Talk:East Francia

Beginning of the Holy Roman Empire in Question ! - but, Wiki and the Talk Pages are not for Original Research
In my view it has political reasons ( the EU and the Frensh view of history) why the coronation of Karl the great is not seen as the beginning of the holy roman empire. It is logical that this is so because:

1.Before there was only the Emperor von East Rom the emperors of West Rom was an invention of the Pope as Protector of the Pope and Rome. So the emperor was seen as worldly man of God on the throne. In the Moment the Pope put the Crone on the Head of Karl the Great this Imperer was in the West as Christian Roman protecting Imperor first time existing. So : Holy Roman Empire from 25.December 800

2. A split sais nothing. Actualy the Franconian country was splitting 3 times but the German part inherreded Rom so the east is the true sucessor, what ever the Frensh are thinking- they splited from the empire not the other way around

3. The main Capital Aachen and the most holy place Comprai ( St Martin Protector of the empire) was still in the east.

4. This time the border they splittet along, ( third split) was the languageline because beween them where huge uninhanited woods, witch later would become Frensh by settling( The Latin Population splittet from the Frankonian part but caped the name)

5.What was the name of the empire Frankonian empire. Who where the Frankonians. The midle Germans. To day: Rheinland, Hessen ( Frankfurt!)and northern Bavaria called then Upperfrankonians, the Dutch called then Lower Frankonians.

6 Was Karl the Great frensh? His mother was from Colonge, so the first what he heard was old German and later Latin. He was born on the Langugeline near Lüttich his father was probably frensh - german mixed, so Karl the Great was 3/4 Germanic and spoke besides Latin.

This all together shows that the real founding date of the Holy Roman Empire was the Christmasday 800 when the Pope put the crown on the head of Karl the Great.

See articel "Holy Roman Empire"

This was seen like this all the way thrue history till the EU was founded and the Germans had to be nice to the Frensh, suddenly this logical view changed and a lot of books where written why the Holy Roman Empire was founded 911 or 962. and not 800. ( 911 was the date seen by the German Empire 1870 till 1918, it was fitting for them to cover the connection with the Frensh history) In 962 the borders where about like the German boders now political very fitting for the newly founded federal Republic. Calming down and covering the losses of the war with a historical map wich shows Germany in the Beginning simelar like now.

Why the Frensh kept the name ? Till the revolution the nobility traced it rights from being from Frankonian desendent. That was probably allthaugh the reason why they kept this name for the country.

In Germany soon the Frankonians where not so importend as a tribe anymore. The Saxons became the importend tribe, later the Shwabian (Allemanic) So there had to be a new name for all 5 Germanic tribes ( Alemanic, Franconian, Saxon, Bavarian, Thueringish - still the main dialects).This name was found during the middle age, the people said they speak the language of the people witch means in Latin: Deotish from this came Duitsch, Dutch, Deutsch.

Why they did not call themself Germans. Eighter the christian Priests where not happy about this or because they knew to well that there are Germans in England and in the Scandinavic areas too.

(the above posted by) Johann


 * In those days there was no frensh or german... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.136.18 (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Talk Pages are not for idle discussion of the subject WP:FORUM and most certainly not for Original Research.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

First, there is no such thing as thing as G*rmanic, there are Alemanians/Swabians/Frisians/Franconians/Saxons, secondly Charlemagne was a Franci(French in Latin) and not a Fracones(Franconian in Latin), thirdly it is the contrary until the EU nobody claimed that Charlemagne was a G*rman.

Anyway, you (g*rman) don't exist, DNA proved that you're a mix of French(R1b) Danes(I1) and Poles(R1a) --90.24.27.47 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed {&#123;Mergeto&#125;} 2008-07-12
re: Removed, apparently belatedly
 * 1) improperly hung... read the danged directions on the template
 * 2) No Talk section with tag-wallpaper hanger's justification or rationale.
 * 3) Common talks need initialized... See (2)
 * 4) No merit... Try getting into the right century. Francia was a long way from being Germany. // Fra nkB 03:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging the so-called Kingdom of Germany article into here, as it is a fork of the East Francia article. Mootros (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed. It is not a fork. Srnec (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The Kingdom of Germany should be a subsection of East Francia. It was not a separate state. This is also the course of action the editors of the German Wikipedia have taken.--Xuxalliope (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is not yet an article about the Kingdom of Germany in the German Wikipedia. That's a difference. Until now there is only an article about East Francia, which naturally only covers the early years of the kingdom. It would be factually wrong to merge later centuries into this article. (This is not the only example, where the English Wikipedia is better and goes into more details on Germany related topics.) Henrig (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Kingdom of Germany was a modern invention with its own political agenda.-Ilhador- (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I support this because the title East Francia was still used during the creation of the HRE. Most historians also simply speak of East Francia rather than Kingdom of Germany. The title Kingdom of germany is somewhat anachronistic and also doesn't appear in many standard works, such as in the recent Medieval Germany, an encyclopedia. I support Kingdom of Germany as a secondary title for East Francia, and a large section explaining this. The rest belongs in the HRE article. I propose a new and more centralised article named Germany in the Middle Ages (which is now a redirect), just like France in the Middle Ages. Machinarium (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose If any merger at all, then naturally into Kingdom of Germany. The term East Francia was up to date or in use as long as there was also a realm called West Francia with the imagination of a whole Francia and a possible reunification. Btw., Kingdom of Germany is the proper term, and not a modern invention, unless all kingdoms, which appear in medieval documents with a Latin name, are modern inventions as well. Henrig (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I support this, following my argumentation on the Kingdom of Germany talk page. --Creihag (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "East Francia" is a term in limited usage, and certainly not the most common name. john k (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * John K, what do you mean? East Francia is used more than Kingdom of Germany. Machinarium (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is limited in the sense that it only refers to the early history of the kingdom. It is not used to refer to the Salian and Hohenstaufen periods. john k (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point, that from the Salian and Hohenstaufen periods we already refer to it as HRE. Mootros (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just wrong. Germany/East Francia was only one of the component parts of the Holy Roman Empire, which also included the Kingdom of Italy and, eventually, the Kingdom of Burgundy.  Later on, in the early modern period, the Kingdom of Burgundy had ceased to exist and the kingdom of Italy had become largely a legalistic fiction, so it's reasonable at that point to use "Holy Roman Empire" as a synonym for the kingdom originally called East Francia and later called the Regnum Teutonicum, but that's certainly not the case in the High Middle Ages. john k (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree to Henrig. Both should be merged into the Kingdom of Germany. East Francia was in use from 843-1000 (approximately), "Germany" (differently styled) from late 10th century to 1806. Technically, it would be the same as merging the article of Kingdom of France to West Francia. The Holy Roman Empire was by definition a different entity.--MacX85 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose . No merge, Kingdom of Germany is a modern invention. The article "East Francia" exists both in German and French under the name Das Ostfrankenreich (regnum francorum orientalium) and Francie orientale. A merger is a total nonsense. Kingdom of Germany should be deleted and merged with Holy Roman Empire, and "East Francia" keeped as it is now. "East Francia" is also the name used on the Encyclopædia Britannica and "Kingdom of Germany" doesn't exist on the same encyclopedia. Radarm (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I oppose any merger between East Francia and Kingdom of Germany. At any rate, the East Francia article must remain standalone as it describes a distinct historical entity. Also, any mergers must follow the WP:MERGE procedure carefully! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The discussion here was to merge Kingdom of Germany here, the contrary what was actually made. Moagim (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion should have been closed long ago. It is obvious there is no consensus for merging Kingdom of Germany into East Francia. As for the opposite merger, it was mooted on the other talk page and Mootros obviously believed it had consensus. It appears it does not. In any case, the East Francia article has never been sourced properly in all the years it's been here. I see no harm in redirecting it provisionally until somebody actually takes the time to write an article conforming to our standards. Also, the existence of the German kingdom in the Middle Ages has been discussed ad nauseum at the other talk page for years. Needless to say, one side has lost every argument. Srnec (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, my bold move has been changed back. Note this is not about winning or loosing, especially when a few vocal editors hold a page random for years. It is about finding a pragmatic compromise to an ongoing problem. Mootros (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Former Country
Can you please explain the reason for continually removing the Infobox Former Country? It is very informative, appropriate for this topic and helps tremendously with navigation. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the information in it is not sourced either in the article body or in the infobox itself. Srnec (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, an infobox would lead to the odd situation that the 'previous' and 'subsequent states' show no connection to the historiographic term "Kingdom of Germany", which has been passed off as another "country". Mootros (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @Srnec: You can still have a bare bone infobox, with cn added if needed. Better than stripping all information and nagivation away like this.
 * @Mootros: Yes, I noticed the debate around "Kingdom of Germany". I am sure that a balanced solution can be found for the two articles/concepts to coexist. I think the Kingdom of Germany acticle should focus on the historiography and the history of this term, and link back to the real former entity, East Francia, which we know for a fact it existed. But East Francia needs the infobox.--Codrin.B (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Great, but very difficult... The "vocalists" have for years exploited the fact their opposers are fragmented. Most people are dissatisfied with the Kingdom of Germany article, but on different grounds. For example, some argue that it didn't exist, for others it was a subset of EF or the HRE, for others again its one and the same, there some who see it merely as a concept/ shorthand, and others maintain that the German WP does not have a page so therefore it's all wrong. These vocal editors [ie the KoG supports] however have systematically and persistently advanced their position of a homogeneous social, political, and cultural entity called KoG. They appear to be a band of (semi) professional historians who use this platform to theory-build and distribute their synergy and original research. Mootros (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Kingdom of Germany article should exist just as a concept which failed to materialize itself. This is an encyclopedia after all. We write articles, or should, to relay factual information, not to expect people make their own mind up. If this becomes another wiki article where the facts are hidden or fixed on some consensus rather than sources, it becomes trash, where editors consider their views higher than those historians and biographers who make a living out of writing books after years of dedicated research; it sets back another wiki article and makes a mockery of the five pillars. Consensus only makes sense if the proposal has merit. Moagim (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This is quite interesting how the KoG "vocalists" have now changed this article to advance their theory and original research. See the prior version: here in contrast to to now. Now EF is a historiographical term that describes the origins of the KoG. This certainly is an interesting idea, but utterly useless HERE because it is an unpublished idea that is not accepted by most historians. Mootros (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be circumspect: I re-wrote this article, nobody else. I re-wrote it precisely because it contained no sources, yet others were insisting that the redirect/merge was improper. The earlier version was not necessarily wrong in any way (although I see some stuff to quibble with), just totally unreferenced. The wording of the current lede could be (and likely will be) improved. It is not saying, and shouldn't be read to say, that "East Francia" is merely a "historiographical term", although, like "Kingdom of Germany", it is that. What it should say is that in historiography the term is reserved for the early phase of the KoG and not for later phases. That, in fact, is the entire justification for a separate article. But enough about wording, which of my sources does Mootros think I misrepresent? And where is the unsourced claim that constitutes OR in the article? Srnec (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing is unsourced, but key ideas are "misrepresented" i.e. lacking a widely held or recognised view among most scholars. Exempli gratia: Quoting Goldberg 1999 (text about kingship[!]), yes of course 'East Francia [...] forms the earliest stage of the Kingdom of Germany' in the sense that it was the basis for the realm of the German Kings. Yet it does NOT mean that a coherent socio-political, cultural entity of some country (called KoG) had emerged. It utterly overestimates the power, capacity, and influence of the German Kings over his electors and others to form and maintain such entity. It ignores the reality of the multiplicity that characterised the HRE. Mootros (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article does not claim that "a coherent socio-political, cultural entity ... had emerged" in the 9th or 10th century. It is very limited in what it says about "the power, capacity, and influence of the German Kings [sic] over his electors", but where does it go wrong? And are you even talking about this article, or about the other one? Srnec (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not much has gone wrong here YET. I was saying the latests changes you have introduced here are emblematic of the entire problem with the WP article Kingdom of Germany to which you have substantially contributed in its current form. That it overall suggests that the fragmented realm of the German Kings, prior and during the HRE, allegedly constituted at a coherent socio-political, cultural entity in form of a country called KoG. That in my opinion and many other people is unfounded and merely based on a distorted reading of some sources. Mootros (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

=
=========

Seems like this discussion is dead since 2013. On account of keeping consistency between Wikipedia articles, I suppose the infobox is either to be removed completely from all three (this, West Francia, East Francia) or kept in all three. Until that, if there are in two remaining articles, this one also should have one.Ernio48 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the basis for the assertion of the infobox that "East Francia blends into the Holy Roman Empire" in 962? Srnec (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are aware of a definitive date East Francia came to an end, feel free to contribute.Ernio48 (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's just the point. There is no such date, either in fact or by historical convention. Use of the term "East Francia" certainly drops off in English for the period after 962, but the infobox gives the impression of underlying constitutional change. Srnec (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

HRE
Srnec, this is where you are not correct. As recommended, I looked up footnote 2, and this is what it states Goldberg 2006, 6: "Louis [the German's] kingship laid the foundations for an east Frankish kingdom that, in the eleventh century, was transformed into the medieval kingdom of Germany". Please note, it says "east Frankish kingdom that, in the eleventh century, was transformed into the medieval kingdom of Germany" ...key word 11th century (the 1000's). HRE was formed in 962 (the 10th century) so this text does not say what you initially argue it says. Most content states that East Francia merged into HRE, once with in HRE the stem duchies were collectively called the kingdom of Germany. --E-960 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The wikitext says "East Francia becoming the Kingdom of Germany". The footnote says "an east Frankish kingdom that, in the eleventh century, was transformed into the medieval kingdom of Germany". Everything is fine. You just don't like it. Srnec (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As you know there is a lot of ambiguity about the term kingdom of Germany, as a matter of fact you can't even point to a date when it was formed. It was was a collective term for the German speaking stem duchies, not an official name. --E-960 (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Does East Francia have a flag? If so, should it be added?
Hello! I've been wondering if East Francia has a flag!

I'm asking because apparently it does, but I'm not sure if it's real, if it is, am I allowed to add it?

Image: File:Flag of East Francia (843–962).png Republic of Venice284 (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks fake to me. The battle standard of the Ottonians, for example, showed the Archangel Michael. This is called a Kriegsfahne (war banner), but it apparently isn't. Srnec (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)