Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:45, 15 April 2011

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2007 2008 2009 & 2010

Article Name

There was no Germany before of 1871. Mootros (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

False. the RS (Reliable Sources) write about Germany before 1871. (Fuhrmann and Reuter, Germany in the High Middle Ages: c.1050-1200 (1986); Arnold, Medieval Germany, 500-1300 (1998); Reinhardt, Germany: 2000 Years (1961)) It's an issue of names and some historians indeed use "Kingdom of Germany" re the medieval country. Look at John Gillingham, The Kingdom of Germany in the High Middle Ages (900–1200) Historical Association Pamphlets, General Series, no. 77. London: Historical Association, 1971.

Not a widely established view among historians. The original Latin name does not say Germany either. Misses the point of the article because it does not really refer to such a construct called "Germany". There is nothing wrong to mention that some historians use this name, but it's not enough to name the article after this. Mootros (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about a concept by a minority of English speaking historians, but about an area ruled by several members of different dynasties that was referred to as rex teutonicorum, or king of the Germans. Mootros (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mootros lacks RS in English for his plan to change the usual title to "Regnum teutonicum". Amazon.com lists only one book containing the title "Regnum teutonicum" and it's in German. Amazon list only ONE English language book that uses the words "Regnum teutonicum" somewhere in the text -. The point is that Latin term is VERY rarely used in English. In common scholarly usage we have thousands of cites to "German Kingdom" (as in Henry IV of Germany 1056-1106 by by I. S. Robinson 2003)--and indeed in many British books going back to Freeman and Bryce a century+ ago...and today by leading writers such as Imanuel Geiss (1997), Pierre Riché - 1993, The Oxford history of medieval Europe (1993), Eric Goldberg - 2006, Andreas Dorpalen - 1985, Kurt Aland - 1986, Angus MacKay, David Ditchburn - 1997 etc etc. So perhaps as a compromise we can suggest "German Kingdom" as a title.Rjensen (talk)

The suggestion by Rjensen makes much more sense! German Kingdoms possibly. The current title is utterly confusing and bias towards a minority of who retrofit previous events and concepts into current way of thinking. Before the Enlightenment a king ruled over people and not over a land. Hence the very name "King of the Germans". People in Europe generally thought of themselves as custodians of the land that belonged to god. Hence definitely not (king of) Germany. Mootros (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This contemporary account of Crecy uses rex Franciae and rex Boemiae. The Kingdom of England is much older, attested of Henry I. Kings of peoples did of course exist in the Dark Ages; but Philip VI of France is not the beneficiary of the Enlightenment - by about four centuries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

...by Thomas Wright 1859 referring to text of unknown author. How does this relate to a world view in the place that came to be known as Germany. Mootros (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wright is an editor; and John of Bridlington may be obscure, but he is not unknown. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Kingdom of Germany be renamed and moved to Regnum teutonicum. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Kingdom of Germany → Regnum teutonicum — Mootros (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose. Contrary to WP:Use English; we title articles by what anglophones call them, and by what anglophones will understand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I suggest "German Kingdom" -- there are thousands of cites to "German Kingdom" in the English language scholarly literature (and some to "Kingdom of Germany" and almost none to "regnum teutonicum") Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the discussion above. Nobody objects to German Kingdoms. Mootros (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I do. This article is not about the nineteenth century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any move. This has been discussed to death (see archives). Mootros is just late. He's also entirely wrong. Srnec (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages is not a ready only version. Previous discussions exactly show the problem with this name. Mootros (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
    • No, they show that a whole generation has been misled into thinking that Germany was created out of whole cloth in 1871. —Srnec (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Not out of a cloth but out of the 1000 years of different German groups forming and reforming political alliances and real states. Mootros (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
        • Do you have a source for this thesis? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I second Rjensen and suggest German Kingdom Mootros (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose amendment; no reason to call this article differently than the cognnate realms, the Kingdom of Italy and Kingdom of Burgundy or Arles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Rather irrational this argument. Consistent in what? It's inconsistent with the German King. Mootros (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That's a redirect; redirects should exist from all plausible errors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The Kingdom of Württemberg, for instance, was a 'German Kingdom', but not a 'Kingdom of Germany'. Therefore the proposed title 'German Kingdom' would be wrong. 'Kingdom of Germany' was the informal name for East Francia, which in Germany came more and more in use, likely since the time of Henry the Fowler, when Non-Francs gained the crown. On the other hand, 'Regnum teutonicum ' , the other proposed title, was a Latin term, which might have been constructed in this way for propaganda purposes, to show the similarity between the German term for 'German' and the name of the Teutons, who were enemies of Rome. A Latin term as title of the article, would be as wrong, as it would be for any other kingdom ot that time.Henrig (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment can someone build a disambiguation page or set index for all German kingdoms? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No need for such a page, because there is no disambiguation with the title 'Kingdom of Germany'.Henrig (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, especially, as per the current version of this article, the relevant sentence in the lead section is tagged with {{Citation needed}}. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• The contention that there was no "Germany" before 1871 is pure ignorance, and doesn't really deserve comment. In diachronic conceptual continua, there is often a big difference between one point and another. So Netherlands were in "Germany" in the early modern era but not in the 20th century. This though doesn't mean there was no Germany anymore than there was no America before the 50th state was added. Regarding "kingdom of Germany", my only concern is that this is not really distinct from the "Holy Roman Empire". Back in the early days Italy/Rome was the Empire bit and the rest was Germany, but today we use "Holy Roman Empire" effectively to refer to the Kingdom of Germany. But I don't see any justification for this move and therefore oppose it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Very strongly oppose I see the errors of my way. Thank you everybody for the effort in the discussion. Closure requested . Mootros (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification please

From when to when was such a kingdom to have existed?

Most of the article deals with events past 962. We have a whole article here called the Holy Roman Empire. It is striking that there is no equivalent article on the German wikipedia. Mootros (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Germany, like the Kingdoms of Italy or Burgundy, was one component of the Empire. Since it pre-existed the Empire, but had no functional existence after the last German king released his subjects from their obedience: 843-1806. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying this "kingdom" was mostly a part of the Holy Roman Empire? Highly dubious! Does not say anything about this in here. Mootros (talk)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Shall we add 843-1806 to this page. Any RS for this? Mootros (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not in boldface. But James Bryce is a reliable source. Read, understand, edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Does not make any such assertion: 843-1806. Mootros (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Learn to read, not just abuse search engines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

All I can read is a 19th century revisionist account that tries to shoehorn past event into a at the time important view that liked to see a core monarchy to have exited within the HRE. (Victoria probably would have liked this.) However, there is no evidence! Not even good old Bryce's interpretation does go as far to make such an assertion of a so-called "Kingdom of Germany" to have existed from 843-1806. Mootros (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you have your own Point of View, and cite no sources. References to the Kingdom of Germany from before 1848 (to avoid even references to the offer of the Frankfurt Parliament) are easy to come by; on the theory you have made up, they would not exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean we already have a perfect source of the German Kingdom. Our friend James Bryce, despite his "nation building" view of German history. Mootros (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea of Bryce, that Garibaldian Liberal, who recommended a radical socialist and a perverse republican as Poet Laureate, inventing a German kingdom to please the Queen, is aufficiently laughable to cause me to reconsider dispute resolution for now; at least be entertaining, if you must be WP:FRINGE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, this is absurd! It's equally absurd to main an 843-1806 argument. Mootros (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are cited in the article. The date of 843 is easy enough. The date of 1806 is somewhat theoretical because the kingdom of Germany, as a real entity, fades into insignificance with the constitutional changes in the Empire from the 15th century on. So setting a date for its end is like setting a date for the fall of Rome. But if we can choose a host of dates between 476 and 1453, does that mean there was no Roman Empire? Srnec (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes to 843. But the problem with anything beyond 962: are we saying that the some Duchies with the HRE formed a "Kingdom" that stood as some loose association itself within the HRE and later faded away. This a very interesting, I have to admit and surely a worthwhile theory to put forward. But so far what do we really have on established the evidence, even for 843 to 962? Mootros (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The kingdom was Carolingian in creation. It had nothing to do with a federation of duchies, even if that's what it looked like in 911. (The origins of these duchies are obscure, but their creation dates to the period 843–962, which makes them look more like a product of the kingdom than its creator.) Conrad I was elected king. Henry I after him. Then Otto I. The principle of election was established and it was not really superceded until the Habsburgs. Similar things occured in France. When the Carolingian line failed, Hugh was elected. His descendants, unlike their German contemporarise, succeeded in making themselves hereditary sovereigns with no elections needed. Srnec (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying, the King(dom) of the Germans did not exist. That's why German Kingdom is a useful phrase. Mootros (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So you'er distinguishing the "Kingdom of the Germans" = "German Kingdom" from the "Kingdom of Germany"? Is this at all useful? Does it make any sense? Isn't it like denying there was such a thing as France in 1810? Srnec (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No. All we have is a King of the Germans. German Kingdom is a useful (i.e. a compromise), because it avoids to make a reference to a place, which "Germany" clearly does. It is widely acknowledged among historians that some tribes in Europe considered to themselves German people. However to conclude from this that there was a real political or administrate entirety for a unified territory is far fetched. Mootros (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So there is no place called Germany before 1871? John Foxe would disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

When at the time of Martin Luther? There were many different German States that had formed many different political alliances. I'm sure one can conveniently lump this together, especially when referring to culture and language. Political entity, I would say no. Mootros (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

1520, as Foxe clearly says on the same page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I for one do not accept that there is no place without a matching state. One might as well say there is no such place as South America. —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And it is indisputable that there was a state called Germany in the Middle Ages. Srnec (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps to shed light onto this, I ask: What was the German or Latin name of this Kingdom? What original name do you find by English speaking historians in their footnotes on what this "entity" was supposedly be called at the time? Mootros (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the early Middle High German Annolied in its original language with an English translation (there's a link at the top). Three times the translator uses "Germany". What is he translating? Diutischemi lande, Diutsche lant, Diutischimo lante. This is only one source, but the earliest. —Srnec (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Latin is well-documented in the article. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

To translate this as Germany what literately means land of the German is fine for a poem. 12th century is a very good indication of the changes that already had occurred in the HRE. The point is that we are trying to avoid the impression that before the HRE there was a political entity with a unified territory called Kingdom of Germany. Bryce clearly states the 5 or 6 tribes after 843 that elected a King did not even called themselves German but "East Frankish" Do you have any source apart from the Latin which s from 11th or 12th century anyway? Mootros (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You asked for names; that you get sources for names should not be surprising. Add rex alemaniae from the 13th century (Noel Denham-Young's Richard of Cornwall, and germaniae rex from the 15th (from Bryce).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mootros, I can't even make sense of what you're saying. The Annolied is from the 11th century, not the 12th. The point is not that "we are trying to avoid the impression that before the HRE there was a political entity with a unified territory called Kingdom of Germany". We are doing no such thing, only you. There was a "political entity with a unified territory" that historians call the kingdom of Germany (and that was called something very similar by contemporaries) before Otto the Great. A 10th-century Latin source is covered in the article—which you apparently haven't read—and even has its own article. Try again. Srnec (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Some historians! Others call it German Kingdom. There jury is still out there as to which is the more common terms. Something very similar, but not exactly the same. Mootros (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No jury needed. The terms are equivalent in English, but the one is a better article title. Srnec (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Will be calling the German King --> now King of Germany Mootros (talk)

More background information is need here to solve this. How were these duchies united into a political entity and how do the reigns between 843--919 differ to 919--962? Thanks. Mootros (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you editing the article when you admit such ignorance? The duchies were part of the same polity before 843. The year 919 represents no major change, only in hindsight do we see it as the beginning of a new dynasty. Srnec (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The dukes were originally part of a political entity, which was partitioned in 843. They were retained within the Kingdom of Germany by allegiance to the Crown, often extracted at swords' point. So what? That last is true of any Kingdom in Europe.

I am asking because I think you're confused. Mootros (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And I think you've made something up and have no sources. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're trying to put in here. Mootros (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The kings before 911 claimed by descent in the male line; Conrad and Henry claimed in the female line; Henry's descendants claimed in a different male line. Again, so what? The same (including invasions and disorder) can be said, for example, of the Kings of Scotland around 1300.

Some of the Kings of Germany before Otto were also Emperors, and some were not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So who were all the Kings "of Germany"? Mootros (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

See Bryce; most of them, but not all, were also Emperor between the 10th and the 16th century (Henry the Fowler and Richard of Cornwall being the most obvious exceptions). After Charles V (of Germany) none of them were, strictly speaking, Emperors, but merely Emperors Elect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you that's a useful confirmation. A lot of work needs to be done to get this article anywhere. Mootros (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering you haven't read it, how do you know? (Remember how you asked a terminological question above without having read the "Terminology" section of the article?) Srnec (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mootrus is now rewriting and tagging List of German monarchs to his taste; discussion there may be helpful. He does have one valid point: by the logic here, that should be List of monarchs of Germany.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Best to keep the discussion focused on this page. Other pages are discussed elsewhere. PS: Not by my taste but by sources. Mootros (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mootros is now rewriting the pages of numerous German monarchs by replacing everywhere 'King of Germany' with 'King of the Romans', which is misleading without clarification. They were kings of an area, a country, which was initially called East Francia and gradually changed to Germany. (For the Saxons especially it was really easier to identify with 'Germany' than with 'Francia'.) 'King of the Romans' was just a claim, which was connected to the king's title to become emperor. This should be clarified, when used. Otherwise it's misleading, for instance, to the old Romans. Henrig (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll do this. Thanks. Mootros (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, in German, there is the ironical term 'verschlimmbessern' (literally: impair improving). The name of the territory is necessary. 'King of the Romans' can be added, labeled as an official title with a link to the article (- which you unfortunately also have changed, by replacing "Kings of Germany" with "Kings who were refereed to as Otto by the grace of God King" Otto was a name! And "By the grace of God King" was just a frequently used phrasing by rulers in Christian countries! Henrig (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is what did Otto called himself, and what was he called by others, at the time when he was in office. This is not about what other people called him centuries later.

Pls do not remove several citations of leading English speaking scholars, by saying that some references will be added soon. Mootros (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have written this question also on my talkpage, my same answer here too: No intention to remove citations. But you removed stable text, before people had the change to add citations, you have requested. There are lot of references. But you must give people time. Now, shortly after I had announced a first additional reference, you have changed the text and my work got lost in an edit conflict. Btw., please cite your citations exactly, to show, where you see the back for your claims. (A link would be fine.) I've seen today the following posting from Pmanderson, regarding this issue. But after reading, he seems to see in your reference quite the opposite. Henrig (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What stable text? You removed two key citations.

Re Reuter: however the state was organised. The question is what was it called? Land of the Saxons... Ottonia? We don't know yet. All we know is that we don't know whether it was called Germany or not. Bryce states that prior to the Ottos the King explicitly did not call themselves German. Mootros (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What were, for instance, the people in England called in the 11th century? Angels, Saxons, Normans, some other names. It was a development, but England (from the tribe of the Angels) came more and more in use. The name German (i.e. the frankish predecessor of the modern terms Deutsch (and Dutch) appeared first written during the time of Charlesmagne and meant the old Frankish (people's) language which in the West of Francia came more and more out of use in favor of the Roman language. Ist seems it was initially more a nickname for the eastern Frankish territories, which by the time came more and more in use. At the beginning the people considered themselves perhaps more as members of their tribes and Otto was seen as a Saxon and still king of East Francia (for sure in the Frankish areas). It was a slow process and one day the name of Francia for the kingdom was widely replaced with the term for Germany.Henrig (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My reference exactly states page 64 and gives a convenient link to the online version of this book. A direct link to a google book page is not useful, because it can block the page temporarily. You need to turn the pages yourself, I'm afraid. Mootros (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems, there is not the same access from a PC in Germany as from your country. I see the message 'Pages 50 - 70 are not available. Henrig (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=UbIDN-jV7XkC&pg=PR7&lpg=PP1 You can you see this index? If so, just turn the pages. Mootros (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you still don't have any success, you may contact me and I will email you a copy of that page for private study purposes. Mootros (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

citations

Hi , yes pls add the citation that shows what Otto was called at the time. Don't remove other reference that state the opposite. Compare and contrast, if they are opposing. Thanks. Mootros (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove two citations from leading English speaking authorities on the matter? Mootros (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See my answer in the previous section a few minutes ago. Henrig (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I still cannot see your logic of working. You first remove two key citations and save it. Than you you start to write. Why? Do you save the two key citations externally for later, or just drop them? Why? Mootros (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Citations on ethnic identity

We also need some citation here on the ethnic identity issue, prior to the Ottos. Reuter does say something about this. Do we have some more specific texts that deal with this time period and the ethnic identity of the tribes? Mootros (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tendentious illiteracy

This article quotes John Gillingham as saying " an assemblage of a number of once separate and independent peoples and kingdoms, genres and regnu" I am removing that nonsense for two reasons. The less serious is that Gillingham of course wrote gentes and regna, which are actual Latin words.

The more serious is that Gillingham goes on to say "So too, of course, were the kingdoms of France and England." (As they were; in 650, Bavaria and Saxony were independent; so were Mercia and Essex. So?) Using that quotation to imply that Germany was different in kind from France or England is intellectual fraud.

The present text goes on to say - and to attribute to Gillingham - that the "assemblage" emerged in the tenth century. He does not say that; he does not discuss the tenth century at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Middle Ages articles
• Mid-importance Middle Ages articles
• Start-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• Requested moves