Talk:Clovis I/Archive 1

names of the four sons? chris mahan

Should this article be titled Clovis I of the Franks? -- Zoe I don't know of any other Clovis I so maybe not.chris mahan

I don't think so -- are we doing that for Visigoths? I'd leave it for now -- there are more pressing needs and debate on this subject might run it into an edit war.

Sons -- Theuderic, Chlodomer, Childebert, Lothar -- at this point, I don't think any need links, IMHO. JHK

thanks chris mahan

For whatever reason, User JHK changed this and other articles on the Merovingian Dynasty to make them non-French. Her revision as of 14:58 Sep 4, 2002 deliberately removed absolute facts. I have reinstated these facts and added a photo of a Commemorative Clovis I, Roy de France coin....Ron Davis

Ron Davis -- JHK is a medieval historian spevializing in the Early Middle ages -- the Carolingians in particular, but that pretty much requires that she's done more reading than the average bear on Franks. There is a big difference between Franks and French. ANd it is patently untrue that most historians accept them as French kings. Non-specialists, perhaps, but you would not see any of the major Frankish historians of the past 50 years calling them French. JHK


 * Hey JHK! Nice bumbing into you. :) --mav


 * Hey, Mav -- nice seeing you, too. I see from the list that the atmosphere hasn't gotten any better, but now and again, I check in to do some damage control. JHK (trying not to advertise her persence too loudly)

Don't know if the image is copyrighted, but it certainly is NOT a 5th century coin. JHK

I replaced the comment on the coin title. 64.228.30.xxx (who I think is Ron Davis) is very mistaken in his interpretation, I think. Here's why:


 * The coin looks nothing like any Frankish coin I've ever seen. It looks instead like a much later coin.  The coin may say "Clovis, king of France" but Clovis himself would never have used such a term.  The Capetians, however, and their descendents, would have.  This is especially true when rival claimants appear for the throne, and the application of Salic Law comes into question.  But this coin really doesn't prove anything -- and it may not even be a decent representation of Clovis -- the hair certainly is not long enough for what all prominent scholars of the period consider the norm.


 * The statement about all prominent scholars considering the Merovingians to be French is at best a sad demonstration of obtuseness by a well-meaning amateur, at worst, a deliberate misinterpretation and/or outright lie. There is a fundamental difference at work.  While one cannot write a history of France without discussing the Merovingians (and so every history of France includes them), because they present a major step in the transition from Roman Gaul to Medieval France, virtually no expert in the field calls them French.  The James book, which is very good, also does not say this IIRC (it's been a while, as I read it when it first came out) -- nor does James call them French.  Patrick Geary, in Before France and Germany doesn't call the Merovingians French, nor do Ganshof, Wallace-Hadrill, nor any other I can think of.  They are Frankish, and intrinsic to the development of modern France -- but as Geary and many others (James as well, IIRC, in his The Franks) to modern Germany!  But neither the Merovingians nor the earlier Carolingians were ever considered Kings of France -- especially in any of the records of the time -- that they were coopted by the Capetians and that this was for sometime historic convention is another problem -- one which James and other historians of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages are currently revising. JHK

Removed the map and all the other attempts to make the Merovingians "French" -- also the nonsense about Wotan -- not a Frankish god. The descent, through Merovech, was from a sea-monster -- at least that's what Gregory says, and he's the source of most everything on the early Merovingians. There was some decent stuff added on the goths, etc, but either was clearly taken (or paraphrased in wasy not acceptable to comply with copyright, from other sources.  It could be put in again, buy preferably by someone who gets the chronological flow correct and who can keep his pronoun references straight. JHK

On what authority do you delete the map? Your behavior and language is totally abusive and unacceptable. Triton

And, you have deleted facts straight from the James book which you obviously never read. I shall reverse your attempts to distort and cover up. Triton

This looks like an editing war is brewing. ugh User:kt2

There will be no editing war with me. Ms. JHK simply abuses her sysop powers and reverts any facts that disprove her unfounded opinions. She has deleted a map, hid facts by deleting them, and reversed my proof. Itt's sad that that is all she can do because she cannot support her argument with a shred of proof from evene one qualified source. One cannot have an "edit war" with Ms. JHK who calls people "obtuse", "misrepresenters" and "liars." Why would I want that kind of abuse? Would you? Triton
 * I have actually read the James book, but not since it first came out. Perhaps you wouldn't ming quoting the pertinent passage with page number, and then we can judge this in context, or I can pick up the book at the university and check it out.  It's  an hours' drive, but I'd be happy to check.  WHat you included though, appeared to have been taken far too liberally from your source -- again, violating copyright and plagiarism standards, thus putting the site at risk.
 * As for the map, I removed it for no reason other than that I believe it is still under copyright, and even without, the source should be cited.
 * Finally, I have never abused my sysop status -- any reversons I have done can be done by any user. JHK

There is a detailed procedure required for deleting photos and I met all obligations required by Wikipedia when I posted it. Deleting it as you did is in fact a violation of your sysop powers and reverting to a previous edit is something only a sysop can do. Act like an adult, behave like the professional you claim to be, and please correct your improper deletions. And, I will indeed ask Jimbo Wales to look at your deletions, assertions and derogatory remarks about other erstwhile contributors to his website. And no, I don't violate copyright, but if you have proof please provide it. You seem to have a problem when someone actually knows what they are talking about. While your at the library, pick up James' "The Franks" (1997). Outstanding book, repeats Clovis and the Merovingians as part of the history of FRANCE. Triton

And, by the way. Don't you think it a bit childish, besides dishonest, to insert "Belgium" after deleting Toxandria. Or did you not study any of this but decided to hide it from others?Triton


 * This is almost laughable:


 * I didn't replace Toxandria with belgium, unless it was part of a general reversion.
 * ANyone can revert to a previous version -- if I can do it not logged in from any IP, then it isn't a sysop thing.
 * If you have uploaded the picture recently and done all the verification, then I apologise -- but since I've seen this picture before, and it was copyrighted, perhaps you could provide the source anyway? After all, you should have it at hand.  Otherwise, it hasn't been deleted.
 * To prove my point that you haven't really been reading the discussions posted, nor the changes I've made, might I point out that I added the James book to the List of French monarchs list YESTERDAY, and that I suggested you and Jacques read it?
 * Oh - and doesn't James also discuss that the Romans were in "France" before the Franks, and that the Gauls were there before that? JHK

Ms. JHK says about my work she deleted: "nonsense about Wotan -- not a Frankish god" - She also says the Franks were a Germanic tribe. Now, I'm really confused, perhaps in awe, at how wrong the Wikipedia article on Wotan is. Someone please delete the nonsense in Wotan's article about being the Supreme God of the Germanic peoples. Sure is good we have Ms. JHK's expertise to set me straight. Triton


 * T -- if you look at the history of the WOtan article, you'll see that it is fae from perfect. Much of it is just left because no one took the trouble to finish fixing it.  It was largely written by an ex-user who insisted all Germans were equally germanic -- you'd have really liked her -- SHe'd have said flat out that, because the Franks were germanic, they were really German kings.  If I recall correctly, Wotan was not a Frankish god  -- or at least there is no evidence that he was. JHK

Well, Jules seems in error on that point, but no reason to be nasty about it. I have restored the map, citing its origin in the reference section. I don't have access to the James book either and minimal interest in what it contains. Anyway no way to judge from a distance the extent to which the facts are extracted from the book as opposed to copying of passages from the book. Perhaps, until the book is actually looked at by a third party, it should be assumed that Triton extracted only facts then wrote his own text. If that is not true then Triton should do that. Fred Bauder 02:24 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I would invite everyone to look at how the analogous England articles are handled, see History_of_England, List of British monarchs, List of monarchs of England. England (the word) really dates only from the time of Alfred. But there is no corresponding set referring to France such as England-Britain. So for us Alfred is the first king of England but hardly the first British King. Clovis I was certainly not the first king of France. Fred Bauder 02:24 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps some language like "Clovis I is traditionally considered the first king of France"? Fred Bauder 02:24 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I won't prefer rhetoric over clearly stating "Clovis I was once considered the first king of France; however researches have shown that .... (Clovis I was not the first king of France and the reason for it)" simply because people would take tradition as de facto standard. User:kt2

Sorry kt2, I'm not getting it. But, a second voice of reason in one night! Wow! Hard to believe folks. My view on the monarchs is to follow what was done with the British monarchs. Unfortunately for Ms. JHK, that means the Merovingians are part of the page followed by Carol's gang and then Hughie et ses amis. First though, I never use one source only for research. I use many but what I wrote on poor old Clovis was pretty routine until Ms. JHK waved her wand, called me an idiot, and made it go away. So, I don';t dare touch HER page. Triton

Sorry if it's confusing b/c I am a bit tired after switching to and fro from wiki and my sinology reading. I meant I would prefer all reasons and explanations, which clearly states that people used to consider Clovis as the first king of France but research has proven their views to be wrong. User:kt2
 * Kt- I wouldn't even say wrong -- I would just say that that view has generally been replaced by ...

Hey Fred -- thanks for your help. BTW, the feeling that things needed to be checked for plagiarism is in part due to differenced in writing style, partially just from experience. As I said before, the stuff is all in the history and can be replaced when it gets checked out. It's good information, but it can't even parallel James too closely to avoid plagiarism charges and copyright infringement. Better safe than sorry. Oh -- and the page where all this started, the List of French Monarchs, says that there is a tradition of starting the kings of France with Clovis. But Frankly, when we first worked on this article (and it was edited from the 1911 Brittanica), it was not a part of the original article (IIRC) and it has never been in question until we got a bunch of people who refuse to accept that the Germanic tribes are now being considered as separate entities -- if people disagree, please just look at the number of books written on Goths, Franks, Lombards (not so many), etc, in the past 30 years. JHK


 * I agree that Germanic tribes are distintive entities, long before wikipedia was founded (.... a benefit from my high school project:) )User:kt2

Here she goes again. All the books quoted here refer to Clovis, Merovingians and their horses, as part of the history of France. A list, therefore, of French monarchs can't delete one entire lineage who were born, lived and died as kings over France. Again, why does MS. JHK want to post her unfounded theories. And by the way, Ms. JHK, don't even infer plagiarism, you are far from qualified in law. Mr. Bauder says he is, and I know a tiny amount. So, we are back to square one. Ms. JHK refuses Mr. Bauder's suggestion that we follow the same exact formula as the Brits. What next? More circles? God folks, I just don't understand why she thinks I, other contributors, authors, and Britannica are wrong. Spose it has anything to do with an evil spell from Wotan? Triton


 * "...entire lineage who were born, lived and died as kings over France." might be better expressed as "The Merovingians were a ruling dynasty of the Franks, whose members ruled the Frankish kingdoms of Neustria and Austrasia, the kernel of what would later become France." Fred Bauder 13:10 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Triton, your tone is inappropriate. Jules is a sincere responsible Wikipedian contributor, her theories are not "unfounded". As to law, I was a divorce lawyer (so I know a lot about scrapping-useful here-but not much more than a layman about copyright). But, on that, plagiarism is a much broader concept than copyright violation as defined in civil law. The essence of plagarism is to pass off the work of another as one's own. This may include the "ideas" also. It is a truism of intellectual property law that one may not obtain rights to an idea. If you are citing your sources you are by definition not plagarizing although you may if you copy from those sources be violating the owner's copyright. Jules says, "...but it can't even parallel James too closely to avoid plagiarism charges and copyright infringement." This may be too conservative for Wikipedia purposes. A Wikipedia article is not ordinarily held forth as original work anyway. As one follows a time line of events it is unavoidable that you will parallel a historical source. Fred Bauder 13:10 27 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Triton, I appreciated your effort here but as Julie has mentioned before, you have to critically read your sources and judge the arguments sensibly. If you can't do that, you are just destroying your credibility of putting up trustworthy ideas. For instance EB supports her view, not yours, though you think it supports yours. User:kt2

No, see http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=386306


 * "Ms. JHK refuses Mr. Bauder's suggestion that we follow the same exact formula as the Brits."
 * I suggested everybody look at the treatment. I didn't "suggest we follow the same exact formula". We might look also at the treatment of the Kievian Rus or the Holy Roman Empire, see Rulers of Kievan Rus and Tsar, note the language in the Tzar article, "(For pre-Muscovite Russia see Rulers of Kievan Rus)" Fred Bauder 11:44 27 May 2003 (UTC)

kt2, every comment you make confuses me so obviously I am not up to your intellectual level. Perhaps in layman terms you can tell me how the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia says: Merovingian Dynasty: Frankish dynasty considered the first French royal house - means the Merovingian dynasty are NOT the first French royal house. Unless I am totally stupid, when one makes a list of French monarchs it usually starts with the first French royal house, doesn&#8217;t it? Next, go to http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=386306 where it states: "He (Clovis) is traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy and the original French champion of the Christian faith.

Lets not go in circles here. What makes the list of British monarchs different than the French list? Both were not called England or France 1500 years ago, both have had their territorial borders changed frequently and under most very king. So why would not some of these purported British kings be segregated to another list? And, when you read: '''MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY: Medieval France: An Encyclopedia, eds. W. Kibler and G. Zinn. New York: Garland Publishing, 1995.''' -- This Encyclopedia states: "The Merovingians are considered to be the "first race" of French kings." By race, they are saying the race of Franks ruled over many other distinct races in France. Read your French history: &#8220;Groups of people not connected by dialect, philosophy, or political commonality, but labeled under one name by the Romans as &#8216;&#8217;Germanic tribes&#8217;&#8217;, soon began taking over parts of Gaul, blocking other barbarians coming in great numbers from the north and the east during the 5th century.&#8221;

But, THEY ARE FRENCH KINGS. What more do you need from? Clovis is recognized by ALL qualified scholars and sources as the first because of the territory he united. Please look at the map on Clovi I article, the one Ms. JHK did not want you to see. Question, why do you argue a point here? Why not produce a reputable source that contradicts the many scholars I have quoted. And, note Ms. JHK has provided no rebuttal proofs, only more talk about her &#8220;ideas&#8221; and deleting of my facts accompanied by degrading remarks. Study Manchester University&#8217;s work by Paul Fouracre and Richard A. Gerberding titled: Late Merovingian France: History and Hagiography, 640-720. Note, please it is titled Merovingian France, not Merovingian China. Get it? Or does this mean Merovingian NOT France? Next study &#8220;Francia&#8221; then you will understand that the territory between modern-day France and Germany, and south to Central Italy, became known as Francia. West Francia is France and 1,400 years later East Francia was named Germany. The Franks settled in West Francia long before Clovis. But, Clovis lived, worked, fought, made love, had children, and died and is buried in Paris, West Francia. That makes Clovis a West Francian doesn&#8217;t it? Yes, he conguered and ruled over parts of Germany and if one wishes to list the history of Germany (although the country as we know it is only 100 years old) then by all means list Clovis as one of its ruler/conguerors. But, Clovis did not come riding in on his horse from Berlin and conqueror West Francia. As I said in the Clovis I article that Ms. JHK deleted in order to hide facts and proofs that she was wrong, the Franks lived in Toxandria: Here is part of what she deleted and this is unacceptable conduct in Wikipedia:

Clovis I (a form of &quot;Louis&quot;) (Chlodowech) (c. 466 - November 27, 511 at Paris), a member of the Merovingian Dynasty, succeeded his father Childeric I in 481 as King of the Salic Franks, a Germanic people occupying the west of the lower Rhine, with their own center around Tournai and Cambrai, along the modern frontier between France and Belgium, in an area known as Toxandria. As the chiefs of the Frankish tribes were chosen from a single extended family claiming descent from the god Wotan, Clovis began killing off the other members of his family and so reducing the number of people who could compete with him for authority. By consolidating the other tribes under his leadership in this manner, within five years he had united the Franks under his personal rule.

Honestly, this is going too far. But I care about the quality at Wikipedia and will not let Ms. JHK intimidate me as she did others and drive me away. I just don&#8217;t understand why anyone at Wikipedia would want to contradict all other encyclopedias and scholars and place opinions without any supporting proof into an article and label it as fact. It will only take one reputable scholar to look at it and label Wikipedia as a joke. Please stop talking here in circles and deal with facts. Is that asking too much in an encyclopedia? Triton

Unless I misunderstand, all she is saying is that Clovis I was the king of a Frankish kingdom. There was no France to be king of. Fred Bauder 16:49 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Triton - I am not falsifying the statement in ECB. All I meant was that you should read carefully what ECB told you simply because EB (Encylopedia Britannica) is a better and more accurate source than ECB. All you were emphasizing was the statement in ECB, which clearly states, Merovingian Dynasty: Frankish dynasty considered the first French royal house.. But you have been ignoring all other sources - EB, the Larousse quotes I provided a while ago, and other sources, which either states, traditionally reckoned (EB) or first dynasty of Frankish kings (Larousse). The language tell you that these sources have either reservations or simply not stating Merovingians were the first French royal house. You have NEVER attempted to disprove these sources, explaining why they don't agree with you.

"The Merovingians are considered to be the "first race" of French kings." - If the authors intended to mean "The Merovingians were the first race of French kings", why did they put "considered to be" instead of "were"?

Last thing, I do read my history and I do know many differences between France and China. Those comments are obviously belittling me. - I don't need you to tell me what I should be doing. I am now giving you a warning - I will not be replying you unless you comment or refute my quotes and apologize for your belittling comments. User:kt2

kt2, your quotes don't make sense to me and I won't attempt to parse your parsed interpretations. Maybe its my fault but I do take note you disagree with me, Britannica, and other scholars and confrere USER:Stan Shebs. No historian states anything as absolute fact that is not based on proven documents. They always say, "considered", meaning the historical community at large excluding the quacks. If there was a certifiable sworn statement signed by the Roman Emperor that says etc. etc., then, historians state it as fact. You are still going in circles here. Can't we just deal with the issue at hand? The Merovingians as Frankish Kings were kings of Frankish race who were KINGS over France. Mr. Bauder said: "There was no France to be king of" -- The same thing applies (I repeat 4th time) to Britain; look at the list of Brit monarchs, Ethelred, Alfred etc. all fit the same category. Why then is it one detailed list of all monarchs over what we now call England/Britain but not one list of all monarchs who ruled over what we now call France? Let's stop the nonsense, now. This discussion belongs on the talk page of List of French monarchs, not poor old Clovis. I am going there for all further discussion. By the way Fred, I'm Private International Law. Triton