Talk:List of Frankish kings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Origins, Britain, France

I believe the Carolingians started as Mayors of Palace of Austrasia, not Neustria. User:Jamesdowallen

Sorry to rain on your parade. How did you arrive at the conclusion that A Merovingian or Carolingian was crowned King of Nothing until one sunny morning, a Capetian plunderer woke up, beat his wife, kicked the dog, ate a leg of beef, and thumped his chest, declaring himself King of France? Next, why would Wikipedia be completely out of step with Enclclopedia Britannica and others? Triton

I dont understand your complaint. The Merovingians and Carolingian where Kings of the Franks.

And in that land today known as England, how do we break it down into King of the Teutonic Angles, the etc. etc. As I said before, the first Kings of England did not rule over England as we began calling it centuries after they died. The point (again) is these people ruled over teritory with a name and borders we know today but were different before. So, if annointed Kings at Reims who were born and raised in Paris or any part of what we now call France, live and die there, then they can be called French if we can call Ethelred (?) English. If your ancestor was born in the Texas of 1830, raised in Texas, died in Texas, and wasburied in Texas, then is he a Texan or some tlabel you wish to create because Texas had not then joined the union. Franks is a France of people who were only a part of Clovis' Kingdom. And (again) why does Encyclopedia Britannica and every other authoritive source except Ms. K list the Mervingians as kings of France? Triton

I would be perfectly willing to have to Merovingians included on the French monarchs page, however there are some who seem to be adamently opposed to such a move, and until that issue is resolved (if ever), I figure we should have the Merovingians listed somewhere.

I agree, lets put them in with Huck Finn. Triton

Triton -- if you look at the British Monarchs page, lists kings separately under their individual kingdoms, all of which are now in geographical britain. And this page is unnecessary, because there were already separate pages for Merovingians and Carolingians -- and their dynasties, with explanations. By your reasoning, you do realize, I hope, that we should also be adding the Burgundian Kings and the Visigothic Kings of Toulouse as French? And What about Syagrius -- Gregory of TOurs, writing from a distance, called him a king, but most scholars agree that he held a more Roman title, probably magister militum, IIRC. Please stop. User:JHK

I am a little puzzled. If all ancient or modern rulers are bounded to lists accroding to modern geographical areas, Merovingians shall also be listed under French monarch in the same fashion of the List of British monarchs since they governed areas which eventually comprise modern France. As always, We should clearly state the controversies around the actual beginning of France. User:kt2

So, I'll move over to the British monarchs and start making separate pages and like Ms. K did to the Merovingians, completely disconnect some of them from the entire world. Right? Isn't that how Ms. K has demanded it be done here. And oh yes, I'll delete all photos twice. Triton

Then of course, we could model the list of French Monarchs the exact same as the List of British monarchs, couldn't we?Triton Hi kt -- I think the part that is sticky is the fact that Britain is by nature made up of several kingdoms, more at some times than others -- so it makes sense for the article to be as it is, although it needs editing. The adjective is used differently, though -- just like the legendary Arthur isn't a "British King" -- he's King of the Britons. The name Britain comes from what the ROmans named the area (I think after the people who lived there, but I'm franckly not certain). Even when the Heptarchy existed, people still called the geographical place Britannia. But that's not the case with France -- well into the Carolingians, the Germanic rulers almost always called themselves kings of a people -- not a place. And if they had called themselves kings of a place, wouldn't the Mervingians have called themselves Neustrian or Austrasian -- not French? Also, no one else claims the various British kings as their own and not british -- or they might say, well, only British because Wales is part of Britain. WIth Franks, though, other countries do count them as part of their heritage. sorry if this is a bit muddled -- I'm a bit tired by now. User:JHK

The big difference between Britain and France, is that Britain is an island with a clear geographical identity whereas France is a part of the European landmass whose borders are basically politically and culturally defined. As such it can only be defined with respect to a particular time period and set of rulers. Britain on the other hand can be defined independently of politics and culture by its coastline. If we were to create a list of European or Eurasian monarchs, the parallel with Britain would be closer. -- User:Derek_Ross

um.... okay. Well then we should isolate lists of Eurasian rulers from their lands, i.e. creating list according to different cultural and/or political entities or groups, but not where these groups resided. For instance Germanic monarchs, Visigothic monarchs etc. The French monarchs should then include monarchs starting from the time when the "modern French race" or any kind of distinctive modern French entity began to form. kt2

I wasn't actually suggesting that we should create a Eurasian list. It would be rather big and probably unwieldy. Just trying to point out that the parallel between France and Britain isn't that close. -- Derek Ross

The comparison is relastyed to 1) place name, 2) territory. Despite the Brit island, it still had multiple "Kings". Wasn't it Longshanks who finally nailed down Wales? Then Cumbria is a War by itself. My maternal ancestors were a tribe of Scotti who came from Ireland c.500 to land in what is now Ayrshire, Scotland. They of course, brought their king and immediately after landing started fighting for more territory. In any event, Ms. K will never accept your ideas.Triton

Triton, I am not getting it - how your historical facts are related to the difference between France and Britain? Derek and Julie - I am not suggesting a Eurasian list. BTW if Germanic rulers called themselves kings of peoples, their lists should then be created according to different groups of peoples, i.e. Frankish kings Visigothic kings etc. User:kt2

think that works, but from a usefulness point o view, I'd say people like to look up things under familiar terminology -- it didn't use to be a problem having overlaps with explanations *sigh*. JHK
agree, that's exactly why we don't have Leopold I of the Belgians but Leopold I of Belgium. BTW your idea just explains, "100% accuracy yields total confusion", a phenomenon at wikipedia. User:kt2

There's lots of craziness here. Point 1: Visigothic kings are usually heard of as "Visigothic Kings" not as "Kings of Spain", or whatever you'd like to call them. But, this British comparison is bogus - "Britain" is a geographical term, which already referred to Britain in Roman times, and, pretty much, as far back as we have records for. Thus, it's perfectly appropriate to have "British Monarchs" as an adjective to describe monarchs of Britain. "French", on the other hand, is quite different. If we wanted to have "List of Gallic Monarchs", I'd be happy to have the Frankish Kings on there, but, as others have said, we'd have to also have the Visigothic Kings of Toulouse, and the Kings of the Burgundians, and so forth. Of course, a list of Gallic monarchs would be silly, because we don't generally use the adjective "Gallic" or the noun "Gaul" anymore... So, again, some place names are people neutral, due to the fact that the regions have pretty much always been called the same thing: the peninsula which most of modern Turkey is on can be called "Asia Minor" or "Anatolia" for any historical period. A "List of Anatolian Monarchs" could go from the Hittites to the Ottomans. A "List of Turkish Monarchs", on the other hand, could not, because it wouldn't make any sense. Similarly, calling Clovis a "Frenchman" simply doesn't make any sense, because he wasn't French. Part of the problem, of course, is the bizarre evolution of the word French, which originally, as "Frankish", referred to a Germanic tribe living in Roman Gaul, but eventually came to refer to the Romanized peoples of Gaul... Ack! john 04:25 27 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] France in the 6-8th Century

May a French specialist of this period intervene in this odd, unhistorical debate? History has its traditions against which battling is idlesome, unless new facts are discovered. Clovis and his descent are regarded as French just because they have been acknowledged as such for centuries by the French people; and because Kings of France have always vindicated being their successors (which is not the case with the Visigoths and the Kings of Asturias, Leon, Castila, Aragon). This is not a matter of passport: no Green Card was required for being crowned, in these times. Shall we deny that the Yuan and the Qing were Chinese emperors, although they were respectively Mogolian and Mandjurian? That Alexander the Great is a Greek monarch, although he was a Barbarian (Macedonian)? That William the Conqueror is a British ruler although he was a Norseman and never reigned over Wales, Scotland, and Ireland... nor Gibraltar (but he did over the Channel Islands!) Shall we call the Plantagenets English, or French monarchs? I suggest that some more time could be wasted in discussing an important question of the same kind: may we call the Pilgrim Fathers American? As regards the "questionable limits of France" in the 6th-8th centuries, it is well established that after defeating (in approximate chronological order) the Gallo-Romans, the Burgundians, the Alamans, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Thuringians, Clovis' sons reigned over 80% of what is presently France, plus Belgium, the Netherland, and Switzerland. Indeed, we could call them Belgian...

Not to restart a long, long dormant debate, but the point is that at the time of Clovis, there was no such thing as "France". The Plantagenets were not English, but they were monarchs of England. Clovis, though a Frank, cannot really be said to be a monarch of France, as France did not yet exist in the 5th century (he was, however, a monarch of Gaul). Anyway, let's let sleeping dogs lie, on this one. john 07:22, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't want to wake up anyone either, but Clovis was not king of "Gaul" - he was a king in Gaul and subsequently king of most of Gaul. He was king of the Franks, but it can be validly said that he was the first king of France. Of course, that doesn't mean that he somehow belongs exclusively to today's French. He also ruled what is now Belgium (actually that was the core of his heritage), and much of what now is Germany. Clovis also stands at the beginning of German history, though there has not been so much inter-national debate about him as about Charlemagne. The term "France" actually is derived from Francia, the region in the north of the Frankish kingdom. Originally it denoted the main land of the kingdom, the main heritage that in 511 and 561 was divided among the brothers. Later it also became a synonym for Neustria (Grimoald's opponents in 657 are called "those of Francia"), especially after the sole king resided there. Under the later Carolingians there was a "Duchy of Francia" held by the family later known as Capetians. As this duchy was the main base for that family even after they had become kings, the concepts of "Rex Francorum (King of the Franks)" (the official Latin title) and "Rex Franciae (King of Francia > King of France)" merged. A parallel is that many might call Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor "Emperor of Austria" or "Emperor of Germany". Str1977 19:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge, revision

I merged this page with the former Merovingian Dynasty and Carolingian Dynasty pages, turned those two into redirects, reformatted the entire damn list into HTML tables, and fixed a large number of links on other pages — all in an attempt to make the crazy relationships with all the splits and rejoins of the kingdoms a bit more lucid. It was not my intent to make any semantic changes, and I sincerely hope no information was lost.

The new page was initially sandboxed on User:Djmutex/Sandbox Frankish rulers (which is therefore now obsolete) and approved of by several people, so I hope I stepped on nobody's toes. — djmutex 21:47 31 May 2003 (UTC)

In any case, this list of Frankish Kings is presently rather confusing and contains several errors (specially with Dagobert I). This is my attempt to make things more clear (but I still have some problems with formatting and setting the proper links). I put it here for further discussion. Besides, it should be noted that the name "Theuderic" is never used by French historians, who use "Thierry" instead. There are some other minor differences on this ground; but this one is particularly misleading. One more thing: the usual practice is to number Merovingian kings in one single series (since they were all titled "Kings of the Franks", not "King of such or such place"). Thus, there should not be two "Theuderic I" and two "Theuderic II", as it is presently. These are commonly known as "Thierry III" and "Thierry IV".


447-511 *Merovech 447-458 *Childeric I 458-481 *Clovis I 481-511


Upon Clovis' death, the kingdom was split among his four sons.

Paris Soissons Orleans Reims (later Metz)
511-524 *Childebert I 511-558 *Clotaire I 511-561 *Chlodomer 511-524 *Theuderic I 511-534 *Theudebert I 534-548 *Theudebald 548-555
524-555 Clotaire I
555-558 Clotaire I
558-561 Clotaire I
561-567 *Charibert I 561-567 *Chilperic I 561-584 *Guntram 561-592 (Orleans & Burgundy) *Sigebert I 561-575 (Metz)


Upon the death of Charibert I, Frankish Gaul reached its final threefold division into Neustria (in the west), Burgundy, and Austrasia (in the east).

Neustria
(Soissons, later Paris)		 Burgundy
(Orleans)		 Austrasia
(Metz)
561-612 *Chilperic I 561-584 *Clotaire II 584-628 *Guntram 561-592 *Theuderic II 592-613 *Sigebert I 561-575 (Metz) *Childebert II 575-595 (Austrasia) *Theudebert II 595-612 (Austrasia)
612-613 Clotaire II Theuderic II
613-623 Clotaire II
623-629 Clotaire II *Dagobert I 623-639
629-630 *Charibert II 629-630
630-633 Dagobert I (with Charibert II, sub-king in Aquitania, 630-632)
633-751 Dagobert I *Clovis II 639-658 *Clotaire III, (652-673), 658-673 *Theuderic III, 673-691 *Clovis III 691-695 *Childebert III 695-711 *Dagobert III 711-715 *Chilperic II 715-720 *Theuderic IV 720-737 *Childeric III 742-751 *Sigebert III 632-656 *Dagobert II 656-660 *Childebert (usurper) 660-661*Childeric II 661-675 *Dagobert II, restored 675-679
Interregnum: rule of the Mayors of the Palace, then Dukes of the Franks (root of the Carolingian dynasty)

Latest source: M. Sonnet, T. Charmasson, A.-M. Lelorrain, Chronologie de l'histoire de France (Paris, 1994).

I think your suggestions are basically good, although I believe they're usually called "Theuderic" or "Theodoric", or some such, in English, rather than Thierry, and we're supposed to use the common English usage. john 05:13, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I'm afraid I may have botched up the formatting somewhat in an attempt to get the various templates working, and keep that table at the end. If anyone can offer suggestions on the formatting of the templates, I'd be happy to learn. Kaisershatner 13:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What the *#$£!

How on earth did this article come to be formatted this way? This is just about the most useless list I've ever come across on wikipedia. It makes me dizzy just looking at it. Furthermore, the list of Kings of Italy (and the various Italian emperors) after Louis II seems to have disappeared completely from both here and List of German Kings and Emperors. Very annoying. john k 23:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging from previous comments I think this is a geniune error by a contributor who needs to become more familiar with wiki-tables through sandbox. It can be irritating but it can easily be reverted, so it is not the end of the world (that comes under apocalypse). --JohnArmagh 11:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the Pippins

It is misleading to number the Pippins, since this makes the first king called Pippin - Pippin the Younger - Pippin III.

The respective "surnames" most commonly used are Elder, Middle and Younger (Short is a mistranslation - it is common and popular, but definetely wrong, Pippin was a big man)

The denominators "of Landen" and "of Her(i)stal" are late inventions to distinguish the Pippins more clearly. They might be used, but should not have the primacy.

Str1977 6 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Googling "pippin the middle" gave me only 5 relevant hits (the others are mostly Lord of the Rings). "Pepin the middle" gave me one hit. I dont see how it is commonly used. --Countakeshi 8 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

[edit] What might still could be added

Some things that might be missing and could be added:

  • what about the struggles between Louis the Pious and his sons and among the sons - the distribution of kingdoms during Louis lifetime are not given (and his son Pippin is missing alltogether)
  • what about mayors that were not Carolingians, but were nonetheless powerful (Ebroin, Erchinoald, Wulfoad) - there is a unhealthy focus on the Carolingians when discussing mayoral power (up to the allegation that Pippin the Middle instigated the murder of Dagobert II - why? because he's the only one known who could have done it)
  • what about distinctions within the Carolingian family (after Pippin the Middle's death)
  • separate from any mayoral questions, maybe the Carolinigian template should give - for that period - heads of the family and not so much offices (though these can be included)

Any thoughts on these issues? Str1977 18:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Someone Missing

I don't see any mention of Dagobert II on this page? XXXX

Dear anononymous, he's right there in the middle of the page, in the middle column "Austrasia", after Clovis III (Austrasia) and preceding Theuderic III (king of all Franks). Please sign your posts. Str1977 09:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of XXXX anononymous should have typed 4 tildes (~) 81.153.121.53 15:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles II

Shouldn't Charles (the Fat) be referred to as Charles II of France or Western Francia because he was king of Western Francia after he was king of Eastern Francia? I don't want to do anything incorrect, so if you have an answer, leave it here or at my talk page. District Attorney 16:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The enumeration of the Charleses is very difficult. Technically, two Charles ruled in what became Western Francia in 843 before Charles the Fat: Charlemagne and Charles the Bald. However, only Charles the Bald was acutally king of that entity, namely, West Francia. Therefore, Charles the Fat could be seen as Charles II of West Francia (France), but he is more importantly seen as the Emperor Charles III, which he is undisputedly. The question of whether or not Frankish rulers before the Treaty of Verdun should affec the enumeration of subsequent rulers is not an answered question. Srnec 07:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Charles the Fat would be Charles III of the Western Kingdom. Charles I = Charlemagne, Charles II = Charles the Bald.
He was Charles II in the Eastern Kingdom and Charles III as Emperor. It is the imperial enumeration that was taken here. Str1977 (smile back) 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Charles the Fat doesn't get a number in Western Francia (aka France). Charlemagne is Charles I, Charles the Bald is Charles II, and Charles the Simple is Charles III. I'm not sure why this is. john k 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess he is seen as an intruder from the Eastern line. Str1977 (smile back) 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seen Charles the Bald numbered Charles I and Charles the Fat Charles III, with Charlemagne receiving no numeral. In fact, I think that this is at least as common as any numbering when numbering is applied to the French kings. Charles the Bald was Emperor Chalres II and Charles the Fat was Emperor Charles III, with Charlemange as Emperor Charles I. Charles the Fat was not regarded as an intruder during his lifetime and I am not sure how many historians have tried to regard him that way since. Srnec 20:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I made some changes, including reverting the unilateral change to the format. If you have any questions about them, please ask.

I have some questions that I cannot answer myself:

  • How to deal with the rulers before Clovis I. The current state is overly simplistic, as if Clovis' predecessors were the only kings of the Franks.
  • How to deal with the turmoil of the years 840 to 843. Should Lothair I get his own spot as Emperor and King, to be succeeded by the three realms post 843. Or should we immediately proceed from Louis I (-840) with all the different subkings, to the three realms. If so, should we begin the rules there with 840 or 843?

Str1977 (smile back) 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how to deal with the per-union Frankish kings except by denoting them in separate lists as kings of the Salians or Ripuarians or whatever other division, but there will still be kings whose tribes we do not know.
Louis the Pious reign ended in 840 with Louis the German as king in Bavaria only, Charles as king in the West and Aquitaine and Lothair as king in the East and Italy. Immediately, Pepin II opposed Charles in Aquitaine and Louis opposed Lothair in the East. The war lasted until 843, as you well know. I should think that we keep Lothair as Emperor throughout the civil war (no other ruler claimed that title) and as king of Italy and East Francia. Louis was only king of Bavaria until 843, when by treaty he received the rest of the Eastern realm. Charles was king of the West throughout the civil war and he should be listed as such. The disputed claims to Aquitaine should be mentioned: they continued after 843 and must be covered throughout that period too. There is no reason not to accord Charles and Louis kingly status in 840, but we should not make them kings of the whole. Lothair was always emperor. The division of 843 allowed Charles to remain where he was, deprived Pepin (again) of Aquitaine, bestowing it on Charles, and gave East Francia to Louis, while leaving Lothair with the Italian and imperial titles and giving him large portions of the West and East to form a Middle Kingdom including Aachen. Does any of that help? Srnec 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So I guess the current version covers it quite well. Or should we put the subkings under Lothair as well for the period 840-843? Str1977 (smile back) 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert disimprovements

I have reverted various changes for the following reasons:

  • First (and worst) of all: DUXES is not a word, the latin plural would be DUCES but DUKE is a good English translation. Yes, it is not exactly the same (but try Emperor - Imperator, Senator, Consul etc.) but such concerns are dealt with by explantion and wikilink to Dux).
  • Ripuarians is not completely accurate as a term, as the correct would be Rhenish Franks. Sigibert was NOT succeeded by his son - he only hoped he would succeed, but this was cut short by Clovis. Read Gregory.
  • Aegidius is NOT "a Merovingian Frank and a Gallo-Roman too" But before throwing insulting words around, maybe you should consider the reasoning too: Aegidius for a while displaced Childeric as King of Tournai. In no other way was he "King of the Franks" - the solution might be to remove the label Merovingian. I will ponder this later.
  • Ottonians and Capetians are the main dynasties succeeding the Caroligians. yes, the Ottonians are actually Saxon (which however was part of the Frankish Kingdom since Charlemagne) but these are the main dynasties (and nothing in the text talks about Frankish dynasties) and not some petty Bosonids that never were "Frankish Kings" (lest you have forgotten what this list is about). The Salians are important too but they reigned over a century later.
  • Robertinger is not English (Robertians would be). The family is more commonly known as Cepetians. The pre-Hugh Capet Robertians are few, so we can neglect them.
  • This is a list and no tract on early Frankish society, so we can do without tribes and bands (or we may as well do it properly and talk about the forging of the Franks out of many separate peoples). "Tribe" is a problematic term anyway.
  • Nor are we to delve into the details of Sigibert's murder (not all scholars agree that Clovis instigated it this way).
  • Why you mention the Chama tribe (whatever that is) is beyond me.

Str1977 (smile back) 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the reversion for the following reasons:
- first of all ducis (not duces) is a latin word. And indeed it is not the same as dukes. If you admit this then you could have provided a link to dux, but you didn’t.
- Ripuarians is not an accurate term as you say yourself, alternatively we could compromise on Rhenish Franks, but instead of doing so you provided a link to the Ripuarians, while you have admitted that this is not accurate. Sigibert is called rex in my version of Gregory. Read Gregory.
- You admit that Aegidius is a Gallo-roman and not a Frank but still you list him at the Merovingians as if he is part of that family. That is wrong and confusing. Gregory calls him rex – but he never calls him rex of Tournai/Doornik. It is just your assumption he ever replaced Childeric. If you read Edward James, or Ian Wood you will notice that modern scholars do not agree with you.
- Ottonians and Capetians (as you wish to call them) are indeed the main dynasties that succeeded the Carolingians. But this is the list of Frankish kings and I don’t see the point of working on Saxons here. If you wish to name the Ottonians this is fine to me, but that is not a good reason to delete the Bosonids and the Salians. This list is about Frankish kings – ALL Frankish kings, not just the ones you favour.
- Robertingi is a word used in the latin texts, meaning the ‘Inguiones of Robert’. Robertingers does it for me, but if you prefer Robertians that is OK with me. There are a few Robertingers from pre-Hugo-Capet-time and they are Frankish kings. Please remember this list is about Frankish kings – ALL Frankish kings, not just the ones you favour.
- I don’t try to write a tract on Franks here, I just try to improve a text that was simply wrong. If you think there shouldn’t a little forword, just delete all the text, but don’t revert a wrong one.
- I mention the Chama, Chamaui, Hama, or Hamalanders because the original text stated that Clovis united all Franks. He didn’t, he united just most of them. That you never heard of the Chama tribe says a lot about you.
- And why do you delete Merogais? Do you deny he was a Frankish king?
- Please remember the 3-reversion-rule. johanthon 12:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The latin word is dux, ducis. The declination is "dux, ducis, ducis, ducem, duce" for the singular, and "duces, ducum, ducibus, duces, ducibus" See this German wiki The correct plural form therefore is duces (Ducis is the genetiv singular). I would have preferred Dukes with a link to Dux (which I provided, but then accidently self-reverted) but I can live with the latin word as well. DUXES however is not a word in any language I know.
  • I accept a compromise on Rhenish Franks, which I anyway prefer to Ripuarians for accuracy's sake. I was just under the impression that WP still uses the wrong term and don't have the time or energy to start a anti-ripuarian crusade. Sigibert definitely was Rex of the (Rhenish) Franks, I never disputed that. As for Chloderic, I have reread Gregory [1] and now see that Chloderic states to have his father's treasures and kingdom in his possession. Whether he merely had possession or was properly acclaimed king is not clear but at least I can understand your position. Therefore I agree to including him into the list.
  • I don't know what your problem with Aegidius is. He clearly was a Roman. He also was king of the Franks, or to be precise, king of the Franks centered around Tournai, displacng Childeric. Nowhere did I or my version of the article claim that he as a Frank. His entry was indented for n reason: because he was an "intruder" into this list. Anyay, I want to reorganize the early section and will hopefully solve the problem to your contentment. However I cannot agree with your analysis of Gregory, who writes (link as above):
"Childeric was excessively wanton and being king of the Franks he began to dishonor their daughters. And they were angry with him on this account and took his kingdom from him. ... The Franks, after he was driven out, with one accord selected as king Egidius, whom we have mentioned before as the commander of the troops sent by the republic."
  • So, clearly Aegidius succeeded Childeric in t he latter's kingdom (which was based at Tournai - or do you dispute this?) I know historians at times have labelled the whole event legendary or disputed that Childeric went as far as Thuringia. Still, in this list we cannot deal with all this details (a discussion belongs in the various articles) - we simply list the Frankish kings.
  • The Ottonians are fit for mentioning (not for inclusion in the list) as they were one of the main dynasties that succeeded the Carolingians. I will add the qualifier that they were Saxon. You cannot just mention as the succeeding dynasties those of "Frankish blood", ommitting one of the most important dynasties of the middle ages because of their being Saxon while including relatively unimportant Bosonids because they were Frankish. We are not "working on Saxons" here as the list clearly ends with the transition of Louis the Child to Conrad to Henry. But if we want to include succeeding dynasties we cannot do without the Ottonians. The Salians on the other hand only succeded after the Ottonians had ruled for over a century. They do not fit here, as WP has chosen to define the Frankish Kings as Merovingians and Carolingians, while the succeeding rulers are listed as "Kings of France" and "Kings of Germany" respectively.
  • IMHO the Robertians are too few and too temporary to be mentioned as a succeeding dynasty (no doubt the kings of that stock are mentioned in the list) - Capetians is the far more common name for the family after Hugh Capet. (BTW, it is common English usage that counts on en.wikipedia, not latin terms or self-made/scholarly English forms of the latin name)
  • "I just try to improve a text that was simply wrong." - I appreciate that but we needn't overdo it. Are you content with my current wording? If not, what are the fatual errors?
  • it just wasn't clear what you were up about the "Chama". I don't object to "most".
  • "Delete Merogais"? That must have been an accident.
Finally, could you please remain civil and AGF and not talk about "ALL Frankish kings, not just the ones (I) favour." You have no clue which Kings I favour. Also, please desist from insinuations about not hearing about the Chama tribe and that this says a lot about me. I could be making just as vicious attacks against you but I don't. I know about the Chamavi, if you are talking about them
3RRU2. Str1977 (smile back) 13:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just make a few points relating to the debate concerning facts:

  • The word is duces and either dux or duke is as good a link as any, the latter is also a fine translation, favoured by many authors. I have been meaning to add informative sections on the barbarian use of titles like comes (count) and dux (duke) for a while and this is a clear indication that it need to be done, the current sections are not sufficient. But where do I add such information (Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, Visigothic, Lombard): at dux or at duke?
  • Ripuarian is the term most commonly encountered in English as far as I know. (I don't see what's wrong with it, especially considering the Lex Ribuaria.)
  • Robertian is the only term used in English. Robertingi is good information: why not add it, as well as a section on the Robertians, to the Capetian article?

Now a few suggestions:

  • Remove all the boldening of names. It is too much and it is not readable.
  • This whole article should probably be split into smaller ones OR we must decide clearly on its limits. Does it only cover those kings of the various tribes before unity and the kings of the united Franks up until the disunion of the Treaty of Verdun, whereat we'll leave it to other lists to name the kings of Aquitaine, France, Germany, Provence, Lotharingia, and Italy? Why should it cover anything beyond that date? This removes the need to discuss Bosonids and Robertians and Ottonians and their inclusion. THe only problem with limiting the list like this is that we then lack any list detailing the divisions of the Frankish empire after 843 and this may be more confusing for some.
  • I think the layout is not easy to read and should probably be reformed again (especially) for the Merovingians. Perhaps a table again if it can be done up nicely? I myself will try and think of better ways to organise the information for the breakup of the Carolingian empire, because I can't think of any suggestions at the moment (a table probably wouldn't work).

All in all, however, this article has undergone some great improvement, but definitely needs more. Srnec 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Srnec, I more or less agree with your observations. However, I would discourage implementing your three suggestions:

  • The boldening (which I don't find unreadable) currently serves to mark the kings as opposed the Caroligians mentioned that were only Mayors. As long as they stay, we should keep the bold print.
  • No split up please, it's better to have them all in one place. The limits currently are the end of the Carolingian dynasty. That's what we currently use to distinguish France and Germany from the Western and Eastern Kingdom. The period 843-911/987 is a userful overlap. We also leave out Italy.
  • I am quite fine with the layout. Table borders IMHO make a much worse reading. Str1977 (smile back) 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well

I think that you forgot to list the Roman Dynasty.

signed JJJ

If you are referring to Aegidius, he is there. If to Syagrius, he was never a Frankish king. Srnec 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't remember Syagrius being called a Frankish king either. However he was leader of Soissons, the capital of the remainder of the Roman field army that hosted, and was dominated by, huge amounts of Franks. Some scholars leave room to think, or even suggest he may have had a function as some kind of Frankish chief in succession to his father. johanthon 12:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chamavi

There has been a recent dispute regarding whether or not the Franks can be said to have united the Frankish petty kingdoms without the qualifier "in Roman Gaul" and whether the conquest of most of Roman Gaul can afford to not be mentioned. In response to my query about whether the Chamavi can be said to constitute a petty kingdom and whether it can be shown that they were not subject to Merovingian lordship like all other known Frankish tribes, Johanthon wrote that since the Chamavi were in conflict with Pepin, they must have been independent and that no source mentions their conquest. If the sources are silent on the conquest of the Chamavi, it should be pointed out that they are completely silent about any Chamavi rulers. Which silence is more important?

The original conquest of the Bretons is never mentioned in a primary source, but Gregory of Tours says that when they were brought to heel by Chilperic I it was because they had been subject to the Franks since the time of Clovis I. Some scholars believe Gregory is wrong, of course, but it serves to point out that Frankish hegemony was extended in some areas with little record in the sources. Look also at Bavaria. Finally, Pepin fought against many peoples disputing Frankish rule, so it is hard to see how his conflict with the Chamavi (and I don't know what you're referring to) would demonstrate anything. Considering that the Chamavi were "Franks" and the Charlemagne created a lex for them, I would like a better source for the belief that the Chamavi were outside of Merovingian hegemony. Srnec 23:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable wish. However this is not solely about the Chamavi. It is also about tribes as the TVVANTI (Twents), BRUCTERI and BRUCTOVARI. In the mean time I suggest we settle a peace on a phrase that confirms Merovingian hegemony IN Gaul and remain open at what exactly happened outside Gaul with those minor Frankish tribes. johanthon 10:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I edited the page to more or less address my main concern with your edits. I hope it's acceptable to you. I have no problem putting this to rest for now. The scholarly secondary sources are very silent on this (save for the more generalist ones, which indubitably make Clovis ruler of "all" the Franks). Srnec 01:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This phrase is very acceptable for me. As a matter of fact I proposed this one myself some edits ago. It covers the factual truth and leaves room to wonder what 'dominance' actually means. johanthon 10:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)