Talk:Kingdom of Germany

Article Name

There was no Germany before of 1871. Mootros (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

False. the RS (Reliable Sources) write about Germany before 1871. (Fuhrmann and Reuter, Germany in the High Middle Ages: c.1050-1200 (1986); Arnold, Medieval Germany, 500-1300 (1998); Reinhardt, Germany: 2000 Years (1961)) It's an issue of names and some historians indeed use "Kingdom of Germany" re the medieval country. Look at John Gillingham, The Kingdom of Germany in the High Middle Ages (900–1200) Historical Association Pamphlets, General Series, no. 77. London: Historical Association, 1971.

Not a widely established view among historians. The original Latin name does not say Germany either. Misses the point of the article because it does not really refer to such a construct called "Germany". There is nothing wrong to mention that some historians use this name, but it's not enough to name the article after this. Mootros (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about a concept by a minority of English speaking historians, but about an area ruled by several members of different dynasties that was referred to as rex teutonicorum, or king of the Germans. Mootros (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mootros lacks RS in English for his plan to change the usual title to "Regnum teutonicum". Amazon.com lists only one book containing the title "Regnum teutonicum" and it's in German. Amazon list only ONE English language book that uses the words "Regnum teutonicum" somewhere in the text -[The Medieval Empire in Central Europe by Herbert Schutz--he also uses the term "German kingdom"]. The point is that Latin term is VERY rarely used in English. In common scholarly usage we have thousands of cites to "German Kingdom" (as in Henry IV of Germany 1056-1106 by by I. S. Robinson 2003)--and indeed in many British books going back to Freeman and Bryce a century+ ago...and today by leading writers such as Imanuel Geiss (1997), Pierre Riché - 1993, The Oxford history of medieval Europe (1993), Eric Goldberg - 2006, Andreas Dorpalen - 1985, Kurt Aland - 1986, Angus MacKay, David Ditchburn - 1997 etc etc. So perhaps as a compromise we can suggest "German Kingdom" as a title.Rjensen (talk)

The suggestion by Rjensen makes much more sense! German Kingdoms possibly. The current title is utterly confusing and bias towards a minority of who retrofit previous events and concepts into current way of thinking. Before the Enlightenment a king ruled over people and not over a land. Hence the very name "King of the Germans". People in Europe generally thought of themselves as custodians of the land that belonged to god. Hence definitely not (king of) Germany. Mootros (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This contemporary account of Crecy uses rex Franciae and rex Boemiae. The Kingdom of England is much older, attested of Henry I. Kings of peoples did of course exist in the Dark Ages; but Philip VI of France is not the beneficiary of the Enlightenment - by about four centuries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

...by Thomas Wright 1859 referring to text of unknown author. How does this relate to a world view in the place that came to be known as Germany. Mootros (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wright is an editor; and John of Bridlington may be obscure, but he is not unknown. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, late medieval source speak of a kingdom "Germania" and a title of the emperor from Maximilian I. was "rex Germaniae" which literally means "king of Germania" or Germany. So why can't you speak of a "kingdom of Germany" if contemporaries can?--MacX85 (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Regnum teutonicum

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: proposal retracted Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Germany → Regnum teutonicum — Mootros (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose. Contrary to WP:Use English; we title articles by what anglophones call them, and by what anglophones will understand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I suggest "German Kingdom" -- there are thousands of cites to "German Kingdom" in the English language scholarly literature (and some to "Kingdom of Germany" and almost none to "regnum teutonicum") Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the discussion above. Nobody objects to German Kingdoms. Mootros (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I do. This article is not about the nineteenth century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any move. This has been discussed to death (see archives). Mootros is just late. He's also entirely wrong. Srnec (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a ready only version. Previous discussions exactly show the problem with this name. Mootros (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No, they show that a whole generation has been misled into thinking that Germany was created out of whole cloth in 1871. —Srnec (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Not out of a cloth but out of the 1000 years of different German groups forming and reforming political alliances and real states. Mootros (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Do you have a source for this thesis? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I second Rjensen and suggest German Kingdom Mootros (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose amendment; no reason to call this article differently than the cognnate realms, the Kingdom of Italy and Kingdom of Burgundy or Arles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Rather irrational this argument. Consistent in what? It's inconsistent with the German King. Mootros (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a redirect; redirects should exist from all plausible errors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The Kingdom of Württemberg, for instance, was a 'German Kingdom', but not a 'Kingdom of Germany'. Therefore the proposed title 'German Kingdom' would be wrong. 'Kingdom of Germany' was the informal name for East Francia, which in Germany came more and more in use, likely since the time of Henry the Fowler, when Non-Francs gained the crown. On the other hand, 'Regnum teutonicum ' , the other proposed title, was a Latin term, which might have been constructed in this way for propaganda purposes, to show the similarity between the German term for 'German' and the name of the Teutons, who were enemies of Rome. A Latin term as title of the article, would be as wrong, as it would be for any other kingdom ot that time.Henrig (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment can someone build a disambiguation page or set index for all German kingdoms? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No need for such a page, because there is no disambiguation with the title 'Kingdom of Germany'.Henrig (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, especially, as per the current version of this article,[1] the relevant sentence in the lead section is tagged with {{Citation needed}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• The contention that there was no "Germany" before 1871 is pure ignorance, and doesn't really deserve comment. In diachronic conceptual continua, there is often a big difference between one point and another. So Netherlands were in "Germany" in the early modern era but not in the 20th century. This though doesn't mean there was no Germany anymore than there was no America before the 50th state was added. Regarding "kingdom of Germany", my only concern is that this is not really distinct from the "Holy Roman Empire". Back in the early days Italy/Rome was the Empire bit and the rest was Germany, but today we use "Holy Roman Empire" effectively to refer to the Kingdom of Germany. But I don't see any justification for this move and therefore oppose it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Very strongly oppose I see the errors of my way. Thank you everybody for the effort in the discussion. Closure requested . Mootros (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarification please

From when to when was such a kingdom to have existed?

Most of the article deals with events past 962. We have a whole article here called the Holy Roman Empire. It is striking that there is no equivalent article on the German wikipedia. Mootros (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Germany, like the Kingdoms of Italy or Burgundy, was one component of the Empire. Since it pre-existed the Empire, but had no functional existence after the last German king released his subjects from their obedience: 843-1806. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying this "kingdom" was mostly a part of the Holy Roman Empire? Highly dubious! Does not say anything about this in here. Mootros (talk)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Shall we add 843-1806 to this page. Any RS for this? Mootros (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not in boldface. But James Bryce is a reliable source. Read, understand, edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Does not make any such assertion: 843-1806. Mootros (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Learn to read, not just abuse search engines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

All I can read is a 19th century revisionist account that tries to shoehorn past event into a at the time important view that liked to see a core monarchy to have exited within the HRE. (Victoria probably would have liked this.) However, there is no evidence! Not even good old Bryce's interpretation does go as far to make such an assertion of a so-called "Kingdom of Germany" to have existed from 843-1806. Mootros (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you have your own Point of View, and cite no sources. References to the Kingdom of Germany from before 1848 (to avoid even references to the offer of the Frankfurt Parliament) are easy to come by; on the theory you have made up, they would not exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean we already have a perfect source of the German Kingdom. Our friend James Bryce, despite his "nation building" view of German history. Mootros (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea of Bryce, that Garibaldian Liberal, who recommended a radical socialist and a perverse republican as Poet Laureate, inventing a German kingdom to please the Queen, is aufficiently laughable to cause me to reconsider dispute resolution for now; at least be entertaining, if you must be WP:FRINGE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, this is absurd! It's equally absurd to main an 843-1806 argument. Mootros (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are cited in the article. The date of 843 is easy enough. The date of 1806 is somewhat theoretical because the kingdom of Germany, as a real entity, fades into insignificance with the constitutional changes in the Empire from the 15th century on. So setting a date for its end is like setting a date for the fall of Rome. But if we can choose a host of dates between 476 and 1453, does that mean there was no Roman Empire? Srnec (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes to 843. But the problem with anything beyond 962: are we saying that the some Duchies with the HRE formed a "Kingdom" that stood as some loose association itself within the HRE and later faded away. This a very interesting, I have to admit and surely a worthwhile theory to put forward. But so far what do we really have on established the evidence, even for 843 to 962? Mootros (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The kingdom was Carolingian in creation. It had nothing to do with a federation of duchies, even if that's what it looked like in 911. (The origins of these duchies are obscure, but their creation dates to the period 843–962, which makes them look more like a product of the kingdom than its creator.) Conrad I was elected king. Henry I after him. Then Otto I. The principle of election was established and it was not really superceded until the Habsburgs. Similar things occured in France. When the Carolingian line failed, Hugh was elected. His descendants, unlike their German contemporarise, succeeded in making themselves hereditary sovereigns with no elections needed. Srnec (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying, the King(dom) of the Germans did not exist. That's why German Kingdom is a useful phrase. Mootros (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So you'er distinguishing the "Kingdom of the Germans" = "German Kingdom" from the "Kingdom of Germany"? Is this at all useful? Does it make any sense? Isn't it like denying there was such a thing as France in 1810? Srnec (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No. All we have is a King of the Germans. German Kingdom is a useful (i.e. a compromise), because it avoids to make a reference to a place, which "Germany" clearly does. It is widely acknowledged among historians that some tribes in Europe considered to themselves German people. However to conclude from this that there was a real political or administrate entirety for a unified territory is far fetched. Mootros (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So there is no place called Germany before 1871? John Foxe would disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

When at the time of Martin Luther? There were many different German States that had formed many different political alliances. I'm sure one can conveniently lump this together, especially when referring to culture and language. Political entity, I would say no. Mootros (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

1520, as Foxe clearly says on the same page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I for one do not accept that there is no place without a matching state. One might as well say there is no such place as South America. —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And it is indisputable that there was a state called Germany in the Middle Ages. Srnec (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps to shed light onto this, I ask: What was the German or Latin name of this Kingdom? What original name do you find by English speaking historians in their footnotes on what this "entity" was supposedly be called at the time? Mootros (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the early Middle High German Annolied in its original language with an English translation (there's a link at the top). Three times the translator uses "Germany". What is he translating? Diutischemi lande, Diutsche lant, Diutischimo lante. This is only one source, but the earliest. —Srnec (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Latin is well-documented in the article. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

To translate this as Germany what literately means land of the German is fine for a poem. 12th century is a very good indication of the changes that already had occurred in the HRE. The point is that we are trying to avoid the impression that before the HRE there was a political entity with a unified territory called Kingdom of Germany. Bryce clearly states the 5 or 6 tribes after 843 that elected a King did not even called themselves German but "East Frankish" [2] Do you have any source apart from the Latin which s from 11th or 12th century anyway? Mootros (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked for names; that you get sources for names should not be surprising. Add rex alemaniae from the 13th century (Noel Denham-Young's Richard of Cornwall, and germaniae rex from the 15th (from Bryce).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mootros, I can't even make sense of what you're saying. The Annolied is from the 11th century, not the 12th. The point is not that "we are trying to avoid the impression that before the HRE there was a political entity with a unified territory called Kingdom of Germany". We are doing no such thing, only you. There was a "political entity with a unified territory" that historians call the kingdom of Germany (and that was called something very similar by contemporaries) before Otto the Great. A 10th-century Latin source is covered in the article—which you apparently haven't read—and even has its own article. Try again. Srnec (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Some historians! Others call it German Kingdom. There jury is still out there as to which is the more common terms. Something very similar, but not exactly the same. Mootros (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No jury needed. The terms are equivalent in English, but the one is a better article title. Srnec (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Will be calling the German King --> now King of Germany Mootros (talk)

More background information is need here to solve this. How were these duchies united into a political entity and how do the reigns between 843--919 differ to 919--962? Thanks. Mootros (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you editing the article when you admit such ignorance? The duchies were part of the same polity before 843. The year 919 represents no major change, only in hindsight do we see it as the beginning of a new dynasty. Srnec (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The dukes were originally part of a political entity, which was partitioned in 843. They were retained within the Kingdom of Germany by allegiance to the Crown, often extracted at swords' point. So what? That last is true of any Kingdom in Europe.

I am asking because I think you're confused. Mootros (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And I think you've made something up and have no sources. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're trying to put in here. Mootros (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The kings before 911 claimed by descent in the male line; Conrad and Henry claimed in the female line; Henry's descendants claimed in a different male line. Again, so what? The same (including invasions and disorder) can be said, for example, of the Kings of Scotland around 1300.

Some of the Kings of Germany before Otto were also Emperors, and some were not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So who were all the Kings "of Germany"? Mootros (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

See Bryce; most of them, but not all, were also Emperor between the 10th and the 16th century (Henry the Fowler and Richard of Cornwall being the most obvious exceptions). After Charles V (of Germany) none of them were, strictly speaking, Emperors, but merely Emperors Elect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you that's a useful confirmation. A lot of work needs to be done to get this article anywhere. Mootros (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering you haven't read it, how do you know? (Remember how you asked a terminological question above without having read the "Terminology" section of the article?) Srnec (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mootrus is now rewriting and tagging List of German monarchs to his taste; discussion there may be helpful. He does have one valid point: by the logic here, that should be List of monarchs of Germany.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Best to keep the discussion focused on this page. Other pages are discussed elsewhere. PS: Not by my taste but by sources. Mootros (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

[Name of the "office" of King at the time: formal or informal]

Mootros is now rewriting the pages of numerous German monarchs by replacing everywhere 'King of Germany' with 'King of the Romans', which is misleading without clarification. They were kings of an area, a country, which was initially called East Francia and gradually changed to Germany. (For the Saxons especially it was really easier to identify with 'Germany' than with 'Francia'.) 'King of the Romans' was just a claim, which was connected to the king's title to become emperor. This should be clarified, when used. Otherwise it's misleading, for instance, to the old Romans. Henrig (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll do this. Thanks. Mootros (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, in German, there is the ironical term 'verschlimmbessern' (literally: impair improving). The name of the territory is necessary. 'King of the Romans' can be added, labeled as an official title with a link to the article (- which you unfortunately also have changed, by replacing "Kings of Germany" with "Kings who were refereed to as Otto by the grace of God King" Otto was a name! And "By the grace of God King" was just a frequently used phrasing by rulers in Christian countries! Henrig (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is what did Otto called himself, and what was he called by others, at the time when he was in office. This is not about what other people called him centuries later.

Pls do not remove several citations of leading English speaking scholars, by saying that some references will be added soon. Mootros (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have written this question also on my talkpage, my same answer here too: No intention to remove citations. But you removed stable text, before people had the change to add citations, you have requested. There are lot of references. But you must give people time. Now, shortly after I had announced a first additional reference, you have changed the text and my work got lost in an edit conflict. Btw., please cite your citations exactly, to show, where you see the back for your claims.[3] (A link would be fine.) I've seen today the following posting from Pmanderson, regarding this issue. But after reading, he seems to see in your reference quite the opposite. Henrig (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What stable text? You removed two key citations.

Re Reuter: however the state was organised. The question is what was it called? Land of the Saxons... Ottonia? We don't know yet. All we know is that we don't know whether it was called Germany or not. Bryce states that prior to the Ottos the King explicitly did not call themselves German. Mootros (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What were, for instance, the people in England called in the 11th century? Angels, Saxons, Normans, some other names. It was a development, but England (from the tribe of the Angels) came more and more in use. The name German (i.e. the frankish predecessor of the modern terms Deutsch (and Dutch) appeared first written during the time of Charlesmagne and meant the old Frankish (people's) language which in the West of Francia came more and more out of use in favor of the Roman language. Ist seems it was initially more a nickname for the eastern Frankish territories, which by the time came more and more in use. At the beginning the people considered themselves perhaps more as members of their tribes and Otto was seen as a Saxon and still king of East Francia (for sure in the Frankish areas). It was a slow process and one day the name of Francia for the kingdom was widely replaced with the term for Germany.Henrig (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My reference exactly states page 64 and gives a convenient link to the online version of this book. A direct link to a google book page is not useful, because it can block the page temporarily. You need to turn the pages yourself, I'm afraid. Mootros (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems, there is not the same access from a PC in Germany as from your country. I see the message 'Pages 50 - 70 are not available. [4] Henrig (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=UbIDN-jV7XkC&pg=PR7&lpg=PP1 You can you see this index? If so, just turn the pages. Mootros (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you still don't have any success, you may contact me and I will email you a copy of that page for private study purposes. Mootros (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't have any success. You could cite the certain sentence, you have in mind and I assume, others have access and can judge it. I would assume a certain misunderstanding like in the other source PManderson considers. A certain sentence, which not explicitly describes something, but for instance mentions somewhat of a still existing tribe identity like in the most early kingdoms, is something, that is a valuable information, but may be misleading in drawing certain conclusions. (See also my previous posting in this section from today 18:21.)Henrig (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's not wise to label them "kings of the Romans" 1. because it's misleading if you are not familiar with the contemporary titles and what they may have meant. Didn't some English kings call themselves "king of France" just because it was their claim? 2. the titles changed. They were "kings of the Romans" when they were crowned king but not yet emperor. When they were emperor their royal title was "rex Germaniae" since the late 15th century. 3. they were called "kings of the Germans" by foreign monarchs, popes, chroniclers, sometimes even called themselves like that from the 11th century onwarts. I find "king of Germany" or "German king" a fitting title for an encyclopedia. In German there's a nice little attribute "römisch-deutsch" which we sadly don't have in English...--MacX85 (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

citations

Hi [Henring], yes pls add the citation that shows what Otto was called at the time. Don't remove other reference that state the opposite. Compare and contrast, if they are opposing. Thanks. Mootros (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove two citations from leading English speaking authorities on the matter? Mootros (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See my answer in the previous section a few minutes ago. Henrig (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I still cannot see your logic of working. You first remove two key citations and save it. Than you you start to write. Why? Do you save the two key citations externally for later, or just drop them? Why? Mootros (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You've removed and changed quite a lot in the lede. I've found the different connections already pretty well described. Some additional citations for all the people, who see it not so clear and perhaps also some additions on this base would have been convenient. My intention was, to add this citation [5] (p.228) (one of the first in the first list, I've found) to Otto, (who followed Henry I) mentioned as one of the king of Germany to this base (in this case I had the removed image in mind), before seeing, whether there were some other convenient places for citations from this book and some else (removed) additions, which may improve the article. (I had had asked about the content of the two links afterwards.)Henrig (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Citations on ethnic identity

We also need some citation here on the ethnic identity issue, prior to the Ottos. Reuter does say something about this. Do we have some more specific texts that deal with this time period and the ethnic identity of the tribes? Mootros (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tendentious illiteracy

This article quotes John Gillingham as saying " an assemblage of a number of once separate and independent peoples and kingdoms, genres and regnu" I am removing that nonsense for two reasons. The less serious is that Gillingham of course wrote gentes and regna, which are actual Latin words.

The more serious is that Gillingham goes on to say "So too, of course, were the kingdoms of France and England." (As they were; in 650, Bavaria and Saxony were independent; so were Mercia and Essex. So?) Using that quotation to imply that Germany was different in kind from France or England is intellectual fraud.

The present text goes on to say - and to attribute to Gillingham - that the "assemblage" emerged in the tenth century. He does not say that; he does not discuss the tenth century at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Footnote One says tenth century. Mootros (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is not mentioning of 843. If you're not happy about this add the statement about England and France, or remove the entire first sentence. Mootros (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What it says, precisely, is that "For the purposes of this paper I am simply assuming that 'medieval Germany' lasted from the tenth century to the fifteenth." Like the following sentence, which excludes Italy and Burgundy, it's a declaration of the domain of interest of the paper; the content begins with discussing 1077, not a claim about the existence of Germany. Insofar as it's a definition, it defines "medieval"; nobody supposes Germany ended in the 15th century.

Learn to read in context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Where does it say 843? Mootros (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. 843 wasn't an election, and so he doesn't discuss it.

Note the opening "The medieval kingdom of Germany" ? Mootros (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like other medieval kingdoms, it was a conglomerate. Gillingham says nothing about the date of origin of the conglomerate; his audience knows that the conglomeration goes back Charlemagne and Pippin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well would this not be a good first sentence setting the scene. Maybe his audience, but not here. So pls sources for a beginning date. Mootros (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! This now looks better. Mootros (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

[Vandalism] Way forward

I'm not sure what you are talking about. You're removing five citations. Misleading whom into what? What are you talking about? Mootros (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Other scholars writing in English use the generic term German Kingdom.

This makes it seem like there are camps of scholars, some using one term, other using another, when in fact all are applying both terms as descriptive terms of convenience. This is because (a) the actual name of the kingdom in question changed over time, (b) it didn't always have a formal or official name, (c) languages like Latin and German don't always translate neatly or consistently into English. That is why my version makes it clear that both are just ways of referring to the same thing.

The British historian James Bryce stated that the five or six tribes which elected the King did not called themselves German but East Frankish and lawful representative of the Carolingian dynasty.

This is just out of place. Why Bryce? What's so special about this 19th-century British historian other than that his work is on GoogleBooks? These tribes come out of nowhere. Who were they? And where did you get the idea that they elected kings? Not over most of the kingdom's history (or ever, really, since it was always rulers who were electors, not whole peoples). It is not clear in this sentence who "did not called themselves German but East Frankish and lawful representative of the Carolingian dynasty", nor is it even clear what this means. The English is just incorrect.

In the ninth century the kingdom was normally called 'the kingdom of the Eastern Franks', though its Frankish component was very much a minority interest.

We've already mentioned and link East Francia in the first line, so why do we need this sentence lifted out of context right out of another author? Could the average reader even understand what it's talking about: "Frankish component"?

Others note the ruler’s standard title simply as rex at the time.

This is all Reuter is saying. This is typical of more than just Germany at the time. It's also typical of many places today. We call our sovereign simple "the Queen", our coins say simply D. G. REGINA, and in our courts she is just "the Crown". It is of no relevance in the lead. Srnec (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you cite anyone? Mootros (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Because this is what the sources you cite are actually saying.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why you remove all the source? Utterly absurd!

I am copying the material in here for the moment, until we have figured out what to do with it Mootros (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC):

The British historian James Bryce stated that the five or six tribes which elected the King did not called themselves German but East Frankish and lawful representative of the Carolingian dynasty. "In the ninth century the kingdom was normally called 'the kingdom of the Eastern Franks', though its Frankish component was very much a minority interest." According to the British-German historian Timothy Reuter, the "standard royal title in the mid-tenth centry was simply Otto dei gratia rex, 'Otto by the grace of God king'". Others note the ruler’s standard title simply as rex at the time.

The way forward is to protect this article until Mootros stops editing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What about trying to talk a bit more about the topic and in the long term to strive for that we together get it right and get this article to GA as a show piece of a good article on a difficult history topic? Mootros (talk)

King of the Germans

See Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 3#Misleading title. I still think that "King of the Germans" is better title for this article. -- PBS (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good option. Alternatively we might just go for merging it with HRE. At the moments is't just a fork of HRE, it does not really draw out the historiographic dimension that would vaguely justify the existence of this article. Mootros (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Forget about merging the article because at the moment there would be no consensus for such a radical solution. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad option. The king was not only a chairman of a few dukes. The original idea of the realm was, that all the territory of the kingdom was property of the king. The king had the right to appoint princes and give them land as a fief, which was still his property. He had also the right to dispose princes and take back their fiefs. He was the king of a country. Over the centuries this right weakened and the fiefs (first the large ones) became hereditary. (New crown aspirants had promised the dukes and princes such things in order to get their support to become king. A consequence was, that the power of the king gradually had weakened over the centuries. But this is another issue.)Henrig (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a tendency in English to use "King of ..." because that is what the English kings always styled themselves as. But others such as the kings of Scotland and Napoleon styled themselves "King of the Scots" and "Emperor of the French". I do not think that anyone would dispute that those respective monarchs were kings and emperors of the territory as their nations were not itinerant. This is a discussion about usage in reliable sources and "King of the Germans" is that term is more widely supported in reliable sources than the term "Kingdom of Germany" and the article title should reflect common usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, why not King of the Germans. As said before, at the moment article looks like a fork of HRE. Mootros (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC) @Henrig Your entire justification is about the role of the King and the changes to his power, etc. Would it not be good to name the article King of the Germans than? Mootros (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it seems, a title 'King of ...' points in common sense usually to a certain king or a list of certain kings and in no way to a certain kingdom. It also seems, that all the titles 'King of ...' on Wikipedia redirect to a list of certain kings. There is also already a title 'King of the Germans' which consistently like other 'King of' titles redirects to an article 'List of German monarchs'.Henrig (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No reason why it has to and in the case of Germany it has little to do with List of German monarchs, and much more to do with this article. -- PBS (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Germany's own courts, laws, and chanceries

"...Germany, Italy and Burgundy, which traditionally had their own courts, laws, and chanceries, gradually dropped from use.."

What exactly were these institutions, at what point in history? Sounds dubious. Any clarification on this? Mootros (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If not merely a historiographical term, when did such a kingdom come into existence?

If not merely a historiographical term, when did such a kingdom come into existence? Presumably after the Holy Roman Empire was established. Could the issues of overlap please be address here? Mootros (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing East Frankia, Kingdom of Germany and HRE

Each of these is to some extent the invention of modern writers. Let's bear that in mind from the outset. Now, after the 13th century distinguishing K of Germany and HRE is pointless; and this is an issue that may need a solution. With that said, the Kingdom of Germany is an important term for the central Middle Ages where there is a clear difference between all the realms ruled by the Saxon and Swabian kings collectively and the constituent ones, Germany, Italy/Pavia and Burgundy/Arles. "East Francia" is a term used for the K of Germany in some sources for the 10th century to highlight the importance of the Frankish heritage, but only a tiny proportion of the kingdom is actually Frankish and Franks do not dominate the Kingdom of Germany as they did the Frankish kingdom. It is not even a common term for the kingdom in the sources, as some contributors here imagine. You will be surprised that in non-formal sources the kingdom is routinely called "Germany", and I suspect the controversy here stems from the fact that in popular modern history the 'unification' of Germany in the 19th century the frequently cast in terms that exaggerate its innovation. This is an unfortunate perpetuation of ignorance (in fact, "Germany", like most big European "nations", is a product of political developments in the central Middle Ages), but it is ignorance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of this and delighted to see that you don't lump thing together and draw out the element of historiographic construction. The article does not at the moment. Mootros (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So one of my points is: what evidence do we have of shared institutions (beyond the King and a common language)? What are their manifestations? Mootros (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Church structure and 'community of the realm'. A variety of institutions, bishoprics, many abbeys and cities, were direct vassals of whoever was the German king. There were also the imperial ministeriales and counts directly dependent on the king, who followed him around/met and counseled him when he was in the region. This was the way it worked in England too, though very in England there were no dukes and very little was cut off from direct royal power. In the tenth century both the English and German kings gave away lots of land to new royal monasteries and bishoprics; with reformed clerical celibacy the ruler was able to appoint these officials directly (unlike, in practice, lay officials). Now as we know, the investiture crisis undermined this system to some extent in Germany, but there is nonetheless this "imperial community" of abbots, bishops, counts, burghesses,and so on into the later middle ages whose 'community of the realm' is Germany and not some duchy or duchified county. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. It is a very useful starting point! How does this differ to the HRE? Are you saying that this network gradually expanded South of the Alps and thereby lost its distinct German character? Mootros (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ottonian kings acquired the Lombard kingdom of Pavia, and got what came with that ... something approaching a legal fiction with a bunch of cities and duchies that only acknowledged royal authority when a costly German hosting was nearby. The imperial title (which derived from the Pope's attempt to replace the Empress Irene) had been associated with the Italian kingdom, and Otto got it revived for himself after becoming king of Italy. So, historically, the Italian kingdom is separate and only time made the kingdoms merge in practice (though as we know the Italian kingdom was always a bit of a fictional resource-squandering vanity). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The kingdom came into existence with the partition of Francia by the three grandsons of Charlesmagne. The term for Germany (Modern German: Deutschland) had its origin in the term for the old Frankish language, which came more and more out of use in the western parts of Francia in favor of Roman and started most likely as a nickname for the eastern lands of the Franks, where the old language remained still full in use. Some day the informal name Germany appeared in official records and finally became the official name. The Latin term used the similarity between the German name for Germans and the antique Teutons and used for Germans this old term. After the original term East Francia as term for the eastern territory finally had ceased to exist, West Francia, whose name didn't change was the only country with this name and remained simply Francia. (Today France.) Many German kings were crowned Roman Emperor by the Pope in the tradition of Charlesmagne, and they were also crowned kings of Italy in the old Lombard capital Pavia (which was on the way to Rome). But the title of the emperor itself originally was a claim to be the follower of the old West Roman emperors and the highest not clerical ruler of the western and catholic countries, while the Pope was seen as the highest clerical ruler. It became tradition that the eastern kings became also emperors. But the list of the kings of Germany and the list of 'Holy' Roman Emperors is in no way fully identical. For instance, Charlesmagne is listed as emperor Charles I and his grandson Charles the Bald, who ruled an aerea, of which no part was ever a part of Germany, is listed as emperor Charles II. The term Holy Roman Empire became not before the High Middle Age a usual term for those territories, where the emperor had direct power or was at least the nominal head. Since the late Middle Age and the early modern time, the title emperor was mostly a title of tradition of the German kings and became de facto identical, until Napoleon used the tradition, to proclaim for himself the tradition of Charlesmagne. This as a short simple overview over changes during the time.Henrig (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As a small point, the Germanic emperors were not set up as successors to the western Roman emperors. This is commonly believed, but it is not the case (certainly for the central middle ages). The old emperors of the West were mostly forgotten. The idea was that the emperors took the authority of the Roman emperors succeeding Constantine VI (the nonsense that the empire ended in the 5th century was unknown in the early medieval West). The Pope denied Irene of Athens legitimacy and 'appointed' thw Frankish king to her role. It is important to point out too that there is no real political continuity between Charlemagne and Otto (even if Otto's successors liked to pretend there was). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Charlesmagne was a Frank and Otto was a Saxon (but related to Charlesmagne as well as likely to his Saxon enemy Widukind and there had been a big enmity between Francs and Saxons. Between the times of both figures was a political hole, in which Charlemagne's empire broke to pieces and the whole western Christian world seemed to be in an existentiell danger in the times of Viking and Magyar raids. And Franks and Saxons in East Francia stood one against each other in this time. When Otto was crowned emperor, it's well imaginable, that he was seen as the renewer of Charlemagne's empire and it's also imaginable, that the Saxon nobility had not the slightest interest to reunite Western and Eastern Francia again. But this would be another story. Henrig (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To stick with the original question raised by Mootros, what exactly were the own courts and laws of "Germany"? Cities and towns often had their own courts and a lot of political entities of this kingdom were virtually independent. Grey Fox (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So far we have only have communities of monasteries. I still cannot see the validity of any such assertion of shared institutions. The factuality of such case just does not add up for such an article. Mootros (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What Kingdom of Germany?

There was never a state of this name, as the absence of any equivalent article in the German Wikipedia, presumably written by people who know some German history, testifies. This article is an ahistorical attempt to impose modern conceptions of statehood onto a period which didn't think about states and nations in the same way do. There was no German nation and no German state in this period, just a collection of peoples between the Meuse and the Elbe speaking various Germanic dialects and owing alliegance to various feudal lords. The word "Germany" (Deutschland) did not come into use until the 15th century. Not even the word "German" (Deutsch) in the modern sense was in use at this time - German-speaking people thought of themselves as Franks or Saxons or Bavarians. Following the death of Louis the Pious in 840, the Carolingian Empire split into three kingdoms (using that term very loosely). The eastern one should be called the East Frankish Kingdom (Ostfrankenreich) until the reign of Otto I, and thereafter the Holy Roman Empire, which was not a German national state. This is the usage followed by the German Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia should follow it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. These are misunderstandings. Read the talk pages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not misunderstandungs, they are historical facts. If they're not, demonstrate why they are not. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

IMT, read the talk page and its archive. It's disrespectful to expect people to repeat themselves over and over again. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a citation for the term Diutsche lant (and two similar terms) from the 11th century on this very page. Srnec (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That translates to German Land, not "Kingdom of Germany". Mr Toad has a point, and this article is still rightfully disputed. 81.68.140.74 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I quote Mr Toad: "The word 'Germany' (Deutschland) did not come into use until the 15th century." Srnec (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's true. But to still name this article "Kingdom of Germany" is highly confusing. The name is a False cognate. I'm collecting a number of sources to try to resolve the problems with this article. To just point Mr Toad to the talk page archive as if theres been a clear concensus is wrong. 81.68.140.74 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way still in the fourteenth century the plural term 'Deutsche lande' was more common than the singular 'Deutschland', to show that the Germanic-speakings lands did not constitute a single polity. 81.68.140.74 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@The Dutch IP, you are confusing things. Srnec quoted that Diutsche lant in response to Mr Toad's claim The word "Germany" (Deutschland) did not come into use until the 15th century., so your response is irrelevant ... i.e. he was not making any claim about Kingdom of Germany as a wording. Also, what do you believe to be false cognate here? You appear to misunderstand the term, but maybe I'm missing something.

I suggest parading ignorance of the Middle Ages in front of a bunch of medievalists is unlikely to help move any cause on here. The term "Kingdom of Germany" is used by reliable sources in English for a state which, as it happens, had "Germany" or some variant as its common name among its neighbours. Yes, it probably wasn't a very important identity among the mass of the population (not living next to Slavs or Wallisch), yes there were plenty of other identities (Bavarian, Zeelander, and so on), but no, "Germany" was not invented by Bismarck or Adolf Hitler like you learned at school. If people believe they are too good to read the contributions of other Wikipedians on exactly the points being raised, at least condescend to do some reading about the Middle Ages in some reliable published sources (some stuff in this article actually!!!). If there are problems with this article they are not in the terminology, but rather in the article's overlap with Holy Roman Empire. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to get arrogant here Deacon. I happen to be a historian too and I happen to read reliable sources. I used my reply to raise other points as well. And as for your question on what the false cognates are here, people seem to often confuse German vs Germanic, Germania vs Germany and diutisc vs German. 81.68.140.74 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

1) Words which we can translate as "Germany" are used so frequently in medieval texts for this kingdom, from the early 11th century onwards, that I cannot possibly believe users arguing the line argued here can have much familiarity with the era and its literary sources. It's like someone saying the term "Europe" wasn't coined until the 29th century; it's hardly 'arrogance' to recognize ignorance in the assertion. 2) diutisc and "German" are not cognates. Modern English "Germany" is a borrowing from Classical Latin Germania (it was not the common medieval Latin term for the kingdom though!); English people called all Germans (including, then, the ancestors of people in Austria, Swabian Switzerland and the Netherlands) Dutch from at least the 15th century until the 19th century (the word "German" joining Dutch from the 17th century, slowly gaining precedence thereafter). 3) 'Germanic versus German' would not have made sense as a distinction in the Middle Ages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Which we can translate as Germany", that's where it goes wrong Deacon. Kingdom of Germany translates to "Königreich Deutschland" and I'm pretty sure medieval texts don't literally use that title right? And your claim that "Dutch" always referred to Germans from the 15th century until the 19th century is wrong too. [6] Here's an English book from 1868 on the "German Language" (read: not the "Dutch language"). The word Dutch is used only once, referring to Holland. And [7]here's a British book titled "German popular stories" from 1823, again not "Dutch popular stories". And [8]here's a conversation between George II of Great Britain and Frederick the Great during the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), which he named the German war, and in which he several times clearly differentiates between the Germans and the Dutch. Want me to go on? It was already during the 16th century that Dutch referred to just the Dutch Republic, due to its commercial and colonial rivalry. Yes Dutch was sometimes used to refer to German as well because Dutch, Diets and Deutsch all come from diutisc. In fact, the English used to refer to themselves as the þéodisc throughout the middle ages. Does that make them German to you? That's a difference between German and Germanic and what I meant with translation difficulties. Throughout history as well as today, the Netherlands is still referred to in English as Holland, so should the wikipedia article redirect to the Netherlands because of that? Honestly you should stop calling people ignorant just like that. You seem to know a lot about medieval history, but when it comes to etmology you have a lot to learn. Grey Fox (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah ... once again you haven't even read what was written. You appear to believe that I claimed 'German' wasn't used in English Dutch stopped being used; I was pretty clear that both have been used at the same time. But don't let what people actually say concern you. Just randomly post 'responses' as you please.

You happen to be right that the English used the word to refer to themselves in the early middle ages (owing to a secondary meaning of the word), but that is due to the fact that they don't have much contact with Germans as Germans (as opposed to Frisians, Hollanders, Flemings, Lorrainers, and so on). But this usage does not occur in the period we are discussing. You're blurring the chronology to suite your nationalist agenda. Anglo-Latin texts anyway are pretty clear that they know the English aren't Germans (but Hollanders and Swabians are), though they do believe themselves to come from Saxony. In the late Middle Ages 'Dutch' refers all Germanic speakers who are not English or Scandinavian (as does Teutonici and Germani); the guys we refer to as 'Dutch' today would be, as far as someone back then was concerned, a random collection of German lands that happened not to get included in Belgium or Germany; but the eventual restriction of the use (not complete until the 20th century) to these guys at the mouth of the Rhine is merely a happenstance product of the fact that these are the Germans the English had most interaction with. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You just changed your original claim that the Dutch and Germans were indistinguishable from at least the 15th century until the 19th century to the period of the late middle ages (1300-1500). As for me supposedly having a nationalist agenda, I'm by no means a nationalist. You however seem to be infatuated with German nationalism, judging from your constant use of Primordialism and your believe that Dutch people are Germans. I'm aware that the dutch weren't a historical ethnic group during the late middle ages but guess what, neither were the germans. To quote for you: "the supposed centuries-old unity of peoples speaking deutsch is, in fact, a myth created by nationalist linguistic historiography in the nineteenth century as a retrospective justification for political unity." The English used to refer to themselves as a variant of "Dutch" (Thedes) too. If we follow your personal views on ethnicy that would mean that before the English referred to themselves as English they were German! Quite obviously you seem to confuse Germanic and German here. The English could have easily continued naming themselves Thedes, but eventually the name of one of their ancestral germanic tribes became more prominent. Apparently in your view these accidents of history decide who is and who isn't German. If we're going to take etymology as a guideline for ethnic groops Brazilians descent from Brazilwood. If you want to stick to British sources Read some books by Jonathan Israel, a specialist on Dutch History, and then you might understand the difference between Dutch and German. Grey Fox (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You obviously don't have the foggiest clue about English identity. But screw facts, right? As it happens I'm very far from giving the slightest fuck about Dutch or German nationalisms and identity today. Flag-worshiping and song-singing I leave to those into that kind of thing. As far as I'm concerned understanding the terminology of previous ages is the priority here, not distorting the past to suite whatever frivolous ideology is current at present. If you feel threatened by the fact that Rhine-mouth dwellers in previous ages were grouped as Germans, it's your problem dealing with facts, not mine. Happy Easter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Except I don't feel threatened by any historic texts, I'm just baffled by your distorted view on this subject. You seem to uphold the idea that Dutch people "were Germans" and that German ethnicy existed for more than a thousand years. I know enough about English identity, you however know little about German and Dutch identity. Try to distuingish the Germanic tribes with modern Germans, please. Then you'll have a better chance of understanding the terminology of previous ages.Grey Fox (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone here believes "Germanic tribes" are the same as "modern Germans"? Point him out please. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In every history book I've read on this period, and throughout the rest of Wikipedia, the Holy Roman Empire is referred to as having been formed of the kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy. "King of the Germans" is the title of uncrowned emperors. The established term in English is the Kingdom of Germany. Sorry, 81.68.140.74, but you are very clearly wrong here. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've logged in. Owenblacker when you say "throughout the rest of wikipedia" I think you limit yourself to the English wikipedia, where over the years a few people have inserted "Kingdom of Germany" into other articles (like Deacon did at Holy Roman Empire). But there's no German article on this. That would mean the few british sources that coin such a name here are much better than any German historian on his own history, as well as any German wikipedian on the German wikipedia? Indeed Kingdom of Germany translates to "Königreich Deutschland" and this kingdom does not exist! I know a kingdom as described on this page exists, the only problem here is this articles name. Hell even the picture used on this page to show the supposed kingdom doesn't mention a Kingdom of Germany but a Regnum Teutonicorum. Grey Fox (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason Germans should know their own history better than, say, Canadians should know it. Being German will give you know natural grasp of German history. A regnum Teutonicorum (Latin, literally, for "kingdom of the Teutons") is a kingdom of Germany (just like the regnum Francorum is the kingdom of France). Srnec (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but that doesn't answer the question why there is no German article on "Kingdom of Germany"? Assuming you have some knowledge of German, what would you call such an article in German? Is this is a mystery? Also literally Regnum Teutonicorum translates to "Germanic Reich (Realm)". In German that's Germanisches Reich or Deutsches Reich (see this articles lead: Greater Germanic Reich) which fell out of use since wwII. But in some academic work I known 'Deutsches Reich' is still used to refer to the realm discribed in this article. Grey Fox (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no important semantic difference between Kingdom of the Germans, German Kingdom and Kingdom of Germany ... all these terms would be interchangeable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is, the title German Kingdom would suit this article far better. The title Kingdom of Germany is wrong because 1) It pretends to be a kingdom with well-established borders, 2) It wrongfully translates from both Dutch and German titles for this kingdom and 3) It's underused, most reliable sources refer to it differently. Grey Fox (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Deacon is right. There is no difference in English here. That aside, the kingdom's borders were as well-established as those of the contemporary kingdom of France. "Germanic Reich" is not the correct translation of "regnum teutonicorum", although "realm" is an acceptable translation of "regnum". (Who said anything about translating Dutch? This article doesn't need to make any translations of its own of any language, although some should be uncontroversial.) It is not at all underused, read the references section. Srnec (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The borders of the realm perhaps, but not a kingdom titled "Germany". As for translating from Dutch and German, these are the two surviving languages of this realm. It would be wise to include Dutch / German sources and not just outside sources, and both Dutch and German sources seem to correspond to each other. You've admitted that this article needs to avoid controversies. That includes the current title. I've checked the references and this article seems to be based on the opinion of a single British writer (Gillingham). Grey Fox (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The English word "Germany" did not exist in the Middle Ages, but many terms in many languages which can be and are translated as "Germany" did. Certainly it would be wise to include sources not just in English, but it is not as if non-Dutch or non-German sources are "outside" sources. They're as in as any. The title is not controversial, if you'd really checked the sources you'd find it in Reynolds and Reuter as well. It's also in Horst Fuhrmann, and Eugene Cox uses it. It would be silly for me to try and cite more, because it is uncontroversial and widely used. It's like trying to prove that there was a Roman Empire from citations. Srnec (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a German and I'm quite amused to be absolutely honest. In German literature you read "deutsches Reich" or "Reich der Deutschen" but the German word Reich simply cannot be translated into modern English. That's why you have to use either the word Empire or the word Kingdom, depending on which kind of system it refers. The 1871 established Deutsches Reich is absolutely correctly called German Empire in English--no one arguing that "Deutsches Kaiserreich" (the literal translation of Empire) isn't used in German sources... And the medieval German state is referred to as deutsches Reich as well and must therefore be translated as Kingdom of Germany. I don't understand where's the problem to be honest. And to everyone who doesn't believe that medieval Germans already had a national identity: read some books of that time, and you will see. -- Orthographicus (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It must therefore be translated to Kingdom of Germany? That makes little sense. It still translates to German Empire, German Realm or German Kingdom, not Kingdom of Germany. Grey Fox (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm German too (if that's important here), and pretty informed with medieval history as well, and I'm quite amused all day long anyway. The topic of this article simply repeats information about the historical polities East Francia and Holy Roman Empire and gives them a new name. Hence I wonder: why does this article even exist? Because many English historians call East Francia and the HRE a "Kingdom of Germany", because many people people in these polities would have called themselves "deutsch" to distinguish themselves from Slavics and French, because the Pope would remind some Kings who claimed to continue the traditions of the Roman Empire that they're still just a bunch of Germans? That's all pretty interesting, but the concrete historical political ruling organisations (polities) that we all refer to are all already adequately described elsewhere. Add these contents to those articles, delete this one and everything will be less confusing. D'accord? --JakobvS (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be a simple solution, but not a realistic one. This article has been protected by a small group of editors for a long time now. Best would be to try to reform this article from the inside. Grey Fox (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The best solution would be to move List of German monarchs to List of kings of Germany and merge King of the Romans there, then put a section with a hatnote linking to that article here. There certainly is overlap between Germany and the HRE after 962, and the two are indistinguishable by the end of the 15th century, but I think two articles are justified, even if this one is treated as a sub-article of Holy Roman Emperor. There would probably be more to this article if it hadn't engendered this level of controversy, but who wants to work on it when they're having conversations to justify its existence on the talk page every couple months? I don't even have access to many good sources anymore. Srnec (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To repeat myself ;-) I think that there is a misunderstanding here about the term kingdom. For most English speaking people the term "kingdom" has a much more concrete meaning than is meant in this article. Its use here is like insisting that with a change of title the Irish state suddenly acquired a new system of government in 1541 because Henry became King of Ireland rather than the traditional Lord of Ireland. That is why I think that an article title of "King of the Germans" is better than the current article title. -- PBS (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To repeat myself. . . I think that there is a misunderstanding here about the history of Germany. For many English-speaking people the term "Germany" refers only to an entity created in 1871, before which there was no such thing. What became Germany was, for over a millennium, nothing but a collection of squabbling fiefdoms in nominal vassalage to a weak Emperor. This view of history is just bunk.

In reality, Germany between the ninth and twelfth centuries was a kingdom like France or England, except that it was more centralised. Events of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries changed matters, but the kingdom does not become an irrelevance until the consitutional changes to the HRE in the 15th century (although Deacon has argued that it was irrelevant by the end of the 13th). Srnec (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The kingdoms of England and France were not the same type of political entity, and that is the rub. Using the term Kingdom of Germany rather than "King of the Germans" implies we are looking at a centralised medieval state like England. By the early modern period the States of England and France were recognisably similar, but prior to that the French state often only controlled the lands in the immediate vicinity of the king residence (within the pale so to speak). For a person bought up with English history (which means most English language speakers -- if only through the prism of language studies and Shakespeare) they are going to be mislead by the title. As JakobvS points out below it is the King of the Romans rather than the Kingdom of Rome. --PBS (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The rub is that there is chronological variation. The kind really that you'd expect over a period that lasts nearly a millennium. I.e. in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, Germany is a centralised in a way that is comparable with England under Cnut. With variation after, it is more like France under Louis the Fat. I.e. it falls within the normal scope of variation for centralised authority over a long period. The only reason early modern German disunity is stressed with regards to Germany is that German historians whined throughout the 19th century that their country didn't obtain the late medieval unity obtained by England, Russia and France (something which has more to do with the failure of late medieval German rulers to monopolised gunpowder armouries than anything else). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this article is not supposed to be about a polity at all, but about a title? Well, that's good to know. Let's call the article "King of the Germans/King of Germany/German King", then.--JakobvS (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC) ... I mean, let's choose one of these options.--JakobvS (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC) And let's mention that it's exactly synonymous with the title that is described in the article King of the Romans, i.e. is the title for the very same office of the very same monarch, just with a different connotation. And let's further mention that the important distinction was rather the one between the ordinary King and the anointed Emperor, who nonetheless was the one and same person as well. (Note that the article about the Roman King even has a German equivalent)--JakobvS (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To the question, why there is no equivalent article in German wikipedia: I tried to write one but it was soon regarded as being considered within the articles of East Francia and the Holy Roman Empire. Nontheless: "Königreich Deutschland" or "deutsches Königreich" are really seldomly used in both contemporary and today's German-speaking sources, but there is "Deutsches Reich", "Deutschland", and in latin "Germania" "regnum Germania" (from the title (rex Germaniae)). I'm not so sure about English-speaking contempary names for it but I remember Marlowe mentioning the "emperor of Germany" in his Faustus ;)--MacX85 (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

All these are names and alternative names for East Francia, HRE or even the Deutsches Reich of 1871. However, why would we write an article for each of these names? --JakobvS (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

was Germany a State during this period? Certainly not, kingdoms in western Europe were not States during the Early Middle Ages but pure military organizations, and after 1000 AD this situation began to change in England and France only;

were was a territory called kingdom of Germany before 962? Certainly not, Henri I was crowned Rex Francorum Orientalis and no more;

were was a territory called kingdom of Germany after 962? Well, yes, but only in theory, as one of the three parts of the Empire (with Burgundy and Italy). But the Emperors never liked the title of Rex Teutonicorum, which was a (papal) title which limited their power, preferring the more universal title of Rex Romanorum. A fact must be underlined: the "German" coronation of the future emperor as King gave him the power over all the HRE, the "Italian" coronation in Pavia/Milan and the "imperial" coronation in Rome being only a traditional reaffirmation of a previously existing power;

were was a territory called kingdom of Germany after 1500 AD? I think not: Burgundy was French, and Charles V understood that if he wanted to control Italy, he could obtain this goal in his role of King of Spain only, and not as Emperor. After Charles V the HRE was Germany, and Germany was the HRE. In fact the Empire changed its name into HRE of the German Nation. The kingdom of Germany could be de facto considered merged with the Empire.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record again: Regnum teutonicorum has only been in use since the late eleventh century. The article does even state this:

“ Beginning in the late eleventh century, during the Investiture Controversy the Papal curia began to use the term regnum teutonicorum to refer to the realm of Henry IV in an effort... ”

No evidence of use prior to HRE. No evidence of shared legal and social institutions across the land in addition to the office of the King that were specific to the German part of the HRE. A fabrication of a country on the basis of a shorthand notation used by English speaking historiographers. Mootros (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Kingdom of Germany → King of the Germans – This article is based on the non-factual premise that there were a number of shared legal and social institutions across the land, that formed a coherent unit, in addition to the office of the King. Mootros (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support The article title Kingdom of Germany has been debated since shortly after this article was altered from a redirect (see Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 1#Last King of Scotland)-- there is almost nothing else discussed on the talk pages. The talk pages show that the use of the term "Kingdom of Germany" is little used and those who use it also use "King of the Germans", its use here is justified by data-mining the sparsity of sources that use the term. No one disputes that the title King of the Germans was and is used, so by moving this article to King of the Germans we should be able to put this debate to bed and concentrate on the content of the article. -- PBS (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposal does not compute down here. The article is not about a title, nor is it a list of kings of Germany ... it's about a kingdom named Germany. Proposals like German Kingdom, or Regnum Teutonicorum would make sense (not sure if I'd support either), but this proposal doesn't make any sense. We already have articles at List of German monarchs and King of the Romans; this is already too many and I agree with User:Srnec's solutio above (List of German monarchs to List of kings of Germany and merge King of the Romans there, ). 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)
• Oppose. This is about the kingdom, not the kings; those who claim that there is some requirement that an article about a kingdom be about a centralized state have not considered Kingdom of Ireland - and are ignoring all too much of the history of France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. More than half of the article talks about the King, the rest is about some duchies and East Francia. Mootros (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Picking up a paper I have nearby, B. S. Bachrach and D. Bacrach, Early Medieval Europe 2007 15 (2) 186–222, I can find the term "German kingdom" on three pages at a quick glance. The paper has little to say about the "shared legal and social institutions" Mootros wants to know about (although why he stresses the social ones I don't know), but mostly because it assumes them. Conrad I, neither a Carolingian nor an Emperor, "summoned the expeditionary levies, i.e. congregata omni virtute Francorum, from all of the East Frankish kingdom." F.-L. Ganshof, in his monumental Feudalism, has no issue calling Germany a "state" and discussing its progressive feudalisation as a reaction by the kings to the usurping of their authority by overmighty dukes. He cites Widukind of Corvey, the same author Bachrach and Bachrach are quoting, for the practice of placing one hands in those of his lord as an act of homage from the reign of Otto I. The point is that the levying of militia from "across the land" and acts of homage from "across the land" are "shared legal and social institutions across the land". They are not at all hard to find, but Mootros and Philip don't know where to look. I agree with Deacon's agreement with my proposed solution, obviously. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nothing wrong with using a histrographic shorthand notation. The very fact that you assume shared institution, but cannot point to any is alarming. There is nothing wrong to develop a theory that such shared institutions existed, but this is not the place for own research. Present evidence or stick to the point that we are primarily dealing with a histrographic notation. Mootros (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Don't be obtuse. I presented evidence from two secondary sources not yet cited in the article or on the talk pages in my comment above. The levy was a shared military (legal and social) institution per Bachrach and Bachrach. Homage was a social institution shared by all the dukes and other vassals of the king throughout the kingdom. I did exactly what you asked for! Are you saying I'm misusing the sources? Did you verify my information by checking them? Srnec (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Shared military institution? Yes I am aware of this; I don't think this makes a coherent political and social entity. Will you be saying next NATO is a state or kingdom? Mootros (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I applaud Mootros' attempt to rename this article, but I don't think the suggested new title solves any problems. I believe "German Kingdom" would be the correct title for this article which (by example of Srnec's above quote) is used extensively. This is also a correct translation of Deutsche Reich, Duitse rijk and Regnum Teutonicorum and removes the problematic association with the name of modern Germany. I see Deacon above does not exclude that he might support such a move so perhaps if we collect a large amount of reliable sources we can come to a conclusion what name is used the most. Grey Fox (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support The term is just not sufficiently used in English. The article on the kingdom is East Francia. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  Sounds like an AfD vote rather than a move vote. You need to address the fact that we already have articles at List of German monarchs and King of the Romans, as you are supporting a move to "King of the Germans". A merger into "East Francia" wouldn't work anyway, as it is never really used for the kingdom after the early 11th century, and refers (esp. in primary sources) to a specific part of the kingdom (though that is also the case with Francia and the Carolingian Empire). E.g. Annals of Fulda s.a. 852: "By the will of the same most serene prince a synod was held in the city of Mainz, the metropolis of Germany, under the presidency of Hraban, the reverend archbishop of that city, with all the bishops and abbots of Eastern Francia, Bavaria and Saxony ..." . The term is not really appropriate for a period after the kingdom is dominated by a non-Frankish group (the Saxons or the Swabians), though admittedly it is in use. Before settling on the term "German kingdom", sources tend to name the kingdom after its dominant group (Eastern Frankish kingdom, Saxon kingdom, Swabian kingdom), and that indeed is probably how Germany got its Romance name from Allemania, the Latin term for Swabia, in the time of Swabian rule; the kingdom's name is Saxony in some non-Slavic eastern European languages, perhaps being coined in the period of Saxon dominance. The situation is certainly not perfect though ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed factuality

What's disputed about the factual accuracy of this article? And why is such a tag necessary at this stage? Usually such tags are used when there is an edit-war regarding the accuracy of some points and one side decides to leave it with a tag rather than continue edit-warring. The purpose of the tag is to notify the reader that there is an unresolvable accuracy dispute. But there has been little attempt to alter the content of this article. Could the editor inserting the tag please explain.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What is disputed? That (i) Regnum teutonicorum has existed before the late eleventh century (in addition to have been used in retrospect) (ii) that there were shared legal and social institutions across the land (in addition to the office of the King) that were specific and limited to the German part of the HRE, (iii) that a concrete political/ administrative entity called KoG did exist beyond papal pronouncement (for a brief moment in time) and the shorthand notation used by English speaking historiographers. Where is the evidence for such "facts"? Mootros (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your ii) I dealt with above, where I mentioned monasteries, bishoprics, royal counts and ministeriales. What is your evidence for doubting these shared insitutions? i) obviously existed, even if not called that before the early 11th century. i) and iii) seem to be about the name of the kingdom rather than any accuracy dispute. Compare the name of the 'Holy Roman Empire' ... not a contemporary name, but you aren't disputing that. 'Kingdom of Germany', 'German Kingdom' and 'German Empire' are all frequently used in the period you are referring to ... HRE isn't ... so why no dispute tag in Holy Roman Empire? If you are unhappy with a name, it's not an accuracy dispute ... it's something you resolve by WP:RM; just to be clear, you are not disputing are you that Germany, Italy and Burgundy were three different kingdoms? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(ii) No evidence soever that they were limited and specific to (all) the German speaking duchies (that supposedly made up this kingdom). (i and iii) Well, that's what I'm trying to say, if it was not called like this. Lets call it by its name (e.g. East Francia). Mootros (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all of the German kingdom is duchies; hundreds of counts, bishops, abbots, thousands of ministeriales and so on (not to mention all the 'imperial' cities), are dependent on the German kingdom and make up its structure independent of any duchy, or indeed the claims of the kingdom's kings to the imperial title or the kingdoms of Burgundy and Italy. East Francia is not the name of the kingdom (in modern or medieval historiography) after the 11th century, the name is 'Germany' or 'German kingdom' or some variant. There is quite a significant problem of overlap, true, both with East Francia and the time when the independent identities of the Burgundian and Lombard kingdoms are eroded, but the 'problems' you are raising in response to my questions look to me more like misunderstandings than problems. Are you confident you know enough about this topic to be intervening aggressively with this tagging? Tell me if I'm missing something. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of shared social and legal institution beyond the role of the King and the attributed military obligations? Nowhere. Quite a dispute. Mootros (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A bit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now. If you want to find about royal counts, bishops, abbots, cities, ministeriales and so on, pick up a book ... this is why I asked you if you are confident you know enough about this topic to be intervening here. It's the HRE that has few shared institutions, not the German kingdom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Enough is disputed in this article to warrant a tag. As evident by the talk page and its archives which show how a large amount of users disagree with the articles name or even its existence. There's nothing aggressive about tagging an article, we are allowed to dispute the content of this article. It would be aggressive if we did not attempt to come to a solution or a compromise. Grey Fox (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Or WP:Dispute resolution against supporters of a WP:FRINGE view who add unsubstantiated tags. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But what are the fringe views? There are naming policies. Grey Fox (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As part of the consensus that wrote that page, I tell you:

• That is not a naming policy; it is a title policy.
• That it is based on several principles, none of which have much weight in moving this page.
• That it does not justify tagging content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The fronge view is the assertion that Germany had no common social or legal institutions before 1806. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The neutrality issues are mostly related to the constant use of the word "Germany" before this time period (if I'm right). You don't use Germany to refer to Ancient Germania either. When we discuss this realm it seems other names such as "German Kingdom" are more conventional. I don't really see a reason why people aren't allowed to place tags here when discussing this. Non-editors should be able to know that this article isn't undisputed. Grey Fox (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course one can call the subject of Tacitus' Germania "Germany"; editions which call the work itself the Germania (as is now standard) call its subject Germany. [9] I'm not sure whether this is well-meaning political points, or lack of fluency - but it is not English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Germania" is widely used when refering to Ancient Germania, not "Germany". The vast majority of the results from your query do not use "Germany" to refer to Germania at all, and neither does wikipedia (as should). The reasons are obvious, this is an encyclopedia. We should use the most common names, that's why Germania shouldn't be named Germany on wikipedia. Or do you seriously think it should? Grey Fox (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

PMA, Grey Fox is Dutch and something that should be noted (of which you may be aware) is that in modern continental Germanic languages "Germanic people" and "Germans" are completely distinguished by two different words, Germanen and Duitsers/Deutsche. This isn't historic, but is current, and explains why they are more surprised by the tendency in our culture to think of them as the same. And of course Grey Fox is sensitive of claims that such terminology implies superiority for the Federal Republic of Germany over the Netherlands. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

German and Germanic people are distinguished in English as well, it's just that they happen to use similar wording. Such as Anglo-Saxons were Germanic people, but not Germans. That I am sensitive about it is absolute nonsense. People of all backgrounds have pointed out these inaccuracies. Grey Fox (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not as clearly. In English the only difference is an -ic, which is not a very powerful morpheme and in this case encourages you think of one thing as a kind of other thing (Germanic as a kind of German). BTW, that's not a very nice thing to suggest Grey Fox; some of the best editors are Dutch. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's confusing. But you'll agree with me that there is a difference, such as how Vikings were Germanic, but not German. That's why it's important (this being an encyclopedia) to not use German when refering to Germanic, Germany when refering to Germania and indeed Germany when refering to this article's kingdom. Grey Fox (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If we finished this adjective article, it would include the Treaty of Westphalia, in which the Netherlands are separated from Germany. But National Causes (German, Dutch, English, and Outer Mongolian) have no place in this article. We have enough of that in articles on Silesia, Macedonia, and Lithuania; that the pattern of Eastern European articles should extend to Lower Saxony and the 10th century is distressing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

With the Treaty of Westphalia the Netherlands became seperated from Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, not Germany. If I'm not mistaken the low countries were seperated from this German Kingdom when between 1384 and 1439 they became part of Burgundy. Grey Fox (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

While even then this is largely a verbal question, I do not believe so. The Dukes of Burgundy were also Lords of Holland, Ghent and the other Low Countries; but that meant, like the Houses of Luxembourg and Lorraine later, they owed two fealties. Similarly, the Kings of England were Dukes of Normandy and Aquitaine without them ceasing to be part of France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Dutch revolt as a war against Germany or that the Dutch 'gained independence from Germany'. I doubt the Dutch are that wrong about their own history. The Burgundian low countries were largely independent and at one point almost became an independent kingdom next to France, Burgundy and the HRE. I don't known much about englands acquisitions in France but I think the German Kingdom is different from France in that it was part of the larger HRE and you should be careful when comparing them. Grey Fox (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor do I contend that it was a revolt against Germany. But that merely means that Philip II did not call upon his uncle to intervene as overlord; this is partly a matter of intradynastic politics, and largely a matter that the Protestant princes would not have come, and would have actively hindered others. That the German kingdom largely ceased to function after the League of Augsburg is not in dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with renaming the article though. I think if we ever want this article to become a good article we should follow the good article criteria, one of which is stability. This article has been contested since its creation in 2007, and probably will be contested forever if nothing changes. Judging from the archives this article is mostly contested because of the use of "Germany" in the title. I think the solution lies in renaming, and then elaborating on this kingdom's title. The article could read for example The German Kingdom is also known as Kingdom of Germany in English literature. Grey Fox (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if it becomes a GA; most GA reviews I have seen have been conducted by utter incompetents. I care if it is a good article, an entirely different matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is written in English. And the implication that royaume d'Allemagne is unknown is unsupported. [10] Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's written in English yes, but that doesn't mean it should be limited to English-language sources. Besides I'm pretty certain that in english "German Kingdom" is used widely more than "Kingdom of Germany". Grey Fox (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

in english [sic] "German Kingdom" is used widely more than "Kingdom of Germany". That's testable. This rough guide shows that that was marginally true between 1871 and 1945, and is true no longer; examining the results shows false positives for "German kingdom", which (unlike the first two) can have a different shade of meaning in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting graphs, I must say Kingdom of Germany is used more than I expected, but we would have to examine all works (excluding false positives) to conclude which one is the most frequent. However I do not believe that German names for this realm are completely irrelevant. The German equivalent for German Kingdom 'Deutsches Reich' is used for this realm, whereas any name equivalent to Kingdom of Germany seems completely absent. This is not a small detail when talking about the history of Germany and seems to be the source of most disputes. I think this give extra weight to the use of German Kingdom, you don't. But perhaps we can explain this better to the public by giving this page an etymology section. Grey Fox (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In point of fact Königreich Deutschland is not completely unknown; but the change of both words is much larger than in the English equivalent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When you speak of the "Deutsche(s) Reich" in German, no one will think you talk of a medieval polity. Everyone think you'd talk about the Reich after 1871. --JakobvS (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this article has no equivalence in de.wiki needs attention. Effectively, this kingdom had no own istitutions, which were the institution of the Empire instead: when a new king was elected, he did not became a German king, but the elected emperor. The Italian and Burgundian coronations were solely a pro forma, the power over the two other countries starting with the (German) election, not with the local "national" coronations. Effectively, I repeat, the division between German kingdom, Italian kingdom and Burgundian realm, was only a mental concept without effectivity. Institutionally, Germany during the Middle Ages is quite similar to nowadays England. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a problem for the German Wikipedia, not for us. In English, which differentiates between Kingdom and Empire, the Hohenzollern monarchy is the German Empire/Empire of Germany; it is not a Kingdom (except insofar as it is the Kingdom of Prussia, which is also differentiated). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem for the German Wikipedia, the problem is here. I doubt Germans are that wrong about their own history. On a sidenote I find your revert [11] of Mootros, calling his edits 'tendentious' a bit uncivil. He's raised doubts on the sources you provided. Grey Fox (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the problem is here. It consists of an editor who is capable of tagging a sourced assertion that there was a separate Chancellors for Italy and Burgundy, when that is precisely what Bryce says, and another editor who can claim that this has been discussed when it hasn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken Mootros asked for a source on how Germany had its own courts, laws, and chanceries, you provided one and he finds your source doubtful, hence the tag may stay. Perhaps you can provide a full citation? But the book seems to be about Burgundy, not Germany. And I too find the sentence rather misleading. As during most of the middle ages cities and villages or districts had their own courts and laws, not laws created by a central authority. Grey Fox (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, on several grounds. Mootros tagged two things; I sourced one (not to Bryce) and rewrote the other to what Bryce says. Furthermore, one of Mootros' edit summaries says specifically that he does not question that Burgundy has its own laws, but that Germany had a uniform law, which is not what the sentence in question says. (I would doubt that it did; pre-modern England and France didn't.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The German kingdom pre-existed the Empire, so it is not completely true that its institutions were just those of the Empire. It's not even true for some time after the creation of the Empire. The king and the emperor could even be distinct persons with distinct courts acting independently (admittedly, this rarely happened). Nor is it true that the division between Burgundy, Italy and Germany was merely a mental concept. Certainly it was after a certain point, but it did not start out that way. In a sense they were even distinct down to the end: since much of the lands once part of Burgundy and those lands called Imperial Italy were unencircled (and it wasn't an oversight). Of course, the institutions by which the king or emperor(-elect) exerted authority in Burgundy and Italy were usually different from those by which he exercised it in Germany proper. (I have no idea what the statement that medieval Germany was institutionally alike to England today is supposed to tell us.) Srnec (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If a Kingdom of Germany really pre-existed the HRE that would mean Conrad I and Henry the Fowler ruled it, but in most sources (English and German) they are simply known as the kings of East Francia. And it should be noted that Henry's rule was pretty much limited to Saxony and Franconia. Grey Fox (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence?

Deacon of Pndapetzim wrote: "you want to find about royal counts, bishops, abbots, cities, ministeriales and so on, pick up a book" So what institutions did for example cities or abbots share across "Germany"? A Church? A church that was the same throughout half of Europe? Where is the source to maintain this research? Mootros (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

[Article] Shared "courts, laws, and chanceries..." Who shared what courts throughout "Germany", at what period of time? What evidence is there? Mootros (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What did the principalities, duchies, counties, cities, and other domains across "Germany" have in common, part from a King? What evidence is there to support this claim? Mootros (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To start with the most obvious, German - divided into dialects, like contemporary English and French. But we are not here to conduct an elementary education class. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like primordialism, and then you don't even understand how different these west-germanic dialects were. Grey Fox (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like condescension; or does Grey Fox not know how far Northumbrian was from Wessex, or Langue d'Oc from Langue d'Oil? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It would perhaps help if you realized that the Anglo-Saxon dialects weren't much different from the other Ingvaeonic languages. And then there's the fact that large portions of Lotharinga were Francophone. But there's absolutely no need to discuss this as this article has nothing to do with linguistics. Grey Fox (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

When have I mentioned Frisian? Of course it's like Anglo-Saxon; but it was never under the Crown of England (unless you count the late 16th century), so what has my knowledge or lack thereof (on which you are speciulating) have to do with the subject at hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ingvaeonic includes Low Saxon which was closely related with Anglo-Frisian dialects at the time. Low Saxon was closer to Anglo-Saxon than it was to High German. I brought this up to explain to you that there was no single German language in this realm and that the west-germanic dialects were spoken across much more than just this kingdom. Grey Fox (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No more than there was a single French, or a single English; both spoken outside the rule of the Kings in question; in Lothian and Ayrshire as much as Frisia. So what?

You're the one who put forward the argument that the people of this empire had a shared german language. The dialects were so diverse and today its descendants encompass three/four distinct languages, High-German, Dutch, Frisian, and the Low Saxon dialects. Does that even compare to English? I don't think the anglo-saxon dialects evolved into four distinct languages. Grey Fox (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Germany had a common language. It was not uniform in the modern fashion, nor was it confined to the Kingdom; but both those are equally true of French and English. Whether Low German is a separate language is a verbal and political question; the same is true of Modern English and Scots, which is an Anglic tongue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you know very little about linguistics. Languages like Frisian, Dutch or the Low Saxon dialects are a lot more different from HighGerman than English vs Scots. But you may repeat yourself as much as you like. Grey Fox (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read Standard Modern German, Plattdeutsch, English, and Scots. I disagree on the matter of taste; and I doubt any reliable source is silly enough to make an assertion on such a matter. Grey Fox is welcome to prove yet again that "a language is a dialect with a flag and an army of its own" (doubtless there is a Wikipedian corollary); I see no reason to reply to him until he comes up with a source for any of his rants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read all of those too, with addition of Dutch and Frisian, and at least I'm aware that they are not mutually intelligible languages (except in the border regions). Grey Fox (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Absurd! A shared language defines a coherent social and political entity. Never mind the fact that there was not one shared language (except Latin) among the Germanic people who inhabited the land between North sea and the Alps at the time. No Mindestabstand across all these lands? More original research; this time in the field of linguistics. Where is your evidence of shared institutions? Mootros (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, example of why talking here feels like a waste of time. @Mootros, the cities, abbots and so on are themselves shared institutions. 10th- and 11th-century Germany is, much like the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, very dependent on churchman to do its business. Please do me a favour and actually read something. Take Gillingham, or Benjamin Arnold, or Timothy Reuter or something (or something by a specialist in whatever your own language is). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the sources you read never contradict Gillingham's "there is general agreement that the German identity is firmly established by the end of the eleventh century"? We must have been reading books from two different worlds then. Grey Fox (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not following you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is if you seriously believe that the Germany identitity was "firmly established" since the eleventh century. Since you like to show off with how much you read about this subject I find this hard to believe. Grey Fox (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What's German identity got to do with this thread? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not so much this thread as all the disputes in general. This article has many unverified claims such as this one about German identity. You often like to point users to books as if all this article's content is generally supported. Grey Fox (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

GreyFox, this is not a chat room; but you are free to go fix anything you think is not well referenced ... though the passage you are deciding to bring in has three reliable sources referencing it! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake on not starting a new thread over it. It's not too hard to find sources with bizarre claims in it. If you are a historian, as you like to say you are, then you must be aware that most reliable sources contradict each other over these issues. Yet you're the one who added this. I just find it unnecessary of you to keep pointing users to "elementary education" or the like, when one of the first things I've learned is that early medieval identies certainly weren't "firmly established" as early as the eleventh century. Grey Fox (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC) For the record I just checked two of the three sources to which I have access and they don't at all support the claim. Grey Fox (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that the term "German" (or, rather, its medieval equivalents, like teutonicus) did not identify a people group by he end of the 11th century (i.e., by 1100)? Or are you saying that those medieval identifiers did not pick people out based on the exact same criteria as the modern term "German" (and its equivalents, like Deutsch), and that therefore the identity as we now understand it (what we call "German identity" today) was not "firmly established" because it has in fact changed? If the former, you're just wrong. If the latter, who cares? There has never been so firmly established an identity in history. As PMA has already said, it's all irrelevant anyway. If the sourced statement is wrong, then fix it. Preferably, quote the sources you have available so we can tell if they are misrepresented in the article or not (i.e., "put up or shut up"). But the existence of German identity is irrelevant to the question of the existence of a German kingdom in the Middle Ages. Why the tags? Srnec (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just an example of how wrong much of this article reads. Variants of Teutonic were used by various Germanic peoples, including the Anglo-Saxons, and does not denote a "firmly established German identity". I'll attempt to improve this article once I've collected some more academic sources (which takes time). As for the tag, it was put up by Mootros and I don't think it's is helpful to continuously remove it 5 seconds after it's placed. Grey Fox (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Mootros' tagging is unsupported by actual sound objections. It is therefore frivolous, and should be removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Until Grey Fox or Mootros come up with some language in this article which reliable sources do dispute, the tag is mischief. (If they do, I am perfectly happy to rephrase; others have as well.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I invited admins at ANI to clarify if tags are or aren't allowed but got a different answer.[12] Grey Fox (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What you got is: "It's not admins' business to settle a content dispute" and a recommendation of Mediation. The first is true; it isn;t. Mediation will only be useful if you or Mootros come up with reliable sources who disagree with what the article actually says, and you could do that here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but we're not bound to just providing sources. Users are allowed to dispute the available sources too, as well as challenge original research in an article. And then there's the fact that it's pretty hard to find sources that prove how something does NOT exist. But you're right, I'll ring a bell when I have collected sufficient academic material that can help improve information on the King's positions, power and prestige, as well as this kingdom's position in the HRE. Grey Fox (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is your contention that sources are unreliable or that they are being misrepresented? If the latter, I'll ask again that you please quote the cited passages so that we can see how the citations do not support the article's claims. Thanks in advance. Srnec (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion went a bit off the line. It doesn't really matter if there are historical documents that mention a Rex Teutonicum, a German King, a Rex Germania, a Kingdom of Germany, a German Kingdom or whatever. It is absolutely clear that such documents exist. However, this article is NOT about one or two names, it is about historical subjects. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary! The discussed subjects are 1. a polity, and 2. an office. It's the polity and the office that historically and organisational pre-existed the HREmpire/Emperor. As a matter of fact, the polity (1) is commonly named East Francia and the office (2) is commonly named King of the Romans. Articles about these sujects exist. Thus this article here unnecessarely doubles information and is therefore redundant. And that's the only problem that exists with this article. It's not about bad sources or so. At the very moment it is like we had two DIFFERENT articles about one King named Elvis Presley and one King named Elvis The Pelvis, which fortunately we haven't. I'd suggest: take the articles East Francia and King of the Romans and mention there that these subjects have been called German Kingdom/German King as well, and then delete this one here. Or delete those articles and keep this one, if English historians never use the terms "East Francia" and "King of the Romans". Then you just have to relink this article to the German corresponding sites and everything will be fine. Or: tell us that there was another polity or office by this name, that WAS NOT identical with East Francia/the Roman King. That you'd have to prove, however. --JakobvS (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree. I've already said that King of the Romans should redirect to List of German monarchs, which should be renamed. As for East Francia, I'd prefer to keep this article, as the term K. of Germany is used of periods long after the term East Francia has given way. But if a large enough article on East Francia (i.e., the K. of G. from 843 to 962 or so) can be constructed it could be a sub-article of this one. Srnec (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody wants to redirect King of the Romans to List of German monarchs. People want to redirect this article to King of the Romans/King of the Germans. Mootros (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Srnec just repeated that he did want to redirect King of the Romans to List of German monarchs. Therefore this post = "Srnec is nobody; Mootros is people." Unsurprising, really; but it is rare that the Mootroses of the world are so frank. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And Srnec agrees: 'this article here unnecessarely doubles information and is therefore redundant. Mootros (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not attribute to me words I did not say. Srnec (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding evidence

What did the principalities, duchies, counties, cities, and other domains across "Germany" have in common, part from a King? What evidence is there to support this claim of the existence of such a socio-political entity? Mootros (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What did the "principalities, duchies, counties, cities, and other domains" across France (in 1000 or so) have in common but the King of France and Romance dialects, not mutually intelligible? (You could make the date 1700 and ask the same question.) Yet no good soul demands elementary history lessons as his price for not mutilating Kingdom of France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Kingdom of France wasn't a "sub-kingdom" of a larger kingdom though. Grey Fox (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Was France part of the Empire? Certainly between 843 and 887; probably a century longer; in imperial theory, as long as the Empire lasted. But the Empire was not a Kingdom; we are writing English not German.

And, more importantly, so what? Why does it matter whether Germany was a subkingdom or not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We simply request evidence for your unattainable assertions. This article is about Germany. Whatever is in [Kingdom of France]] is irrelevant. Remember wikipedia is not a reliable source. Mootros (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't. You disrupt an article because you don't like it. If you requested evidence, you would specify which unsourced assertions you requested evidence for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop focusing on me. Focus on the article. I ask you to provide evidence to support your claim that this kingdom was a coherent social-political entity in its own right, embedded within another entity called HRE or distinct from East Francia. You have cannot yet done so. Mootros (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This article says nothing about "coherent social-political entities", so Mootros is arguing with a figment of his own imagination. We actually do not say that Germany is part of the Empire (if we did, Bryce would be one of many sources); the article denies the reality of the distinction between Germany and East Francia, and I have clarified that, lest Mootros be having difficulties with English.

Argue with what the article says; not with what you imagine it says. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is plumbing new depths. Evidence has been provided. More than once.

I also see that Grey Fox is unaware that there is any controversy concerning the concept of the younger stem duchies and their relation to the crown. That should explain where he and Mootros are coming from. See here for an author talking about what I've termed a 'controversy' and here for how many hits Google Books turns up for "so-called 'stem duchies'". Were there "stem duchies"? Sure. "Younger" ones? Sure. Have they been often misunderstood? Yup. If you don't like calling it "controversial", propose a better word, but this very talk page shows what kind of misunderstandings the idea of stem duchies has given rise to. —Srnec (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed controversial because it sounds like a word to avoid, the actual position of the stem duchies is interesting. I don't think Mootros and I have the exact same criticism. He seems to question the legitimacy of this article. I'm more concerned with the position of the former territories of Lotharingia. If I'm not mistaken Lorraine was often disputed between France and Germany. Grey Fox (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the subject of this article with eighteenth-century conflicts. Louis XIV married a Spanish Princess and claimed much of the lands east of France as her husband, successor to the medieval Dukes of Burgundy and their in-laws. But that has nothing to do with this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't even talking about the eighteenth-century. Grey Fox (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What does Lotharingia in the 9th and 10th centuries have to do with this article? How is that the reason you are here disputing on the talk page? Have you read the article on Lotharingia? Try also Treaty of Bonn. Basically, Lotharingia was a distinct kingdom from the death of Lothair I (855) until its incorporation into Germany under Henry I (925), after which it was an important (stem?) duchy, eventually divided into two duchies. —Srnec (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If you weren't talking about the eighteenth century and thereafter, the claim that Lorraine was "often disputed" is simply false. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem to have a specific timespan. Lorraine was fought over still under Otto I (see Gilbert, Duke of Lorraine. Then there's the burgundian acquisitions starting in the 14th century and In the 15th century lorraine was contested under René II, Duke of Lorraine. All of this should be clearified I think. Grey Fox (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the tags? It's details. Are you affirming that there is really no dispute and no factual inaccuracy? Srnec (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please would the two of you list the statements this article actually makes with you disagree; where they are sourced, please include a source on the other side. If this is not done, the tag is ungrounded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it have to be statements in the article? It's the absence of further information, such as this kingdom's relation with the HRE that makes it a weak article. Grey Fox (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs much more; feel free to add sourced material; several people have complained that Mootros' disruption makes it inhospitable. But that would justify {{Expand}}; several centuries are missing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to expand this fork. We already have two articles here: Holy_Roman_Empire and East_Francia. Mootros (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Exempli gratia: Distinct titulature for Germany, Italy and Burgundy, which traditionally had their own courts, laws, and chanceries,[3] gradually dropped from use, and after the Reformation settlement, the Holy Roman Empire was effectively restricted to Germany (although the archepiscopal Electors continued to bear the titles of Chancellors of Germany, Italy, and Burgundy). There is no evidence that Saxons, Thuringians and other duchies, principalities, counties, cities, and domains, shared courts, laws, and chanceries. It does not says anything about the reformation in the citations #[4]. Mootros (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the sentence doesn't say anthing about whether Saxony and Thuringia had separate laws, that is not a justification for anything. It says that Italy and Burgundy did have them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Objection! A basic question what is "Germany" if not Saxony, Thuringia and other duchies, principalities, counties, cities, and domains? I suggest a basic text book. Mootros (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"Germany" is the Kingdom of which they are all part; as the Federal Republic comprises Bavaria, Lower Saxony, Thuringia and its other lands, but is not identical with any of them - or all of them together.

Yes, please do read an elementary textbook - in a language you comprehend; come back to edit when you have done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more: You say: ' "Germany" is the Kingdom of which they are all part' hence my question to you: Where is evidence that these duchies, principalities, counties, cities, and domains, shared courts, laws, and chanceries? Mootros (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edward Augustus Freeman and J. B. Bury: History of Federal Government p 623-4 discusses the court of the Kingdom of Germany, and calls it more powerful than contemporary courts in England and France; it could actually try the Duke of Bavaria when the Earls of Northumbria could tell the Royal Court to - wait on their convenience.

That the Archbishop of Trier was Chancellor of Germany has already been sourced; in the fourteenth century (according to the NCMedH), the chancellery was the only functioning institution, as is not surprising (it dealt with taxes).

But the sentence Mootros questions says neither of these things. So Mootros is conducting a fraudulent cause against a sentence he does not understand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a book from 1893. And the book isn't even about Germany but about Greece and Italy. Surely there must be better sources available if this is widely known. Grey Fox (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It was the first hit; and both authors are eminent. That it is from 1893 merely means that you can read it; more modern sources agree but will be more difficult to verify. That seems quite enough for a point this article doesn't even make. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet more evidence (will it never cease?)

I reproduce below some excerpts from Susan Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities (1997):

A partial list of military obligations to the king which survives from 981 is arranged according to the traditional units of duchies or former kingdoms. If the laggard lords who are mentioned in it had sent their men at the right time these might perhaps have been formed into contingents county by county as well as duchy by duchy. There does not seem to be any evidence that dukes held regular meetings to which suitors came as a matter of course from the whole duchy as they came to their respective malli from the whole of their respective counties, but dukes sometimes held meetings to do justice—as did the king on his travels—at which counts and people from a wide area might be present. (236)

If one compares the evidence of cohesion and conflict in Germany with that for France, England, and Scotland at the same time, some of the controversies about it seem overstrained. They have arisen because the traditional way of looking at medieval Germany starts from the belief that the German nation was doomed to wait in the anteroom of history until the modern nationalist movement summoned it forth in the nineteenth century. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, as the theory goes, the inhabitants of the kingdom of Germany (or, rather, of the East Franks) felt no significant loyalty above the 'tribal' level of the duchies, and the kingdom itself was fatally weakened on the one hand by these separatist duchies and on the other by being subsumed within a supranational empire. Thereafter the monarchy lost all credibility as its powers were undermined first by the 'Investiture Contest' and then by the rise of 'feudalism'. By the thirteenth century the tribal duchies had been replaced by territorial principalities without either internal cohesion or common interests. All this is very unconvincing: the search for the first signs of later fragmentation in Germany is as misleading as the search for the first signs of royal power in France. Nationalist teleology is a poor guide to the values of the past. (289)

The stronger a medieval government was, the more collective action it required. German kings held assemblies at which they judged and legislated by and with the advice of their lords spiritual and temporalwhich no doubt explains how at least one eleventh-century German already thought of German law as a single category. Royal armies were regularly raised from all over the kingdom according to local quotas that seem, in the usual medieval way, to have been regarded as fixed and obligatory though in practice they were subject to the drift of custom. The idea that German solidarity was diluted by Otto's revival of the imperial title seems to derive less from contemporary evidence than from a confusion between the kingdom of Germany and the empire which developed only gradually over the centuries-and perhaps also from an obsession with the contrast between 'Germanic' and Roman inheritances that dates from later still. (292)

Three years earlier the Concordat of Worms had distinguished clearly between the regnum Teutonicorum and the rest of the empire. German claims to the Roman empire did not imply a lack of German regnal feeling: the Germans had conquered Rome and inherited its glories but they saw a difference between Germans and Romans, between the kingdom of Germany and the kingdom of Italy. Confusion about the king's title did not prevent them from envisaging the kingdom as a geographical and political entity. (294)

Well, I'm done for now. But there's more where that came from. Srnec (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks it's interesting. Though looking at page 289 she seems to dispute the "traditional view of medieval germany". Since this is wikipedia prevailing views must not be omitted and all viewpoints should be shown. That and judging from her wiki its in line with Reynolds history. I'm still looking forward to see what historians specialised in Medieval Germany think about this, especially since German historians who aren't even cited once. I'll look if there's any good translations out. Grey Fox (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Find the work that actually says something else, and we can discuss it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent source! Thanks, I feel my case is further supported now: All we see is that there was a military alliance (since 981 [sic.]) through the King and that the King held court. How the many duchies, principalities, counties, cities, and domains formed a coherent separate entity (called Kingdom of Germany) within the HRE remains an unproven case. Mootros (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In short: Mootros has a "case" - his own original research, in which judgment and legislation are performed by a "military alliance"; does he know the difference between NATO and the EU? He wishes this extremely Original Research written into Wikipedia. This is his dispute. Find a source which says "military alliance" of vassals giving their aids to the King. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

STOP talking about me or my intentions, focus on this article. 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop being asinine. Your are purposely distorting the sources quoted. Where does it speak of a military alliance? Those are your words. And why is 981 "sic."? Do you even know what the author is referring to? And when did it become our job to prove to you that "the many duchies, principalities, counties, cities, and domains formed a coherent separate entity (called Kingdom of Germany) within the HRE"? This is Wikipedia: citing sources is enough. Especially when the sources stipulate exactly how such entities formed a coherent polity: by military obligations to the central authority! Srnec (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My questions to Srnec: Why did the Concordat of Worms distinguish between the regnum Teutonicorum and the rest of the empire? And how long was this distinction upheld? Don't you present this source completely out of context: ie. the Investiture Controversy, do you? Mootros (talk) 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to know why, or to tell you why. It's not relevant. This distinction exhisted from the Empire's beginning until, in some sense, its end, although it dropped out of use (i.e., people stopped talking that way) it seems by the end of the 15th century, but why is this important? Where does the article get it wrong? As for context, I did not present the Concordat as a source, but my source referred to it in order to ground her distinction in contemporary documents. Our article Concordat of Worms quotes the relevant portions that make the distinction (even referring to other parts of the Empire!). You and GreyFox have been misled by the "traditional way of looking at medieval Germany" that the author mentions, these traditions being nationalist and antiquated (i.e., derived from the work of the 19th century, not the 20th). Srnec (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See below. Mootros (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem with this article?

My reponse to Srnec:

• Kingdoms don't exist because they are pronounced. They exist because they have coherent social, political, and cultural structures that make them distinct from other entities.
• The main problem is that this article is an utter fork of the HRE article, hinged on a minor point of a papal pronouncement that had no actual implication in that it never led to coherent social, political, and cultural structures that were distinct from other entities. Moreover, the article utterly ignores current mainstream ideas (see Timothy Reuter) that there was not even such a name before papal interventions.
• I actually think that my position is well within 20th century and that your view remains in the 19th.

As said before, I have nothing against such your theory and through my lack of choice, I have to grant you and the other two collaborators, this push for original research. However, it should be marked as such. The history of this page shows that there has been a contentious debate. I have raised specific points in a reasonable manner and therefore dispute this. Currently, there is still an open move discussion too and people do argue here. I have requested this move as a compromise because there is a some interesting staff here with regard to the role of the King and papal pronouncement. Yet, it does not warrant an article on a so-called Kingdom of Germany, beyond the historiographical shorthand notation used by some historians. Yours, Mootros (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

1. The question is not whether it exists, but whether reliable sources say it does. They do. End of story. You are free to disagree with them. You are not free to make Wikipedia agree with you.
2. This is bogus. The kingdom of Germany was not created by "a minor point of a papal pronouncement that had no actual implication". I don't know what you're referring to, but if the Concordat of Worms, then there was indeed actual implication. But besides all that, the kingdom of Germany pre-existed the HRE, as has been shown. The article ignores no such thing: we are well aware of what names there were/are for the entity in question. The name "kingdom of the Germans" (regnum Teutonicorum) is thought by some to date from the early 10th century, by others to date much later. As for "coherent social, political, and cultural structures that were distinct from other entities", we again ask, What about France? England? Burgundy? We do not do original research to determine whether Germany had these things, but rather we report what the reliable sources say.
3. What you think is irrelevant. Where are the sources? What kind of a citation is "see Timothy Reuter"?

You have no argument. None at all. You misrepresent sources that I cite and you do not cite any yourself. A talk page dispute does not make an actual controversy. (The term "so-called kingdom of germany" has zero hits at Google Books, while the term "so-called stem duchies" has 24. Ponder that.) —Srnec (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Mootros' argument combines a claim of fact: that the Kingdom did not have "coherent social, political, and cultural structures that were distinct from other entities" and the claim of definition that a state or kingdom must have such structures.

• I see no sources for the claim of fact; if there were some, they should be given due weight.
• The claimed definition is a point of view on the metaphysics of The State. I doubt that most anglophones would agree with Mootros' metaphysics; most of us are citizens of states which were "created by proclamation," in 1776, 1867, 1901...
• But even if I were wrong on the philosophy conducted in my native tongue, it would still be against policy to write it in an article. and it is not the way our articles are written. We do, after all, have articles both on the Bear Flag Republic and the Kingdom of Araucania; show me the coherent social, political, and cultural structures that were distinct from other entities in either of those. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I present the following evidence again:

"In the ninth century the kingdom was normally called 'the kingdom of the Eastern Franks', though its Frankish component was very much a minority interest." According to the British-German historian Timothy Reuter, the "standard royal title in the mid-tenth centry was simply Otto dei gratia rex, 'Otto by the grace of God king'".Others note the ruler’s standard title simply as rex at the time.

Mootros (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This does not say what Mootros wishes to assert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what its relevance is either. The tags keep returning, yet Mootros and GreyFox continue to fail in providing any explanation of what the problem is. Please actually cite a factually inaccurate claim or a piece of original research. Srnec (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Some further clarification to the question: "What about France? England? Burgundy? " We already have an coherent entity called the HRE. Finally, I am not asking you to agree with me. I am against you trying silence my disagreement. Mootros (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

To claim simultaneously that the Empire, of which Otto I was Emperor, was a "coherent entity" and that the Kingdom over which he was King was not a "coherent entity" seems to stretch the meaning of the term beyond its elastic limit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mootros, what does the existence after 962 of the HRE have to do with France, England or Burgundy meeting your criteria for statehood? Who is trying to "silence" you by removing tags from the article? Srnec (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The existence of the HRE makes the case of a so-called Kingdom of Germany feeble, whereas it does not for France, England or Burgundy. Indeed, one could confidently speak about the latter. Re tag, the average reader might be lured into believing that this article is factual. I am speaking up for those, my learned friends. Mootros (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, Mootros has so far failed to present a sentence in this article with which he actually disagrees; he has failed to present a source which says any such thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What have you brought to the table here? Mootros (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am disputing the fact that prior to papal pronouncement there was such a Kingdom of Germany. Here my source, reputable historians current and past. Mootros (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The British historian James Bryce stated that the five or six tribes which elected the King did not called themselves German but East Frankish and lawful representative of the Carolingian dynasty. "In the ninth century the kingdom was normally called 'the kingdom of the Eastern Franks', though its Frankish component was very much a minority interest." According to the British-German historian Timothy Reuter, the "standard royal title in the mid-tenth centry was simply Otto dei gratia rex, 'Otto by the grace of God king'". Others note the ruler’s standard title simply as rex at the time.

Original Research Most of the section: "Stem duchies" is OR. Mootros (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the stem duchies section is unsourced fixed. Feel free to remove it. And the tag. As for the above, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you spell it out? How does any of that have to do with papal pronouncement? (Of course, there was no papal pronouncement. . .) Srnec (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Srnec I applaud how you attempted to improve the section on stem duchies, but why do you have to use large inarticle citations? This article is supposed to reflect all viewpoints, citing entire paragraphs from books reflecting one viewpoint only isn't particularly helpful. I suggest we integrate them. Grey Fox (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate all the sources I could readily find. I quoted what I did because it was what I thought was most likely to be challenged if I phrased it myself. Srnec (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to comment on how you consider that this kingdom pre-existed the HRE. You alleged it was our views that reflected 19th century nationalism. There's a featured article on the german wikipedia about Henry the Fowler [13]. It explains that in 19th century nationalism he was considered the founder of the Germany and that this view was also very strong in the early 20th century as well as under national-socialism. Modern german historians have refuted this, explaining that the founding of germany was a much longer process. All of this is cited with reliable sources. Henry the Fowler still ruled East Francia. Of course he was important for the history of Germany, but that doesn't mean that a german kingdom pre-existed the HRE. Grey Fox (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

East Francia = Germany, as contemporary sources attest. Srnec (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

East Francia = East Francia. I think you should read better material. Grey Fox (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, 'cause nothing can have two names. Explain the following passage from the Annals of Fulda, s. a. 852 (emphasis mine):

Habita est autem et synodus ex voluntate atque praecepto eiusdem serenissimi principis in civitate Mogontia, metropoli Germaniae, praesidente Hrabano venerabili eiusdem urbis archiepiscopo cum omnibus episcopis atque abbatibus orientalis Franciae, Baioariae et Saxoniae.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. —Srnec (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Srnec 'Germania' had a different meaning in the middle ages. It mostly to referred to the geographic region as described by Tacitus, not a single political entity. It would be the same as arguing that Francia = France because they happen to be the same word. To quote for you: For Einhard, the pagan Saxons were a natio, and the nationes living in 'Germany' (namely the region between the river Rhine and the river Vistula) could well be Slavs.[14] (9th century). And The words 'Germania', 'Alemania' and 'Theutonia' in Latin texts, or 'diutsche lant' ('German' lands, plurar, later also in singular) and others, were frequently used as geographical terms, but no one before 1500 seems to have had a precise idea about the borders of this country. Many authors referred to the Roman tradition, identifying 'Germania' with the regions east of the Rhine; the poet Walther von der Vogelweide, around 1200, uses the Rhine, the Elbe and Hungary as borders. Even at the council at Konstanz (1414-18), the 'natio Germanica' also comprises Scandinavia, Poland, Bohemia and Hungary.[15] Grey Fox (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)