Talk:Middle Francia

Untitled
The result of the move request was no consensus. Simply, a consensus could not be reached amongst the six editors who participated in the discussion, who were split half-and-half between supporting and opposing the merge proposal. Thus, the article remains as it is for the moment. Laurinavicius (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no move request. Srnec (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, the terms "move request" and "merge proposal" essentially mean the same thing. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Does this term have historical use? Why not combine this with Lotharingia, explaining the difference? --Wetman (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lotharingia is only one of the subparts of Middle Francia. It is its own historical entity, and the term is used in discussing it. I can only imagine that is what the question "does this term have historical use" means, but it is so vague, I can't be sure. -Rrius (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't Agree with merger. Lotharingia is only a part of Middle Francia. Spshu (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an ephemeral historical entity and there is no use in treating it separately of the regnum Lotharii, especially since near contemporaries weren't even sure to which Lothair the term referred. I preformed the merger and I can assure Rrius that no useful and true information was lost. If he thinks otherwise, can he cite the lost information? And the two "oppose votes" look rather silly telling the proposer that Lotharingia is only a part of Middle Francia, since the proposal specifically asks that the difference between them be covered at Lotharingia, which it currently is. Srnec (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been handled wholly inappropriately. On August 15, 2009, User:Wetman put a merger tag on article page. A mere 16 hours later, User:Srnec merged by making this a redirect to Lotharingia. This came to my attention 11 days later, so I reverted and contributed to the discussion. A month later, September 25, 2009, User:Spshu disagreed with the merger on this talk page. Then, 10 hours later, Srnec argued for the merge, calling the the opposing arguments "silly" because they disagree with the initial post. Just over a day later, he again made this a redirect.

First of all, there is clearly a discussion to be had before a merger. Merging almost immediately after the proposal and very shortly after a second editor argues against the merger is improper. Wait for consensus. Second, it would be best to address the actual points made. Both of us argued that it seems wrong to handle the whole in the article devoted to one or all of the parts. Address why that seems actually necessary. Third, I also mentioned that Middle Francia was an actual kingdom, and the term is used in discussing it (as opposed to "that forerunner of Lothuringia"). Third, Lotharingia does not have all the information. For example, the entire last paragraph is not included there and would not make sense there. Finally, this is a topic that is unlikely to draw much attention on its own, so we should draw attention to it in larger forums. I'll give notice of the issue at the related project pages, please add it anywhere else you can think of. -Rrius (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rrius here, the way this matter went about is completely inappropriate. Before such a decision on whether or not to merge these pages was made and carried out, there needs to be time for discussion on the talk page and for a consensus to be reached. Twice, Srnec has merged these two articles together after little discussion had been made, after barely any time had elapsed, and without anything near to a consensus, which is simply improper! That is not how merging, and this encyclopedia and general, work!
 * I also feel that Rrius was also right in posting notices on the WikiProject talk pages that these articles are a part of. Drawing attention in larger forums is necessary for more editors to assess each side's arguments and then make a decision on which side to support, which is especially necessary on a lesser-known topic, like this one. Otherwise, most editors (like myself) would never have come across this debate and it likely would have remained deadlocked with little possibility of a consensus being reached.
 * Now, on to my opinion of the merger. Once again, I agree with Rrius here: I Oppose the merger. Though I am no expert on this topic, it seems obvious to me that Middle Francia and Lotharingia are two separate entities. Just look in each article's opening sentence: in the former article, Middle Francia is described as "a short-lived realm created for Emperor Lothair I (843-855) wedged between East Francia and West Francia" meaning that Middle Francia is its own independent nation. On the other hand, Lotharingia is described as "a region in northwest Europe, comprising the Low Countries, the western Rhineland, the lands today on the border between France and Germany, and what is now western Switzerland." This indicates that Lotharingia was not a separate kingdom or independent nation, but just a region or territory of land. Also, the article states that "it was born of the tripartite division in 855 of the kingdom of Middle Francia" saying that Lotharingia became an independent state after Middle Francia existed, but during the time that Middle Francia was its own kingdom, Lotharingia was just a region within it. Therefore, this shows, at least to me, that Middle Francia and Lotharingia were two, separate, historical entities, and thusly, in my opinion, they should not be merged together into a single article. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no use talking about "independent nations" in Carolingian Europe. Middle Francia was a division of the empire, probably never expected to last very long and certainly not designed to break up the single empire. Lotharingia was as much a kingdom (land ruled by a king) as Middle Francia after 855. But it was a duchy (land ruled by a duke) in 925. Lotharingia did not exist before 855, just as Middle Francia is not spoken of after that date. They were two separate historical entities—but that's just what Wetman admitted when he asked that the difference be explained in one article, which is by far the most efficient way to do it, since the two cannot be separate in any historical account and there is not enough to say about Middle Francia to justify a separate article. That is why this article is complete (and unsourced) duplication. Srnec (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is of use talking about independent nations. After the division, its territory as no longer ruled as part of Francia. It was a distinct realm. And, again, it was certainly not a part of Lotharingia. Quite the opposite. Finally, not all the information is duplicated at Lotharingia, and a lack of references is not a reason to merge. -Rrius (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got it all wrong. It was a part of Francia even after 843, since the Empire remained. I never said it was a part of Lotharingia, although some historians call it the "Lotharingian axis". What true information isn't merged? You mentioned the last paragraph, but it's not even about Middle Francia! There is (almost) no need speaking of Middle Francia after the death of Lothair I (855). Srnec (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rrius here. It seems to me that, to put it simply, this merge proposal serves to put a portion of the information regarding an independent sub-kingdom of the Frankish Empire within the article regarding a region which was included within this sub-kingdom, while some information regarding the sub-kingdom would be discluded from the merge and ultimately deleted. This just seems absurd to me! And, Srnec, I feel that there is a need to speak of what became of Middle Francia after Lothair I's death, as it gives a complete history of Middle Francia. Just ending the information abruptly with his death is not what should be done. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the meaning of "independent sub-kingdom"? Everybody understands perfectly what the merge is about, but unlike you and Rrius I believe that since no article on Middle Francia can be anything more than a stub, a duplication of a part of Lothair I's article, or excessively padded with "background" and "epilogue", it is conveniently merged into Lotharingia ("Lothair's kingdom", sometimes thought to refer to Lothair I by contemporaries). The current Lotharingia article currently explains Middle Francia, the circumstances of its formation and of its breakup, but as it was never a natural unit, only a historiographic term for the divison of the empire ruled by Lothair I directly as king, there is no using speaking of it except in connexion to the years 843–55. There is no Middle Francia after his death. The history of its components is (or should be) covered elsewhere (e.g. at Kingdom of Italy (medieval)). Srnec (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, once again, Lotharingia does not do a complete job of dealing with the information at this article. Whatever you think, some of what Middle Francia was will only make sense here. Whether it overlaps other articles is beside the point. Someone who wants to learn about what Middle Francia was shouldn't have to read all of Lothair's article and the articles of each of the three realms formed from it. Furthermore, if this were to be a redirect why would Lotharingia be the target? -Rrius (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What information is not contained at Lotharingia that should be contained in a separate article on Middle Francia? Be specific. If they want to know what Middle Francia was, it is described in the lead at Lotharingia and in a section title "Middle Francia". It couldn't be easier. When Lothair I died, Middle Francia ceased to have any meaning as a political unit and it has no history after that. Srnec (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I stated above where you can find the information that isn't included, but I tire of repeating of myself. The Confederate States of America ceased to have any meaning as a political unit after the American Civil War, so perhaps it should be merged with Virginia. Your argument makes very little sense. "Middle Francia" is a term that has historical meaning. It makes no sense to have readers going to the "Middle Francia" section of "Lotharingia" to find part of the story (not even all of the Middle Francia-related material in that article is in that section).


 * Finally, will you stop redirecting this article before there is consensus? Your having made a contribution on this talk page is absolutely not consensus, yet that seems to be the trigger for each of your premature mergers. Whether it is arrogance or sneakiness that causes you to do it, please stop. -Rrius (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Srnec, it's simple: during this time period, Lotharingia was a region and Middle Francia was an independent kingdom. There were two different historical entities! It just seems absurd to me to re-direct an entire article, full of information on a kingdom, to the article of one of the region's under its jurisdiction, which only gives a brief description of the kingdom. Yes, there should be a portion of the Lotharingia article that gives information regarding the region while it was under the dominance of Middle Francia. But no, the entire Middle Francia article should not be merged with Lotharingia just because there is a brief description of Middle Francia in the Lotharingia article. Middle Francia deserves its own article. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more thing. Srnec, you asked me earlier to define "independent sub-kingdom", so I will. Middle Francia, in several articles that I read, is described as an independent kingdom or independent sub-division of the Frankish Empire. So, "independent sub-kingdom" is a combination of the two, as Middle Francia was its own independent nation, and a sub-division or sub-kingdom of the Frankish Empire. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you say "There were two different historical entities!" as if that is being denied? This article is full of unsourced information all of which is available—sourced—elsewhere, like at Lotharingia, for instance.
 * "It just seems absurd to me to re-direct an entire article, full of information on a kingdom, to the article of one of the region's under its jurisdiction, which only gives a brief description of the kingdom." This demonstrates a misunderstanding on your part, and a pretty bad one. There was no Lotharingia before 855, when it was created for Lothair II. It happened to be more enduring than the equally makeshift polity known as Middle Francia. The two never existed at the same time. Middle Francia is nothing more than the division of the Carolingian Empire/Francia ruled by Lothair I after the Treaty of Verdun (843) and until his death. Its history is no more than the biography of Lothair after 843. It has no special capital, flag, currency, foreign affairs, ministry, etc. It is a ninth-century western European jurisdiction with no antecedents and no descendants, save Lotharingia, which was just as makeshift and pragmatic. (Provence and Italy existed before, during and after Middle Francia.) In essence it was ad hoc. It was a solution to a problem of the inheritance of Louis the Pious's sons: they retained a united empire but each got his own sphere of royal influence. There is nothing more to say. This is why it is best just to merge. Srnec (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OH! I understand now! I said earlier that I was no expert on this subject and I just completely proved that here. I understood this incorrectly and thought that the information on Lotharingia and Middle Francia suggested that they existed at the same period of time, which is what completely threw me off. Now, after having a more complete understanding of the material, I am better able to formulate an educated opinion on the merge proposal. Therefore, I change my vote from "Oppose" to Support. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that the information overlaps with other articles is immaterial. If it were wholly covered by "Lotharingia" and only relevant to that, that would be one thing. In fact, there is material in "Middle Francia" that is not in "Lotharingia", and Middle Francia is relevant to a number of other topics, including Lothair and the various successor states. Moreover, anyone seeking to add information on the topic of Middle Francia is not likely to do so while it is a subtopic of "Lotharingia", or is likely to be stopped if he or she does on grounds of WP:UNDUE. It does not hurt anything to have this article, so I don't see the reason for this proposal. -Rrius (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no material here that is not somewhere else in this encyclopedia. As it should be. There is nothing "uniquely" Middle Frankish that would only belong here. There is, in fact, nothing more that could be added. As I said, and as Laurinavicius seems now to realise, nothing can be said about Middle Francia that cannot be said of Lothair I's reign after 843. They are practically synonymous. It hurts because it doesn't help the reader to sort things out and put things in context. The Lotharingia article is essentially about the rise of a region known as "Lothair's realm", which has its beginnings in Francia media (realm of Lothair I) and its endings in the province of Lorraine. Srnec (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Every piece of important information on Middle Francia is already contained, and cited, in both the Lotharingia and Lothair I articles. Meanwhile, the article on Middle Francia contains mostly background and epilogue information and much less information on Middle Francia itself, all of which is unsourced and uncited. And, as Srnec said earlier, Middle Francia had "no special capital, flag, currency, foreign affairs, ministry, etc. It was a ninth-century western European jurisdiction with no antecedents and no descendants, save Lotharingia, which was just as makeshift and pragmatic. Its history is no more than the biography of Lothair after 843." Simply, that's the reason why the Middle Francia article, full of unnecessary background and epilogue, should be merged into Lotharingia, which has all of the important information regarding Middle Francia but with sources and citations and excluding all of this background and epilogue. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The very fact that Lothair I and Lotharingia contain the information shows that this should not be a redirect to one of them. Instead, this article should be improved to contain the sourced material those do. Wikipedia isn't about deleting imperfect articles; it is about improving them. -Rrius (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) If this is eventually merged (as appears to be the direction this is moving in), it needs to actually be merged. That requires more than simply making this a redirect. There is material in this article that is not at Lotharingia. It is incumbent upon the person performing the merger to find and preserve that information. What's more, I will not accept "it's not sourced" for a reason to refuse any more than I do for the merger in the first place. Absolutely nothing is sourced at Lotharingia, despite the assertions above. Bibliographies are not the same thing. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, pertinent information that is not mentioned in either Lotharingia or Lothar I definitely should, if the merge is carried out, be moved from this article to the article with which this one is merged into, whether it be Lotharingia or Lothar I. A re-direct alone would not suffice.
 * Also, there are sources for this information at both articles. While, there are no paranthetical citations (which I mistakenly said there were previously), there are both references and external links (particularly in Lotharingia) that the reader can view in order to validate the article's information. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I made sure all pertinent information was mentioned, and then some, in the Lotharingia article when I performed the merge unilaterally. That is why all we need do is create a redirect. Srnec (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, once again, a bibliography is not the same as in-line references. Second, not all the information is included. I've pointed out some above, but even a comparison of the length of this article and the anemic "Middle Francia" section of Lotharingia (and even giving due consideration to MF's brief treatment in the lead) indicates that this article is not completely encompassed in Lotharingia. It is not enough to say that some of it is contained at Lothair I or elsewhere on Wikipedia. If someone looking for information about Middle Francia can't go to one article and find all the information one would expect to find in an article on Middle Francia, then a merger is wholly unjustifiable. You say you made sure all "pertinent information" was "mentioned". Pertinent to what? To Lotharingia? What did you exclude? On what basis. If we do move to a point where we merge, I will demand that you justify each and every fact you seek not to preserve. -Rrius (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By "pertinent" information, I meant both relevant and important to Middle Francia. While I see that both Lothair I and Lotharingia do contain the key portions of information, many of the important details have been left out. These details must be included in Lotharingia and/or Lothair I before any possible merger should take place. I still support the merge proposal, but I agree with Rrius that a large amount of work must be done before any merger could occur. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still not clear to me what is missing from the Lotharingia article that needs to be said about Middle Francia. Srnec (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just feel that there are some details that are in Middle Francia that should be added into Lotharingia before any move would take place. If you want specific ones, I'll give them. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk)

No need to give them, just add them to Lotharingia and then redirect this title there. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My first hint on picking up some of what isn't there is to read over what has been said on this talk page. Another is to compare the article here with the section called "Middle Francia" at Lotharingia. Since the kingdom Lotharingia is not the same thing as Middle Francia, people who search for "Middle Francia" and are redirected to "Lotharingia" should be able to read the section on Middle Francia and get everything the article has to say about it. Some of that could be fixed by simply moving most of what is in the lead about Middle Francia to the section, and leaving behind a summary (i.e., what is supposed to be in a lead). More broadly, to see what is and is not included, it actually takes going fact by fact and making sure that they are all included. It is not mine or Laurinavicius's duty to do that job. Preserving content is the job of whomever does the transfer, presumably you, Srnec. -Rrius (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the person who performs the merger should be the one to do this. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I said above: "I made sure all pertinent information was mentioned, and then some, in the Lotharingia article when I performed the merge unilaterally." Srnec (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Now, we need to tally the support and oppose votes and see if there is a consensus to merge or not to merge before a merge is possibly carried out. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've said, though, it's not all there. You missed stuff. -Rrius (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AVD's intervention
Sigh, here goes .... I oppose the merging of Middle Francia into Lotharingia.

The Empire of Francia was partitioned via the Treaty of Verdun (843) into three sister allied Kingdoms,


 * Kingdom of West Francia (i.e., most of France)


 * Kingdom of Middle Francia (i.e., Netherlands, Eastern Belgium, thin-strip along the Rhine, Northern Italy)


 * Kingdom of East Francia (i.e., most of Germany)

Now Lotharingia consisted only of a portion of Kingdom of Middle Francia namely,


 * Netherlands,


 * Eastern Belgium,


 * thin-strip along the Rhine

Hence, the merging of the larger-whole Kingdom of Middle Francia into the smaller-subdivision of Lotharingia is asinine, and frankly stupid.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that is the exact same way that I felt previously. However, there is one piece of crucial information that makes your line of argument incorrect: Lotharingia technically did not exist under the rule of Middle Francia. Lotharingia was "born of the tripartite division in 855 of the kingdom of Middle Francia", as stated in the its article. As Srnec put it, the history of Middle Francia "history is no more than the biography of Lothair I after 843". Thus, the information on this page, which is entirely unsourced, should be merged/re-directed into Lotharingia or Lothair I, both of which have sources and citations for this information. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Treaty_of_Verdun_-ca.svg

Francia was divided into (i). Francia Occidentalis, (ii). Francia Media, and (iii). Francia Orientalis. Lotharingia was never a State, it was an invented name for a portion of Francia Media that was land-grabbed by Francia Occidentalis, and Francia Orientalis.

If a merging is to occur, then merge Lotharingia into Middle Francia.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Frankish Empire was divided into three separate sub-divisions by the Treaty of Verdun. That much is true. However, Lothair I, who ruled Middle Francia, created, on his deathbed, the Treaty of Prüm. This treaty divided the realm into three partitions for each of Lothair's sons. The eldest, Louis II, was given Italy and the Imperial Frankish crown. The youngest, Charles, received Provence. The middle son, Lothair II, received the lands north of Provence. Now, just like Middle Francia, Lothair's new domain lacked both an ethnic and a linguistic unity. Because of this, contemporaries were unsure of how to name this new kingdom, and so, ultimately named it regnum quondam Lotharii or Lotharii regnum, which means "kingomd [once] Lothair's" (a reference to Lothair I). Also, Lotharingia was certainly a state! It was its own independent kingdom from 855-925, then a duchy and a state of the Holy Roman Empire from 925 to 1737, when it was ceded by the HRE to France after the War of the Polish Succession. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Middle Francia serves a purpose
Look.

This article on Middle Francia serves a purpose. It clearly records one of the successor-states that Francia was partitioned into (the other two successor-states being West Francia, and East Francia). Lothar was not just King of Middle Francia he was also Emperor of Francia.

Francia you say? Yes ... Francia. Even though the Treaty of Verdun 843 made Charles the King of West Francia, Lothar the King of Middle Francia, and Louis the King of East Francia ... Lothar retained the style and title of Emperor of Francia, in other words nominal Imperial unity (and Lordship over his two brothers lands) was maintained.

It is very important to keep this article on Middle Francia as a separate article, and I will oppose any merger.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The history of Middle Francia is little more than just a biography describing Lothair I between 843 and 855. As Srnec and I have both said earlier, Middle Francia had "no special capital, flag, currency, foreign affairs, ministry, etc. It was a ninth-century western European jurisdiction with no antecedents and no descendants, save Lotharingia, which was just as makeshift and pragmatic." Thus, it's much more feasible to move all of the key information and details to Lotharingia, and leave all of the background and epilogue, which make up a susbstantial majority of the Middle Francia article, behind. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.

In my opinion Middle Francia deserves its own article (the one it presently has). I will oppose any merger.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is not a viable counter-argument. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You have offered no viable basis to favour Lotharingia over Middle Francia. At least West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia have the virtue of being direct descendants of "Mother" Francia.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A viable basis has been offered, but you don't understand the history. Here's a good link: . Srnec (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Srnec ... I do understand "the History". I simply do not agree with the merger that you and Laurinavicius are advocating.

Write all you want about Lotharingia ... and leave Middle Francia alone. The short-lived Kingdom of Middle Francia deserves its own article (i.e., the one it already has). I will oppose any merger of Middle Francia into Lotharingia.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll notice that the article as it stands says nothing about the period between 843 and 855. That would be the only period when Middle Francia even existed. Srnec (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the entire article is simply background and epilogue, as both Srnec and I have stated numerous times. There is little meaningful information in this article. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is a reason to improve it, not to get rid of it. -Rrius (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the 1991 Encyclopedia Brittanica, Lotharingia is a rump Austrasia. Additionally, Middle Francia had a capital, Aachen. Additionally, Louis II was crown co-ruler/Emperor with Lothiar, so there was more to Middle Francia than just Emperor Lothair I.  You, Srnec (and Wetman), also ignore the fact that Lorraine is an acceptable English name for Lotharingia dispite being source on the Lotharingia article.  Austrasia and Lorraine are better canididates for Lotharingia to merge with than Middle Francia (Francia Media).  Middle Francia should have been reunited under Louis II as his younger brothers died before him, not a scant mention of this at the Lotharingia article even though you declare that subsection complete.
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting delete.svg|20 px]] Oppose Merger. Spshu (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lotharingia is a rump of Austrasia in the same way it is a rump of the Roman Empire. And what was it about Aachen that made it the capital of Middle Francia? Was it where the legislature sat? Or the supreme court? Or where the king spent most of his time? Louis II's being crowned co-emperor has nothing to do with Middle Francia. He was already King of Italy, which was, on the theories being advanced here, a sub-subkingdom of the subkingdom of Middle Francia, I guess. If Lotharingia, which was far larger than Lorraine, can be merged into the latter acceptably, why can't Middle Francia be merged into Lotharingia? You just don't know what you're talking about. Some knowledge of the subject matter would help greatly. Srnec (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been going in earnest on for a month now. There are three people who support merger (Wetman, Srnec, and Laurinavicius) and three who oppose (Spshu, AVD, and me)&mdash;there was actually one more who opposed, but he or she left the project in part due to the ham-fisted way Srnec originally carried out the merger. To my mind, the current situation, which does not appear to be changing, shows no consensus in favour of a merger. I think the best course is to allow this article to exist for the time being and revist the issue at some point. -Rrius (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say that I concur with Rrius here: this discussion has been going on for a lengthy period of time, there is no consensus for a merge, and there appears to be no possibility of a consensus in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I support his suggestion of just leaving the article be for the moment and possibly bring up the merge proposal in the future. My regards to all, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You call The Middle Ages for Know-It-Alls a reliable source? Is this a joke? And on what page of the more reliable Riddle can I find the term "Middle Francia"? Srnec (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed with that source, but plan to look up the subject when I get a chance over the next few days. For the moment at least someone has put in one source.  If its not reliable then I will propose for deletion.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you two talking about? Who mentioned The Middle Ages for Know-It-Alls? -Rrius (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the source being used in the article. Srnec (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is borderline reliable, but it's all that I had to work with at the moment, which is why I used it. I plan on replacing it with a more reliable source in the near-future. The only reason I have not yet done so is the fact that I'm working on several term papers that have kept me occupied for the past few days and will continue to do so for the next several days, so I won't have the time to do so. In the meantime, I'll add several more citations from the Riddle source, as that is much more relialbe. Srnec, the term can be found on pages 208-211. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I added The New Cambridge Medieval History as a source. That should be sufficiently reliable, I presume? :) My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(1). Francia was partitioned into West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia.

(2). Middle Francia later broke up into Friesland, Lotharingia, Burgundy, and Lombardy.

(3). Middle Francia is the link between "Mother" Francia and its "half-breed" children (i.e., Friesland, Lotharingia, Burgundy, and Lombardy).

(4). Snowded is only here, being a "****", because I would like Middle Francia kept as an article (thus he wants it killed).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ArmChair, you are a disruptive editor with a poor history of ignoring WIkipedia rules and getting multiple blocks in both your current and new persona. You should not be surprised when other editors keep a track on your edits.  All I see from you above is a series of statements without any backup with citations.  If the above is true please provide a reliable third party source which backs up your statements. On the other articles where you a have adopted the same approach, your views have to date been show to be eccentric at best, false at worst so don;t be surprised if your point of view is not taken at face value without some form of verification.   I have no interest in this article other than to check that normal wikipedia standards are maintained.  At the moment we finally have some citations here, but the source is at least questionable.   I am going to check the sequence of events when I get into a LIbrary at some stage this week.  For the moment you would do this article a great service if you would find some sources that back up the statements you are making and the article itself.


 * Eccentric is a kind way of putting it. I would have called it bullshit from one who doesn't know what he's talking about. It's true that in 843 the Frankish realm was divided (geographically) into three kingdoms for three kings, with the ruler of the middle kingdom (Middle Francia) also bearing the title Emperor. This ruler, Lothair I, divided his own kingdom into three for his sons on his death (855), although the eldest son, Louis II, had already been given the rule of Italy (which was a kingdom of its own and always had been since the Frankish conquest of 774, but it was also a part of the middle realm created in 843) and had been crowned co-Emperor in 844. The region of Provence (which was already well-defined) was given to the youngest son, Charles, and the rest was left intact for the middle son, Lothair II. It is this remainder, which corresponds to nothing which had previously existed (unlike Italy and Provence) which came to be called Lotharingia (because it endured long enough to need a name, in a way Middle Francia never did). Middle Francia was an ephemeral hodgepodge of regions created to put an end to a civil war. After a dozen years it was broken up: but a rump of it, equally hodgepodge, was retained as a kingdom for a younger son. This is why simply redirecting Middle Francia to Lotharingia is the most efficient option. Contemporaries did not even know whether the term "Lotharingia" arose in reference to the first Lothair or the second, evidencing the fact that the creation of Lotharingia and Middle Francia were the same event, only that the latter kingdom also contained the old regions of Italy and Provence, which had pre-existed it. (Lothair I had been King of Italy since 815, if I remember correctly.) —Srnec (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To Snowded, and Srnec. Please inspect the statements below, and point out any falsehoods,
 * (1). Francia was partitioned into West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia.
 * (2). Middle Francia later broke up into Friesland, Lotharingia, Burgundy, and Lombardy.
 * (3). Middle Francia is the link between "Mother" Francia and its "half-breed" children (i.e., Friesland, Lotharingia, Burgundy, and Lombardy).
 * You both will have to look hard, because the above statements are true. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Making one of my periodic attempts to teach you the basic conventions of editing I have formatted your above comment. In response, a simple and blunt statement"  Produce citations for your opinions or please. oh please shut up.  I am as I said going to check this when I get into a library.   That is probably showing you more respect than you deserve given your poor record on other pages.  That aside, you really have to learn (aside from formatting) that the Wikipedia woks off sources not the opinions of individual editors. -- Snowded  TALK  06:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded, you are incredibly ill-mannered. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Statements 2 and 3 are both false. Middle Francia was partitioned into three for the three sons of Lothair I. After that it did not exist. Burgundy was not one of those paritions. Nor was Lombardy, nor Friesland. The term "half-breed" is ridiculously out of place in this discussion. And kingdoms don't mother other kingdoms. Your use of scare-quotes only suggests that you don't really know what you're talking about. Srnec (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To Srnec,
 * (1). Francia was partitioned into West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia.
 * (2). Middle Francia later broke up into Friesland, Lotharingia, Burgundy, and Lombardy.
 * (3). Middle Francia is the link between "Mother" Francia and its "half-breed" children (i.e., Friesland, Lotharingia, Burgundy, and Lombardy).
 * http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/carolingian_empire_843_888.jpg
 * Please re-read the above 3 statements again. They are correct.  I have a question to ask ...  "Srnec, what is your first-language" (i.e., 'Mother-Tongue'). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All you have done there ArmChair is to repeat what you said before. You have still failed to provide any citations,  I have again had to remove excessive white space and use indentations for you.   Smec, it would help if you could also provide a reference on this which can settle the dispute - and I suggest you ignore the mother-tongue nonsense.  -- Snowded  TALK  07:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded, Do you see this map. This map shows West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia.  There ... is that a "reference" for you eh?  :ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A map is not a reference ArmChair, it may establish the name but there is no material on weight, if this article should be merged or anything else. You need reputable sources (books, academic papers) to support any position on Wikipedia. -- Snowded  TALK  18:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A map this map by William Robert Shepherd (in his book) would certainly qualify as a bone-fide reference wouldn't you say eh Snowded? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Prior to the Treaty of Verdun A.D. 843, the term Middle Francia (i.e., Media Francia) was in existance "The districts between Neustria and Austrasia were called Media Francia or simply Francia."  ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That citation uses "Middle Francia" as a term within an article under another name. I can't see any dispute that the name exists, the question is if the article should be merged or not.  I am still neutral on that issue but I don't see you presenting any evidence. As far as I can see, looking at the map supports a merger if anything  -- Snowded  TALK  05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The index of Janet L. Nelson, Politics and ritual in early medieval Europe (London: Hambledon Press, 1986) reads "Middle Kingdom, see Lotharingia". Otis C. Mirchell, Two German crowns: monarchy and empire in medieval Germany (Bristol: Wyndham Hall, 1985) refers to the "territory of Lotharingia (Lorraine), the original middle inheritance north of the Alps". In the New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3, we read that contemporaries "did not agree on which ruler this name [Lotharingia] referred to. Some, when speaking of the 'kingdom of Lothar', intended to refer to the Emperor Lothar I and hence to Francia media, while some were alluding to his son Lothar II." It goes on to add that while historians unanimously use it in the latter sense, the term "Lotharingian axis" is sometimes a synonym for "Middle Francia". On p. 313 in the same volume it refers to "that Francia media which had now [898] become Lotharingia." I believe all of this information is found in the Lotharingia article. —Srnec (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These reliable, scholarly sources clearly indicate that Lotharingia and Middle Francia are one and the same, and thus, should be merged. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not say "one and the same", but the connexion is sufficiently close because Lotharingia was the only part of Middle Francia that was created by the Treaty of Verdun. The other parts, Provence and Italy, had histories and were merely attached to the miscellaneous lands of Lotharingia for a brief period. Srnec (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, "one and the same" was a poor choice of words on my part. "Sufficiently close" is much, much better. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Struck comments
I oppose merging. A short-lived Kingdom is still a Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule that all kingdoms, no matter how ephemeral, must have articles of their own? Remember, this is the early Middle Ages. It is hard to distinguish the kingdom from the king at times. Srnec (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Middle Francia references
Here, a "quick-and-dirty" Google Books search, Please note that Middle Francia comes up at lot eh. Next, here is a damn map ok. This map shows West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia. There ... happy now? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

References (Note: some are written by William Robert Shepherd). I presume William Robert Shepherd is an authority "that you" would accept, eh Snowded?

[1]. William R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas, Eighth Edition, (This edition contains all maps of the Seventh Revised and Enlarged Edition and a special suppliment of historical maps for the period since 1929 prepared by C. S. Hammond and Company), Published by the Colonial Offset Co., Inc., Pikesville, Maryland, Sole Distributors Barnes and Nobles Inc., New York, N.Y., pp. 226, (1956).

[2]. William R. Shepherd, Atlas of Medieval and Modern History, Henry Holt and Company, New York, pp. 80, (1932).

[3]. Le partage de l'Empire carolingien au Traité de Verdun en 843, Histoire Et Géographie - Atlas Général Vidal-Lablache, Librairie Armand Colin, Paris, (1898).

[4]. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/index.html

[5]. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_shepherd_1923.html ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how two map catalogues constitute a reference. The map you have now referenced several times (and the additional one above) supports the merger as far as I can see, so do some of the Google Book references.  One for examples states that it as a precursor of Lotharingia which supports the text in that article, and would again support the merger.  However there may be a case for renaming any merged article -- Snowded  TALK  05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded you are not the sole Judge of was constitutes a reference. William Robert Shepherd is an authority on Historical Cartography.  His maps support the existance of Francia (pre A.D. 843), and the existance of West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia (post A.D. 843).  Now, Middle Francia existed from  A.D. 843-855 and its subsequent fragmentation produced Friesland, Lotharingia, Burgundy, and Lombardy (i.e., Northern Italy).  In short, Middle Francia has more than passed the threshold for its own article, and neither you, nor Srnec have made any rationale case as to why Middle Francia can not at least have its own stub-of-an-article.  Snowded, I am tried of talking to you ... put-up, or shut-up.  ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  (P.S., stop ****ing around with my formatting, ... it shows mental-illness on your part, eh).
 * I'm just trying to show you by example how Wikipedia editors as asked to format talk pages ArmChair. Your previous failure to comply with those was one of the reasons behind you last block. I'll leave the formatting of your list, but have indented your above paragraph per guidlines.  I suggest you delete the "mental-illness" comment as well, that sort of language has got many an editor blocked.  You really need to pay attention to requests for sources.  So far you have produced maps that do not even show "Middle Francia" but do show Lotharingia.  You have referenced a google list that mentions the name in several cases, but that is very ambiguous. You also seem to be using the maps as original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia.  As I pointed out above one of them states that it developed into Lotharingia which would support the merger proposal.  From what I can see so far it would be sufficient to describe the events of the Treaty of Verdun and then use the history of Lotharingia, Bergundy etc. where appropriate.  There may be a case for a stub but you haven't made it yet. -- Snowded  TALK  07:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently "Middle Francia" is boldened in the lead of Lotharingia, which I think is sufficient. —Srnec (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Current situation
At the moment it would appear that we have three editors in favour of merger, supported by several citations. Against that we have one editor using maps in a form of original research. I suppose a possible compromise is to leave a one paragraph stub with links. I'm open to that but happy to support a merge. Unless new evidence is advanced and/or new editors engage we should really close this off. -- Snowded TALK  08:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the arguments for a merge (i.e. redirect) are stronger, but as a participant I cannot be the final judge. My opposition to the very existence of this page is that it can be nothing but a duplication of material either at Lothair I, Treaty of Verdun, or Lotharingia. There is nothing unique to be said. But if someone can change that in the future with secondary sources of which I am unaware, it can obviously be re-article-ized. —Srnec (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with stubbifying the article by cutting out all of the background and epilogue, but I still would prefer merging/re-directing the article into Lotharingia, as all of the important and relevant information is just a duplicate of information found on other pages. However, Snowded's compromise proposal seems like the best thing to do at this time, in my opinion. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with stubbing it, but I'm still not convinced by this "it replicates information from three other pages" argument. Someone who wants to find out about this topic shouldn't have to go traipsing about the project to find the information. Having this page here, which explains what Middle Francia was, where it came from, and what happened to it, allows people to get the basics, then move on to whichever facet interests them. To me that is preferable to sending them to Lotharingia. -Rrius (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To address the particular count, I disagree. We just had a discussion about this not long ago that ended with three supporting a merger and three opposing it. I have basically ignored the discussion because it didn't seem to be covering any new ground. I presume Spshu has either similarly ignored it or has no idea it is going on. The result of the previous discussion was to preserve the status quo for the time being. There has not been sufficient time to step back and evaluate, so I think that we should continue to preserve the status quo for the time being or, at most, trim this article back a bit. Moving from a 3–3 tie to 4–3 in favour of a merger is not consensus. -Rrius (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the previous discussion and saw much opinion and little citation. Wikipedia doesn't simply work from votes, and I am not sure if you can count editors not contributing the this debate. -- Snowded  TALK  07:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So once again Snowded, your voice is the only one that counts. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Deal with content Armchair don't attack other editors. I have yet to see you provide any reliable source evidence on this subject.  Please try  -- Snowded  TALK  13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded, you deal in veiled personal attacks, and borderline sarcasm as a matter of course. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence Armchair or withdraw that. You really seen set on another lengthly block.  I suggest you withdraw those comments  -- Snowded  TALK  14:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As per a valid reference, this map,
 * (i). West Francia (to the left of the brown-line),
 * (ii). Middle Francia (between the brown-line, and the green-line),
 * (iii). West Francia (to the right of the green-line),
 * ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No one disputes the term ArmChair, the issue is notability. Also deriving material in the way you describe from a map is original research (OR).  At the moment I see several citations from people in support of the merger which relate to notability, longevity etc.  All I see from you is a constant repetition of the same map and a failure to deal with the OR question.  I also see no withdrawal of personal attacks.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is reading this map, this map Original Research? As well the existance of Middle Francia is notable.  ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You use a map to establish that a name exists, marginal and not really a reliable source. That needs books or papers.  You use that as evidence of notability, it says nothing about notabilituy.  All we have is your assertion, on the other side we have citations.  I have put a new welcome notice on your user page.  I suggest you spend some time reading it.  Oh and you still haven't either withdrawn or justified the personal attacks above  -- Snowded  TALK  16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume William Robert Shepherd is an authority "that you" would accept, eh Snowded?
 * [1]. William R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas, Eighth Edition, (This edition contains all maps of the Seventh Revised and Enlarged Edition and a special suppliment of historical maps for the period since 1929 prepared by C. S. Hammond and Company), Published by the Colonial Offset Co., Inc., Pikesville, Maryland, Sole Distributors Barnes and Nobles Inc., New York, N.Y., pp. 226, (1956).
 * this map (which is on p. 56 of the Historical Atlas of William Robert Shepherd), this map How is reading this map Original Research? As well the existance of Middle Francia is notable (i.e., William Robert Shepherd thought that  Middle Francia A.D. 843-855,  was "notable").  ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You made exactly the same point above with more or less identical words. You are now repeating it and you are not addressing the issue of citation in any way.  You can't go from a map to a statement that something it notable.  You are not (and todate never have) addressed the issue.  Please follow WIkipedia guidelines for formatting talk page.  Please pay attention to WIkipedia standards for evidence.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Stub
Its time we sorted this. How about this:

''Middle Francia was a short lived entity formed as a result of the Treaty of Verdun as the Middle inheritance (ref. Mitchell) following the collapse of the Carolingian Empire. The area north of Alps became known as Lotharingia and the "Lotharingian axis (ref to New Cambridge Medieval History) is sometimes seen as a synonym for Middle Francia.''

No info box, no piplinks for other articles. Possible reference to related articles to help navigation. Smec, you seem to have the best handle on referenced material and the weather is keeping me away from the University Library. Can you sharpen it up? Given some of the nonsense above I am happy to support a merge as well as this compromise Given that the only citations say that the two terms are used interchangeably then any a reference to a review by other editors would probably support a merge-- Snowded  TALK  20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I can live with a simple navigational stub. I will do something about this hopefully later today and then we can see if everybody else can live with the result. —Srnec (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Snowded TALK  20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Research on the Political Status of Middle Francia
In order to objectively resolve the past issue of Middle Francia as a political entity, I propose the following list for all involved editors to post their research on Lothair I's governmental relationship with his agglomeration of land as defined by the 843 Treaty of Verdun. Please keep evidence concise in order to ensure an effective resolution. 1. Areas Requiring Research 2. Cited Information
 * Number and extent of royal tours undertaken by Lothair I prior to 847.
 * In 847, Lothair I, with Charles the Bald and Louis the German met at Meerssen, and sent an embassy to the Danish king requesting a cessation of his raids on Frankish land. (Reuter, T. 1985 Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. London: Royal Historical Society. Fifth Series, Vol. 35, p.80) Significance: Lothair I had international political relations, and potentially a military (or the more common system of war bands).
 * By 800, the residual system of Roman civitates had been entirely replaced by smaller counties, a significant influence in the partitions established by the Treaty of Verdun. (O'Brien, P. 2010 Atlas of World History. New York: Oxford University Press. p.75) Significance: A system of centralized rule would have been non-extant without the use of conventional royal tours, or a reasonable facsimile of such.
 * Nobility were established in individual farming communities to integrate newly conquered Frankish lands. (Moreland, J. 1992 Integration and Social Reproduction in the Carolingian Empire. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Vol. 23, No. 3, p.326) Significance: Small subdivisions of land in the Middle Francia region could operate effectively without superior control.
 * Mints throughout Middle Francia were non-standardized, and had extremely small outputs of coins. A breakdown in circulation occurred between Italy and the north. Hoards of West Frankish coins existed throughout middle Francia. (Coupland, S. 2007 "Carolingian Coinage and the Vikings." Aldershot: Variorum Collected Study Series. p.191-193) Significance: Lothair exercised little economic control over Middle Francia, and the people living there traded using the currency of, and thus with the people of, West Francia.
 * In 847, Lothair I visited Rome following a major Muslim 846 raid, which was his last visit south of the Alps. (Costambeys, M. 2011 "The Carolingian World." Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. p.391) Significance: No direct political control would have been exerted on the southern areas, suggesting its de facto independence from Middle Francia following 847.
 * In 844, Lothair I ceded the Kingdom of Italy to his son Louis II, who ruled it as nominally independent. (Riché, P. 1993 "The Carolingians" Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press. p.179) Significance: In conjunction with the circulation breakdown between the north and Italy, implies that Middle Francia's rule was never, in practice, extended to Italy.

Xuxalliope (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"infobox" misunderstanding
Srnec, I think you are under the mistaken impression that use of Infobox former country presupposes that the article is about a "former country" according to some strict or narrow definition. This is not so. "infobox former country" is just the name of the template, the term is not displayed anywhere on the page if it is transcluded. There were no "countries" in the modern sense in the medieval period to begin with, but there would be no point in creating an identical template called "medieval political entity" just to satisfy people obsessing over the correct nomenclature in the name of  transcluded templates. There is nothing wrong with this revision other than the coins shown in the "flag" slots.

What is transcluded by the template, unfortunately, is the "states and terrories" category, often leading to redlinks, but not in this case. I seriously doubt that you will be able to dispute that Middle Francia happened to be a "state or territory". --dab (𒁳) 13:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Middle Francia was definitely a territory, but I'm not sure it was a state. The kingdom was defined at Verdun in 843, but the next year Lothair gave Italy to his son. If Middle Francia is a modern scholarly construct—and I don't believe the term Francia media is contemporary—then it can refer to Lotharingia alone as much as to all of Lothair's realm. For this reason I argued above that the two pages should be merged. "Middle Francia" is really just the first phase in the history of Lotharingia, when it was attached to Burgundy, Provence and Italy. Lothair is perhaps under-studied compared to his brothers and I am not aware that he treated his entire realm as a unity: it was more a personal union of territories that had no time to develop into a more unified monarchy (unlike East and West Francia). Srnec (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Tagged
This article provides 3 references. Two mention the subject, however they do not seem to support the depth of this article. So I've tagged it as requiring footnotes, requiring more sources, and also as possibly containing original research. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)