Talk:Kingdom of Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Requested move 21 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, leaning towards not moved. A very interesting discussion, but unfortunately it's apparent that there is nothing close to a consensus to move this article. Reasonable arguments have been made on both sides, though I personally found those in opposition to be stronger – in general, they tended to be based more on what reliable sources say, though I don't think they were significantly strong enough to say there was a clear consensus against the move. I'd also add there didn't seem to be a consensus to split the article either, but I only skimmed the above sections. Jenks24 (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)



Kingdom of GermanyRegnum Teutonicum – See the above discussions. The majority of editors appear to oppose the current title Kingdom of Germany. There is, unfortunately, no clear and undisputable term for the subject that is used in all sources alike. Translation issues make it particularly complex.

Several questions have been raised:

  • Was there strictly speaking a "Germany" back then (instead of Germania)?
  • Was it truly a "Kingdom"?
  • Was it "German", "Teutonic", "Deutsch" or "Germanic"?
  • Isn't this just East Francia?

Mary Fulbrook writes for the Cambridge University Press in her A Concise History of Germany (pages 12&13): "...Germany is probably unique among modern European states in having a name derived not from a tribe or territory, but from a spoken language." This is important to us because it stresses Germania was the land of the Germanic-speaking peoples (meaning all Germanic tribes) while Germany is the state that still exists today. Fulbrook further notes that there is no consensus on when the latter was first established, and that doubt about the existence of a united Germany is to be noted up until even the late Middle Ages (~14th century) when the name deutsche Lande ("German lands") was still most common.

I've found that the original and most precise name for the subject is regnum Teutonicum ("reign of Teutonics"). Fulbrook uses "Regnum Teutonicum; so does Timothy Reuter as seen in his The Perception of the Past in 12th Century Europe and his Beyond the Regnum Teutonicum; so does The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages as seen here; and as a notable extra, on the German wiki the name Regnum Teutonicum is also used. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Beyond the Regnum Teutonicum" is a review essay by Len Scales about Reuter. Srnec (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Support move, as nom. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is probably true that regnum Teutonicum is more common in German historiography than, for example, Deutsches Königtum. It is not true of English historiography that it is more common than "kingdom of Germany"/"German kingdom". The nominator's citations are cherry-picked: the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages has an entry for "Germany, Kingdom of" and citations have already been given where Reuter translates the work of Horst Fuhrmann by using "kingdom of Germany". Srnec (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support, the added value of the article - as is - is about the title of Rex Teutonicorum, so the latter is the best possible article name. Renaming to Regnum Teutonicum instead of Rex Teutonicorum is a sort of second best option. Otherwise, with regard to the country/empire the article just describes the gradual transition from East Francia to Holy Roman Empire where Regnum Teutonicum has been just one of the names being used; I think this part of the article should rather be integrated in East Francia and Holy Roman Empire articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move. Srnec provided many reliable sources. The Kingdom of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire never were the same thing. It was part of the Empire as was the other kingdoms. Regnum Teutonicum is not more common in English historiography. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that Germany is different from the historic realm doesn't mean they cannot be, or are not, frequently called by the same name. Srnec has noted that the present name is used in a number of English-language histories, presumably most of them, which makes sense since it was the historically used name in English. —innotata 06:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    "it was the historically used name in English" Surly in the period referred to in this document the name used in English would have been Latin. What are the sources you are using for saying that historical English language sources used "Kingdom of Germany"?-- PBS (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    John Gower: "Of Alemaine Princes sevene..."
    Robert of Gloucester: "Flowe into Germaine, þat in Alimayne ys..." [The editor takes this to be equating Germaine and Alimayne.]
    Robert Plumer Ward: "The Empire of Rome, and the Kingdom of Germany are still in existence as such ... elected Roman Emperors, which with the reassumed title of King of Germany, has been the custom ever since." Srnec (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    There is a difference between "since it was the historically used name in English" and "since it is the name used in English histories". Most of the documents of the period under discussion would either have been written in Latin or possibly French, few if any would have been in English. As an aside the content Gower does not support your contention, I do not have access to "Flowe into Germaine..." but "Flowe into Yorkshire" is not a phrase that would indicate Yorkshire was a kingdom, so what makes you think that is prof of usage? As to the third one, it is much too late (1795) to be a primary source (and is written during a period of a massive European war -- "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."). -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    The point is that Germany was the "historically used name in English" going back to the Middle Ages and continuing into the modern period. It is false that it is an anachronism. All that aside, "the name used in English histories" is the one we should go with per Wikipedia's policies—and that would be "Kingdom of Germany". Srnec (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would support Bermicourt's modified split proposal (so up to 962 goes to East Francia, after 962 goes to Holy Roman Empire, the title itself goes to King of the Romans and this becomes a disambiguation page) but, much though I am happy to see article titles in foreign languages, most Wikipedians prefer English-language titles. It would seem perverse to move this article from it's current English-language title to one that is effectively just a translation into mediæval Latin — particularly when, as Srnec points out, it's not even a more-common title in English historiography. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment by nom. Can we just get it clarified at least who wants the page to be moved, split or deleted? I know Srnec does not, as he has shown us, but the above discussion quite clearly showed a consensus for it (count the Supports). Over half the voters here haven't been involved with the article before. If someone else wants to propose an alternative they may do so, but we need this thing solved. It's being stonewalled right now by a very, very persistent editor who is certainly knowledgeable if a bit stubborn. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I would like to see a section about how our primary sources called it in the Middle Ages, I fail to see how using a Latin name would clarify anything. Dimadick (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the proposed term is used by historians. But as a general knowledge encyclopedia we also need article titles, that are recognizable and understandable by average lay readers. A specialist Latin term completely fails to meet "Recognizability", "Naturalness" and "Consistency" with other titles - 3 of the 5 main criteria of WP:COMMONNAME. Such a specialist term should only be used as title (imo), if no other term exists or the term is part of a commonly accepted consistent terminology. GermanJoe (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - as the nominator asked: I would be content with the current article title or with a move to a clearly better title (the obvious problem being to find one). But the main focus in my opinion should be the article's content and how to clarify it, not an endless academic dispute about the "best title". GermanJoe (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - split article content to East Francia and Holy Roman Empire; redirect King of Germany to King of the Romans and turn this into a dab page or short article explaining the [mis]use of the term in English. Bermicourt (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. Term "King of Germany" and "King of the Romans" are simply not the same, as well as "Kingdom of Germany" and "HRE". But I also oppose this request, translation into medieval Latin do not solve anything. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Try to be civil. Actually I partly agree, because "King of Germany" and "Kingdom of Germany" are not used in German or Latin, but have been equated to "King of the Romans" (rex Romanorum; Römischer König or König der Römer) or "King of the Germans/Germanii" / "King in Germany/ia" (rex Teutonicorum; König in Germanien, etc.) by some English authors, inaccurately in my view. All these terms effectively refer to the time between the election to king by the electors and the coronation as emperor by the pope. "King of the Romans" was the title they actually used and which others, e.g. Henry VIII of England used of them. The problem is that the terms are imprecise because there was no actual Kingdom of Germany and so sources use them in different, and sometimes loose, ways. My suggestion was simply intended to accept the misuse of the term by some sources and point it at the more accurate term. Bermicourt (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just translated the German Wiki article to create Regnum Teutonicum which I think partly explains why there is confusion. The Latin term was used to describe part of the Empire, rather than some separately governed sovereign kingdom. However, but its English translation, "Kingdom of Germany", appears to have been used both in this narrower sense and also one or more wider senses. Bermicourt (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is there no uproar over the fact that we call the other parts of the Empire kingdoms, i.e. Kingdom of Arles and Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)? —Srnec (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Arles existed as such for a while as a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire. It is clearly mentioned in the Golden Bull of Charles IV. By contrast, in the long list of princes assigned as royal escorts, there is no mention of a king or kingdom of either Germany or Italy. The only kingdoms mentioned are those of Arles, Bohemia and Christ. The only kings mentioned are those of Bohemia, Saxony and the Romans. The omission of Germany and Italy would be odd if such mighty states really existed, but they didn't - they were a collection of states within the HRE. Note also that Charles calls himself "Emperor of the Romans"... Bermicourt (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - although I agree with the others editors that this isn't the best choice, it's inevitable to think that it's better than the current. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment. If you take a look at Regnum Teutonicum which I have just translated from German Wikipedia, you will get a flavour of what the term means and an idea what this article should look like. It does not try to assert that there was a real kingdom (regnum means more like the sphere of a sovereign's reign), but that the term was used to describe that part of the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps. I took it straight from German Wikipedia without alteration apart from the last sentence which needs to point to this article while it exists. Bermicourt (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If historians have been "imprecise" or "mistranslated" certain terms, that extraordinary claim needs to be backed up with strong expert sources. Without such sources the added last sentence is simply WP:OR. Walter Mohr's text is available online in German - he also mentions the usage of "rex Germaniae" both as geographical and political term, albeit rarely with the latter meaning (that aspect is missing in the de-Wiki article). The claim, that no "actual" or "real" German kingdom existed during the early HRE, needs reliable secondary sources as well, not the analysis of primary sources. And even then, this would only be one claim among other different views - we have to present all views from reliable sources in 1 article as impartial as possible. It would be a lot better to improve the current article including some sourced information from the de-Wiki article, instead of trying to push a personal view with a separate WP:CONTENTFORK. GermanJoe (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I actually agree with your earlier view that the content needs working on which is why I thought translating de.wiki would be helpful at least to clarify what I and several others are getting at. I expect once the discussion is resolved, we may get away with one article and a redirect, but only if the consensus is that the sources use KoG and Regnum Teutonicum interchangeably to mean the same thing. And yes, we do need to go from sources, primary and secondary. Bermicourt (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
But, generally speaking, the "Terminology" section in this article does need some work of course. Some of the unsourced analysis could be trimmed a bit for instance. All those details are interesting, but are a bit much to digest. And parts of paragraph 4 and 5 (after 1250) would probably better fit in the HRE article, as they primarily deal with the imperial title or with a "German" title in imperial context. GermanJoe (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, now Wikipedia has 5 articles about something historians can't even agree it existed. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this move. Also oppose move to split. While "Kingdom of Germany" may have been roughly synonymous with East Francia, it is not synonymous with the HRE, but only one of three constituent kingdoms (and one of four parts) defining the Holy Roman Empire, retaining a separate chancellor, separate collection of lords and separate coronation through most of the Middle Ages. Walrasiad (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you name some of those chanellors and lords who resided over the Kingdom of Germany? Machinarium (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Archbishop of Mainz was chancellor for the K of Germany (Cologne for Italy, Trier for Burgundy) for much of the duration (confirmed in perpetuity in Golden Bull). German nobility consists of the stem duchies, marches & subfeuded lords in the 10th C. elections for German king (911 on, but esp. 1024 election and coronation of Conrad the Salian) Walrasiad (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The Mainz office, like the title of German king, was largely ceremonial, which you can read in Len Scales' book (available on google books p. 182-184). The area related to this title also did not necessarily match the boundaries of the former East Francia. For example, in 1362 Fritsche Closener declared that Mainz's title covered all of Germania, "that is to say, from Hungary to the Rhine." This reaffirms the point I tried to make earlier, which is that the regnum teutonicum was a geographic area which sometimes existed in speech and writing, but was neither a kingdom, state or any other type of polity. Machinarium (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Shrug. You can say that for any kingdom. The Germanic concept of a "kingdom" is not a geographic area, it is a political area, defined by folks, not acres. The area (often a Latin term) will always be an informal shorthand for a collection of dominions of barons owing allegiance to a king. "East Franks" are a folk, "Germany" is an area. "Lombards" are a folk. "Italy" is an area, etc. The "Kingdom of Germany" refers to the collection of barons in the area that once constituted the lands of the East Franks and their subject tribes (Swabians, Bavarians, Saxons, Thuringians, etc.), which by the 10th-11th C. is now settled down into large duchies (the royal duchy of Franconia, plus Swabia, Bavaria, Saxony, etc.). This specific collection of barons acclaim their king, who is crowned in Aachen (usually) by the Archbishop of Mainz (almost always). This is the "King of Germany", and the area these barons cover we can call the "Kingdom of Germany". There really is no term more convenient to call him or it. Walrasiad (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You can't say that for any kingdom, because other kingdoms (like the Kingdom of France) weren't areas of larger polities such as the Holy Roman Empire. If Germany was a political area as you say then try to name any ruler who ruled over the Kingdom of Germany who wasn't (becoming) the Holy Roman Emperor, and you will find that there were no such rulers. That's because the real polity that we're talking about was the Holy Roman Empire. Germany as kingdom was not a polity, but existed only as a title for the emperor. I would have believed you if the Kingdom of Germany had its own king or governor who ruled as a right hand to the emperor, but that's not the case. While I agree that renaming article doesn't solve much, it's the content of the article that's the main problem. Machinarium (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Holy Roman Empire" is itself an summary name, to refer to the four collected domains and titles of Conrad the Salian (rather than clumsily calling him "King of Germany, Italy, Burgundy and Roman Emperor"). Each of those entities are distinct polities, with different collections of barons, different chancellors, different coronations, etc. that happen to (often) be held by one person. There are plenty of "Kings of Germany" who never collected the "Emperor" title (nor the Italy title), e.g. Conrad I, Henry I the Fowler, Philip Hohenstaufen, Conrad IV Hohenstaufen, William (of Holland), Richard (of Cornwall), Alfonso (of Castile), Rudolf Hapsburg were all elected king of Germany, yet never became emperor. "Emperor" is not a Germanic title, it is a Roman title, in the Roman hierarchy - and a fourth feather in the cap that has to be collected. You actually need to go to Rome, and be acclaimed by the Senate and People of Rome and crowned by the Bishop of Rome, to become Emperor. Otherwise you're not. You may be a candidate, but that is effectively meaningless. Nonetheless, you are a fully bona fide King of Germany the moment German barons (and only German barons - not Burgundians or Lombards) acclaim you and you are crowned by the Archbishop of Mainz. Getting or not getting the "Emperor" title doesn't affect the authority a King of Germany has over Germany. Picking the imperial title up doesn't affect your authority in Germany (nor Lombard Italy nor Burgundy). Geographically, "emperor" adds nothing but the Roman/Byzantine dominions in Italy (i.e. the Papal States). Walrasiad (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The list of supposed Kings of Germany that you've mentioned were not actually rulers of Germany. Conrad I and Henry I were kings of East Francia, before the establishment of the HRE. To call them kings of Germany is very anachronistic. Philip of Swabia / Hohenstaufen was anti-King to Otto IV; him and Otto were claiming to be King of the Romans, which was a struggle over who would become the leader of the HRE, not over who would become the ruler of Germany. Philip was murdered, after which Otto became the only ruler of the HRE and was crowned emperor. Conrad IV was not a ruler of Germany, he was simply the son of emperor Frederick II, who had given him the title of King of the Romans at the age of 9 so that he would become his successor. I Could go on. You noted that the title of emperor didn't change the amount of authority a king held over Germany. That only reaffirms my point, which is that this article should discuss a title, instead of giving the illusion that the Holy Roman Empire was a federation of several kingdoms. Machinarium (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Machinarium: Totally agreed. AFAICS "King of Germany" was a title that was hardly if ever used at the time and is rarely used by German historians. However a number of English-language historians use the term anachronistically as a sort of lazy shorthand for King of the Romans because either they think it's easier to write, more understandable to those educated outside the German/Austrian system or maybe they're popular historians who don't really understand the politics. Whatever the reason, it's quite misleading, especially as English readers naturally think of a kingdom as a sovereign state with a king at its head and all subjects under his direct rule; like England or, later, France and Spain. I'm afraid the Kingdom of Italy article may have the same issues, but that's for another day... Bermicourt (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your constant slighting of English historians has to stop—especially since you don't even know if the cited historians are mere popularizers or not. Their usage is neither anachronistic nor lazy. In fact, I've quoted multiple English historians explicitly justifying their usage. I could quote more. And don't tell English readers what they naturally think. I've cited at least one historians explicitly justifying the term "kingdom" as well. Srnec (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -- it would be definitely better than the current title. I'd also support a split. Creihag (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support to reduce unnecessary server load caused by this particular talk page. Mootros (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh please, that's almost discriminating :). American editors can have a 650KB discussion on Hilary Clinton's first name (each year), but a "thorough" discussion about the correct title for a 1.000 years-old German/East Frankish/Teutonic entity is too taxing for the servers? I am feeling oppressed (for clarity's sake: /kidding). GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • YesY Excellent! I think we just got our title: A 1.000 years-old German/East Frankish/Teutonic Entity. Mootros (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - more seriously: it's pretty clear that the proposal does not have sufficient consensus. It could be closed soon imo. GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - and oppose the original split proposal, too, if that's still open. It appears that every few years this gets reopened, poorly explained, and voted on, with poor Srnec forced, largely alone, to provide numerous scholarly sources backing up the currently existing title. It should basically come down to this - Srnec (and others in earlier discussions, I believe) has provided a wealth of sources in which prominent English language historians refer to a Kingdom of Germany to support his side of the argument. His opponents have provided a wealth of unsupported assertions and flights of logic to support theirs. Wikipedia is pretty clear about which of those is supposed to win out. As to the logical arguments of supporters of this move, I genuinely fail to understand what argument they're even making, because it constantly shifts. This move, in particular, seems to give away the game, since it acknowledges the existence of a Regnum Teutonicorum, which seems to imply that this kingdom existed, but that "Kingdom of Germany" is somehow a misnomer. How can they argue this, in the absence of any sources saying that the name is a misnomer? If the argument is that such a kingdom did not exist at all, then why is Regnum Teutonicorum any better than the current title? "The German equivalent of this English language name is not used in German" seems to be the only argument here. And that's not an argument - we use the name used in English language sources, not German ones. john k (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

King of the Romans vs King of the Germans[edit]

Can the folks who believe that the King of the Germans (Rex Teutonicorum) ruled over Germany, rather than the Holy Roman Empire, explain if this title was different from King of the Romans (Rex Romanorum)? As far as I'm aware these two titles are the same. That the King of the Romans was sometimes called King of the Germans is similar to the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor (Romanorum Imperator) was sometimes called the German Emeperor (Imperator Teutonicorum). Machinarium (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are basically the same. Why? Srnec (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the title King of the Romans was a claim to rule over the romans, and thus the entire empire, not just German lands. The latter suggestion was generally avoided in the first few centuries of the Empire's existence. Scales explains this well:
"One fact above all renders implausible the notion that rulers in the Post-Staufer period aspired to a German kingship distinct from the Empire: the pains which their own chanceries took to avoid mentioning such a kingship in their documents. Even Frederick II's sons were almost always styled, in traditional fashion, 'king of the Romans' in their public acts, as were the 'Interregnum' kings: official invocations of their 'German' kingship, if in some ways suggestive, are few, indeed anomalous. Nord did conventions change in the decades that followed. (..) Henry VII judged it a dishonour to be adressed, disregarding his Roman title, as 'King of Germany' (rex Alamannie). Invocations of a 'German' kingship are almost entirely absent from Latin documents in the ruler's name: and the few examples which do occur are usually identifiable as the product of special circumstances. The signs are that the term was consciously avoided. It is found only slightly more often in writings issued by the electors and other princes.
p. 174
Also please read the following:
"But over what, and whom was this 'royal power' to be exercised? To what kind of kingdom did Charlemagne's aurea sedes regni hold the key? A German one, perhaps - paralleling the Burgandian and Lombard crowns which the Empire's ruler might receive at Arles and Milan? Certainly, there were those who believe it to be. The diploma of 1166 conferring sainthood upon Charlemagne had named Aachen as 'the head and seat of the kingdom of Germany.' Johannes von Buch, in his gloss on the Sachsenspiegel (c 1325), explained that the ruler's first coronation made him 'king over all the German lands.' For Heinrich von herford, writing in the time of Charles IV, the Frankish emperor himself had decreed that a king was to be crowned in Aachen 'for Germany' (pro Theutonia), just as coronation at Monza would make him king of the Lombards, and in Rome 'emperor of the world.'
Such a satisfyingly clear resolution was not, alas supported by the facts of the chronicler's own day. from the time of his first elevation, the ruler's official titles announced a kingship over the Romans, not the Germans, while his public acts assumed from the start the power to rule through the Empire's territories. His regalia, including the famous octagonal crown (which tradition identified as Charlemagne's own), were used without distinction both for 'royal' coronations and for the creation of emperors of in Rome. It therefore made perfect sense when another chronicler wrote of the 'advocacy of the Roman Empire' being conferred on the new king at Aachen. The distinctiveness of the Empire's constituent regna was further eroded by the shift tracable in German constitutional thinking during the fourteenth century, towards affirming election, not coronation, as the constitutive act in making a ruler. (...)
Yet writings of diverse kinds nevertheless clung firmly to the notion that north of the Alps there existed, in some sense, a 'kingdom,' which lay within, but was not identical with, the Empire - even if, in the late Middle Ages, the distinction between the two became somewhat less easily discernible than in earlier times. And a special link between the rule of this kingdom and the German people and their lands seemed, in the eyes of many, as hard to deny as it was precisely to define"
pp. 154-155
I think these excerpts explain the controversy that exists around this article. Currently, the distinction between German kingdom and Roman Empire is too clearly emphasized. While the idea of the existence of a German kingdom certainly existed (and changed throughout the centuries), it was not a clearly defined constituent difference. Machinarium (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the German kings claimed to rule over the Romans by right. I also agree with Scales that "that rulers in the Post-Staufer period [did not] aspire to a German kingship distinct from the Empire" and that "the term [King of Germany] was consciously avoided" by the royal/imperial chancery. Where have I ever suggested otherwise? Of course, Scales is correct, too, that "in the late Middle Ages, the distinction between the two became somewhat less easily discernible". I know I stated the same thing in an earlier round of this debate.
This article needs work. Nobody denies it. But what is wrong with an article on "a 'kingdom,' which lay within, but was not identical with, the Empire" that " existed, in some sense" to the "north of the Alps" during the Middle Ages? And why can't we call it "Kingdom of Germany", as many historians do? Srnec (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad that you support change of this article's content, so I'm just trying to seek some common ground here. I don't really mind that we call it Kingdom of Germany anymore, though I would support explaining that this is all but a modern translation of Regnum Teutonicum. Anyway, I'm invoking Scales here because I believe the content of this article should be more similar to the content of the German wikipedia article. Currently the article starts with a quote from Gillingham, who calls Germany "a single, indivisible political unit throughout the middle ages." This is a fringe view, and contradicts what Scales and other authors have written. Other editors have already tried to explain that we should carefully distinguish historians who use the term "Germany" for convenience from those historians who give an accurate description of medieval statehood. In fact, now that I've been able to read Gillingham's article, he admits doing this himself: "For the purpose of this essay I am simply assuming that 'medieval Germany' lasted from the tenth century to the fifteenth century. I also set aside complications such as the relationships between the Reich and the kingdoms of Bohemia, burgundy and Italy." (first page, footnote 1). I thus suggest we remove Gillingham's description and explain better the complication surrounding the idea of a German kingdom. Machinarium (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm also coming round to the view that we need to work on the article rather than delete it or reduce it to a redirect. Clearly I would want to start from something that looks more like the German article and advance cautiously from there. If others do the same from their positions we should move towards a consensus that, hopefully, also reflects the sources well. And anything that is removed from the article should be moved to the appropriate article elsewhere in Wikipedia, unless we agree it is fundamentally wrong. Bermicourt (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Write on the first line of the lead "The Kingdom of Germany is a modern concept used by some historians..." and then the rest. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a medieval concept. Srnec (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Certainly there was a medieval concept, certainly not this one here. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
So what was the medieval concept? Srnec (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd strongly oppose any effort to describe the "Kingdom of Germany" as some sort of concept made up by modern historians. It is a term used by modern historians to describe an entity that existed at the time. john k (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we all agree that Regnum Teutonicum was a term used in mediaeval times to describe an "entity". What we are debating is what that entity was. It certainly wasn't an independent kingdom run by a king. It was a descriptor of those myriad states in the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps. What may be a modern (British/American?) construct is the term "Kingdom of Germany" to imply a real kingdom. The very term is confusing as some of the sources admit. The problem is that if you read Wikipedia - not just here I hasten to add - you could get the firm impression that Germany existed as a joined up independent kingdom under a recognized sovereign king. It never did; at least not in the sense that there was a Kingdom of England or Kingdom of France. That's why German authors never use the term. They don't need to. What's needed is a consensus revision of this article (and others) to reflect how the term is really used. If we keep arguing at the current level, we'll never get anywhere. Bermicourt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I mean, wasn't it a kingdom run by a king, at least up to the fall of the Hohenstaufens? As I think has been discussed in the past (I assume everything has been discussed in the past, since we've been going round on this for like a decade), if anything, it is the "Holy Roman Empire" which is a made up phantom in the High Middle Ages, not the Kingdom of Germany, which had clear institutions and so forth. The issue is that later, as the Burgundian and Italian Kingdoms gradually ceased to exist, German institutions effectively got turned into imperial institutions, and the German Kingdom more or less became the "Holy Roman Empire," although obviously there were still some vestigial traces of the Empire in Italy and Burgundy. But in, say, 1150, I'm not sure why we should see the Kingdom of Germany as being particularly less real than any other European kingdom. john k (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree, John. What else would it be than a kingdom run by a king? Speaking for the High Middle Ages there still was actual royal power. The kings could assign fiefs and theoretically reclaim them. They could convene a court diet and call to arms. Under the Salian dynasty German kings had more royal power than the French kings. The German kingdom basically started out strong in the 10th and 11th century and grew weaker over the following centuries in favor of smaller lords.--MacX85 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@John K. "Wasn't it a kingdom run by a king..." No. The "Kingdom of Germany" was a euphemism for the territories of the HRE north of the Alps. It had no meaning except in the context of the HRE. The "king" was in fact the HRE. However, confusingly, the prince-electors who AFAIK came from N of the Alps elected a "King of the Romans" who then went forward to be crowned HRE. So as others have explained it was a ceremonial title akin to "Emperor-in-waiting" If there really was a real Kingdom of Germany, one would expect to see it writ large in the German literature and on German Wikipedia, but it isn't. In English literature, it seems to be a modern shorthand either for the HRE or to refer to mainly German-speaking territories (but of course not all of them were). It would be interesting to research how various authors define the phrase themselves, but in most of the examples I've seen they don't; there is just a vague description or none at all. But feel free to check this out. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not used to refer to the HRE. What is "It had no meaning except in the context of the HRE." supposed to mean? We all agree that the Kingdom of Germany is a subset of the Holy Roman Empire. That's like saying England has no meaning except in the context of the UK... Yes the German kings strongly expected to be crowned emperor and made their claim visible by bearing the title "King of the Romans". Yet not every one did become emperor. Also there the kingdoms of Italy and Burdundy. Do you declare them nonexistent as well because there was only one king/emperor to rule over them all?
It's also not true that it doesn't appear in German speaking literature. I read "Das Reich im Mittelalter" by Stefan Weinfurtner. He does mention the "deutsches Reich" or "deutsches Königreich" and "regnum teutonicum" more than once. In fact he has a whole chapter about it being different from the imperium.--MacX85 (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Be careful, there was a Kingdom of England, a sovereign state ruled by a king. The UK did not appear until about 300 years ago when it united with the Kingdom of Scotland. However, there was no equivalent "Kingdom of Germany" that was independent and sovereign; there were only German-speaking states ruled by princes of various types, but they were all part of the HRE along with other non-German speaking states. The title "King of the Romans" was used by a king elected from the German-speaking states as a precursor to being elected HRE. Italy and Arles (or Burgundy) are separate cases that need treating on their merits - don't conflate them with this issue. Bermicourt (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a kingdom of East Francia (which would be called Germany later) before there was a trinity of the kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy however brief it may have been and the idea of calling that trinity the Holy Roman Empire wasn't around from the get go. Initially the emperor was supposed to be the earthly head of all of Catholic christendom.--MacX85 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is fairly obviously a non-starter. Jenks24 (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)



Kingdom of GermanyKingdom of the East Franks – As the original mediaeval Empire was based on the Kingdom of the East Franks, it never made any sense that there would be other kingdoms inside it. This came to seem increasingly odd as the Monarchy declined and control of Italy faded. But not until the Emperor Maximilian I was a formal claim made to Germania as the kingdom that had been East Francia. Lutie (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't understand the nominator's rationale. What does it have to do with the proper title of this article? And surely the proposed new title ought to be a redirect to East Francia. —Srnec (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per request. Mootros (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, the request seems reasonable. Filpro (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is already an article about East Francia (with "Kingdom of the East Franks" as alternative name in the lead), which has some continuity and topical overlap with this article of course. Having 2 "East Frankish" articles would only increase the current dilemma - merging them might be a solution. But that would require a volunteer to completely restructure the whole content. It's a lot easier said than done, and would possibly confuse this complex topic even more. GermanJoe (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Srnec already noted, this nomination is nonsense. It's a flaw in the RM process that proposals like this have to treated seriously. Maximilian merged the Kingdom and the Empire to create the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." H. Humbert (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Once again, a request for consensus[edit]

I see that once again nothing has changed. I would like to ask Srnec and GermanJoe, is there any compromise you would agree with? Do you understand the concerns of people here? We have long tried to find a common ground in either a split, a merge, a move or even a delete, but there is no way we will achieve consensus without some willingness from your side. The issue is clear: the "Kingdom of Germany" is virtually unknown in English. Try a google search and you will find no such thing as the article describes. In all fairness, it's a rough (mis)translation of a specific German term (Deutsches Reich) with heavy implications. What takes the cake here is that even long after this period of time the English still referred to the entire Mid-Germanic region as Dutch. I simply can't comprehend why this article name would suit it. The only real obstable to a consensus so far is that we can not decide on what to move/rename it to. I'm asking you (and others) to reach out here, since plenty of people on the talk page have long voiced their disagreement with the current status of the article. You two have been active in these discussions and so invariably play a part in what comes next. I have no doubt of your good intentions and commitment, which is why I'm reopening this with a Request for Consensus on how to deal with the matter at hand.

I don't want to be the one to keep pushing this though. If nothing comes from it or consensus decides that it should remain the same, I will of course agree with this decision. Any comments are appreciated. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Those google Hits are overwhelmingly for the contemporary "micronation" "created" by "former chef and martial arts trainer ... Peter Fitzek, the 48-year-old self-proclaimed monarch of the so-called Königsreich Deutschland, or kingdom of Germany." (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in random requests for comment) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
And that is why I have also provided some more reliable sources; here is another one. By the way, if you search for "Kingdom of Germany" -wikipedia -fitzek, you can most likely get rid of those particular false positives. Any more false positives? Be creative and exclude their characteristic terms too ;) - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt there are sources mentioning it but they all struggle with the correct terminology. You have to agree there. Searching for the "Kingdom of Germany" gives the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire (of WW1), the Micronation, pretty much every -dom before there is any mention of what we describe in this article.
First of all, even though I and our texts will talk about Germany, you need to get that out of your head. There was no Germany in the sense of a nation or even a kingdom (even though there was indeed a King of the Germans). ... In turn, neither the Kingdom of Italy nor the Kingdom of Germany was much of a kingdom. Rather, these were merely titles representing a claim over a collection of powers that had managed to become more or less independent.
-Dr. E.L. Skip Knox [1] Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No, he doesn't have to agree. In fact, he might agree with me that it is you who is struggling here with correct English terminology.
I'm glad you've found one online source that backs you up. It seems, however, that Dr. Knox is struggling with terminology, since he implies that the Duchy of Burgundy, which was always French, belonged to the Empire. His map, note, says clearly "Kingdom of Germany".
If the issue is that medieval Germany is not the same thing as modern Germany, to this we can certainly all agree. Of course, medieval France isn't modern France, medieval Italy isn't modern Italy, etc. Why does it seem that only Germany trips people up? Srnec (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You are being extremely disruptive. Not once have you acknowledged a problem with this article despite years of controversy. As for your question: medieval Germany was never united. Medieval Italy comes from the Roman term Italia. Medieval France comes from Francia. Germany comes from Germania, which was something else entirely. Germany was first united in the 19th century. You are now arguing with an academic historian. WP:TRUTH. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT: I see (Latin: Regnum Teutonicum, "Teutonic Kingdom"). Is there a name in the German language for the Kingdom of Germany? Also the time range/life span of a defunct state is pretty basic to its description, it would be nice to see some sort of date for the Kingdom's beginning and its ending (if only approximate or time range) at the beginning of the lede. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

@BoogaLouie: Try Deutsches Reich as mentioned in OP. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: so: German: Deutsches Reich . Was that the name of the kingdom? Should that follow the name of the article in the lede? ("OP" ?) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@BoogaLouie: Well, in modern German it —Regnum Teutonicum— is referred to as Deutsches Reich; not sure if it was the same back then, when Latin was Europe's lingua franca (hence the Latin in the current lead). And OP=Original post=the initial RfC statement. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: @Prinsgezinde: So Regnum Teutonicum was the official name used at court and so on? Any royal crest or something with the kingdom's name? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, yes. It's probably the most precise, unambiguous term for the realm. Earlier concencus seemed to vote against it though. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
But we do not use Regnum Teutonicum because of WP:ENGLISH. Try to see things without the historio-linguistic ancestry. We are dealing here with an entity to the north of the Alps; an entity that together with Italy and Burgundy formed the Holy Roman Empire; an entity that (at least initially) was composed of duchies, whose dukes would elect a king for that entity. As evidenced in numerous archived discussions, there is a plethora of English sources that refer to this entity as the kingdom of Germany and without other attested English alternatives, "kingdom of Germany" seems like the way to go. - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the reputation of this very early Deutsches Reich mostly came from the Nazi term Drittes Reich, implying that this was the first of these Reichs. Perhaps we have to use that word after all. Apart from "Realm" there is just no good translation. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Put your concerns away. People were calling it the kingdom of Germany long before the Nazis came around. I've cited early modern books before, so I'm not going to do it again. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Who was, Srnec? You take isolated examples. Show me a historical consensus or it won't matter. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

QUESTION: @Prinsgezinde: what name for the article do you propose? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in randomly chosen requests for comment)