Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 2
|
|
Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 1
Just a note - pretty much all of the Carolingian monarchs can be considered to be numbered as Kings of France, with the exception of that East Frankish interloper Charles the Fat.
Charles I the Great
Charles II the Bald
Charles III the Simple
Louis I the Pious
Louis II the Stammerer
Louis III
Louis IV the Foreigner
Louis V the Sluggard
The other names used by Carolingians (Pepin, Lothar/Lothaire, Carloman...is that it?) were never used again by the Capetians. So Charles the Fat is the only exception. Otherwise, I'd say that 843 is probably the best date for the creation of "France", although, of course, it was still called "West Francia" for some time after that. I'd note, though, that Nations before Nationalism by John Armstrong, suggests that the origins of a nation called "France" should be dated at some point between 911 and 987, especially the latter part of the period, when there were Emperors in Germany of a dynasty junior to the Carolingians ruling France. France's lengthier maintenance of the Carolingians meant that it could see itself as utterly politically separate from Germany with its ridiculous new dynasty calling itself emperors, and thus extricated itself from the grip of Roman universalism. (Not sure if that made sense). Anyway, I would say that "France" originated between 843 and 987, although, of course, it was a feudal mess for most of that time. john 05:46 26 May 2003 (UTC)
- well -- except for Louis the German, Louis the Bavarian, Louis the Child, Arnulf ... and Charles the Fat isn't an interloper -- he was invited in! Still, I agree with Armstrong that it's a pain. ANd I like using the Capetans -- but the numbering doesn't work that way ... ugh! JHK
Well, yes, but I was thinking of the Kings of West Francia. None of the ones you mention ruled over West Francia/France. Yeah, I know Charles the Fat was invited in. But they kicked him out right quick. That's what you get for inviting in a king known as "the Fat". Although Louis the Fat was a pretty good king, I suppose. john 06:44 26 May 2003 (UTC)
So then why is Edward James' extensive published work all about the origins of today’s France coming from Clovis? (Edward James, "The Origins of France: Clovis to the Capetians 500-1000.") Triton
john How does "politically separate from Germany" come into this discussion? Germany didn't exist for another 1000 years. Triton
According to the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Merovingian Dynasty: Frankish dynasty considered the first French royal house. [1] (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=397220)
According to BBC 1: "The Merovingian Dynasty was the first major royal dynasty of what would eventually become France."
See also: MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY: Medieval France: An Encyclopedia , eds. W. Kibler and G. Zinn. New York: Garland Publishing, 1995. -- This Encyclopedia states: "The Merovingians are considered to be the "first race" of French kings"
Triton -- your sources are 1) very general, and 2) support what I've said. D'oh! I explained why the "are considered" part exists in the details. Also, "what would eventually become France -- i.e., it wasn't at the time. JAmes we've done ad nauseam. The last one -- anyone who uses "first race" is clearly revising a really old (like late 19th c.) text for a modern version. The language alone should tell you that the analysis is historically suspect
Unfortunately Ms. K, the facts are clear and precise by all reputable sources that the Merovingians were in fact the first monarchs of France. The changes in borders as a result of war make them no different than any other anywhere. You should perhaps study a little more on the Merovingians, in particular Clovis I and the monarchy. Unless you can come up with documented proof of something different that the numerous above totally credible sources (and I can get more) who clearly and precisely state the Merovingians as French monarchs, please do not remove them from this list on your unfounded whims. Triton
- How singularly amusing! I teach college history and my research specialty is the Franks, although I focus more on the Carolingians. Despite that, I'm guessing I might just have read more, and more advanced works, on the subject than you and your cronies. For example, right now, I'm reading Nira Gradowicz-Pancer, "De-gendering female violence : Merovingian female honour as an 'exchange of violence'"in Early Medieval Europe, v. 11, no. 3 (2002). Maybe I should just read old encyclopedias instead? JHK
Look, given the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) and Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (BCE), which source would you take as a more accurate reference? Clearly EB because the latter has clearly stated Concise. The quote in EB states the Merovigians was traditionally reckoned only, in contrast to BCE. According to Le Petit Larousse illustre, eds. Patrice Maubourguet et al.. Paris: Larousse, 1996, the entry Merovingians clearly states, "
Merovingiens, nom donne a la premiere dynastie de rois francs. Elle n'apparut dans l'histoire qu'avec Chlodion (m. v. 460), qui fut roi de Cambrai, et Childeric Ier (m. v. 481), qui fut roi de Tournai et dont il n'est pas sur qu'il ait ete le fils de Chlodion. En fait, la fondateur de la dynastie fut Clovis Ier (m. en 511). Le dernier Merovingien, Childeric III, roi en 743, fur enferme en 751 dans un monastere par Pepin le Bref, fondatuer des Carolingiens."
The entry is translated as: Merovingians, name of the first dynasty of Frankish kings. They did not appear in history until the appearances of Chlodion (died ca 460), who was the king of Cambrai, and Childeric I (died ca 481), who was the king of Tournai. Thus it is not sure if Childeric I was the son of Chlodion. In fact the founder of the dynasty was Clovis I (died 511). The last Merovingian, Childeric III, king in 743, was bounded in 751 inside a monastry by Pepin the Short, founder of the Carolingians.
Convinced? User:kt2
I don't think triton is worth arguing with. He/she is obviously not listening to anything we say. john 18:46 26 May 2003 (UTC)
While I would never put down anyone’s creditials, I would certainly not make degrading remarks like calling people’s honest efforts obtuness, misrepresentations or lies as Ms. K did to a user on Talk:Clovis I. This is the Internet where identity theft is a real problem and purported credentials mean little. However, based on her input in the Clovis I article, I would say she may not have read much on early France and certainly not the Merovingians. I managed to stumble through universities but won’t make claims in an intended encyclopedia I can’t substantiate. That kind of thing is for discussion forums. Therefore, if Encyclopedia Britannica, or all the other facts I gave aren’t good enough for her, she should do as I already asked and provide the appropriate references that contradicts James, Fouracre and Gerberding and others. Perhaps she could could give everyone the ISBN number for these references and that of her own published authorative works on the subject. Triton
Encyclopedia Brittanica does not support you. It says the Merovingians are traditionally reckoned the first Kings of France. That's not the same thing as saying they are Kings of France. The article, at present, does say that the Merovingians are traditionally considered Kings of France. You are purposefully misconstruing other sources to support your claim, when, in fact, they do not. john 19:08 26 May 2003 (UTC)
- I believe I mentioned that I hold your sources in high regard, and that I believe you have miscontrued them, as you have the EB per KT2 above. Also, I did add other sources, with ISBN numbers -- another book by James, and two by Geary. Unless they got reverted in one of triton's reverts! ANd unfortunately I stand by the rest -- if Triton's attempts are honest, he would enter into the discussion -- clearly that isn't happening. JHK
- I'm the one in the discussion with facts, you have yet to provide even one. You have done nothing but assert your unfounded, undocumented opinions. You drove away user: Ericd, Olivier, and others on the matter of France and you continue to delete factual information that contradicts your continuining diatribe of unfounded opinions. Please deal with facts. And I repeat, please don't demean honest contributors. It only tells everyone exactly who you are. In all my life, I have never met a qualified, educated person who gets there point across by deleting proofs that don't suit them or by insulting the person they disagree with.
Triton, what's your response on my evidents then? the coin in Clovis I was not dated and here is a 1996 coin that clearly states Clovis is the king of Franks (http://www.ventesuroffres.net/images/monnaies/vso/v14/v14_1315.jpg). Again, the quote in EB states the Merovigians was traditionally reckoned only. BTW I seconded what john has said - Triton is just quoting "evidences" without taking careful accounts at them. User:kt2
I never said Clovis was not King of the Franks. What I said was what James said: The Origins of France is Clovis and he was crowned King in Reims.Triton
- Yes, but I think the question is, Does James say he was crowned King of France? I can't imagine that he does. Also, what is his source? Since Clovis was king of the Franks long before his conversion, was this part of his entry into the Church? It seems likely (after all, coronatins are Christian ceremonies), but it isn't mentioned in Gregory -- I just checked. ANyway, I think you may be to emotionally involved to be reading what we are saying. JHK
All of a sudden, golly gosh, maybe he was crowned. Why don't you read about the origin of the Divine Right of Kings. And, reinstate my facts in Clovis I. Also, try to control your emotions and not irrationally remove important information that others might wish to read. It belittles Wikipedia to vandalize articles and to say degrading things about other contributors. Triton
- You don't seem to understand -- let me clarify. Presumably the coronation at Rheims was done by Remegius, the Bishop. This type of coronation only happens in a Christian context. I don't know that there was a pagan equivalent. Sorry, Triton, but I am just trying to figure out what you mean. The questions are perfectly reasonable and are meant to further cooperation. I would ask them of a colleague, so why do you find them insulting? JHK
So, start by reinstating everything into Clovis I, someone I do indeed know something about. Then, explain James' title, explain Britannica assertions (who it is claimed on Wikipedia is the greatest source), explain all the others and refute THEM, don't worry about me or any ideas I might have. Provide proofs to refutre all these respected sources and I will gladly accept it. But, so far, (I repeat), you only keep expressing opinions, no facts. My Gosh, you sometime ago even deleted Clovis' burial place! Triton
- No one here claims Brittanica is the greatest source -- it's just a source we legally borrow from to save work! And please stop asking me to do what I've done here and elsewhere, if you'd take the time to read through old discussions. And unfortunately, sometimes, things get deleted because it's easier than picking through and re-writing wholesale. IF I removed Clovis' burial place, I probably removed it because it was writted in a context that was misleading. JHK
Just go back and reinstate the FACTUAL map and my text. Thank you. Here is the first line at Wikipedia - Encyclopędia Britannica
- Encyclopędia Britannica is the most prestigious encyclopedia in the English language. Its articles are commonly considered most accurate, reliable and well-written.
Now, I repeat:
- Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Merovingian Dynasty: Frankish dynasty considered the first French royal house. [2] (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=397220)
Is this enough or do you now wish to delete some of Wikipedia's article on the Britannica? You know, Ms. K, when others see you continually delete facts without justification, it really does cause a moment's hesitation. But, I have every confidence you can prove Britannica wrong. So please do. 64.228.30.93
- This is getting tiresome. -- Derek Ross 20:21 26 May 2003 (UTC)
64.228.30.93 - look, which one of the two sources would you take as the more accurate, Encyclopędia Britannica or Britannica Concise Encyclopedia ? Defintely Encyclopędia Britannica, right? Now, the entry at EB states Frankish dynasty (AD 476–750) traditionally reckoned as the “first race” of the kings of France. (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=1657&tocid=0&query=merovingian&ct=). John states above "Encyclopedia Brittanica does not support you. It says the Merovingians are traditionally reckoned the first Kings of France. That's not the same thing as saying they are Kings of France." They were not kings of France, and thus not French monarchs. Get it? User:kt2
- Excuse my bluntness but this endless talk is getting tiresome. - kt2
- I agree, this is getting quite tiresome. Perhaps to refocus the discussion, we could try to work on the language to make it less offensive to those who still see the Frankish Kings as "Kings of France", without surrendering to them. I present the sentence:
- "This view is somewhat problematic in layman's terms, however, in part due to the existence of centuries-old tradition, generally based on royal propaganda often generated by rivals for the French throne
- I would suggest that the last phrase be deleted - it is a centuries old tradition, based, I would imagine, on numerous factors. Among these is royal propaganda from the Capetians, and that can be mentioned, but this seems a bit confrontational, as it stands. john 20:58 26 May 2003 (UTC)
The Merovingians were not Kings of "France", but niether where the Carolingians. Nevertheless both are "traditionally reckoned" as Kings of France. If we have the Carolingians here it makes no sense to exclude the Merovingians. Maybe there should be two articles: List of Frankish monarchs and List of French monarchs, with the former listing the Merovingian Kings of Neustria and Austrasia and Carolingians and the later picking up with the Capetians. 65.94.49.229
- I think that would be sensible. On the other hand, I think a better date for the cut off would be Verdun in 843. Western Francia was the political entity that was the direct predecessor to modern France, and, further, if we didn't do that there would be considerable confusion on the "Frankish Monarchs" page after 843 - Charles the Bald and Louis the German's vassals' oaths in French and German seems a good enough cut off to me. Of course, that means that the monarchs numbered Charles I and Louis I of France would not be listed in the monarchs of France article. john 21:08 26 May 2003 (UTC)
- I seconded it. Under the entry of France' at the Larousse I quoted above,
....Les Carolingiens 768-814: .... 843-987 : Charles le Chauve, premier roi de France..... (i.e. Charles the Bald, first king of France).
- not to beat it over the head, but that's why we originally included the Carolingians. And there are already pages and lists for the Ms and Cs JHK
Give me a break. First Ms. K ignores my prooof then deletes it, thern deletes a map from Clovis in 511 that shows FRANCE as clear as a bell then tells Brion Vibber my map is a copyright violation blah blah blah. It isn't but of course SHE deleted it, abusing her sysop powers. How much do you guys need spelled out. The medallion of Clovis I labeling him as King of France, his crowning was King of what? Toledo? Read and study history. Clovis formed France. There is no record anywherte on the planet that states the day the territory became offically “FRANCE.” The rulers evolved as did its name. Look at the 511 map. England wasn't called England when Ethelred (whoever) showed up, nor were its borders anywhere near precise. Remember a place called Wales? But, we list him as a King of England. He lived, reigned, died there. Clovis I is as much or more King of France than the first Kings of England cvan be labeled and more King of France than most all the other losers who followed and lost territory every day of the week until Henri IV. There is no argument amongst historians: James titled his book "ORIGINS OF FRANCE - Clovis etc.” for a reason. Why is this discussion going on. I just put up a new 870 map. Look at it and the 511 map. See France? It is almost what the place is today. Old Clovis did a heck of a job. I’m tired of Ms. Hemp going on and on and on without ever providing one shred of evidence to support her absurd theories. And that is all they are, HER THEORIES and she has to delete my facts to cover her claims. The Carolingians replaced the Merovingians as what over what. Rulers of the territorty we call France. And when the Capetians took over it was justy the same long line of territorial rulers. ALL are Kings of the territory we now call England and of France. Now, please insert the Merovingians here and if you want, by all means explain the lines and territories for the past 2,000 years and how or what they were called. Then go to the list of British Kings and give the same explanation.Triton
- Whatever User:kt2
- I'm no historian so I'll refrain from comment on the substance of these disputed articles, but let's get one thing straight - nobody has abused their sysop powers. The map has not been deleted - it has been removed from the article and listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. This is absolutely the proper procedure. Unless somebody can show that it is PD or GFDL as explained at Image:ClovisDomain.jpg, it will indeed be deleted, because we do not want to breach any copyrights. Also, contary to what you said before, it is not only sysops who can revert pages; please see Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. --Camembert
- Triton, you have presented nothing even vaguely resembling "proof". You have cited a) the title of a book, which could mean all kinds of things, and likely doesn't mean what you say it does; and b) various encyclopedia articles that don't mean what you say they mean. And not only Ms. K has disagreed with you. kt2 and myself have also been presenting you with plenty of explanations as to why the early Frankish kings ought not be considered Kings of France. If anyone is not paying attention to what other people say it is you. Your argument in all situations is a) these authorities say what I do [they don't]; b) The Franks ruled what is now France, therefore they were Kings of France [in which case Constantine XI would be surprised to learn that he was a Turk.]; and c) Ms. K is somehow violating sysop powers by doing things that any user can do. This is pretty weak. john 23:31 26 May 2003 (UTC)
- S/he is not listening. User:kt2
Not only do I listen, I read too. Do you? What part of "History of France: Clovis to the Capetians" do you not understand when you read it? And, what great wisdom do you demonstraste by saying : and likely doesn't mean what you say it does? Forgive me, but that kind of statement is belitting. Suggest you read my Clovis I additions of today. Not what minor semblance is left after Ms. K deleted FACTS without proof solely because FACTS debunked her line of theories. Read my full article. The whole history of ALL European kings claiming a "Divine Right TO RULE" is predicated on King Clovis of France. As author James and Britannica said (want more for the list?) Clovis I, a Merovingian ruler, was King of France. Triton
The title of the damned book is "Origins of France: Clovis to the Capetians". Do you think we're going to be fooled by something like that? This does not imply that James es saying that Clovis was a King of France. Please, supply a quote from within the James book in which Clovis is called "King of France." Britannica does not call him a King of France. It says in the Clovis article: "king of the Franks and ruler of much of Gaul from 481 to 511, a key period during the transformation of the Roman Empire into Europe." It does say that later French people saw him as the first King of France, but so does this article as it stands now. So: give me a quote from the James book that actually says Clovis was King of France, not merely that he was later considered to have been a King of France, and then we can discuss this further. If you just keep referring back to using wrong versions of the title of the book, and inaccurate glosses of Britannica, I'm going to ignore you. john 23:53 26 May 2003 (UTC)
- I do read pal. Let's take it logically. You said a while ago, "I never said Clovis was not King of the Franks." and now you say Clovis was a king of France. What are you achieving by a double-negative statement ? So is or isn't Clovis a king of Franks by that statement? If you intend to mean Clovis was a king of Franks, then you are contradicting your king of France statement. If you intend to mean Clovis was a king of France, you are contradicting your "Clovis was not King of the Franks" statement. You are contradicting yourself either way.
Although there are two other possible ways: Clovis was the King of the Franks and the King of the France, and Clovis was neither the KIng of Franks nor the King of France. These two statements were not mentioned in any of your statements so I am sure you didn't mean that.
Last but not least, I am researching sinology online so I might be a little late on my reply but that doesn't mean I didn't read comments here pal. User:kt2
Hi all -- I think we've all gotten a bit tired. I've asked for a neutral party to step in, read through the pages in question, and maybe freeze contributions to the articles for a week.
BTW, as I mentioned at Clovis I, I thought that much of what Triton added was good information, but that I hed a gut feeling that it was cribbed too closely from James, and that it would make a good chunk of the article fall under the category of plagiarism -- something we can't afford. Triton hasn't really offered to show that it's not, so I plan to get copies of the relevant books from the library (if they are in) sometime this week. If it is more than plagiaristic paraphrasing, I'll put lots of it back. As it was, though, I checked some of it against Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks, the main primary source for this period, and some of the re-writing actually changed chronology, etc. I don't think that was intentional -- probably more a way of not plagiarizing -- but it doesn't make sense to add in stuff haphazardly. JHK
- Hmm...do we have the right to revert information simply because we have a gut feeling that it might be plagiarism? I'm not so sure. Certainly, Triton's contributions, for the most part, improved the Clovis article, assuming that they're not plagiarized. A question: to what extent is paraphrasing plagiarism? I know for some of the articles I've written I've looked at Britannica for reference, and ended up using bits and pieces of information from it. For instance, if Britannica says that Lord Salisbury had a difficult childhood, and I say something similar, worded differently, is that plagiarism? Given that it's basically a piece of information, how distant does it have to be? john 00:12 27 May 2003 (UTC)
- um.... It's hard to draw the line. I am not an expert so I wish a legal guru or lawyer can shed some light on this isuue. ky2
OK, I've protected the page for the time being. I suggest that all parties work for a mutally acceptable compromise, perhaps by choosing a different page title. Sysops, please do not make non-minor edits to the page while it is protected. --Eloquence 00:20 27 May 2003 (UTC)
You don't need to protect it from me. Ms. K hits Puff the Magic Dragon and my hard work and proofs vanish. I don't care wehat title you use just remember Mr. Vibber says this is to be a true encyclopedia so when someone clicks here it better not be too far off from Encyclopedia Britannica or other credible websites. Right now this page says "golly, gosh, the Carolingians aren't really aren't French kings but I'm so nice I'll let you list them here". And the Merovingians are nowhere to be found on the list of Kings who ruled over what at some point we statred calling "France". This folks, makes a joke of Wikipedia. Next, you have to treat the List of British monarchs exactly the samne way as the French. An encyclopedia must be consistent. The date England became England is unknown, just like France, the English King's territory changed frequently too. Good Lord, Bonnie Prince Charlie, King of Scotland (he hoped) had London within his grasp! Mary, Queen of Scotland claimed the throne of England as well and Philip of Spain and on and on. Triton
- Just FYI, Julie has not used her sysop powers in any way regarding this article. Anyone, including anonymous users, can revert to an earlier version by viewing the history, selecting a revision, editing and saving it. I will not get involved in the discussion so as to maintain neutrality. --Eloquence 00:39 27 May 2003 (UTC)
The big problem that Franch historians have been trying to explain away for a long time, Triton, is that even though the Carolingians (and even more the M's) ruled over (what is now) France, french they were definitely not. They hung on to their Germanic heritage rather subbornly. So French historians came up with a myth: the Francs are extict, absorbed, therefore we can claim them retroactively as 'french'. The fact that in the extreme North of France there was still a handful speaking (what evolved from) their tongue was a nuisance htat needed to be removed by degrading it to this horrible unworthy 'patois' of 'flamand' Successive French governments were quite effective in ridiculing and cajoling it to death. Not that the Germans were any better to what is admittedly my mothertongue: Dutch is obviously a german dialect, after all the Franks were Germans, nichtwahr? (That we Franks tried to civilizes these barbarians is easily forgotten.
In the name of Europe, can we PLEASE stop this nonsense. The Franks were Europeans and pretty darned good ones too. This Frank therefore refuses to claim Karel de Grote as my past king. Je vous invite tous a faire la meme chose Jcwf
- Vrai. Il me fatigue aussi, mais Tritons continue a poser son faux raisons. User:kt2
Non! C'est pas vrai! Pour tous les ans.... Triton
I agree with Jcwf, this is nonsense. Triton: England wasn't England before the Anglo-Saxons invaded, surely? In general lists of Kings of England start with Egbert, the first King of Wessex to be accepted as "High King" of all the Anglo-Saxons. The use of the term "King of England" seems to be later, though. But, in any event, the Anglo-Saxons are basically the English, in a way that you can't say that the Franks are the French (what with them speaking a Germanic language, and such). As far as it goes, I'd suggest:
1) A page with Kings of the Franks, listing them up through the Treaty of Verdun;
2) This page start with Charles the Bald, noting that Charles I is Charlemagne and Louis I is Louis the Pious, without them actually being part of the "official" list. 843 is a fairly natural starting point, since it's when the Kingdom that directly evolved into modern France came into being. It obviates the problem of Pepin the Short obviously not being particularly more a King of France than Childeric, but explains how the numbering system works. It doesn't involve the messiness of trying to list all the late Carolingians one page.
3) It be clearly explained on this page that in French national tradition, the Merovingian and early Carolingian Kings of the Franks were considered to be Kings of France (and, for the early Carolingians, also Kings of Germany, or what not).
What do people think? john 03:32 27 May 2003 (UTC)
The List of Frankish Kings already exists. 65.94.49.229
- SO, basically, kind of what's here already, but adding that the Carolingians are also part of the history of Germany and German national tradition (whatever that is) -- and then a list that starts off with "for numbering purposes, Charlemagne is considered CI and Louis the Pious Louis I, and then just continue with western Carolingians (with C the Fat?)? Hmmm -- I would like to see the numbers in parens after the whatchamacallits - nicknamey things. May take some consideration, but it might work as I understand it ... JHK
Yes, basically. In terms of Cognomens, I think "Charles II the Bald", "Louis II the Stammerer", and so forth, work fairly well, although "Charles the Bald (Charles II)", "Louis the Stammerer (Louis II)" would also work. john 04:06 27 May 2003 (UTC)
- I think that the later just sounds better, since really they are one or the other in conversation, and most contemporary authors don't even use numbers for the Carolingians with cognomena. FOr example, McKitterick in Frankish Kingdoms, Innes in State and Society in the Early Middle Ages. I think even Pierre Riché in Les Carolingiens JHK
- Oh -- and in German, it's almost always just the cognomenJHK
Alright, then that sounds fine to me. On the other hand, for the Capetians with cognomens, I think it should come after the number: "Louis VI the Fat", "Philip IV the Fair", and so forth. john 04:26 27 May 2003 (UTC)
How about a table format:
| Dynasty or House | Rulers (with Roman numerals) | Rulers (with cognomens) | Reigns | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carolingians | Charles II | Charles the Bald | 847-877 | .... |
User:kt2
Very pretty!JHK
Yeah, that's pretty nice. I wish I knew how to make tables :( Anyway, this way we can even get "Louis the Well-Loved", and so forth. Although, to be honest, I can't think of any other Bourbon monarchs who had cognomes. :( john 06:11 27 May 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that linking to Charles II is a good idea - it's a disambiguation page... :-/ Martin
Perhaps in layman terms you can tell me how the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia states: Merovingian Dynasty: Frankish dynasty considered the first French royal house - means the Merovingian dynasty are NOT the first French royal house. Unless I am totally stupid, when one makes a list of French monarchs it usually starts with the first French royal house, doesn’t it? Next, go to http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=386306 where it states: "He (Clovis) is traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy and the original French champion of the Christian faith." Is this not clear enough too?
This creation of two lists, one called List of Frankish Kings is a message that says Franks are not French and the Merovingian are not rulers of France. That contradicts all existing authorities on this subject. Lets not go in circles here. What makes the list of British monarchs different than the French list? Both were not called England or France 1500 years ago, both have had their territorial borders changed frequently and under most very king. So why would not some of these purported British kings be segregated to another list with a disambiguation page? And, when you read: MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY: Medieval France: An Encyclopedia, eds. W. Kibler and G. Zinn. New York: Garland Publishing, 1995. -- This Encyclopedia states: "The Merovingians are considered to be the "first race" of French kings." By race, they are saying the race of Franks ruled over many other distinct races in France. Read your French history: “Groups of people not connected by dialect, philosophy, or political commonality, but labeled under one name by the Romans as ‘’Germanic tribes’’, soon began taking over parts of Gaul, blocking other barbarians coming in great numbers from the north and the east during the 5th century.”
But, THEY ARE FRENCH KINGS. What more do you need from? Clovis is recognized by ALL qualified scholars and sources as the first because of the territory he united. Please look at the map on Clovi I article, the one Ms. K did not want you to see. Question, why do you argue a point here? Why not produce a reputable source that contradicts the many scholars I have quoted. And, note Ms. K has provided no rebuttal proofs, only more talk about her “ideas” and deleting of my facts accompanied by degrading remarks. Study Manchester University’s work by Paul Fouracre and Richard A. Gerberding titled: Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640-720. Note, please it is titled Merovingian France, not Merovingian China. Or does this mean Merovingian NOT France?
Next study “Francia” then you will understand that the territory between modern-day France and Germany, and south to Central Italy, became known as Francia. West Francia is France and 1,400 years later East Francia was named Germany. The Franks settled in West Francia long before Clovis. But, Clovis lived, worked, fought, made love, had children, and died and is buried in Paris, West Francia. That makes Clovis a West Francian doesn’t it? Yes, he conguered and ruled over parts of Germany and if one wishes to list the history of Germany (although the country as we know it is only 100 years old) then by all means list Clovis as one of its ruler/conguerors. But, Clovis did not come riding in on his horse from Berlin and conqueror West Francia. As I said in the Clovis I article that Ms. K deleted in order to hide facts and proofs that she was wrong, the Franks lived in Toxandria. Honestly, this is going too far. But I care about the quality at Wikipedia and will not let Ms. K intimidate me as she did others and drive me away. I just don’t understand why anyone at Wikipedia would want to contradict all other encyclopedias and scholars and place opinions without any supporting proof into an article and label it as fact. It will only take one reputable scholar to look at it and label Wikipedia as a joke. Please stop talking here in circles and deal with facts. Is that asking too much in an encyclopedia?
For the benefit of those dropping in on this discussion, I’ve saved time and added the following from the WikiEN-L archive who responded to Ms. K on this subject. Triton
Stan Shebs wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sun, 25 May 2003 17:36:18 -0400
Merovingians as not-French is definitely in the radical rethink category, and it may be a decade, or a generation, or even longer, before it comes to be generally accepted. Until then, trying to edit Wikipedia based on the assumption that the assertion is true is going to be hard; you're going against an army of editors who are backed by a horde of published authorities with reputations much higher than your own.
Stan
I will point out, so there is no doubt: there is no discussion or witings anywhere of any kind by any credible authority that attempts to deny/change or rethink that the Merovingians were not French. The only person who ever raised this issue was someone who logged in under the user name Ms. JHK at www.wikipedia.org. Triton
Triton, 1) Ms. HK is so obviously not the only person who has been saying this that you are surely not being honest in your statements here; 2) you have no sources to back you up, besides Stan's comment to the listserve, which hardly counts. As far as the difference between "British Monarchs" and "French Monarchs" - Britain is a purely geographical term. it was used to refer to the region before the Romans, and is still used today. Therefore, all medieval kings on the island are British kings. "France", on the other hand, is a geographical term derived from the name of a people. That people is the "French". Of course, the name French derives from Frank, but the Franks were not French - they were a Germanic people. Until there can be said to be a Romance-speaking people who call themselves French (as opposed to Gauls, or gallic), I don't think you can say there was a France. john 16:54 27 May 2003 (UTC)
First, never make accusations of dishonesty in a discussion. It is that type of conduct they ban people for and I certainly don't appreciate it. If I lie, or abuse you, please state it. I will be the first to apologize, unlike Ms. K. Second, I provided mutitudes of sources. But, you are saying that James doesn't know what he is talking about and should change the title of his book to History of a "Piece of Rock & Mud in Europe": Clovis to the Capetians instead of History of France: Clovis to the Capetians. I don't profess to be an expert on the subject but I believe in Encyclopedia Britannica and when Wiki says it is ther foremost authority (whatever) then I agree or do we change that article to say Britannica is less than reliable? And I repeat what I said before as just one SOURCE (again that we here at Wiki say is absolutely reliable):
- Britannica Concise Encyclopedia states: Merovingian Dynasty: Frankish dynasty considered the first French royal house - means exactly what it says. Next, go to http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=386306 where it states about Clovis I : "He (Clovis) is traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy and the original French champion of the Christian faith." Is this not clear enough too? Triton
Now, sir. In a Wikipedia List of French monarchs should we not list the "founder of the French monarchy" as Britannica claims Clovis to be?
By the way: "Therefore, all medieval kings on the island are British kings" - really? That is amazing. So William the Conqueror is British? Canute was British? William III of Orange was British. All were kings of the whole island. Sorry, but a lot of Scots and Welsh folk would take great exception to that. Triton