Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 5

What a mess
Every page of the archives is a list of the same complaints being raised by new editors and a small number of increasingly unWP:CIVIL WP:OWNERS trying to shout them down. The formal move request above was shut down without any attempt to count the votes from the archives and with patronizing NEWBIE-biting language (the relevant policies were WP:NOTE, WP:REL, and WP:POVFORK).

On the one hand, the old hands're probably right that the unhelpful term "Kingdom of Germany" is notable and accepted in English scholarship.

On the other, biting newbies with WP:PERSONAL attacks and disparagements of their grasp on the material doesn't help, while such obvious untruths such as
 * ...it is indisputable that there was a state called Germany in the Middle Ages. Srnec
 * ...843-1806. Septentrionalis

point out the fact that the name is a very unhelpful one liable to confused editing. "Kingdom of Germany" is a modern English historiological term of art for East Francia as well as the Regnum T(h)eutonicum, a state of affairs misrepresented by the very first sentence of the current page version: "The Kingdom of Germany ... developed out of the [sic] East Francia".

No state was called Germany, but a former realm is called Germany
There couldn't be a state called Germany during the Middle Ages, because there wasn't even a word "Germany" until after 1520. Even the words being translated as "Germany" (viz., Regnum Germaniae, Regnum Teutonicum, Deutschland) weren't (re)coined until the 11th century.

That doesn't change the fact that in English, "Kingdom of Germany" seems to be the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME for East Francia.

German Wiki has no direct bearing
The fact that the German wiki redirects to East Francia or the HRE has no direct bearing on the English wiki. The king called himself King of East France, the Teutons, and the Romans, but if modern English scholarship prefers Germany, that's the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME.

For a variety of reasons, a direct translation of this page's regnum Teutonicum as "Teutonic Kingdom" would be preferable, but it's at least 6 times less common at pre-1848 Wikibooks and still uncommon. Google Scholar has 86 hits for "Teutonic Kingdom" versus 312 hits for "Kingdom of Germany" (The interested can go through and count for relevancy, but cursory glance shows 'Teutonic' as less focused).

Mixed Consensus
Given that "Germany" – however ahistorical – remains the most common English name for this realm, the only reason to nix this page and speak only of a German crown or an East French state would be that consensus demanded it.

Going through all the archives, it is 18 against the current name, but 14 for keeping it. — LlywelynII  13:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

 * move to King of the Germans – Philip Baird Shearer 10:12, 16 February 2007
 * the Kingdom clearly existed. – Str1977 10:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "kingdom of Germany" is a very, very unusual coinage. – 141.91.129.2 12:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My historical atlas also mentions the Kingdom of Germany. – robertplunkett24@yahoo.co.uk. [sic]
 * German historiography uses to translate the regnum teutonicum mentioned above either as land/realm/territory where Germans live, but certainly not a state or even kingdom when applied to the 900s), or scholars explain that it refers to a Germanophone ruling class. – Tlatosmd 02:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * strongly opt for replacing the uttterly wrong and at best very misleading article with [Tlatosmd's] text. – AndreasPraefcke 11:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * +1 Tlatosmds text should replace this article. Otherwise it should be deleted. – Gunter.krebs 12:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the title was pretty commonly used in Latin chronicles both throughout Europe, [e.g.] Alexander von Roes (1280) – 129.215.149.97 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Kingdom of Germany" is a convenient term for the kingdom ruled by Henry the Fowler, et al. – john k 03:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Move it! [to East Francia or German Kingdom] – Tobnu 06:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 2

 * someone invented a medival Kingdom of Germany here. Is no one bothered – 217.83.3.106 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [Supported by] J. Gillingham, ... Frederick Barbarossa, ... the chronicler from Salzburg – Srnec (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The German empire to 1250" from The Times Compact History of the World... shows... the Kingdom of Germany... If you now look at the German translation on the right (from Knaurs historischer Weltatlas) you'll find the constituent "Kingdom of Germany" replaced by the umbrella term "Heiliges Römisches Reich" – Johnboyx (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * why wouldn't it be a state? – Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * an article corresponding to this one on the German Wikipedia has been deleted three times because the concept itself was repeatedly found utter nonsense. – 87.154.19.130 (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 3

 * I'd say the title of this article is a bit misleading... I'd suggest renaming – Johnny2323 (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support such a move. – PBS (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this change... Either that, or a merger with East Francia. – Grey Fox (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the German kingdom in the middle ages was a "independent state" and the HRE wasn't. – MacX85 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * KINGDOM OF GERAMYN IS WRONG TITLE. It is east frank empire. – Knallcharge (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 4

 * I suggest "German Kingdom" Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I [object to "German Kingdoms"]. This article is not about the nineteenth century. – Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * '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. – Henrig (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ["King of the Germans"]'s a good option. Alternatively we might just go for merging it with HRE. At the moments is't just a fork of HRE, it does not really draw out the historiographic dimension that would vaguely justify the existence of this article. – Mootros (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When you speak of the "Deutsche(s) Reich" in German, no one will think you talk of a medieval polity. – JakobvS (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Effectively, this kingdom had no own istitutions, which were the institution of the Empire instead – Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion above

 * There was never a state of this name... The eastern one should be called the East Frankish Kingdom (Ostfrankenreich) until the reign of Otto I, and thereafter the Holy Roman Empire, which was not a German national state. This is the usage followed by the German Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia should follow it. – Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The established term in English is the Kingdom of Germany. – OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kingdom of Germany. I don't understand where's the problem to be honest. – Orthographicus (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither is there a convincing argument to move the article away from its current title; one that is clearly supported by Wikipedia's naming conventions. – Hadal (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article on the kingdom is East Francia. – Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is only natural that [HRE] should have sub-articles on sub-topics... This article happens to be the one on the German High Middle Ages. There is nothing wrong with having such an article. It simply needs to make clear that this is its scope. – dab (𒁳) 09:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward
The article needs cleanup. Common name or no, it is simply untrue that East Francia formally developed into a separate polity known as Germany which then developed into the HRE, which is what the article – and the German history box – currently says.

As the continued and continuing objection to the page makes clear, this is a highly infelicitously–named article using a modern name to refer to a former polity which went by several names over its years. We should fix that by bringing the actual national articles here. As this article's scope is somewhat larger than East Francia's, it would be better to merge that article here as a subsection.

If that can't be done, this article probably needs to be turned into a simple page on linguistics, clarifying the peculiar English-language historiological jargon "Kingdom of Germany" rather than repeating material from the E. Francia and HRE articles. — LlywelynII  13:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Something is wrong with your cherry-picked half-sentences from archives. I was surprised to read the not recognizable part from archive 4, where I have voted too. For instance, on first sight I miss such statements like:
 * "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)"
 * Really, it's a good article. It shows, that the authors have a deeper sense for the connections of history.Henrig (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still surprised that people are surprised to learn there was a kingdom of Germany in the Middle Ages. I agree with LlywelynII, though, that "it is simply untrue that East Francia formally developed into a separate polity known as Germany which then developed into the HRE". If this article says that, then it needs fixing, as does that history box (although I don't much care about those things). LlywelynII is wrong, however, about usage. The term here is the proper English translation of contemporary terms, and it is not obscure, although in context you don't need the "kingdom of" part (just like "England" will do in place of "Kingdom of England" in most contexts). LlywelynII is also wrong that the term "Germany" was "(re)coined" in the 11th century. It was in use by the annalist of Fulda in the 9th to describe the realm of Louis the German. Finally, I'm unclear about his proposal. Is he suggesting we merge East Francia here? I could support that if it's done right. Is he suggesting we re-title this article after that merger? I can't see what for. This article is supposed to be about the state ruled by the King of Germany in its historical development from the 9th century until its irrelevance/disappearance/replacement. It is not just about High German-speaking Europe in the Middle Ages. Srnec (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think that this is an inappropriate and misleading title for all the reasons I have given previously. -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys, i stongly vote for a renaming of that article. I got hung up for like 15 minutes between the German and the English Wikipedia to find out where the German Kingdom went. Now, having followed the discussion, I really see the misleading part within the term "Kingdom of Germany". Please, merge it with East Francia somewhat like Srnec said but name the whole article "East Francia" and redirect "Kingdom of Germany" here. I don't see the problem in includig a section about the name to highlight that is indeed an accepted term in English scholarship to call it "Kingdom of Germany", although historically incorrect. Cheers, --Creihag (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "Kingdom of Germany" is perfectly historically correct and is not synonymous with East Francia. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, tell that the Germans. They'd disagree heavily. There was somebody called "king of the Germans", but that does not necessarily induce a "Kingdom of Germany". As LlywelynII pointed out, the word "Germany" didn't exist until 1520. As of that, I think it is save to speak of historical incorrectness. --Creihag (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It has mostly to do with anachronism. "Germany" had a different meaning in the Dark Ages. Germans are more aware of this than English speakers. When "Germany" was introduced in English it was merely a different spelling of "Germania". (Germania today is still defined as "an ancient region in central Europe, N of the Danube River.") Because of this many (German) historians simply use the Latin name, "Regnum Teutonicum". I guess I could cite a historian who explains this pretty well in a paper titled "The Medieval German State in Recent Historiography": "Indeed, even leaving aside the issue of the applicability of the term ‘state’, so vexed is the question of what to label this political entity during the middle ages that many historians prefer to use the Latin regnum Teutonicum rather than an English or German equivalent, such as Germany or Deutschland, that carries with it too many anachronistic and misleading connotations." These types of anachronisms are the source of the disputes on this talk page and should probably be explained in this article. Machinarium (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will read that paper, but I think this question is made more vexing than it needs to be. It is amazing how little trouble people have with the anachronistic "Byzantine Empire" when they have so much trouble with the perfectly contemporary "Kingdom of Germany". Srnec (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well there's a difference, as Byzantium doesn't exist today, when Germany does. And I guess its similarily anachronistic to refer to Byzantium as the Greek Empire. Machinarium (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Kingdom of East Francia" is a term that is roughly synonymous with "Kingdom of Germany" for the first century of the kingdom's existence. However, the kingdom ruled by Otto the Great or Barbarossa is not properly called "East Francia."  As such, if we're to merge the two articles, the title of the merged article ought to be Kingdom of Germany.  john k (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It ought not (see my original comment back in 2007 Last King of Scotland). There is a major difference between King of the Germans and King of Germany. To most English speaking people the latter implies king of a centreline state and so Kingdom of Germany is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of Germany was more centralized in the 11th and 12th centuries than the Kingdom of France, which I assume you have no problem with. john k (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of France wasn't part of the HRE though. But the real problem is in the title. If this article would titled Regnum Teutonicum as its primary name almost everything would be solved. Machinarium (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What does the Holy Roman Empire have to do with anything? And why must we keep this kingdom's name in Latin, but are about to translate the entirely equivalent Regnum Francorum into "Kingdom of France"?  I have a very hard time understanding the objections to the current title, which is perfectly descriptive, had close equivalents used at the time, is commonly used by medieval historians, and is really no different from what we do for countless other medieval states. john k (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The constant comparison with the Kingdom of France is getting old. The Kingdom of France was an independent kingdom, when the Regnum Teutonicum was a part of the HRE. If you want to compare the realm to similar political entities it would be better to point to the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Burgundy articles. Anyway to answer your question why it is ok to translate Francorum into France, thats because they are the same words. Regnum Teutonicum translated into English without anachronism would simply be Teutonic Kingdom. This translation was actually quite frequent before the 40s. Machinarium (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of Germany was a separate kingdom before 962, and, at any rate, I don't see how the fact of its being a component kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire is at all relevant to whether we call it Germany. And Regnum Francorum means, literally, "Frankish Kingdom" or "French Kingdom."  The fact is that numerous historians are perfectly happy to translate "Regnum Teutonicorum" as "Kingdom of Germany."  Some prefer other terms, but the idea that this is just something that wikipedia editors have made up is ridiculous.  So is the idea that the supposed "anachronism" is so great that we need to use other words - anachronism isn't a problem if it's a term historians use, and in this case, I have a hard time seeing what the anachronism is supposed to be.  Objections seem to largely stem, so far as I can tell, from Dutch people who don't want to acknowledge that the Netherlands was once seen as part of Germany. john k (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any seperate kingdom before 962 wasn't known as the Kingdom of Germany. But this is irrelevant now. The main problem here is a title issue. Sure there's the fact that some historians make use of "Kingdom of Germany", but its pretty much limited to a selection of Anglo-Saxon historians. Please note that nobody (at least not me) thinks that this title is made up by mere wikipedia editors. Neither do I have problems with the use of Germany in articles during the middle ages, but it should be done with care and that's where this article fails. That opposition to this title is somehow led by Dutch users is an unnecessary bad faith assumption on your part. People with all kinds of backgrounds have criticized this article for years. (And as I far as I know I'm the only Dutch user who has done so). Machinarium (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regnum Teutonicorum was, as I understand it, used from the time of Louis the German onwards, and had essentially replaced East Francia after 919. What those of us who like the current title are arguing is that "Kingdom of Germany" is an acceptable translation of "Regnum Teutonicorum." We base this on the fact that numerous English language historians translate it such.  There is certainly an argument against the term, and some historians don't use it, but I still think it's the clearest and most recognizable title for this article.  "Eastern Francis" doesn't work for any discussion of the kingdom after 919; "Regnum Teutonicorum" is technically correct but unnecessarily obscure; "German Kingdom" is okay but unnecessarily ambiguous (Prussia and Bavaria were German kingdoms).  I don't think I would weep particularly hard if we moved to either of the last two titles (Eastern Francia, though, is unacceptable), but I don't see what the problem is with the current title.  There is only one historical entity that is ever called the Kingdom of Germany, and it is the subject of this article.  As far as saying that opposition has been led by the Dutch, that was unfair - I didn't realize that you were the same person as Grey Fox.  I withdraw the imputation. john k (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad you withdrew that comment because as I was the first person to post here (back in 2007), so I was not led by anyone and I am not Dutch! You say "numerous English language historians translate it such", Yet if one looks at the results of a Google Book search of books published since 1969 -- to include John Gillingham's work but not older ones. Of the first 10 sources returned it is not at all clear that the usage of the term supports its usage as a Wikipedia article title. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Compared to what, though? Regnum Teutonicum and Regnum Teutonicorum don't really come out any better.  And Eastern Francia is just wrong for the post-Carolingian period. john k (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the Sonderweg. . . Srnec (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Germany looks like a terrible anachronism.-Ilhador- (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, however, not an anachronism at all. The term used for this kingdom meant something very close to what "Kingdom of Germany" signifies in modern English, and is commonly used by historians.  Even if it were an anachronism, that would be irrelevant, unless you object to Byzantine Empire, which is a genuine, honest to god, post facto name made up out of whole cloth by historians.  john k (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I explained; Byzantium doesn't exist today, when Germany does + Germany had a different meaning back then. You would have a point if the article on Byzantium would be titled The Greek Empire. Simply calling it Regnum Teutonicum / Teutotonicurm by the way is common amongst scholars in many languages. 385 + 104 hits on google scholar (since 1993) where Kingdom of Germany gets 124 results . Machinarium (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's totally a different thing. Germany has a very different meaning, while Byzantine not.-Ilhador- (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A very different meaning? How?  The territorial borders were different, and the institutions were different, but not any more than any other medieval kingdom differs from its modern equivalent.  john k (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The name Germany/Germania had a different meaning then, it still referred to the entire region based on Tacitus description of Germania. And this was still done up till the 15th century. As I had quoted before (above with older username); Even at the council at Konstanz (1414-18), the 'natio Germanica' also comprises Scandinavia, Poland, Bohemia and Hungary. Today Germania still refers to a region in Northern Europe. Machinarium (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't use 15th century usage of the Latin Germania as a proxy for twenty-first century usage of the English "Germany." john k (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition there's another paper on the histography of this realm, by Charles R. Bowlus, titled The Early Kaiserreich in Recent German Historiography (1990). In it Germany is only used in a historical sense. The actual title for the realm is deliberately limited to Kaiserreich or Regnum Teutonicum. Kingdom of Germany as a title isn't mentioned once. Machinarium (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anybody has denied that some historians prefer not to use the term "Kingdom of Germany". john k (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * john k have you read Gillingham's pamphlet? -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. What is his argument, exactly? john k (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to both your posts here John K to keep the page organized. The English name Germany started as the English spelling of Germania. The meaning of Germania was different during (and before) the middle ages from todays meaning. Because of that there's no doubt that titling a political entity in the middle ages Germany is anachronistic. Just like titling the Roman Empire as the Italian Empire, or Byzantium as the Greek Empire is anachronistic. You're probably right that the title Byzantine Empire is also anachronistic, but there's two important differences. First Byzantium isn't the name of a modern nation-state and therefore not conflicting or problematic. Second Byzantium is well-accepted as a title for the Empire in literature, and not just in English literature but in literature of all languages. You noted that some historians prefer not to use Kingdom of Germany, but it's the other way around. Some historians use Kingdom of Germany and thats just in Anglo-Saxon literature. I was able to find two historiographic articles on medieval Germany, and none of them mention the title Kingdom of Germany. Neither do many other articles or books on medieval Germany. And that's just English literature. In German for example Königreich Germania simply doesn't exist. So what's the alternative? It would have been easier if the standard title in English would have been Teutonic Kingdom, but that has fallen out of use long ago (I don't know why, maybe because Teutonic is too nationalistic). The real standard title of this realm, not just in English but in all languages, is Regnum Teutonicum so that's what I vote for. I do not know why you think this is obscure. Sure it's latin, but we speak of Charlemagne instead of Charles the Great as well. (Thanks for dropping your comment btw, I should have mentioned right away I had a change in username). Machinarium (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition I'd like to quote another source to forward the anachronism argument. In this book by Herbert Schutz (2010) Schutz says the following: "It may be comfortable to consider the region under discussion as Germany. However, such a geographical, political or even linguistic concept did not exist for centuries to come, so that using the terms German or Germany is anachronistic. They are merely modern terms of geopolitical convenience." In his book Kingdom of Germany is completely absent as well, and he makes consistent use of Regnum Teutonicum instead. Machinarium (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Middle Ages the English term for Germans was simply derived from the term, the people called themselves. They were called Dutch. When the Netherlands separated and became an own nation, this became the exclusive term for the neighbours of the English, which they used to know under this name. Ironically the Dutch themselves began to avoid this name, which is very similiar to the name, the Germans use themselves until today. But for readers today, who know Germany only under this name it would be rather confusing to use a term like, for instance, Dutchland. For the really inappropriate Latin term, which you suggest again, there were already larger discussions in the past, which you can find in the archives. Henrig (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of what you say is correct, but not everything. You can't say that the Dutch, Flemish, Frisians and Walloons split from any nation. If you can read Dutch I could point you to literature which supports that. Anyway anything Dutch-related is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. Dutch was introduced in English first in the late 14th century, when the real bottleneck in this article is pre-14th century. If you want to discuss anything Dutch related feel free to drop me a message. I have read (and contributed to) the discussions in the archives, and I do not see why you find Regnum Teutonicum inappropriate. The latin name is used consistently in literature to denote this realm, including in the literature of your own language. Machinarium (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have contributed, you should know, that user Mootros already last year tried to replace the term Germany by introducing this rather obscure medieval Latin term, with which nobody can do anything today. Btw., initially the Latin term 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 once had been 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) 21:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited under Grey Fox so I am aware that Mootros attempted a name change. In fact I voted against it then. Times change, I have read more literature and forwarded new arguments, and so have others. The latin title is best as the primary title. It's not ideal, but a lot better than Kingdom of Germany. The only title that would top both would be Teutonic Kingdom, but this isn't used in modern literature. Whether a name change is going to succeed or not, at least this article deserves more viewpoints. Machinarium (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't see your name (Grey Fox) on the above posted page with Mootros' request. Henrig (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, it was his second name change request that I voted against (> King of the Germans). Machinarium (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely follow the opinion of Machinarium, PBS, LlywelynII and -Ilhador-. What they say really makes sense: Regnum Teutonicum is what this article should be named. Even google scholar thinks so with a clear vote of 385 to 124. I further don't see any problem in adding a little text to explaining the context why Kingdom of Germany is used by some Anglo-Saxon historians as well, that should be fine and solve the whole discussion. Maybe somebody should just do it, and if there are still some editors not happy about that, let's have a vote. --Creihag (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your example from Schutz (whose argument, to my mind, makes almost no sense. Lots of specialists like to be picky about terminology in this way but such things are usually pure pedantry, as seems to be the case here.  The following statement makes exactly as much sense when referring to the same time period: "It may be comfortable to consider the region under discussion as France. However, such a geographical, political or even linguistic concept did not exist for centuries to come, so that using the terms French or France is anachronistic. They are merely modern terms of geopolitical convenience."  Beyond that, you are hanging most of your argument on the fact that the English word "Germany" originally derived from the Latin "Germania."  This is totally irrelevant, in my opinion.  The English word Germany corresponds to the Latin Germania, of course, but it also corresponds to a variety of other Latin and German words that derive from Deutsch/Teutonic, and has been used in this way for centuries.  Today, in fact, the Deutsch/Teutonic meaning is, in fact, far more common than the Germania one, to the extent that the two meanings can be distinguished from one another.  You also point out that "Kingdom of Germany" is only used in English, and that its equivalents are not used in other languages.  Once again, this is irrelevant - titles in the English language wikipedia are based on English language sources, not German or Dutch or whatever else ones.  It doesn't even seem, strictly speaking, to be true.  "Royaume d'Allemagne," the French equivalent, gets a substantial number of hits (and, of course, the French name for Germany derives from the name of the Alemanni, distinct from both the English and German roots). "Regno di Germania" seems to be in use in Italian.  One problem here is that the Regnum Teutonicum, as such, is not necessarily written about all that often.  Because of its close association with the Holy Roman Empire, one could probably write a history of medieval Germany that just avoids the issue entirely.  My basic point here is that there is nothing uniquely wrong with "Kingdom of Germany," and it's certainly more readily comprehensible in English than "Regnum Teutonicum," which I think is important.  If it could be demonstrated that scholars use the Latin form more frequently than the English form, that would be a good reason to move the article.  But nobody's even attempted to do so yet.  A Google Books search gives about twice as many results for "Kingdom of Germany" as it does for "Regnum Teutonicum," and many of the results for the latter are not in English.  That's a blunt instrument, but you'd need to actually try to demonstrate that the latter is more common. john k (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When we write about France anachronisms should be avoided as well. But there is a difference, since regnum Franciae is even phonetically similar to France which makes it much less of a problem. Sure anachronisms are used constantly for convenience, but when there is serious inconsistency they should be used with care. As you say Germany today doesn't refer to Germania. That's true, but that's exactly what makes it anachronistic, because during the Early and High Middle Ages there was no distinction between Germany or Germania. That doesn't mean that I am suggesting to avoid Germany altogether, but to limit it to the history of, at least when speaking of the Regnum Teutonicum. To demonstrate, Cosmas of Prague wrote: "'Whence the human species, with God arranging everything according to his will, was so dispersed throughout the sphere of the earth that after many ages it came even into these regions of Germania. For this whole region, located under the north pole, extending from the Thanay [River Don] and into the west, is called by the general term 'Germania' (although each of these places in it has its own name)'." Cosmas thus believed that he lived in Germania, even though Bohemia was inside the HRE, yet outside the Regnum Teutonicum. Since at the time there was no difference between Germany or Germania, it's anachronistic to say that he lived next to a kingdom named Germany. We can however speak of Germany in the sense of The History of Germany or What is now Germany, but when we are titling a page Kingdom of Germany that's exactly what we aren't doing. As for the sources in other languages, Royaume d'Allemagne doesn't contain a reference to Germania. Interestingly the Italian phrase does, though in Italian literature there's also extensive use of regno Teutonico (and our Italian colleagues too titled their article Regnum Teutonicorum). I was wrong to say that Regnum Teutonicum is the standard title in all languages, but what's important is that it's the standard title in German. Sure this is the English wikipedia, but we can still make use of German sources, especially when it's an article concerning the history of Germany and most history books on medieval Germany are written in German. I did try to demonstrate that scholars make extensive use of Regnum Teutonicum (I linked to google scholar earlier). As you say Kingdom of Germany gets a lot more results on google books, but if you filter the results so that it excludes old books you get different numbers. Here are the results: (1850-2008) (1970-2008). As you can tell the use of Kingdom of Germany was the standard title in older literature, but has dropped over time. Since the 70s the title Kingdom of Germany dropped further and Regnum Teutonicum became more frequent, and eventually there's not much difference (especially if you were to add Regnum Teutonicorum cumulatively). Thus my personal conclusion is that in German language sources Regnum Teutonicorum is used almost exclusively, while in English both Regnum Teutonicum and Kingdom of Germany are fairly common. Regnum Teutonicum is problematic because it's Latin, not English, and Kingdom of Germany is problematic because it doesn't correspond with German sources and because it's anachronistic. Machinarium (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bohemia was not outside the Regnum Teutonicum; in Cosmas's time, it wasn't even a kingdom. john k (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the map on this page it does show Bohemia outside the Regnum Teutonicum. What was its status then? But the point still stands, Germania was not the Regnum Teutonicum, but half of Europe. Machinarium (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But what does that point prove? Nobody is saying we should call it the Kingdom of Germania.  We're saying we should call it the Kingdom of Germany. Your point is supposedly that in the 11th century "Germania" and "Germany" were synonymous, but that's nonsense.  The word "Germany" is not a word in Medieval Latin.  It's a word in modern English.  And it's not synonymous at all with the Latin Germania.  john k (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * M. now supports user:Mootros' Xth attempt to abolish this article in any way in Talk:East Francia.Henrig (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Old texts with Germania in it were previously brought up in support of this title. But as you say, today Germania and Germany are two different words. Germania refers to an ancient region, Germany refers to a modern nation-state. Therefore (just as Jonathan Lyon said) using either of them as a title for medieval Germany is an anachronism. Unless you were to use it in a historical sense, such as for example Germany in the Middle Ages which I propose as more centralized article. In German historiography there seems to be more effort to avoid anachronisms, probably because the question about what is or isn't German/Germany became so politicised in the past. The title Kingdom of Germany is an inheritance of 19th century Anglo-Saxon usage, at a time when historiography was still young. It's use is decreasing, and today even English historians prefer using East Francia, Regnum Teutonicum etc. just like Jonathan Lyon said. Of course you can disagree with this pattern, that's up to you, but you can't deny it. Machinarium (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Old texts that use Germania were brought up becaus people were basically demanding to them. It was always irrelevant to whether the term "Germany" is appropriate. Your argument is basically that there is no medieval term that could be translated "Germany" without ludicrous anachronism. Others have argued that the same could be said about "France" or "Italy", but for some reason these words are just fine. I do deny the "pattern" because you haven't established that it exists. Just taking one important journal (because this way we can more or less stick to English usage), the Journal of Medieval History, a search for "regnum teutonicum" gets 1 hit, "kingdom of germany" a mere 2, "german kingdom" 3 and "germany" 256. Lest you think that the measly results are significant: "kingdom of scotland" gets 3, "kingdom of poland" 1 and "kingdom of hungary" 2. I'm not going to interpret these results. I think they show quite plainly what's wrong with your methods. Srnec (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have commented on how France is phonetically similar to what was used in the Middle Ages and pointed out (like many others) that the situation in medieval France was different from medieval Germany, since Germany was an integral part of the HRE. But I've also pointed out that anachronisms should be avoided when writing about medieval France as well. The same goes for Italy. I'm less familiar with medieval France and Italy which is why I'm not active there. And in answer to your results, again I do not battle the use of Germany in this article, but only as the main title. Germany can still be used when speaking of the events that happened within the boundaries of present-day Germany, like [in what is today] Germany. Therefore I do not see why the search hits for just Germany are relevant. Otherwise I would not have advocated an article titled Germany in the Middle Ages. Also I did show you this pattern, but here is one again comparing East Francia and East Frankish with Kingdom of Germany . And if you want more relevant search results let's look at what Jstor has to offer: 194 results for East Frankish, 46 results for East Francia, 98 results for Regnum Teutonicum, 35 results for Regnum Teutonicorum and 37 results for Kingdom of Germany. Machinarium (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As a more or less quiet reader of this page, I find it amusing that you now ask about the argument of this point, when you were the one who raised and questioned exactly this, dear john k. Even more, after that seemed to be your only issue concerning the text of Machinarium. I think the points he raised are straightforward: Kingdom of Germany used to be standard title for Regnum Teutonicum in the English literature, but is nowadays anachronistic within modern English literature for the very same reasons being discussed here. Machinarium has good and reliable arguments for that with Google Scholar, and so far I don't really see any points that question his argumentation. --Creihag (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These usage results are totally inconclusive. Nobody has presented any evidence that Kingdom of Germany is no longer used, or even, really, that it's decreasingly used.  I'd note in particular that Machinarium's results exclude any references to the political entity under discussion as just "Germany".  If a historian simply uses "Germany" to refer to the Regnum Teutonicum (in the same way that "France" is frequently used to refer to the Regnum Franciae or Regnum Francorum), there's almost no way to isolate this from other usages of "Germany".  That makes it very hard to draw any clear results from any kind of google search, but obviously such usage would support the current title. john k (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you think that would support the current title. As I tried to explain, there's a difference between using Germany [in the middle ages] and Kingdom of Germany. The first relates to the history of Germany, the second redefines the entire concept of what is or isn't Germany. Sure Germany has 256 results on the Journal of Medieval History, but for example Netherlands has 211 results. You can speak of The Netherlands in the middle ages but should be careful when using Netherlands as a medieval entity, to avoid anachronisms. The same goes for Switzerland and Belgium and, indeed, Germany. Machinarium (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is possible ambiguity in terminology like "Germany in the Middle Ages". But are you denying that there really was a political entity called (or that historians call) Germany? This article is not about what-is-today-Germany in medieval times, nor is it about what-was-once-called-Germania in the Middle Ages, and neither is it about the medieval (High) German-speaking lands. This article is not to be seen mainly as part of some "history of Germany" series that treats the modern federal republic as a universal point of reference. The latter is exactly what you are doing: using the term "Germany" as historians do is not "redefining the entire concept of what is or isn't Germany". Could we not argue that it was 1871 that redefined the concept to exclude Austria, the Sudetenland or Luxembourg? Srnec (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In answer to your first question, yes I am denying that there was a political entity called Germany. I do not dispute that historians can call it that way. But most use it carefully for geopolitical convenience. There was a geographic region called Germania, which does not correspond to the Reich. The concept of Deutschland did not yet exist. Regnum Teutonicum translates to kingdom of the Teutons, or deutsche Reich, not Deutschland or Kingdom of Germany. These are later inventions. By (weak) comparison the EU grew out of the ECSC and the EEC, just like Germany grew out of east Francia and the HRE. That does not mean that the ECSC already was the EU, or that east Francia / the Germanic part of the Empire was already Germany. And in answer to your second question, the unification of Germany did not redefine Germany, rather it defined Germany as a nation-state for the first time, which is exactly why it was called the unification of Germany and not the reunification of Germany. They weren't in agreement about the borders of the future nation-state, and there was a long debate over if Austria should or should not become part of the state because Austria was German speaking.Machinarium (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Machinarium - I didn't say that all references to "Germany" would be to the political entity. My point was that some of them would be, in just the same way that "France" is sometimes used to refer to the medieval Kingdom of France rather than to the modern state of France, without that being explicitly clarified.  It's hard to design a search which would clarify which is meant.  Beyond that, you seem to have some strange assumption that when people talk about "Medieval Germany" the only possible meaning of that is "the medieval history of the territory of the present day Federal Republic."  But that's nonsense.  Books about "Medieval Germany" could perfectly well be about the territory of the Regnum Teutonicum, just as books about "Early Modern Germany" (which I know more about) are frequently about the German part of the Holy Roman Empire (that is, the Reich excluding the vague and largely nominal Italian claims).  The history of Austria, the Low Countries, and Switzerland - all these can perfectly well be included in a history of medieval or early modern Germany.  And don't bring me back to the obscure and mostly obsolete Germany=Germania meaning, because histories of Germany pretty much never include Scandinavia or Poland or Hungary.  Do all historians use Germany in this manner?  No, of course not.  But many do, and your conception of this tries to pretend that this usage doesn't exist.  Obviously, the most common meaning of "Germany" is to represent the Federal Republic or the Kaiserreich and its successor states.  But when you come down to it, the meaning of Germany=Regnum Teutonicum (or Germany=non-Italian part of the Holy Roman Empire) is far more commonly used than the Germany=Germania claim you keep talking about.  I'm sure we can find dozens of books that talk about Vienna as being part of Germany.  and I'm equally sure that we can find almost none that talk about Oslo in the same way.  And talking about the Netherlands or Belgium as a medieval entity is completely different from talking about Germany.  There was no political entity in the middle ages that even roughly corresponded to either the Netherlands or Belgium.  But there was a political entity whose name effectively means "Kingdom of Germany" or "German Kingdom"!  It's what this article is about!  The root word here, Teutonicum, is a direct cognate of the German name for Germany.  Geographically, this state was not identical to modern Germany, but it did basically include all of modern Germany (except Schleswig), and areas in modern Germany were at the heart of the Kingdom.  Geographical identity isn't in any way essential, anyway.  Nobody has any problem with referring to the Kaiserreich as Germany, even though it included about 184,000 square kilometers of territory that are not part of the Federal Republic - about one third of its total area!  My basic problem here is that you seem to be constructing a lot of ad hoc arguments that are only to be applied in this one case, rather than relying on any arguments that could actually be the basis for any general rules. john k (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood me when I brought up the boundaries of present-day Germany. I'm not saying that historians can only apply Germany to territory of present-day Germany, rather I am trying to explain to you that the entire reason why they employ the name Germany is because of present-day Germany. If Germany today was called Prussia in the English language, many historians would use Prussia to refer to the Reich. Germany (like Prussia would have been) is a modern name that did not have its meaning in the early or high Middle Ages yet. Its name is simply used to tell the history of Germany, not because it was Germany. If we had a time-machine, and told the Franks, Saxons, Bavarians etc. that they were living in the Kingdom of Germany or in a kingdom called Deutschland they would not agree with you. And that's my entire point. Ignoring their respective regna's, the people at the time believed they were living in Francia, east Francia, the regnum Teutonicum, or the Roman Empire, not any of the modern names we use for geopolitical convenience. You also misunderstood me when I brought up Germania. I wasn't saying that present-day historians use Germany to refer to ancient Germania when writing medieval history, rather that the people in the Middle Ages had a different concept of what Germany/Germania was. My argument was in response to the medieval texts brought up before. Anyway you seem to believe that regnum Teutonicum translates to Germany, but this is wrong. regnum Teutonicum/Teutonicorum translates to kingdom of the Germans, or in German deutsche Reich. An even more literal translation is kingdom of the Teutons. Only since the late Middle Ages can deutsch / teutonic be regarded as denoting an ethnic group. Before that it referred to vernacular language. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that the Goths and Anglo-Saxons also used teutonic to refer to their language. To explain this to you in hermeneutics, prior to the late Middle Ages regnum Teutonicum can best be understood as a kingdom of the people who speak vernacular. Machinarium (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nobody would use "Prussia" to refer to the Reich. When Prussia did encompass all of northern Germany, nobody talked about "medieval Prussia" to refer to the Rhineland and Hanover, or even Brandenburg - it referred explicitly to the lands conquered by the Teutonic Knights.  And you certainly don't really see, for instance, "medieval Slovakia," to take an actually anachronistic example. And I don't give a damn what the Franks, Saxons, and Bavarians thought.  If you traveled back in time to Constantinople in 1000, nobody would have agreed they were living in the Byzantine Empire.  And "Kingdom of Germany" as a translation for the actually contemporary "Regnum Teutonicum" is far less anachronistic than "Byzantine Empire."  I'd add that your still hung up on Deutschland, which is, again, irrelevant.  The first time any country was officially called "Deutschland" was 1949.  The Deutsches Reich, which existed from 1871 to 1945, was typically called "Germany" in English.  So, to perhaps a somewhat lesser extent, was the Deutscher Bund that existed from 1815 to 1866.  And so was and is the Regnum Teutonicum.  Calling the Regnum Teutonicum "Germany" is no more and no less acceptable than calling the Deutsches Reich "Germany."   This has nothing to do with whether it would be appropriate to call it "Deutschland" in German, or "Germania" in Latin, for that matter.  You're all caught up in all this formalistic garbage that is irrelevant.  Historians in the English-speaking world (which is what we're supposed to consider for article titles) generally translate Regnum Teutonicum as "Kingdom of Germany" or just "Germany".  It doesn't matter whether you, personally, believe this to be an inappropriate translation.  It doesn't even matter if some historians do.  What matters is what is actually used, and this is what the vast majority of sources use.  john k (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Germany was already in use in the English language for Deutschland. My point was a what-if situation if it was Prussia instead that was used, to demonstrate how an anachronism works. Anyway when it comes to anachronisms you admitted that you don't care what people at the time thought, which is where you and I are different. But this is not just not a name dispute, but an article dispute. Sure Byzantine Empire is used, but it's not treated as a different state from the Eastern Roman Empire (both the same article here on wikipedia), whereas this article treats east Francia and kingdom of Germany as two different states. Also once again I stress that regnum Teutonicum / Teutonicorum does not translate to kingdom of Germany and neither do most historians translate it that way. Instead its often simply translated to German kingdom, and those historians who demonstrate it with some more effort use kingdom of the Germans / Teutons. Machinarium (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You write; If we had a time-machine, and told the Franks, Saxons, Bavarians etc. that they were living in the Kingdom of Germany or in a kingdom called Deutschland they would not agree with you.
 * If you had a time-machine, you could see, how the German term for Germany (Modern spelling: Deutschland) had gradually developed, likely from a nickname (derived from the term for the language), with which the people described and distinguished their realm with a view to the neighbouring Romanic realms. You would also see, how the not everywhere in the realm very popular term East Francia gradually came out of fashion in favor of this name, after Non-Franks had gained the crown. It was a term, with which also Non-Franks could identify. Henrig (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken Deutschland is first attested in 1365, and its more frequent use started in the 15th century. Isn't this centuries after ethnic Franks lost the crown? Machinarium (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually such terms informally start as a nickname, which over times, when it remains in frequent use, gradually develops into an official term. It's well imaginable, that this term came in use as a nickname for the eastern areas, during the Carolingian time, when the old Franconian language came more and more out of use among the franks in the western part of the empire in favor of the romanic language. As in early medieval times documents usually were written in Latin, such written names usually appeared first as deduced Latin terms. In this case, the Latin term in known documents is confirmed for the 11th century and appears in a 12th century copy of the Annales iuvavenses in an (perhaps modified) entry of the year 920.Henrig (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's some quick Google Books references that refer to "Germany" in a sense that fairly clearly means "Regnum Teutonicum." First Benjamin Arnold's Princes and Territories in Medieval Germany. The first chapter refers to the "Western Roman Emperor" or "German Augustus" as also having the "more substantial duty" of being "Kings in Germany and Italy." Obviously in this case "Germany" means the Regnum Teutonicum, not the area of the modern Federal Republic (if he meant that, he should say they have the more substantial duty of being kings in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, or what have you), or the contemporary concept of Germania (which included many lands over which the Western Emperor was not king). The book is a purely political history, was written in 1991, and, so far as I can tell, always uses "Germany" to refer to the Regnum Teutonicum. It's not completely transparent that that's what he's doing, but it's hard to see any other possibilities for what "Germany" is supposed to mean in much of the book. He refers to, for instance, Carinthia as being part of Germany. This encyclopedia of Medieval German history never refers to the Regnum Teutonicum, but it does use the term "Regnum of Germany" to refer to it. It also says Henry III was "raised to the kingship of Germany." Leyser's Medieval Germany and Its Neighbors (from 1982) refers to a "German Kingdom". He also refers to a "change of dynasty in Germany" in 1024. This Oxford published history of government from 1997 has a section about the "Disintegration of the Kingdom of Germany." Mary Fulbrook, speaking of the election of Henry the Fowler as king in her Concise History of Germany, mentions that some historians doubt the existence of a "Kingdom of Germany" at such an early date, and notes that Gillingham points out that the term Regnum Teutonicum originates in the 11th century. This statement only really makes sense if you consider Regnum Teutonicum to be more or less equivalent to "Kingdom of Germany." She also notes that during the Middle Ages, Regnum Germaniae and Regnum Alamannae were also in occasional use. Fulbrook isn't an unambiguous support for my position - I think she's been quoted before in this discussion to argue the opposite way, and there's a fair bit in her discussion that points towards terminological complexity and such. But in spite of some reservations, her book basically uses either "Germany" or "Kingdom of Germany" to refer to the Regnum Teutonicum, and uses "German" as the adjective to refer to it. Her map of Medieval Germany, for instance, shows the Holy Roman Empire, and notes that it is divided into the kindoms of Italy, Burgundy, and Germany. She also refers to Kings of Germany, and to the German monarchy, and talks about how the Concordat of Worms allowed royal appointment of German, but not Italian, bishops. john k (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I tried to explain in my other post, my argument was never that it's wrong to use Germany when referring to the Reich for geopolitical convenience, which is what most of your sources do. There's a difference between speaking of [medieval] Germany and speaking of a Kingdom of Germany (see usuage of both ). The first uses Germany because it's convenient, the second pretends that there was a state named as such. That's why I brought up the Netherlands (where there actually had been a political entity named Frisia but that's beside the point). In the first source Benjamin Arnold uses both Netherlands and Germany for convenience. That's not to be used as evidence that the Netherlands or Germany already existed as states. To demonstrate further, if someone writes a paper on the prehistory of Germany he is likely to make use of Germany a lot too, but that does not mean Germany already existed in prehistory. There is even a difference between speaking of a kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Germany, since with the latter kingdom is spelled with a capital and thus denotes an actual name. In ýour last quote for example you wrote kingdom with a capital, even though your source didn't. In fact most hit results on Kingdom of Germany are written without a capital. And to end my post, could you to explain to me, how come the name Kingdom of Germany is used a lot less than Kingdom of France / England? For a state that you believe has existed for centuries, different from both east Francia and the HRE, that's a bit odd isn't it? (a comparison ).Machinarium (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Compare this and this. Your searches are still not meaningful. They're arbitrary. (As, of course, are mine—to prove my point.) If you want Ngrams, try this one, showing that the upper case K is far less common than the lower case for the term "kingdom of France". Further, the term "medieval Germany" is less common than the terms "medieval France" and "medieval England". In fact, "Medieval Germany" is more common than "medieval Germany" now (still using your timetable of 1950–2008). You can perform these yourself.
 * The capitalisation is irrelevant because an author may choose to capitalise to show that the term he is using is a proper noun, referring to a single specific historical entity. Or he may not capitalise, to show that the term is not a name in the ordinary sense. This is why a historian could write "Byzantine empire" or "Byzantine Empire". We've had debates before about whether terms like "Blue Whale" and "Ancient Egypt" should be capitalised and there is no consensus, but the majority seems to prefer lower case because in the first case you can pluralise it ("blue whales") and in the second the first word is just a descriptor applied by scholars living much later (they could have chosen "archaic" or "antique" if they had wanted to), although in both cases the words can be used as proper nouns ("The Blue Whale grows to a length . . ." and "Relations between Cush and Ancient Egypt . . ."). Srnec (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining, but I still think it matters even if it isn't much. Yes kingdom of France has more results than Kingdom of France, but here the latter still has substantial results, where if you click my last ngram results Kingdom of Germany is pretty rare. Machinarium (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My post was specifically referring to political references which take "Germany" to refer to a political unit. They don't always use "kingdom of Germany", but all of my examples were referring to "Germany" as a distinct political unit that is equivalent to the Regnum Teutonicum.  That you have to fail to understand this to make your irrelevant arguments about how "medieval Germany" is acceptable shows how weak your arguments are.  What term do you think all these authors are using to refer to the Regnum Teutonicum.  When they talk about a "new dynasty in Germany," how on earth is that different from a historian referring to a "new dynasty in France" in 987?  Why can one be taken as evidence of the existence of a "Kingdom of France," but the other cannot be taken as evidence of the existence of a "Kingdom of Germany"? john k (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could present you with sources that use Germany for east Francia before Conrad's rule (even during Charlemagne's rule). What you don't seem to get is that there's difference between using Germany as a reference point, for convience, rather than pretending that it is a translation. When Germany refers to east Francia, it's not a translation of east Francia. When Germany refers to regnum Teutonicum, it's not necessarily a translation. Anyway this is not just a title dispute, but one of interpretation, since this article stresses that east Francia and the German kingdom are two different things. And that's where I believe things go wrong. Machinarium (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly true that it's not necessarily a translation, but it often is. At any rate, I agree with you that East Francia and the German kingdom are the same political entity.  I just don't think that "East Francia" is appropriate to use as the general term for this entity, because it basically isn't used to refer to the later part of the kingdom's history.  I'd be happy to merge East Francia into this article. john k (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then we at least agree on something; those two articles need to be merged. I'd say the article should be called east Francia, because it's used the most (and because it's less anachronistic), and then kingdom of Germany can be explained as a title for the later centuries. The article could start with something like "East Francia also became known as the kingdom of the Teutons (Latin: regnum Teutonicum), today also known as the kingdom of Germany, when it made up the core of the Holy Roman empire". Machinarium (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you think it's appropriate to invent your own translation of Regnum Teutonicum ("Kingdom of the Teutons") while denigrating the translation most often used by actual historians when they translate the name ("Kingdom of Germany"). john k (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't invent my own translation, that's what you do. You seem to think that when a historian uses kingdom of Germany that it is a translation of regnum Teutonicum. Timothy Reuter has used kingdom of Germany, but he translated regnum Teutonicum to kingdom of the Teutons. Machinarium (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Examples abound of historians taking the term "kingdom of Germany" to translate perfectly Latin terms like regnum teutonicum (literally "Teutonic kingdom") and regnum teutonicorum (literally "kingdom of [the] Teuton[ic]s"), among others. Josef Fleckenstein and Timothy Reuter, for instance, both use it quite explicitly as a translation of these terms.
 * If rex Germaniae is the kind of term you're looking for, you can find it twice in the image at right, from the 12th century. Not that it "proves" anything, but it's more interesting than debating capitalisation and whether or not medievalists using the term "Germany" are referring to a kingdom or not. Srnec (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Timothy Reuter uses German kingdom to refer to the Reich as well, which is still the most common translation of regnum Teutonicum. Indeed it's regnum Teutonicorum which translates to kingdom of the Teutons / Germans. On this page Reuter demonstrates that regnum Teutonicorum translates to kingdom of the Teutons. Kingdom of Germany seems to be used for convenience, not as a literal translation. (On the same page Reuter also explains that the phrase regnare eum fecerunt in regno Teutonicorum is "most likely" a 12th century alteration). Machinarium (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What on earth could a historian possibly mean by "Kingdom of Germany" if they aren't using it as a synonym for "Regnum Teutonicum"? And a name used "for convenience" is, in fact, a synonym for the term.  Certainly "Kingdom of Germany" is used more than "Teutonic Kingdom" or "Kingdom of the Teutons".  That beings aid, if a move to German Kingdom would end all this nonsense, I'd be willing to accept that as a compromise, even though that term is more ambiguous than the current title, which can only refer to the Regnum Teutonicum, whereas "German Kingdom" could mean, for instance, the Kingdom of Bavaria. "Teutonic Kingdom" and "Kingdom of the Teutons" are totally unacceptable. john k (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea is to merge the page with east Francia, and explain all the titles there (and in the HRE article). Not to create any of those articles. If a merge doesn't work everything should be explained better on this page (I guess I will propose some changes / additions soon). Machinarium (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And if we're looking at ngrams, what about this and this? "East Francia" does get more hits than any of these throughout that time period, but this article shouldn't be moved there unless someone can demonstrate that it is commonly used to refer to the Salian and Hohenstaufen periods.  john k (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could include a non-capitalized regnum Teutonicum to those second results here which shows that both terms are fairly common. Anyway I'd rather move on. Right now I'm reading through some of the standard English works on medieval Germany (like Timothy Reuter) to find out where it goes wrong with understand the English concepts, particularly on the whole east Francia / Germany issue. I'll get back to you once I've reviewed enough. Meanwhile could you tell why you singled out the Salian and Hoenstaufen periods? Machinarium (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a period after "East Francia" largely falls out of use, but before you stop needing to distinguish Germany/the Regnum Teutonicum from other parts of the Holy Roman Empire. It makes little sensejohn k (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with John K and Srnec. Imo Kingdom of Germany is a non-anachronistic translation for the northern-alpine regnum within the HRE. Machinarium, if I understood you correctly you're prefering a "Kingdom of the Teutons" over the Kingdom of Germany. But "regnum teutonicum" wasn't the only contemporary name for it. There was also a "regnum germaniae" which literally translates "kingdom of Germania"; from 1500 onwords "rex germaniae" was even a standard title of the crowned emperors. And since the notion "Germany" is merely the English version for a latin the word "Germania" (just as Italy for Italia, France for Francia etc.) "Kingdom of Germany" is a correct translation and also easy to understand. I see absolutely no need to make up notions as "kingdom of the teutons" and so on.--MacX85 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A truly new situation after all those years
Well, we still have a dead lock at the moment. But I am delighted to note that we have moved forward: Two major contributor who support the status quo, have finally acknowledged that the article about East Francia and this article about the Kingdom of Germany are essentially about the same (socio-political) entity.

Dear fellow contributors, there is hope after all and a solution satisfactory might after all these years possible. Mootros (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC) They are the same entity


 * In my eyes, everything is better than this. If there is no agreement possible in merging Kingdom of Germany to East Francia, then merging East Francia to Kingdom of Germany might not be a perfect compromise, but probably the best available in this situation.. Creihag (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree, we should get this merger started. Please everybody help. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Two misses don't make one hit.-Ilhador- (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worthwhile to merge East Francia into here, to finally get around this deadlock. What happens afterwards, is a different matter. We seem to have some support now. Mootros (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing that would just officialize all the presentism and anachronism this articles is made off.-Ilhador- (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to be pragmatic to get ride of this fork, rather than keep officialising this fork. Try to think strategically, so we can improve this article, rather than helping to maintain the status quo! Mootros (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, Ilhador. However, I don't think we officialize all the presentism and anachronism of this matter, even though we officialize a substantial part of it. But even this is better than status quo. Creihag (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Difference between the Kingdom of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire?
I think I finally understand what's causing most of the disagreements over this article. As john k said in March he does not believe there was a difference between East Francia and a Kingdom of Germany. Both describe the same entity. After the birth of the Holy Roman Empire the assumption by some seems to be that the Kingdom of Germany was a part of the HRE, whereas I now believe these two also describe the exact same entity. I keep reading here or on other pages how some believe the HRE was made up of a Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Burgundy and the Kingdom of Italy. However upon further reading it seems to be that neither a Kingdom of Burgundy or a Kingdom of Italy existed during the HRE. Sure there were the titles of King of the Germans, King of the Lombards (or King of Italy) and sometimes King of Burgundy, but these were largely ceremonial titles. The medieval kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy (or Arelat) had already ceased to exist as states upon entering the HRE. I can't think of any Italian or Burgundian king except for the Emperors themselves.

The name Kingdom of Germany also appears in my own language (dutch) as Duitse Rijk (German Reich). In German it is known as the Altes Reich (Old Reich). In Dutch the German Reich and the HRE are the exact same entity. For example I was browsing through a new historical atlas called bosatlas van de geschiedenis van nederland (which was a huge project) and it had some European maps as well. Here is a snapshot of one of the pages. On the top left it says Heilige Roomse Rijk (Duitse Rijk) meaning Holy Roman Empire (German Kingdom). And as this (year 1100) and other maps show there was no Kingdom of Italy or Kingdom of Burgundy anymore. Only the titles remained really. Similarly the title Prince of Orange still exists today, but that doesn't mean the Principality of Orange still exists.

As such as I'm confident the names HRE and Kingdom of Germany describe the exact same entity. In German this makes more sense because of the use of Reich in both the Altes Reich and Heiliges Römisches Reich. It also evident by the title Römisch-deutscher Kaiser (Roman-German Emperor). In English this makes less sense because Reich was translated in the 19th century as Kingdom, where it should have been Realm or Empire instead. Anyway if someone disagrees, please try explaining what you believe to be the difference between the Kingdom of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. Machinarium (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Kingdom of germany is a dark matter which exists only in english wikipedia.-Ilhador- (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What's for sure is that this article does not at all correspond to German or Dutch sources. Machinarium (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the difference between the German kingdom and the Empire is what you say I think it is. The former was a part of the latter, at least during the Middle Ages. The map you link to, for instance, is just wrong in asserting that central Italy or Provence was a part of the German kingdom. I don't think any medieval Provençal or Spoletan would have thought so. That they were parts of the Empire is not in dispute.
 * The kingdom of Burgundy was still in existence during the reign of Frederick II, when William I of Baux was appointed viceroy there. Imperial rights in Italy were still a cause of wars in the 17th century. In neither case are we talking about Germany. The Empire was not centralised, and the kingdoms of Burgundy and Italy, although in some sense more theoretical than real, were not a part of the German kingdom. The terms HRE and Germany became synonymous over time, but both articles must cover a long period of time before that. Srnec (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed medieval Provencal's or Spoletan's would not have thought so, but that's not a criteria really. During the high middle ages there was no sense of belonging to a kingdom of Germany in the German lands either. And I'm extra sure about this when it comes to the Low Countries of which I've studied medieval identity.
 * The point I was making is that neither Germany or Italy were states or sovereign entities during the high middle ages. They weren't actual sovereign kingdoms, and they didn't have kings. They only seem to have existed as virtual entities, and as titles for the emperor. As such I think the best suggestion so far has been to treat or rename this article as Germany in the High Middle Ages. Machinarium (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Germany in the High Middle Ages" is at least equally virtual. Why change the scope of the article from one virtual entity to another?
 * I am highly suspicious of the word "sovereign" in most instances, and especially when it is modifying "kingdoms" in a medieval context. But it doesn't matter, since nobody is claiming anything about sovereignty here. But if you admit that the title "King of Germany" existed and that Germany existed (since you want an article about it in the High Middle Ages), then is it such a leap to suppose that the kingdom was real and the title not vacuous? In fact, it is certain that it was not, as the cases of Arduin of Ivrea and Henry III of Germany show. They were elected kings of Italy and Germany, respectively, and they defied the emperor, the first unsuccessfully, the second successfully, in both cases based on aristocratic support—or its lack—within their respective realms.
 * As to German identity, I won't enter into that discussion, since it is irrelevant. My point about the Provençals was that the Empire and the German kingdom were not synonymous as you asserted ("these two also describe the exact same entity"). Do you agree with me now? Srnec (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With sovereign I mean a political entity. "Germany in the High Middle Ages" does not necessarily suggest that Germany as a political entity existed, it was just an undefined geographic or cultural region. Just as books have been written about the "Low Countries in the Middle Ages" even though during most of the middle ages there was no such political entity.
 * The title King of Germany did not exist in the high middle ages. The actual title was King of the Franks during the Ottonian dynasty and King of the Romans thereafter. In German literature this title is today known as Roman-German King (Römisch-deutscher König), whereas the title Roman Emperor is known as Roman-German Emperor. If someone was King of the Romans (or German King) this didn't mean that he ruled Germany or just a part of the HRE, but it meant he joined the claim for the imperial crown.
 * Regarding Arduin and Henry III, from what I gather Arduin was an anti-king who also desired to be emperor. He seems to be the last king of Italy; or can you think of another one after his death? I can only find the emperor holding such a title. Italy as a political entity was no longer there. And Henry III wasn't king of Germany. He received the title of King of the Romans at the age of 11 and functioned as a co-regent to the emperor. Before he was emperor he ruled over Bavaria and Swabia, not Germany. Machinarium (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Sovereign" does not mean "political" in English.
 * Actually, many titles existed throughout the Middle Ages, both official and unofficial, in several languages. Several of these are reasonably translated by scholars as "King of Germany". We've had this discussion before. It's above, under the heading "Moving forward". A person with the title rex romanorum or king of Germany did not necessarily claim the imperial crown, but if not they probably claimed to be heir to it. There's a difference.
 * Conrad, son of Henry IV, was king of Italy and never emperor. The case of Henry III is interesting, because he was crowned king at Aachen and later his father gave him the kingdom of Burgundy. I have come across other indications that maybe Henry was considered king in Italy after his coronation in Aachen. He certainly ruled more than just Bavaria and Swabia. Srnec (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * as you say "Sovereign" does not mean "political" in English. Well yes it does, there is a difference between a sovereign and a pretender. A sovereign has to have recognised actual control over territory. Ie for a king of somewhere to be a sovereign the king has to have a kingdom that consists of territory. But this has already been said several times (See the Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 1 (2007) and after). "King of the Germans" would be a less misleading name for this article, as that would allow the general reader to easily comprehend that we are talking about a title and not a kingdom such as England Scotland etc.-- PBS (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "king of the Germans" had "recognised actual control over [a] territory" called Germany. Srnec (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Srnec what the italian wiki says on the Kingdom of Italy was that there was not actually such a state or a sovereign. King of Italy was a ceremonial title which did not hold any sovereign power. I know that's just a wiki but it again shows the inconsistency (just like with German pages). Henry IV was himself holding the title of King of Italy already before his son Conrad received this title (who was the Roman-German King). As such he was co-regent (in name), not a true King of Italy.
 * Can I ask you by the way, what do you believe the German name for the German Kingdom is? And if there isn't one used by Germans, how come? Machinarium (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that "king of Italy" was only a ceremonial title. It sometimes was, but sometimes wasn't. The word "sovereign" is still misplaced and unhelpful here. The king of Italy held power in Italy. I think you are trying to fit these medieval entities into modern categories. It does not matter to me if you would rather call the kingdom of Italy a concept or legal fiction rather than a state or a sovereignty. It's the Middle Ages we're talking about!
 * In German they call it Ostfrankenreich (=East Francia) for the early period. They distinguish when they need to between the Römisch-deutscher König and the Römisch-deutscher Kaiser. They have a different historiography employing a different vocabulary that does not map English one for one. The term Deutsche Königreich is not hard to find. Srnec (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, I agree with Srnec in this dispute. The medieval Kingdom of Italy was not a state in the modern sense, but it certainly was an entity of some kind. I'd add that I don't think that this fact particularly differentiates the medieval Kingdom of Italy from, say, the medieval Kingdom of France, which was similarly not a state in the modern sense.  The big difference was that the Kingdom of France later developed into a modern state, while the Kingdom of Italy gradually faded away into nothingness. john k (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference between the King of France and the King of Italy was that there actually was a King of France, whereas there was not an Italian King other than the emperor, an anti-king or a co-regent (except in the beginning). The same goes for a king of Germany. Machinarium (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But the emperor was a King of Italy. He was specifically crowned as such at Pavia.  Does the fact that Frederick II was emperor mean he wasn't "actually" King of Sicily?  The union between Germany and Italy may have been one of the reasons that the Kingdom of Italy faded away (and that the German Kingdom, increasingly identified with the Holy Roman Empire, never really developed into a proper state, but remained some other kind of polity), but you're reversing causation here. john k (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He was the King of Italy in name only, the crown in Pavia was ceremonial. Unlike Sicily, Italy as an entity was already gone (now existing out of smaller entities). Being crowned King of Italy didn't suddenly make him a ruler of 'Italy'. Machinarium (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All crowns and coronations are ceremonial. The Iron Crown wasn't like King Ottokar's Sceptre; it didn't make the king. The kingdom of Italy existed even when nobody was crowned. That's why its leading men could offer the crown to Arduin of Ivrea, to William of Aquitaine, to Conrad the Salian. The German Wiki has an article on it, called Reichsitalien, a term that corresponds to the English term "Imperial Italy". The difference between Sicily and Italy is that the emperors did not succeed in holding on to the former. Srnec (talk)


 * In modern German it's mostly called "deutsches Reich", "deutsches Königreich", "Deutschland", or seldomly "Königreich Deutschland". At least these are terms you find in German speaking literature when there's a differentiation between the HRE and the German kingdom.--MacX85 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are such names rarely used though? For a German kingdom that supposedly existed for centuries that's very little information, especially in German historiography when there's a huge amount of German historians. That's my point; German historians do not often differentiate between the HRE and a German kingdom. Machinarium (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not rarely used. In nearly every book I have that deals with medieval history, one of these terms occurs when there's a need to differentiate. It's regularly mentioned in a breath with the kingdom of Italy. There is however hardly any differentiation after the High Middle Ages.--79.208.91.48 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about deutsches Konigreich, not Deutschland. The first implies an actual kingdom, wheres the second describes a region. I can hardly find the first. Machinarium (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's because "deutsches Königreich" sounds somehow constructed. The term has no tradition in German historiography. You'll find "deutsches Reich" quite often but I admit its meaning is not that clear. Could mean both the HRE or the kingdom.
 * You won't find "französisches Königreich" or "englisches Königreich" either.--MacX85 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't follow, MacX85, when you say that In modern German it's mostly called "deutsches Reich", "deutsches Königreich", "Deutschland", or seldomly "Königreich Deutschland". As I know modern German as well, and from what I read, I know there never existed a "Deutsches Königreich". The term "Deutsches Reich" comes from "Deutsches Kaiserreich". There was a "Königreich Preußen", as well as "Königreich Bayern", which was exactly the reason they made a "Deutscher Kaiser" (German Emperor) and not a "Deutscher König" (German King). The latter term simply never existed. That is, in fact, a reason why I also think that this article would, as supposed by Machinarium, better be named Germany in the High Middle Ages. Since a Kingdom of Germany necessarily implies a German King. --Creihag (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A first look since a longer time shows that the same editors since years start likely since years every few months the same discussion again and again.

@MacX85 You are right, that to the medieval German kingdom is möstly simply referred as 'Deutschland' and sometimes 'Deutsches Reich' and additionally also 'Reich der Deutschen'. 'Königreich Deutschland' is often used in historical maps as differentiation from the also mentioned other kingdoms of the HRE. Creihag, you will scarcely often find the term 'Kaiser von Deutschland' (Kaiser of Germany) in another sense, than as a username or a nickname in the net. The other monarchs in the German Empire of 1871 opposed this. For the same reason, the name of the realm was simply 'Deutsches Reich' and not 'Deutsches Kaiserreich'. The latter term was more a modern invention to distinguish the 1871 realm from the realm of other times. Perhaps due to the official used term 'Deutscher Kaiser' instead of the term 'Kaiser von Deutschland' the term 'Deutscher König' in German ears sounds familiar and everyone knows, that this term without another context means a medieval king of Germany. ("Deutsche Kaiser und Könige" You are right, that most German kings during the Middle Ages also were emperors and therefore the title was predominantely emphasized by their opponents, while the kings themselves prefered emphasizing to be in the queue of the Roman emperors. Although Germany in the Middle Ages Germany was the core of the HRE, it was not identical with the HRE. This changed gradually since the late Middle Ages.Henrig (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel the need to point out that the same users start the same debates? It's also the same users who keep protecting this article. There was a 5 to 4 vote in favor of merging this article with East Francia, but this being Wikipedia wasn't enough...
 * Anyway I kind of recognize what MacX85 says, that Deutsches Reich is used without a clear meaning, often referring to the HRE as a whole. That's how it is in Dutch sources too. And that's the point, this article is limited to some English sources and does not all correspond to German historiography. Machinarium (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Creihag: there are numerous contemporary sources that mention a German kingdom beginning in the early 11th century. The termology is exactly the same as the one for the kingdoms of France, England, Poland etc.
 * Chroniclers and even emperors called it the "regnum teutonicum", "regnum alemanorum", "regnum germaniae" and the like.
 * And of course was there a German king. It just wasn't an official title until 1500 when every crowned emperor bore the title of "rex germaniae".
 * The German term "deutsches Reich" slowly came into use in the 16th century. But as mentioned above, it could mean both the HRE as well as the German kindom.
 * As for "Deutscher Kaiser" and "Deutsches Kaiserreich". That's only appropriate for the state 1871-1918(1945) and has nothing to to with the former Kingdom of Germany.--MacX85 (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge East Francia into Kingdom of Germany
I don't believe there is any strong objection to merging East Francia here. Srnec (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * East Francia is an older article than this one, so its fair to merge this article there. But it seems you're deliberately stalling such a move because you're afraid that the merged article's title might never change, right? Machinarium (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. This article cannot be merged to that one because then the title would be a misnomer, since nobody calls the 11th-century German kingdom "East Francia". Merging here is permissible because East Francia is sometimes called (and always recognised to be) the kingdom of Germany (in its early decades). Srnec (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who calls East Francia in the ninth century the 'kingdom of Germany'? I've read more texts which specifically mention that it wasn't Germany. As such calling the article kingdom of Germany (which can't apply to the early centuries) isn't better than east Francia (which can't apply to the later centuries). So it shouldn't really matter. Machinarium (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, let me remind you again that the term "kingdom of Germany" is like "kingdom of France". The "kingdom of" part is only needed some of the time. That said, is easy to find academic sources describing East Francia or the kingdom ruled by Arnulf, Louis the Child, Conrad I, Henry I and the Ottos as "Germany". I'm not talking about a geographical or prophetic sense either. Take for instance the line "Concerning military organization of Germany under Henry I and Otto I..." (Bachrach, 17 2009, 389–419) or "Charles the Simple sent a legate to King Henry I of Germany..." (Koziol, 14 2006, 355–90), both from the pages of the journal Early Medieval Europe. One could find others. The point is that it is unheard of to call 11th-century Germany "east Francia", but it is not unheard of to call late 9th-century east Francia "Germany". That should settle any question of a merger if one is to occur. (I have refactored the comments; I hope you don't mind.) Srnec (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between when your English sources speak of 'Germany' or 'the Kingdom of Germany'. You've just shown how east Francia is indeed never called 'kingdom of Germany'. Machinarium (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He has shown no such thing - you can't prove a negative. Here we see Janet Nelson of King's College, London, in a blurb for a book on Louis the German for Cornell University Press, referring to Louis as "the creator of a Kingdom of Germany."  Here is a book review from the journal Speculum that says that Louis the German "set the foundations for the medieval Kingdom of Germany." Now, you'll see, I actually have proved that East Francia is indeed sometimes called 'kingdom of Germany', and disproved your claim above.  And I refuse to accept the broader point.  We accept usage of "France", at least some of the time, to the contemporary kingdom of France rather than to the modern French Republic; why is it so hard to accept that sometimes "Germany" refers to the Regnum Teutonicum? john k (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why it's called an anachronism.-Ilhador- (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Just like for example, calling Jesus a Christian is an anachronism, since he was Jewish. But sure someone can edit Wikipedia and rely on a few references (or misinterpret them) that do not correspond at all to scholarly historiography. That's what this article does, and if we'd merge this article in east Francia even more so. I asked before what the German name was for this kingdom but still haven't received one. This is a clear indication that this article doesn't correspond to German historiography. Machinarium (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just outrageous goalpost moving. You said that "east Francia is indeed never called kingdom of Germany."  I just provided you with several references to scholarly works that call east Francia "kingdom of Germany."  Now you're demanding something else.  How can we have a productive discussion when you constantly change the terms on which we're arguing? john k (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed I said that, after someone wasn't able to provide such references. And then you provided just two sources, one which speaks of a kingdom of Germany, and another which speaks of setting the foundations for one. That's not very strong. But you're right, instead of never I should have said rarely. Now you can address how and why there is no German name for this kingdom. Machinarium (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I provided just two sources that happened to come up on the first page of a google books search. I'd suspect that more examples could be found, but I was disputing your characterization that there were none.  Beyond that, I have no interest in discussing whether there is a German name for this kingdom, because this is not the German Wikipedia.  It is the English Wikipedia, and there is obviously an English name for it. john k (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * German sources count as well when dealing with German history. The English Wikipedia doesn't have to use English sources exclusively. If the article doesn't correspond to German sources then there is something obviously wrong. Machinarium (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * German sources can obviously be relevant, but they oughtn't be necessary when there are English sources, especially for a question of terminology. "Kingdom of Germany" is used in English sources.  That German sources tend not to distinguish the German Kingdom very clearly from the Holy Roman Empire doesn't matter much, especially since this is largely an artifact of the ambiguity of the German word Reich, which does not exist in English. john k (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does matter. It indicates there is no such thing as a kingdom of Germany in German historiography, which is exactly why I've been astonished by this article. I don't understand what the ambiguity of Reich has to do with this (which seems to have the same meaning as realm). Machinarium (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that the distinction between kingdom and empire, which is perfectly natural in English, is not so natural in German, where the term Reich is generally used for both. Srnec (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a terrible memory, because another user and I answered your question on the German name for the medieval kingdom. And because you have received far more than a few references to a kingdom called Germany in the Middle Ages. Let me provide a few more for you to ignore. The opening line of David Bachrach's article "The Military Organization of Ottonian Germany" in The Journal of Military History, 72 (2008), goes, "The kingdom of Germany generally is considered by scholars to have been militarily the most powerful polity in the medieval West during the tenth and early eleventh centuries." Gillingham at the start of his paper on "Elective Kingship and the Unity of Medieval Germany", says in a note that "I am simply assuming that 'medieval Germany' lasted from the tenth century to the fifteenth." D. J. A. Matthew, "Reflections on the Medieval Roman Empire", History 77 (1992), writes that "the Germans took a very long time to settle for ‘national’ unity. The medieval empire was not in any sense the German nation in its medieval guise. The medieval empire was nevertheless ruled by German kings from the tenth century onwards." Srnec (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say was I didn't receive a German name for this kingdom because there isn't one. You went on about 'the Römisch-deutscher König and the Römisch-deutscher Kaiser which isn't a name for this kingdom, just a translation of the titles Roman-German King and Roman German Emperor. You then mentioned Deutsche Königreich which is quite rare, and as MacX85 said 'has no tradition in German historiography'. MacX85 then said 'Deutsches Reich' is used vaguely to refer to either German land or the HRE in its total, which is exactly what I was trying to say. So there we have it, a German kingdom that supposedly existed for half a millennium is nameless in German historiography.
 * As for you quotes, they aren't really relevant. An anachronism remains an anachronism. East Francia laid the foundations of what was going to become Germany which is why some of your references refer to it as Germany for geopolitical convenience. But there was nothing German about East Francia. A sense of German identity had its roots around the time of the investiture controversy, while East Francia had a Frankish identity. If you prefer to name East Francia "Kingdom of Germany" then you don't care very much about anachronisms. Machinarium (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think German identity has anything to do with this. The assumption seems to be that a German kingdom cannot exist without German national identity. I dispute this. A French kingdom existed long before French identity. The last of my three recent quotations is meant to show that Germany and the Empire were quite distinct, but also has the effect of showing that "national unity" was not the foundation of either Germany or the Empire.
 * I also don't know why you think that anachronism is relevant. Anachronistic terms like Kingdom of France, Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Carolingian Empire are used all the time by historians, so it wouldn't matter if the term Kingdom of Germany were anachronistic. But like the first two terms it is not all that anachronistic: it came into use relatively early and it has clear parallels from the very beginning (like Louis the German's kingdom being called Germania and Henry the Fowler's the regnum Francorum orientalium). Srnec (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to add that I do not know whether there was a German identity by the 11th century or not. I do not know when it is best to beginning speaking of a German nation. 14th century? 16th? I am not denying that there might have been a German identity as early as the 10th century. Probably there was not. I don't see that it matters at all to the question whether there was a kingdom of Germany. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the identity of a realm, not a nation. East Francia had a Frankish identity, just like West Francia had a Frankish identity. There wasn't much difference between the two of them. The French King still had the title King of the Franks until the late 12th century, and a difference between French or Frankish was non-existent. Eastern Francia also kept a Frankish identity, also under Henry the Fowler. This changed under Otto I who went after a Roman identity (hence the title King of the Romans). It was with the Concordat of Worms that the designation regnum Teutonicum gained limited acceptance, though a Roman identity still prevailed and a Frankish identity had not yet disappeared. If we ignore this chronology and pretend that Ludwig the German was the king of Germany we'd create another anachronism and not solve anything.
 * As for your question on a German national identity, it was probably formed during the Renaissance humanism period like so many other identities in Europe at the time. Machinarium (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about or why it's relevant. You assert that there wasn't much a difference between East and West Francia. In what sense? The populations were not the same, did not speak the same languages, did not live in the same areas or belong to the same polity for more than a few generations (all with some exceptions, of course). What makes you think that Saxons, Lombards or Bretons had a Frankish identity? You assert that "a difference between French or Frankish was non-existent" and then that "Eastern Francia also kept a Frankish identity". Are you saying that it is correct to label Henry the Fowler's kingdom "French"? And you want to accuse me of anachronism?
 * The kingdom of Louis the German—you're the one spelling it Ludwig!—encompassed much of the territory of modern Germany, consisted largely of populations speaking German dialects, and was called Germania by educated contemporaries. It inhabitants bore names familiar to us today, because they are still in use: Saxons, Bavarians, Thuringians. I don't care if they self-identified as German or not. I never asked a question about German identity. Srnec (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was not much difference between east and west Francia when it comes to the identity of the realms. The kings called themselves Franks, kept Frankish customs and often still imagined a single Frankish empire. Of course the realms grew apart from each other but this was a long process. France itself is derived from Francia, which makes it less anachronistic to talk of a kingdom of France from the time of Hugh Capet. This doesn't mean that Henry the Fowler's kingdom was French. It means that his kingdom was a Frankish kingdom, or an east Frankish kingdom. For a long time in German historiography Henry the Fowler was considered to be the first king of the German Reich, and this view sometimes still prevails in English literature. In modern German historiography this is now no longer the case. The modern view is that the German Reich wasn't created by one act, but this was a longer process in which Henry undoubtedly played an important part. If you care, the German article on Henry the Fowler (a featured article) explains this pretty well and uses a lot of citations.
 * Since you're still wondering why this is relevant; you wish to change the birth of a German kingdom to match the birth of East Francia, which would mean that the Treaty of Verdun created the German Reich. This view surpasses even the old historiography which places the birth of the German Reich with the rule of Henry the Fowler and is thus a major anachronism. The actual 'birth' of a German Reich, is the time from which the realm north of the alps received a German identity. This first came from outside the realm, the designation of the realm as the regnum Teutonicum, and after the Concordat of Worms was slowly accepted in the north. This all seems to be well explained in the new book by Len Scales, which you may have noted already.
 * I don't know what reference to Louis kingdom as Germania you're talking about, maybe you can share it with me. In any case Germania had a completely different meaning in the ninth century (meaning an ancient region) and certainly didn't have anything to do with linguistics. The first references to Germany weren't Germania but Teutonicum and Alemannia.Machinarium (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe "Germania" was commonly associated with a region of Germanic speaking peoples by the early middle ages. In a depiction in the gospels of Otto III the empire is characterized by 4 figures named Sclavina, Germania, Gallia, Roma. Afaik the Romans had no word for a region called Sclavina, plus it would have been part of the ancient region of Germania. So excluding Sclavina from Germania seems to make a difference in languages spoken there.
 * Louis the German was called "rex Germanorum" and "rex Germaniae" in the annals of St.Bertin
 * "What I meant to say was I didn't receive a German name for this kingdom because there isn't one. You went on about 'the Römisch-deutscher König and the Römisch-deutscher Kaiser which isn't a name for this kingdom, just a translation of the titles Roman-German King and Roman German Emperor. You then mentioned Deutsche Königreich which is quite rare, and as MacX85 said 'has no tradition in German historiography'. MacX85 then said 'Deutsches Reich' is used vaguely to refer to either German land or the HRE in its total, which is exactly what I was trying to say. So there we have it, a German kingdom that supposedly existed for half a millennium is nameless in German historiography."
 * I gave you several contemporary names, like "Germania" "Teutonia" "Alemannia", or "regnum Teutonicum" "regnum Germaniae" and the like as well as German terms in Early modern times "Teutschland" "Deutschland" "Dutschelant" "Germanien". All of these appear as synonyms. I only found 1 contempary example of the combination of "Königreich" and "Deutschland" from 1621. The exact wording is "das hochgeehrte Königreich Teutschland mit dem Römischen Kayserethumb". While this combination of "kingdom" and "Germany" didn't seem to be very common in the German language there was no confusion about a "regnum Germania" and its translation as "Deutschland".--MacX85 (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's enough examples of Germania referring to an ancient region east of the Rhine, and not specifically to a German kingdom. This slowly changed around the thirteenth / fourteenth century but even until very late Germania could still be associated with a far greater region. The gospels of Otto III indeed differentiated between Germania and Sclavinia (though Germania here must have included Scandinavia). In any case before the existence of the HRE Germania certainly didn't just refer to the east Frankish kingdom. Louis was indeed named rex Germanorum which is why we refer to him as the German. This doesn't mean that east Francia and Germania were the same entity. The annals of St. Bertin were written in west Francia, and they named Louis German because he ruled land east of the Rhine. That doesn't mean he ruled all of Germania', it was just his name. Louis was still a Frank, his kingdom was still Frankish. East Frankish sources confirm this. The first references to Germany as we know it today were made sometime later in the 12th century (as Teutonicum and Alemannia) an were used alongside(!) east Francia. Machinarium (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your second response, I'm not disputing that German historiography makes use of Germany and its synonyms, but I do dispute that it considers this Germany to be a kingdom autonomous from the HRE. Or that Germany supposedly predates the HRE. Machinarium (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware "Louis the German" is a modern historian's term. And the Fulda annals use Germania in the exact same way, as I've said before.
 * You have this odd idea that if the king was Frankish then the kingdom can't be German. Or if it were German, it couldn't be Frankish. Do you really think these categories are so exclusive? This discussion is not about "Germany as we know it today", but rather Germany as it was back then. "Germany as we know it today" does not include, e.g., Austria. Numerous English sources have been cited showing that "kingdom of Germany", and just "Germany", are used by reliable sources in English to refer to East Francia and to a part of the Holy Roman Empire from the 9th century on. That is enough. Why don't you think it is? Srnec (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's anachronistic, based on few sources (many haven't been interpreted properly) and because it doesn't correspond to German historiography. I wouldn't mind if this article would be edited in such a way that it describes how the realm north of the alps in the HRE was to become known as Germany. The problem here is that the article pretends that it happened before the concordat of worms, and before the formation of the HRE. Also the realm was most certainly known as both east Francia and a German kingdom, I never said that was impossible. Like for example Otto Freising used both east Francia and regnum Teutonicorum in his texts. It's just that this happened a lot later than you seem to think. Anyway a new book has been published on this exact subject by Len Scales and I'm trying to obtain it. I hope this could solve the dispute. Machinarium (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, the name changed with the time. Same for the kingdom of Italy that was known as the "regnum langobadorum" in the 10th century, and same with France that was known as the "regnum francorum" until 13th century when it was named "regnum franciae". Seems to be a normal thing.--MacX85 (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about "the realm north of the Alps in the HRE" whatever it was called and whatever it is called. Historians call it the kingdom of Germany. It does not matter if that is anachronistic. Srnec (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. It depends on what time-span the article deals with. Historians call it east Francia in the first few centuries more often. German historians do so exclusively and medieval sources do so exclusively as well. Machinarium (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On a naming issue, the only important question is what reliable sources in English call it. German sources and medieval sources are irrelevant to such a determination. And while, certainly  "East Francia" is more common for the first century or so after Verdun, "Germany" or "Kingdom of Germany" is very frequently used for that period as well (and your constant dismissal of any usage of "Germany" as possibly meaning "Kingdom of Germany" is tiresome).  On the other hand, nobody, talking about the 11th or 12th century, talks about East Francia.  If we're going to merge the two articles, it's obvious that the title should be "Kingdom of Germany," because that can be and is used for the whole history of the kingdom, while "East Francia" is not. john k (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your constant argument that "Germany" is the same as "Kingdom of Germany" is whats tiresome. And so is your argument that German sources are irrelevant. Also in the 11th and 12th century the kingdom was also known as East Francia. In any case enlarging the greatness of "kingdom of Germany" by adding an additional few centuries to it baffles me, and I can't agree with merging the two articles. It would confuse things even more. In English literature "East Francia" / "Eastern Frankish kingdom" is still used a lot more than "kingdom of Germany / "German Kingdom", so I would generally oppose not calling it this way before and during the beginning of the high middle ages. Machinarium (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never said that "Germany" is the same as "Kingdom of Germany." I have said that some usages of "Germany" refer to the "Kingdom of Germany," which ought to be close to self-evident if you accept that some historians do talk about the "Kingdom of Germany." And please give an example of a historian who refers to Frederick Barbarossa or Henry IV or any other Salian or Hohenstaufen monarch as King of East Francia. For Conrad III of Germany, for instance, one of the few rulers in that period who was never crowned emperor, I can find lots of sources that call him "King of Germany" or "German King," including Britannica, and none that call him "King of East Francia."  Britannica also describes Conrad as "Regent of Germany" during Henry V's journey to Italy - do you suppose that when Britannica uses "Germany" here they are referring to Germania in the broad sense that includes Scandinavia, to the modern Federal Republic, or to the Regnum Teutonicum?  john k (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A reference to East Francia as "Germany" does not immediately mean an encyclopedia should pretend there is no difference between the two of them. Just like when in literature ancient Germania is named "Germany" for convenience sake it doesn't suddenly mean Germania = Germany. Regarding your second question, when I said "In the 11th and 12th century the kingdom was also known as East Francia" I was talking about medieval sources. I already know you consider this irrelevant. Machinarium (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What bugs me the most about merging east Francia into kingdom of Germany is that it would make any reference to East Francia redundant on the whole English Wikipedia, even though historians use it a lot more often than Kingdom of Germany. Machinarium (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even a medieval source that calls Barbarossa the King of East Francia would be of some merit, although not dispositive. And are you admitting that no modern historians refer to the Salian and Hohenstaufen state as "East Francia"?  Isn't that meaningful? Beyond that, you are of course ignoring, as you always do, that the most common name used by historians for this kingdom is neither "East Francia" nor "Kingdom of Germany" but "Germany".  Ignoring usages of "Germany" where "Germany" is obviously used to mean the Regnum Teutonicum is the only way East Francia comes out on top.  When historians write histories of "medieval Germany" the frame of reference is usually the Regnum Teutonicum. There are numerous, numerous references to Kings of Germany, regents of Germany, to Germany as a component of the Holy Roman Empire alongside Italy and Burgundy, and so forth.  The argument here is not that "Kingdom of Germany" is the most common term for the subject of this article.  "Germany" is the most common term for the subject of this article, but because we need to disambiguate the subject of this article from later states also called "Germany" we should disambiguate by using "Kingdom of Germany."  I don't understand why such a merge would make references to East Francia redundant.  It should still be the primary name used for the Carolingian period, whatever happens. Finally, any English name for a medieval state is a term of convenience.  And you are begging the question by assuming that any reference to a medieval "Kingdom of Germany" is "really" a reference to East Francia. "Germany" is obviously a term with a number of different meanings.  However, one of those meanings is, in fact, a synonym (more or less) for East Francia. john k (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Barbarossa, you're the one who mentions him. The realm was in a transitional phase in the early 12th century, losing its Frankish identity and gaining its German identity (after the concordat of worms). This page explains some of it for you if you care . Again there's a difference between using Germany for reference sake or as an official name for a kingdom. Just like references to ancient Germania as "Germany" doesn't suddenly mean we should pretend that they are the same. East Francia was pretty much THE official name for the kingdom before the HRE. Interestingly you say East Francia should still be the primary name for the Carolingian period. So why not keep the article? I guess what should be done first is simply expand both these articles first and work out at what point East Francia can no longer be called East Francia. If you believe this is when the Carolingian period ended fine, but there's enough evidence that this happened later. If we merge the two articles to "kingdom of Germany" it would look ultra-weird. Just imagine how it would have to start with something like "The Kingdom of Germany existed since the Treaty Verdun in 843, but became known as such three centuries later". Machinarium (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to keep both the articles. My main concern was not to merge this article into East Francia.  Merging East Francia here or having two articles both seem like acceptable solutions to me.  Having one article, East Francia, that deals with the kingdom in the Carolingian and perhaps the Saxon period, and another Kingdom of Germany, that largely focuses on the kingdom's history as one of the components of the Holy Roman Empire, seems appropriate to me.  And I think the first sentence of a merged article would be something along the lines of "The Kingdom of Germany, also known in its early years as East Francia...", with no particular need to mention that "Kingdom of Germany" didn't appear until later in the introduction.  john k (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with having two articles, although I think that East Francia should be a sub-article of this one. There should be a summary section about it here, with a main article hatnote. Srnec (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should be clarified what the Latin word "regnum" actually means. It does not necessarily translate with "kingdom". It can be some kind of realm with some kind of ruler. Around 860 for example a German monk named Otfrid von Weissenburg wrote a poem in which he praises Louis the German, King of the Eastern Franks. You can find the poem here. The poem, written in Old High German, bears the Latin superscription:

LUDOVVICO ORIENTALIUM REGNORUM REGI SIT SALUS AETERNA.
 * "Ludowico orientalium regnorum regi" translates with to Louis king of the eastern realms. "orientalium regnorum" is the plural form of gen.sg. "orientalis regni". The plural form shows that the writer had several realms in mind. Those realms of the king were Franconia, Bavaria, Thuringia and Saxonia, with Franconia headed by a king as being the eastern part of the since 843 divided Frankish realm. So there was e.g. a "regnum Bavariae" because the Bavarians had their own laws, different from those in Franconia or Thuringia, but there was in the beginning no king of Bavaria. Later on Louis appointed one of his sons as a (sub-)king there. You can perhaps compare this with England and Wales. Wales has been ruled by the English kings for a long time, but Wales never became part of England.


 * Furthermore should not be forgotten that in 843 the power within the "Regnum Francorum" had been divided in three parts, the "Regnum Francorum Occidentalium", the "Regnum Francorum Orientalium" and til 870 the "Regnum Lotharii". (e.g. Latin wp:here)
 * In my opinion the translation "Regnum Francorum" as "Kingdom of France" is responsable for a part of the confusion. It gives the wrong impression that there had been only one Frankish kingdom left and that is more or less France. (See here: West_Francia). However the West Frankish Kingdom and the East-Frankish Kingdom are the predecessors of France and Germany, while Benelux and Switzerland are more or less the successors of the "Regnum Lotharii". The East-Frankish Kingdom became later one of the "regni" in the HRE but there has never been a "Kingdom of Germany" like a "Kingdom of France" or "Kingdom of Sweden". "Regnum Teutonicum" was nothing else but another name for the East-Frankish Kingdom. Inside the "Regnum Teutonicum" you could e.g. find the "Regnum Bavariae" and so on. The meaning of the Latin word "regnum" depends on the subject.--Eusc (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a legacy from the 19th century german historiography, which distorced the facts to legitimize the newly created german empire. Moagim (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cite one historian who makes that claim? Srnec (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * @Eusc All a matter of definition, what a kingdom is and the early German kingdom complied more with the criteria of a kingdom than in England or in France. Naturally, in neither case we can compare them with modern states. Regarding "Regnum Bavariae": When did it exist and who were the kings? Regarding Benelux and Switzerland: Why do you think, they were more or less the successors of the "Regnum Lotharii"? Maybe, this is a certain Dutch view or wish. But the "Regnum Lotharii" was divided between the eastern and the western kingdom and these modern states are in no way any continuation of this old middle kingdom.Henrig (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. Yes, "regnum teutonicum" was nothing else but another name for East Francia. So, what exactly made it less of a kingdom than the Kingdom of France? There has been a traditional kingship (with changing titles) within this German/East Frankish kingdom. The HRE had another tradition. These were 2 concepts that overlapped each other. For example if the "Regnum Italiae" would have split from the HRE and no German king had ever been crowned emperor again, there would still have been a "kingdom of Germany" without any empire to encompass it all.
 * As for Bavaria, I believe it was refered to as "regnum" in the Carolingian age sometimes. That might have been because before it was part of the Frankish kingdom it was a kingdom (for the lack of a better word) for itself. There was no superior ruler. However, in the course of the High Middle Ages it was referred to as duchy which cannot be said for Germany.--MacX85 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Current situation: Ready for merger
Hello dear contributors, I would like to ask what the current situation is, assuming that we are ready for merger as outlined and thoroughly discussed above. Mootros (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are no citations at East Francia. I wouldn't oppose just redirecting that title here and boosting the section on that timeframe (840–962) in this article. Srnec (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No sense to ratify this wiki concept. Moagim (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Srnec and Moagim. Done! If any worries please use talk here and not over there. Mootros (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Procedural question
I for one don't like the idea of lumping eveything under Kingdom of Germany. East Francia is quite a distinct concept. But my question is, were the WP:MERGE guidelines followed? Has anyone used the Merge template to propose first and start the discussion? --Codrin.B (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking into this. Yes, guidelines were followed, in as much this move is a result of a lengthy discussion on this page. It is a pragmatic solution to a year long problem, as perusing the archive will reveal. Again, many thanks for your kind consideration and procedural concerns. Mootros (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

kindom of germany vs. east francia
i would very much object to merging east francia into kingdom of germany. it should raise doubts or at least suspicions that there is no equivalent term in the very country we're talking about: in germany, not even close: no königreich deutschland or deutsches königreich, and certailny not deutsches reich. one cannot swipe that asside just because this is "english" wikipedia. this deserves scrutiny. if there was the slightest merit in kingdom of germany, german nationalists would have certainly jumped on it. after all, the proponents of the kingdom would be confirming, that, god forbid!, the low countries were part of germany. nevertheless, i want to point out a number of questions and inconsistancies:

The Kingdom of Germany (also referred to as the German Kingdom; Latin Regnum Teutonicum) developed out of the eastern half of the former Carolingian Empire.

shouldn't it say "developed out of east francia"?

Like medieval England and France, it began as "a conglomerate, an assemblage of a number of once separate and independent... gentes [peoples] and regna [kingdoms]."

the comparison to england and france is a bit far-fetched. acutally, the areas of the stem duchies and the low countries were not independent and had already been incorporated under charlemagne.

East Francia was formed in embryo by the Treaty of Verdun in 843, and was ruled by the Carolingian dynasty until 911, ...

was east francia formed "in embryo" by this treaty or was it the kingdom? or was east francia the embryo of the kingdom? if east francia was ruled by a certain dynasty until 911, when was the kingdom born? Distinct titulature for Germany, Italy and Burgundy, which traditionally had their own courts, laws, and chanceries, gradually dropped from use.

how could such a term as "kingdom of germany", if ever used, be dropped, if it continued to exist, and why?

After the Reichsreform and Reformation settlement, the German part of the Holy Roman Empire was divided into Reichskreise (imperial circles), which effectively defined Germany against imperial Italy and the Bohemian Kingdom.

the "german part" ... was devided ... - suddenly the term "kingdom" disappears? was it still there. when the netherlands became independet from the hrr, was it also necessary to declare independence from the kingdom?Sundar1 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is basically a mess. Its history section didn't explain nothing about the subject in question, instead revolves around other topics as east francia, steam duchies or whatever. It's Terminology section cannot even concludes if this kingdom existed or not. But of course any attempt to solve this situation will be blocked editors claiming "consensus", despite the fact that there isn't any consensus if this existed or not. Ruddah (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Horst Fuhrmann's Germany in the High Middle Ages is translated from German by Timothy Reuter. He uses "German kingdom" and "kingdom of Germany" liberally. He always distinguishes the empire and the kingdom in his period (1050–1200), which does not overlap with the period of "East Francia". The kingdom of Germany and East Francia are the same thing, like the kingdom of France and West Francia.  The comparison with France is spot-on. England less so. In fact, all the stem duchies had been Merovingian vassal states prior to the Carolingians. The sentence is poorly worded and I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "separate and independent" in this context.  There is no difference between East Francia and the kingdom of Germany. It's just that terminology shifts over time (German Empire → Weimar Republic → Third Reich). Maybe this isn't clear in the article.  Terminology changes. Propaganda. The term "King of Germany" was resuscitated in the 15th century and used down to the end of the Empire in 1806. Germany was also a distinct part of the Empire. The sentence should be reworded, and the word "titulature" dropped.  Always plunking "kingdom of" in front of Germany would be awkward. We don't do that with England and France in the Middle Ages. Why Germany? However, the term "kingdom of Germany" was not widely used at this point. This is the "titulature" the other sentence speaks about dropping. The case of Dutch independence is quite complicated. It was never declared by the Dutch nor accepted by the Empire. Ruddah, you are free to edit the article as you see fit. Just use reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article should be abolished
This is such a confusing article. I still don't know when the tile of "King of Germany" is used, and which geographical region the title refers to. Is this tile used along with "King of Italy"? What is the difference between "King of Germany" and "King of Romans"? I don't mind editors use Latin or German words to explain this question.--111.206.128.140 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between "King of Germany" and "King of Romans"; in German: "Römisch-deutscher König" (Rex Francorum, Rex Romanorum, Germaniae Rex). --IIIraute (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Two-thirds of the article is taken up with explaining that there never was a Kingdom of Germany, which leaves the reader asking why the article exists at all. It's not unless the reader looks at the Talk pages and finds these years of erudite debate about whether this kingdom existed and what it should be called that he or she will understand the problem. But of course we can't expect readers to do that. I'm inclined to think this article raises more questions than it answers, and that it therefore serves no useful purpose for Wikipedia readers. It should be abolished and the history of Germany in this period dealt with under History of Germany and Holy Roman Empire. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is basically the work of a single editor and his POV views. Hóseás (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That editor probably has the same POV as Horst Fuhrmann. I was reading his Germany in the High Middle Ages, c. 1050–1200 (a Cambridge Medieval Textbook) and he assumes the existence of the kingdom of Germany throughout. Srnec (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm making a serious proposal to abolish this article. As the years of debate around this article's title show, contributors who are expert in this field cannot agree on whether a Kingdom of Germany ever existed. In the absence of consensus, surely the "negative hypothesis" should be adopted. I don't believe there is anything in this article which could not be happily accommodated in History of Germany, East Francia and History of the Holy Roman Empire. Could we get some comments on this? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this proposal. +1 from me! --Creihag (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt a kingdom of Germany existed. Those contributors who think it did not are far from "expert in this field". Does Intelligent Mr Toad have anything to bring to the table? A source, perhaps? "+1" is not usually how discussion is conducted. Srnec (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think you are the only "expert in this field" whose arguments should matter? .. no comment to that amount of arrogance. Simply have a look to the top of this page, there is more than enough doubt. A redirect of kingdom of Germany to History of Germany would be totally sufficient and extremely less confusing.
 * As for my "+1", please do also scroll up and see my posts of within the last two years. There is no need for me to repeat myself over and over again, I'm supporting the abolishment of this article. Creihag (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Srnec, of course there is "doubt a kingdom of Germany existed" - why else would there have been years of debate about the point here? I don't claim at all to be an expert in this field, and I am not entering the debate about whether there was or was not a Kingdom of Germany. My point is that there is no consensus among those who are experts in the field, and it's pretty obvious no consensus is going to be achieved. As I noted, a large part of the article is taken up with this issue. If I go to Denmark, I don't expect to find a long debate about whether Denmark ever existed. I have suggested that one way to solve this problem is to abolish this article and to transfer its useful content to other articles, so that nothing of value is lost, and a long and tedious debate can be concluded. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "My point is that there is no consensus among those who are experts in the field". I disagree. Among editors there is no consensus. Among experts there is no debate. (There's scores of debates, of course, about the nature of pre-modern Germany and the Empire, but I don't think there is any debate about whether the kingdom known in English as "Germany" existed or not. You can see another editor thinks France didn't exist before the late 12th century at Talk:Kingdom of France. What do you say to that? I call it extremely pedantic.) Srnec (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The same editor always blocks any advance over the article name despite being always in minority and going against consensus. Hóseás (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant of course that there is no consensus here about the question. Why don't you address the point I'm making instead of trying to be clever? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would you say "consensus among those who are experts in the field" if that's not what you meant? And then accuse me of "trying to be clever"? As far as I know, the only person who has entered this debate who claims to have a PhD in history is User:John K. You can read his comments above. I agree with them entirely. Srnec (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 1. Just because a man claims a title it does not automatically mean that the state exists. I still think that this article would be better off under the title King of the Germans. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything here besides pure assertion. The only reason this constantly gets argued about on Wikipedia, while nobody cares about the use of Kingdom of France for the same time period, is that the Kingdom of Germany, on the one hand, collapsed into feudal near-anarchy, and, on the other, became subsumed within the broader conception of the Holy Roman Empire. This, along with late 19th century German nationalist propaganda, means that a lot of people think they "know" that there was no such political entity as "Germany" before 1871. But this simply isn't true, and nobody has pointed to any actual reliable sources which say anything of the kind. john k (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which isn't to say that this article isn't bad. But one reason it is bad is that everyone who thinks it's bad uses that to argue that it should be deleted, rather than actually improving what is a perfectly reasonable topic for an article. john k (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, John, but my point is that you and various others have been arguing this question now for at least five years, and there is no consensus. I've read some of the debate, and it's not a case of one side being obviously right and the other side a lot of ignorant trolls. There are good arguments on both sides. Clearly, there is never going to be agreement. My question to you, therefore, is: other than pride, what reason is there for continuing the argument? Why not just abolish this article, and distribute whatever useful content it has (which isn't much) to other articles such as East Francia? We are, after all, only discussing a period of 74 years, between the death of Karl III in 888 and the coronation of Otto I in 962. What would be lost? This is the course taken by the German Wikipedia, which I assume is not edited by people entirely ignorant of German history. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article certainly should not only cover a period of 74 years. The Kingdom of Germany continued to exist after 962 as a component kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire, and its existence is meaningful at least to the end of the Hohenstaufen period, if not longer. Officially, it existed until the very end of the Reich. The current article does a bad job of dealing with this, obviously, but that's neither here nor there to whether the article should exist. I'd also add that I tend to disagree that there are good arguments on the other side, but then I would. john k (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any serious argument about whether such a kingdom existed. It obviously did. I see a certain argument concerning the name of the kingdom in English which I can understand and is solely attributed to its use in English literature. The kingdom has sometimes been called "Germania" or "Teutonia" "Alamania" and the like. The official king's title from 1508 onwards was "rex Germaniae" and stayed in use until 1806. Denying the existence of the concept of different kingdoms within the HRE (Germany among them) sounds to me highly ridiculous. I don't even know why you would do that.--MacX85 (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking sides in that argument, I'm trying to suggest a procedure for ending this long-running argument. I point out again that the German Wikipedia does not have an article corresponding to this one. So you can't really argue that it's essential to have it. It would be easy to incorporate this article's useful information into other articles. I ask again: what would be lost? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Valuable distinctions would be lost. The Holy Roman Empire is confusing enough when folks aren't conflating it with Germany. As for the "History of" articles, they are inevitably overview articles, lacking in precision, but very wide in scope. This is a sub-article of History of Germany. Srnec (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * a better name for the article would be a better start. Hóseás (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...exempli gratia...? --IIIraute (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe Kingdom of the East Franks, Germania or Kingdom of the Germans, anything would be better. Hóseás (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no, no! This just restarts the debate about whether there was or was not a Kingdom of Germany. My intervention is an attempt to end that debate, not restart it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea that abolishing this article is somehow a compromise is absurd. john k (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ... while it's useful information gets incorporated into the other articles about this topic. It's a great idea! Creihag (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So it looks like we'll finally abolish this article that is based on a narrow and selective reading of some sources while ignoring copious others. Mootros (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What is this? -- One of Wikipedia's few oddities
Don't you think, that if Kingdom of Germany was really a thing, there would be an article about it in the german wikipedia? Yes, the Holy Roman Empire is complicated but there never was a Kingdom of Germany. Why hasn't there already been a deletion proposal? --Xario (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! It's one of Wikipedia's few oddities. You're not the only person who thinks like this. Unfortunately a small band of vocal editors hold this article ransom and carefully play the diversity of different opinions* against each other. *Should be merged with HRE, or East Francia, or converted into an overview of the historiographical concept KoG that is sometimes used by English speaking historians, or just deleted.
 * Your input is appreciated. Mootros (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been a deletion proposal because. . . I don't know. I would oppose it, of course, but I have no idea why the many editors who have confidently and categorically proclaimed that the subject of this article never existed (like you) have never taken it to AFD. Perhaps they think the many reliable sources by leading scholars would mislead uninvolved editors into opposing the deletion.
 * Perhaps, Xario, you could explain more clearly why the Germans' lack of an article is relevant? Or Mootros, what the "historiographical concept" is meant to encompass if not an actual kingdom? Srnec (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's shorthand for the different entities such as EF and HRE. It's convenient because it gets you around having to agree when one started the other finished for example. Best to read the archive, or even to article's older version that were consistently purged of such "irrelevant" information. Mootros (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "East Francia" just morphs into "Germany" in historiography, as "West Francia" becomes "France" and "Asturias" becomes "León". Are you saying that the term "kingdom of Germany", when it is used, is used as a synonym for "Holy Roman Empire"? I think that's preposterous—it is used in contrast with HRE. Srnec (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying this. It's mostly used for the "in-between time" and definitely not when the HRE is historiographically well defined. Mootros (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So why do you think it is inappropriate to have an article covering Germany during that "in-between time", when Anglophone historians call it a kingdom? Srnec (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We've been here before. It's a selective and skewed reading of 19/20th century sources even among Anglophone historians. No one ever has questioned that there was a King of the Germans, but it's highly questionable --to the point of doubtful-- that there was a coherent socio-political entity called KoG except in historiographical terminology. Nothing wrong with that, but the article is not about this. Mootros (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * D. A. Warner (2010), "Rituals, Kingship and Rebellion in Medieval Germany", History Compass, 8: 1209–20, writes, "First, although the question remains subject to debate, it is generally agreed that the history of the medieval kingdom of Germany begins in the tenth century. . ."
 * Robert Plumer Ward, in An Enquiry Into the Foundation and History of the Law of Nations in Europe (1795), on pp. 440–41, has this to say: "The Empire of Rome and Kingdom of Germany are still in existence as such. [The German Monarch is] titled not Emperor of Germany as is vulgarly supposed, but elected Roman Emperor and King of Germany." In a footnote he adds that the Pope decreed "that Maximilian and his successors should style themselves elected Roman Emperors, which with the reassumed title of King of Germany, has been the custom ever since."
 * Can you cite any sources in favour of your understanding of what "kingdom of Germany" properly means? Srnec (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are basically talking about the King of the Romans, right?! In German you always say "roman german". And as stated before, you can not deduce the existence of a Kingdom of Germany from that title. --Xario (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Roman-German" is more anachronistic than the terms objected to! The term rex teutonicorum is contemporary with rex romanorum. But who's deducing a kingdom of Germany? As Warner says, "it is generally agreed". Srnec (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Verbatim quote of article passage (including sound sources) that was conveniently removed because it contradicts the narrow and highly selective view that some editor here maintain:

''' The British historian James Bryce stated that the five or six tribes which elected the King did not called themselves German but East Frankish and lawful representative of the Carolingian dynasty. "In the ninth century the kingdom was normally called 'the kingdom of the Eastern Franks', though its Frankish component was very much a minority interest." According to the British-German historian Timothy Reuter, the "standard royal title in the mid-tenth centry was simply Otto dei gratia rex, 'Otto by the grace of God king'". Others note the ruler’s standard title simply as rex at the time.

Mootros (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's Bryce, p. 132: "Of the German kingdom little need be said, since it differs in no essential respect from the other kingdoms of Western Europe as they stood in the tenth century. The five or six great tribes or tribe-leagues which composed the German nation ... were prevented from separating by community of speech and a common pride in the great Frankish Empire."
 * You didn't finish Reuter's sentence: ". . . or else it was called ‘Germany’ (Germania), which in a ninth-century context was a reminiscence of the terminology of late antiquity, not an anticipation of a later identity." Srnec (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, you're narrowly reading the sources. Both author make a point that none of the people called themselves Germans and that at the time there was no beast called KoG. They use the term as a historiographical shorthand for something that did not really have a name as such, possibly except for the Latin designator Germania. Mootros (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Who cares if it had a name? Historians have named it, and we have an article on it. Srnec (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what WP is all about. This particular name represents a narrow view of some English speaking historians, who use this as technical jargon. Other English speaking historians don't use it and the rest of the people around the world have never hear of it. It's highly controversial to say the lest. Hence the fact this talk page has grown enormously over the years and you don't seem to be interested in a sensible compromise. Mootros (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a German kingdom in the Middle Ages. This is agreed upon by historians of every nationality, including German ones. This is not about the popularity of the string of words "kingdom of Germany"—although that string of words is neither rare nor controversial, and you've provided nothing to show otherwise. Nobody opposed to this move has. They've made assumptions from inadequate readings or misunderstandings, and are blustering from there.
 * Since you appear to know German, perhaps you can read Müller-Mertens' work on the regnum teutonicum and tell me what his conclusions are. I have access to it, but not to enough of the German language. Then we might have a real debate. Srnec (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's generally agreed that there was a kingdom and according to Bryce it's called Kingdom of the Eastern Franks. I can already see from Müller-Mertens's title where this is going Aufkommen und Verbreitung der deutschen Reichs- und Königsauffassung im früheren Mittelalter i.e. the elected king had a unique role for the five / six tribes, which together cannot be assumed a coherent socio-political entirety. It's not without reason that he treads his analysis of the emerging understanding of empire and king together. Mootros (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why this is pointless. You ignore the title of the book—Regnum Teutonicum, it's in big letters on the cover—and focus on the subtitle (in English "Emergence and Spread of the German Conception of Empire [Reich] and King in the Early Middle Ages"), which you bizarrely interpret to mean that the book is about the king's "unique role for the five / six tribes, which together cannot be assumed a coherent socio-political entirety". How do you get that from Königsauffassung? You have no better idea what he says than I do, but you don't even think you need to read the book! No wonder you think most historians are on your side—you couldn't find even one work with "The Coherent Socio-political Kingdom of Germany" in the subtitle! Srnec (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a paper by Müller-Mertens (in German). Perhaps you can find some juicy quotes in it.
 * Robert von Friedeburg, in his essay "Origins of Modern Germany" in The Oxford Handbook of Modern German History, writes: "As the historian Eckhard Müller-Mertens has demonstrated, we can no longer assume a conflation of the Roman Empire and the German Kingdom over time, or an increasing Germanness of the whole, precipitated by the gradual shrinkage of the Italian and Burgundian dimension of Imperial power and a subsequent increasing identificatio of the remaining Empire with German-speaking lands." [capitalization original] If I had a better grasp of German, I could find out what exactly Müller-Mertens has said. Srnec (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the link to article. Step in the right direction! I'll try to read this. Mootros (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold move
This is a bold move that followed the achieved consensus on the article of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown. Mootros (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What about Kingdom of Bohemia? I have no idea what you're talking about. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous territories
When reading this article I still get the feeling that the Kingdoms of Germany, Italy, Bohemia, and Burgundy are supposedly autonomous areas, or independent polities. I think this is misleading. Am I wrong to think that that after 962 these kingdoms did not have rulers other than the emperor? If so, these kingdsom are "areas," and not autonomous kingdoms, and that's something that should be clearified. Machinarium (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Partly. In 962 Burgundy was still ruled by its own king. It was not inherited by the German king until 1033. You are right, though, that these kingdoms were not autonomous polities. Neither, however, were they mere "areas". They were constitutional of the Empire; that is, they were its basic political units. As for rulers other than the emperor at the kingdom-level: they did not have kings other than the emperor, but they could and frequently did have separate regents or vicars, who sometimes did and sometimes did not actually exercise power. Making the heir to the French throne, who also happened to be the dauphin of the Viennois within the Empire, the vicar of the kingdom of Arles (Burgundy) in 1378 is often regarded as the de facto end of that kingdom. Srnec (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Were there any regents or vicars for a German kingdom specifically? If so can you name some? Machinarium (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Be aware that the status of a so-called "Kingdom of Germany" has been questioned by a majority of commentators on this talk page. The term is only used in English and often rather vaguely or instead of "Holy Roman Empire". Read the above page and its last archive for a flavour of the discussion. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, I used to participate in discussions. But I'm trying to get to the source of the problem. Machinarium (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the root is that a %age of English sources use the term "kingdom of Germany" in various ways. However, German sources don't use the term at all which suggests what other editors are arguing, that such a body didn't exist in terms of what is generally understood by a kingdom i.e. a defined political and geographic area ruled by a sovereign king. Yes, there were kings who were German and, yes, there were Holy Roman Emperors with the honorific title "King of the Germans" but they had limited rule over a large number of German-speaking and non-German-speaking states which themselves were largely autonomous. If the Germans themselves don't recognise the term, it suggests that English authors have either misunderstood or mistranslated the Latin/German terminology, or are just using it as an alternative for Holy Roman Empire (HRE), perhaps because we English readers, not steeped in Central European history, might otherwise confuse HRE with the original Roman Empire. That doesn't mean we should delete the article, but we should make clear the scope of the term in English and not pretend it refers to an actual European kingdom that is a predecessor of modern-day Germany. I know the article creator would disagree, but he seems to be a lone voice. I think it's getting to the point where we need to round off the discussion, take a vote and take action. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Machinarium: Engelbert, archbishop of Cologne, was the regent of Germany during Frederick II's absence in the 1220s. Then there's the case of Ferdinand I, who governed Germany in his brother's lifetime and was supposed to make his nephew Philip vicar in Italy after he became emperor. In the 13th century the count palatine of the Rhine was considered to possess the right to govern Germany (ius administrandi iura imperii in partibus Alamanniae) when the king was absent; this right was later limited to certain regions by the Golden Bull.
 * @Bermicourt: Horst Fuhrmann uses deutsche Königreich and  deutsche Reich many times in his book Deutsche Geschichte im hohen Mittelalter. I know because I read Reuter's translation and wanted to know what terms were being translated "kingdom of Germany" and "German kingdom". I also have in front of me a sizable book, Regnum Teutonicum: Aufkommen und Verbreitung der deutschen Reichs- und Königsauffassung im früheren Mittelalter. The real problem here is that I am the lone voice presenting sources and not my own opinions and speculations. I have quoted from very reliable sources extensively, not just to show that the medieval German kingdom was real and is really an object of scholarly attention, but also to show that certain specific claims of this article's critics (like that they "are just using it as an alternative for Holy Roman Empire" or that the word "kingdom" is misleading) are wrong. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that there are sources using the term; the question is how and how many? The majority do not, but it is rather difficult for editors to cite the non-use of a term. We could cite hundreds of authors that use "Holy Roman Empire" and not "Kingdom of Germany", but how many would be needed to persuade you to change your viewpoint? I suspect it would be a nugatory exercise.
 * Even the article itself fails to make the case. It begins by asserting that "the Kingdom of Germany developed out of the eastern half of the Carolingian Empire." It then talks about the Carolingian Empire with the kings of East and West Francia, the stem duchies ("sometimes called kingdoms") and the Saxons/Salians, most of which is a quote which merely illustrates the confusion between the "kingdom of the Franks" and the "kingdom of the Germans" i.e. East Francia. It never gets to describe this "kingdom" as anything other than an alternative for East Francia or the Holy Roman Empire.
 * And the term "king of the Germans" was an honorific title used before the Emperor was crowned by the Pope. It was the political assent of the princes to the next emperor. The article cries out for some statement of the establishment and dissolution of a Kingdom of Germany and some indication of who its kings were - but there isn't any. It needs to focus (as it does in part) on the various uses of the term, but needs to acknowledge the mainstream position: there was no Kingdom of Germany but some authors have used the term in different ways that warrant explanation. -- Bermicourt (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Germany and the Empire are not the same thing and never were. The term "kingdom" (regnum) is the appropriate one for it, being both contemporary and well-used by historians. The question of what kind of kingdom it was, how it differed from France and England, what were its institutions, who its kings, is a separate issue. The article needs a lot of work. Srnec (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Srnec Ferdinand I lived in the 16th century, at a time when the HRE was already associated with Germany and the existence of a German nation. It's the Middle Ages that are problematic, not the early modern period. You mentioned Engelbert and a count palatine of the Rhine who I don't know, but neither of them appear to have been in control af an area as big as the regnum teutonicum. And that's exactly my point. Germany may have existed in the minds of people (kind of like today's Kurdistan), and existed as a title, but there was no polity called Germany; it was a region and a title, that's it. And that's also what this article should clearify in my opinion. Machinarium (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What you guys are describing is the Kingdom of the East Franks and after that a mere token title of the HRE to end merging with it altogether. Unless someone tries to prove they are all concomitants too. Vinukin (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the German sister article does a good job explaining the realm https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnum_Teutonicum Machinarium (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Translation of de:Regnum Teutonicum

 * Copied from original page for further improvements on Kingdom of Germany, as suggested here. Last sentence "The term has been translated ..." not part of the de-Wiki article. GermanJoe (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, GermanJoe. The text in the box above is the equivalent of this article on German Wikipedia. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)