep mentioning are not in the discussion history. Were they on another page's talk? Shimmin 21:32, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, or improperly archived. Most of the articles related to the Franks were written at about the same time. The most unpleasant arguments took place at the List of French Monarchs discussion, IIRC, but they all interrelate.JHK

What I read here...

I'm seeing the first sentence of this article as "The poop formed one of several west Germanic tribes who entered the late Roman Empire from Frisia as foederati and established a lasting realm in an area that covers most of modern-day France and the region of Franconia in Germany, forming the historic kernel of both these two modern countries."

I'm almost sure this isn't intended, is the result of juvenile vandalism, and should be changed, but I'm absolutely new and absolutely unsure how to edit the potty word out. Given time, I'd figure out how, but perhaps someone else who already knows how will see this message and fix it?

I'm not sure why that's still showing up for you. It was simple vandalism and I reverted it within a minute earlier on today...maybe if you reload the page or clear your browser cache, it will work. (I hope so anyway!) Adam Bishop 04:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Royal Frankish Annals

I'd appreciate if someone could make something actually Frankish out of Royal Frankish Annals. --Joy [shallot] 7 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Franks - disambiguation required?

I note that there is a comment at the end of the article to the effect that the term 'Franks' was used in the Middle Ages to refer to the Crusaders and Latins/Western Christians in general, specifically in the context of contacts between the Muslim world and Western Christendom.

As a student of Arabic and Arab history this is in fact the meaning of 'Frank' that immediately comes to my mind, and I was somewhat startled to come to this page and find it was all about the original Franks. I think the second meaning is the primary one for anyone in the Middle East or interested mainly in the Middle East. Perhaps a note such as the one at the bottom of the page should be located at the top, redirecting people like me to a more appropriate page? reat article, by the way, I'm glad I came across it.Palmiro 13:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It exists now. We had to go through a wrong move to get to this point, but oh well. --Joy [shallot] 23:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Empire

Since this article is supposed to be about the people, I've made Frankish Empire a separate article dealing with territorial developments. It may make sense to move much of the "Frankish Empire" section over there. dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Franks" today

With all respect to this article and the great history of the Frankish people the article is missing the the fact that Franks are still alive today! The intro says "The Franks WERE" ... there are still people that call themselves "Franks" (namely the inhabitants of Franconia). Living people should be mentioned first - and then history!