Talk:Ripuarian Franks

[Untitled]

Ok I decend from the Riparian Franks and i'm tring to find out more about them can you guys help me. (unsigned comment by Burkem)

All I can say is: it would be very hard to prove descent from the Ripuarian Franks, but relatively easy to assume that if you have any West European ancestors, some were ancient Ripuarians. Srnec 01:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to explain my desire to stub this as a German article. The middle Rhine is in Germany not near Holland, hence a German history stub but I also added a Netherland history stub if they are the beginning of the Old Franconion language. The idea is to attract editors who know these areas and cultures. Goldenrowley 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Again: the Ripuarians did spoke proto-Dutch. But the proto-Dutch did not solely lived in the Netherlands. These Ripuari spread themselves over Austrasia and that also includes Luxemburg, Belgium and France. National history stubs rarely attract new editors and they give a false anachronistic view, for the Ripuari are Franks: They are not German or Dutch in the modern sence of the word.(proto-Dutch, or Old Dutch is still not Dutch).

I have placed the disputed tag on your edit for none of the claims of that mr. Perry from 1857 can be found in primary sources.

By the way: I have a dictionary Latin-Dutch and one Latin-English. None of those two dictionaries know the words "Ripaurii and Riparri", but even if you have one that does: the Franks we are talking about are known in the text as Ripuari. johanthon 10:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting view of stubs, for sure. We don't have a Frankish stub because its too narrow an interest but you don't like the Netherlands history stub or the German history stub. If you are unhappy with Mr. Perry's book, please present your primary sources. No one else has provided any other sources but I present a book which seems to me balanced and well written. Goldenrowley

Contrary to what you seem to read the Ripuarian Laws are a Primary source and this was mentioned in the text before your edits. Just check the history files. Since your edits ignore the time of their first appearance, your book from 1857 can't be balanced. Especially not since it has claims on Latin that can't be found in a Latin dictionary. johanthon 11:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, I encourage you to add the source for "Ripuarian Laws" in the (just begun) reference section, as well as any other very good references you know of. I am not ignoring anything, I thought it meant it was the first historical reference but people could have lived there for centuries before they were "named" by some decree. Right? I have been doing much work on Wiktionary lately and Latin dictionaries do not contain every word and name that exists, in every dialect. They probably would not contain local or regional names for example.Goldenrowley 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan you are removing fact requests too quickly. The "first" of everything should be cited so I marked "The Ripuarians appear first in written history in the first half of the 7th century" as needing a citation. Obvious maybe to a historian like yourself but honestly I have no idea where to look up Riparian Laws. I looked on the other page linked, but that's not very helpful. Challenge you please to list your references. Goldenrowley 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are asking for a reference that can be found if one follows the link in the article. The link I provided, leads to a Wikipedia article that gives you a very good reference. If you want a translation than try "Laws of the Salian and Ripuarian Franks" by Theodore John Rivers. johanthon 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok so you just meant the Laws, while I was looking for a historian quote saying it was the "first" ever reference to the people which would be a separate issue. I've added more sources including Theodore John River and etc. I've corrected some spellings and phrases. I believe I've resolved the disputed elements, so far. Goldenrowley 04:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Time to rewrite this article. The above discussion is very interesting but frankly peevish. The distinction of Ripuarian Franks is generally accepted, always has been. To swear a campaign to prove they did not exist is a crank view. I shall not take that view. How early the distinction was made, well, that is something else, but then that is a relatively minor problem. Here on WP we are not generally interested in the remote ancestry of individual editors unless they are sufficiently noteworthy to have an article. You can be sure, we all have the great and glorious credential of descending, direct-line ancestry, from the first life on Earth. Unfortunately such a descent means we are all going to die. So spare us the argument, hey?Dave (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Spread of the Franks from a village

"The people who came to be known as the Ripuarians probably composed the Frankish army that was defeated by Emperor Maximian (250-310) in the battle at Treves. They began to populate the regions of Andernach down the Rhine through the 5th Century and took possession of Cologne, where they"

None of this is supported in any way by Perry (whom you can see for free). As Andernach was a village, I'd like to know how they began to populate it and where all these Franks came from that populated the whole river. From Andernach? Moreover, I don't know why they should take possession of Cologne when they had it all along as Ubii. It passed out of Roman hands after the fall of the empire, but that was of no consequence as it had been in Frankish hands all along. The only consequence was, they were now independent of Rome, but their attachment to that state was only nominal by then as the Franks had been running things on the Rhine for the Romans for some time. As the article said, they had a "franc"hise (yuk yuk). I'm rewriting that one and expanding.Dave (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Style of this article

There seems to be some impressive scholarship behind the recent editing of this article, but I find it now simply too difficul to read. The tone of the article is no longer encyclopedic in nature. It's become too scholarly, too academic, too mired in detail. This starts right at the introduction. I've read it four times and I'm still not sure of what it is saying about the Ripuarian Franks. The article is no longer particularly interesting or informative to the average reader. It seems to be aimed at English-speaking academics interested in certain arcane details about this subject, not at general readers who might want a logically sequenced, orderly explanation. There's more I could say about this, but I'd like to just throw that on the table. I don't mean to insult anyone or denigrate the scholarship involved. I suppose in the end it's the style that concerns me. Schildewaert (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to write a similar comment. It dives right into the quicksand of obscure details and never emerges. Who were the Ripuarian Franks? I still don't know, because the article didn't say.77Mike77 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed this article has the wrong style. There is a lot of digression, and some of the opinions being expressed without sources are not any sort of field consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not only the style, but the content also. It lreads like a tale from 1900s, not suprising given the references used. Contemporary scholars, folowing Mathias Springer, see no such thing as "Ripuarian Franks". Their first attestation is in the Middle Ages, thus the idea of Rip. Franks is an anachronistic interpolation. The Ripuarii were the Roman Gallic field army who sided with Aetius and simply 'became Franks' as they broke with central (Italian) authority, albeit with an already heavy "Germanic" proportion of soldiers (estimate from 25-60%, +)> 58.172.242.105 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not only the style, but the content also. It lreads like a tale from 1900s, not suprising given the references used. Contemporary scholars, folowing Mathias Springer, see no such thing as "Ripuarian Franks". Their first attestation is in the Middle Ages, thus the idea of Rip. Franks is an anachronistic interpolation. The Ripuarii were the Roman Gallic field army who sided with Aetius and simply 'became Franks' as they broke with central (Italian) authority, albeit with an already heavy "Germanic" proportion of soldiers (estimate from 25-60%, +). Eg see [1] pp 84 onward Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is not controversial to say that it would be good to include more modern sources indeed, and better discussion about some of the real debates about ethnogenesis. It is not unusual that a Wikipedia article starts out based on older ideas, because these are often easier to find. All that is required is someone with the time and access to the sources. Every edit that improves the article should be welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Should this article be called "Rhineland Franks"

I have been trying to find better sources, but I note some strongly avoid using the word Ripuari to refer to a people rather than a set of laws.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)