Talk:Marcomer

Untitled
Where does the name Frotmund comes from? If there is not a credible source for this, or a source that is unknown to the people out here I think it is better to be conservative and leave this name out the article. Anyone has a problem with deleting Frotmund? Johanthon 31-01-2007


 * Everything that's known about Marcomer comes from Gregory of Tours's History of the Franks, book II, chapter 9 (available here). So says Pierre Riché's Dictionnaire des Francs: Les temps Mérovingiens, sv "Marcomer". Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Angus, are you the editor of this page? Just look at my update of the article. What you say is not true. Marcomer/Marchomir is a well attested historical figure that figures in many sources including the contemporain account of Ammianus Marcellinus. Marcomer is also named in quite famously in the Liber Historiae Francorum. Marcomer has also an artice in the PLRE (Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire). For your information: Frotmund is in none of those sources. Not even in Gregorius. Johanthon, 01-02-2007. 19:45hrs.


 * No, the article has nothing to do with me. Regarding Marcomer and Gregory of Tours/Sulpicius Alexander, that is not my opinion, it's what Pierre Riché says. My point is not that the mythical Frotmund should be included, but that everything not based on Gregory of Tours - Faramond for example - should be hedged about with qualifications; the LHF appears to be considered most useful for the period after 584. The PLRE, like the PmbZ/PBW/PASE, is a useful tool, but it's a supplement to, not a substitute for, secondary sources. Edward James, The Franks, pp. 52–54, sticks with Gregory, but also digs into Claudian for the account of Marcomer's deposition and exile in Etruria. Richardot's book on the late Roman army has some thoughts on Quintinus's campaign. No doubt other works have useful material. One question: where is Marcomer mentioned by Ammianus? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Angus, I have removed Frotmund and I do agree with you that the Faramond-thing actually needed qualifications, as you put it. My initial phrase ("may seem") indicates my own thoughts :-) but I was affraid that if I would go further than that someone should use the POV-argument against me. Also it is not that easy to formulate precisely and say things between the line if you are not a native speaker of English. I would appreciate it if you check my new version.
 * And Oops! My first version is written from the head and that was clearly not a good idea. Obviously Marcomer is not in Ammianus. I stand corrected and I do appreciate you have warned me. I have corrected my error and this time I did use both Gregory and Claudian as well as I hinted to James' reaction on the Trojan legend of the Franks. I added a new page of Genobaud and will update Sunno later.
 * Considering the sources I prefer the primary or contemporain sources but I do acknowledge the use of them should be in line with the common opinion of modern scholars. I do name the PLRE and their acceptance of Marcomer here on the talk-page solely because the Trojan-thing has led some minor scholars to say he is just "mythological".
 * I'm sorry to say I'm not familliar with Richardot's book. Can you help the article with that? Johanthon, 02-02-2007. 13:45hrs.

I added Magnus Maximus, Theodosius and de coupe of Arbogastes for the right context. Since Ammianus say that Constantius II held contact with Germans and urged them to attack his rivals it may be possible Theodosius did the same. Johanthon, 02-02-2007. 14:14hrs


 * Uitstekende werk! I'll look for the Richardot book. One thing: you can sign more easily with four tildes (gives your username and the date/time). Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)