From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Out of the ashes of the Frankish Realm"[edit]

Instead of arguing over what modern states emerged from the old Frankish Empire, why not simply list the immediate successor states, which seems to be the convention elsewhere in Wikipedia. The article on the Western Roman Empire lists Francia as a successor state, but the Francia article breaks the convention - User:Drasai 12 July 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Recently I removed a line saying that out of the Frankish empire France and Germany arose. The line itself is correct, as they eventually did.I removed it as it is unfair against other, teritorially smaller, nations.

The line was then again added by User:Srnec, his explanation: "France and Germany did indeed rise out of the ashes of the so-called Frankish Empire". To which I added many other nations who, in that case, had the same right to be mentioned. This edit however, was removed, by again User:Srnec.His explanation this time: "Removing false information".

I've made a image to make it absolutely clear, that this information was right in every way.In fact, 16 modern day countries "arose from the ashes of the Frankish Realm". FrankishAshesNEW.PNG The message I'm presenting is very clear, either:

  1. The line goes.
  2. The line stays, but with the addition of 14 more countries.

It's your choice Srnec.

I don't know what you mean by "rose from the ashes of," but I certainly did not mean "currently occupy territory once within." The fact is that two kingdoms arose eventually out of what was the Carolingian Empire: France and Germany. They were not originally called that, but that's what they were (and became). All other nations arose along quite a different path. Italy is not part of the Frankish Realm, though it was part of the brief Carolingian Empire. It has a separate history entirely. Other nations, like Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Andorra, and the Czech Republic were not created out of the Frankish state (Merovingian or Carolingian). They became independent nations much later, long after the Caroingian ashes had been swept away. You know your geography, but not your history. Srnec 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I know my history Srnec, you apparently don't as you've said:

    "Other nations, like Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Andorra, and the Czech Republic 
    were not created out of the Frankish state (Merovingian or Carolingian). They became 
    independent nations much later, long after the Caroingian ashes had been swept away."

May I remind you that nearly every country in Europe gained its independence BEFORE Germany.By the way, have you ever heard of Middle Francia? Apparently not. Rex 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that I created the article on Middle Francia? Within thirty years of its creation, it was absorbed by East and West Francia. Your argument is a non sequitur. Germany pre-existed the German Empire created by Bismarck in 1871. This is common knowledge and you are flat out wrong. We had the discussion previously at Talk:Charlemagne. Any history of Germany will talk about the nation before 1871. Srnec 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no German nation before 1871. There were Germans, there was German culture and German language but NO German nation. There were at times thousands of little fiefs, kindoms, etc. who waged war on eachother, the was no unified Holy Roman Empire, in fact the Holy Roman Empire (which you seem to use as a synonym with medieval Germany, which is wrong) was bullied around by nearly every country in Europe for its entire existance. Rex 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I must tell you that your comments betray you: you have clearly either never read much medieval European history or you've discard as false most of what you've read. Please try to differentiate between "state" and "nation." There was no German Empire before 1871, granted, but there was a Germany. The "thousands of little fiefs" you refer to were small parts of a larger feudal structure which included three kingdoms (Germany, Burgundy, and Italy) united within the Holy Roman Empire. Granted, it is more complicated than this (feudalism is), but these are the bare facts. These fiefs, by virtue of being fiefs, were part of a greater whole. Germany was the largest and most significant of the kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire as Italy was never very closely attached to it. You incorrectly say that there "was no unified Holy Roman Empire," but there was. It was not unified the same way the provinces of Canada are unified, or the way the regions of Italy are unified today, but it was a state and its components were unified in that. I have never used "Holy Roman Empire" and "Germany" synonymously, by the end of the Middle Ages, however, they were nearly synonymous as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation: which refutes your thesis that there was no German nation before 1871. As to the issue of bullying: false. At its height it was the most powerful state in Europe. Only later could it be bullied, though rarely from the outside (except perhaps by the popes). Srnec 18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some pretty strange things on wikipedia, and I have to say your remark saying that the governing system in the Holy Roman Empire is like that of Italy and Canada now, definately fall into that catagory. Rex 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Read my damn comments, for heaven's sake! I said it was not the same! Srnec 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, "Germany was the largest and most significant of the kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire". I know what you're yting to say. Rex 18:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No you do not. Most provinces (fiefs) within the Empire were fiefs of the German, Italian, or Burgunidan king, which, from the early eleventh century was the same person. Only a few places were fiefs directly of the Emperor. I was merely stating that by the end of the Middle Ages, only the German royal title mattered, for most of Italy and much of Burgundy was no longer attached to the Empire. Most of the Low Countries was part of Germany. Srnec 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They couldn't have been part of "Germany" as it did not exist.They were part of the Holy Roman Empire:
Most of the Empire's rulers and subjects were Germans. All of the Emperors were staunch Catholics. However, many of its most important noble families and appointed officials came from outside the German-speaking communities. At the height of the empire it contained most of the territory of today's Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Czech Republic and Slovenia, as well as eastern France, northern and part of central Italy, western Poland and western Croatia. Its languages thus comprised not only German and its many dialects and derivatives, but many Slavic languages and the languages which became modern French, Dutch and Italian.
Its division into territories ruled by numerous secular and ecclesiastical princes, prelates, counts, imperial knights, and free cities made it, in the early modern period at least, far less cohesive than the emerging modern states around it.
For most of its existence, the Holy Roman Empire was more akin to a confederation of sovereign states than a state in and of itself.

Rex 10:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany was a constituent kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire. This couldn't be more clear. Everything else you say has little bearing on the debate. It was "far less cohesive than the emerging modern states around it," but it this is past the time period under discussion. It was definitely a state during the Middle Ages, in any sense of the word that matters for that period. I have never equated Germany and the Empire. Go to the articles History of Germany and Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and acquaint yourself with some relevant historical fact. Srnec 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption, but now that this is turning into an edit war again, I would just like to say that Srnec's version is obviously the more accurate wording, not that that is going to stop any of this. Carry on! Adam Bishop 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Rex has been unable to understand what this is all about (just read his edit summaries). Srnec 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Would applying WP:3RR stop this? Srnec 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, acknowledging that you are wrong here might just do it though. I believe we had this discussion here, at Old windy bears ... the discussion there seems to have stalled in my favour.  Rex  08:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should he acknowledge that when he is not wrong. None of the following emerged from the Frankish Kingdom/Empire:

  • Belgium - was created out of a revolution against oppresive Dutch rule.
  • Spain - is the union of the crowns of Castille-Leon and Aragon-Barcelona - Aragon and Barcelona partly going back to the Spanish March - but Spain itself was only founded around 1500.
  • Italy - as a nation state was founded in the 1860s - there was a Kingdom was Italy that emerged out of the Frankish Empire, but it has no continuity with the modern state. Still, I could be convinced to include Italy.
  • Denmark - never was part of the Frankish kingdom in the first place.
  • Liechtenstein - was part of the German kingdom within the HRE and later closely linked to Austria, and later to Switzerland
  • Luxembourg - became independent from Germany only, depending which body you prefer, in 1867 (politics) or in 1918 (economics)
  • the Netherlands revolted against Spain in the 16th century and their independence from Spain and the HRE was accepted in 1648/59.
  • Switzerland was part of the HRE until 1648.
  • Austria was an integral part of Germany until 1866
  • Vatican city never existed (as a state) until 1929.
  • Andorra, San Marino, Monaco - are you serious?
  • Czech republic was founded (as the CSR) only in 1918 - Bohemia wasn't part of the Frankish Empire in the first place - if you want to refer to the kingdom of Bohemia, you should know that it existed before joining the HRE and up until 1918.

Str1977 (smile back) 11:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Some small corrections, Luxembourg received independence from the Netherlands, not Germany, and the reasons for the Belgian revolution were economical and not triggered by opressive dutch rule and it seems you're views on the Austrian Empire (1804-1867) seem somewhat strange to me.

But anyway, you've missed the point. Because what are we claiming here I ask you?  Rex  11:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Luxemburg attained independence both from the NL (the personal union ending in 1890) and from Germany (leaving the German Confedaracy in 1866 and the German Zollverein in 1918. But that doesn't make any difference, Luxemburg emerged out of the successor states to the Frankish Kingdom and/or from successor states to successor states to the Frankish Kingdom, and not from the Frankish Kingdom itself.
  • Please spare us your apologetics for oppressive Dutch rule in the Southern provinces.
  • My views on Austria, as uttered here, are not "strange" but perfectly normal and based on basic historical facts. Austria (that is the Austrian Erbländer as well as Bohemia was part of tbe German polity until being kicked out by the Prussians in 1866.
  • What are we claiming? Well, you are claiming that all these states originated from the Frankish Empire. Some do, but only in an indirect way - some don't (say Spain, Denmark, Czechia, Vatican City). There is no point in including the tiny bits like Monaco (with all due respect for the Monegassians). What certainly is not true is your claim (made somewhere) that the NL somehow are the true successors of Charlemagne - are you or are you not Frisians? Did you not rebel and break away from the Charles' Empire?

Str1977 (smile back) 12:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not go on to debate the nonsense which you create around the Belgian independance, I merely suggest you read the wikipedia article on the matter: Belgian Revolution.

As for the claim I made "somewhere", I ask you: Why would I be and speak Frisian as you claim (in the post above this one) I also ask you, who on this here earth speak Low Frankish languages? I will not go on as a totally futile discussion on which modern people have the most Frankish herritage ... as it would sound like a weird Nazi myth.

I suggest you read a discussion on the talkpage of User:Oldwindybear, which is about something similar.  Rex  15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


  • the nonsense on the Belgian revolution is simply historical fact. Even the WP article mentions it. And I don't need it for that, having studied the event before.
  • Futile this discussion is indeed. I did not go on record claiming to be the "true" heir of Charlemagne, though I, as a Frank, pride myself in looking back to the great figures of our history: Clovis, Dagobert, Charlemagne. The Frankish language was one of various Germanic languages and it eventually developed into the language we in German call "Deutsch" - which has basically two large groups Hochdeutsch und Niederdeutsch. You will notice the similarity between "Deutsch" and "Dutch" and in fact up until the 18th century, the English used the term "Low Dutch" to clearly refer to the people and language of the Netherlands. Niederdeutsch was increasingly pushed back to the coastline regions, nowadays existing as the languages called Platt and Dutch. (Why linguists used the term Franconian is beyond me, since Franconia is this!)
  • Of course, the Dutch have Frankish heritage too, since Franks formed and shaped all parts of the Frankish Kingdom. But you also have a certain amount of Frisian heritage. But still, the Netherlands were not actually the centre of the Frankish Kingdom, which was centred around Paris and the Rhineland.
  • The Netherlands as they exist today are a product of a 16th century rebellion. Thoug you sing you had "always revered the King of Hispania", it is simply not true.
  • Also, I wonder what the Netherlands have in common with Charlemagne. And who he would react to the state it is in. I won't comment on this, since it is, like most of this post, off topic, and I don't to create unnecessary tension by speaking out.
  • BTW, the Nazis didn't like Charlemagne very much. And the fact that France and Germany are political entities going back directly to Charlemagne and the Franks, is not a Nazi invention. Other entities developed later out of the common fold. Four entities came out of the Frankish kingdom: France, Germany (already termed "regnum teutonicum" in the 10th century, Burgundy and Italy - the latter two have not survived through the ages).

BTW, you have way way violated the 3RR rule and I have duly reported you. Cheers anyway, Str1977 (smile back) 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The reason for the Belgian revolution were mainly economical, and not triggered by Dutch opressive rule.
  • I never claimed to be the heir of Charlemagne, remember "(somewhere)". Yet, you yourself just called yourself a Frank, I hope you were refering to the fact that you live in the region of Franken, in presentday Germany. Otherwise I would suggest you start seeing a psychiatrist.
  • Your views on linguistics are strange at best, I suggest you read "old Frankish", and "Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages".
  • Are the Netherlands the result of a rebellion? I doubt that it was solely that, apart from that your knowledge of my anthem is ... well, funny. It is common knowledge that the part of honouring spain, is sheer sarcasm.
  • Again, I propose you read the discussion on Oldwindybear's talkpage. In my opinion Charlemagne laid the foundations for Germany in exactly the same way as he did for the Netherlands. The Netherlands were simply 400 ahead of the Germans in building something stable on them.
  • And finally in fact, 3 things came out of the Frankisish empire : East, West and Middle Francia. Terminology ... it's important.

 Rex  17:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Just because you say that King William did not supress Catholics and Liberals doesn't make it true.
  • Let me quote what you wrote on your talk page: "Believe me, if there is one country or region in Europe today that can claim Frankish heritage it's the Netherlands, also as in low countries." As for calling myself a Frank - politically I am in Franconia, yes, but there's a difference. I am a Frank as all inhabitants of the Rhineland, Palatinate, Southern Hesse and some other parts are (only counting those belonging to modern Germany). As for seeing a psychiatrist: mind the policy against Personal Attacks.
  • My "views" on linguistics are not "strange at best". I know my history.
  • I know that it was sarcasm or rather hipocrisy. As always.
  • Terminology is important - then why do you always get it wrong, talking about East Francia in order to dismiss the term Germany, when in fact "regnum teutonicum" was used in the 10th century. And yes, these three parts came out of it originally, but what happened to the Middle part? It got divided again, resulting in Italy, Burgundy and Lotharingia. The latter was long disputed between France and Germany, though mostly it was part of Germany. Was Holland a part of it? Yes! Was Brabant as part of it? Yes! Was Lotharingia the Netherlands? No! Was Middle Francia the Netherlands? No!
  • I certainly will not troube my weary head with another of "your" discussions.

Now stop bothering me! Str1977 (smile back) 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


" The kingdom was repeatedly divided among several kings; the division of 843 after the death of Louis the Pious turned out to be permanent, eventually giving birth to the nations of France and Germany."

I sincerely object to the use of " eventually", because "EVENTUALLY" these kingdoms gave birth to various nations. (as was the conclusion on User:Oldwindybears talkpage)  Rex  13:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to your efforts to convince someone at RFM to agree with your idiosyncratic take on Francia Orientalis and Francia Occidentalis not being Germany and France ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RFM?  Rex 

Request For Mediation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) The mediation has been accepted I haven't anything from it since.  Rex  17:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

King of the Romans[edit]

- As this site defines it, Roman or Romans usually refers to "A thing or person of or from the city of Rome." - There is evidence that the heads of the Roman Catholic Church exercised control over the Duchy of Rome, after it split off from the Byzantine Empire whose power over the region was weakened through the encroachments of the Lombards, forcing the bishops of rome to take on larger responsibilities in defending Rome from said Lombards, which would eventually lead to references of Pontiff-elected Roman dukes, who were perhaps successors of the original dukes of Rome. Add in the territory Pepin donated, which unlike the forged Constantine , was confirmed by both himself, his son, and multiple others, wouldn't that mean that when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as 'Emperor of the Romans' in 800, he would have the authority to do so? It's hardly the old Roman Empire, but it is Rome.

Recent edits by User:Ulritz[edit]

Recently, User:Ulritz has added the following templates to the topp of the page;{{Histoy of France}} and {{History of Germany}}. These templates were already included at the bottom of the page, along with evey other national template for Germany and France by far aren't the only modern nations with historical ties to the Frankish Empire, this user refuses to debate other wikipedians on talk pages, and chooses editwarring instead, he tries to justify his edits by his edit summaries which, as I have experienced, contain either a very strange explanation ... or an insult. This time User:Ulritz refered to a "mainstream theory", and I wonder, User:Ulritz, what are you talking about? Rex 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Were not talking about modern nations, but entities/concepts that actually existed at the time. By your reasoning we should add a History of East Timor the Dutch Empire article, because it used to be a part. Youre applying modernist concepts to historical articles. Ulritz 10:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

History doesn't deal with today, Germany and France did not exist at the time of the Frankish empire. This is just plain nationalism. You have absolutely no point whatoever. Rex 10:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)'

Women in Frankish Society[edit]

I think this article could be improved by adding a bit in the Society in Frankish Gaul section about the improved treatment and increased freedom of women.In my eyes 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the section on Frankish Society be moved to the article on The Franks. This article on Frankish Empire is more in the nature of a political and military history; the article on the Franks seems to be a more appropriate place for social history. --SteveMcCluskey 12:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Franks / Frankish Empire[edit]

Apparently since the original article was split into The Franks and Frankish Empire, there has been little concern for the division. The Frankish Empire, for example, is treated extensively on both pages.

For the moment I've added a notice to each of the two articles referring to the other ones. If this doesn't work, I would suggest merging them again. --SteveMcCluskey 12:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just posted on the Franks talk page about this. I don't know the history of this article (was it split after Franks became a featured article?). But it is standard practice on Wikipedia to have different articles for empires from people. One is a political narrative, the other is a socio history (language, art, etc..). The problem with the Franks article is that it has almost nothing on the Frankish people: Language, Art, Literature, etc.. but that doesn't mean it should be merged, it just needs to be expanded and the political narrative of the empire aggregated here. -- Stbalbach 03:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The section on Frankish society should stay where it is, because the Frankish Empire had many people who were not Franks (Celts, Avars, Italians,etc.). "Franks" and "Frankish Empire" should not merge for that same reason.


Why is this article named "Frankish Empire" not only does it only even potentially apply from 800-843, meaning it can only apply to about 15% of the state's history, I'm not certain its even appropriate then, Charlemagne uses variations of the title, Imperator Augustus Romanum gubernans Imperium Rex Francorum et Longobardorum necnon modo Dominator Saxonorum, "August Emperor of the Romans governing the Empire, and not in the same way King of the Franks and Lombards, Subjugator of the Saxons" meaning that while he's identifying himself as an Emperor, and that he governs an Empire its the Empire of the Romans, not of the Franks, Louis puts Renovatio Regni Francorum on his coins, once again showing the Franks were a Kingdom, even if they were ruled by an Emperor. Francia seems to be becoming the standard academic term, and it was even used contemporaneously by Fredegar among other, so that might be acceptable, or "Frankish Kingdom" but "Frankish Empire" followed by the unsourced Latin translation (where is this from, was it ever used or even referenced at the time?) doesn't make any sense to me.

Ethan Hoddes 04:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming this article into "Francia" is a very good idea. As a matter of fact I am playing with this idea for some time. In this way it would become easier to cover aswell for pre-Cloio times as for a distinguishing between the Paris-basin and the Frankfurt-area. Furthermore you are right if you say that "Francia" is used by both primary sources and modern scholars. johanthon 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "Frankish Empire" is a bad title and I brought it up a while back, however Francia is not the best alternative. The meaning of that term changes significantly as you move from period to period. It referred to the region around Paris, the pays de France, and later to France itself by the mid tenth century. It also did not refer to the entire Frankish realm by the time of Pepin the Short. I just don't see how an article on the various (related) entites called Francia would be structured. Srnec 05:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, I see you've both been very active in the Frankish articles recently, and that you've disagreed quite a lot. I'd like to work together to improve these articles, I just posted a WAY too long suggestion for co-operation on the Talk:Franks#Revising Frankish Articles talk page, since I think an effort to improve all the Frankish articles should start there. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to read it (once again, really sorry, there was just a lot I felt need to be said). And comment, this stuff's all very difficult, and a lot of the time disagreements on Wikipedia are caused by pure unreasonableness, but I think this is an area where the disagreements are caused by the difficulty of the subject, and if we all realise that I think we can find common ground.Ethan Hoddes 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I really think "Francia" is the best alternative, for it will force us to describe the significant change of the meaning of Francia, from period to period. If we can agree on this changing it will be more easier to compromise on the Franks article. johanthon 11:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really object to Francia, as it is better than Frankish Empire. Frankland is another option, it would free up Francia to be used for the (varying) region(s) of the Empire it referred to under Carolingians. Srnec 01:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've never seen the term Frankland in a published source before now, I can only find 26 articles through JSTOR that mention the term along with Franks (as a control to filter out articles about people named Frankland) and one of those still wasn't using the term to refer to the Frankish Kingdom, only 9,710 hits turn up for it on google along with Charlemagne (the largest result I could find that produced no extraneous hits in the first ten), and only 981 of those are in English, as opposed to just over 40,000 English hits on google, and 370 JSTOR articles. The vaguaries of this topic dictate adopting some sort of Academicism, but Francia, at least, seems to be the vastly preferred one academically, and Frankland doesn't have any popular recognition to justify preferring it. I don't think the articles for the Successer Kingdoms are a problem, its actually fairly intuitive. The state is Francia, it divides into West, Middle and East Francia. Since there seems to be basic agreement (of different intensity) among the three of us, if no one posts anything else by noon tomorrow I'll start making the name change, article move, and reworking the redirects and links accordingly.Ethan Hoddes 02:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A move proposal must be opened so that it can be moved by an administrator, since none of us has administratorial powers.
Francia is not a simple term. It does not unambiguously refer to the entire Frankish state at any time in the history of its use that I am aware of, except maybe the earliest. That said, I still favour the move. Srnec 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Francia certainly unambigously refers to the land of Franks in the Panegyrici Latini and other sources. The confusion only starts after Chlodovech. So, in origin the word Francia is completly unambigous. johanthon 09:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In origin all words are unambiguous. Srnec 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I can move it, and I'm personally favourable to Francia, making it four out of four in favour. So, if there's no objection crops up, I'll go ahead and move the article tomorrow. Regarding the links, there is no need to change the links - and indeed it's somewhat deprecated - to point directly to the article. Where Frankish Empire is piped (e.g. [[Frankish Empire|Kingdom of the Franks]]), then, and only then, would it be useful to change them. Double-redirects would have to be fixed, but there would only be a handful of those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 21 August 2007 UTC)
Good news from Angus, as usual. I wouldn't worry much about if a link is missed. Rather sooner than later one of us will come across and fix it. johanthon 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I like Frankish Empire, but it's not right for this article. It might be better, once everything is fixed, to have it redirect to Carolingian Empire. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I support the move for the reasons given above. —AldeBaer 13:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has been moved and the double redirects (only) have been fixed. Regarding PMA's point that Frankish Empire more probably means Carolingian Empire, I'll have a look at those links over the weekend (unless someone beats me to it). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I´ve just found this discussion and I´m a little bit confused. Why do You call it "Francia"? German and French historians call it "Fraenkisches Reich" (german) or "Royaumes Francs" (french). In latin the name was "Regnum Francorum", which was used in documents. And both german and french historians use this for the whole time from Chlodwig/Chlovis till the end about 900 A.D. In Germany and France "Francia" is name for that region in 9./ century which was called "´Neustria" before but not fot the whole empire. (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference to the Roman Empire[edit]

"At his [Charlemagne's] death, the Carolingian Empire was larger in terms of land mass than the original Roman Empire."

Eh? Francia was certainly not larger than the entire empire, or even the original western half. It was larger than the disintegrated remnants of the western empire at the traditional date of its "fall" in 476, but that's hardly representative of the empire for most of its history. And since the author brings up the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in the next sentence, he/she does seem to be talking about the empire's entire history. I would simply delete this sentence, but I feel it would disrupt the whole structure of the paragraph.

A. Parrot (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked it. How about now? Srnec (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense now. A. Parrot (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What language did the Franks speak?[edit]

French or German? -- (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

See Frankish/Old Dutch, Old High German (evolved into modern German), and Vulgar Latin/Old French (evolved into modern French). Some learned Franks could speak Latin. It all depended on where and when an individual Frank lived. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends who we call the "Franks"... Frankish empire was nothing like a nation united under a same people, culture, customs or language; it was just a political entity, a territory ruled by a nobility with Frankish roots.

If we call "Franks" the original people of Frankish language that were based in the area of nowadays Belgium/southern Netherland/Rhine area (that should be the definition in my opinion: there is no reason to call the romance-speaking peoples of the big parts of the empire as being Franks, since they were just ruled by them; they were not even having been "frankishified", but retained their Gallo-roman culture intact), then the Franks were only a small minority inside their huge empire, big parts of its territory was in fact of latin culture (what is now "France") and not of Germanic culture (what are now Flanders, Neterlands or Germany).

If by "Frank", we mean all the peoples that lived inside the empire, then the cultures and languages hugely varies during times (in the original Frankish realms the Frankish-speaking peoples were probably a majority; but as soon as the territory exepended to romance-speaking areas, they became a minority); and varies in areas (some romance-speaking areas: modern France, Catalunia, Spanish marches, northern and central Italy; germanic-speaking areas: Modern day Flanders, Netherlands, Germany).

I think it would be good to avoid spreading confusion among minds to remind that the original Frankish people (Frankish-speaking) and the peoples contained in the whole empire are two different things. So I suggest to modify that sentence which seem to me completly wrong:

" (Kingdom of the Franks"), Frankish Realm or occasionally Frankland, was the territory inhabited and ruled by the Franks from the 3rd to the 10th century"

It is true that we speak about the territory ruled by the Franks, but certainly not "inhabited" by Frankish peoples; since most of its inhabitants were not of Frankish culture. To avoid confusion it would be good also to remind that modern day France language and culture (and the big majority of its peoples) does not descend from Frankish culture (despite its name could let think it is the case, especially in German "Frankreich"), but from Gallo-Roman one. It is a good thing to separate political empires to cultural/ethnical areas. the political entity that we call France might derive from the Frankish empire; but its culture/people does not derives from Frankish culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


{{Infobox Former Country
|native_name = Imperium Francorum
|conventional_long_name = Frankish Empire
|common_name = Francia
|continent = Europe
|region    = 
|country   = France
|era       = Middle Ages
|government_type    = [[Hereditary monarchy]]
|status      = [[Kingdom]] later an [[Empire]]
|year_start  = 3rd century
|year_end    = 987
|event_pre   = 
|date_pre    = 
|event_start = 
|date_start  = 
|event_end   = 
|date_end    = 
|p1          = 
|flag_p1     = 
|p2          = 
|flag_p2     = 
|p3          = 
|flag_p3     = 
|flag_s1     = 
|image_flag   = 
|image_coat   = Héraldique_meuble_Fleur_de_lys_lissée.svg
|symbol_type = [[Fleur-de-lis#King Clovis I|Fleur-de-lis]]
|image_map    = Franks_expansion.gif
|image_map_caption  = Frankish expansion.
|capital          = Aachen
|national_motto   = 
|national_anthem  = 
|common_languages = [[Old Frankish]], [[Latin]]
|religion         = [[Roman Catholic]]
|currency         = 
|leader1      = [[Clovis I]]
|year_leader1 = 481-511
|leader2      = [[Louis V]] (Last)
|year_leader2 = 986-987
|title_leader = [[List of Frankish kings|King]] & later [[Emperor]]

The term "imperium Francorum" was not official, or commonly used. Nor is "Frankish Empire" all that common the secondary literature. There was no Frankish kingdom in the 3rd century and nothing was disestablished in 987. Aachen was not the "capital" of the kingdom/empire throughout this period (or ever, in one sense). The Old Frankish language was not widely spoken in the Empire. The monarchy was at least quasi-elective throughout the period, depite several dynasts' best efforts. Louis V was not the last anything and there is a discrepancy between the dates of Clovis I and the claim that Francia was established in the 3rd century. The whole thing is wrong. —Srnec (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The newest version of the disinfobox gives the vague dates "3rd century to 10th", but what monumental events are believed to have occurred in those centuries to bring into and out of existence the Frankish kingdom I do not know. It also erroneously states that it was a "hereditary monarchy", which is highly misleading (like everything else in the box). I won't go on. Srnec (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
All makes perfect sense to me, but I suppose I have a record of disinfoboxophobia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Srnec, I noticed that you have been editing Frankish Empire since 15:22, 24 June 2006. It appears that {{Infobox former country}} was first added 15:09, 8 April 2007 by user:G.W., and first deleted 10:29, 15 June 2007 by you. While I understand your reasons for doing so, it may be better to correct the infobox to match the article text. This infobox can be useful for quickly finding information instead of searching through an entire article. Please reconsider restoring this infobox with corrections.
Cheers, Pædia 07:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


{{helpme}} The animation of Frankish expansion does not appear. --Mistakefinder (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Re. File:Franks expansion.gif
Some strange technical glitch. I changed the size of it from 300px to 299px to force the thumbnail to be regenerated, and that has fixed it. Not entirely sure what caused it, but still - it works now.  Chzz  ►  04:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


P.S. Also, I asked on VPT.  Chzz  ►  04:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Restored Infobox Former Country[edit]

I've made some changes to the Infobox, I hope that now this inofobox will stay now and that in continuation to what User:Paedia has said above, it's place in the article will be resolved for good. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the problems have not been solved, nor can they be. For instance, Clovis inherited his position from his father. He did unite all the Frankish tribes, but that was not in 481. That didn't happen until 509. But why is that the start date for "Francia"? Obviously Clovis and his Franks were ruling a large sub-Roman state before that date. The date of 843 is equally arbitrary. In that year the separate jurisdictions of three brothers were delineated, but the empire remained one in the same way that the old Roman Empire had remained one during the period of the Tetrarchy. Srnec (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

About the vassal states[edit]

It would be good if the article had section about the Eastern vassal states. This theme would deserve an own section. I think this subject has not entirely discussed yet. For instance:


I was surprised to find the name "Frankia" in this and one or two related articles. I've never seen it before, and the article by that title in Wikipedia describes a form of bacteria. There's no source for this form, which was apparently introduced to the article without discussion or citation by Smec on July 17, 2006. Googling it, the only other uses of "Frankia" for "Francia" seem to be based on this article. I don't find it in Merriam-Webster Online, the Oxford English Dictionary, LaRousse, or Robert.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this spelling has been used, but it doesn't appear ever to have been a regular form. "Francia" is a Latin name, and would never have been written with a "k" in that language, French, or English. If "Frankia" has never been generally used, then it probably doesn't belong in the article. Unless some source for this as a legitimate historical variant can be found, I suggest removing it from this and other articles that ought to read, "Francia." P Aculeius (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is an existing expression in connection with Francia. But it does not seem to be entirely synonym. See: [1] [2] [3][4][5] [6]Fakirbakir (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright, this seems to demonstrate that "Frankia" is used by some sources, although in most cases it seems to be based on Byzantine histories written in Greek, which of course substituted "k" for "c." I can only suppose they also substituted "Phi" for "F," although I can't imagine even the most pedantic historians nowadays using "Phrankia." Personally I find the notion of insisting on a "k" because that's how it's done in Greek but conceding the "Phi" is hypocritical... but that's beside the point. "Frankia" does appear in scholarly works.
I still think that the opening sentence is extremely awkward the way it's written, and has too many synonyms in bold. Perhaps splitting it into two sentences, something like this:
"Francia, or the Kingdom of the Franks refers to the territory inhabited and ruled by the Franks, from late Roman times until the ninth or tenth centuries, when the Carolingian Empire gradually dissolved, and the Capetian dynasty assumed the throne of France as a distinct political entity. The terms Francia and regnum Francorum, variously translated as Kingdom of the Franks, Frankish Kingdom, or Frankish Realm, are from Latin, while Frankland is found in early English sources, and Frankia is found in Byzantine historians, who wrote in Greek."
I think this would be a clearer explanation of the synonyms and unclutter the appearance of the current paragraph. I also think that other articles referring to "Frankia" instead of "Francia" should probably be changed, except to the extent that "Frankia" is used to represent the transliteration of Greek texts. The use of "Frankia" seems more like an affectation than a question of style. But I'd like to hear what other editors think before making this change. P Aculeius (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking for source[edit]

I am looking for the source of that edit: [7]. I especially interested in the first two sentences: The first time that Francia is named is in the Panegyrici Latini in the early 4th century. It is the area north and east of the Rhine, roughly in the triangle Utrecht - Bielefeld - Bonn. Could somebody help me with that? Igor Filippov (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Name of the article[edit]

Currently Frankish Empire redirects here, even though there is a separate article called Carolingian Empire? This is absurd, Frankish Empire and Carolingian Empire are the same thing. Post-Carolingian Empire has a separate article anyway. I guess this article is named 'Francia' as a compromise between 'Frankish Kingdom' and 'Frankish Empire', but this naming is very unusual. It's certainly the least usual of the three choices. Even more, Francia mainly referred to Austrasia and Neustria. And then on the side of the article we have the infobox titled differently than the page: "Frankish Empire" (which was now founded in the 3rd century?). It is all an incredible mess. If we are starting with the 3rd century, why not merge this page with the Franks page? I know it is a wikipedia-practice for the Germanic tribes to have an article separate from the articles on their kingdoms, but this would solve the naming problem of this article (Frankish Kingdom or Frankish Empire) without compromising with wikipedia-specific 'Francia', and most importantly we would have an article with continuity between Merovingians and Carolingians, which must be the main purpose of this article. The Frankish 'realms' are traditionally categorized by dynasties. So, we should have Franks as the main article (Frankish Kingdom would redirect to it), and then separate articles on the Merovingians and the Carolingians. This would be in accordance with the already existing separate article Carolingian Empire (preferably named Frankish Empire). Carolingian/Frankish Empire, of course, has to have a separate article. Francia should be a disambiguation page, or a separate article describing the shifting usage of the name. Zhmr (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

well, I would not agree it is "absurd", it is just one possible solution. Being faced with the necessity to divide centuries of gradual historical change into discrete Wikipedia changes, every choice will have advantages and disadvantages. The Carolingian Empire page is clearly introduced "The Carolingian Empire (800–888) was the final stage in the history of the early medieval realm of the Franks," establishing that it is fully a sub-topic to this one. Now while there will always be a wide array of reasonable choices, and there is ultimately no single correct approach, of course it is "wikipedia-practice" to reflect common usage in scholarly literature as much as possible. The aim should be to prevent any sort of approach or nomenclature that seems bizarre to a specialist visiting this page. You seem to argue that this is the case here.

Your suggestion of merging "Francia" and "Franks" has some merit (and iirc has been brought up numerous times over the years). I would accept as likely that there will be very few scholarly sources that treat "the Franks" and "the realm of the Franks" as two distinct topics. Indeed, merely by saying "the Franks" you are most likely to mean "the polity of the Franks, i.e. Francia". I am not convinced, otoh, that "Frankish Empire" is simply synonymous with "Carolingian Empire", i.e. that the term "empire" does not apply to the Merowingian period. Technically, I grant you, there was no "emperor" prior to Charlemagne, but "empire" has a narrow and a wider meaning (e.g. there could never have been a Persian or Assyrian Empire if we insist that empires only qualify as empires if their ruler has been crowned by the pope). If you want to make a particular case relating to terminology, you will need to present a survey of terminology as used in scholarly literature. I.e. I am perfectly willing to be convinced that no serious scholar will ever apply the term "empire" to the Merowingian period, but for this I will need to be presented with a convenient survey of literature. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


I'm a bit confused about something from what I've read in various articles. Was the Kingdom of the Lombards ever officially part of the Kingdom of the Franks after Charlemagne's conquest of it or was it merely in personal union with the Kingdom of the Franks under Charlemagne? Emperor001 (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Something more like personal union. It was certainly not just absorbed into the kingdom of the Franks the way, say, Burgundy was at an earlier date. Srnec (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Francia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* References: Although a number of primary and secondary sources are listed there is only one explicit reference in the whole article. laurens (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Length of sections - the section Merovingian rise and decline, 481–687 seems overly long. This is exacerbated by the rambling style with potential threads through the history of the dynasty obscured by too much detail which could perhaps be more profitably moved to a separate article. laurens (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)