Talk:Reichsannalen

[Untitled]

 * "The earliest of the annals is the Royal Frankish Annals, dating from 741. For information before that date, the Chronicon Universale (MGH: Scriptores, XIII, 1–19) was drawn up about 761"

Is 761 before 741 ?


 * "The Annales Fuldenses, the most famous of them all, appear in the reign of Louis the Pious. They have a regional, East Frankish character, but purport to record national events. The author must certainly have been in touch with the court. They cover the period from in 711 until 901"

Are the "Annales Fuldenses" part of the Reichsannalen ? They seem to start in 711, long before 741.

What is the difference between Reichsannalen and Royal Frankish Annals ?--Io Herodotus (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is deeply flawed and ought to be either deleted or thoroughly rewritten from scratch. For starters the "Royal Frankish Annals" begin their account of events with 741, but were only drawn up restrospectively from 788 onwards, i.e. could not possibly have spread "in the decades after 741". The Annals fo Flavigny are only extant in a manuscript from ca 816, but (a) those annals are purely monastic annals, (b) they were already used e.g. in the aforementioned Chronicle of 741 i.e. clearly predate 816. The Annales Laurissenses minores do not exist, nor were they Reichsannalen; they (or rather that name) are the product of an erroneous edition that shoehorned the reports of the so-called "Chronicon Laurissense Breve" into an annalistic structure. The Annales Maximiani are misspelled (Annales Maximiniani) and while they make use of the Royal Frankish Annals it is debatable whether they can be classified as "Reichsannalen". Finally, whether the concept of Reichsannalen, as a distinct corpus of texts, makes sense at all is highly doubtful (cf. articles on the Annals of St Bertin and Annals of Fulda). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.95.144.134 (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)