Talk:Franks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

photo with clovis

In fact, in the photo in the paragraph about Christianity the statue is not in Cathedral of Reims but in Abbey of Saint-Remi in Reims. Can you correct it please ? sorry for my poor english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by moi 12:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

JHK's removals

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

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

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

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

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

--- Came by to look something up and noticed that this was still here. I've seen this map before, or something very close, in a copyrighted source. Since no one has explained where it is from (sincerely doubting French gov't), removed the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.72.209 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2002‎ (UTC)

Clovis and Romulus Augustus

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

Feel free to convince me that I'm wrong. llywrch 23:37, 31 October 2002‎ (UTC)

I'm sort of offended by these pro scientists

Ok, there is no biological evidence stating the potential lifespan of a human. 1. there is no disproof of immortality and historic documents time and time again mention people who live well beyond the current average lifespan of most humans" Science is theory not truth. There is no evidence stating that humans are confined to 150 years of life, or 120 or whatever that age may be. The DNA structures and the aedile form, could also have been effected by cosmic radiation or otherwise. Immortality because it is beyond the capacities of modern science doesn't make it 'biologically nonsensical' it also does not mean that it is not biologically possible. Trees live for many many years, and other life forms potentially have long lives. So biological nonsense it is not. Also there is nothing to say that a healthy human life cannot be extended. To say myth is false because it ain't happening now is ignorant. There is no disproof of past occurance. So why say it didn't happen that way if you can only lend on scientific "evididence" which isn't whole or complete final in any sense, and comes from unproovable theories, and instead rest on experimental norms of a "sample group" which isn't necisarily represenative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.58.55 (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Humans took the form they have now long before the Franks came into existence - there is nothing to suggest that humans were able to live for a thousand years back then. Anyway much more important things need citation than that statement. Graham87 03:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer (from guest): Who cares? Everything has an end. understanding science is a matter of IQ. I agree that God exists, but I totally disagree that humans can live forever. It is against the laws of nature, humans are powered by the heart --a muscle. Muscles, like car engines, can not live forever. they get used up and work with reduced efficiency until they stop (which is a short time). We don't care if you are afraid of death.

Arianism among Frankish people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fringii

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

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

It's Frigii, it's from Fredegar and is almost certainly mythical, I'll include it in the section on the Trojan Legend of the Franks which I'm writing. --Ethan Hoddes 01:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Charles Martel; Clovis and Arianism

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

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

Handofzarquon 04:11, 18 July 2004 (UTC)

Belgium/Netherlands; homeland

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

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

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

I think too that this article forget Belgium and the Netherlands. I learn at school that the capital at the start of the Franks was Tournai, Belgian city. But like Marcov, i don't have the knowledge to correct the data.

Yes, its curious that 4 of 5 of the original major towns of Austrasia(Frankish territory in 481) are within Belgica(Roman Belgica). Belgica was a Germanic province(with Celtic culutral links). The original core of the Franks must have been Lower Germanic speaking people with a common culture, as was the case in Belgica. The Franks were really the same people as the earlier Belgae. The primary tribe of the Franks were the Salii who first conquered Roman Belgica under Clovis, before uniting with their Germanic neigbours to the East. The Salii were a Lower Germanic people, the ancestors of today's Dutch. All this points to the Franks being primarily a lower Germanic people, part of the Nordwestblock --92.3.214.195 (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Marca hispanica

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

Ripuarian

Changed the oddly spelled Riparian to correctly spelled Ripuarian and moved/redirected, fixed links. JHK 04:18, 19 January 2005‎ (UTC)

Shimmin's edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I read here...

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

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

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

Request for references

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

Royal Frankish Annals

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

Franks - disambiguation required?

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

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

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

Empire

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

"Franks" today

With all respect to this article and the great history of the Frankish people the article is missing the the fact that Franks are still alive today! The intro says "The Franks WERE" ... there are still people that call themselves "Franks" (namely the inhabitants of Franconia). Living people should be mentioned first - and then history! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.161.113 (talk • contribs) .

Calling yourself something doesn't neccesarely make you something.Germans living in Bavaria aren't Franks. Sander 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Their land is called "Franken" their culture dialect identity political administration is called "Fränkisch" and this has been the case since they startede to exist! Everybody in Central Europe sees them like that and YOU want to tell me they are not?

They sure are "Franks", but this is not equal to the Germanic tribe. Modern Franks are ethnical Germans. Just like modern Saxons aren't the same as the ancient Saxon tribes.--MacX85 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Trojan Legend of the Franks

I'm going to write a section on the legend of the Trojan origin of the Franks. I've already got the Liber Historiae Francorum, and I'll get a copy of the relevant sections of Fredegar out of the library on Wednesday. Does anyone have any idea what to make of the bizarre chronology in the LHF. Did they actually believe that their were only six generations between the fall of Troy and the reign of Childeric, or is there some other explanation? --Ethan Hoddes 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You may have already proceeded further along with the Trojan origin myth of the Franks, but in case you do still want some information, the major concern of the writer of the Liber Historiae Francorum was to reiterate a connection, not to make it logistically correct. No writer's work previous to that of Fredegar proposed such an origin, but of course it was the most popular origin story for several cultures, not just the Franks. It is possible that Fredegar was not the first to propose such a connection and used a source that included the Aeneid and Jerome's Chronicle in more detail than Fredegar did, but if such a source existed, it must have been almost contemporaneous with the writing of Fredegar. There may have been a Merovingian compilation which included extracts or epitomes with interpolations by another writer or by Fredegar (or whoever the writer of Fredegar's work may have been). But this is purely speculative.

You may wish to read "From Roman to Merovingian Gaul" and "History and Memory in the Carolingian World" for interesting source material and extremely well referenced discussion on various issues pertaining to Frankish origin as perceived in Carolingian times and with reference to writings from the late Roman period and the Merovingian period.

Almirena 05:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to add something:

Pannonia is nowhere near Azov Sea. You have to cross the Carpatian mountains for that, probably over 1000 km. This information must be reviewed. ................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.23.255.187 (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On this subject, the article currently mentions, "...the Franks concocted a false origins story to explain their connection with peoples of classical history." Is it explicitly known that this theory is entirely false? It may be unlikely, but Troy itself was considered fiction until fairly recently. Would it maybe be better to call it an origin myth or story, rather than flatly declaring it false and "concocted", which sounds almost derogatory? 167.4.1.41 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Franks, Frisians and Varni

All the same word-root? The Frisians have the lily-pad just as the French have the lily, just as the first banner of the Franks was the toad or frog, as the French are derisively called. I see an amalgamation or transition point between Frisi and Varni with Frank...What say thee about Freya, Freyr, Vanir, Frigg, Frige and Frya? Lord Loxley 11:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, "Freya", the Germanic godess of love, is related to "woman" (Compare Dutch "Vrouw(e)" and German Frau, also the Dutch verb "to have sex" is "vrijen") The French people are derogativly called "frogs" because the are traditionally eaten there as Frog legs. Frisian is of unknown origin, but it may be very well be derived from a word that originally meant "curly-headed" (cf. O.Fris. frisle "curly hair", compare modern English "frizzle"). The name of the Franks is said to be derived from "frankon" an old germanic word meaning "javelin, lance". Rex 12:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This makes more sense than the article. The article has it backwards: The ethnonym Franc has sometimes been traced to Francisca (Latin) *frankon (Old English franca), meaning "javelin". The suffix -isca makes it unlikely that the ethnonym is derived from the Latin name for the weapon. Probably francisca, franca and franci all stem from *frankon, although it may be that the weapon was named after the people[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.26.208 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

..............

I want to add something:

Pannonia is nowhere near Azov Sea. You have to cross the Carpatian mountains for that, probably over 1000 km. This information must be reviewed. ................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.23.255.187 (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I added the templates that were here during the FA process, and since the article met the requirements then, I see no reason to change this particular aspect. I agree they are cumbersome, so I am open to opinions and suggestions. Ulritz 10:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Ulritz

Just a moment ago User:Ulritz (and User:Swirl en who added a template 6 days ago) added a national template. It has been agreed upon that this article merely uses categories not national templates, for æsthetical reasons which result from various nations (with various templates) having every right to be included. Like with so many articles the past few days user:Ulritz has given a strange explanation for his actions in his edit summary, this time it read: "Netherlands is a half century later, no continuum" I wonder what this matters for the history of the Netherlands or Dutch people/culture, and also, I'd like to note that (and this is what Ulritz aimed for) at the time of the franks there were no Germany nor France either. Rex 10:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if he means "a half-millennium later"? Although that wouldn't make sense either. Adam Bishop 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's a silly question but...

Why does the history of Germany get a German flag but the history of France doesn't get a French one? Surely there are pleny of non-copyright images of French flags? If not, they're easy to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.20.133 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2006‎ (UTC)

there is a pic in wikimedia commons call "French_flag.jpg" if it's necessary. --Dewener 20:53, 11 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Clovis

I think the article could be benifited by a section on Clovis.--Eagles01836 22:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should have a passage about Clovis I. Maybe discussing his conversion with th Franks. After all, Clovis was an important influence upon the Franks. Shinybubbles 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Contribution

Clovis(481-511)was converted to Catholism in 496. He using, the support of the church, "neutralized the Burgundians in the year 500, making a treaty alliance with them."(Cantor pg513) He also conquered the Visogoths with permission of the Eastern Roman emporer.--Eagles01836 17:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Clovis

Josh, I was thinking the same thing. We can talk to Rachael about that. --Phelpsfan44 00:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Franks

"They entered the late Roman Empire from present central Germany and the Southern Netherlands and settled in northern Gaul"

This text really sucks. First of all: the southern Netherlands was part of the Empire AND this was considered to be part of Gallia. So what the text is saying is they entered the Roman Empire and Gaul from the Roman Empire and Gaul - A pretty exhausting move. Secondly: tribes like the Chamavi, and Bructeri lived in Northern Netherlands and German Munsterland and around the Ruhr. This is not Central Germany. Third: the leading Salian Franks lived at both sides of the Rhine in the provinces Lower Belgia and Lower Germania and in Salland in the Netherlands. Since the Salians provided the leading dinasty their role should be emphasized. I'm thinking about a new text. Johanthon 10:35, 20 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Merovingians as "lazy" kings

I am a little bit surprise that in this otherwise very well documented article, Merovingians kings are still depicted as "lazy" kings.
"lazy kings" is a quick translation of the French expression "rois fainéants".
This expression, if I remember correctly was coined during the carolingian period and was referring to the fact that the last merovingian kings were "doing nothing" ("fait néant" in French). The expression "fainéant" only later became synonymous to "paresseux" or lazy.
They were not lazy but they were an exhausted dinasty. They were carefully kept out of the ruling circles by the mayors of the palace (most of them are ancestors of the carolingian dynasty) but were shown to the people when needed to sit the legitimacy of the mayors.
At the very end of the merovingian dynasty, some of them - still in their infancy - were locked into monasteries after having their hair cut (part of the Frank king legitimacy being in his long hair). When adult, one would be taken out of his monastery, quickly crowned as a weak and empty vessel of kingship, while the real power was in the hands of the mayor.
Probably a little too romantic of a description, but that's the idea.
Oh, and sorry for my English...
--194.98.12.38 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

picture showing serbian tribe where it never was

Pathetic excuse of a picture...tssss. Not to mention that the date of picture is around 600. and the Serbs came in second half of the 7th century, the Croats in first half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.40.33 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2007‎ (UTC)

The Franks / Frankish Empire

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

For the moment I've added a notice to each of the two articles referring to the other ones. If this doesn't work, I would suggest merging them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcCluskey (talk • contribs) 12:25, 24 March 2007‎ (UTC)

Article has problems

This article has a number of problems that should preclude it from being featured as "best of wikipedia" (ie. Featured Article).

1. The WP:LEAD doesn't fit those guidelines. Too long, not a summary, too much original material.
2. The article is lacking big chunks of content. Compare with Anglo-Saxons for example. This article should be more than just a political history, it should cover language, art, literature (?), etymology, architecture, law, religion - anything else appropriate for a "peoples" article.
3. The number of references and footnotes is poor. 2 each.
4. There is a single image. Plus two maps.
5. There are zero external links.

Comments? -- Stbalbach 04:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do have a comment: you are sooo right. However it is much easier to cover Anglo-Saxons than Franks and still the Anglo-Saxon article opens with what could be considered a blunder: "Anglo-Saxon is a collective term usually used to describe the culturally and linguistically similar peoples living in the south and east of the island of Great Britain". First of all Angles spoke a language that is comparible to Norhtern Frisian and Saxon is really different. Secondly Frankish settlements like that of the Chamavians are not named, while they are both attested in placenames and the Beowulf. Furthermore based on archaeology and Latin sources it is known that the Roman Army in Britain largely was an enterprise of Germanic peoples. There settlements which are not covered in the article are not solely in "south and east" of the Britain. See there the enormous complexity of finding good textual frases for describing the change of what is first a migrating tribal society and later becomes a dynamic expanding Empire. people like Edward James and Patrick Geary need a full book and you ask us to press all in small article? While the Anglo-Saxon article is about one nation. The Franks cover at least 7 nations. Each with their own ideas. I'm not aware of a consensus about what this article should look like. We are still fighting about it. ;-) johanthon 09:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On Second thought: ideas for images are the ring of Childeric I, the sarcophage of Arnegonda, the throne of Dagobert, the wooden sculpture of Charlemain in the Louvre, some nice filligrain work, picture of a relicholder or shrine (Eligius?), Carolingian letters/minuscules. Any ideas on how to get this without getting trouble with copyright holders??? johanthon 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Disagree with merge proposal. Political entities such as empires, kingdoms, etc.. are separate from "peoples" articles such as Huns, Goths, Normans, Anglo-Saxons, etc.. that is standard across Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 03:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment makes sense, if we followed some sort of guideline as to what goes where. I would suggest that political, institutional, and military history primarily concerns the history of the Frankish Empire. Social history primarily concerns the history of the Franks as a "people". History of religion probably could go in both areas, depending on whether the concern is with Franiksh beliefs and rituals or with their religious institutions.

The disambiguation header points out that that's what we should be doing. Perhaps we should just be willing to move inappropriately located contributions. --SteveMcCluskey 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you'll add referenced text to make the article deeper and more thorough, the sub-divisions will become clear. --Wetman 06:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I simply excised the history text and replaced it with a short summary of the Merovingian kingdom's history. I added other sections as suggested and wrote stubby beginnings in the hopes of prodding others who actually know about Frankish culture to add more. Srnec 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! It obviously needs a lot of work, but this change is a big leap in the right direction. It's similar to Anglo-Saxons structure. --Stbalbach 21:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cripes, I thought it had been vandalized! Please, folks, edit the introductory paragraphs, which I've reinstated, to offer a concise overview of the whole article, as they did before and now currently do again. Etymology is of minor importance: why not move it down, or even into footnotes. Then please do move blocks of text into sub-sections as you prefer to arrange them, but don't simply delete whole sections of text (not referring to some passages of nonsense). ...or have I missed the apparently lost text? This was a "Featured Article". All at sea, Wetman 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Editing at Wikipedia is like writing in beach sand. I'll just be taking this off my watchlist then. --Wetman 14:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the lead, of course, but when I originally tried to modify the sections I eventually deleted I realised they were full of unsourced claims I would have disagreed with, so I simply deleted and rewrote it. Still needs sourcing, though. This was not of featured status when this discussion began and that status should probably be revoked. Srnec 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured article?

How did this ever get featured article status? It's got a bunch of stub sections, citation tags, and only two pictures. My goodness, you wouldn't believe the hoops of fire I had to jump through in order to get the article on Shen Kuo to featured article status, and after that I never want to aim that high again. If anything this article is a start class, B class at best, good article status would be pushing it, and featured article status is just plain wrong. The Franks deserve more than this! Lol.--PericlesofAthens 07:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering for a long time how this article ever got the featured article status. I was asking myself 'is it me?' 'Do I have too much critic?' So now it comes out it was all through a wiki-Lion/wicked-Lion. (choose whatever you find appropiate :-))) Ciao. johanthon 09:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article became featured a long time ago. It was not up to the current Wikipedia's standards, so it began an overhaul a couple months back or so. It should be delisted, but I don't care about stuff like that. Srnec 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is far more difficult today to get FA status because wikipedia FA standards have been increasing. This is a good thing, in that it means wikipedia article quality is increasing. However, having been through the FAC process myself with an article, I know it is frustrating getting criticism heaped on your FAC canditate article when it is clearly vastly superior to every article that was given FA status more than about 12-24 months back. Personally, I think it would be no bad thing to nominate this article for FA review at WP:FAR - it will probably be delisted, which is a good thing, given that it doesn't meet current FA standards. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Revising Frankish Articles

Alright, so there's obviously been some bad blood over different understandings of the Frankish period around here. A lot of really good work has been done in the Frankish articles, but unfortunately disputes seem to have made a lot of it disjointed and contradictory. I think we need to work together to eliminate and contextualise the contradictions.

In order to do this we need to accept some things about early Medieval history, words are fluid. We have very few written sources (only three near contemporary histories or chronicles for the Merovingian period + charters, legislation, letters, etc.) and almost all of those are reconstructed from multiple second hand copies. In addition, the language is confusing not because of inadequacies in translation, but because meanings change gradually over time, including self identifications. So for example, we find the word Frank used:

1. By Romans in the third century to refer to several tribes on the Lower Rhine as a group.
2. Ditto, but only applied to one of those tribes, or to a different grouping.
3. To refer to these tribes descendants (and those of other Germanic peoples) living in Northern Gaul in the fifth and sixth centuries (as distinct from Gallo-Romans, Bretons as well as other Germans such as Alamans, Bavarians, Goths, etc.)
4. By the assimilated Gallo-Celt and Germanic population of 'Neustria' to refer to themselves (and ONLY themselves)
5. By the less Latinized Germanic population of Austrasia to refer to themselves and the Neustrians (but not Burgundians and Aquitanians)
6. By the population of Neustria to refer to both themselves and the Austrasians
7. By the population of Aquitaine or Burgundy to refer to both the Neustrians and Austrasians
8. By Byzantines, Goths, etc. to refer to all the inhabitants of the Frankish kingdom
9. By later Byzantines and Muslims to refer to all Catholics

Confusing, huh? Plus three words describing ethnic groups derive from Francus, the latin for Frank, in English, French, Frank, and Franconian, but from contemporary (9th-10th century) sources its usually impossible to tell which is being referred to, or for that matter if the writer is talking about the King of Germany (many post Verdun documents don't even call him Rex Francorum Orientalis, but merely 'King of the Franks' distinguishing by byname or Parentage. So for example, where we would speak of "Charles II the Bald of West Francia (or France)" and "Charles II the Fat of East Francia (or Germany)" both men were referred to in Latin legislation as only Karolus Rex Francorum, and if they needed to be differentiated (in a treaty for instance) would probably by called "King Charles son of King Charles" (For Charles the Bald) and "King Charles son of King Louis" or one would refer to the other as "The King my brother". Now as if that wasn't bad enough, the linguistic divide still hasn't been solved, theres simply no way of saying "Frank" as opposed to "Franconian" in German and making it clear what you're talking about, on the other hand, the Germans call the Frankish Kingdom Frankenreich, which is also what they call France, even though they call the inhabitants of France Französisch so in German if you were discussing European history around the Partition until 843 you have Franken living in Frankenreich, but after that the Franken now live in Franken which is a part of Ostfrankenreich that you could also call Deutschland whereas the Französisch live in Westfrankenreich, which you could also call Frankenreich. I think I've made some of the problems clear through that stunning lack of clarity :-).

Now all this would be bad enough, but worse is that this confusion isn't just confusion or ignorance, the historical record was actively distorted by various groups to argue that they were the "real" Franks or represented the "real" Frankish spirit in the way that French Monarchists, German Imperialists, French Imperialists, Belgians and French Liberals all did at various times, others defined themselves as "Not Franks" such as French Republicans, the inhabitants of Southern France and Britanny, and later on the French Monarchists (yes, again, after a while they started claiming that the Franks were just a branch of the Gauls). In order to proceed, therefore, we need to take a deep breath, recognise that all of us (including me) are wrong, or rather that none of the views which we hold or demonstrably true. We need to structure the articles in a way that will acknowledge different points of view, weighting their significance honestly, while remaining comprehensible for a layperson who may have absorbed popular views of the Franks from their culture. In this area, more even than other Medieval regions, there have been huge strides by the academic community, which have not percolated down to the level of high school history courses or the popular consciousness. In this spirit then, I've written a new introduction to this article, to properly summarise the Franks, and conform to some of the article suggestions in WikiProject: Ethnic Groups, the material originally there was valuable, but it belongs with the section on the Earliest Franks, and we need to work it in accordingly. I hope people can comment on the introduction, which will probably touch many of the contentious issues, as a way to work out a consensus on the broader subject.

In addition I'm going to make three concrete proposals which I hope we can reach consensus on, suggest amendments or additions if you think they're neccessary.

1) For the time being, people interested in the Franks should focus their efforts on this article, and its talk page. This will allow us to reach a consensus which we can apply to the entire family of Frankish articles, instead of getting involved in revert-wars on tons of different pages.

2) Everyone who wants to help out should list the relevant languages which they understand, and what primary and secondary sources they're working from, in which language. A Latinist would be particularly helpful here, but there's a wealth of scholarly material in English, French, German and Dutch (afaik mainly from Belgium in the last case, help me out here, is there a tradition of Frankish history in the Netherlands parallel to those in France, Germany and Belgium?) out there, and it would be good to know how much of that we're employing. It would also be helpful whenever anyone makes a claim, to attempt to reference it to a page number in a work which at least one other editor looking at this page has access to, no one can be blamed for not doing this if they don't know what sources others have, we may find out there's more overlap than we think.

3) Lastly, one substantive proposal about a point of contention in the article, that of alternate Language names. I propose for consideration and comment that each name in an article on the Franks be followed by the names of the person or tribe or state referred to in Latin, Dutch, French and German, in that order (Latin first, the others alphabetical). My reasoning follows.

The native language of the Franks was Old Frankish, a language related most closely to Dutch, which is not only dead, but lost (its been partly reconstructed by isolated words in Latin sources and the names of its leaders recorded in Latin (with an additional 'us' at the end but initially not latinized beyond that), plus its loanwords in French and reference to its linguistic descendants like Old Dutch, but the bottom line is, nothing written in Old Frankish survives. Reference to Old Frankish should not take the form of proposing an authoritative "Name" as this would be deceptive, a paragraph or section in each article should mention word sources from Old Frankish where linguistic historians have identified them. (for example, the 'Frankish' word for Frank isn't mentioned in my new introduction, but the explanation of its sources remains in the 'Etymology' section, these should be edited to make the possible Old Frankish origin of the word clear.

In as much as there was an "official" language of the Frankish state from the fifth century on, it was Latin (thus its position first in the translations). Its true that Dutch, French and Germans had no standing whatever among the Franks, but all of these languages write about the Franks using their own words, which are not always obviously equivalent to one who doesn't know, particularly second language speakers of English, for example, I have on my desk, all published in the last 20 years and written by respected university historians, a histories of the Merovingians in English, German, and French, that refer to the same person as Theuderic, Theuderich, and Thierry respectively. People may also stumble upon older English (or other) texts from before scholars began using varients of the German names instead of the modern versions and find Chlotar suddenly called Lothar, Lothair, or Lotaire, many of these figures also have an afterlife, disproportionately Charlemagne, they might not have been French or German or Dutch but they form part of the national mythology of all of these peoples, and their names in those languages are useful information (which is why its not really neccessary to include Italian and Spanish names, parts of their countries were ruled by the Franks, but they don't have a place in their traditional 'National' histories, so there's less writing in those languages about them, and less relevance in clarifying the translations.

So in summary, to refer to a running theme of argument I've seen around here, Clovis wasn't Dutch, but nor was he French or German. He was Frankish and were it not lost, we'd use the Frankish language first in the list of translations of his name. As it is (lost), we'll use Latin, the language in which his name was written on documents prepared on his behalf and documents addressed to him by all of his own subjects who ever wrote a letter to him. But Clovis's people have a place in Dutch, German and French history, and so we should record the names by which he is called in those languages as well.

Finally, here's my own background in accordance with suggestion 2. I live in Canada, and am Anglo-Canadian. English is my first language. I can read both French and German, though not well.

I have access to:

Primary Sources Gregory of Tours' "Histories" translated by Lewis Thorpe, Penguin edition (1974) "Historia Epitomata (Third Book) of the Chronicle of Fredegar" translated by Jane Woodruff (University of Nebraska, dissertation, 1987, not available through non-academic sources) The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar, translated by Wallace-Hadrill (1960) "Liber Historiae Francorum" translated by Bernard Bachrach (1973)

English Sources (These are what I used for the introduction, I'll make citations in the main body of the article. James, "The Franks" (1988) Wood, "The Merovingian Kingdoms" (1994) Geary, "Before France and Germany" (1988)

German Sources Ewig, Eugen, "Die Merowinger und das Frankenreich" (1988) Ewig, Eugen, "Die Merowinger und das Imperium" (1980)

French Sources Gobry, Ivan, "Les Premiers Rois de France: La Dynastie Merovingiens" (1998)

Man that was long, I hope some of you guys actually read it, sorry for the length, but this bickering and edit warring needs to stop if these articles are going to be improved. Ethan Hoddes 02:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I know to what you are referring, but I don't think there has been any serious problem concerning edit warring and bickering on Franks-related articles. The problems have been relatively minor, in my opinion. However, I do agree that these articles need some work in terms of content and structure.

I have tried (I think) to labour the point that "Frank" is a fluid term. The chief divide between me and Johanthon concerns the relevance of the Frankish langauge and its probable relationship to modern Dutch, the amount of certain knowledge concerning the Frankish language, the regions of greatest Frankish settlement and the continuity of that settlement, and the ethnic/tribal connections between peoples of different time periods but living in the same places. I don't think the division is all that great, however.

I am also an Anglo-Canadian. I cannot read or understand German or Dutch. I can read French, Italian, and Spanish competently. I have access to most important English-language sources save Wood's Merovingian Kingdoms, but including Bachrach's Merovingian Military and Wallace-Hadrill's Long-Haired Kings. I have JSTOR access. I can easily access Gregory of Tours and the LHF, but not a complete Fredegar. I have some more thoughts and suggestions, but that's all for now. Srnec 03:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethan, I think you are referring to the edit war between me, Johanthon and Srnec, and also to the distinction between the Paris-basin and Frankfurt-area. And contrary to Srnec I don't see this as a minor problem. This is about the hart and core of the article. Take for example that church pic that Srnec added with the text "The Roman-influenced Baptistery of Saint John in Poitiers, one of the few pieces of surviving Merovingian architecture". For clearly anyone that studied the subject must understand this type would be called a Gallo-Roman church. It is build in an area where very few Franks lived and the vast majority of the peoples were Gauls. The architecture is typical Roman and does not show much similarity with archeological recoverings from the Salic area in the provinces of Belgica and upper Germania, who preferred wooden buildings. In short: this has little to do with Franks or Merovingians. It's just pollution to me.

I am Dutch. I speak Dutch, my English and Middle Dutch is good and my understanding of French and German texts is reasonable, but could be better. My understanding of Old Dutch and Latin is just above the starters level. My booklist is too long to put here since it concludes over 400 books mainly on the subject of Late Romans and Early Franks. Except the 3th book of Fredegar I have all books you and Srnec name (Gregory in the Dutch version).

Since you are asking: yes there is a Dutch tradition on Frankish history (notably Geil) and this is supported by Historical Linguistics. The relation between Old Dutch and Low Franconian is quite a bit closer than you suggest. As a matter of fact many Linguistics now call the language of Charlemagne simply Old Dutch, while that of Clovis is still called Frankish, Franconian or Low Franconian. Furthermore it is not true that 'Clovis' is the only name that survived in primary sources. The Franconian Chlodovech is well attested and is not the outcome of the recovering by historical linguists. The language must have had 'standing' for the Franks simply spoke it and used it quite influential. johanthon 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW "Eastern Franconian" is just nationalistic approach of Germans that try to claim the Franks as German. This whole idea is old fashioned, even amongst German specialists. "Eastern Franconian" is just an euphemism for "Eastern Dutch", that indeed died out. johanthon 11:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Any source will tell you that the baptistery in Poitiers is one of the few surviving examples of Merovingian architecture. The architecture is not "typically" Roman, it is Roman-influenced, Roman-derived, vulgarised Roman, but not typically Roman. It is Gallo-Roman, as you put it. But the definition of Merovingian architecture seems to be consistently that architecture prevalent in the Merovingian kingdom. Of course it is impossible to tell exactly who is the designer and craftsman behind most pieces of art, architecture, jewellery, etc. from the past. Educated guesses have to be made. While the baptistery of Poitiers is almost certainly a Gallo-Roman work, I see no reason why the church cannot be emblematic of architecture in most Roman civitates under Frankish control. The architecture of the Salic regions is less well-know than the Gallo-Roman architecture of the rest of Gaul and is no more informative about the Franks, really, since I doubt they actually preferred wooden buildings so much as didn't know how to build stone ones without the help of more Romanised peoples. What is just pollution to me is the phrase "proto-Dutch", which one is not likely to find in English sources and which is easily counter-informative, in my opinion. (Your use of the term to describe an ethnicity/tribe at Basina, Queen of Thuringia, is particularly odd.)

Now, in the spirit of cooperation, I would suggest that we discuss the ways in which the articles Franks and Frankish Empire (soon to be renamed, to Francia perhaps) ought to be structured in light of the fact that they are covering entities which change in their nature and terminology over time. How do we cover the "Franks" of the Carolingian epoch and the Franks of the Late Roman Empire on the same page? How do we cover Francia as the territorium of the Franci as foederati of the Empire in the 5th century and Francia as the "Duchy of France" (ducatus Franciae) within a polity called West Francia (by historians) in the late 10th? Srnec 01:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that we all agree that the Frankish Kingdom and Franks are all an important part of Dutch history, and that should be reflected in the article. On the other hand, accessability, to an English speaker, sometimes trumps strict accuracy. The tribes that invaded the Roman Empire in the 5th century are almost universally called Germans in English even by historians who argue that they weren't actually that different from the Celts etc., and the Dutch language itself is a subset of the Germanic group. However, we can eliminate whatever dishonesty these terms might imply by choosing names carefully, sticking to those names, and providing links to articles with expanded explanations, for example, the link to Germanic peoples clarifies that we don't mean modern Germans. However, I'd suggest that in recognition of the role the Franks play in the history of several modern countries, and to provide guidance to second language readers of the article (who do outnumber first-language speakers vastly) who may have read about the Franks in their own traditions, putting the names in those languages in the article won't damage readability too much, perhaps we could use info boxes to display alternates without disrupting the article? I'll try that tomorrow to see how it looks here. I've also got some new ideas about using Old Frankish that I'm going to put on the Clovis page.

Regarding your topics Srnec, the name thing's still ongoing on the Frankish Empire talk page, where I just put in my two cents. Regarding division, I'd suggest the following based on Ethnic Group and Former State Templates (note, I've already made my position on the meaning of "Frank" clear in the lead section

Franks

Classification

Two subsections "Ethnogenesis" describing the emergence of the Franks, "Etymology" for the name.

History

Detailed History to emergence of Clovis, quick outline thereafter link to Frankish Empire for the rest. The political history of the Late Antiquity Franks, and the Salian and Ripaurian kingdoms is very little, and doesn't need seperate pages. Shut down Salian Franks page and incorporate into here, the current material gives the impression that Salians begat Franks, and that's just not so, they're one of a number of tribes, only crucially important in that they provide the ruling dynasty in the sixth century on.

Geography

Some information about movements and settlement areas.

Culture

Seperated into Language, Religion, Literature, Arts. I think the current articles on Language and Art are pretty good. I'd like to see a more coherent account of what we know of Frankish paganism (not much), The Trojan myth, and anything distinctive about their Christian worship (prominent saint cults for example) no church in politics, no bishops (except maybe a discussion on the first Franks who became bishops). Literature's obviously pretty thin and highly contested, but we should do a summary of what's there, making clear that it's all in Latin, and with what exists early on (like Fredegar) that the authorship's anonymous, and Frankish identity contested (and of course, unclear). Note, I think that 700-843, we should consider everyone born in Neustria and Austrasia a Frank, they self identified as such. Which is considered the fundamental standard on Wikipedia, and its possible to construct a coherent and honest account of this defiinition.

Society

New section, divided into Economy, Class and Law, include current information about Germanic Law, write new sections on Economy and Class paying special attention to the interaction and fusion with the Gallo-Romans (as outlined by Woods) and the creation of Feudalism (or if you prefer, the various systems that make up Feudalism), generally, how the nobles relate to everyone else. Plus maybe a little on the Frankish warriors prior to 511 in terms of weaponry etc.

Legacy

Development of the Franks after 843, Political use throughout Middle Ages to twentieth century. Cultural and intellectual Legacy, what they mean to people.

Franks in Late Antiquity

A list of the Frankish soldiers who attained high rank in the Roman Military and thus are mentioned in most histories of the Franks.

Frankish Empire (or whatever)

No thoughts as to structure yet, but this should include a history from 511 onwards (plus as much background as neccessary to be intelligible), information on Political Institutions, Military, Political role of Religion, How the Nobles relate to the King and state, direct political legacy (brief summary of the consequences of the breakup of Francia post 843, probably ending with the revival of HRE title by Otto I)

Thoughts?

Ethan Hoddes 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ixnay, the Clovis thing for now, this article still needs too much work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethan Hoddes (talk • contribs) 04:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

(The Franks are an important part of world history. Not to denigrate their undeniable importance in Dutch history, but why should we talk about to whom some people is more important? Insofar as the Chinese invented gunpowder, there about as important to the history of England as the Celts.)

I agree with your proposal overall, with three notable exceptions. The Salians page ought to remain on its own, but all inaccuracies must be corrected. We need a better and more accurate page on Ripuarians too. "Franks in Late Antiquity" ought to be merged into a history section instead of being its own disjointed section at the bottom. I also suggest no geography section. The Franks are not a geographical entity. The territories they ruled and inhabited (and as Johanthon's debates with me have shown, the two are very different things!) must be explained with a running text in the context of their history, so the "geographic" information really belongs in a history with accompanying maps. (I have recently uploaded a series of valuable and accurate maps for the sequential political divisions of the Merovingian realm. Maybe Johanthon can tell me about the accuracy of the 481 map, but I can vouch for the rest, more or less.)

Now, a few suggestions which do not interfere with your suggested programme:

1. The literature section should contain a great deal on Frankish hagiography and its distinctives which set it apart from Hiberno-Saxon and Visigothic forms. Also, the purposes behind the Frankish chronicles and the Carolingian-era annals is important and the distinctiveness of the tradition within Francia (compared with other European realms) is what ought to be stressed.
2. Any "class" section ought to be named "structure" (or something like that). I think the word "class" carries too much baggage these days (with non-expert readers).
3. A legacy section must include a subdivision dealing with the Saracen (and Byzantine) use of the term to describe all Europeans/Catholics and Crusaders.
4. Military structure, ecclesiastical structure, and political structure are all subjects for the Francia/Frankish Empire article. A political history of the Franks should also be located there, from the earliest period until Verdun sounds good. I think that perhaps law and economy sections could also be included there, so perhaps the entire "Societ" section belongs at the article on the polity. I'll leave that to further debate.

Srnec 05:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to the possible remaining of the Salian and Ripuarian pages, they're problematic because they're evolving terms, and any article needs to reflect that. The Salii are originally one of many tribes, Salian comes to refer to all Franks living in Neustria (not all of whom were descended from Salii), the Ripuarians don't emerge as a category at all until the middle of the fifth century, we have virtually no information about them before they're conquered by Clovis, after that it very quickly becomes synonomous with all Franks living in Austrasia (after the settling of the boundaries at the death of Charibert of Paris in 567). I'm not confident that there's enough information on the Ripuarians as distinct from the Austrasians to justify its own article. I'd say perhaps most usefully, the "Salian" article could discuss the distinguishing social traits of the Franks of Neustria and the "Ripuarian" should discuss those of the Franks of Austrasia. In any case, the "Classification" section I proposes should have a section on subgroups. Wtr the "Franks in Late Antiquity, it would only be a list, they should be mentioned in the history article, but many of them had nothing to do with the history of the Frankish people, they just happened to be Franks, so including every single known one would be awkward to a narrative, but a full list at the end of the article would be useful, the same way many ethnic group articles have brief "notable members" sections at the end. With Geography, you may be right, I think there might be room for a section on the theories about the extent of Frankish settlement, etc., but we shall see, I'll write something at some point and we'll see how it works.

1. Yes
2. Perhaps "Social Structure,"?
3. Absolutely, but maybe not a formal subsection.
4. Mainly Agree, I'd divide Law thusly: The social implications of the Law (who owns what, position of women, family structure, etc.) to the Franks, the enforcement of the Law (judicial role of nobility, what was the king's role, etc.) to Francia, and Economy thusly: economic practices (estate structure, agricultural technology, etc.) to the Franks, economic and trade policy (of which I'm not really aware of any in this period) to Francia)

I'm sure a lot of this will develop after we write new sections, but before we can make these choices these articles must be rigourously structured. I'm going to start writing some new stuff on the areas where their seems to be consensus, and ask that everyone refrain from editing too much in areas where we still disagree, at least for the time being, in order to maintain a spirit of co-operation.Ethan Hoddes 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Franks are not a geographical entity. The territories they ruled and inhabited (and as Johanthon's debates with me have shown, the two are very different things!)" I really think this is just the key to a solution and compromise. If we all can agree that this is true, there is a start of describing the change of the meaning of "Francia", and there is also a start for the change of the meaning of the word "Franks". Now if we also can agree on the fact that Low Franconian was evolved into Old Dutch before or during the time of Charlemain ALL problems could be solved. Otherwise Ethan's fancy ideas will not stand in the long run just because we can't agree on the core. johanthon 10:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Srnec, I see that we agree that your church is Gallo-Roman. Now what is it doing in an article about Merovingians? Is it just there because a timeline, while you recognize no Merovingian or Frank may be involved? The Merovingians prefered wooden buildings. The house of Dagobert at Saint-Denis was therefore built in wood and not in stone as the rest of the abbey. Several sources state that these 'savages' objected against living in cities (civitates), and Germans in general called cities "tombs" (for those who are (brain-)dead). See Ammianus Marcellinus. Now what were you saying about that church again? johanthon 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Srnec's sais "What is just pollution to me is the phrase proto-Dutch". Here it becomes funny. No one objects that Low Franconian is the ancestor of Dutch. No one objects that Dutch are living in the lands were Salians settled in the 4th century (see Marcellinus and Zosimus). Nobody thinks that after that period main movements of people have taken place. No recent linguist I know argues that the Salians spoke a different language than other Franks. So how come that if the Dutch language and the Dutch people descended from the Franks, the Franks are not proto-Dutch? (The term proto-Dutch is used by several Dutch historians.) And how come Srnec objects to the notion that the people of the Franks had culturally similarities with the Dutch in giving names to their kids (see history of Basina). Is this "forbidden information"? johanthon 10:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Johanthon, I'd like to investigate the parameters of this further, could you give specific citations to a few books or journal articles (preferably in English) that make this connection that explicitly? My current understanding of the existing Corpus in all Frankish languages makes me a bit leery about such definite statements about particular dialects, etc. If there aren't English sources that's fine, if you could provide the names of a few major Dutch articles and books I'll try to dig them up, or do a JSTOR search to find articles that reference them so I can see some commentary. I know it may be frustrating, but if I can't read the material, or at least something discussing it directly, I really can't judge it.Ethan Hoddes 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the question Johanthon posted on Ethan's talk page and the response, I now have access to the Historia Epitomata of Fredegar.

I'm glad we've reached some significant agreement, Johanthon. However, there still appears to be a linguistic divide. Like Ethan, I am leery of the definiteness of your linguistic conclusions. Let me try and be clear. I am not certain that Dutch is any more closely descended from Frankish than Flemish. So why not use the term "proto-Flemish"? Also, I have never seen "proto-Dutch" in an Enligsh publication (have you?) and I wonder what Dutch term you are translating that way. I object to mentioning cultural similarities with the Dutch (I assume we are referring to high medieval Hollanders or modern Netherlanders here) because the Franks had culutral similarities with the Romans too, so what's the relevance? The Franks spoke proto-Dutch, they were Germanic. The former term is linguistic only (if it's even English), the latter is also ethnic (in English).

Relating "proto-Dutch" to Holland (in opposition to proto-Flemish) is silly. The Wikipedia article Dutch (ethnic group) is a misguided and peculiar English notion. No Dutch source suggests that, and such an interpretation completely ignores the very meaning of the word Dutch. It refers to the speakers of a language, in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Germany. Most pre-16th century history writing in the Netherlands takes the whole area where the language is spoken as the unit of research, and most interesting early sources come from France or Flanders and Brabant, now for the larger part in Belgium. As Flemish (linguistics) shows, Flemish is not a language distinct from Dutch, but a grouping of dialects of Dutch. The thesis is simple: the Dutch-speaking population of the Low Countries are the nearest relatives of the Franks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.138.239 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 March 2008

Having come to one important agreement, I cannot agree with you on the second major point. Given that it has been shown that the Romance-speaking commoners of Anjou in the 11th century could understand liturgical Latin, I can't see why anyone should admit (on very slim evidence) that Frankish had to have "evolved" into Old Dutch by the time of Charlemagne. Why can't we just mention that the Frankish language evolved into Flemish and Dutch in some areas and was superceded by Romance or other German tongues in others? And then be done with the Dutch connection.

A Gallo-Roman church tells us something about the nature of Merovingian Gaul. That is why so many sources consider it Merovingian architecture. It probably represents lost architecture from other parts of Gaul more Frankish dominated and therefore indicates the sham Roman style then prevalent under the Franks. I for one have no idea what the Franks preferences were. I don't really trust Marcellinus to be accurate about the proclivities of the Germans. In fact, I rarely trust Roman authors to be accurate about the preferences and habits of the Germans, so your reference to Marcellinus means nothing to me. See Procopius' and Agathias' descriptions of the Frankish armies, which descriptions are so relied upon and yet so contradictory. I think by now the high degree of Romanisation of the Franks has been amply demonstrated: if they used wood over stone it was because the latter was not always an economical option. Srnec 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Military, or make new article Frankish Warfare?

I have merged the Military section of the Frankish Empire-article with this one since the Frankish Empire-article will be focussing on geographical and political aspects of Francia. However this means that this article received quite a big bulb of text. Now what should we do with this? Should we keep it like this and focus on re-editing the current text to a more ordened one? Or should we move it to a new article on 'Frankish Warfare' and only keep a short Resumé?

I would like to hear your ideas, please. johanthon 16:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I could see creating a new article called "Frankish warfare". Though it should be noted that the descriptions of the Merovingian military could go in the Francia article, in my opinion, because they represent a description of an aspect of government. But it is probably unwise to split that part off from the earlier Frankish warfare. Srnec 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

"Modern scholars of the Migration Period are in agreement that the Frankish confederacy emerged at the beginning of the third century out of the unification of various earlier, smaller groups, including the Sicambri, Chamavi, Chatti, and Chattuarii,[2] who inhabited the lower Rhine valley and lands immediately to its east. The confederacy was a social development perhaps accelerated by increasing upheaval in the area engendered by string of wars, the first of which was the war between Rome and the Marcomanni (which began in 166). By the end of the fifth century, the Franks were subdivided into two groups: the Ripuarian Franks, settled along the Rhine around Cologne, and the Salian Franks, who lived in Netherlands and Belgium. The Salian Franks would give rise to the Merovingian dynasty.[3]"

• Modern scholars are NOT in agreement that a "confederacy" of Franks emerged at the beginning of 3th century. The word "confederacy" is rare and obscure at this time.
• The Migration Period did NOT start in the early third century, but at the arrival of Huns in the second half of the 4th century
• The Franks did NOT only live at the immediatly east of the Rhine, but also north
• The Chatti did NOT live at the lower Rhine valley or immediatly east of it, they evolved into Thuringers and they lived in Thuringen
• Why are the Salians and Bructeri not in this list? And why does Srnec delete them if I add them?
• I think the suggested relation with the Marcomannic wars is just bogus. It is not supported by James or Wood so are "Modern scholars are in agreement" on this? I think NOT.
• Was the confederacy a social development? Or were the Franks united by the military force of the Sali? In which primary source can we find that it is just a social development?
• The word Ripuarian arrives in primary sources only in the early 7th century, NOT in the 5th century.
• The Salian Franks did NOT live in just the Netherlands and Belgium, the common people did als settled in northern France. Their kings and elite lived all over their lands, including amongst Ripuarians, Bavarians, Alamanni, Burgundians, Provencals, Aquitanians .....
• Should I go on? johanthon 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The migration period did start in the early 3rd century according to some sources. The Enlighs words are Thuringii and Thuringia. I don't recall deleting the Salii or Bructeri and feel free to add them in. You are right about the word Ripuarian, but we have to allow scholars to tell us when the term probably first came into use (since that doesn't necessarily correspond to its first preserved mention in writing). Other than the above things I agree with you. Srnec 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Confederation" I didn't (in the lead) say they WERE a confederation, I said they were identified as such (by the Romans) I'm not sure what word they used, but its a common English scholarly practice to translate the same word differently, depending on context, where one word is used to describe a number of ideas which are expressed seperately in English. For example, the German bund is translated as "federation" "confederation" "alliance" or "league" depending on the circumstances. I've found this in Edward James, The Franks, "These [Roman] sources imply that the Franks were originally a confederation of peoples who spoke, or whose leaders spoke, a Germanic language, and who lived north and east of the northernmost part of the Rhine frontier of the Roman Empire." (p. 6), "Different peoples may have belonged to the 'Frankish confederation' or were assumed by the Romans to belong to it, at different times." (p. 35) Wood and Geary also reference the concept, without stating that it originated with the Romans, but without saying anything that would contradict it. All three authors acknowledge that there's significant doubt as to whether this "confederation" ever existed, and that should be mentioned. But which historians have contested that the Romans ever referred to the Franks as a confederation (in substance, if not in name). The Marcomannic stuff is also from Geary (though I didn't add it) its not mentioned in Wood or James, but not explicitly contradicted either. I'll look for reactions to the idea.Ethan Hoddes 21:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the possible Scythian or Cimmerian origin of the Franks removed?

Is it Nordicism? Please put it back.(N33 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

The article sais: "These stories have obvious difficulties. Historians, including eyewitnesses like Julius Caesar, have given us accounts that place the Sicambri firmly at the delta of the Rhine during his conquests, and archaeologists have confirmed ongoing settlement in that area since then. Furthermore, the mythology does not come from the Sicambri themselves but only from late Franks and is based on inaccurate geography. Most of all, however, the story is biologically nonsensical, for humans do not live a thousand years. For these reasons modern scholars regard it as a myth. Wallace-Hadrill states that "this legend is quite without historical substance" and Ian Wood says that "these tales are obviously no more than legend" and "in fact there is no reason to believe that the Franks were involved in any long-distance migration".

In other words: There never has been any long-distance migration. There is no possible Scythian or Cimmerian origin according to Ian Wood, one of the 2 most cited scholars on early Franks. The other one (James) has the same ideas. I think we have spoiled enough words on Frankish mythology and in the article. There is more to Franks than that. johanthon 10:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because Julius Caesar accounts for the Sicambri in the Rhine delta does not mean they just sprung up out of the earth. Throwaway lines like "based on inaccurate geography" do not resolve the matter...these people believed in a history of migration from Eastern Europe / Black Sea region...just like the Saxons chronicled their migration from Northern Germany...or was that a myth too. Even the Svearna and Icelandic peoples had chronicles of the Aesir people coming from the city of Asgard in Asaland in what is now Central Asia and they mingled with the earlier Vanir people. Even the heroic Visigoths chronicled their peoples migration into Spain from faraway 'Scandza' via a tortuous route from Eastern Europe or is this also "obviously no more than legend", or the most traveled Germanic tribe, the Vandals who finally landed up in North Africa. Since human migration must have spread from the east into europe (a flow pattern attested by modern DNA showing the spread of genetic strands), it is highly likely that the Sicambri were related in some way to the Cimmerians just as the Saxons are said by some to be the Saka-Scythians. They were followed by the Sarmatians, which is what the Poles and Russians state are their ancestors. It cannot be that races so vigourous as these simply disappeared upon riding into Europe. They must have retained a history of their origins...however garbled by time. -Waegmunding213.42.21.154 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. But this article is not so much about our own personal opinion. It is about what primary sources say and what the major scholars say. johanthon 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd put more emphasis on the secondary sources to interpret the former. Gregory of Tours, for instance, mentions two kings named Chararic and a reliance on plain reading of Gregory would put one strongly at odds with one reputable scholar who believes that the Suevic Chararic didn't even exist. So the article on the Frankish Chararic, based as it is on Gregory solely, is lacking. (But I have nothing of more substance on Chararic than "Frankish king defeated by Clovis" in my secondary sources.) Srnec 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite well aware of your opinion Srnec ;-) But do we disagree about a possible Scythian link and the Troy legend? In the current phrases I have given both the primary and secondary sources. As it comes to secondary sources I have given: Wallace-Hadrill states that "this legend is quite without historical substance" and Ian Wood says that "these tales are obviously no more than legend" and "in fact there is no reason to believe that the Franks were involved in any long-distance migration". I would appreciate to hear your opinion on this one. (I was just responding to Waegmunding.) johanthon 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was only digressing on the issue of sources. I do not disagree with Wallace-Hadrill (whom I have read) on this one: the Franks are not Scythians or Cimmerians and there is no evidence that I know of that they migrated from anywhere very far from where they are first found. Srnec 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Early Frankish Warefare

"They do no know the use of the coat of mail or greaves..." What is this supposed to be? Brian Pearson 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It should say "do not". Does that answer your question? Srnec 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

I am not going to edit, revert, change or do anything, except to ask that you bunch of "experts" get your act together and fix these articles so that an ignorant but curious person such as myself could read these articles and come away with a sense of having learned something new.

I guess it would entail the use of two devices. firstly the placing aside of one's ego. Secondly the truly objective consideration of whether a person should be involved with editing, altering or changing any article if one does not have the proper amount of time to devote to the undertaking. JTB Sept. 07

What are you talking about? Do you have a specific beef with the article? In what way is it under-informative specifically, so that we can address the concern (if we have time/resources)? And perhaps I only speak for myself when I say this, but I do not believe there has been a case of "edit-warring" or egotism with me and the other editors involved. Don't come here saying that you don't intend to do anything to help and demand that we all do something to help. Srnec 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

TALessman

My beefs with TALessman's map, which must be addressed befor it can be included in the article, since the burden of proof lies with inclusion and not with exclusion:

• Out of scale: it is simply too large and covers many territories that had absolutely no relation with the Franks of 500. I'm talking about the Sahara and Africa south of it, the Russian steppes, India, Arabia, and Persia.
• Accuracy of boundaries: there is no way of knowing whether Armorica was Frankish or not in 500 (Gregory of Tours says it was). Also, Francia cannot be extended as far east of the Rhine as Thuringia or Alemannia in 500. Much of Alamannia (not Allemagne, which is French for "Germany") was under Theodoric's dominion at that date. Indeed, Francia at that date can barely be extended east of the Rhine at all.
• Title: the map incorrectly says "Near East", a term reserved in English for the Middle East, where Francia was not.
  

These concerns cannot really by addressed by modifying the map until it is severely reduced in scale to include only Western Europe. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, the map was there already when you deleted it. You don't just delete the map and demand justification for it being there. You post a question on here, let someone give a reason why it is there, and delete or modify it ONLY when the discussion is finished.

You said on another board that it's not informative (which is just wrong, it's got plenty of info in it.)

• Accuracy? I list my sources on the map's source page. Euratlas map of European history, 500 AD. Shown here: http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_0500.html.
• Title? No, in English "Mid East" refers to the Mid East. "Near East" refers to the Near East, which is Europe and North TalessmanAfrica. Francia, being in Europe, is indeed in the Near East.
• Scale? You complained about the East-Hem maps the same way, and I zoomed in to focus on much smaller areas. Still it isn't good enough? The other maps on the article don't show the same info you can see on my maps. Leave all of the maps because they each show unique and helpful information. It doesn't hurt the article one bit to have a map readers can click on to see more information about the area the subject lived in. If they aren't interested they don't have to click. But let them have access to the info if they are interested. Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also with Frankish borders, Thuringia was subjucated by Clovis in 491, and Alamannia was subjucated in 496. That's why I show them on the map with dotted borders between them and the Franks, to show that subjucation but not outright conquest. The maps are as accurate as they can be with available information. If you see something wrong with the map, spell it out for me with source info to prove your claim, and I can correct the map.

Roman Empire in 565 AD. Look - it also shows Frankish lands in this year! Click on it for more info...

I can also do neat things like highlight the subject in question (this map of the Byzantine Empire, for example). I can eventually do the same thing with this map, when I'm sure that any errors have been worked out and I can actually devote the time to highlighting the subject. But until then, it's better if I devote my time to researching and making sure they are accurate.

One of the best points of the map IS that it shows the Franks, their subject nations, their neighbors, and their neighbor's neighbors. Why didn't the Byzantines smash the Franks? They were busy fighting the Persians. Why were the Persians? Oh! After I read this article on the Franks, I think I'll check out the Gepids and Avars and Byzantines and Persians. Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the map needs sources. Unless the boundaries are completely uncontroversial, then it needs to be cited to some accepted scholarly source to avoid looking like WP:OR. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Map sources can be found on the map's Wiki-Image page, or on the Wiki-Image page of the parent map, the East-Hem map of the same name. I list my sources on the image's wiki-homepage to make it more convenient for those with questions to see the sources I used, and provide links where applicable. Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with these maps is that they are of sub-standard quality in nearly every possible way. We will of course still gratefully use them whenever there is no superior free replacement. In the case of the Franks, there is the professionally-made Image:Frankish Empire 481 to 814-en.svg. TALessman's maps don't even begin to compare to this sort of quality. We have superior maps for almost every conceivable topic. It's as simple as that: we will always choose the best free (GFDLed) option, nothing personal. TALessman's map are welcome to stick around on commons:, but TALessman has no right to have his maps featured any more than he has a right to his own Wikipedia article. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that Flamarande seems respectable enough to be airing his legitimate concerns about the maps being on articles, though I disagree with him, it's respectfully.

I saw there was a shortage of maps that showed this much detail over so wide of an area. So I did a LOT of research, made the maps myself, using the best information I had available, making corrections when they are shown to me, and made them available (for free) to help people learn about history.

Dbachmann however has always been quick to call these maps "vanity" or "sub-standard" or whatever insult he can throw out. From day 1, instead of helping to make them better, he just trashes them, and that's why we've butted heads so much. As I've said Dab, if you think you can do better, then go ahead big shot!

There is nothing wrong with leaving these maps AND other maps on the articles. It gives readers more information they can access IF they want to. They don't HAVE to click on the map if they don't want to learn more. But if they do, the information is there. The maps I've made show DIFFERENT information than maps like Dbachmann presented above. Nothing wrong with showing different information. It gives the readers what they want and need - knowledge. There IS something wrong with people who hate legitimate attempts to provide good historical information for readers of Wikipedia. Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The information your maps provide is simply not relevant at most of the articles you add them to. Most of the territory covered on your map is not related to the Franks and does not further understanding/knowledge of them. Even the tenuous connexions to Persia are not gotten across in your map: prose would serve that purpose much more efficiently, leaving the map as excess clutter which reduces readability. Srnec (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether Persia is directly connected to Franks is not the point I'm making. My point is that the maps ARE relevant to the article because

1) They show the article subject's borders in the specified year, and

2) They portray the world the article's subject lived in. Also,

3) There's no harm having 2 or 3 maps, each showing different types of information.

Readers often wonder who the neighbors of the subject were. In this case, it would be the Ostrogoths or Odoacer, the Visigoths or Syagrius, the British Kingdoms, and the Saxons. Beyond their neighbors were nations the Franks often allied or traded with, including the Romans, Gepids, Avars, Slavs, and even the Sassanid Persians (who the Franks at one point allied with against Justinian I.)

My point is that the maps ARE relevant to the history of the subject (in this case the Franks) because of the points made above. They do NOT clutter the article, but rather provide a link to MORE information, if the reader is interested in that information. If not, they don't have to click on the map, they just keep reading. Providing more information in a convenient way is a GOOD thing. Thus the maps should be restored to the article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide more information that is irrelevant is clutter. Other, better maps also show the Franks' borders (more accurately, too). The world the Franks lived in is not entirely relevant, since they lived in the same world as Mayans and Australians, yet neither of these peoples knew about the other. Only direct neighbours are direcetly relevant, all the rest is just excess which obscures rather than highlights the Franks. More maps than necessary is clutter. There are maps which are adequate and, indeed, superior than yours that are already provided on Wikipedia. Srnec (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

regarding Talessman's comments on me personally, I have drawn a few maps in my time, such as Image:Map of Vedic India.png, Image:Iron Age Italy.png, Image:Christ Islam.png or Image:IE expansion.png. All of them because some article happened to need them. But more importantly, I have no problem with seeing them removed if a superior map is presented. I have not produced a map of the quality of, say, Image:Etruscan civilization map.png or Image:Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg. Talessman, otoh, does not even appear to have the ability to evaluate a high quality map, never mind drawing one. There is a pattern here. Instead of addressing concerns raised, you attack people, calling them wiki-bullies with no lives and what not. I have no interest in proving to you that I have a life: it shouldn't matter to you if I hadn't, because I am not asking you to have a drink with me, I am asking you to get your act together and recognize that your contributions will be judged for their quality and nothing else. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to cuncur that this map is "Out of scale" and seriously doubt western europe is globally considered the "near east" [as it's only east of England], However I assume good faith and its attractive, but belongs somewhere else perhaps. However I am not so sure the map artist knows that the words "near east" can be considered an offensive map label (because it is only relative to where you are in the world, to label one place in the world 'near' another 'far', is to imply this is in relation to your nation).Goldenrowley (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely etymology. The name of the weapon "Francisca" is derived from the tribal name "Frank", NOT the other way round

This Wikipedia article falsely attributes the actual tribal name "Frank" (and hence the name "France") to the name of the throwing-axe weapon they used, the "Francisca" in Latin, or an alleged hypothetical name "Frankon". This is not credible. It is clearly attested that the name of this weapon came into Latin specifically because it was noted by Romans that this weapon was used by the Franks in battle. The name Franko(n) was the name that the Franks later applied to their domain, which was known in Latin as Francia, and ultimately became the name France.

Perhaps the authors of this article should consult the Wikipedia French language article on the Franks. The ultimate Germanic origin of the name "FRANK" is probably from a Germanic root "FREK-",. For example, "FREKKR" in Norse means "fierce, bold, valiant" .

I also found the Anglo-Saxon word "FRECA" which literally means "warrior, hero" and is attested in Beowulf, sometimes used to mean "wolf".

I was able to find support for this in the literature. In the book "An Historical Geography of France", by Panhol, Claval, and Lloyd, it is stated that this etymology was the interpratation of Isidore of Seville in the 7th century:

"A feritate morum nuncupatos", i.e. "named thus on account of their savage customs".

These words are echoed by Ermold the Black in the 9th century:

"Francus habet nomen de feritate sua", i.e. "The Frank is named for his ferocity".

Another possibility is a cognate with the Norse word for the Vikings that went into Russia, the Varangians, "Væringjar", from "vár" which means "pledge".

The notion that the name of the Franks was derived from the name of a weapon, like the name "Saxon" may be derived from the weapon "sax" or "seax" is not probable. For one thing, the "Saxon" is formed by a lengthening of "sax", whereas the opposite is true for "Frank" and "Francisca". The doubleheaded axe, the Francisca, is first attested in Latin texts in Spain, before this name was used in Gaul. As for the throwing lance or javelin, known in Anglo-Saxon as the "Franca" and in Norse as the "Frakka", again, the etymology of the weapon is clearly derived from the "Franks" themselves, and not the other way round. In Anglo-Saxon and other old Germanic languages, the "-a" at the end of "Franca" or "Frakka" denotes Genitive, Plural. Hence, the word literally means "...of the Franks", i.e. a Frankish-made javelin.

I believe the editors should update the article to reflect some of the information cited here. Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2008‎ (UTC)

Etymology according to Gibbon: Free

If I remember correctly, Gibbon says the word Frank even at the time of Clovis was not yet the name of an ethnicity, but a word meaning "free," denoting the status and attitude of those who had banded together from disparate Germanic tribes on the fringe the Roman Empire.

This is not mentioned in the article. Has it been definitively disproven? Dvd Avins (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Geography

"settled in Pannonia near the Sea of Azov" - does it really say so? Because Pannonia has nothing to do with the Sea of Azov.93.183.216.119 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It says, Ingressi Meotidas paludes navigantes, pervenerunt intra terminos Pannoniarum iuxta Meotidas paludes et coeperunt aedificare civitatem ob memoriale eorum appellaveruntque eam Sicambriam. So yes, it does say "among the Pannonians by the sea of Azov", assuming that Meotidas means "Azov", which other texts suggest [2]. Unfortunately, I don't know what the anonymous author of the LHF had in mind. Srnec (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

the origins

When we write "the Franks developed an origin story" it sounds about this way: they dreamed it up. Let's not judge the worth of myths. Very often they are wiser than all the exquisite trappings of science. --VKokielov (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Which origin story do you suggest we present uncritically? The Liber's, Fredegar's, or Gregory's? There is no science of Frankish origins, nor could there be. There is very little evidence. We report the stories (myths). Can a story that can be dated no earlier than 727—the Franks first appeared four centuries earlier and Troy goes back well over a millennium—not be called a "development"? Srnec (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

you're right; never mind. I don't think there's a better way to put it. --VKokielov (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Frank and French

Is there a clear dividing line (as in time period) between the Franks and the French? Or am I wrong to assume that the French were direct descendants of the Franks?Emerson 07 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Franks gave their name to the territory they ruled: Francia. Eventually, as their empire grew to encompass more and more peoples, this term came to signify the heartland where people self-identified as Franks (and where Franks had settled in large numbers centuries earlier, where Frankish names were in wide use and such people held most powerful positions). This heartland was roughly the land between the Seine and the Meuse rivers. As the term became ever more restricted it referred to the Île-de-France only, the land around Paris. The term "Frankish", referring first to Franks and then also to Francia (or France in the Romance language the inhabitants of this region eventually came to speak), was also applied more broadly by foreigners to refer to the whole of what is today northern France, where the power of the king of Francia was felt (it was barely felt in the south of France) and where the inhabitants spoke related dialects of what eventually coalesced into modern French (the southerners spoke Occitan). By the end of the Middle Ages the kings of Francia/France had made themselves (almost) absolute monarchs and began uniting their kingdom linguistically. When all the nominal subjects of the king recognised him as their lord and spoke the same language we refer to them as French, which derives from the term for "Frankish" or "of Francia" in Latin and then Romance. I would say that France (which was originally just West Francia, the westernmost of the Frankish-ruled realms) became independent of the concept of the Roman Empire during the tenth century. When Hugh Capet, who was already the duke of the Île-de-France (Francia), was crowned in 987 the kingdom begins to take on the character that would shape its history for the next few centuries. I hope this helps. –Srnec (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume that we ignore migration of individuals and mixing of peoples...

The French are rather descendants of the Gauls, Celtic people of Gallia who were romanized after being conquered by the Romans (French is today's version of their Gallo-Romance language). The French inherited the name, while the germanic eastern part of the Frankish Empire lost it and evolved into the Holy Roman Empire, later Germany. But considering the French as descendants of the Franks would be the same as considering today's Saxons (the people of Saxony) as descendants of the historical Saxons (rather the people of today's Lower Saxony). Franks in today's France (even the north) have not been much more than the ruling minority, so their influence on the French language was relatively small. The Franks were a confederation of West Germanic tribes, first mentioned during the 3rd century (long before Chlovis). Their "Heartland", were they settled before Merovingian and Carolingian expansion, was the region along the lower and middle Rhine in the Netherlands, parts of Belgium and western Germany. We might even dispute about Hesse, since the Chatti (High German Consonant Shift: Chatti → Hatti → Hazzi → Hassi → Hessi → Hessen) joined the Franks eventually before the dozens of small kingdoms of Salian and Ripuarian Franks were united under Chlovis and the Merovingian dynasty - the term Chatti for the tribes in northern and middle Hesse disappeared during the 5th century and was replaced by Franks thereafter. So if we want to talk about descendants of the Franks, we rather look at their Heartland, the Dutch and western Germans regions along the Rhine and in Hesse: Austrasia, or later the area of Eastern Francia's stem duchy of Franconia and the Duchy of Lorraine (after the Treaty of Verdun it was part of Lothair's Lotharingia, thus the name). The eastern part of the Duchy of Franconia (where Franks settled from the 6th century, before that it was territory of the Alamanni) and its inhabitants still call themselves "Franken" - in German the same term as for the Germanic tribe. But the names of the German and Dutch parts of the true frankish "Heartland" lost their association with the Franks over the centuries, mainly due to German Kleinstaaterei (Lotharingia and its uncountable successors; Franconia Occidentalis mainly evolved into today's state of Hesse, named after the Chatti, an integral part of the Franks). Radical (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)