Talk:Merovech

popular culture
This is not true that Holy Blood, Holy Grail invented the idea that Jesus sired a child who was, or was an ancestor of, Merowig. It merely exposed it to a larger audience. For that reason, I deleted the bit about it being a concoction of the authors, which was written in biased manner, anyway. confirmation that the idea wasn't original to HB,HG is on that page, as it refers to earlier sources with the same thesis.

I agree with whoever you are, entirely. Someone should go and read (or re-read, again) the book. However, your change has been erased and the original text reinserted. This wholly reflects on the bias of the one who wrote the article in the first place. Maybe they found it too academically disconcerting for their liking. It doesn't reflect mainstream thought, therefore cannot be correct in its' assumptions. "No evidence" etc, etc, etc. Just because it isn't "mainstream" doesn't mean it never happened, or existed, or isn't actually the fact/truth of the matter. History, and its' recording thereof, is an extremely subjective exercise of an subjective matter.

The only sure way of finding out what really happened or is fact, is to invent a time machine and go back to take a look. We'll be waiting some time (no pun intended) for that to happen.Ozmeister66 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Meroveus never existed???
I object to Way77's insertion that "According to all the existing historical data, Merowig never lived.". Clovis must have had a (paternal) grandfather, and it is very unlikely that he didn't know what his name was; whether it was Merowig or whatever we cannot know. Also since both Clodio (his supposed predecessor) and Childeric (his supposed successor) assumed royal status, this man is likely to have been king and has gotten a place in later genealogies and traditions. The fact that there are no contemporary records means nothing: absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Otherwise Jesus never existed either. Tom Peters 13:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom, Clovis did have 2 grandfathers. Everybody has 2 grandfathers, but that doens't prove that Merovech was one of Clovis grandfathers, does it? The problem with Merovech is not only that he is not attested by primary sources, the real problem is the interpretation of the primary sources we have. Modern scholars simply don't agree about the sources we have. There are scholars that insist that Merovech never could have been a Salian king because of the chronological order. There are older scholars that insist he must have died in 448. There are older scholars who insist he started his kingship in 448 and there are older scholars who insist his kingship must have started at 457. I think that currently most scholars agree with Ian Wood (The Frankish Kingdoms) that everybody from before Childeric has to be considered as legendary in the Merovingian house. Wood calls even Childeric "shadowy". And Wood is - together with James - the most cited scholar on this thing. johanthon 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And the big problem with citing many academic references, Johanthon, is that the contents of those references, especially where it concerns historical personages, is only the opinion of that academic. Whilst it maybe fact, it might not be truth...not all "facts" no matter how established are the truth, and the same can be said for the truth as well. Remember the quote, "History is written by the victorious"....much of history has been glossed over and/or ignored, suppressed, misinterpreted etc etc. Merovech (Merovee, Meroveus or whatever you want to call him) has as much historical veracity as anyone else, including Jesus who, apart from the Bible (and we all know how much historical veracity it actually has), has little by the way of evidence that he even existed. Few if any contemporary records record his presence in Judea or anywhere else at the supposed time of his existence. You are correct in your assumption about interpretation of primary sources of information, and in saying that this means Woods and James, despite their credentials and citations, have no more handle on the truth or fact of the matter than anyone else. They just happen to be the "flavor of the moment" amongst the academic community. Given what we think we know, nothing can be certain about Merovech but given that he isn't quoted in the primary sources doesn't mean he never existed or isn't Childeric's father.


 * It's just as likely that he did and so you can't discount him as being who he was.Ozmeister66 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been reading medieval history for a long time and I know of no reputable historian who believes that "Merovech" was anything but an eponymous but entirely mythical figure. Yes, of course, Clovis "had a grandfather." He undoubtedly also had a great-great-great-grandfather. And perhaps he knew who both of these gentlemen were -- but that doesn't mean we know. The Frankish royal house also asserted descent from the Trojans (for political reasons, in order to put themselves on an equal footing with the Romans, who claimed the same origins); does that mean we should take this claim seriously? Moreover, it is generally considered most likely that Clovis became king not through a mere inherited title, but through his own military and diplomatic exertions. Childeric was a tribal leader; Clovis became king of all the Franks somewhat in the same way that Napoleon became emperor of all the French: By his own talents. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct in saying that...no reputable historian would acknowledge "Merovech" is anything but mythical. But historians have made some bad judgment calls in the past about what is or isn't mythical. Troy, for instance. If you really want to look at it with a cold, hard eye, there's no evidence either way for his existence or non existence as the paucity of records from that time attest to. The only way to be certain of anything here is to keep looking. If you were to put this through rigorous, scientific testing...generate the null hypothesis and then try to falsify the results, all you'd manage to do is prove that you don't have enough evidence to come to a conclusion either way. Being subjective about a conclusion just because someone else hasn't found any evidence is not the way to go about it. You need to have evidence to base your conclusions on. Not finding any and then coming to a conclusion just makes that conclusion an opinion...nothing more, nothing less. But it's hardly a definitive answer. Most history is based on hearsay and conjecture, anyway. So how reputable can it be for the most part. In order for it to be reasonably ironclad, it should be put to rigorous testing. This is where historians can learn a thing or two off science with respect to hypothesis testing. I'm very well aware of the claims made by people in the past regarding their pedigrees. Much of it is probably fantasy, some maybe truth, but when you don't have enough evidence to prove or disprove what's being said, then all you have is opinion...not fact or truth. To make that opinion fact or truth is disingenuous at best, downright fraudulent and academically outrageous at its worst. Same can be said for promoting a fantasy as fact/truth, knowing full well it isn't. No claim, no matter how genuine it appears, should be taken at its face value until it is thoroughly tested. If nothing either way comes of that testing, then it can only be said to be probable or possible. The maxim "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" applies.--Ozmeister66 (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Merowig? Why do we present a German name of a "Proto-Dutch" on an English site?
Anyone? Could anyone explain why we use a German name? For Merowig is just a modern German name. As far as I know it has no origin in primary sources. The guy we are talking about is a Salian Frank. This means his ancestors came originally from the Netherlands. His native language Low Franconian is presented as "proto-Dutch" by modern scholars as Robinson from Stanford University. In his own language he is called Merovech. There are Latin alternatives, maybe even English alternatives, but why oh why do we use a German name on a Dutch guy? Does Wikipedia favores Germans above the Dutch? johanthon 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "Dutch" is entirely meaningless when you're talking about the 5th century, just as "France" has no meaning at that period. And "German" is a linguistic and ethnological classification in referring to the barbarian invasions & migrations, not a national or political term or entity. That said, most historians writing in English call the mythical founder of the Frankish royal line "Merovech," and that's what I would recommend myself. Finally, Dutch and the northwest German dialects derive from the Frankish language -- but that tells us almost nothing about where the Franks themselves actually originated. The current theory is that the Franks were not a historically unified people but rather a regrouping of several (or perhaps many) smaller tribal groups with obscure histories originating on the lower Rhine. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Attempted merge
It looks like there was some attempt to merge the articles Merowig and Merovech, with the result that some information was lost, and the edit histories of the two pages are pretty tangled. If anyone is digging into the history here, please be sure to check the histories of both names. It looks like some sourced information was also removed. I'll attempt to untangle, and if anyone else sees lost information, please feel free to add it back in. --Elonka 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (update) I have restored an earlier version of the Merowig article and added merge tags to both articles. I also added the Holy Blood Holy Grail information back in to the Merovech version (this was well-sourced, so I'm not sure why it was removed). I agree that "Merovech" is the best title for this article, but we need to merge in some of the other information from Merowig, as well as the succession box. --Elonka 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Finished merger. Feel free to add or remove data, but PLEASE do not re-instate the old Merowig-page. There never has been any Merowig in Frankish history. johanthon 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of his name
Did the "vech" part of his name stem from "wig" (cf archaic Dutch wijg "battle") or from "vech" (cf Dutch vecht, English fight)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgengave (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln and Leigh
Why not mention the one speculation from Holy blood, holy grail that is actually significant about the Merovingians, which they base upon seemingly Hebrew etymology of a number of Merovingian names and holds that they were really diaspora Jews who somehow managed to gain chiefdom over the Franks and led them to conquer half of Western Europe? According to Lincoln and Leigh, the Merovingians didn't "marry" into the bloodline of Christ, they really were the royal family from the house of David, and their legendary maritime origin would refer to how the Merovingians, coming from the Middle East, originally reached Gaul by ship. According to the authors, it also explains their ominious origins clouded in legend as they were trying to hide their Jewish descent from the Franks.

Which all plays into how Lincoln and Leigh also hold the Merovingians to be identical to King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, by pointing to facts that are also mentioned by many legitimate Arthurian scholars they cite: Many places in Arthurian legend are actually in Gaul without Arthur and his Knights crossing the channel, and many of Arthur's knights have names that are obviously not of Celtic nor Latin origin. Most Arthurian scholars just say they don't know what etymology the names might derive from, while Lincoln and Leigh present Hebrew etymologies for their names.

So you see, there's a lot more to Lincoln and Leigh's hypothesis than just saying that the Merovingians somehow "married into the bloodline of Jesus". --79.242.222.168 (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Merovech relationship with Chlodio
Does this contemporary reference of Priscus confirm that Merovech was Chlodio's son?



Ennio Fabbro (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Its just a LEGEND, look the word up and read the definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.135.79.127 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Merovech's existence as a real person is not "Semi-legendary"
The claims that Merovech is "semi-legendary" seem to refer mostly to all the stories and legends surrounding him and the founding of the eponymous dynasty, not to his existence as a real person. There are descriptions of him, his life and his rule (including his participation in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains and the civil war to secure the Frankish throne. He was an ancestor to the later Frankish Kings and to nearly all of the European royal and high-noble houses, who have highly researched genealogies, tracing back thousands of years not just to Merovech himself, but also to Merovech's ancestors up to 200 years before he lived.

If Merovech isn't real from whom do all these people descend from? Why would these long genealogies have a faulty link precisely on the person of Merovech himself? He is subject to several legends and myths, augmented by his royal descendants, but to question his existence as a real person is nearly ridiculous. User:CaptainKaptain 01:27, 06 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please bring a reliable published source from this field to the discussion if necessary. However I am not sure exactly what the problem is. Historians generally treat him as semi-legendary, as you say. This term tends to mean that he might have existed, but the only records we have of him are intrinsically unreliable - i.e. legends and myths. So for example maybe the name was right, but we know nothing else. Genealogies about founders who were born from magical beings do in fact tend to be unreliable. Such things are common. It is hard to understand what you mean by asking how genealogies can contain errors. People are still faking their pedigrees and making up stories about magical beings today, let alone in the Dark Ages. Long medieval genealogies, even in much later and better attested periods, are known by specialists in such areas to be unreliable, because they commonly disagree with each other, and disagree with more reliable evidence when available (such as royal charters).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The thing is, there is vast documentation about his life and deeds, not to mention the highly researched genealogies which - even if they give a fancy origin to him or something (they don't, chronicles do) - still refer to a real person, who did real things. Not a "ghost", not an invention. The practice of giving divine or mythical ancestors to people has religious connotations, including among the ancient peoples inhabiting Germania. There is, though, a factual genealogy of Merovech, tracing his actual father and ancestry up to the earlier Frankish Kings and the Sicambrians. The water-monster history comes from a medieval chronicle, not from the endorsed genealogies even of the European royal families, so I think that to treat him as a non-being in the article is to disregard his attested historical existence. Anyway, I'm quite satisfied with the article, as it does cover the entire discussion surrounding it. User:CaptainKaptain 22:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of French language
on this article and Childeric I you have removed the French versions of their name with the remark that Merovech and Childeric were Frankish, not French. I am not really sure what difference you are insisting upon in this particular period of history. They are widely seen as relevant to the origins of France, which of course was, in its earliest phases, Frankish. Presumably your edits have something to do the idea that you believe they spoke a Germanic dialect as their first language instead of a Romance one. This may be true (we have very little information) but they were living in a multilingual environment and they are important to the histories of several countries, especially France. Your edit summary on both articles also makes no sense to me: This isnt a reason to give him a french translation, with your logic, a Mongol of the Mongol empire who was born somewhere else than modern mongolia would need that modern day regions translation now, your reasoning doesnt fruit Actually, yes, for a Mongol who lived in Persia and was important in Persian history, we would probably give the Persian version of their name. It fruits. On the other hand the comparison is very imperfect. There were native Franks living in their homeland where Germanic and Romance languages were being spoken (and still are). They were not alien conquerors who had come from a far away country where a completely foreign language was spoken. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * But then you also shall add a german translation, since the frankish empire was the predecessor of both modern germany and france, eastern francia transformed into germany, even the original land of the franks lies between france, netherlands, belgium and germany, a german translation makes just as much sense as a french one Frankish Human (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While the mongols in the Ilkhanate did speak persian, there is no source stating that the franks spoke french in that time, for example, Armenian resistance fighters or generally any armenians who lived on modern day turkey also dont got a Turkish translation, for the person to have a translation, they should have spoken the language I think Frankish Human (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Lancaster Frankish Human (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter whether they spoke "French"? I am going to go out on a limb here and say that despite the lack of evidence these men spoke no modern languages at all. So what? Why do you think we put name variants on some articles? My understanding is that this is because we try to represent names which readers are likely to come across and might be confused by. It is not about trying to represent their original language, and it certainly shouldn't be about modern nations laying claim to them. I am not a fan of overdoing these names, but French and Latin are relevant because readers may come across them, and they look different to English. Adding Dutch or German versions would be a better move than removing French, but they are very similar to English. Reconstructed Frankish might be a better way to indicate the general form of the Germanic versions. This is what we have done in other similar articles. In any case, please put the French back.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Eh alright Frankish Human (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)