Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 3

Misleading title
I'd say the title of this article is a bit misleading. First of all, this article has been deleted in most other languages because a "Kingdom of Germany" didn't exist. I don't say that the "Political entity" we are talking bout didn't exist, but the term "Kingdom of Germany"- although there are 56,700 results for it (google) is misleading, "Germany" refers to a country in europe, created in 1871, the term "Germany" hasn't been used in the Middel Ages. "Regnum Teutonicum" means "Teutonic Kingdom", "German Kingdom"or "Kingdom of the Germans". Taking a look at the map should make clear, that this kingdom doesn't contain all of the german lands. Quote It encompassed Germanophone, Francophone, and Italophone territories, various regna (realms) such as Bavaria, Swabia, and Saxony, and different peoples (Franks, Saxons, Alemanni, etc.). It covered territory from the North Sea to the Adriatic and from what is today eastern France to what is today the Czech Republic. It is not a direct predecessor of the modern state of Germany, though there is an unbroken line of "Germanies" from the treaty of Verdun until today (though some were not sovereign states) (Originaly written by Srnec). I'd suggest renaming the article. The title "King of the Germans" has been used to show, that a person had been elected by the Dukes of the different duchies an that they trusted him. It was much more a symbolic title, a "King of the Germans" had less power than the Dukes (for example he couldn't raise taxes and the "Kingdom" had no army meaning the armies of the Dukedoms were under the command of the different Dukes, without having been crowned to "Rex Romanum" by the pope, a "King of the Germans" had very little power in comparation to the Dukes. The main purpose of this article is to explain the changes in the frankish territory during the reign of the Luidolfings, when more and more territories became almost or completely independent (Partitions of the Frankish Realm). Heinrich II, Holy Roman Emperor managed to strengthen the power connected with the title "King" "aquire" more power than any "King of the Germans" had before - historians define this as the beginning of a german identity although many german speaking regions were not part of the kingdom and didn't consider themselves "german". The term "German" was much more a cultural term, because a political entity called Germany having the characteristics of a state or country didn't exist until 1871. The Term "King of the Germans" was quite similar to "President Elect" - something like "Rex Romanum Elect". "The bishop of Brixen's scribe gave Henry (Heinrich II) the title rex Teutonicorum, imperator augustus Romanorum. This title remained enisolated instance during the eleventh century, but it nevertheless clearly shows the process of integration and conceptions of the Reich during the first decades of the new millenium: the German and Ottonian components of the Reich; the king elected by the German princes with a claim to an emperorship of the Romans and responsibility for the Roman Empire, concieved of as simultaneously king of the Germans and emperor of the Romans." (The New Cambridge Medieval History III: Timothy Reuter, Rosamund McKitterick, Paul Fouracre, Page 265) Johnny2323 (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See also the previous sections starting with Last King of Scotland, I support such a move. --PBS (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this change, because this article seems to be based only on wrongly translated english words. Either that, or a merger with East Francia. Grey Fox (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow - I didn't expect to recieve an answer so fast. All I've done was write the things I've been taught at school in Germany. It really seems to be a problem of translation. Nobody denies the existence of the Title "Rex teutonicum/teutonicorum", but this title was useless without the addition "Rex Romanorum" -one reason: many territories didn't belong to the Dukes, they belonged to the Catholic Church - these territories were the richest territories and without the title "Rex Romanorum" given to the King when he was crowned by the pope, the king had no power in these territories (cloisters, bishoprics...). This is also the reason why the empire is called "HOLY" Roman empire - the ruler was the representative of the pope on the northern side of the alps and most of the German duchies/territories. The title "King" dates back to the beginnings of the Eastern Frankish Kingdom. In German the ruler is called "Römisch-Deutscher Kaiser" literally "Roman-German Emperor". Another Problem is the definition of the word "State" the modern concepts of a state have been developed by John Locke, Jean-Jaques Rouseau, ... . Real "States" didnt exist at that time the power was devided between the church and the ruler(s). Many people think of France or absolutims when they read the word "Kingdom" or "King".Johnny2323 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We have sources for the terminology used, so questions of mistranslation should be directed at the scholars. Same for "statehood" in the Middle Ages. Is there a problem with the reliability of the cited sources?


 * Germania is an ancient geographical term. It was used as such throughout the early Middle Ages, but it came to be used often as a shorthand for the state built on its territory. Terms like rex Germaniae (king of Germany) and rex Germanorum (king of the Germans) were synonymous, the former being preferred by classicising historians, the latter by more "Frankish" or "Carolingian" historians. Hincmar, in the Annales Bertiniani, prefers the former (though he uses both), but Prudentius of Troyes the latter (but, again, uses both). They were writing about Louis the German, by the way. This way of speaking of the kingdom was the typical way with the sole exception of the royal chancery itself. From the reign of Henry IV onwards, whenever a qualifier was needed for the royal title, it was Romanorum (of the Romans), but this by no means meant that everybody recognised this. It was propaganda and political theory, and everybody knew it. The regnum Teutonicum was a reality and it is commonly called the "kingdom of Germany" by scholars when they need to call it anything at all.


 * And a caution to our German friend: as I stated in a previous discussion (above), the German terminology does not follow the English, so translating it is no good. Römisch-Deutscher Kaiser is complete anachronism. At least "Holy Roman Emperor" is a direct translation of a term sporadically in use. And, again, the Holy Roman Empire cannot be equated with the German kingdom. Srnec (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Srnec. There's nothing posted above that alters the viability of this article. Kingdom of Germany is an established historical concept in English professional academic writing. I'm afraid those who don't like that will have to take it up with the academic writers if they believe they know so much more than so many specialist historians that they can stop them using the term. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All I wanted to explain was that this kingdom was something special because the king had very little power and the titles "King of the Germans" and "Holy Roman Emperor" were connected, meaning that the Kingdom couldn't exist without the empire and vice versa. This is in contradiction to most other Kingdoms in europe. You're right that the naming conventions in German and English are different and a German usually thinks "Kingdom of Germany?? - never heard of". The point is that historians have chosen a misleading name and we have to accept it.. Maybe this should be included in the article. In the German wikipedia, the content of this article is part of the article "Ostfrankenreich" because the "Kingdom of Germany" is the end of the Eastern Frankish Kingdom.Johnny2323 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The name is not at all misleading: there was a realm (regnum is the contemporary term) ruled by a king (i.e. kingdom) comprising the region called Germania since antiquity (and recognised by contemporaries to be Germania). The kingdom existed independently of the empire (as independently as France) and from 924 to 962 there was no empire. We have an East Francia article, but as that term (and its Latin equivalents) is not used past the tenth century (to my knowledge), it is not a good title for an article covering the entire Middle Ages. I will, if I have time, add more details on medieval titulature and historical terminology&mdash;if I have time. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think my explanation was quite bad, i've googled a bit and found that this term really seems to be used in English schoolbooks and litrature. With the word "connected" I wanted to explain that the Catholic Church owned many territories within the Kingdom and these territories were not ruled by the king until he became "Holy Roman Emperor" (crowned). Sorry, I couldn't find a large scale map of the kingdom to proof it, but I'll keep on looking for one. What I'd like to see added to the article ist the fact that this kingdom was not a "Nation" because the term "Germany" refers to a country in europe created in 1871. This is also the reason why the French article uses "Royeaume de Germanie" and not "Royeaume D' Allemagne". "Kingdom of Germany"  is Ok in English, since it's a common term - misleading only for people who haven't been raised in an English speaking region. When I was talking about "misleading" I wanted to say, that "Kingdom of Germany" might imply that the Kingdom consisted only of territories now beeing part of Germany or representing Germany, but it was still a multiethnic state, that's why I thought "Kingdom of the Germans" (meaning the Germans as the rulers)  would have been better, because it consisted of what we know today as the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, parts of northern Italy, Slovenia, western parts of the Czech Republik, half of Croatia and western parts of Hungary, most of Austria and the eastern half of Switzerland; many of these countries or - at the time of the kingdom - territories/regions were and are not German. The kingdom had no army - the only army existing at that time was the imperial army of the empire consisting of the different armies of the duchies and territories. The king had to be emperor to command this army. This means it was some kind of state, but the king's power was very limited because he had been elected and he was only as powerfull as  his supporters and allies (the dukes) wanted him to be.


 * What does this mean?? - Yes there was some kind of kingdom and yes there was a king, but he was elected and had less power than e.g. the king of France. Most regulations and directions of the king were followed only because he was Emperor and it was a multiethnic (kind of) state with a German majority (sadly there is no map showing the polulation density :-) ). It was something special in europe because it was not a real monarchie and the king was elected.
 * b. t. w.: I think there was a misunderstanding it's misleading for non-English speakersJohnny2323 (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

<--As there is little disagreement that the title "King of the Germans" existed, but there is disagreement about the term "Kingdom of Germany", why not rename the article to a name over which there is no disagreement, as it sidesteps the naming issue controversy? Also the major source for the use of kingdom of Germany is Gillingham, he is not exactly supported by a huge pantheon of other sources and he clearly does not use it to describe an entity similar to the Kingdom of England. -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To Johnny2323: The German king had quite a lot of power independent of his position as emperor. Otto I raised armies both within and without his own duchy of Saxony and fought and won wars with them. Henry III, as king of Germany, openly opposed his father, the Emperor Conrad II, over the deposition of the duke of Carinthia. The king of Germany was hardly the only elected monarch in Europe in the Middle Ages, though only in Germany was the elective process never successfully replaced by hereditary succession. Hugh Capet was elected, but he and his successors made their elected position effectively hereditary by the thirteenth century.


 * To PBS: What disagreement over the term "Kingdom of Germany"? It is used by many scholars (hardly just Gillingham) and it is a contemporary medieval term. Susan Reynolds, dealing with medieval statehood, uses it, as does Timothy Reuter, the foremost English-language historian of medieval Germany until his recent death. And this is ignores how often the term is mentioned in passing in works not dealing directly with it. And when did the English kingdom become the type case for all kingdoms? Srnec (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * disagreement among editors of this page -- The talk page contains almost nothing else but disagreement over the name. However none have disagreed that the term "King of the Germans" was used. --PBS (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but one side of that disagreement is just wrong and the other side has sources. There is no room for disagreement over the use of the title "King of Germany" (rex Germaniae) after I have cited contemporary Latin sources using this terminology. Srnec (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think an important point is that we don't have to limit ourselves to english language sources here on wikipedia. We should make use of other European languages though, specifically those countries part of the holy roman empire. Grey Fox (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * English language sources however are the only ones relevant for English language terminology. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this article isn't called "Kingdom of Germany (Terminology)" so I don't think additions from other languages would hurt. Grey Fox (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can add as much information from other languages as you'd like, but you cannot say, for instance, that the kingdom is usually known as the "Roman-German kingdom", because that is an English term which you will never find. The point is that a German term of art (like Römisch-Deutscher Königreich) does not translate directly into an English term of art. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Roman-German" Kingdom is definitely wrong. Many German sources simply use "Regnum Teutonicum/Teutonicorum" to avoid misunderstandings. I'd say the point is, that in English there is the term "Kingdom of Germany" to describe a certain period in German history, while most other languages (German is one of them)don't use a special term to describe this period. The most common German term is "Regnum Teutonicum" and it's used only to describe some kind of "subunit" of the HRE. The King of the Germans was only as powerfull as the dukes wanted him to be. The main problem at that time was the permanent loss of power - the king had to move from town to town, there was no capital, there were several capitals (Pfalzen) and the king had to consolidate his authority and prevent intrigues. An English speaking person looking for Kingdom of Germany shall find this article, but it should be explained, that the king didn't posess all the power, because he was elected and that the kingdom wasn't an independent state, although it functionally (it was some kind of heartland of the HRE).Johnny2323 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the German kingdom in the middle ages was a "independent state" and the HRE wasn't. The HRE was a fictional state that claimed to be in a unbroken line to the ancient Roman Empire which is wasn't. Also the reign over Italy could hardly be established... The German kingdom or whatever you want to call it had an actual kingship and an actual way of governing. The term "Deutsches Reich" is quite often used in German-speaking literature to describe the northern-alpine lands of the HRE.--MacX85 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

KINGDOM OF GERAMYN IS WRONG TITLE. It is east frank empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knallcharge (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The marches
What was the status/condition of the Marken des Reiches with the blue lines on the map at that time? I know that marches were borderlands but in this case were they under imperial rule, only partly or merely nomially part of the empire, or acknowledged buffer zones between states and/or tribes?


 * I believe it is meant to indicate the somewhat imprecise nature of the boundaries of imperial German rule and of the Slavs' loyalty. Perhaps also to indicate that these territories were not universally under Ottonian control throughout the period. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * mark or march was a fortified territory. The marks on the map were a part of the empire. The dukes governing these territories had been granted the right to build heavy fortifications and armies. You can find more info in the articles "ban (medieval)" and "march (territory)".Johnny2323 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)