Talk:Merovingian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)
French military history task force
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

Contents

[edit] Early discussions

why is the matrix: reloaded villain called The Merovingian, then? Were the directors of this movie name-dropping esoterica or is there something deeper in their choice of words? Please forward any theories and analogies to elphteq@yahoo.com.au [250503]

I removed the statement beginning, According to all major qualified historians ... which was (and still is) followed by the Britannica, a popular reference book, and the BBC. Where did they study? Exactly what university do they teach at? Danny

I removed the ridiculous (and I say this advisedly -- there is no proof, and the scholarship in Baigent's book is not well-regarded. JHK

Ms. JHK or whoever you are in real life, my work is not ridiculous. Please refrain from your continued degradation or leave Wikipedia because deleting proper text on your whim withgout foundation is unacceptasble and violates Wikipedia conventions. You did this yeaterday on Clovis and were wrong. Please stop. Triton

I have to agree with Ms. JHK's deletion here, I would have done the same. No reputable scholar believes in the information she deleted. -- Zoe

Triton, I do not believe the bit I referred to as ridiculous (the bit about the Merovingian descent from Jesus Christ) was written by you, unless you have yet another name. It was that first removal I called ridiculous. Here are my explanations for editing your contribution. I reverted because I do not have time to pick through, and so feel it is better to revert to something trustworthy until properly thought out changes can be made.

This is the paragraphy I had especial problems with:

"This repeated partitioning not only reaffirmed these new political units, but they also undermined the strength of the Frankish Empire, which was being raided at its frontiers. The Slavs and the Avars posed a threat on the northeastern frontier, the Lombards on the southeastern frontier and the Muslims on the southwestern frontier. In 613, the king of Neustria took control of the other two kingdoms and a united Frankish Kingdom was created with its capital in Paris."

I am not 100%, but very close, that this is talking about the division of the Frankish Empire after Louis the Pious. I believe this because:

  1. During the 6th c., the Slavs and Avars weren't really a threat.
  2. This paragraph implies that the Muslims were a threat before 613 -- they weren't -- they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN -- Islam did not exist before right around 622.That is not true. Mohammed A.D.570-632 founder of Islam. RLM

The latter part of the paragraph talks about a united Frankish kingsom -- correct for the Merovingians, but the earlier part talks about an Empire -- generally used only to refer to Carolingian Francia.

These types of errors in editing are exactly why I felt it necessary to remove information from Clovis I until it had been verified. They are at best careless. JHK

Muslims existed long before 622. Who says the that "During the 6th c., the Slavs and Avars weren't really a threat". You? What source, please. AND "an Empire -- generally used only to refer to Carolingian Francia" is more theories with "generally" and maybe and golly gosh. How about fact. The word Empire was used all the time. It is not specific to anyone. PuleezeTriton

Maybe, Ms JHK or whoever you really are, you should learn what Muslim means and what Islam means. Then put it with Wotan and presto you have learned something. Triton

A question regarding the esoteric history regarding the descent from Jesus Christ and all that: obviously it is not true (that is, the Merovingians were not descendants of Jesus Christ), and obviously this is a later invention. But how much later? Is this a genuine (late) medieval tradition? A renaissance tradition? An enlightenment freemason type myth? A nineteenth century romantic "rediscovery"? Something that people made up when The Matrix Reloaded came out? In any event, the story is certainly out there, and I've seen it elsewhere. I think it should at least be referenced on wikipedia, although only if a) we have some idea what the origins of the story are; and b) clearly explain that the story arose much later, and is not true (in NPOV language) of course. john 02:24 28 May 2003 (UTC)

And, to Triton: Mohammed was born in 570 AD. He didn't even start founding Islam until 610. Its calendar starts in 622. Islam didn't leave Arabia until 634. It didn't reach Spain until 711. I find it hard to see how it could have been a threat to the Frankish kingdom from the west in 613 AD. john 02:24 28 May 2003 (UTC)

John, are you too joining in with derogatory remarks now? In any event, you too should learn what Muslim means and what Islam means. May the Prophet bless you, too. Triton

What on earth are you talking about? john 02:30 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and Islam means "Submission" and Muslim means "one who submits." But, again, what in the world does that have to do with the fact that Mohammed was sitting pretty in Mecca in 613 AD, and that Muslims were nowhere near the Frankish Kingdom until a century later? john 02:31 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes Muslims, were nowhere near the Frankish Kingdom in 613. But since the original paragraph mentions the southwestern frontier, what would now be Spain, maybe whoever contributed the text had mistaken them for the Visigoths? They did rule Spain at 613 and had earlier conflicts with the Franks. User: Dimadick

John -- the first time I saw this it was in Michael Baigent (sp?) Holy Blood, Holy Grail. I don't know how new it is, but I know the book got lots of laughs when I was in grad school. It's connected to legends about the Templar treasure and a village called Rennes-la-chateau. Recently, the legend made an appearance in Gabriel Knight 3, a computer game that blended these legends with the idea that the Templars escaped to Scotland and somehow are connected to the house of Stewart and the freemasons. Katherine Kurtz has also picked up on some of these legends (mostly the Templar stuff) and combined it first with the Freemasons in her (with D.L. Harris) Adept series and also with Robert the Bruce and the Loch Ness Monster in The Temple and the Crown and The Temple and the Stone. This is definitely esoteric legend rather than provable history. (I've read an awfeul lot on these guys -- none of this is ever mentioned, even as a possibility) I really think that we should omit any reference from the real history pages, unless you want to start a trend for every alternate history/fantasy to make its way into reality. Perhaps it would fit on a page on esoterica? JHK PS -- Triton -- do you actually know what derogatory means? You throw the word around a lot, but never seem to use it correctly.

John: The Muslim threat never diminished from Philippe A II & Richard Lionheart. Tensions, threats, possible invasions were on and off for hundreds of years. And, what on earth is the person calling themselves JHK talking about? Triton

In regards to Empire versus Kingdom -- It's an Empire if it's ruled by an Emperor. The Frankish Kingdoms are never called an Empire until the coronation of Charlemagne in 800. I've never seen a Merovingian called an Emperor -- simply reges francorum -- kings of the Franks

And that bit about Muslims being around in the 12th c. has nothing to do with the fact that they WERE NOT around before 711. Of course they were around till later -- till 1492 and the Reconquista, as a matter of factJHK

In terms of apocryphal stories, it seems to me that they ought to be talked about if they're actually genuine legends, and not something made up by twentieth century hucksters. For instance, I think that the page on Charlemagne ought to talk about the legend of Charlemagne, the Paladins, and all that stuff, or, at least, have some sort of link to that. The page on the Templars ought to have some material on the various legends of the Templars. And so forth. This legend sounds to be like one concocted fairly recently, though, and thus probably shouldn't be included. john 03:11 28 May 2003 (UTC)

John, the legends, traditions & stories about Charlemagne & his Paladins should properly belong under Matter of France. Unfortunately, at present there is only a link to this topic in the article on Roland, & maybe another one at Ludovico Ariosto. It should be as easy to research & write an article on as on King Arthur. -- llywrch 05:02 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, the Charlemagnic legend coverage in wikipedia is rather weak at the moment. I don't know enough about it to write anything, at least not at the moment. But, I would say, that some mention of the legends ought to be made on the Charlemagne page. As in "after Charlemagne's death, a series of legends grew up around him and his 12 Paladins, bla bla bla, see Matter of France." john 05:08 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Well, I took my first look at the Charlemagne page (gimme a break, please: there's over 120,000 articles & I'm still trying to find time to write the ones I want to, let alone read all of the ones of interest to me ;-), & made some changes -- including a link to Matter of France. Maybe someone will see the link there & start writing it. -- llywrch 05:22 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly wasn't criticizing you in any way. There's so much work to be done on this thing, I sometimes don't know where to start. I'm sure it's like that for most of us, which is why we're doing this. john 05:37 28 May 2003 (UTC)
No criticism taken, John. (Note the smiley.) It's just that you made an excellent suggesiton, & I figured there was no harm in having a look at the article & seing if I could insert the needed words in a minute or two. But you are quite correct about just how much work there is to be done. -- llywrch 22:46 28 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't think this is DW or Elliot, Julie. It appears that English is not this person's first language. -- Zoe

yeah -- it could be the 64/MammaBear person. I'm also not sure that it's not a native speaker writing above his/her level. Or maybe a non-native with a crappy pocket translator. Still, no amount of cultural difference excuses the level of rudeness this person seems capable of. Nice to hear from you, BTW!JHK

Sorry Ms. JHK. would you please explain "level of rudeness this person seems capable"? If I'm rude please point it out to Mr. Wales. He does not tolerate that and I don't want any bad accusations against me. I'm still sad about you calling my sincere efforts "nonsense" or what was the latest, oh yes, "ridiculous." Maybe we should check with Mr. Wales and see if that is how we are to address each others efforts. Thank you. Triton

you have had enough of my time and attention lately. you certainly don't deserve an answer. JHK

Returning to the "ridiculous" story about Jesus as an ancestor of the Merovingians. Its only source seems to be the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" - 1982 by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh.I haven't read the book but I have come across magazine articles who mention their "theory". It makes two claims actualy rather than one. First that the Merovingians were descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, Second that "All true European royalty is descended from the Merovingians".

It is certainly not a very serious attempt at history or geneology. But the book seems to have spawned a popular Conspiracy theory, and risen some interest in the Merovingians. At least a google search about "Jesus Christ Merovingians" came up with 800 findings. Some of them were even discussing about Kings of minor importance like Dagobert II. Maybe the article should mention the theory ,its source and that "No reputable scholar believes in the information" as Zoe put it. Mentioning it in that context doesn't make it a "fact". User: Dimadick

If Gregory of Tours is our main source for the Merovingians he should also be mentioned in the article, along with his point of view in a matter of subjects. The following site does examine his work in that light:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gregory-hist.html. User: Dimadick

Speaking of geneology there are many Internet amateur geneologists, claiming descent from Clovis and trying to trace his own descent. Should this be mentioned as in the article about Charlemagne? This is an example:http://www.pa.uky.edu/~shapere/dkbingham/d0005/g0000007.html#I21392. User: Dimadick

I think that stuff should be included in a "genealogical myths" section of an article on Genealogy. If they do a search, they'll find it, but the won't just glance at the page title and assume it's part of the history. If it's under genealogical myths, they'll know off the bat that it's not taken seriously. -- JHK

Um --- not really any clearer -- the original point of the statement could be clearer, but its intent was to differentiate from later patterns of inheritance, e.g. primogeniture -- wanna have a go at including that bit? I'm too tired and will probably forget. After all, division of property is one of the cool things about the Franks!JHK

Removed the conspiracy theory stuff -- looks like most of the people here agree it shouldn't be in the article, if you look at the conversation above.


Quite aside from this zany parahistory stuff, there is a long list of entries in 'What links here' that should be looked through for inclusion into the text here. Wetman 04:58, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Peter or Paul?

"in order to gain power through the "spiritual" dynasty of Peter instead of the "holy blood" (i.e. Sangreal) of Mary Magdalene's descendants."

Peter? Don't you mean Paul?


Although I haven't read the book in question, If the "Roman Church" did anything to enhance a spiritual dynasty it would be the dynasy of Peter, not Paul. They RC church claims Peter as the 1st Pope and claims the the Bishop of Rome is Peter's heir and has inherited the authority given to Peter by Christ. ("On this Rock...). Dsmdgold 02:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Blood, Holy Grail

Just wondering, but should we really have the entirely dubious pseudo-history of this book in what is otherwise a sensible article about a Frankish dynasty? Why not just say something like "The Merovingian dynasty is at the center of the esoteric history of bla bla blas' book Holy Blood, Holy Grail," and then discuss the rest of the theory in an article on the book. Given that absolutely no actual historians give any credence whatsoever to these nonsensical theories (whatever the fact that they are used in The Da Vinci Code), I don't think these theories ought to be written about in any detail on this page. john 05:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, does that mean that Bram Stoker's book "Dracula" should not be mentioned on the article about Vlad Tepes, either? If it involves them, it should still be involved. Simply add a precautionary statement about how the book should be taken with a grain of salt. That's all. It involves them, and whether you like it or not, the book itself IS part of our history, so therefore it's real enough. The fact that it gives mention to them is enough to add it here, just as Nicholas Flamel is mentioned in Harry Potter. And yes, I am aware that I am using fictional books for examples, but I can't think of anything else for this situation. MasterXiam 18:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The difference is of course that Bram Stoker's book is openly fiction, while BLL's book claims scholarship and DaVinciCode is intentionally equivocal on that issue. But IMHO a very brief reference should be OK. Str1977 19:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the major deciding factor is to the centrality of the information. This article is (at present) strongly coupled to the dynastic history of the Merovingians, and it makes a very good and easy to read article in that form; adding cross-references of various types to the bottom of the article is a good idea, but diluting the content with information which isn't really related to the general theme of the content is probably not a good idea.

Having said that, I think the Magdalene descent issue is probably close enough to the subject matter to deserve a short paragraph, with appropriate disclaimers and cross-referencing, near the end.

I'm of the mind that when the article's content starts to become diluted, it needs to be renamed and/or disambiguated--maybe this information should be renamed 'merovingian dynasty' or something of the sort? --Penumbra 2k 13:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I dont care about what happened, I want to know what people believed

Certainly (at the highest level of certainty a human being can have)the merovigians are not descendants of Christ or Mary Magdalene, but my question is, what did people at the time believed? Was at any century a sect that professed such ideas?

I moved the text on the Matrix character the Merovingian to a separate article. It really doesn't belong in an article about the historical Merovingian dynasty. Will create disambiguation page shortly. McMullen

[edit] Holy Roman Empire vs. Roman Empire

The article currently contains this text:

"Clovis on his death partitioned his kingdom among his four sons according to Frankish custom. Over the next two centuries, this tradition would continue; however, accidents of fertility would ensure that occasionally the whole realm would be reunited under a single king; and even when multiple Merovingian kings ruled, the kingdom was conceived of as a single realm ruled collectively by several kings. In this way, the Frankish Kingdom resembled the later Roman Empire."

Someone recently changed "Roman Empire" to "Holy Roman Empire". This is incorrect. The later Roman Empire was frequently ruled by multiple emperors, though they were conceived of as a college of rulers over a single realm -- and in this way (though not in all that many others), the Merovingian realm was like the later Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire, however, was always ruled over by a single emperor -- there was never a situation in which there were multiple Holy Roman Emperors. Even when the later Carolinians divided up Charlemagne's empire, there was alwyas only one emperor.

--Jfruh 22:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I just changed "later Roman Empire" to "earlier Roman Empire", because the Roman Empire was indeed earlier. However, this sentence originally stated "later Holy Roman Empire". I think the change to delete "Holy" was incorrect. So one may want to make that change, I'm not certain enough to do it. However, it clearly should either be "earlier Roman Empire" or "later Holy Roman Empire".



I'm the one who put the original Roman Empire comparison in and I'm tempted to take it out, because it seems to have caused such confusion. I apologize for using the word "later" as it seems to have really mixed people up. When I said "later Roman Empire", I don't mean to say that the Roman Empire existed after (i.e. later than) the Merovnigian kingdom; rather, I was referring to the Roman Empire of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries AD. This period is "later" compared to the "classical" period, not compared to the Merovingian kingdom. This terminology is common among Roman historians, but I can see how it's confusing here; thus, I'm going to restore my original text but change "later" to "late".
All I was trying to do was draw a metaphor between the late Roman Empire and the Merovingian kingdom, to clarify, rather than confuse. Perhaps I have failed. The Merovingian habit of having multiple kings for a theoretically united kingdom is similar to the Late Roman habit of having multiple emperors for a theoretically united empire. It is NOT similar to the Holy Roman Empire, which throughout its history did not allow for the concept of multiple co-reigning emperors.
For those who are still confused by the chronology, it goes something like this:
1st-2nd centuries: Early Roman empire
3rd-5th centuries: Late Roman empire
5th-8th centuries: Merovingian kingdom
Got it? --Jfruh 09:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"THERE WAS ALWAYS ONLY ONE EMPEROR": I thought that there were times when there was no Emperor?

Yes, that's true. I guess I should have said "...there was always at most one emperor." Sometimes there were multiple claimants to the imperial throne, but everyone agreed that there could be only one legitimate Holy Roman Emperor (though they didn't always agree on who that emperor was). By contrast, there could be multiple legitimate Merovingian kings.
Hopefully this has not just confused everybody more. Sigh. --Jfruh 09:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's not really true. There countless examples of more than one Emperor, ever since Diocletian and before and after. Str1977 2 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

Er, yes, this was exactly my point ... this baffling conversation has come full circle. In the later (i.e. post-Diocletian) Roman Empire there were often multiple legitimate emperors. In the Merovingian realm, there were could be multiple legitimate kings. This was the comparison I was making. By contrast, in the pre-Diocletian Roman Empire and in the Holy Roman Empire, there was generally speaking only one *legitimate* emperor at a time. Again, in both cases there were sometimes rival claimants, but the theory generally held that there could only be one legitimate emperor.
In almost all cases in the pre-Diocletian Roman Empire and in the Holy Roman Empire in which there were more than one legitimate emperor, one of the emperors was in truth an "heir apparent," given the imperial title to smooth over a potential succession crisis but clearly subordinate to the senior emperor. The only cases I can think In the pre-Diocletian Roman Empire of two theoretically equal emperors are Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and (all very briefly) Caracalla and Geta, Balbenius and Pupenius, and Gordians I and II. I can't think of any instances in the Holy Roman Empire. --Jfruh 03:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. And in the Roman Empire, if there were several emperors/caesars there was always one who was supreme, e.g. Marcus Aurelius over Verus, Diocletian over the other three rulers and even after his resignation, and in the 5th century usually the Eastern Emperor. That was also the basis of the agreement between Charlemagne and Emperor Michael, though they didn't say so explicitely.

In the early Frankish kingdom (511-613) there was no clear cut "primus", as they division was more of a division of revenue and administration and not actually a permanent separating (of course later, helped by all these divisions, regional identities developed). After 613 however, there always was some primacy of Neustria over Austrasia. After the kingdoms returned to having just one king, he resided in Neustria. This primacy also shows in the development of Neustria adopting the name Francia which subsequently ended up as France.

In the German kingdom as part of the HRE there was only one king (except for Bohemia, of course) and for a long time, the heir could only be elected king of the Romans if his father was Emperor. In legal fiction, the son then would be the king of Germany while his father was Emperor. In reality, the father retained the rule, as is best seen in Frederick II and Henry (VII).

So in the HRE there was only one Emperor at a time (rival claims notwithstanding) - the two-Emperor problem relates to the relations with the Eastern Empire. The basis is not so much the existence of more than one Emperor but the supremacy of one over the other (Rome the city vs. the historical continuity of the Eastern Empire). Str1977 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

This article was cited in "Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to Mysteries Behind the Da Vinci Code" by Dan Burstein p. 365 HC 1st Edition 2004, as some of you may know. But anyone reading the book's mention of wikipedia could never find the quote unless they searched way back to [1] in the history. I believe this to be a flaw in wikipedia only because a vanishing source of information is unreliable and self-defeating. If the editors of the publication include wiki as source, the curious reader should have easy access. We tend to forget our freedom to edit over and over these articles seems to invalidate a printed source. If this makes sense, could you add some link to the history page listed above? On the lighter side, from the Twins in Matrix Reloaded: we are getting aggravated, aren't we? yes we are. BF 18:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the price we must pay for accuracy. Nonsense gets deleted at some time. Str1977 18:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
were the Merovingian kings all males? If so, this would be a blow to Dan Brown bedtime stories. Unfortunately, the gender bias does not appear clearly in the article.--Luci S 13:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes Luci, all Merovingian Kings were male. There were no reigning queens, though some Queen consorts´but even more so Queen mothers had profound influence (Chlothilde, Brunhilde, Fredegunde, Balthilde). Actually the law restricting succession to the French throne to the male line was later attributed to Pharamond. Though that was an anachronism, no woman has ever ruled the Franks. However, that was normal with other peoples too, so I don't know whether it needs to be included ... or how? Str1977 19:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What about the West African People who to this day still have customes that mirror Hebrew customes but yet there is no mention of this fact,could they be directly decsended by blood from the original hebrews. A fact that is often overlooked is that after the fall of Israel,Hebrews migrated in great numbers to West Africa and along the East African Coast but I read no mention of them. In scipture the trials of the Hebrew People are written in detail, from slavery the loss of identity, children, homeland, culture,religion etc. It is my belief that these scriptures only apply the people known today as African Americans..not the French/Franks User: 205.142.197.75 07:24, 30 May 2005

[edit] Lacking ...

That the Merovingians in general lacked a sense of res publica is a fable derived from 19th century historiography. Some of course put their own whims first, but others clearly had a sense of res publica. Otherwise this entity would not have survived. This is why I deleted the phrase and this is why I will delete it again. Str1977 18:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

... For anyone else, I recommend Michel Rouche, "Private life conquers State and Society" in Paul Veyne, A History of Private Life: 1. From Pagan Rome to Byzantium. ... --Wetman 15:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wetman, I removed your personal attacks and wrong potrayal of me. I know perfectly well what res publica means and what the Merovingians are all about. I know and have posted before that this take on the M. was discussed by scholars, but this was an oversimplification. You point to a book, I can do the same. Read the Karl Ferdinand Werner's first volume of the History of France. Str1977 08:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand the basis for your (still wrong accusations): I reverted an edit of yours back to what you criticized. But my opposition was purely against the word "legendary", as the conversion was not legendary (in the popular sense of the term) but a real historical event. I should not have simply reverted back to the previous version, which indeed was dodgy (click [[2]] to see the original intrusion of what you criticized. That was before I ever entered this article).

I have also reinserted your "lack of sense of res publica" phrase but also given the counter point. After all, the oversimplification was held by historians and hence it is not unencyclopedic. Str1977 08:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My source talks about res publica as well. I think the real issue here is not that they "lacked" in anything, they simply prefered another way of looking at things. If your going to word it in such a way that its controversial, then you will need to expand on it and discuss the historiographical issues, otherwise it make no sense. Stbalbach 12:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That'd extend the limitations of wikipedia. It's not that they "prefered another way of looking at things" - that's just saying the same in post-modern idiom (i.e. "non-judgemental"). It's that under the circumstances of the time they "organized" the administration of their part of the res publica differently than other times did. Str1977 13:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It would extended the limitations of Wikipedia? Please explain. If they organized the administration of their part of the res publica differently than other times did then say that in the article and provide sources instead of "some historians" weasel terms. Stbalbach 13:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I already mentioned K.F. Werner. Str1977 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Blood Holy Grail/Da Vinci Code connection

You know, being in the apparently very small minority of people who haven't read the Da Vinci Code, I've just now learned its central premise (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER), apparently cribbed from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, that the Merovingians were descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalen. Which explains a lot of the activity on this page that has been so baffling to me. Now of course the connection is complete nonsense, but since the Merovingians are a fairly obscure topic and the DVC is a very popular book, a lot of people might be wandering over here based on what they read in the DVC. (There's actually a link from The Da Vinci Code over to here.) With that in mind, should we perhaps make a brief section at the end that takes on the claims of this book in more detail and presents the accepted scholarly reasons for why its bunk? --Jfruh 18:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent misperceptions

Incompetent fingerpainting will not be good enough at this article. I have had to revert recent woolly blather:

  • "the legendary occasion of his adopting his wife's Catholicism in 496" The details of this occasion demonstrate their legenday nature to those who read sources. The comparison is with Constantine's conversion, detail for detail.
Don't assume I haven't read Gregory. Of course there are similarities in the accounts, but they are not identical. And ... the passage wasn't talking about the account (that might be a bit legendary), but about the battle and the actual conversion, which was legendary only in the sense that it was later contained in a saint's legend, not that that was anything less than real.
  • "the descendents of Merovech was based on charisma, the combination of magical personal allure under divine patronage," This is not random expression. Read what happens when the king has no personal charisma or is a child. "Mythical descent" is foolish waffle.
Yes, I have read this charisma stuff on various occasions. But sources (Gregory, Fredegar) don't give the impression of a special dependence of Kings on charisma. If the king was a child he either grew up to become a shrewd ruler like Dagobert I, or he became a pawn in the hands of others (mothers, mayors etc) - but that's not unfamiliar in other royal houses. The only charisma was the one of the family, still surviving Clovis' baptism, which was based on mythical descent.
Precisely.
  • "the Merovingians lacked a developed sense of a res publica" This statement has been expanded with a reference to Gregory of Tours precisely to convince simpletons.
Gregory's usage of the term (even if you quoted him directly) has no real bearing on this issue.
...then skim Rouche, Michel, "Private life conquers state and society," in A History of Private Life vol I, Paul Veyne, editor, Harvard University Press 1987 ISBN 0-674-39974-9. The series are in general a good first introduction to modern history-writing. --Wetman 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
For the time being, I am asking you to reconsider whether your plainly insulting language helps discussions on wikipedia. As you might know, WP has a policy on Personal Attacks. Str1977
Please just make more thoughtful edits. --Wetman 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of interest...

... what part of the speedy deletion policy were you invoking when you deleted List of Presidential gaffes? I noticed this on recent changes, found it quite amusing and was looking for it again to add to it and discovered it deleted. You are aware that you should have sent this to AfD? I have undeleted. I'm about to post this to WP:AN/I. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What the hell does this have to do with the Merovingians? --Jfruh 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References to Belgium

The references to Belgium were removed because to include it leaves the question of why the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Switzerland are not also included. The fact is that all these nations are essentially historical breakaways from a larger French or German state, thus, they are coverred by the understanding that, in this historical context, France and Germany are not used to mean the states exactly as they are today. Furthermore, they are themselves largely the descendants of Merovingian polities and the term "frequently fluctuating" is added to make sure the idea that the borders of the Merovingian realm do not correspond even roughtly to those of any extant modern nation. Srnec 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I disagree. The introduction as it is is, I think, misleading - it says that the area fluctuated in modern France and Germany without mentioning lands outside modern France and Germany (which I don't think are 'essentially historical breakaways from a larger French or German state'). There should also maybe be mention that the Merovingian lands are weighted more to modern France than modern Germany. 165.165.200.199 21:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Idea on a loosely related note: A blank map of Europe showing dashed lines for semi-modern borders, and solid lines for the understood borders of the Merovingians' domains. --Penumbra 2k 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On - The Da Vinci Code comments.

In regard to The Da Vinci Code, this article contains the highly fallacious and dogmatic comment, "Relying on conjecture and methodological fallacies to re-interpret historical sources, the theory says that the Merovingians were the descendants of Jesus Christ; it is seen as popular pseudohistory by academic historians."

First, The Da Vinci Code is a Novel. The last time I checked novels are not History Books. Second, the ideas and hypotheses in Dan Brown's novel are NOT original to Dan Brown, nor are they original to Henry Lincoln et al in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Third, what are these supposed "methodological fallacies" used??? It is more fallacious to think that Jesus was God incarnate, the divine Son of God incarnate, the child of an immaculate virgin and the Logos, that he performed miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the "sins" of humanity, was resurrected, and for some strange reason remained unmarried in an ancient, or modern for that matter, traditional Jewish culture, than it is to think that he was married to Mary the Magdalene and probably had at least one child. What separates "history" from "pseudohistory" anyway??? History is, and always has been, written by the "victors." Where is the hard empirical, historical, and/or "scientific" "evidence" that Jesus ever even existed at all?!?!?! In our presumptiously, self-righteous, and dogmatic modernity we hold ourselves and our "scientific" knowledges to be Absolutes and all other forms of knowledge to be 'fallacies' or "myths." Another problem is that "Myths" aren't "myths." We also mistakingly misuse words such as this. What historians have done, and are still doing, is find more and more "evidence" that humanity's "Myths" have more truth to them than some in our world would enjoy the humility to admit. No, that does not mean that Jesus was the son of God, nor Hercules or any other mythological character... What this does mean is that we do not know everything, (and surely the ancients knew much more than we do). Anyone who thinks, claims, or just implies that he/she knows all, is probably the person who knows the least. To be purely empirical one must question all; remain skeptical of all, and that includes our so-called "claims" to knowledge. Finally, {for people who are "hung up" over this whole idea on BOTH sides of the ARGUMENT}, - What exactly is the big deal whether or not Jesus and Mary the Magdalene had descendents?!?!?! Jesus was a man just like any other man. What he said or did, or didn't say or do would not, and does not have any special significance to any descendents. I (like many others I'm sure) am a descendent of many of these European kings and queens, I'm related to Robert E. Lee, I'm even a descendent of these Merovingians... What does that mean?... NOTHING! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlon (talk • contribs) .

Holy cow. I have a lot of trouble taking people who use multiple punctuation for a single sentence seriously. S/he has one good point, though; both in general historical writing and in this article, there seems to me to be a lack of understanding of the distinction between accepted fact and actual fact--I would like to know how we came to know what we claim to know about the Merovingians, and if that information isn't available for this article, I'd like to see the facts denoted as conjectural, or strongly defensible (but not 100% certain), or whatever. I took a history of science course in which the professor discussed in detail some historical methods, and one of his broader points was that assembling a plausible story makes it very, very easy to create general acceptance of a theory which has only skeletal evidence--essentially, it's difficult to pick out omissions in between elements of a set of compatible accepted facts.

Anyway, I realise doing this in great detail would be both quite a bit of work, and make the article quite a bit more difficult to read--I'd still like to see at least a nod in the direction of 'how sure we are that this is what happened' and 'why we think that this is what happened'.

Another point that bothers me--the tone of this article is generally neutral, but occasionally steps off into emotional/judgmental language: "...but showed that dangerous vice of personal aggrandisement..." "...an exemplar of all that was not admirable in the dynasty." ...and so on.

Anyway--someone let me know if it would be considered offensive to just jump in and make a few structural changes? Because I don't really know that much about the Merovingians, but I'm generally a good writer and critical thinker. --Penumbra 2k 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


But, but, but... 10 million book buyers CAN'T be wrong!! "History is just a lie agreed upon" "Science is just for smart people who know how to study". What about the rest of us?? We need to feel good too!! - Troll, 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.198.241.67 (talk • contribs) .

What the hell was that rant all about? The Da Vinci Code is pseudohistory because its false (Greek pseudo). The claims are based on proven hoax: see the Pierre Plantard article. Srnec 04:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genuine Line of Descent?

Out of interest, I don't suppose anyone knows if there is a 'genuine' continuance of descent from the Merovingians (by genuine I mean "quite possibly flawed and inaccurate, but nonetheless well attested and official", since it is of course impossible to be 100% accurate over a period of 1000+ years)? I can't find any claims to descent from them other than the dubious 'Sigisbert IV' descent, and all I can find via google are reiterations of that and bizarre references to serpents... Michaelsanders 23:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is possible (probable?) that there is Merovingian blood in every European alive today. The record-keeping of their time and place, however, was not of the highest calibre and it is impossible to know about all the Merovingian kings' descendants. Only those which succeeded to thrones in the last century of their rule can be confidently known, and sometimes not even their genealogy is sure (see Clotaire IV). There is, I think, some evidence that early dukes of Aquitaine and Gascony may have been Merovingian descendants, but sources are scant for those lightly populated regions in the eighth century. I tried to do research once to determine who the last absolutely known Merovingian of the male line was and I determined it to be Acfred II of Carcassone (early tenth century), but I believe this to be in error and I cannot remember how I came to that conclusion. There has been no serious (ie non-hoax) claim to Merovingian descent put forward by anybody that I'm aware of for hundreds of years and possible longer. An intersting subject to read up on, though, is the possible relations between the Carolingian and Merovingian houses. The sources say little, but the prosopography and onomastics of Charlemagne's family point to Merovingian relations: names like Louis and Lothair appear suddenly out of nowhere in his dynasty, though there were very common amongst the preceding dynasty. But Charlemagne may simply have desired to showcase the legitimacy of his family's rule by usurping the nomenclature of the Merovings. Srnec 05:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Michaelsanders 07:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaul

The articles at Gaul and Roman Gaul adequately demonstrate that most of the Merovingian realm corresponded to something that was called Gaul at some time or other. As to the use of "Low Countries, France, and Germany", why should we exclude Switzerland, for one? I just don't want the list to get excessively long. The Low Countries formed the centre of many Merovingian administrations, but their whole territory extended over much land which today is not part of those three. Also, they ruled many lands tributarily, like Bavaria, the Slavic lands, and part of northern Italy. "Frequently fluctuating" coverred all the problems, but somebody just had to add the Low Countries. Srnec 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, "largely corresponding" is acceptable. I was under the impression that Low Countries covered all of BeNeLux. Tributary states are part of the realm. However, Northern Italy was not ruled by Merovingians for very long. Str1977 (smile back) 18:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPMILHIST Assessment

This is a nice long, thorough, detailed article, and I'm especially happy to see a historiography section. More articles should include that sort of thing. But, overall, this could probably afford to be longer. It's a pretty big topic, and a pretty important one, not only to French or Roman history, but to early medieval Europe as a whole. LordAmeth 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/r/Talk%7EMerovingian_2199.html"