Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Strasbourg (506)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Battle of Tolbiac.  A  Train talk 07:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Strasbourg (506)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't verify the information in this article. I have no idea which source "Fertig 2" is supposed to be, but in any case I only find reliable sources about the battle in 357, and not about this one (looking in English and German). Fram (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as I've found the sources mentioned, including Fertig, and added new ones both in the text and the bibliography. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And which of these sources discuss a Battle of Strasbourg in 506? For example "Fertig 2, 281" is highly unlikely, as Fertig 2 has only 16 pages (Fertig 1 has bout 30 pages, so even a combined edition wouldn't get so far). All I see in e.g. Wood is general discussion about a 506 battle, probably about the Battle of Tolbiac, nothing about a 506 battle of Strasbourg. Please indicate exactly which source, on which page, discusses the actual topic of this article. Fram (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the text, you'll see that the Fertig reference follows the sentence "A panegyric by Ennodius about Theodoric the Great speaks exaggeratedly of a victory by Theodoric over the Alamanni." I've checked the references and they appear to back up the text they refer to. Why don't you work with me to help improve the article further? Just a thought. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Fertig reference? You mean the one pointing to a page number that doesn't exist? Why, instead of all this, can't you answer a very simple question: which source, page, line discusses a 506 Battle in Strasbourg. If possible, please provide a link to an online copy. Fram (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Strasbourg was not known as such until the late 500s or there abouts. Was Argentoratum. Conflation with Tolbiac seems plausible.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC) struck, vote below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge or redirect (perhaps rename and repurpose) -- Alamannia deals with its subjection to the Franks and Ostrogoths.   The whole basis of this article is that there "must have" been a battle, which some historians postulate to be near Strasbourg.  Any argument using "must have" implies a guess, which should mean that the subject is not suitable for an encyclopedia article.  The broader subject as to what historians suggest to have happened might be.  The matter is covered in the Merovingian Duchy section of Alamannia, and it might be appropriate to have a more detailed "main" article on this, and this article might be restructured and repurposed for this, but it cannot retain its present name and battle infobox, becasue we do not know where or even whether it took place.  The target might be Conquest of southern Alamannia by the Franks.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge This battle may be hypothetical, however there are sources for it, and it could probably be merged into some expansive article. It is probably unreasonable to expect be able to find enough sources on a minor battle from 1500 years ago to expand on this, however the article is not too bad. Dysklyver  08:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which sources are there for it? Please don't take the word of the article creator for it. "the article is not too bad" expect for that minor fact, that most sourecs are not about this battle but about well, perhaps, something happened between 501-507, it might have been in 506, it may have been a battle, but apart from one letter which vaguely refers to this we know nothing about it. If it needs to be merged or redirected, it should point to Battle of Tolbiac, which is actually, verifiably, and regularly speculated of having happened in 506, as mentioned at that article. This article is basically a fork based on thin air where so far not one actual reliable source with this speculation about a battle in Strasbourg has been given. Even if such a source would materialize eventually, it would have to be rather substantial anyway to warrant a full article and not just a footnote in an existing article. Fram (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources found. Okay so I've added 2 sources that definitely support the article.
 * Geunich states that "Claude deduces, as most historians now do, that there were two or three battles between the Franks and the Alemanni. The first is supposed to have taken place at Zülpich [=Battle of Tolbiac] in the 480s or early 490s, leading to the knee injury of the Rhine-Frankish king, Sigibert. The second conflict, which was dated by Gregory to the "fifteenth year" of Clovis' reign, i.e. 496/97, was that "conversion battle" that led to his baptism. In the third battle, in the year 506, Clovis gave the Alemanni such a "crushing defeat" (at Strasbourg?)" that they "lost their political independence." This third battle was the occasion of the intervention of the Ostrogoth king, Theoderic the Great, who campaigned for the "exhausted remnants" of the Alemanni and ordered Clovis to stop."
 * Ewig more briefly states that in "506, an unforeseen event occurred. The Alemanni rose up against their Frankish overlords under a military king, who apparently mobilised the majority of the tribe. Clovis dealt them a devastating defeat (at Strasbourg?), which put an end to the political autonomy of the Alamanni, whose king fell in the battle, and which led to considerable upheaval in the land.... Worms and Speyer and the lands north of the Oos were annexed by Francia. The Franks pursued their vanquished enemies, who fled in droves to Rhaetia in the region governed and influenced by the Ostrogots."
 * The original text (in German) is on the talk page for those interested, but I've added the references to the article.
 * Other scholars mentioned by Geunich include Anton and Schäferdiek, but I haven't had time to research those. However, it's clear that there is more than enough evidence at this stage to warrant keeping and improving it. Bermicourt (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, at the time of your article creation, and at the time of your keep, you didn't actually have any sources about this battle, and the sources you added then also didn't mention the battle? Anyway, now we have two sources who have "(at Strasbourg?)". Basing an article on a coment in parentheses and with a question mark seems not enough to meet WP:N at all, which requires indepth, significant coverage, not throwaway speculation in brackets. Mentioning this speculation in an article about the Frankish-Alemannish battles is of course possible, but I see no reason to have a full article on two repetitions of "(at Strasbourg?)". Fram (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fram, the two sources provided suggest a hypothetical battle, without nailing down specifics.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've found yet another source by Johannes Hoops that refers to this battle in 506 as taking place wohl bei Straßburg i.e. "probably by Strasbourg". I'll add that too.
 * @Fram. The article isn't based on a comment in parentheses, its based on a scholarly assessment of the sources and Strasbourg is the place they believe it happened. That's history. The whole article is now well sourced and it's clear there is much more information out there than any of us first thought; of course it could be further improved as we look at the work of other scholars (I missed out Becher), but that's true of most articles here.
 * @Icewhiz. I think scholarly consensus is that this battle did take place; the only uncertainty is where. But there is general agreement that Strasbourg is likely. We could add a "?" to the title, but IMHO that's unnecessary; the article explains the situation.
 * These new sources put the veracity of the article beyond doubt and this delete discussion should be closed. What is now needed is work by genuinely interested editors to improve the article, based on the additional sources I have mentioned and maybe then a review alongside other related articles like the Battle of Tolbiac. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole article is now well sourced? Yes, if you believe including sources you haven't seen and pages which don't exist is "well-sourced", then sure. "a scholarly assessment of the sources and Strasbourg is the place they believe it happened. " Well, you have one source putting it "probably in Strassburg", two sources putting it in parentheses and with a question mark, and you ignore the sources which think the 506 battle is the Tolbiac battle. What is needed is what has been suggested by others, a general article about the Franko-Alemannish conflict of 490-506 or thereabouts (now a section in Alamannia), discussing things like this sometimes hypothesed Battle of Strasbourg and the much more well-established battle of Tolbiac. The article we have here has very little info on the actual battle and a lot on the historical background, so the obvious thing is to have an article on the historical background where the very little info on the battle is included together with the other battles and different opinions. Fram (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a very unreasonable interpretation: the "sources you haven't seen" are in the article, fully referenced. I'm sorry you couldn't find the right page in one source, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Instead of criticising every improvement and new piece of evidence, why don't you welcome and encourage them? After all, it shows your intervention is paying off! And perhaps even work constructively and help me and others develop the article. Surely as an admin, you should be cheering us volunteer editors on, not wearing us down! This article is now way better referenced than many on Wikipedia. If we delete everything that doesn't meet FA standards, there'd be little left and, frankly, few editors willing to help. Bermicourt (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge (or else keep) with Battle of Tolbiac. I do not believe there is consensus that these are different battles. The historiographical issues should be dealt with in one place. Srnec (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Most scholars, however, would disagree with you and I'm inclined to go with them. "That the Franks defeated the Alemanni in 496 with the help of God, and that their king, Clovis, was then baptized in Reims, still belongs to the general knowledge which every half-educated [German] person has internalized since his school days." In other words, Geunich is saying that the notion that there was one decisive battle is an old schoolboy's tale; that recent scholarship has unpicked into the 2-3 battles he has described. While several scholars merge the 480s/early 490s conflict with the 496/497 at Tolbiac, few combine it with this separate battle in 506. But it'd be great if editors other than me did some actual research and added to the sum of human knowledge about this period of history. Bermicourt (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - it might make sense to create a "Alamanni-Franks conflict" article - in such an article one could list possible battles, and evidence for their possible existence, as well as discuss battles where there is a consensus. The problem with this article it discusses a possible event that some historians surmise occurred at this year and location.Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * . That makes a lot of sense. From my research, it is difficult to untangle the battles clearly from one another in the primary sources so, not surprisingly, the secondary sources differ. Geunich, who does a summary of scholarly thinking, says most historians agree there were 2 or 3 battles. Whether the Battle of Tolbiac (=Zülpich) was first or second is unclear. If we created a generic "Frankish-Alemannic conflict" article, we'd need to merge this one and Battle of Tolbiac into it. I'm willing to give it a go, but would appreciate help. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tolbiac could remain standalone as a sub article (as there seems to be a consensus it happened), the wider conflict\war should cover it as well as surmised additional events and outcomes.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. There was defo a battle at Zülpich (Tolbiac); that's mentioned by Gregory. But scholars don't agree on the date. I've seen all three dates associated with it. Essentially all that seems definite is that: there were at least 2 battles, one of which was at Zülpich, one was in 496/97 and one in 506; Sigobert was lamed at Zülpich; Clovis was the victor each time and converted to Christianity as a result of the 496/97 battle. The current Battle of Tolbiac article doesn't reflect the level of uncertainty over the Frankish-Alemannic conflict or the latest scholarly position. In reality, its details are almost as vague as Strasbourg. are you able to shed any light on this. Bermicourt (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Create Frankish-Alemannic conflict article and, depending on what that looks like, consider merging both battle articles into it as neither appears to be attested in any detail in the sources and several theories abound. For consistency, I'm using the same naming schema as another conflict in called the Frankish-Thuringian campaign (491), but for which I can find no sources at all! for which I have now found several sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to proposed putative name above.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge Sources have been found, historical confusion need not be solved at AFD.L3X1 (distænt write)  03:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.