User talk:Johanthon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Hello Johanthon. Thanks for the work on Marcomer. I'm still confused about Ammianus, but not a big deal. I haven't seen that there are many people working on Merovingian Frankish articles. User:Srnec and some others do Carolingians. So if you want to rework Faramond or Clodion or whatever, I recommend you go straight ahead and do it. One thing where en.wikipedia differs from other ones is in the emphasis on citing sources. If you do rework articles, can you add a references section? If, for example, you used the PLRE, add that, and whatever else is relevant. There's no need to add footnotes unless you particularly want to. The usual layout is something like in Osgod Clapa, or if you want footnotes, have a look at Fiachnae mac Báetáin for how to do them. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Franks

I am having trouble understanding your reverts. The current difference between our versions concerns the removal of "proto-Germanic" and "non-Dutch, Old Frankish." There are several reasons for this. The Franks were not proto-Germanic, but Germanic. The English word "Dutch" really has no place in an article on a Dark Age people. The term Old Frankish does not make sense there: the Franks themselves spoke it, so what does it mean to say they allied with speakers of it? Srnec 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that friendly tone an excuse for "excesses" and "cute"? Anyway, I agree with you that "proto-Germanic" is not right. I originally wrote "proto-Dutch" but it is changed now. It is indeed "Germanic" and not "proto-Germanic".
My point is that the former description of "West-Germanic" (or Germanic) is much to vague. Technically the Saxons, Alemans, Thuringers, Langobardians and so on, all are "West-Germanic", and non of them are Franks. Furthermore the article of the Franks really is more about Salians Franks than about 'Franks'. The Salians during the late Carolingians changed their language into Old Dutch. So your notice that the English word "Dutch" has no place in an article on Dark Age people is simply wrong. Allthough I'm aware of the anachronism for Merovingian time, I try to explain what Franks are, by connecting them with Dutch. That is what less schooled people understand more easily than "West Germanic" - and by the way this is what many scholars do, so we can do that here.
Further I tried to make clear that the Franks were a dynamic changing people by making clear they allied themselves with others. johanthon 21:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In all the books I've read, the Franks are not treated as proto-Dutch. The term "Salian" is anachronistic in the late Carolingian period. I don't think it is illumnating to connect the Franks to the Dutch as if the latter are the living descendants of the former. There is Frankish blood in many Europeans today, and I don't think it could ever be shown that the Dutch are more Frankish than, say, the Franconians or Belgians (the real Frankish heartland was in modern southern Belgium). Srnec 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
No Excuses???
The 2 major books in English are Edward James 'The Franks' and Ian Wood 'Merovingian Kingdoms'. On page 2 of 'The Franks', James allready makes clear that the Franks are the "linguistic ancestors" of the Dutch. Wood frequently uses James in his notes. But if you haven't read the 2 most cited works on this subject than lets turn it around. In the Netherlands and Belgium have been no main invasions after the movements of the Franks. If the language does not derive from the Franks, then from who? The Romans? The Celts? Do you want to argue with the French that Dutch is actually truly Gaulish?
The term "Salian"is certainly not anachronistic in the late Carolingian period. On the contrary. The whole legal system depended on "Salian" or "Ripaurian". The tribal thing was very much alive. As a matter of fact the late Carolingians reckognized the Chamavi as an individual tribe and gave them their own laws as late as the 9th century.
I think it is very illuminating to connect the Franks with the Dutch, but whatever you think, this is simply a well known fact. Just read the article on Low Franconian and the Salians. Do you counter these completely? Or is it just me? I think James' "ancestors" says it all.
The "heartland" that Julian the Apostate gave to the Salians after they blocked his grain suplies (Ammianus Marcellinus) is actually directly south of the Rhine and north of the Civitas Tongeren. That is South Netherlands and Northern Belgium and this is also the region where the Carolingians, Robertingers and Bosonids come from. Chlodio, Childeric and Chlodovech originally homed a little more south Around Tournai, and untill the late middle ages this was a Dutch speaking city. Dutch was even spoken in Northern France. The most norther Departement of France today is still called Flandria, after the Dutch speaking Flemish. You seem to think I use the word "Dutch" as nationality, as "Hollander", But I'm not. I refer to Dutch as language and I'm thinking especially of the Flemish, Brabanders, Limburgers and the people of Twente (from the TVVANTI-tribe) and Salland and (C)Hamaland. Non of those people are "Hollanders" in the strict sense of the word.
German Franconia is certainly not related to the origin of the Franks. Franks moved to German Franconia in 2 moves: first a minor move of Theuderic I against the Thuringers; second the Carolingian moves against the rivalling Bavarians. This is well documented (even in Germany) in both archaeology and in linguistic. The German Franconians were a High German speaking people that has a Suevian/Alamannic past. Strange you say this. Have you ever heard of large quantities of the combination of Grobbenhouses (Burrowhouses?), Rijengraven (Row Graves?), Frankish Bandpottery and Franciscas in Franconia? Have you thought about that? johanthon 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that I have only paged through James' work and have been unable to get my hands on a copy of Wood's, though I have been trying. My knowledge of the Merovingian period comes mainly from Wallace-Hadrill, Geary, and Murray as well as primary sources (Gregory, Liber, Fredegar). I know very little about the pre-Merovingian Franks, admittedly.
I am not really trying to dispute that Dutch may come from Frankish, I am only trying to make the link between the two sound less direct. I don't believe that we have nearly enough evidence to link the two languages as direct old-modern variants of the same underlying language. As far as I am aware, the Jutes and the Saxons in some numbers (probably small) may have co-inhabited that area with some Frankish tribes. (Perhaps I should point out that I have had bad experiences with Dutch nationalists at Wikipedia and I was assuming that your use of Dutch had non-linguistic connotations related to Holland specifically.) I am sceptical of reconstructing linguistic history. We have no direct evidence of Frankish except in early loanwords and "Old Dutch" and contemporary Germanic languages are sometimes indistinguisable. How distinct was Frankish from other Germanic tongues of the same period? That would be my question.
There was no Salian tribe in the late Carolingian period. Even if the term had a legal meaning distinguishing it from Ripuarian (the significance of which I believe is disputed: I just read about it in a book about a couple weeks ago), this was far from the basis of the whole legal system. "The tribal thing was very much alive"? Says who? In the late Carolingian period? Hardly. If the common people did have such tribal identities, we can't tell from this distance. MacLean (Kingship and Politics in the Late Ninth Century) labours the point that a man was most likely to identify with a local institution, local city, region, regnum, and empire in that order. He could consider himself a Frank and an Aquitanian. The term "Frank" did not mean then what it meant in the 6th century.
As to the nature of the Lex Chamavorum, I have nothing to say at the moment except the nature and purpose of such 8th and post-8th century leges remains disputed.
I never said that Franconia was the original land of the Franks, I only pointed out that the Franconians may be as Frankish, ethnically, as the Dutch. However, you have clarified that you are not using Dutch other than linguistically, so this whole point can be ignored.
Hm. I am not sure what exactly we are debating now. I have no great dispute with the current state of the article Franks. (Experience has just made me sensitive to the connotations of the word "Dutch".) You are clearly far more aware of the early (pre-Merovingian, pre-500) Franks and I believe I am more aware of the Carolingian Franks; you clearly have more care (trust?) for linguistic and archaeological trails than I as well. Srnec 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, today I picked up James' Franks and read the relevant page(s) (3, not 2) and find that he says nothing I do not accept. He calls the Dutch and the Flemish the linguistic descendants of the Franks, but says explicitly that the Franks became the French, Franconians, and Belgians, so I think my statements above were pretty much bang on. Also I was doing some research on the Thuringii and Reuter (Germany in the Early Middle Ages) admits that it is not likely that the leges barbarorum (customs) codified under the Carolingians were ever extensively used, but that they were not mere literary exercises. I don't want to downplay the concept of a "tribe" excessively, but I do think that the concept of identity in the ninth century and later was not primarily tribal. Srnec 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
About Franconia, see my earlier comment. I don't deny the relation between the Franks. I make a point about the chronological order. The earliest origin known of the Franks is the Netherlands and German Westfalen. That's north and north-east of the Rhine. Whatever happened LATER can be described in the article, if you keep the right chronological order.
About the tribal thing; What you confuse is sociological comments on society (which I don't counter) and the status of the ruling class. Civilians were civilians in most of the Carolingian lands. However the ruling class - including the ruling class of the Ripuarians - were Salians. The early Carolingians are called Salii in several charters. The same goes for Bosonids and Robertingi. Why do you think Conrad the Salier called himself Salier? Do you really want to argue with Conrad himself?
What is even more important: in the recruting for the ruling class you can see a pattern that confirms a dominance from people that are the descendants from people that came from what is now Belgium. Those people spoke "proto-Dutch".
I strongly get the idea that you are American, or the kind of English that still resents the metric system. For anyone that knows something about Eurengels (the English spoken in continental Europe) understands that German and Germanic is understood as Von Deutschers by most Europeans. And of course a Dutch nationalist would never write that the Dutch came partly from Deutschland, like I do - He would rather eat his shoes. What is more disturbing with you is that you don't seem to be aware of German nationalism. For if you read James well, than you can read that German/Germanic nationalism is connected with racial purity since the 13th century. The Third Reich was called so because they wanted to be the successors of Charlemagnus and his Second Reich. People that insists on German ancestors for the Franks are largely repeating Nazi-propaganda. Now do you want to be part of that? That's strange for someone with a Slavic name. :-) johanthon 11:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
What you confuse about the tribal thing is the whole idea of identity, which is layered and diverse. Also, "Salian" and "Ripuarian" did not mean in the 11th century what they meant in the 6th. I do not doubt that the concept of "Salian" did not die out: the Salic law was invoked much later by French monarchs.
What I meant by "Dutch nationalist" was "Nederlands nationalist". I don't understand what you mean by "German and Germanic is understood as Von Deutschers by most Europeans". I use "German" in a historical sense wherein every Germanic-speaking region of the Continent (Denmark and Flanders excepted) is a part "Germany". Until the modern era, that is, when only a fraction of that area is part of "Germany." To me, "Germanic" and "German" are never equivalent (in English). Can I ask where you got the idea that I don't understand German(ic) nationalism? Or the beliefs of the Third Reich? (I mostly do Mediterranean history, by the way.) Finally, I doubt that anybody in southern France speaks "Eurengels".
I am Canadian. :-) Srnec 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Or are you confused about the word "tribe". And are you trying to see it as social thing, while it was a family enterprise? The whole ruling class of the Franks was a continuation of family affairs. It is there that you find the true meaning of "Salian" for the individual and the meaning of the word "tribe" as organizing principle, not in generalizing social comments on large groups. We don't know really what people felt about their identity. I'm not trying to deny the force of migration on the individual, or that the times were a changing. Do you speak French? If you want to know how Charle Martello grabbed power: try to get your hands on the (addendum of the) genealogical familytree of the Carolingians made by Christian Settipani. Highly informative. And nothing sociological, just a continuation of family affairs.
Rambling: I don't know about Canadian, but there is a difference between English, American and Eurengels. Wasn't it Churchill that said: 'the USA and Brittain are two grand nations that are separated by a common language'? It is even worse between English and Eurengels, or American and Eurengels: words like "German", and "Germanic" are nearly always understood as "from Germany" in continental Europe. I do understand a native speaker like you does not mean it that way, but the way you use it, makes me understand that you are not very much of a continental European. It's there that I got the idea from that you don't understand much of German nationalism. Another reason is the way you treat Dutch nationalism: Dutch nationalism is Holland-centric (Holland: that's only the west-side of the Netherlands). The last thing a Holland-centric Nationalist wants to tell is that the origin of our culture comes from the east and out of Germany. (the jokes goes like: 3 wise that are coming from the east? That happened only once!). Furthermore you seem to expect you can escape nationalism. I think that is highly idealistic. I am only new here and allready I have deleted over hunderd of French (What? Franks are French!) and German nationalistic remarks. But all my efforts are like trying to make a see dry.
I'm a bit Francophile, or should I say Provincophile? You would be surprised how many people actually speak English in France. Especially younger people. But if you don't know the code and the codeword: they just might refuse to do so. johanthon 17:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Booklist

Hello, Johanthon - you may find the following references of interest:

Res Gestae Libri XXXI, written by Ammianus Marcellinus between A.D. 353 and 378;

Chronicon (also known as the Chronicle or Temporum liber), written by Jerome circa 380, consisting of a Latin translation from the Greek of the Chronicon of Eusebius, but which continues with Jerome’s own contribution chronicling the period A.D. 325 to 379;

De Consulatu Stilichonis, written by Claudius Claudiani in Rome, c. A.D. 400;

Epitoma Chronicon (or Chronicle) by Prosper of Aquitane (also known as Prosper Tiro), was written in the fifth century (probably between A.D. 425 to 455), and is largely a compilation of Jerome’s Chronicon and other works by various writers;

Decem Libri Historiarum, also known as Historia Francorum, written by the Gallo-Roman Bishop Gregory of Tours (born c. 538) up until the year of his death in A.D. 594, is the primary source for Merovingian history - this one of course you probably know well;

Fredegarii Scholastici libri IV cum Continuationibus (or Chronicle of Fredegar), written circa 650, has a disputed authorship. Some scholars (such as A. C. Murray) accept a single author (Fredegar, who must have lived during the 7th century, or an anonymous author of the same period), while others postulate either two or three unnamed authors from similar and later periods. The work covers the Gallic history of the Franks from 584 to 641 A.D. as well as earlier events, but anything earlier than 584 is a rewriting or copying of earlier sources such as Gregory of Tours (with extensive and fascinating interpolations), Hippolytus (latter half of the second century), Jerome (again with extensive interpolations), Hydatius (a mid-fifth century continuation of Jerome’s Chronicon), Isidore (his Chronica Majora and History of the Goths were written between the late sixth century and early seventh century) and others;

Gesta regnum Francorum (or Liber Historiae Francorum), written by an anonymous author in the eighth century (probably A.D. 727), a typical mediæval history intended to flatter a ruling line;

Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Caesar);

Panegyrici Latini (there's a good translation of them called "In Praise of Later Roman Emperors");

Julian, “Letter to the Senate and People of Athens.” The Works of the Emperor Julian, v.II. Transl. Wilmer Cave Wright, Ph.D. London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1969. p.268-273

R.W. Burgess, ‘On the Date of the Kaisergeschichte’, CPh 90 (1995)

F.R. Pichlmayr and R. Gruendel, Sexti Aurelii Victoris Liber de Caesaribus. (Leipzig 1966), 33, pp. 108-09. Translation by A.C. Murray;

Breviarium historiae Romanae. Eutropius, dated 369.

Check the Notitia Dignitatum as well for a fascinating list of Frankish and other barbarian peoples serving in the Roman Empire in various capacities.

I hope that gives you a few things to read and to delight in. Almirena 06:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Argotta hoax

What I meant is that if it's a hoax, it doesn't deserve an article, and the article should be deleted along with its talk page. As long as it's not deleted, it deserves a place in the Bio project. Errabee 11:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see your point and understand your position. If nobody is willing to expand on the nature of this hoax I will propose deletion. I am just giving it some time now to see if the article may have a literary reason in stead of an historical one. You see, there is quite some legendary stuff on the Franks and I'm not willing to dismiss that on the grounds of not being historical. johanthon 13:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine by me. The article could always be rewritten in such a way that it describes Argotta as a fictional character, which would eliminate it from the scope of the Bio project while maintaining the article. Errabee 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tonsure

It would be very helpful, if you could provide citations for the statement "Constantine III tried to abdicate by the tonsure". → Aethralis 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right. When I come across it again I will add it to the text. Probably you know allready that the tonsure was practised in late Roman time? Than you might be interested in the fact that Constantine III, may not have been the only one. For Emperor Eparchus Avitus was ejected out the throne and ordained bishop. Check out PLRE. johanthon 10:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Citing sources

In case you are unaware why I said secondary sources are preferable, see WP:PSTS. And note that have I posted a remark regarding your edit summar at Talk:List of Frankish kings. Srnec 23:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read that section before and I read: "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." I hope you and I read the same here.
Of Course I do agree that for an interpretation - and an interpretation is something different than stating that, for example, the conquering of CHAMAVI is not in primary sources - you need a secondary source from an acceptable scholar, for "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."
You might be interested to browse the history page of Marcomer ;-) johanthon 10:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Balderic and Beuve

By the way, I was being serious when I asked if you had any idea who these two were. I can't say I have ever heard of them and they do not sound important. Are they anything more than names to fill out genealogies? Certainly they are not related to Sigobert the Lame or Sigbert II (died 613 at about 13 yrs of age). Srnec 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I made some quick changes to the articles for they are obvious not related to Sigobert the Lame. I saw an internetpage that stated they were children of Sigibert II of Austrasia and then highly relectantly changed the text in "may be Sigibert II" to moderate the original claims. However today after consulting Christian Settipani and "Butler's Lives of the Saints" on their supposed nameday I quickly discovered that both don't mention them. So I have deleted the relationship to Sigibert in the articles. Googling the two did not result in any reliable source and I really don't know the two. However there are several placesnames and churches named after Balderic/Baudry both in France and Belgium. The abbey did really exist and I am willing to believe they were actual real persons. Having said that, I have serious doubts if the text of the articles will ever be expanded in something worthwile. So should we keep the articles? Are they worth mentioning in an encyclopedia? I don't have a clue. It's your call. johanthon 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Aegidus

I have Aegidius on my watch list, so I've noticed the recent back and forth. Might I suggest that you insert a citation from the PLRE regarding the name confusion, rather than asking others to check it when they post erroneous information? Dppowell 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what citation would that be? Simply "Aegidius"? I think we should focus on what sources say, not what they don't say. The PLRE checks primary sources on variations of the name, for example on Clovis I and Chlodio it gives several alternatives, with the source. In case of Aegidius there is only one name. The source that was given by mister Cuppertino for "Afranius" (genealogy.web-something) is a notorious producer of hoaxes. I suggest that someone who is interested in his name checks the primary source, or a reliable work as the PLRE, not a website. But mister Cuppertino thinks he can "Be Bold". Needless to say he is right. johanthon 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sicambri

The article on Sicambri looks much better now, thanks. I wouldn't mind seeing the Frankish mythology eventually explored in greater detail, since it is at least interesting if quaint, but finally now we seem to have a version we can both live with! Til Eulenspiegel 14:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Primary sources

I only meant that you seem to emphasise primary sources over secondary ones sometimes (it was not meant as a criticism), but a primary source for non-experts is really only as good as the secondary sources that explain it. I tried to hint that Gregory of Tours's interpretatio Romana could (did) easily confuse one editor who took it as plain meaning. I have no problem with extensive primary source quotes and references to the primary sources (its always good to know where the historians got their information from), but I think that secondary sources are a must when it comes to early medieval history.

And could you explain what exactly is wrong with my talk page? I was able to post your comment from my user page onto my talk page without a problem. Thanks. Srnec 00:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Srnec, you are a well educated guy, that argues well, but you know what I prefer and I'm hanging on to Wikipedias policy that articles MUST be verifiable in primary sources. That is also my beef with the article we are talking about. Most of what is said is simply not verifiable. And my remarks should be seen within this context. And of course care and caution are important. We fully agree about that one. I'm glad you don't have any problems with primary source qoutes en references to them. johanthon 09:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Articles which may be of interest

Johanthon, an informative article by Charles Ebel may be of interest to you.

Thanks. johanthon 09:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dagobert (4th century)

Please see Talk:Dagobert (4th century) for some discussion re your hoax tag. -- Mdbrownmsw 12:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Dagobert (4th century), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Mdbrownmsw 15:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bodegisel II

I was surprised to see that I had contacted you previously re Dagobert (4th century). This time, I ran across your name from your edits to Arnulf of Metz‎. I have just put up Bodegisel II for deletion and would welcome anything you might add to the discussion. Thanks. Mdbrownmsw 14:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary citation requests

I am removing some of the totally unnecessary citation requests that you have been spraying over articles (not mine) with abandon. As the articles in question are very well sourced to the good authorities, I can only think that you are under the impression that only internet sources count. This is not case; books remain the best sources on most subjects. Alex Middleton (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I replaced back all the necessary citation request. Much of the articles are speculative and since Wikipedia pretends to be an encyclopedia there is not much place for speculation here. At about the least thing we can do is giving contemporain and primary sources. NONE of the articles we are talking about gives a SINGLE primary source. So actually I'm very interested why you say the articles in question are very well sourced. How can that be while all primary sources are lacking? And are the sources indeed sourced by good authorities? For your information "The Royal Ancestry Bible Royal Ancestors of 300 Colonial American Families by Michel L. Call" is for example given as a source. Now since when is that a good authority? Could you name a single well known and respected scholar that uses this book as source? I would be surprised. What is more surprising is that here at home I have a book of Christian Settipani called Prehistoire des Capetiens. This book gives a lot of genealogical information about some of the people named in the article. And guess what? His genealogical trees don't match the links in some of the articles, and he also gives other information that contradicts the article. How come? For the articles themselves give Settipani himself as a secondary source! Does Settipani contradicts Settipani? Well, This should be adressed!
Why you think that I think that only internet sources count, is a complete mistery to me. Above here - on this very same page - are issues like 'Booklist', 'Primary Sources', 'Articles of Interest' and 'Citing Sources'. If you will take the time to read them you will learn that I'm a strong defender of the use primary sources and think that all historical and genealogical articles should be verifiable in primary sources. And, by the way, that is a true Wikipedia-policy and NONE of the articles live up to that! johanthon (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambrose

Hey. What is the primary source for calling Ambrose of Milan a Frank? And can we be sure that the author of that work is not using it as a catch-all for barbarians or Germanic-speakers or something? And if his mother was a (Gallo-)Roman, should we call him "Gallo-Frankish" or "Franco-Roman"? Thanks. Srnec (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)