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.
 

Merge East Francia into Kingdom of Germany[edit]

I don't believe there is any strong objection to merging East Francia here. Srnec (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

East Francia is an older article than this one, so its fair to merge this article there. But it seems you're deliberately stalling such a move because you're afraid that the merged article's title might never change, right? Machinarium (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. This article cannot be merged to that one because then the title would be a misnomer, since nobody calls the 11th-century German kingdom "East Francia". Merging here is permissible because East Francia is sometimes called (and always recognised to be) the kingdom of Germany (in its early decades). Srnec (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Who calls East Francia in the ninth century the 'kingdom of Germany'? I've read more texts which specifically mention that it wasn't Germany. As such calling the article kingdom of Germany (which can't apply to the early centuries) isn't better than east Francia (which can't apply to the later centuries). So it shouldn't really matter. Machinarium (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
First, let me remind you again that the term "kingdom of Germany" is like "kingdom of France". The "kingdom of" part is only needed some of the time. That said, is easy to find academic sources describing East Francia or the kingdom ruled by Arnulf, Louis the Child, Conrad I, Henry I and the Ottos as "Germany". I'm not talking about a geographical or prophetic sense either. Take for instance the line "Concerning military organization of Germany under Henry I and Otto I..." (Bachrach, 17 2009, 389–419) or "Charles the Simple sent a legate to King Henry I of Germany..." (Koziol, 14 2006, 355–90), both from the pages of the journal Early Medieval Europe. One could find others. The point is that it is unheard of to call 11th-century Germany "east Francia", but it is not unheard of to call late 9th-century east Francia "Germany". That should settle any question of a merger if one is to occur. (I have refactored the comments; I hope you don't mind.) Srnec (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a big difference between when your English sources speak of 'Germany' or 'the Kingdom of Germany'. You've just shown how east Francia is indeed never called 'kingdom of Germany'. Machinarium (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
He has shown no such thing - you can't prove a negative. Here we see Janet Nelson of King's College, London, in a blurb for a book on Louis the German for Cornell University Press, referring to Louis as "the creator of a Kingdom of Germany." Here is a book review from the journal Speculum that says that Louis the German "set the foundations for the medieval Kingdom of Germany." Now, you'll see, I actually have proved that East Francia is indeed sometimes called 'kingdom of Germany', and disproved your claim above. And I refuse to accept the broader point. We accept usage of "France", at least some of the time, to the contemporary kingdom of France rather than to the modern French Republic; why is it so hard to accept that sometimes "Germany" refers to the Regnum Teutonicum? john k (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why it's called an anachronism.-Ilhador- (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Just like for example, calling Jesus a Christian is an anachronism, since he was Jewish. But sure someone can edit Wikipedia and rely on a few references (or misinterpret them) that do not correspond at all to scholarly historiography. That's what this article does, and if we'd merge this article in east Francia even more so. I asked before what the German name was for this kingdom but still haven't received one. This is a clear indication that this article doesn't correspond to German historiography. Machinarium (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
This is just outrageous goalpost moving. You said that "east Francia is indeed never called kingdom of Germany." I just provided you with several references to scholarly works that call east Francia "kingdom of Germany." Now you're demanding something else. How can we have a productive discussion when you constantly change the terms on which we're arguing? john k (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed I said that, after someone wasn't able to provide such references. And then you provided just two sources, one which speaks of a kingdom of Germany, and another which speaks of setting the foundations for one. That's not very strong. But you're right, instead of never I should have said rarely. Now you can address how and why there is no German name for this kingdom. Machinarium (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I provided just two sources that happened to come up on the first page of a google books search. I'd suspect that more examples could be found, but I was disputing your characterization that there were none. Beyond that, I have no interest in discussing whether there is a German name for this kingdom, because this is not the German Wikipedia. It is the English Wikipedia, and there is obviously an English name for it. john k (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
German sources count as well when dealing with German history. The English Wikipedia doesn't have to use English sources exclusively. If the article doesn't correspond to German sources then there is something obviously wrong. Machinarium (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
German sources can obviously be relevant, but they oughtn't be necessary when there are English sources, especially for a question of terminology. "Kingdom of Germany" is used in English sources. That German sources tend not to distinguish the German Kingdom very clearly from the Holy Roman Empire doesn't matter much, especially since this is largely an artifact of the ambiguity of the German word Reich, which does not exist in English. john k (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It does matter. It indicates there is no such thing as a kingdom of Germany in German historiography, which is exactly why I've been astonished by this article. I don't understand what the ambiguity of Reich has to do with this (which seems to have the same meaning as realm). Machinarium (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The point is that the distinction between kingdom and empire, which is perfectly natural in English, is not so natural in German, where the term Reich is generally used for both. Srnec (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You have a terrible memory, because another user and I answered your question on the German name for the medieval kingdom. And because you have received far more than a few references to a kingdom called Germany in the Middle Ages. Let me provide a few more for you to ignore. The opening line of David Bachrach's article "The Military Organization of Ottonian Germany" in The Journal of Military History, 72 (2008), goes, "The kingdom of Germany generally is considered by scholars to have been militarily the most powerful polity in the medieval West during the tenth and early eleventh centuries." Gillingham at the start of his paper on "Elective Kingship and the Unity of Medieval Germany", says in a note that "I am simply assuming that 'medieval Germany' lasted from the tenth century to the fifteenth." D. J. A. Matthew, "Reflections on the Medieval Roman Empire", History 77 (1992), writes that "the Germans took a very long time to settle for ‘national’ unity. The medieval empire was not in any sense the German nation in its medieval guise. The medieval empire was nevertheless ruled by German kings from the tenth century onwards." Srnec (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
What I meant to say was I didn't receive a German name for this kingdom because there isn't one. You went on about 'the Römisch-deutscher König and the Römisch-deutscher Kaiser which isn't a name for this kingdom, just a translation of the titles Roman-German King and Roman German Emperor. You then mentioned Deutsche Königreich which is quite rare, and as MacX85 said 'has no tradition in German historiography'. MacX85 then said 'Deutsches Reich' is used vaguely to refer to either German land or the HRE in its total, which is exactly what I was trying to say. So there we have it, a German kingdom that supposedly existed for half a millennium is nameless in German historiography.
As for you quotes, they aren't really relevant. An anachronism remains an anachronism. East Francia laid the foundations of what was going to become Germany which is why some of your references refer to it as Germany for geopolitical convenience. But there was nothing German about East Francia. A sense of German identity had its roots around the time of the investiture controversy, while East Francia had a Frankish identity. If you prefer to name East Francia "Kingdom of Germany" then you don't care very much about anachronisms. Machinarium (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why you think German identity has anything to do with this. The assumption seems to be that a German kingdom cannot exist without German national identity. I dispute this. A French kingdom existed long before French identity. The last of my three recent quotations is meant to show that Germany and the Empire were quite distinct, but also has the effect of showing that "national unity" was not the foundation of either Germany or the Empire.
I also don't know why you think that anachronism is relevant. Anachronistic terms like Kingdom of France, Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Carolingian Empire are used all the time by historians, so it wouldn't matter if the term Kingdom of Germany were anachronistic. But like the first two terms it is not all that anachronistic: it came into use relatively early and it has clear parallels from the very beginning (like Louis the German's kingdom being called Germania and Henry the Fowler's the regnum Francorum orientalium). Srnec (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to add that I do not know whether there was a German identity by the 11th century or not. I do not know when it is best to beginning speaking of a German nation. 14th century? 16th? I am not denying that there might have been a German identity as early as the 10th century. Probably there was not. I don't see that it matters at all to the question whether there was a kingdom of Germany. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I was talking about the identity of a realm, not a nation. East Francia had a Frankish identity, just like West Francia had a Frankish identity. There wasn't much difference between the two of them. The French King still had the title King of the Franks until the late 12th century, and a difference between French or Frankish was non-existent. Eastern Francia also kept a Frankish identity, also under Henry the Fowler. This changed under Otto I who went after a Roman identity (hence the title King of the Romans). It was with the Concordat of Worms that the designation regnum Teutonicum gained limited acceptance, though a Roman identity still prevailed and a Frankish identity had not yet disappeared. If we ignore this chronology and pretend that Ludwig the German was the king of Germany we'd create another anachronism and not solve anything.
As for your question on a German national identity, it was probably formed during the Renaissance humanism period like so many other identities in Europe at the time. Machinarium (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about or why it's relevant. You assert that there wasn't much a difference between East and West Francia. In what sense? The populations were not the same, did not speak the same languages, did not live in the same areas or belong to the same polity for more than a few generations (all with some exceptions, of course). What makes you think that Saxons, Lombards or Bretons had a Frankish identity? You assert that "a difference between French or Frankish was non-existent" and then that "Eastern Francia also kept a Frankish identity". Are you saying that it is correct to label Henry the Fowler's kingdom "French"? And you want to accuse me of anachronism?
The kingdom of Louis the German—you're the one spelling it Ludwig!—encompassed much of the territory of modern Germany, consisted largely of populations speaking German dialects, and was called Germania by educated contemporaries. It inhabitants bore names familiar to us today, because they are still in use: Saxons, Bavarians, Thuringians. I don't care if they self-identified as German or not. I never asked a question about German identity. Srnec (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There was not much difference between east and west Francia when it comes to the identity of the realms. The kings called themselves Franks, kept Frankish customs and often still imagined a single Frankish empire. Of course the realms grew apart from each other but this was a long process. France itself is derived from Francia, which makes it less anachronistic to talk of a kingdom of France from the time of Hugh Capet. This doesn't mean that Henry the Fowler's kingdom was French. It means that his kingdom was a Frankish kingdom, or an east Frankish kingdom. For a long time in German historiography Henry the Fowler was considered to be the first king of the German Reich, and this view sometimes still prevails in English literature. In modern German historiography this is now no longer the case. The modern view is that the German Reich wasn't created by one act, but this was a longer process in which Henry undoubtedly played an important part. If you care, the German article on Henry the Fowler (a featured article) explains this pretty well and uses a lot of citations.
Since you're still wondering why this is relevant; you wish to change the birth of a German kingdom to match the birth of East Francia, which would mean that the Treaty of Verdun created the German Reich. This view surpasses even the old historiography which places the birth of the German Reich with the rule of Henry the Fowler and is thus a major anachronism. The actual 'birth' of a German Reich, is the time from which the realm north of the alps received a German identity. This first came from outside the realm, the designation of the realm as the regnum Teutonicum, and after the Concordat of Worms was slowly accepted in the north. This all seems to be well explained in the new book by Len Scales, which you may have noted already.
I don't know what reference to Louis kingdom as Germania you're talking about, maybe you can share it with me. In any case Germania had a completely different meaning in the ninth century (meaning an ancient region) and certainly didn't have anything to do with linguistics. The first references to Germany weren't Germania but Teutonicum and Alemannia.Machinarium (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe "Germania" was commonly associated with a region of Germanic speaking peoples by the early middle ages. In a depiction in the gospels of Otto III the empire is characterized by 4 figures named Sclavina, Germania, Gallia, Roma. Afaik the Romans had no word for a region called Sclavina, plus it would have been part of the ancient region of Germania. So excluding Sclavina from Germania seems to make a difference in languages spoken there.
Louis the German was called "rex Germanorum" and "rex Germaniae" in the annals of St.Bertin
"What I meant to say was I didn't receive a German name for this kingdom because there isn't one. You went on about 'the Römisch-deutscher König and the Römisch-deutscher Kaiser which isn't a name for this kingdom, just a translation of the titles Roman-German King and Roman German Emperor. You then mentioned Deutsche Königreich which is quite rare, and as MacX85 said 'has no tradition in German historiography'. MacX85 then said 'Deutsches Reich' is used vaguely to refer to either German land or the HRE in its total, which is exactly what I was trying to say. So there we have it, a German kingdom that supposedly existed for half a millennium is nameless in German historiography."
I gave you several contemporary names, like "Germania" "Teutonia" "Alemannia", or "regnum Teutonicum" "regnum Germaniae" and the like as well as German terms in Early modern times "Teutschland" "Deutschland" "Dutschelant" "Germanien". All of these appear as synonyms. I only found 1 contempary example of the combination of "Königreich" and "Deutschland" from 1621. The exact wording is "das hochgeehrte Königreich Teutschland mit dem Römischen Kayserethumb". While this combination of "kingdom" and "Germany" didn't seem to be very common in the German language there was no confusion about a "regnum Germania" and its translation as "Deutschland".--MacX85 (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There's enough examples of Germania referring to an ancient region east of the Rhine, and not specifically to a German kingdom. This slowly changed around the thirteenth / fourteenth century but even until very late Germania could still be associated with a far greater region. The gospels of Otto III indeed differentiated between Germania and Sclavinia (though Germania here must have included Scandinavia). In any case before the existence of the HRE Germania certainly didn't just refer to the east Frankish kingdom. Louis was indeed named rex Germanorum which is why we refer to him as the German. This doesn't mean that east Francia and Germania were the same entity. The annals of St. Bertin were written in west Francia, and they named Louis German because he ruled land east of the Rhine. That doesn't mean he ruled all of Germania', it was just his name. Louis was still a Frank, his kingdom was still Frankish. East Frankish sources confirm this. The first references to Germany as we know it today were made sometime later in the 12th century (as Teutonicum and Alemannia) an were used alongside(!) east Francia. Machinarium (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your second response, I'm not disputing that German historiography makes use of Germany and its synonyms, but I do dispute that it considers this Germany to be a kingdom autonomous from the HRE. Or that Germany supposedly predates the HRE. Machinarium (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware "Louis the German" is a modern historian's term. And the Fulda annals use Germania in the exact same way, as I've said before.
You have this odd idea that if the king was Frankish then the kingdom can't be German. Or if it were German, it couldn't be Frankish. Do you really think these categories are so exclusive? This discussion is not about "Germany as we know it today", but rather Germany as it was back then. "Germany as we know it today" does not include, e.g., Austria. Numerous English sources have been cited showing that "kingdom of Germany", and just "Germany", are used by reliable sources in English to refer to East Francia and to a part of the Holy Roman Empire from the 9th century on. That is enough. Why don't you think it is? Srnec (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Because it's anachronistic, based on few sources (many haven't been interpreted properly) and because it doesn't correspond to German historiography. I wouldn't mind if this article would be edited in such a way that it describes how the realm north of the alps in the HRE was to become known as Germany. The problem here is that the article pretends that it happened before the concordat of worms, and before the formation of the HRE. Also the realm was most certainly known as both east Francia and a German kingdom, I never said that was impossible. Like for example Otto Freising used both east Francia and regnum Teutonicorum in his texts. It's just that this happened a lot later than you seem to think. Anyway a new book has been published on this exact subject by Len Scales and I'm trying to obtain it. I hope this could solve the dispute. Machinarium (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
So, the name changed with the time. Same for the kingdom of Italy that was known as the "regnum langobadorum" in the 10th century, and same with France that was known as the "regnum francorum" until 13th century when it was named "regnum franciae". Seems to be a normal thing.--MacX85 (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
This article is about "the realm north of the Alps in the HRE" whatever it was called and whatever it is called. Historians call it the kingdom of Germany. It does not matter if that is anachronistic. Srnec (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You miss the point. It depends on what time-span the article deals with. Historians call it east Francia in the first few centuries more often. German historians do so exclusively and medieval sources do so exclusively as well. Machinarium (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
On a naming issue, the only important question is what reliable sources in English call it. German sources and medieval sources are irrelevant to such a determination. And while, certainly "East Francia" is more common for the first century or so after Verdun, "Germany" or "Kingdom of Germany" is very frequently used for that period as well (and your constant dismissal of any usage of "Germany" as possibly meaning "Kingdom of Germany" is tiresome). On the other hand, nobody, talking about the 11th or 12th century, talks about East Francia. If we're going to merge the two articles, it's obvious that the title should be "Kingdom of Germany," because that can be and is used for the whole history of the kingdom, while "East Francia" is not. john k (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Your constant argument that "Germany" is the same as "Kingdom of Germany" is whats tiresome. And so is your argument that German sources are irrelevant. Also in the 11th and 12th century the kingdom was also known as East Francia. In any case enlarging the greatness of "kingdom of Germany" by adding an additional few centuries to it baffles me, and I can't agree with merging the two articles. It would confuse things even more. In English literature "East Francia" / "Eastern Frankish kingdom" is still used a lot more than "kingdom of Germany / "German Kingdom", so I would generally oppose not calling it this way before and during the beginning of the high middle ages. Machinarium (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I have never said that "Germany" is the same as "Kingdom of Germany." I have said that some usages of "Germany" refer to the "Kingdom of Germany," which ought to be close to self-evident if you accept that some historians do talk about the "Kingdom of Germany." And please give an example of a historian who refers to Frederick Barbarossa or Henry IV or any other Salian or Hohenstaufen monarch as King of East Francia. For Conrad III of Germany, for instance, one of the few rulers in that period who was never crowned emperor, I can find lots of sources that call him "King of Germany" or "German King," including Britannica, and none that call him "King of East Francia." Britannica also describes Conrad as "Regent of Germany" during Henry V's journey to Italy - do you suppose that when Britannica uses "Germany" here they are referring to Germania in the broad sense that includes Scandinavia, to the modern Federal Republic, or to the Regnum Teutonicum? john k (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
A reference to East Francia as "Germany" does not immediately mean an encyclopedia should pretend there is no difference between the two of them. Just like when in literature ancient Germania is named "Germany" for convenience sake it doesn't suddenly mean Germania = Germany. Regarding your second question, when I said "In the 11th and 12th century the kingdom was also known as East Francia" I was talking about medieval sources. I already know you consider this irrelevant. Machinarium (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
What bugs me the most about merging east Francia into kingdom of Germany is that it would make any reference to East Francia redundant on the whole English Wikipedia, even though historians use it a lot more often than Kingdom of Germany. Machinarium (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Even a medieval source that calls Barbarossa the King of East Francia would be of some merit, although not dispositive. And are you admitting that no modern historians refer to the Salian and Hohenstaufen state as "East Francia"? Isn't that meaningful? Beyond that, you are of course ignoring, as you always do, that the most common name used by historians for this kingdom is neither "East Francia" nor "Kingdom of Germany" but "Germany". Ignoring usages of "Germany" where "Germany" is obviously used to mean the Regnum Teutonicum is the only way East Francia comes out on top. When historians write histories of "medieval Germany" the frame of reference is usually the Regnum Teutonicum. There are numerous, numerous references to Kings of Germany, regents of Germany, to Germany as a component of the Holy Roman Empire alongside Italy and Burgundy, and so forth. The argument here is not that "Kingdom of Germany" is the most common term for the subject of this article. "Germany" is the most common term for the subject of this article, but because we need to disambiguate the subject of this article from later states also called "Germany" we should disambiguate by using "Kingdom of Germany." I don't understand why such a merge would make references to East Francia redundant. It should still be the primary name used for the Carolingian period, whatever happens. Finally, any English name for a medieval state is a term of convenience. And you are begging the question by assuming that any reference to a medieval "Kingdom of Germany" is "really" a reference to East Francia. "Germany" is obviously a term with a number of different meanings. However, one of those meanings is, in fact, a synonym (more or less) for East Francia. john k (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about Barbarossa, you're the one who mentions him. The realm was in a transitional phase in the early 12th century, losing its Frankish identity and gaining its German identity (after the concordat of worms). This page explains some of it for you if you care [1]. Again there's a difference between using Germany for reference sake or as an official name for a kingdom. Just like references to ancient Germania as "Germany" doesn't suddenly mean we should pretend that they are the same. East Francia was pretty much THE official name for the kingdom before the HRE. Interestingly you say East Francia should still be the primary name for the Carolingian period. So why not keep the article? I guess what should be done first is simply expand both these articles first and work out at what point East Francia can no longer be called East Francia. If you believe this is when the Carolingian period ended fine, but there's enough evidence that this happened later. If we merge the two articles to "kingdom of Germany" it would look ultra-weird. Just imagine how it would have to start with something like "The Kingdom of Germany existed since the Treaty Verdun in 843, but became known as such three centuries later". Machinarium (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to keep both the articles. My main concern was not to merge this article into East Francia. Merging East Francia here or having two articles both seem like acceptable solutions to me. Having one article, East Francia, that deals with the kingdom in the Carolingian and perhaps the Saxon period, and another Kingdom of Germany, that largely focuses on the kingdom's history as one of the components of the Holy Roman Empire, seems appropriate to me. And I think the first sentence of a merged article would be something along the lines of "The Kingdom of Germany, also known in its early years as East Francia...", with no particular need to mention that "Kingdom of Germany" didn't appear until later in the introduction. john k (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with having two articles, although I think that East Francia should be a sub-article of this one. There should be a summary section about it here, with a main article hatnote. Srnec (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be clarified what the Latin word "regnum" actually means. It does not necessarily translate with "kingdom". It can be some kind of realm with some kind of ruler. Around 860 for example a German monk named Otfrid von Weissenburg wrote a poem in which he praises Louis the German, King of the Eastern Franks. You can find the poem here. The poem, written in Old High German, bears the Latin superscription:
LUDOVVICO ORIENTALIUM REGNORUM REGI SIT SALUS AETERNA. 
"Ludowico orientalium regnorum regi" translates with to Louis king of the eastern realms. "orientalium regnorum" is the plural form of gen.sg. "orientalis regni". The plural form shows that the writer had several realms in mind. Those realms of the king were Franconia, Bavaria, Thuringia and Saxonia, with Franconia headed by a king as being the eastern part of the since 843 divided Frankish realm. So there was e.g. a "regnum Bavariae" because the Bavarians had their own laws, different from those in Franconia or Thuringia, but there was in the beginning no king of Bavaria. Later on Louis appointed one of his sons as a (sub-)king there. You can perhaps compare this with England and Wales. Wales has been ruled by the English kings for a long time, but Wales never became part of England.
Furthermore should not be forgotten that in 843 the power within the "Regnum Francorum" had been divided in three parts, the "Regnum Francorum Occidentalium", the "Regnum Francorum Orientalium" and til 870 the "Regnum Lotharii". (e.g. Latin wp:here)
In my opinion the translation "Regnum Francorum" as "Kingdom of France" is responsable for a part of the confusion. It gives the wrong impression that there had been only one Frankish kingdom left and that is more or less France. (See here: West_Francia). However the West Frankish Kingdom and the East-Frankish Kingdom are the predecessors of France and Germany, while Benelux and Switzerland are more or less the successors of the "Regnum Lotharii". The East-Frankish Kingdom became later one of the "regni" in the HRE but there has never been a "Kingdom of Germany" like a "Kingdom of France" or "Kingdom of Sweden". "Regnum Teutonicum" was nothing else but another name for the East-Frankish Kingdom. Inside the "Regnum Teutonicum" you could e.g. find the "Regnum Bavariae" and so on. The meaning of the Latin word "regnum" depends on the subject.--Eusc (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a legacy from the 19th century german historiography, which distorced the facts to legitimize the newly created german empire. Moagim (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you cite one historian who makes that claim? Srnec (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
@Eusc All a matter of definition, what a kingdom is and the early German kingdom complied more with the criteria of a kingdom than in England or in France. Naturally, in neither case we can compare them with modern states. Regarding "Regnum Bavariae": When did it exist and who were the kings? Regarding Benelux and Switzerland: Why do you think, they were more or less the successors of the "Regnum Lotharii"? Maybe, this is a certain Dutch view or wish. But the "Regnum Lotharii" was divided between the eastern and the western kingdom and these modern states are in no way any continuation of this old middle kingdom.Henrig (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it. Yes, "regnum teutonicum" was nothing else but another name for East Francia. So, what exactly made it less of a kingdom than the Kingdom of France? There has been a traditional kingship (with changing titles) within this German/East Frankish kingdom. The HRE had another tradition. These were 2 concepts that overlapped each other. For example if the "Regnum Italiae" would have split from the HRE and no German king had ever been crowned emperor again, there would still have been a "kingdom of Germany" without any empire to encompass it all.
As for Bavaria, I believe it was refered to as "regnum" in the Carolingian age sometimes. That might have been because before it was part of the Frankish kingdom it was a kingdom (for the lack of a better word) for itself. There was no superior ruler. However, in the course of the High Middle Ages it was referred to as duchy which cannot be said for Germany.--MacX85 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Current situation: Ready for merger[edit]

Hello dear contributors, I would like to ask what the current situation is, assuming that we are ready for merger as outlined and thoroughly discussed above. Mootros (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There are no citations at East Francia. I wouldn't oppose just redirecting that title here and boosting the section on that timeframe (840–962) in this article. Srnec (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
No sense to ratify this wiki concept. Moagim (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Srnec and Moagim. Done! If any worries please use talk here and not over there. Mootros (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Procedural question[edit]

I for one don't like the idea of lumping eveything under Kingdom of Germany. East Francia is quite a distinct concept. But my question is, were the WP:MERGE guidelines followed? Has anyone used the {{Merge}} template to propose first and start the discussion? --Codrin.B (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Yes, guidelines were followed, in as much this move is a result of a lengthy discussion on this page. It is a pragmatic solution to a year long problem, as perusing the archive will reveal. Again, many thanks for your kind consideration and procedural concerns. Mootros (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Article should be abolished[edit]

This is such a confusing article. I still don't know when the tile of "King of Germany" is used, and which geographical region the title refers to. Is this tile used along with "King of Italy"? What is the difference between "King of Germany" and "King of Romans"? I don't mind editors use Latin or German words to explain this question.--111.206.128.140 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no difference between "King of Germany" and "King of Romans"; in German: "Römisch-deutscher König" (Rex Francorum, Rex Romanorum, Germaniae Rex). --IIIraute (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Two-thirds of the article is taken up with explaining that there never was a Kingdom of Germany, which leaves the reader asking why the article exists at all. It's not unless the reader looks at the Talk pages and finds these years of erudite debate about whether this kingdom existed and what it should be called that he or she will understand the problem. But of course we can't expect readers to do that. I'm inclined to think this article raises more questions than it answers, and that it therefore serves no useful purpose for Wikipedia readers. It should be abolished and the history of Germany in this period dealt with under History of Germany and Holy Roman Empire. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is basically the work of a single editor and his POV views. Hóseás (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
That editor probably has the same POV as Horst Fuhrmann. I was reading his Germany in the High Middle Ages, c. 1050–1200 (a Cambridge Medieval Textbook) and he assumes the existence of the kingdom of Germany throughout. Srnec (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm making a serious proposal to abolish this article. As the years of debate around this article's title show, contributors who are expert in this field cannot agree on whether a Kingdom of Germany ever existed. In the absence of consensus, surely the "negative hypothesis" should be adopted. I don't believe there is anything in this article which could not be happily accommodated in History of Germany, East Francia and History of the Holy Roman Empire. Could we get some comments on this? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this proposal. +1 from me! --Creihag (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no doubt a kingdom of Germany existed. Those contributors who think it did not are far from "expert in this field". Does Intelligent Mr Toad have anything to bring to the table? A source, perhaps? "+1" is not usually how discussion is conducted. Srnec (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
So you think you are the only "expert in this field" whose arguments should matter? .. no comment to that amount of arrogance. Simply have a look to the top of this page, there is more than enough doubt. A redirect of kingdom of Germany to History of Germany would be totally sufficient and extremely less confusing.
As for my "+1", please do also scroll up and see my posts of within the last two years. There is no need for me to repeat myself over and over again, I'm supporting the abolishment of this article. Creihag (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Srnec, of course there is "doubt a kingdom of Germany existed" - why else would there have been years of debate about the point here? I don't claim at all to be an expert in this field, and I am not entering the debate about whether there was or was not a Kingdom of Germany. My point is that there is no consensus among those who are experts in the field, and it's pretty obvious no consensus is going to be achieved. As I noted, a large part of the article is taken up with this issue. If I go to Denmark, I don't expect to find a long debate about whether Denmark ever existed. I have suggested that one way to solve this problem is to abolish this article and to transfer its useful content to other articles, so that nothing of value is lost, and a long and tedious debate can be concluded. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"My point is that there is no consensus among those who are experts in the field". I disagree. Among editors there is no consensus. Among experts there is no debate. (There's scores of debates, of course, about the nature of pre-modern Germany and the Empire, but I don't think there is any debate about whether the kingdom known in English as "Germany" existed or not. You can see another editor thinks France didn't exist before the late 12th century at Talk:Kingdom of France. What do you say to that? I call it extremely pedantic.) Srnec (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The same editor always blocks any advance over the article name despite being always in minority and going against consensus. Hóseás (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I meant of course that there is no consensus here about the question. Why don't you address the point I'm making instead of trying to be clever? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Why would you say "consensus among those who are experts in the field" if that's not what you meant? And then accuse me of "trying to be clever"? As far as I know, the only person who has entered this debate who claims to have a PhD in history is User:John K. You can read his comments above. I agree with them entirely. Srnec (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 1#Last King of Scotland. Just because a man claims a title it does not automatically mean that the state exists. I still think that this article would be better off under the title King of the Germans. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything here besides pure assertion. The only reason this constantly gets argued about on Wikipedia, while nobody cares about the use of Kingdom of France for the same time period, is that the Kingdom of Germany, on the one hand, collapsed into feudal near-anarchy, and, on the other, became subsumed within the broader conception of the Holy Roman Empire. This, along with late 19th century German nationalist propaganda, means that a lot of people think they "know" that there was no such political entity as "Germany" before 1871. But this simply isn't true, and nobody has pointed to any actual reliable sources which say anything of the kind. john k (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Which isn't to say that this article isn't bad. But one reason it is bad is that everyone who thinks it's bad uses that to argue that it should be deleted, rather than actually improving what is a perfectly reasonable topic for an article. john k (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, John, but my point is that you and various others have been arguing this question now for at least five years, and there is no consensus. I've read some of the debate, and it's not a case of one side being obviously right and the other side a lot of ignorant trolls. There are good arguments on both sides. Clearly, there is never going to be agreement. My question to you, therefore, is: other than pride, what reason is there for continuing the argument? Why not just abolish this article, and distribute whatever useful content it has (which isn't much) to other articles such as East Francia? We are, after all, only discussing a period of 74 years, between the death of Karl III in 888 and the coronation of Otto I in 962. What would be lost? This is the course taken by the German Wikipedia, which I assume is not edited by people entirely ignorant of German history. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The article certainly should not only cover a period of 74 years. The Kingdom of Germany continued to exist after 962 as a component kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire, and its existence is meaningful at least to the end of the Hohenstaufen period, if not longer. Officially, it existed until the very end of the Reich. The current article does a bad job of dealing with this, obviously, but that's neither here nor there to whether the article should exist. I'd also add that I tend to disagree that there are good arguments on the other side, but then I would. john k (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen any serious argument about whether such a kingdom existed. It obviously did. I see a certain argument concerning the name of the kingdom in English which I can understand and is solely attributed to its use in English literature. The kingdom has sometimes been called "Germania" or "Teutonia" "Alamania" and the like. The official king's title from 1508 onwards was "rex Germaniae" and stayed in use until 1806. Denying the existence of the concept of different kingdoms within the HRE (Germany among them) sounds to me highly ridiculous. I don't even know why you would do that.--MacX85 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides in that argument, I'm trying to suggest a procedure for ending this long-running argument. I point out again that the German Wikipedia does not have an article corresponding to this one. So you can't really argue that it's essential to have it. It would be easy to incorporate this article's useful information into other articles. I ask again: what would be lost? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Valuable distinctions would be lost. The Holy Roman Empire is confusing enough when folks aren't conflating it with Germany. As for the "History of" articles, they are inevitably overview articles, lacking in precision, but very wide in scope. This is a sub-article of History of Germany. Srnec (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
a better name for the article would be a better start. Hóseás (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
...exempli gratia...? --IIIraute (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Kingdom of the East Franks, Germania or Kingdom of the Germans, anything would be better. Hóseás (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
No, no, no! This just restarts the debate about whether there was or was not a Kingdom of Germany. My intervention is an attempt to end that debate, not restart it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The idea that abolishing this article is somehow a compromise is absurd. john k (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
... while it's useful information gets incorporated into the other articles about this topic. It's a great idea! Creihag (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So it looks like we'll finally abolish this article that is based on a narrow and selective reading of some sources while ignoring copious others. Mootros (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

kindom of germany vs. east francia[edit]

i would very much object to merging east francia into kingdom of germany. it should raise doubts or at least suspicions that there is no equivalent term in the very country we're talking about: in germany, not even close: no königreich deutschland or deutsches königreich, and certailny not deutsches reich. one cannot swipe that asside just because this is "english" wikipedia. this deserves scrutiny. if there was the slightest merit in kingdom of germany, german nationalists would have certainly jumped on it. after all, the proponents of the kingdom would be confirming, that, god forbid!, the low countries were part of germany. nevertheless, i want to point out a number of questions and inconsistancies:

The Kingdom of Germany (also referred to as the German Kingdom; Latin Regnum Teutonicum) developed out of the eastern half of the former Carolingian Empire.

shouldn't it say "developed out of east francia"?

Like medieval England and France, it began as "a conglomerate, an assemblage of a number of once separate and independent... gentes [peoples] and regna [kingdoms]."

the comparison to england and france is a bit far-fetched. acutally, the areas of the stem duchies and the low countries were not independent and had already been incorporated under charlemagne.

East Francia was formed in embryo by the Treaty of Verdun in 843, and was ruled by the Carolingian dynasty until 911, ...

was east francia formed "in embryo" by this treaty or was it the kingdom? or was east francia the embryo of the kingdom? if east francia was ruled by a certain dynasty until 911, when was the kingdom born?

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

how could such a term as "kingdom of germany", if ever used, be dropped, if it continued to exist, and why?

After the Reichsreform and Reformation settlement, the German part of the Holy Roman Empire was divided into Reichskreise (imperial circles), which effectively defined Germany against imperial Italy and the Bohemian Kingdom.

the "german part" ... was devided ... - suddenly the term "kingdom" disappears? was it still there. when the netherlands became independet from the hrr, was it also necessary to declare independence from the kingdom?Sundar1 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is basically a mess. Its history section didn't explain nothing about the subject in question, instead revolves around other topics as east francia , steam duchies or whatever. It's Terminology section cannot even concludes if this kingdom existed or not. But of course any attempt to solve this situation will be blocked editors claiming "consensus", despite the fact that there isn't any consensus if this existed or not. Ruddah (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
[I]t should raise doubts or at least suspicions that there is no equivalent term in the very country we're talking about: in germany, not even close: no königreich deutschland or deutsches königreich, and certailny not deutsches reich.
Horst Fuhrmann's Germany in the High Middle Ages is translated from German by Timothy Reuter. He uses "German kingdom" and "kingdom of Germany" liberally. He always distinguishes the empire and the kingdom in his period (1050–1200), which does not overlap with the period of "East Francia".
[S]houldn't it say "developed out of east francia"[?]
The kingdom of Germany and East Francia are the same thing, like the kingdom of France and West Francia.
[T]he comparison to england and france is a bit far-fetched. acutally, the areas of the stem duchies and the low countries were not independent and had already been incorporated under charlemagne.
The comparison with France is spot-on. England less so. In fact, all the stem duchies had been Merovingian vassal states prior to the Carolingians. The sentence is poorly worded and I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "separate and independent" in this context.
[W]as east francia formed "in embryo" by this treaty or was it the kingdom? or was east francia the embryo of the kingdom? if east francia was ruled by a certain dynasty until 911, when was the kingdom born?
There is no difference between East Francia and the kingdom of Germany. It's just that terminology shifts over time (German Empire → Weimar Republic → Third Reich). Maybe this isn't clear in the article.
[H]ow could such a term as "kingdom of germany", if ever used, be dropped, if it continued to exist, and why?
Terminology changes. Propaganda. The term "King of Germany" was resuscitated in the 15th century and used down to the end of the Empire in 1806. Germany was also a distinct part of the Empire. The sentence should be reworded, and the word "titulature" dropped.
the "german part" ... was devided ... - suddenly the term "kingdom" disappears? was it still there. when the netherlands became independet from the hrr, was it also necessary to declare independence from the kingdom?
Always plunking "kingdom of" in front of Germany would be awkward. We don't do that with England and France in the Middle Ages. Why Germany? However, the term "kingdom of Germany" was not widely used at this point. This is the "titulature" the other sentence speaks about dropping. The case of Dutch independence is quite complicated. It was never declared by the Dutch nor accepted by the Empire.
Ruddah, you are free to edit the article as you see fit. Just use reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What is this? -- One of Wikipedia's few oddities[edit]

Don't you think, that if Kingdom of Germany was really a thing, there would be an article about it in the german wikipedia? Yes, the Holy Roman Empire is complicated but there never was a Kingdom of Germany. Why hasn't there already been a deletion proposal? --Xario (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted! It's one of Wikipedia's few oddities. You're not the only person who thinks like this. Unfortunately a small band of vocal editors hold this article ransom and carefully play the diversity of different opinions* against each other. *Should be merged with HRE, or East Francia, or converted into an overview of the historiographical concept KoG that is sometimes used by English speaking historians, or just deleted.
Your input is appreciated. Mootros (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There hasn't been a deletion proposal because. . . I don't know. I would oppose it, of course, but I have no idea why the many editors who have confidently and categorically proclaimed that the subject of this article never existed (like you) have never taken it to AFD. Perhaps they think the many reliable sources by leading scholars would mislead uninvolved editors into opposing the deletion.
Perhaps, Xario, you could explain more clearly why the Germans' lack of an article is relevant? Or Mootros, what the "historiographical concept" is meant to encompass if not an actual kingdom? Srnec (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's shorthand for the different entities such as EF and HRE. It's convenient because it gets you around having to agree when one started the other finished for example. Best to read the archive, or even to article's older version that were consistently purged of such "irrelevant" information. Mootros (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "East Francia" just morphs into "Germany" in historiography, as "West Francia" becomes "France" and "Asturias" becomes "León". Are you saying that the term "kingdom of Germany", when it is used, is used as a synonym for "Holy Roman Empire"? I think that's preposterous—it is used in contrast with HRE. Srnec (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying this. It's mostly used for the "in-between time" and definitely not when the HRE is historiographically well defined. Mootros (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
So why do you think it is inappropriate to have an article covering Germany during that "in-between time", when Anglophone historians call it a kingdom? Srnec (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We've been here before. It's a selective and skewed reading of 19/20th century sources even among Anglophone historians. No one ever has questioned that there was a King of the Germans, but it's highly questionable --to the point of doubtful-- that there was a coherent socio-political entity called KoG except in historiographical terminology. Nothing wrong with that, but the article is not about this. Mootros (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
D. A. Warner (2010), "Rituals, Kingship and Rebellion in Medieval Germany", History Compass, 8: 1209–20, writes, "First, although the question remains subject to debate, it is generally agreed that the history of the medieval kingdom of Germany begins in the tenth century. . ."
Robert Plumer Ward, in An Enquiry Into the Foundation and History of the Law of Nations in Europe (1795), on pp. 440–41, has this to say: "The Empire of Rome and Kingdom of Germany are still in existence as such. [The German Monarch is] titled not Emperor of Germany as is vulgarly supposed, but elected Roman Emperor and King of Germany." In a footnote he adds that the Pope decreed "that Maximilian and his successors should style themselves elected Roman Emperors, which with the reassumed title of King of Germany, has been the custom ever since."
Can you cite any sources in favour of your understanding of what "kingdom of Germany" properly means? Srnec (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You are basically talking about the King of the Romans, right?! In German you always say "roman german". And as stated before, you can not deduce the existence of a Kingdom of Germany from that title. --Xario (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
"Roman-German" is more anachronistic than the terms objected to! The term rex teutonicorum is contemporary with rex romanorum. But who's deducing a kingdom of Germany? As Warner says, "it is generally agreed". Srnec (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Verbatim quote of article passage (including sound sources) that was conveniently removed because it contradicts the narrow and highly selective view that some editor here maintain:

[1] The British historian James Bryce stated that the five or six tribes which elected the King did not called themselves German but East Frankish and lawful representative of the Carolingian dynasty[1]. "In the ninth century the kingdom was normally called 'the kingdom of the Eastern Franks', though its Frankish component was very much a minority interest."[2] According to the British-German historian Timothy Reuter, the "standard royal title in the mid-tenth centry was simply Otto dei gratia rex, 'Otto by the grace of God king'".[2] Others note the ruler’s standard title simply as rex at the time.[3]

  1. ^ a b The Holy Roman Empire By James Bryce
  2. ^ a b Timothy Reuter "The Making of England and Germany, 850-1050" in Medieval Europeans: studies in ethnic identity and national perspectives in medieval Europe (ed) Alfred P. Smyth, Palgrave Macmillan (1998), p. 64
  3. ^ Gillingham (1991), p. 124

Mootros (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's Bryce, p. 132: "Of the German kingdom little need be said, since it differs in no essential respect from the other kingdoms of Western Europe as they stood in the tenth century. The five or six great tribes or tribe-leagues which composed the German nation ... were prevented from separating by community of speech and a common pride in the great Frankish Empire."
You didn't finish Reuter's sentence: ". . . or else it was called ‘Germany’ (Germania), which in a ninth-century context was a reminiscence of the terminology of late antiquity, not an anticipation of a later identity." Srnec (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, you're narrowly reading the sources. Both author make a point that none of the people called themselves Germans and that at the time there was no beast called KoG. They use the term as a historiographical shorthand for something that did not really have a name as such, possibly except for the Latin designator Germania. Mootros (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Who cares if it had a name? Historians have named it, and we have an article on it. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what WP is all about. This particular name represents a narrow view of some English speaking historians, who use this as technical jargon. Other English speaking historians don't use it and the rest of the people around the world have never hear of it. It's highly controversial to say the lest. Hence the fact this talk page has grown enormously over the years and you don't seem to be interested in a sensible compromise. Mootros (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There was a German kingdom in the Middle Ages. This is agreed upon by historians of every nationality, including German ones. This is not about the popularity of the string of words "kingdom of Germany"—although that string of words is neither rare nor controversial, and you've provided nothing to show otherwise. Nobody opposed to this move has. They've made assumptions from inadequate readings or misunderstandings, and are blustering from there.
Since you appear to know German, perhaps you can read Müller-Mertens' work on the regnum teutonicum and tell me what his conclusions are. I have access to it, but not to enough of the German language. Then we might have a real debate. Srnec (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's generally agreed that there was a kingdom and according to Bryce it's called Kingdom of the Eastern Franks. I can already see from Müller-Mertens's title where this is going Aufkommen und Verbreitung der deutschen Reichs- und Königsauffassung im früheren Mittelalter i.e. the elected king had a unique role for the five / six tribes, which together cannot be assumed a coherent socio-political entirety. It's not without reason that he treads his analysis of the emerging understanding of empire and king together. Mootros (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is why this is pointless. You ignore the title of the book—Regnum Teutonicum, it's in big letters on the cover—and focus on the subtitle (in English "Emergence and Spread of the German Conception of Empire [Reich] and King in the Early Middle Ages"), which you bizarrely interpret to mean that the book is about the king's "unique role for the five / six tribes, which together cannot be assumed a coherent socio-political entirety". How do you get that from Königsauffassung? You have no better idea what he says than I do, but you don't even think you need to read the book! No wonder you think most historians are on your side—you couldn't find even one work with "The Coherent Socio-political Kingdom of Germany" in the subtitle! Srnec (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is a paper by Müller-Mertens (in German). Perhaps you can find some juicy quotes in it.
Robert von Friedeburg, in his essay "Origins of Modern Germany" in The Oxford Handbook of Modern German History, writes: "As the historian Eckhard Müller-Mertens has demonstrated, we can no longer assume a conflation of the Roman Empire and the German Kingdom over time, or an increasing Germanness of the whole, precipitated by the gradual shrinkage of the Italian and Burgundian dimension of Imperial power and a subsequent increasing identificatio of the remaining Empire with German-speaking lands." [capitalization original] If I had a better grasp of German, I could find out what exactly Müller-Mertens has said. Srnec (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for posting the link to article. Step in the right direction! I'll try to read this. Mootros (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)