Wikipedia

Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 6

< Talk:Kingdom of Germany
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Pmanderson in topic "Kingdom of Germany" as a term
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Proposal to split this article

Latest comment: 9 years ago42 comments14 people in discussion

Propose to split as follows:

WikiProject Germany and WikiProject European history have been notified about this proposal.

Thanks for your comments on this proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Support 1, 2 and 4; and make alternate proposal for 3 i.e. that content about "King of the Germans" is integrated into King of the Romans. Reasoning:
1. There was no official "Kingdom of Germany". While it is occasionally used in English sources, it is almost never found in German ones, because during the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period there was a vast array of separate states within the Holy Roman Empire on what is now German territory. East Francia is valid as it was the precursor to the Holy Roman Empire.
2. However, the title "King of the Germans" is problematic. German Wikipedia calls it the "Roman-German king" and claims modern scholars use this title to described the sovereign between his election as king and his coronation as emperor. The actual historical titles used were: King of the Franks (Lat. Rex Francorum, Ger. König der Franken), Roman king or King of the Romans (Lat. Rex Romanorum, Ger. Römischer König or König der Römer) and King in Germania (Lat. Germaniae Rex, Ger. König in Germanien). King of the Germans (Lat. Rex Teutonicorum, Ger. König der Deutschen) was never officially used in the Middle Ages. A search on Google Books reveals some interesting stats:
  • "King in Germania": 16 hits
  • "Roman-German king": 1,010 hits
  • "King of the Germans": 8,880 hits
  • "Roman king": 24,000 hits - but this includes kings of the Roman empire
  • "King in Germany": 31,800 hits - but this includes non-titular references.
  • "King of the Franks": 1.7M hits
  • "King of the Romans": 6M hits - so this looks by far the most common English language title and we already have this article. Bermicourt (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a kingdom of Germany distinct from Italy, Burgundy and the Empire throughout the Middle Ages. Why did you not search for "King of Germany", which gets about 750,000 hits? As noted, we already have an article on the title King of the Romans. "Roman-German king" is almost never used in English. In fact, many more titles were used in the Middle Ages than just those you list, including, just as an example, rex Alamannie (king of Germany). Srnec (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't search it because "King of Germany" is only mentioned on German Wiki as a film and a pop song. So the Germans don't use the title at all. And while there are lots of sources, for "king of Germany", 750,000 is still way short of 6 million hits. And one of the sources states: "In speaking of the origins and early development of royal law in Germany, one is confronted by the fact that there was no "king of Germany" in the sense that there was a king of Sicily or a king of England or a king of France. There were dukes, kings and other princes of autonomous territories that made up the empire... Hence royal law in Germany may be taken to refer either to the law of the empire ... or to the law of any one of the duchies or other principalities..." Like I said - there was no Kingdom of Germany and this article should be split up and reduced to a dab or redirect.--Bermicourt (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
John Gillingham, Timothy Reuter, Susan Reynolds, F. R. H. Du Boulay, David S. Bachrach and Benjamin Arnold all speak of a kingdom of Germany. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I have Arnold's book. He mentions it once and it could easily be interpreted as a loose concept not an actual sovereign state. My sense is that some English sources use "Kingdom of Germany" to refer to the Holy Roman Empire, because they think it's less confusing to English readers whose may be less familiar with European history than Germans. But it is historically inaccurate and the overwhelming majority use the correct title, Holy Roman Empire. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Support Although I'm not convinced about the King of the Germans, it's a much more plausible situation than what exists today. Guidaw (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose any split. Srnec (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Support, and advise that we use the term Germania instead of Germany and Germanic instead of German. This is a very unfortunatele common English term that often leads to confusion and misconceptions about German and/or Germanic history. In this sense it does not matter what is common, as it is simply not the correct translation. Germanic tribes did not live exclusively in (modern) "Germany", just as the equally Germanic peoples of the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria are still no part of the country Germany. Germany refers to the modern country that did not exist before the unification under Prussia. Germania, "land the Germani" is at least more specific. To compare, how often do we call the Roman Empire the "Italian Empire" or Frankia the "French Empire"? A case of WP:SYNTH (that Srnec seems to be childishly defending) Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
In other words, you advise that we make up our own special lexicon because you don't like the existing one used by historians. "Germania" and "Germanic" would be completely wrong. This isn't about Germania in any sense. It is about the kingdom known as Germany, whose inhabitants were Germans, not merely Germanic. The idea that there was no Germany before 1871 seems to be a belief peculiar to the Dutch. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Please don't use personal attacks on people's nationality. In any case, not just Dutch, no German sources talk about a real Kingdom of Germany because it didn't actually exist. And several million English sources appear to agree. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
No more a personal attack than your suggestion that Germans know European history better than English speakers. Plenty of German historians (e.g., Fuhrmann) write of a deutsche Königreich or deutsche Königtum, or when all else fails a regnum Teutonicum distinct from the Empire. This discussion has played out in the archives many times already. In the section above, I linked to this article. I can't read German that well, perhaps you can tell me if it says anything germane to this discussion. Srnec (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It is the table of contents from Josef Fleckenstein, Grundlagen und Beginn der Deutschen Geschichte (1988). The title of chapter VII from part two reads: "Das Reich als Trias von Deutschland, Italien und Burgund", translated: The empire as trias of Germany, Italy and Burgundy". No conflating there of Germany with the Holy Roman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.194.6.1 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Larkusix (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Support, first best with the mentioned integration by Bermicourt, second best in the proposed way by Marcocapelle. Creihag (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose at this time. Larkusix (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Support per Bermicourt — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I doubt, such a proposal can really solve the underlying issues of this dispute. First of all: deleting an entire article about a naming and content dispute is the possibly worst solution (and content will likely get deleted, as the HRE article simply can't take all new details and be kept readable). I am well aware, that previous discussions have found no solution, but still: editors have debated about Hillary Clinton's correct name or some obscure video game scandal for months and years, but it's impossible to find a better compromise for this article? Secondly: I am not convinced, that all possible viewpoints will be represented fairly and accurately in the HRE article. A good consensus hasn't been found in this stand-alone article, why should it be easier to find one, when the problematic content is lumped together with a wider, even more complex topic? Thirdly: Even considering the disagreement about the title and the content's presentation, all listed historians (and I could add several more modern German historians) acknowledge the history of the East Frankish/German/whatever realm as distinct historical topic (see the quotes). As such it should have a distinct article, even if it may need a different title or a possibly different approach to clarify the various viewpoints. GermanJoe (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Everything in this article can be treated in the Kingdom of the East Franks article without the modern bias. Bertdrunk (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Nothing against Srnec, but it's clearly just him wishing to keep this article existing. Bertdrunk (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Two other users have opposed this. And look at the archives. I'm hardly the only one. Besides, Wikipedian consensus is argument- (and reference-) based and not determined by vote counting unsupported by arguments (or references). Like yours. Srnec (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The Kingdom of Germany is simply not the Holy Roman Empire. Therefore, content about Germany after 962 cannot be integrated into Holy Roman Empire article. Jirka.h23 (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Some quotes

Arnold, Medieval Germany, 500–1300: A Political Interpretation (UTP, 1997), pp. 180–82:

What description of the medieval German polity would be taxonomically convincing in our present state of knowledge? To find in the sources some equivalent of 'state' and 'nation' is not easy, but the labels 'kingdom' and 'Empire' are well grounded: regnum of the East Franks from the ninth century, regnum Teutonicorum from the eleventh, and Henry VII addressed as rex Alamannie by his father's chancery in 1231. Romanum imperium was in literary use, as in Gerbert of Aurillac's letters or the Vita Heinrici Quarti. It was fitfully in chancery usage in the eleventh century, and habitually in Frederick Barbarossa's diplomas. . . But apart from the expeditio Romana for the purposes of imperial coronation at the hands of the pope, there existed no imperial institutions of rule separable from those of the German and Italian kingship, with the possible exception of a handful of edicts inserted into the Corpus Iuris civilis.

It's not the Holy Roman Empire that has primacy. Du Boulay, Germany in the Late Middle Ages (St Martin's Press, 1983), p. 19:

At least two objections may be raised against writing a chapter ... on the German monarchy. The first is that the king was also the emperor of the so-called 'holy' or Holy Roman' empire, and that these two royal overlordships, by no means all German, were historically so bound together that it is misleading to write at all of one without the other. The second ... is that a political narrative of the German kingship may give the impression that royal policy possessed the same sort of overriding importance within the realm as it did in more centralized monarchies, even in the middle ages, whereas in reality Germany differed from kingdoms like England or France in that the monarch's politics, often weak, remote or muted, formed a continuing counterpoint to those of the great princes. These are powerful objections. But ... German historians themselves give good reasons for separating the history of Germany ... from a history of the empire.

He then cites Reuter (1981), "A New History of Medieval Germany", History 66 (218): 440–44, who begins this review article by stating:

Anyone writing or studying the history of medieval Germany faces considerable difficulties. It is not easy, though very necessary, to separate the history of Germany from the history of the Empire of which it was the main constituent. Even when this has been done, there still remains the immense regional diversity of medieval German history. The historian of medieval England or medieval France can, without too much distortion, consider their history at the level of the kingdom and ignore or play down regional differences. Medieval Germany will not sustain such treatment. . .

I would only quibble with Reuter on that last point. Can we really subsume Aquitaine or Gascony into the medieval history of France-as-a-kingdom without much distortion? The point, though, is that Germany and the Holy Roman Empire are distinct and should not be conflated. Srnec (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They all make the mistake of talking about "Germany" as if it were a single sovereign entity. Whilst it is convenient to lump the dozens of German-speaking principalities under one term that is not the same as equating it to a kingdom. And the Germans themselves (who ought to know!) don't talk of a Kingdom of Germany. For good reason - there wasn't one! --Bermicourt (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


Another quote:

Edward Gibbon: "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 5", Chapter XLIX: Conquest Of Italy By The Franks.—Part V. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/735/735-h/735-h.htm#link2HCH0003

Otho 117 was of the noble race of the dukes of Saxony; and if he truly descended from Witikind, the adversary and proselyte of Charlemagne, the posterity of a vanquished people was exalted to reign over their conquerors. His father, Henry the Fowler, was elected, by the suffrage of the nation, to save and institute the kingdom of Germany. Its limits 118 were enlarged on every side by his son, the first and greatest of the Othos. A portion of Gaul, to the west of the Rhine, along the banks of the Meuse and the Moselle, was assigned to the Germans, by whose blood and language it has been tinged since the time of Caesar and Tacitus. Between the Rhine, the Rhone, and the Alps, the successors of Otho acquired a vain supremacy over the broken kingdoms of Burgundy and Arles. In the North, Christianity was propagated by the sword of Otho, the conqueror and apostle of the Slavic nations of the Elbe and Oder: the marches of Brandenburgh and Sleswick were fortified with German colonies; and the king of Denmark, the dukes of Poland and Bohemia, confessed themselves his tributary vassals. At the head of a victorious army, he passed the Alps, subdued the kingdom of Italy, delivered the pope, and forever fixed the Imperial crown in the name and nation of Germany. From that memorable aera, two maxims of public jurisprudence were introduced by force and ratified by time. I. That the prince, who was elected in the German diet, acquired, from that instant, the subject kingdoms of Italy and Rome. II. But that he might not legally assume the titles of emperor and Augustus, till he had received the crown from the hands of the Roman pontiff. 119

Larkusix (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is disputing that some English sources refer to a "kingdom of Germany", what is clear is that the overwhelmingly WP:COMMONNAME is the Holy Roman Empire and that the notion of a Kingdom of Germany is almost a WP:FRINGE idea as it never existed as a concrete entity. It merits an explanatory paragraph in the HRE article, but not a separate article which is highly misleading. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Reuter, Germany in the Early Middle Ages, pp. 245–46: "The transfers of abbots and monks (and also of books and scribes) between monasteries [meant] a recognition of the existence of a kingdom of Germany as something more than a collection of small provinces." He's talking about the 10th century. Note how he takes the existence of the kingdom of Germany for granted to instead make a point about its nature. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Srnec, once again, these are erroneous translational reasonings on your side. From that same book:

...I have also deliberately made hardly any use of the feudal terminology of the high middle ages – homage, fealty, fief – even when this meant some circumlocution.

To write a history of Germany from the Carolingian period to the mid-eleventh century is of course to beg the question of whether there was such a thing at the time. This book will try, among other things, to suggest some answers, but will not start by offering any. ...whether these entities can be properly called Germany will emerge from the discussion. One should not in any case overemphasize the nation, either as a unit of historical being or as a unit of historical consciousness.

Reuter is German. His translation is of the word Reich, which does not translate to Kingdom in English. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Reuter was born in Manchester and educated at Oxford. He was as British as he was German. He wrote the book in English. No translation was involved. If he uses "kingdom", he means "kingdom".
So, the book will suggest some answers to the question whether there was such a thing as Germany at the time (9th–10th centuries). Do you think, maybe, my quotation from pp. 245–46 is doing just that? Nobody arguing for retaining this article is talking about nations. Srnec (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Granted, he was part English. But my point still stands. Reuter openly states he derived from German sources, which overwhelmingly use the word Reich. There is no accurate English translation for the word "Reich" (see: Third Reich - not "Third Kingdom").
Reuters also never said "nature" in your quote, but spoke of a perceived in some aspects "recognition of the existence of a kingdom of Germany as something more than a collection of small provinces". I don't see "something more than a collection of small provinces" as a very strong conviction. Especially since he warned having "deliberately made hardly any use of the feudal terminology of the high middle ages".
What can be concluded from his disclaimers is that he could not say whether there was or wasn't a "Kingdom of Germany" back then, and refused to assert either possibility. He should not be used as a supporter of the term. Germany is, in historical terms, a nation.Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no feudal terminology in "something more than a collection of small provinces". Why are you trying to judge the strength of his conviction rather than just taking him at his word? He says the kingdom of Germany was "recognised ... as" something, not that it was merely "recognised" but that it was "recognised ... as". He is asserting its existence. This is not the only place in the book where he does so. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
If the article's title is erroneous or misleading, it should be improved. Only if the article's content is entirely wrong or no valid encyclopedic topic, the entire article could be deleted. Mixing those separate questions in 1 issue is the fundamental flaw of the OPs proposal. There has been a distinct political entity (with a lot of unclear details) after 962 north of the Alps, this is broad consensus among historians. The quoted historians discuss the problem of finding a good accurate definition for this realm and its organization, they don't reject its existence. Another notable historian, Hagen Keller, goes a step further and treats Germany and Italy as clearly distinctive separate kingdoms under common rule (Hagen Keller, Die Ottonen, page 47ff. "Otto and Adelheid - Emperors with two kingdoms" (translated from German)). Again, the definition and a lot of details for this entity are certainly under discussion, but not it's existence. GermanJoe (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Leaving aside the existence of a "kingdom of Germany" as a unified, political entity of the German people under a single sovereign, there is no doubt that a smallish number of English writers use the term, either instead of "Holy Roman Empire" or in some other not entirely clear sense (e.g. I have looked at Arnold's use of the term, but he uses it very rarely and never defines it). This is different from German writers who, it would seem, never apparently use the term which is probably why it does not form an article on German Wikipedia. So it seems to me that there is justification to have an article with this title on English Wikipedia, BUT it must reflect the use of the term in the sources. On my reading, this would restrict itself to a discussion of the use of the term "kingdom of Germany" as it appears in the literature, making clear that it is not used by German writers and not widely by most English historians. This is not currently the case. The lede gives the impression that the "kingdom of Germany" is a historical fact and then goes on to describe "its" development. At the very least it should be made clear that this is only a concept espoused by a minority of English writers and no German historians of note. Bottom line is it needs to accurately reflect the corpus of source material. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Just because a few historians writing in English have used the term that is no reason to have an article on it, if the subject matter is covered elsewhere (which is what is being proposed, if it is not true already). This is covered by WP:AT "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." (my italics for emphasis). As I made clear in 2007 at the start of these talk pages, in the section Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 1#Last King of Scotland, just because the title King of the Germans was used it does not mean a kingdom existed. For most English speaking people, thanks to the kingdom's of England and Scotland, kingdom has a meaning for none experts that does not describe the entity this article purports to cover and as such this article title is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Let me repeat the quotations offered above, from very notable and prolific English-language historians of medieval Germany:
  • What description of the medieval German polity would be taxonomically convincing in our present state of knowledge? To find in the sources some equivalent of 'state' and 'nation' is not easy, but the labels 'kingdom' and 'Empire' are well grounded.
  • German historians themselves give good reasons for separating the history of Germany ... from a history of the empire.
  • It is not easy, though very necessary, to separate the history of Germany from the history of the Empire of which it was the main constituent.
Digging into the archives—because you've been not hearing this since 2007, as you always advertise—I find these (the first from a source more recent than that first debate, from 2008):
  • The kingdom of Germany generally is considered by scholars to have been militarily the most powerful polity in the medieval West during the tenth and early eleventh centuries.
  • Three years earlier the Concordat of Worms had distinguished clearly between the regnum Teutonicorum and the rest of the empire. German claims to the Roman empire did not imply a lack of German regnal feeling: the Germans had conquered Rome and inherited its glories but they saw a difference between Germans and Romans, between the kingdom of Germany and the kingdom of Italy. Confusion about the king's title did not prevent them from envisaging the kingdom as a geographical and political entity.
Reliable sources address your concerns explicitly. Reynolds, the source for the last quote, explicitly compares Germany to England and Scotland ("If one compares the evidence of cohesion and conflict in Germany with that for France, England, and Scotland at the same time, some of the controversies about it seem overstrained"). Srnec (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Srnec, I have never heard you speak, but I have read what you wrote (so what is the point of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"?). BTW the use of capitals is as a general rule taken to be shouting and it frowned upon. I have remained fairly quiet on this talk page. Over the last 1000 edits (since 15 April 2008‎) I have made 26 edits (4 in the last 3 years) you have made 100 edits (28 in the last 3 years). Looking at the exchanges it seems to be you who over the years to have been in the minority -- perhaps you should consider taking this page off you watch list come back in a years time as see if without your tenacious defence there is a consensus among other editors to keep it as it is. As to that list you present "one swallow does not a summer make". Now that I have said my piece I will resume lurking, reply if you must but I will not, as I consider my quota of posts to this page used up for this year. -- PBS (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It's more than a swallow. It's a flock of the leading historians of medieval Germany writing in English. At Wikipedia, we use sources. Srnec (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Just checked the latest issue of War in History. Happens to have an article on pre-crusade Germany in it. The phrase "German kingdom" appears 22 times. "French kingdom" appears twice and "English kingdom" once. He explicitly distinguishes Italy and Burgundy from Germany (p. 324). The article title is "Milites and Warfare in Pre-Crusade Germany". This is pretty typical. Srnec (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it's a flock of unrelated contemporary fragments from which you carefully cherry picked the words Kingdom and Empire interchangeably wherever they were related to some form of Germany. The piece including "the Germans (NOTE: not even Germanic peoples) had conquered Rome and inherited its glories" is absurd. The point here is that there was no political Germany, just as there was no United States of America. You are being disruptive, and I find it ironic of you to bring up WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it is you who refuses to get the point. Just google this:

"Kingdom of Germany" -wikipedia

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe that this argument is still (give or take a month -- it's rare for me that I come upon a discussion this fresh) is still going on, and still seems to revolve around a bunch of people who want to deny the existence of the topic of this article. Is "Kingdom of Germany" the best name in English for this article? Well, I think so; it's the one that most English language historians use, as Srnec has repeatedly demonstrated by reference to numerous scholarly works by professional academic historians writing in English. But that's at least debatable. But the opponents of this title never restrict themselves to this. They always go on to claim that there was no distinct political entity comprising Germany at all, which is pretty clearly just completely incorrect. Is your claim that all these historians Srnec is citing are writing books about a kingdom that did not exist? That all contemporary references to a Regnum Teutonicorum likewise do not refer to an actual kingdom? john k (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Setting things straight

I will reply to Srnec here so this section can remain manageable. I was told that I "advise that we make up our own special lexicon because [I] don't like the existing one used by historians." First of all, ignoring the weasel wording, most historians I know are not necessarily linguistic experts. This article is based almost entirely on an alternative language interpretation; and yes, I say 'alternative interpretation' because the meanings of all words involved have changed dramatically over time. "Deutsche Königreich" or "deutsche Königtum", both from "regnum Teutonicum", have been used in the past - as you noted. You counted that as a mention of "Germany". However, the English word Dutch has the same role and origin as our Duits and the German Deutsch. For centuries all Germanic lands were known as "teutonic"/"Deutsch". Wouldn't it be equally confusing to therefore deliberately call the page the "Dutch Kingdom" as per English title guidelines? I understand the necessity to be literal, and yet we should not let that keep us from being factual. In the end it's still best to simply form a consensus using our common sense.

I'm still not certain if you're denying the significant distinction between Germanics and Germans or not. Intentionally abusing the ambiguity of words to give readers a false idea of the subject counts as POV-pushing. While others have joined your reasoning, the only one to militantly guard this page has been you. You have occasionally been rude or have gone against consensus ("reverting bullshit consensus") and have used personal attacks ("a belief particular to the Dutch") to get your point across. Still the issue remains unresolved. I'd like to do so before this turns into endless stonewalling. So please, remain civil, so we can keep assuming your good faith. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago45 comments17 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, leaning towards not moved. A very interesting discussion, but unfortunately it's apparent that there is nothing close to a consensus to move this article. Reasonable arguments have been made on both sides, though I personally found those in opposition to be stronger – in general, they tended to be based more on what reliable sources say, though I don't think they were significantly strong enough to say there was a clear consensus against the move. I'd also add there didn't seem to be a consensus to split the article either, but I only skimmed the above sections. Jenks24 (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


Kingdom of Germany → Regnum Teutonicum – See the above discussions. The majority of editors appear to oppose the current title Kingdom of Germany. There is, unfortunately, no clear and undisputable term for the subject that is used in all sources alike. Translation issues make it particularly complex.

Several questions have been raised:

  • Was there strictly speaking a "Germany" back then (instead of Germania)?
  • Was it truly a "Kingdom"?
  • Was it "German", "Teutonic", "Deutsch" or "Germanic"?
  • Isn't this just East Francia?

Mary Fulbrook writes for the Cambridge University Press in her A Concise History of Germany (pages 12&13): "...Germany is probably unique among modern European states in having a name derived not from a tribe or territory, but from a spoken language." This is important to us because it stresses Germania was the land of the Germanic-speaking peoples (meaning all Germanic tribes) while Germany is the state that still exists today. Fulbrook further notes that there is no consensus on when the latter was first established, and that doubt about the existence of a united Germany is to be noted up until even the late Middle Ages (~14th century) when the name deutsche Lande ("German lands") was still most common.

I've found that the original and most precise name for the subject is regnum Teutonicum ("reign of Teutonics"). Fulbrook uses "Regnum Teutonicum; so does Timothy Reuter as seen in his The Perception of the Past in 12th Century Europe and his Beyond the Regnum Teutonicum; so does The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages as seen here; and as a notable extra, on the German wiki the name Regnum Teutonicum is also used. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Beyond the Regnum Teutonicum" is a review essay by Len Scales about Reuter. Srnec (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Support move, as nom. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is probably true that regnum Teutonicum is more common in German historiography than, for example, Deutsches Königtum. It is not true of English historiography that it is more common than "kingdom of Germany"/"German kingdom". The nominator's citations are cherry-picked: the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages has an entry for "Germany, Kingdom of" and citations have already been given where Reuter translates the work of Horst Fuhrmann by using "kingdom of Germany". Srnec (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support, the added value of the article - as is - is about the title of Rex Teutonicorum, so the latter is the best possible article name. Renaming to Regnum Teutonicum instead of Rex Teutonicorum is a sort of second best option. Otherwise, with regard to the country/empire the article just describes the gradual transition from East Francia to Holy Roman Empire where Regnum Teutonicum has been just one of the names being used; I think this part of the article should rather be integrated in East Francia and Holy Roman Empire articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move. Srnec provided many reliable sources. The Kingdom of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire never were the same thing. It was part of the Empire as was the other kingdoms. Regnum Teutonicum is not more common in English historiography. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that Germany is different from the historic realm doesn't mean they cannot be, or are not, frequently called by the same name. Srnec has noted that the present name is used in a number of English-language histories, presumably most of them, which makes sense since it was the historically used name in English. —innotata 06:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    "it was the historically used name in English" Surly in the period referred to in this document the name used in English would have been Latin. What are the sources you are using for saying that historical English language sources used "Kingdom of Germany"?-- PBS (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    John Gower: "Of Alemaine Princes sevene..."
    Robert of Gloucester: "Flowe into Germaine, þat in Alimayne ys..." [The editor takes this to be equating Germaine and Alimayne.]
    Robert Plumer Ward: "The Empire of Rome, and the Kingdom of Germany are still in existence as such ... elected Roman Emperors, which with the reassumed title of King of Germany, has been the custom ever since." Srnec (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    There is a difference between "since it was the historically used name in English" and "since it is the name used in English histories". Most of the documents of the period under discussion would either have been written in Latin or possibly French, few if any would have been in English. As an aside the content Gower does not support your contention, I do not have access to "Flowe into Germaine..." but "Flowe into Yorkshire" is not a phrase that would indicate Yorkshire was a kingdom, so what makes you think that is prof of usage? As to the third one, it is much too late (1795) to be a primary source (and is written during a period of a massive European war -- "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."). -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    The point is that Germany was the "historically used name in English" going back to the Middle Ages and continuing into the modern period. It is false that it is an anachronism. All that aside, "the name used in English histories" is the one we should go with per Wikipedia's policies—and that would be "Kingdom of Germany". Srnec (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would support Bermicourt's modified split proposal (so up to 962 goes to East Francia, after 962 goes to Holy Roman Empire, the title itself goes to King of the Romans and this becomes a disambiguation page) but, much though I am happy to see article titles in foreign languages, most Wikipedians prefer English-language titles. It would seem perverse to move this article from it's current English-language title to one that is effectively just a translation into mediæval Latin — particularly when, as Srnec points out, it's not even a more-common title in English historiography. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment by nom. Can we just get it clarified at least who wants the page to be moved, split or deleted? I know Srnec does not, as he has shown us, but the above discussion quite clearly showed a consensus for it (count the Supports). Over half the voters here haven't been involved with the article before. If someone else wants to propose an alternative they may do so, but we need this thing solved. It's being stonewalled right now by a very, very persistent editor who is certainly knowledgeable if a bit stubborn. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I would like to see a section about how our primary sources called it in the Middle Ages, I fail to see how using a Latin name would clarify anything. Dimadick (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the proposed term is used by historians. But as a general knowledge encyclopedia we also need article titles, that are recognizable and understandable by average lay readers. A specialist Latin term completely fails to meet "Recognizability", "Naturalness" and "Consistency" with other titles - 3 of the 5 main criteria of WP:COMMONNAME. Such a specialist term should only be used as title (imo), if no other term exists or the term is part of a commonly accepted consistent terminology. GermanJoe (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - as the nominator asked: I would be content with the current article title or with a move to a clearly better title (the obvious problem being to find one). But the main focus in my opinion should be the article's content and how to clarify it, not an endless academic dispute about the "best title". GermanJoe (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - split article content to East Francia and Holy Roman Empire; redirect King of Germany to King of the Romans and turn this into a dab page or short article explaining the [mis]use of the term in English. Bermicourt (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. Term "King of Germany" and "King of the Romans" are simply not the same, as well as "Kingdom of Germany" and "HRE". But I also oppose this request, translation into medieval Latin do not solve anything. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Try to be civil. Actually I partly agree, because "King of Germany" and "Kingdom of Germany" are not used in German or Latin, but have been equated to "King of the Romans" (rex Romanorum; Römischer König or König der Römer) or "King of the Germans/Germanii" / "King in Germany/ia" (rex Teutonicorum; König in Germanien, etc.) by some English authors, inaccurately in my view. All these terms effectively refer to the time between the election to king by the electors and the coronation as emperor by the pope. "King of the Romans" was the title they actually used and which others, e.g. Henry VIII of England used of them. The problem is that the terms are imprecise because there was no actual Kingdom of Germany and so sources use them in different, and sometimes loose, ways. My suggestion was simply intended to accept the misuse of the term by some sources and point it at the more accurate term. Bermicourt (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just translated the German Wiki article to create Regnum Teutonicum which I think partly explains why there is confusion. The Latin term was used to describe part of the Empire, rather than some separately governed sovereign kingdom. However, but its English translation, "Kingdom of Germany", appears to have been used both in this narrower sense and also one or more wider senses. Bermicourt (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is there no uproar over the fact that we call the other parts of the Empire kingdoms, i.e. Kingdom of Arles and Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)? —Srnec (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Arles existed as such for a while as a vassal state of the Holy Roman Empire. It is clearly mentioned in the Golden Bull of Charles IV. By contrast, in the long list of princes assigned as royal escorts, there is no mention of a king or kingdom of either Germany or Italy. The only kingdoms mentioned are those of Arles, Bohemia and Christ. The only kings mentioned are those of Bohemia, Saxony and the Romans. The omission of Germany and Italy would be odd if such mighty states really existed, but they didn't - they were a collection of states within the HRE. Note also that Charles calls himself "Emperor of the Romans"... Bermicourt (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment. If you take a look at Regnum Teutonicum which I have just translated from German Wikipedia, you will get a flavour of what the term means and an idea what this article should look like. It does not try to assert that there was a real kingdom (regnum means more like the sphere of a sovereign's reign), but that the term was used to describe that part of the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps. I took it straight from German Wikipedia without alteration apart from the last sentence which needs to point to this article while it exists. Bermicourt (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If historians have been "imprecise" or "mistranslated" certain terms, that extraordinary claim needs to be backed up with strong expert sources. Without such sources the added last sentence is simply WP:OR. Walter Mohr's text is available online in German - he also mentions the usage of "rex Germaniae" both as geographical and political term, albeit rarely with the latter meaning (that aspect is missing in the de-Wiki article). The claim, that no "actual" or "real" German kingdom existed during the early HRE, needs reliable secondary sources as well, not the analysis of primary sources. And even then, this would only be one claim among other different views - we have to present all views from reliable sources in 1 article as impartial as possible. It would be a lot better to improve the current article including some sourced information from the de-Wiki article, instead of trying to push a personal view with a separate WP:CONTENTFORK. GermanJoe (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I actually agree with your earlier view that the content needs working on which is why I thought translating de.wiki would be helpful at least to clarify what I and several others are getting at. I expect once the discussion is resolved, we may get away with one article and a redirect, but only if the consensus is that the sources use KoG and Regnum Teutonicum interchangeably to mean the same thing. And yes, we do need to go from sources, primary and secondary. Bermicourt (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
But, generally speaking, the "Terminology" section in this article does need some work of course. Some of the unsourced analysis could be trimmed a bit for instance. All those details are interesting, but are a bit much to digest. And parts of paragraph 4 and 5 (after 1250) would probably better fit in the HRE article, as they primarily deal with the imperial title or with a "German" title in imperial context. GermanJoe (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, now Wikipedia has 5 articles about something historians can't even agree it existed. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this move. Also oppose move to split. While "Kingdom of Germany" may have been roughly synonymous with East Francia, it is not synonymous with the HRE, but only one of three constituent kingdoms (and one of four parts) defining the Holy Roman Empire, retaining a separate chancellor, separate collection of lords and separate coronation through most of the Middle Ages. Walrasiad (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you name some of those chanellors and lords who resided over the Kingdom of Germany? Machinarium (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Archbishop of Mainz was chancellor for the K of Germany (Cologne for Italy, Trier for Burgundy) for much of the duration (confirmed in perpetuity in Golden Bull). German nobility consists of the stem duchies, marches & subfeuded lords in the 10th C. elections for German king (911 on, but esp. 1024 election and coronation of Conrad the Salian) Walrasiad (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The Mainz office, like the title of German king, was largely ceremonial, which you can read in Len Scales' book (available on google books p. 182-184). The area related to this title also did not necessarily match the boundaries of the former East Francia. For example, in 1362 Fritsche Closener declared that Mainz's title covered all of Germania, "that is to say, from Hungary to the Rhine." This reaffirms the point I tried to make earlier, which is that the regnum teutonicum was a geographic area which sometimes existed in speech and writing, but was neither a kingdom, state or any other type of polity. Machinarium (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Shrug. You can say that for any kingdom. The Germanic concept of a "kingdom" is not a geographic area, it is a political area, defined by folks, not acres. The area (often a Latin term) will always be an informal shorthand for a collection of dominions of barons owing allegiance to a king. "East Franks" are a folk, "Germany" is an area. "Lombards" are a folk. "Italy" is an area, etc. The "Kingdom of Germany" refers to the collection of barons in the area that once constituted the lands of the East Franks and their subject tribes (Swabians, Bavarians, Saxons, Thuringians, etc.), which by the 10th-11th C. is now settled down into large duchies (the royal duchy of Franconia, plus Swabia, Bavaria, Saxony, etc.). This specific collection of barons acclaim their king, who is crowned in Aachen (usually) by the Archbishop of Mainz (almost always). This is the "King of Germany", and the area these barons cover we can call the "Kingdom of Germany". There really is no term more convenient to call him or it. Walrasiad (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You can't say that for any kingdom, because other kingdoms (like the Kingdom of France) weren't areas of larger polities such as the Holy Roman Empire. If Germany was a political area as you say then try to name any ruler who ruled over the Kingdom of Germany who wasn't (becoming) the Holy Roman Emperor, and you will find that there were no such rulers. That's because the real polity that we're talking about was the Holy Roman Empire. Germany as kingdom was not a polity, but existed only as a title for the emperor. I would have believed you if the Kingdom of Germany had its own king or governor who ruled as a right hand to the emperor, but that's not the case. While I agree that renaming article doesn't solve much, it's the content of the article that's the main problem. Machinarium (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
"Holy Roman Empire" is itself an summary name, to refer to the four collected domains and titles of Conrad the Salian (rather than clumsily calling him "King of Germany, Italy, Burgundy and Roman Emperor"). Each of those entities are distinct polities, with different collections of barons, different chancellors, different coronations, etc. that happen to (often) be held by one person. There are plenty of "Kings of Germany" who never collected the "Emperor" title (nor the Italy title), e.g. Conrad I, Henry I the Fowler, Philip Hohenstaufen, Conrad IV Hohenstaufen, William (of Holland), Richard (of Cornwall), Alfonso (of Castile), Rudolf Hapsburg were all elected king of Germany, yet never became emperor. "Emperor" is not a Germanic title, it is a Roman title, in the Roman hierarchy - and a fourth feather in the cap that has to be collected. You actually need to go to Rome, and be acclaimed by the Senate and People of Rome and crowned by the Bishop of Rome, to become Emperor. Otherwise you're not. You may be a candidate, but that is effectively meaningless. Nonetheless, you are a fully bona fide King of Germany the moment German barons (and only German barons - not Burgundians or Lombards) acclaim you and you are crowned by the Archbishop of Mainz. Getting or not getting the "Emperor" title doesn't affect the authority a King of Germany has over Germany. Picking the imperial title up doesn't affect your authority in Germany (nor Lombard Italy nor Burgundy). Geographically, "emperor" adds nothing but the Roman/Byzantine dominions in Italy (i.e. the Papal States). Walrasiad (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The list of supposed Kings of Germany that you've mentioned were not actually rulers of Germany. Conrad I and Henry I were kings of East Francia, before the establishment of the HRE. To call them kings of Germany is very anachronistic. Philip of Swabia / Hohenstaufen was anti-King to Otto IV; him and Otto were claiming to be King of the Romans, which was a struggle over who would become the leader of the HRE, not over who would become the ruler of Germany. Philip was murdered, after which Otto became the only ruler of the HRE and was crowned emperor. Conrad IV was not a ruler of Germany, he was simply the son of emperor Frederick II, who had given him the title of King of the Romans at the age of 9 so that he would become his successor. I Could go on. You noted that the title of emperor didn't change the amount of authority a king held over Germany. That only reaffirms my point, which is that this article should discuss a title, instead of giving the illusion that the Holy Roman Empire was a federation of several kingdoms. Machinarium (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Machinarium: Totally agreed. AFAICS "King of Germany" was a title that was hardly if ever used at the time and is rarely used by German historians. However a number of English-language historians use the term anachronistically as a sort of lazy shorthand for King of the Romans because either they think it's easier to write, more understandable to those educated outside the German/Austrian system or maybe they're popular historians who don't really understand the politics. Whatever the reason, it's quite misleading, especially as English readers naturally think of a kingdom as a sovereign state with a king at its head and all subjects under his direct rule; like England or, later, France and Spain. I'm afraid the Kingdom of Italy article may have the same issues, but that's for another day... Bermicourt (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your constant slighting of English historians has to stop—especially since you don't even know if the cited historians are mere popularizers or not. Their usage is neither anachronistic nor lazy. In fact, I've quoted multiple English historians explicitly justifying their usage. I could quote more. And don't tell English readers what they naturally think. I've cited at least one historians explicitly justifying the term "kingdom" as well. Srnec (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh please, that's almost discriminating :). American editors can have a 650KB discussion on Hilary Clinton's first name (each year), but a "thorough" discussion about the correct title for a 1.000 years-old German/East Frankish/Teutonic entity is too taxing for the servers? I am feeling oppressed (for clarity's sake: /kidding). GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - more seriously: it's pretty clear that the proposal does not have sufficient consensus. It could be closed soon imo. GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - and oppose the original split proposal, too, if that's still open. It appears that every few years this gets reopened, poorly explained, and voted on, with poor Srnec forced, largely alone, to provide numerous scholarly sources backing up the currently existing title. It should basically come down to this - Srnec (and others in earlier discussions, I believe) has provided a wealth of sources in which prominent English language historians refer to a Kingdom of Germany to support his side of the argument. His opponents have provided a wealth of unsupported assertions and flights of logic to support theirs. Wikipedia is pretty clear about which of those is supposed to win out. As to the logical arguments of supporters of this move, I genuinely fail to understand what argument they're even making, because it constantly shifts. This move, in particular, seems to give away the game, since it acknowledges the existence of a Regnum Teutonicorum, which seems to imply that this kingdom existed, but that "Kingdom of Germany" is somehow a misnomer. How can they argue this, in the absence of any sources saying that the name is a misnomer? If the argument is that such a kingdom did not exist at all, then why is Regnum Teutonicorum any better than the current title? "The German equivalent of this English language name is not used in German" seems to be the only argument here. And that's not an argument - we use the name used in English language sources, not German ones. john k (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is fairly obviously a non-starter. Jenks24 (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Kingdom of Germany → Kingdom of the East Franks – As the original mediaeval Empire was based on the Kingdom of the East Franks, it never made any sense that there would be other kingdoms inside it. This came to seem increasingly odd as the Monarchy declined and control of Italy faded. But not until the Emperor Maximilian I was a formal claim made to Germania as the kingdom that had been East Francia. Lutie (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I don't understand the nominator's rationale. What does it have to do with the proper title of this article? And surely the proposed new title ought to be a redirect to East Francia. —Srnec (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per request. Mootros (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, the request seems reasonable. Filpro (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is already an article about East Francia (with "Kingdom of the East Franks" as alternative name in the lead), which has some continuity and topical overlap with this article of course. Having 2 "East Frankish" articles would only increase the current dilemma - merging them might be a solution. But that would require a volunteer to completely restructure the whole content. It's a lot easier said than done, and would possibly confuse this complex topic even more. GermanJoe (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Srnec already noted, this nomination is nonsense. It's a flaw in the RM process that proposals like this have to treated seriously. Maximilian merged the Kingdom and the Empire to create the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." H. Humbert (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

King of the Romans vs King of the Germans

Latest comment: 8 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Can the folks who believe that the King of the Germans (Rex Teutonicorum) ruled over Germany, rather than the Holy Roman Empire, explain if this title was different from King of the Romans (Rex Romanorum)? As far as I'm aware these two titles are the same. That the King of the Romans was sometimes called King of the Germans is similar to the fact that the Holy Roman Emperor (Romanorum Imperator) was sometimes called the German Emeperor (Imperator Teutonicorum). Machinarium (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are basically the same. Why? Srnec (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the title King of the Romans was a claim to rule over the romans, and thus the entire empire, not just German lands. The latter suggestion was generally avoided in the first few centuries of the Empire's existence. Scales explains this well:
"One fact above all renders implausible the notion that rulers in the Post-Staufer period aspired to a German kingship distinct from the Empire: the pains which their own chanceries took to avoid mentioning such a kingship in their documents. Even Frederick II's sons were almost always styled, in traditional fashion, 'king of the Romans' in their public acts, as were the 'Interregnum' kings: official invocations of their 'German' kingship, if in some ways suggestive, are few, indeed anomalous. Nord did conventions change in the decades that followed. (..) Henry VII judged it a dishonour to be adressed, disregarding his Roman title, as 'King of Germany' (rex Alamannie). Invocations of a 'German' kingship are almost entirely absent from Latin documents in the ruler's name: and the few examples which do occur are usually identifiable as the product of special circumstances. The signs are that the term was consciously avoided. It is found only slightly more often in writings issued by the electors and other princes.
p. 174
Also please read the following:
"But over what, and whom was this 'royal power' to be exercised? To what kind of kingdom did Charlemagne's aurea sedes regni hold the key? A German one, perhaps - paralleling the Burgandian and Lombard crowns which the Empire's ruler might receive at Arles and Milan? Certainly, there were those who believe it to be. The diploma of 1166 conferring sainthood upon Charlemagne had named Aachen as 'the head and seat of the kingdom of Germany.' Johannes von Buch, in his gloss on the Sachsenspiegel (c 1325), explained that the ruler's first coronation made him 'king over all the German lands.' For Heinrich von herford, writing in the time of Charles IV, the Frankish emperor himself had decreed that a king was to be crowned in Aachen 'for Germany' (pro Theutonia), just as coronation at Monza would make him king of the Lombards, and in Rome 'emperor of the world.'
Such a satisfyingly clear resolution was not, alas supported by the facts of the chronicler's own day. from the time of his first elevation, the ruler's official titles announced a kingship over the Romans, not the Germans, while his public acts assumed from the start the power to rule through the Empire's territories. His regalia, including the famous octagonal crown (which tradition identified as Charlemagne's own), were used without distinction both for 'royal' coronations and for the creation of emperors of in Rome. It therefore made perfect sense when another chronicler wrote of the 'advocacy of the Roman Empire' being conferred on the new king at Aachen. The distinctiveness of the Empire's constituent regna was further eroded by the shift tracable in German constitutional thinking during the fourteenth century, towards affirming election, not coronation, as the constitutive act in making a ruler. (...)
Yet writings of diverse kinds nevertheless clung firmly to the notion that north of the Alps there existed, in some sense, a 'kingdom,' which lay within, but was not identical with, the Empire - even if, in the late Middle Ages, the distinction between the two became somewhat less easily discernible than in earlier times. And a special link between the rule of this kingdom and the German people and their lands seemed, in the eyes of many, as hard to deny as it was precisely to define"
pp. 154-155
I think these excerpts explain the controversy that exists around this article. Currently, the distinction between German kingdom and Roman Empire is too clearly emphasized. While the idea of the existence of a German kingdom certainly existed (and changed throughout the centuries), it was not a clearly defined constituent difference. Machinarium (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the German kings claimed to rule over the Romans by right. I also agree with Scales that "that rulers in the Post-Staufer period [did not] aspire to a German kingship distinct from the Empire" and that "the term [King of Germany] was consciously avoided" by the royal/imperial chancery. Where have I ever suggested otherwise? Of course, Scales is correct, too, that "in the late Middle Ages, the distinction between the two became somewhat less easily discernible". I know I stated the same thing in an earlier round of this debate.
This article needs work. Nobody denies it. But what is wrong with an article on "a 'kingdom,' which lay within, but was not identical with, the Empire" that " existed, in some sense" to the "north of the Alps" during the Middle Ages? And why can't we call it "Kingdom of Germany", as many historians do? Srnec (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad that you support change of this article's content, so I'm just trying to seek some common ground here. I don't really mind that we call it Kingdom of Germany anymore, though I would support explaining that this is all but a modern translation of Regnum Teutonicum. Anyway, I'm invoking Scales here because I believe the content of this article should be more similar to the content of the German wikipedia article. Currently the article starts with a quote from Gillingham, who calls Germany "a single, indivisible political unit throughout the middle ages." This is a fringe view, and contradicts what Scales and other authors have written. Other editors have already tried to explain that we should carefully distinguish historians who use the term "Germany" for convenience from those historians who give an accurate description of medieval statehood. In fact, now that I've been able to read Gillingham's article, he admits doing this himself: "For the purpose of this essay I am simply assuming that 'medieval Germany' lasted from the tenth century to the fifteenth century. I also set aside complications such as the relationships between the Reich and the kingdoms of Bohemia, burgundy and Italy." (first page, footnote 1). I thus suggest we remove Gillingham's description and explain better the complication surrounding the idea of a German kingdom. Machinarium (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm also coming round to the view that we need to work on the article rather than delete it or reduce it to a redirect. Clearly I would want to start from something that looks more like the German article and advance cautiously from there. If others do the same from their positions we should move towards a consensus that, hopefully, also reflects the sources well. And anything that is removed from the article should be moved to the appropriate article elsewhere in Wikipedia, unless we agree it is fundamentally wrong. Bermicourt (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Write on the first line of the lead "The Kingdom of Germany is a modern concept used by some historians..." and then the rest. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a medieval concept. Srnec (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Certainly there was a medieval concept, certainly not this one here. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
So what was the medieval concept? Srnec (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd strongly oppose any effort to describe the "Kingdom of Germany" as some sort of concept made up by modern historians. It is a term used by modern historians to describe an entity that existed at the time. john k (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we all agree that Regnum Teutonicum was a term used in mediaeval times to describe an "entity". What we are debating is what that entity was. It certainly wasn't an independent kingdom run by a king. It was a descriptor of those myriad states in the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps. What may be a modern (British/American?) construct is the term "Kingdom of Germany" to imply a real kingdom. The very term is confusing as some of the sources admit. The problem is that if you read Wikipedia - not just here I hasten to add - you could get the firm impression that Germany existed as a joined up independent kingdom under a recognized sovereign king. It never did; at least not in the sense that there was a Kingdom of England or Kingdom of France. That's why German authors never use the term. They don't need to. What's needed is a consensus revision of this article (and others) to reflect how the term is really used. If we keep arguing at the current level, we'll never get anywhere. Bermicourt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I mean, wasn't it a kingdom run by a king, at least up to the fall of the Hohenstaufens? As I think has been discussed in the past (I assume everything has been discussed in the past, since we've been going round on this for like a decade), if anything, it is the "Holy Roman Empire" which is a made up phantom in the High Middle Ages, not the Kingdom of Germany, which had clear institutions and so forth. The issue is that later, as the Burgundian and Italian Kingdoms gradually ceased to exist, German institutions effectively got turned into imperial institutions, and the German Kingdom more or less became the "Holy Roman Empire," although obviously there were still some vestigial traces of the Empire in Italy and Burgundy. But in, say, 1150, I'm not sure why we should see the Kingdom of Germany as being particularly less real than any other European kingdom. john k (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree, John. What else would it be than a kingdom run by a king? Speaking for the High Middle Ages there still was actual royal power. The kings could assign fiefs and theoretically reclaim them. They could convene a court diet and call to arms. Under the Salian dynasty German kings had more royal power than the French kings. The German kingdom basically started out strong in the 10th and 11th century and grew weaker over the following centuries in favor of smaller lords.--MacX85 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@John K. "Wasn't it a kingdom run by a king..." No. The "Kingdom of Germany" was a euphemism for the territories of the HRE north of the Alps. It had no meaning except in the context of the HRE. The "king" was in fact the HRE. However, confusingly, the prince-electors who AFAIK came from N of the Alps elected a "King of the Romans" who then went forward to be crowned HRE. So as others have explained it was a ceremonial title akin to "Emperor-in-waiting" If there really was a real Kingdom of Germany, one would expect to see it writ large in the German literature and on German Wikipedia, but it isn't. In English literature, it seems to be a modern shorthand either for the HRE or to refer to mainly German-speaking territories (but of course not all of them were). It would be interesting to research how various authors define the phrase themselves, but in most of the examples I've seen they don't; there is just a vague description or none at all. But feel free to check this out. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not used to refer to the HRE. What is "It had no meaning except in the context of the HRE." supposed to mean? We all agree that the Kingdom of Germany is a subset of the Holy Roman Empire. That's like saying England has no meaning except in the context of the UK... Yes the German kings strongly expected to be crowned emperor and made their claim visible by bearing the title "King of the Romans". Yet not every one did become emperor. Also there the kingdoms of Italy and Burdundy. Do you declare them nonexistent as well because there was only one king/emperor to rule over them all?
It's also not true that it doesn't appear in German speaking literature. I read "Das Reich im Mittelalter" by Stefan Weinfurtner. He does mention the "deutsches Reich" or "deutsches Königreich" and "regnum teutonicum" more than once. In fact he has a whole chapter about it being different from the imperium.--MacX85 (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Be careful, there was a Kingdom of England, a sovereign state ruled by a king. The UK did not appear until about 300 years ago when it united with the Kingdom of Scotland. However, there was no equivalent "Kingdom of Germany" that was independent and sovereign; there were only German-speaking states ruled by princes of various types, but they were all part of the HRE along with other non-German speaking states. The title "King of the Romans" was used by a king elected from the German-speaking states as a precursor to being elected HRE. Italy and Arles (or Burgundy) are separate cases that need treating on their merits - don't conflate them with this issue. Bermicourt (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There was a kingdom of East Francia (which would be called Germany later) before there was a trinity of the kingdoms of Germany, Italy and Burgundy however brief it may have been and the idea of calling that trinity the Holy Roman Empire wasn't around from the get go. Initially the emperor was supposed to be the earthly head of all of Catholic christendom.--MacX85 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

German kings

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi,
I would just like to point out that a number of Wikipedia articles, like "Germany", "Holy Roman Empire", "Walk to Canosssa", "Otto I" etc. etc. speak of German kings. In that sense, at least, "common" seems to be established. Any name change to "rex teutonicus" (or "konungr thiodiska" - why not go all the way?) will mean weeks of search-and-destroy across this eminent internett encyclopedia.
Anyone who feels the world is hard done by in historico-linguistic inaccuracy is welcome to fight the good fight over at the article on "Vikings" which should properly be about the Norse, but the brits see that differently :)
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
A "German king" is a king who is German; it doesn't prove that there was a "Kingdom of Germany". It's a description of nationality. Bermicourt (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, please see wikt:German. The term is ancient and once referred to the citizens of Germania. Modern scholars and translators alike often use "German" and "Germanic" inconsistently, as unfortunately no alternative form exists in the English language. Compare the older version Germanus. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, a request for consensus

Latest comment: 8 years ago27 comments5 people in discussion

I see that once again nothing has changed. I would like to ask Srnec and GermanJoe, is there any compromise you would agree with? Do you understand the concerns of people here? We have long tried to find a common ground in either a split, a merge, a move or even a delete, but there is no way we will achieve consensus without some willingness from your side. The issue is clear: the "Kingdom of Germany" is virtually unknown in English. Try a google search and you will find no such thing as the article describes. In all fairness, it's a rough (mis)translation of a specific German term (Deutsches Reich) with heavy implications. What takes the cake here is that even long after this period of time the English still referred to the entire Mid-Germanic region as Dutch. I simply can't comprehend why this article name would suit it. The only real obstable to a consensus so far is that we can not decide on what to move/rename it to. I'm asking you (and others) to reach out here, since plenty of people on the talk page have long voiced their disagreement with the current status of the article. You two have been active in these discussions and so invariably play a part in what comes next. I have no doubt of your good intentions and commitment, which is why I'm reopening this with a Request for Consensus on how to deal with the matter at hand.

I don't want to be the one to keep pushing this though. If nothing comes from it or consensus decides that it should remain the same, I will of course agree with this decision. Any comments are appreciated. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The issue is clear: the "Kingdom of Germany" is virtually unknown in English. You call >300,000 hits "virtually unknown"? There's even an entire historiographical book titled The kingdom of Germany in the High Middle Ages and an entry in the Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages dedicated to "Germany, Kingdom of". - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Those google Hits are overwhelmingly for the contemporary "micronation" "created" by "former chef and martial arts trainer ... Peter Fitzek, the 48-year-old self-proclaimed monarch of the so-called Königsreich Deutschland, or kingdom of Germany." (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in random requests for comment) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
And that is why I have also provided some more reliable sources; here is another one. By the way, if you search for "Kingdom of Germany" -wikipedia -fitzek, you can most likely get rid of those particular false positives. Any more false positives? Be creative and exclude their characteristic terms too ;) - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt there are sources mentioning it but they all struggle with the correct terminology. You have to agree there. Searching for the "Kingdom of Germany" gives the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire (of WW1), the Micronation, pretty much every -dom before there is any mention of what we describe in this article.
First of all, even though I and our texts will talk about Germany, you need to get that out of your head. There was no Germany in the sense of a nation or even a kingdom (even though there was indeed a King of the Germans). ... In turn, neither the Kingdom of Italy nor the Kingdom of Germany was much of a kingdom. Rather, these were merely titles representing a claim over a collection of powers that had managed to become more or less independent.
-Dr. E.L. Skip Knox [1] Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No, he doesn't have to agree. In fact, he might agree with me that it is you who is struggling here with correct English terminology.
I'm glad you've found one online source that backs you up. It seems, however, that Dr. Knox is struggling with terminology, since he implies that the Duchy of Burgundy, which was always French, belonged to the Empire. His map, note, says clearly "Kingdom of Germany".
If the issue is that medieval Germany is not the same thing as modern Germany, to this we can certainly all agree. Of course, medieval France isn't modern France, medieval Italy isn't modern Italy, etc. Why does it seem that only Germany trips people up? Srnec (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You are being extremely disruptive. Not once have you acknowledged a problem with this article despite years of controversy. As for your question: medieval Germany was never united. Medieval Italy comes from the Roman term Italia. Medieval France comes from Francia. Germany comes from Germania, which was something else entirely. Germany was first united in the 19th century. You are now arguing with an academic historian. WP:TRUTH. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
COMMENT: I see (Latin: Regnum Teutonicum, "Teutonic Kingdom"). Is there a name in the German language for the Kingdom of Germany? Also the time range/life span of a defunct state is pretty basic to its description, it would be nice to see some sort of date for the Kingdom's beginning and its ending (if only approximate or time range) at the beginning of the lede. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 

Plip!

@BoogaLouie: Try Deutsches Reich as mentioned in OP. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: so: German: Deutsches Reich . Was that the name of the kingdom? Should that follow the name of the article in the lede? ("OP" ?) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@BoogaLouie: Well, in modern German it —Regnum Teutonicum— is referred to as Deutsches Reich; not sure if it was the same back then, when Latin was Europe's lingua franca (hence the Latin in the current lead). And OP=Original post=the initial RfC statement. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: @Prinsgezinde: So Regnum Teutonicum was the official name used at court and so on? Any royal crest or something with the kingdom's name? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, yes. It's probably the most precise, unambiguous term for the realm. Earlier concencus seemed to vote against it though. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
But we do not use Regnum Teutonicum because of WP:ENGLISH. Try to see things without the historio-linguistic ancestry. We are dealing here with an entity to the north of the Alps; an entity that together with Italy and Burgundy formed the Holy Roman Empire; an entity that (at least initially) was composed of duchies, whose dukes would elect a king for that entity. As evidenced in numerous archived discussions, there is a plethora of English sources that refer to this entity as the kingdom of Germany and without other attested English alternatives, "kingdom of Germany" seems like the way to go. - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the reputation of this very early Deutsches Reich mostly came from the Nazi term Drittes Reich, implying that this was the first of these Reichs. Perhaps we have to use that word after all. Apart from "Realm" there is just no good translation. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Put your concerns away. People were calling it the kingdom of Germany long before the Nazis came around. I've cited early modern books before, so I'm not going to do it again. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Who was, Srnec? You take isolated examples. Show me a historical consensus or it won't matter. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

QUESTION: @Prinsgezinde: what name for the article do you propose? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (editor from automatic "feedback request service" for participation in randomly chosen requests for comment)

@BoogaLouie: I previously advocated Regnum Teutonicum, and I still do. It's precise and by far the most accurate, and people familiar with the obscure entity will know the name. It's also its name on the German wiki page. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I would also like to note that Regnum Teutonicum is often the preferred term by historians; see [2] [3] [4] [5]. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: @Prinsgezinde: If there is no agreement on Regnum Teutonicum because of WP:ENGLISH may I suggest Kingdom of Germany (843-1125), or if that seems too exact maybe Kingdom of Germany (9th Century to 12th Century) as an article title. BoogaLouie (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Well, my primary complaint (and that of others, I believe) is that the term "Kingdom of Germany" for this entity is imprecise, uncommon, confusing and somewhat incorrect. It was no Kingdom (as it was not united) and both the term and concept of "Germany" were still far away. Back then this specific region was known as diutisciu land or "German Lands". I would support "Kingdom of the German Lands", but it could be shaky. Again, it really is a language issue. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
BoogaLouie, what happened in 1125?
Bataaf van Oranje, the German kingdom was as united as anything in the Middle Ages. The concept of "Germany" (Germania or Deutschland) was current. Srnec (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Was it really? Because in the Battle of Vlaardingen it was quite obvious that the "King of Germany" (actually the Holy Roman Emperor, but okay) had pretty much no power in Holland, which according to this article and map fell under the mysterious "Kingdom". And please stop with those misleading false translations. "Deutschland" was unknown at the time and "Germania" and "Germany" are two completely different entities. If you wish to change it to "Kingdom of Germania" I would welcome that, however. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
You would welcome a change from the current title, which is widely used in reliable sources, to "Kingdom of Germania", which is completely unknown? What does this tell us about your motivation?
That the king/emperor of Germany had little power in Holland in 1018 is completely irrelevant to the question of the unity of the realm. Shall we list all the battles kings lost in their own countries? The king of France couldn't always control the barons around Paris, much less in Gascony. Later, in 1254–56, the count of Holland was the undisputed and internationally recognized king of Dutchland (Germany). Srnec (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
"widely used in reliable sources"? This again? No one even has any idea what the "Kingdom of Germany" means. It's utterly obscure. It's used only as a bad modern translation in a few sources while the rest calls it "East Francia". It's also vague and incorrect. You're being very stubborn after so many people have already complained about the title. Oh, so "Dutchland" is also Germany now? Your Germanocentric views are really hurting your reliability. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, Dutchland = Deutschland/Duitsland. Until the 16th century, there was no distinction between the present-day Netherlands and modern Germany, neither in English nor in Dutch/German. And why should it have existed? 500 or 1,000 years ago, no one knew that there would eventually be two different nation states. Back then, no one had any reason to distinguish a Germanic Hollander from a Germanic Bavarian. The Germanic tribes were perceived as individual peoples and at the same time as a unit. And this Germanic entity was mainly (not exclusively though) referred to as duytsch/deutsch and Dutch (in English). As to the name of the article, it should, in my opinion, be changed to German realm as this does both confirm the existence of such an entity and coevally recognize that it was not a firm political entity but rather a "floating state", a conglomeration of German(ic) lands. -- Orthographicus (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Terminology

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Anachronism or not, several respected modern historians use the terminology "German kingdom" or "Kingdom of Germany" for 10th century East Francia (please look up the archives, not going to repeat them yet again). Wikipedia editors do not analyze the "correctness" of such terms, but follow the lead of these experts. An exaggerated example to make the point clear: if modern historians would call the entity "Smurfian Empire", we would need to follow their usage - it is not our call as editors to second-guess and interpret the work of recognized experts, no matter how strongly we may disagree with them. Also, and this should be obvious for experienced editors: when a change gets reverted by a disagreeing editor, the issue should be discussed at the talkpage instead of edit-warring. GermanJoe (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Several historians use "Teutonic Empire" and a translation thereof, which was only after the 11th century. Any other says "East Francian kingdom". So now even the few historians who use that translation don't agree on what it refers to. That's why it's vague.
  • It's not "vague", it's complicated. And this complex topic is sufficiently summarized in the article's lead section, and later explained in more detail. The article also mentions disputed and unclear aspects. But we are going around in circles - all these points have been discussed again and again in previous threads and RfCs, where editors didn't find a consensus. Admittedly there are different viewpoints, but the current version is undeniably based on reliable sources. Unless there are new arguments for a different approach, you shouldn't unilaterally change a contested subject area without consensus. I'll leave it at that, as an endless repetition of old arguments on both sides is not constructive. GermanJoe (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is complicated. But (mainly German) historians have been trying to simplify it for centuries by entirely characterizing the Holy Roman Empire as German, even long before it was known as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. So now we have provinces like County of Holland immediately stating that they were a state in the Holy Roman Empire, and then that article immediately stating that it was mostly the Kingdom of Germany. This was while it had absolutely nothing to do with Germany. That doesn't hint at some nationalism to you? The problem with the RfCs is that nothing came out of it because, and no accusatory stance should be interpreted here, mainly Srnec and sometimes you were against such changes. But now it seems that any changes that try to complexify this are invalid. Srnec has previously stated that he opposes any changes of such nature to the article and yet the problems persist. To further illustrate this anachronism and metonymy, until recently the Category:Holy Roman Emperors was within the Category:German emperors. By extension, Charlemagne and others were thusly in the category of "German Emperors" and "Germans by profession". This is what's the problem. Simplification leads to falsehoods. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Perceived separate flaws in other articles or categories should be discussed on the appropriate talkpages, not here. Regarding the previous discussions, several other editors have disagreed with previous proposals or have offered differing suggestions (look up previous threads and RfCs). The dispute is not as clear-cut as you describe it. Additional modern sources to support the current handling have been provided, they can be easily found in the talkpage archives. Your opinion, that these sources are biased or just plainly wrong in using "anachronistic" terminology, is WP:OR - and a bit presumptuous towards acknowledged modern experts, who do such research for a living. Previous proposals for changes have failed to achieve a consensus, not because they have been stonewalled for the sake of it, but because their arguments failed to convince a sufficient number of contributing editors. This "no consensus" outcome should be accepted, especially when the current handling is supported by reliable modern sources. I know, it's only an essay, but without new arguments it would really be better to drop the stick and move on. GermanJoe (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I would happily drop the stick if it wasn't one editor stonewalling this subject. Numerous complaints have been raised and I have not yet seen Srnec try to reach a shared consensus. Instead, I see ownership behaviour. I'm sad to see Germans feel so strongly about this that no discussion can come forth. You'd think such an immensely important entity would receive more attention, but no one has even heard of this Kingdom which is why there is so little activity. I have yet to see a single scholar who states that literally the term "Kingdom of Germany" is a common subject with a clear definition. All I see now is WP:SYNTHESIS. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate it, if you'd keep the nationality of other editors out of the discussion. Such speculation about other editors' motives is entirely inappropriate - see WP:FOC. Your repeated misrepresentation of other editors' viewpoints and of the actual situation doesn't help either. It is not only "one editor" disagreeing with you, otherwise one of the umpteen past RfCs would have led to a consensus for your viewpoint. And there has been plenty of in-depth discussion, although it hasn't led to a consensus unfortunately. In short: your claim of being stonewalled is patently false (and a violation of WP:AGF to boot). Other editors are not obliged to repeat old discussions ad infinitum, when they have already explained the same points several times. Please read WP:IDHT and WP:dispute resolution for further advice. Anyway, I am done here - this exchange has no substantial new arguments and leads nowhere. GermanJoe (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The county of Holland was a part of the regnum teutonicum, as Scales, The Shaping of German Identity, pp. 461–62, says.
Also, I am not German, have never visited Germany and do not speak the language. Srnec (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Either way, articles that don't mention a "Kingdom of Germany" can not be used per WP:SYNTHESIS. That's the problem. They can be used in an article about medieval Germany, not this. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Not quite true. It's perfectly legitimate say that if a thousand articles on this period of history don't refer to a Kingdom of Germany, but use other terminology instead, and ten articles refer to a supposed Kingdom of Germany, that the consensus is that the term isn't generally recognised and/or only occasionally used and we should prefer the approach of the thousand. Bermicourt (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Bohemia

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

So, was Bohemia part of it? I'm reading different viewpoints. It was incorporated later but so was Mecklenburg and Pommerania. Also the Bohemian kings were prince electors. Wouldn't that make Bohemia necessarily a part of the German kingdom?--MacX85 (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, because there was no Kingdom of Germany.☺ But Bohemia would have been part of the Regnum Teutonicum (translated into Germany as Deutsches Reich, German Empire, not Deutsches Königtum, German Kingdom, as suggested by this article) which was a term used to describe that part of the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps. And the electors were ultimately electing the emperor, not a King of Germany. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
For further evidence see the Golden Bull of Charles IV, "Emperor of the Romans" as he calls himself, which shows the long list of princes assigned as royal escorts. There is no mention of a king or kingdom of Germany or Italy, but it does mention the kingdoms of Arles, Bohemia and Christ. The only kings mentioned are those of Bohemia, Saxony and the Romans. So, yes, Bohemia became a kingdom within the Empire, but not a kingdom within a "Kingdom of Germany"; that didn't exist, despite the occasional loose wording of some modern English historians. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Funny how you tell me that it didn't exist, followed by a number of different names in different languages that describe what I'm talking about. And no, they didn't elect the emperor but the "King of the Romans".--MacX85 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That's an odd interpretation. Neither of the two foreign terms used historically meant a German kingdom, as explained in the rest of the same sentence. And yes, the electors did in effect elect the Emperor. "King of the Romans" was an heir apparent title - basically he was going to be the Emperor unless he died first. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The title "King of the Romans" did not refer primarily to an heir apparent in the Middle Ages. It was the title used by German rulers who were not crowned emperors (like Conrad III and Rudolf I). Nobody used the imperial title before a papal coronation until Maximilian I. So the electors were electing a king, whom the pope might crown emperor. Whether the pope had any say in the matter was a question on which king and pope might disagree, but no king ever let the lack of an imperial title limit his authority in any of his kingdoms.
Note that in the Golden Bull the reference to the "archbishop of Mainz, arch-chancellor of the holy empire throughout Germany" is a reference to the kingdom of Germany as opposed to Italy or Arles, which are mentioned in the same manner, by reference to the division of the arch-chancellorship among the archbishop-electors. There is even a reference to the territorial extent of Germany, when it says the archbishop of Mainz sits at the right of hand of the emperor in his own province and "outside of his province, throughout his whole arch-chancellorship of Germany". Srnec (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That's being highly selective. You've clearly done a word search on "Germany" and found 3 hits - one not relevant, two referring to the archbishop; if we do the same for "King of the Romans" we get 42 hits and "Holy Roman Empire" 6 hits, but zero for "king of Germany" or "kingdom of Germany". The whole thrust of it is about an empire (64 hits) linked to Rome - the Holy Roman Empire. And while most of it was clearly Germanic-speaking (with multiple dialects), they clearly laid claim to Arles, Italy and Bohemia which weren't. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
So you think a kingdom can only be mentioned when the word "kingdom" is used? The "kingdom of Arles" is exactly parallel to Italy and Germany. (The difference, I presume, is that Arles the kingdom had to be distinguished from Arles the city.) They are the three kingdoms of the title of Herwig Wolfram's Conrad II, 990–1039: Emperor of Three Kingdoms. Of course, what were real kingdoms in Conrad's time had been reduced by Charles IV's time to constitutional shadows. But they were still remembered. And while the emperors-elect were insistent on the title King of the Romans, most of Europe was content to call them Kings of Germany. Edward III of England, for example, had a clear idea of a kingdom of Germany that was part of but distinct from the Empire of the Romans. Srnec (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
"Regnum Teutonicum (translated into Germany as Deutsches Reich, German Empire, not Deutsches Königtum" I guess you meant "Königreich" rather than Königtum. And yes, Regnum means Königreich in German, definitely not Empire. It's the same word used to decribe any other European kingdom.
Really, I don't get the problem here. I asked a fairly simple question... Has the "kingdom of Bohemia" been part of the kingdom Bermicourt doesn't like me to call "Germany" but rather "regnum Teutonicum", or has it not been? Because contemporary art suggests that Bohemia was regarded as a fairly independent kingdom. The Hofämterspiel, a card game from the 15th century features four kingdoms: France, Germany, Bohemia and Hungary. Bohemia would be quite redundant if it was considered to be part of Germany.--MacX85 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There has been a book (actually more than one) on this topic: Wilhelm Wegener, Böhmen, Mähren und das Reich im Hochmittelalter (Böhlau, 1959). I only know of it from a critical review by Frederick G. Heymann in Speculum 35, 1 (1960), 160–64. Heymann does not agree with Wegener thesis but commends his scholarship. He cites as a countertpoint Zdeněk Fiala, "Vztah českého státu k německé říši do počátku 13. století", Sborník historický 6 (1959), 23–88. I haven't read that work either, so I will quote from Heymann's review of Wegener:

He does not have to prove that there was, at times, a tributary and later still a feudal tie between the rulers of Bohemia and those of the Empire—a relationship which was never completely shaken off as it was in the cases of Hungary, Denmark, or Poland. These facts are undisputed. What Professor Wegener is trying to prove, however, is that Bohemia's tie was not immediate with the Holy Roman Empire and its ruler, the emperor, but rather with the German kingdom and the German king. Her position therefore would not correspond to that of the other two non-Germanic kingdoms within the Roman Empire of the High Middle Ages—Italy and Burgundy—but to that of the other principalities of the regnum Teutonicum—the German as different from, though in the end virtually merged with, the Roman kingdom or empire. Wegener makes a valiant effort to prove this point—even though he fully admits that the position of the predominantly Slavic state of the Přemyslids differed in many ways from that of all other German principalities of the regnum Teutonicum.

That's his summation of Wegener's thesis. It is a rather legalistic view, however. Bohemia was never regarded, I think, as a part of Germany, even if its feudal tie was not with the emperor per se. I think this stems from the fact that 'political Germany' was defined partly be language and partly by the boundaries it achieved in the ninth and tenth centuries. On neither grounds did Bohemia belong. It also had a different law and its rulers were elected by its own nobility. Srnec (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I guess it's fair to say that Bohemia played a special role within the empire that cannot be so easily be labelled.--MacX85 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, no I meant Königtum, a synonym of Königreich. And, as you worked out, Bohemia was a kingdom within the Empire, not within a German "kingdom". Bermicourt (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Königtum (kingship) would refer to the office of the king rather than the realm he rules over.--MacX85 (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. That is only one usage of the term. Bermicourt (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Disputed

Latest comment: 7 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

In view of the long debate about whether there was in fact a Kingdom of Germany or not, I've added the Template:Disputed to the article. That isn't to say that the whole article is disputed; my sense is that many of the individual sentences are uncontentious and could be widely supported - thank you to User:Srnec and others who have added them in good faith. The discussion has been over the use of the term "Kingdom of Germany" itself and, depending on that, whether the uncontentious elements remain here or are incorporated elsewhere. I'm sure all interested editors would want to resolve this quickly and move on to more fruitful work. To that end, may I suggest therefore that we start by identifying those sentences we have an issue with and seeing if we can resolve them using the sources. It may be that rather than stating "the Kingdom of Germany developed/existed/lasted..." we talk more about "some scholars use the term this way; other authors that way; German authors hardly refer to it at all, but instead..." Let's try and find a way out of the present impasse. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any sentence of the form "The Kingdom of Germany was..." that you would be happy with? Srnec (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The tag cannot stay up indefinitely. If nobody has anything to say... Srnec (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
We need to be just a little bit patient. If this issue could be resolved in a couple of days, it would have been over a long time ago. Perhaps we could invite all those who've participated before to have a go at answering your question (i.e. rather than arguing back and forth about the issue). Worth a try at least. ☺ --Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Some sort of notification (at a WikiProject perhaps or via an RFC) might speed things up. But why don't you want to answer my question? If the answer is "no" than we can see that the dispute is absolutely fundamental. If "yes", then we can perhaps see a way out of the morass. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sounds good. I will get round to answering yr question but need time to re-read the whole article and check some sources in order to give an informed reply rather than an off-the-cuff one. And I'm currently on hols as well, so it won't be immediate I'm afraid. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
If nobody has anything to say, I will be removing the tag shortly. Srnec (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll try and suggest something constructive over Christmas as there hasn't been much response. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Reinstated. I'm not going to push for some change as I don't feel responsible for this article, but Srnec can not claim there are no complaints. There have been dozens and the only reason nothing changed is due to a constant deadlock and our failure to reach consensus. The article is simply not good enough for Wikipedia right now. Unfortunately there is very little traffic, as not many have heard of it and very little academic work mentions it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I still think there may be a middle course acceptable to most, but haven't had time to research it due to other pressures. Bermicourt (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Prinsgezinde: I do not claim there are no complaints, but tagging an article is supposed to be constructive. It is not for "warning" people that you think there's something wrong.
As for a middle course... I suspect there is one, too. I am opposed, specifically, to taking the emphasis off the thing itself and moving it to terminology. Srnec (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
And it can be, as hopefully others will take notice and participate in the resolution process. As Bermicourt also noted, others have debated it. You have almost always defended the status quo and I have long disputed said status quo, but we weren't the only ones. Despite this, nothing substantial ever changed. That's why it needs to be tagged. I'd be fine with changing it to the {expert} tag though. It was pure chance that I got to this article again and I'm not here to beat a dead horse. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Deletion has never been proposed. We all know it would fail. Multiple requested moves have failed. We will have an article titled "Kingdom of Germany" whether you like it or not. And that's because of community input. If you want to propose changes to the article, please do so. But if your only position is "get rid of it", you might as well go away. It's not going to happen and you know it. If you have ideas about a middle course acceptable to most, now would be the time to share them. Srnec (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reinstated the tag as it is clearly true and the consensus is that it should be tagged to reflect that. Your response to User:Prinsgezinde is a little harsh. The truth is that all attempts so far to sort this article out have failed, but that doesn't prevent us trying. Telling other editors to "go away" is not constructive and IMHO likely to antagonise rather than have the effect you desire, thus taking longer to reach a compromise. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Since you first tagged the article some months ago, not a word has been spoken by anyone on the actual topic of improving the article and resolving the dispute. My point to Prinsgezinde was that if he cannot accept a compromise under the current title, he is just beating a dead horse. Since I do not feel the tag is justified to begin with, it is hardly incumbent on me to raise the issues! So, please state the sentences you have a problem with so we can address them with reliable sources and move on. Srnec (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
That's because it's time-consuming and not easy. And the tag is justified as the reams of text on this page and its archives has demonstrated. It is "disputed" and, while you can sit back and take pot shots at any proposals that come in since you support the existing text, I'm afraid you can't dictate when and how proposals will arrive. That much, at least, is up to other editors. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. I most certainly can demand that the criticisms/proposals arrive at the same time as the tag. The tag doesn't just go up and then we all wait around for somebody to say something specific that they disagree with in the article. You're supposed to use the tag to draw attention to those specific things so that they can be debated. How is someone (me) supposed to address the tag to remove it if I do not know what specifically is wrong? The tag is not there to "warn" readers. It is there to engender discussion and resolve problems. If past discussions have not resulted in change you favour, that does not justify a "disputed" tag. Surely, you can at least list a few problematic sentences? Srnec (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
And here I was trying to be civil only for you to completely throw it to the wind. Why don't you go away? I've left this article for a long time (multiple times) and each time I come back I see you still clinging on to your ownership over it. It's like you know that it wouldn't last without you because editors will complain about the name and existence again. I suggested we merely involve an expert to decide and you start talking me down, why? Disputed: that such a thing existed, that it was a kingdom (that regnum = kingdom), that it was German (that teutonicum = of Germany - it's not), that we can just liberally translate or use ambiguous translations to weave a seemingly connected entity, that it was in any way different from East Francia, when it could have existed, what lands it held etc. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I have been perfectly civil. What I have not been is indulgent.
Let's deal with your complaints. Disputed: that such a thing existed. If it didn't exist, propose the article for deletion. that it was a kingdom (that regnum = kingdom). Wait. Did it exist or didn't it? Can you clarify what you think did exist that wasn't a kingdom? that it was German (that teutonicum = of Germany - it's not). The kingdom was as German as contemporary France was French. That it was not German in the modern sense is as irrelevant as the fact that 11th-century France as not French in the modern sense. that we can just liberally translate or use ambiguous translations to weave a seemingly connected entity. Nobody is translating Latin or German here. The translations come from scholars. that it was in any way different from East Francia. It isn't and nobody is claiming that it is. "East Francia", as a term, is restricted in English usage to the early period only. The term "kingdom of Germany" is not so restricted and so is the better title for the broader article. This has been explained before by others. when it could have existed. Agreed that this is currently not dealt with well by the article. It is a common problem in historical articles. Things change gradually over time and there is often no clear start or end date. what lands it held. There's a map. What's disputed? Srnec (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Guys, let's calm down and stop mudslinging at one another. It's okay to have different points of view and I don't want either of you to "go away" (or anyone else with a genuine interest in this aspect of history). However, we should be reflecting the sources which themselves are not always consistent. Nevertheless, even if we accept that some sources start to talk about a kingdom of Germany, this article begins describing that entity before it came into existence and that could be addressed for a start. Then I would propose that rather than reflecting one stance or the other, the article could reflect the range of views (at least two!) taken by the sources, especially English, but also German. Obviously we need to cite typical sources as part of that. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm going over the sources again today. I won't change anything in the article but I'll make a new section here on what I can find in them. To Srnec, my points were what has been disputed in general, not just by me. The "what it encompassed" thing has for example been debated in the above section about Bohemia. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead overview

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

I initially wanted to do this for the whole article but it would take far too long. Most of the claims and issues are already in the lead and so this may be good for now. I might still do the rest later.

The Kingdom of Germany or German Kingdom (Latin: Regnum Teutonicum, "Teutonic Kingdom"; German: Deutsches Reich) developed out of the eastern half of the former Carolingian Empire. Like Anglo-Saxon England and medieval France, it began as "a conglomerate, an assemblage of a number of once separate and independent... gentes [peoples] and regna [kingdoms]."[1] East Francia (Ostfrankenreich) was formed by the Treaty of Verdun in 843, and was ruled by the Carolingian dynasty until 911, after which the kingship was elective. The initial electors were the rulers of the stem duchies, who generally chose one of their own. After 962, when Otto I was crowned emperor, the kingdom formed the bulk of the Holy Roman Empire, which also included Italy (after 951), Bohemia (after 1004) and Burgundy (after 1032).

While also drawing a comparison with France and England about their origin, Gillingham notes that the boundaries of medieval Germany were "even more uncertain than those of France and England" and that it had destabilizing factors like "highly regionalized society", "strength of local loyalties" and "fuzziness at its edges", though remarks that it remained a single and indivisible "political unit" throughout the Middle Ages. Mentions "medieval Kingdom of Germany" in the first sentence but unclear what he refers to as he then focuses throughout the paper on the HRE's monarchical system. On page 126 he says that "... it was Henry V who adopted a new royal title, rex Romanorum, a clear rebuttal of Gregory VII's insistence that the Salians ruled only a German kingdom, a regnum Teutonicum". Note the use of "a ... kingdom" and "a regnum ..." here, implying there could be more than one. He does this again on page 130: "Staufen and Luxembourg kings, for example, had no qualms about spending the bulk of their reigns outside their German Kingdom ..." In the rest of the paper it's not entirely clear when he's talking about the King of the Romans, the King of the Germans or even the HRE-king. Makes sense of course, as many of those overlapped. Still, he never again seems to refer to a single king(dom) of Germany as opposed to a king of the Germans/Romans. His preference throughout the paper is to "medieval Germany".

The term rex teutonicorum ("king of the Germans") first came into use in the chancery of Pope Gregory VII during the Investiture Controversy (late 11th century), perhaps as a polemical tool against Emperor Henry IV.[2] In the twelfth century, in order to stress the imperial and transnational character of their office, the emperors began to employ the title rex Romanorum (king of the Romans) on their election (by the prince-electors, seven German bishops and noblemen). Distinct titulature for Germany, Italy and Burgundy, which traditionally had their own courts, laws, and chanceries,[3] gradually dropped from use. After the Imperial Reform and Reformation settlement, the German part of the Holy Roman Empire was divided into Reichskreise (imperial circles), which effectively defined Germany against imperial Italy and the Bohemian Kingdom.[4] There are nevertheless relatively few references to a German realm and an instability in the term's use.[5]

First sentence seems to leave out some important information, namely that according to Gillingham these German kings were normally only called "Rex". The change of a title could naturally not affect the existence of a single Kingdom of Germany at that time. It also does not say if this trend continued. Could not access Robinson's work, unfortunately. Cope's work is similarly nigh inaccessible. Can only find it on Amazon and some referral websites. It seems to source the statement about Burgundy having its own titulature which could mean synthesis. Also odd to say "the German part of the Holy Roman Empire" with no precise qualifier for German. The Imperial Circle article makes no mention of Germany. Bizarrely, source n.4 is only a name and a page with no other information provided so this doesn't give any more information. The last reference makes no mention of a Kingdom of Germany but does speak of a realm, and indeed makes a good point. I also consulted a review of the book by Shami Ghosh here, of which several parts stand out: "... Scales presents a very useful synthesis of the political history of Germany in this period, showing that there was no movement towards a single polity that could be linked to a notion of any kind of ‘national’ identity. While in England and France, the makings of government and state, and thus of a national political identity, were intimately connected with an increasingly assertive monarchy, in Germany the trajectory of the monarchy seemed – even to contemporary observers – different." And: "Contemporary writings (often produced by the increasing numbers of those who travelled outside Germany) often mention Alamania, Theutonia, or the Dudesche lande. The existence of this ‘Germany’ was taken for granted, its boundaries perceived as generally understood – despite the fact that there was not even a term for a unified German polity: both in Latin, and particularly in the vernacular, ‘even the façade of a unitary German regnum […] crumbles entirely’ (p. 182)."


Source evaluation:

  1. ^ Gillingham (1991), p. 124, who also calls it "a single, indivisible political unit throughout the middle ages." He uses "medieval Germany" to mean the tenth to fifteenth centuries for the purposes of his paper. Robinson, "Pope Gregory", p. 729.
  2. ^ Robinson, "Pope Gregory", p. 729.
  3. ^ Cristopher Cope, Phoenix Frustrated: the lost kingdom of Burgundy, p. 287
  4. ^ Bryce, p. 243
  5. ^ Len Scales (26 April 2012). The Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis, 1245-1414. Cambridge University Press. p. 179. ISBN 978-0-521-57333-7. Retrieved 3 April 2013.

John Gillingham is a reliable source. Couldn't find anything on Robinson but Manchester University Press is a reliable publisher. Not sure about the third source, but it doesn't discuss much of importance to the article. Fourth source is incomplete. Fifth source by Cambridge University Press is reliable. No source reliability issues in the lead. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ian S. Robinson is emeritus professor of History at Trinity College, Dublin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Fourth source is incomplete."
The "Bryce" source was added by Pmanderson. The next step would be to ask Pmanderson where they found the source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Might as well. Then we'll invite @Pmanderson:. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I think one of the problems, alluded to above, is that English authors sometimes/often use "kingdom of Germany" as a convenient shorthand for the Holy Roman Empire and, indeed, there are overlaps, but they are not the same. What still seems curious to me is that German authors almost never use the term. I will do a bit of, hopefully complementary, research and report back. Bermicourt (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it is fairly easy to identify the book if not the edition: from the Wikipedia article Imperial immediacy#Problems in understanding the Empire "For nearly a century after the publication of James Bryce's monumental work The Holy Roman Empire (1864), ..."
In this Gutenberg Project copy of the 3rd edition, skimming through the book the best fit I could find is page 317. It contains the summary of Chapter XVII: The renaissance: Change in the Character of the Empire
-- PBS (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
"I think one of the problems, alluded to above, is that English authors sometimes/often use 'kingdom of Germany' as a convenient shorthand for the Holy Roman Empire". I think this almost never happens, if ever. Occasionally, you will see "German empire" used as a synonym for HRE, but that was not uncommon even among contemporaries. In fact, the Peace of Pressburg was signed by the "Emperor of Germany" in 1805, making it semi-official at long last. But "German kingdom" and "kingdom of Germany", or even just "Germany", I do not think are used as synonyms for HRE—certainly not among medievalists specialising in Germany. The most important German historian on the matter of identifying a German kingdom is Ekkehard Müller-Mertens, who has written a monograph the regnum Teutonicum. Also, Timothy Reuter's translation for Horst Fuhrmann's Germany in the High Middle Ages uses the terms "kingdom of Germany" and "German kingdom" to translate something. These are just suggestions for approaching the German historiography. I do not know German well enough to read it, although I have plunked a few paragraphs from Müller-Mertens into Google Translate to get a feel. He did write a chapter for the New Cambridge Medieval History, which I will be reading shortly.
I do not think there is any need to cite Bryce in this article. His is an important work of scholarship, but there are more recent and better works that cover all the same ground and more. Srnec (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Not "kingdom", but they do often use something like "(German) monarchy" which may be confusing. Also, an important thing to note from the above is that "German kingdom" is NOT the same as "Kingdom of Germany", just as "German king" or "King of the Germans" does not equal "King of Germany". In most cases these refer to a person of Germanic ethnicity or indeed just a person or kingdom situated in the German(ic) lands (mostly lands of the HRE that do not belong to another supranational entity). "German kingdom" is used to refer to any number of these reichs, while "Kingdom of Germany" is very, very rare. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
"just as "German king" or "King of the Germans" does not equal "King of Germany" "
in German it pretty much does, just as you can say "der polnische/englische/französische König" or "das englische/französische/polnische Königreich". Technically you could use those terms to describe the ethnic make-up of a certain entity but I've almost never seen that being done. Maybe, in some proto-national sense you might hear "das englische Königreich Northumbrien", but the qualifier "Northumbrien" gives it away that you're not talking about the kingdom of England as a whole.--MacX85 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, German lands were a special case. No single name has been consistently used for the region in a political sense. But even so, it was very common to declare oneself a leader or king of a nation to declare power. Charlemagne himself was titled King of the Franks, King of the Lombards and Emperor of the Romans. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is the eminent late-Victorian sociologist and historian James Bryce, Lord Bryce.
There's his WP article, largely from the Britannica. His work, The Holy Roman Empire is clearer than most on the distinction between the Empire and the Kingdom of Germany, which was, until the end of the middle ages, only one of the component parts of the Empire - a distinction vital until the rise of the Wilhelmine Reich and useful until 1918. See his extensive appendices on the Kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy, and his remarks on the claim of the Empire to hold obedience from all Christian princes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Fixed your link by the way. Though I do immediately see a small issue. Bryce's book is from 1865, or 6 years before the actual founding of Germany. He even still seems to use "German" as "Germanic". For example, he says at the start of chapter 6 that "... all east of the Rhine, Franks, Saxons, Bavarians, Austria, Carinthia, with possible supremacies over Czechs and Moravians beyond. Throughout these regions German was spoken; through Charles's kingdom a corrupt tongue, equally removed from Latin and from modern French." These are clearly simplifications of the linguistic structure of said realms, which at that time was largely Germanic but not all German. Saxons spoke Saxon. Franks spoke Franconian. While reputable, we do need to consider his work from a modern academic point of view while also keeping in mind that Germans and Germany were not the same then (in 1865) as they are now. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
If Bryce wasn't referring to the German Empire, what do you think he was referring to?
Hermann Conring in his Discursus novus de imperatore Romano-Germanico from 1642 wrote: "The German and Italian kingdoms are distinct states from the Roman Empire properly so called, and the Emperor, in so far as he is Emperor, rules neither Germany nor the Lombard Kingdom. It follows that those who maintain that Germany is bound by the laws of Justinian, and who claim that the Emperor exercises the same power over Germany as the ancient emperors exercised over the Roman Empire or that the Emperor rules Germany in his capacity as Emperor, suffer from serious delusions." This was the most influential work of German constitutional theory of its day. Srnec (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
And it would suffer from the same issues. Sounds like Conring's book was in Latin, which may lead to a predictable conclusion: he most definitely used the word "Germani" (if not Teutonic) to refer to a German(ic) Kingdom. But Latin only has one word for either German or Germanic and Germany or Germania. Same with Italian and Italic, Italy and the Italian Peninsula (though these mostly correspond). I think this can be compared to how Pennsylvania Dutch are named. They're not Dutch and yet everyone calls them that because of the historical complexities and ambiguous nature of these exonyms. Also, I'd have to read the Latin myself but it sounds like he's talking about multiple kingdoms. As "German" was at the time an ethnic and regional descriptor rather than national, and "Kingdoms" was already plural, it could just as well have referred to the multitude of kingdoms in the German region at the time. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Germany" as a term

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Having done some further research, I'm becoming persuaded that the term "kingdom of Germany" is used to a degree in English-language literature, but have yet to analyse the different ways authors use it and the relationship they perceive it has to the HRE. I'm also translating a detailed journal article on the terminology called "From Francia orientalis to regnum Teutonicum" which, so far, shows that even contemporary sources did not use their terminology in any consistent way because the political and geographical situation was not clear cut and, in any case, varied over time. So my sense is that we should strive to be a little less dogmatic, myself included, and try and reflect what the sources (English and German) say. But, as I say, I want to do more research before reaching any further conclusions. HTH. ☺ --Bermicourt (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is good. I see progress in our knowledge on the topic and am more convinced that we'll reach the most accurate and encyclopedic result. At first I thought it to be mere mistranslation and simplification but I now realize that the HRE-ic administration was less "de facto" and more "de jure" than I would have expected from realms of that time period. Hate to say it because I'm generally not a deletionist, but we might at some point have to trim the article from its uncertain elements and strive for a more concise and undisputed form. We really could benefit from a history expert.. Might post on some Project pages. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Another thing of note is that the lead gives as the German name Deutsches Reich, but in 20th century German historiography there were typically only three Reichs: first the HRE, second the German Empire (1871–1918) and thirdly Nazi Germany. After all, late modern German historiographers have long viewed the HRE as being a German Reich. But the proposition is that the Kingdom of Germany was within the HRE. Unless there was a "Deutsches Reich" within a "Deutsches Reich" this seems conflicting from both opposing standpoints. If they have always seen the entire Empire as being a typically German Reich, what place would there have been within that for a German Kingdom? Conversely, why would any 19-20th century modern German have seen the HRE as their first Reich if there had also been an actual Deutsches Reich? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
They didn't differentiate between the HRE and Germany in the early modern period. I just read Goethe's "Götz von Berlichingen". They call it "Deutschland" and Reich all the time and speak of the "Kaiser" as its head. Not once was there a mention of the HRE.
The distinction makes sense in the medieval period and I don't think "Deutsches Reich" is what people would call the German kingdom. In that regard I mostly read about "Deutschland" and "Italien". "Deutsches Reich" however is indeed more or less falsely used as meaning the HRE. --MacX85 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think there's a distinction between English and German usage. Searching on Google books I found hardly any examples of the German equivalent of "Kingdom of Germany" being used in German sources, but quite a few examples in English sources. But there didn't seem to be a consistent picture, although at least one English historian wrote "by Kingdom of Germany I mean the following" so they were making up their own definition. That's why I've moderated my position and haven't dived in to suggest specific changes to the text, because IMHO it needs the sort of comprehensive research required by a university assignment and I don't have that time to spare. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
So can the tag come down? Srnec (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Really, Srnec? The discussion has so far not solved the issue but that doesn't mean the problem just goes away. I hate to keep putting this tag in but you keep removing it. Per WP:TC: "On pages that have received little attention from editors or readers, cleanup templates can be used as a way to call attention to problems that need to be addressed by editors." The issue is still very much a thing. I don't know why you want the page to be tag-clean so much when all it does is hopefully encourage people to join the discussion when they see it. In no way did we establish any credibility of the entity in a political-historical sense, just as a concept used in late modern (late modern starts in the mid-18th century, so Goethe would fall under this) German historiography of their country during that period of time. The problem since the start has been that the scope of the article is never established, and the "Kingdom of Germany" appears on many medieval European history pages as a real, well-defined entity whereas this entity still has little proof of ever existing in any de facto sense. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
It does? Since it's just another name for the kingdom of East Francia I thought its existence in a historical sense is pretty well established. Or is it its existence within the HRE that you generally call into question?--MacX85 (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The way this article stands now suggests that East Francia and a Kingdom of Germany are two seperate entities. Machinarium (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
So East Francia is the Kingdom of Germany? Well that's an interesting new definition! In which case, did the Kingdom of Germany cease to exist when East Francia was dissolved into the HRE? If so, we may as well merge this article into East Francia. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"East Francia" and "Kingdom of Germany" are synonymous in a similar way to "Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" (although the term "Byz. Emp." is completely anachronistic, while both "E. Francia" and "K. of Ger." are contemporary, albeit rarer than the alternatives). There is no point at which the Roman Empire becomes the Byzantine Empire—the change in terminology is purely one of historians' convenience, and historians are not writing in unison. "Germany" is more common than "East Francia" (among historians and contemporaries) from at least the eleventh century. It is not correct to see the kingdom of Henry the Fowler (same as that of Louis the Child) as disappearing simply because his son was crowned by the pope. Srnec (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
'Byzantyine' sounds more neutral than 'Kingdom of Germany' though, it would be different if it was known as the 'Greek Empire' or so. Also, the article on the Byzantine Empire explains that the Eastern Roman Empire is the exact same entity, whereas this article suggests the Kingdom of Germany is a different entity from East Francia and the Holy Roman Empire. Machinarium (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire are absolutely different things. Srnec (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for overlooking this. There were multiple editions of Bryce's book, continually updated in part because of the change in Germany in his lifetime; the last I can find was in 1909. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Germany/Archive_6&oldid=1076368229"