Talk:Sicambri

Disputed

So why is there a sign that this article is disputed?

Let me summarize:

1. Codex Sinaiticus claims that a Frankish source, commonly called "Royal Frankish Annals" (RFA), but published in translation as "Carolingian Chronicles" has a Merovingian claim of their sicambrian ancestors. This is FALSE. The RFA does not contain a word on sicambers. Nor can we derive a claim from Merovingians from it since it is a document written under control of Carolingians (which is why it is also called "Carolingian Chronicles"). I have stated this before on this page, but Codex Sinaiticus still thinks he can ignore this, even though the Wikipedia article on the RFA subscribes my point of view since it explicitly states that the RFA starts in the year 741.

2. Codex Sinaiticus gives 2 external links to other sites. One of those links leads to a site full of fantasy geneology without any credebillity. The other one - check out yourself - leads to a COMMERCIALY EXPLOITED GAME! While Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing advertisements and exploitation. Does Codex Sinaiticus has stocks in the Games-company?

Johanthon 20:00hrs, 25 november 2006

Johanthon, you really are new here, aren't you? First of all, I did not add the link to the Game site, I'm not even sure who did or where it came from. I reverted an anonymous vandal who blanked out all the references.

That's a factual lie. I have repeatedly deleted this link, and you have repeatedly placed it back - who ever placed this link the first time does not matter. You placed it back several times. Furthermore Wikipedia allows anonymous changes. That's the Wiki-policy. You can't label every anonymous change as "vandal attack". That's ridicolous.

Second, you seem to have a gross misunderstanding about what the purpose of this page is and what my position is. Once again, as I have stated several times, I'm not out to prove or debate whether or not it feasible or possible that the Franks could or couldn't have come from the Cimmerians via the Sicambri. In fact, that would be Original Research and is not allowed here.

If original research is not allowed here, than why do you defend this? Caesar's account is a wel supported one and de facto the standard in science. I'm the one who is defending the common opinion amongst historians, you are not.

All this article is allowed to do is document what the sources are, and what the traditions say. Even if we somehow determined that this is definitely a falsified tradition, we still have to document the fact that there was such a tradition.

Certainly not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that needs to make sense - even for people who do not have much education - for they have not the abillity to understand all academical tricks. Wikipedia does not aim at the elite, so an article - every article - must make sense and should be clear. Your position here is to cloud the subject with a 'Merovingian claim' and a Marcomir I without giving any sources.

And the fact of the matter is certain that there was indeed such a tradition, appearing in numerous primary mediaeval sources, so we should trace exactly what those sources are instead of suppressing it just because you feel it is not true.

You are the one that is changing his sources on every critical note from me. You are the one that cites sources completely out of context. I'm not trying to suppres a thing. I'm trying to make sense and by the way I have requested several times for sources on your 'Merovingian claim' and you fail to give them.

Now I realize that there has also been a lot of desperate attempts over the centuries not only to discredit this tradition but to suppress it from even being mentioned, and you yourself are evidence that these attempts continue.

I'm just defending the standard of well know historians. If they 'suppress' your private ideas it must have a reason. Think about it!

But wikipedia does not and should not cater to attempts to censor things that are documented.

Wikipedia is not yours. And it is not yours to decide what it should or shouldn't. And I do not wish to censor. The point here is your documentation, the fact that its not accepted by modern scholars, and that your highly original research is not allowed on Wikipedia.

A perfect example of the level of suppression is Trithemius, he gave the same genealogy (which I admit, may well be contrived) taking the Merovingian kings all the way back to Scythia and Troy, and he named his source, which was so obscure that nobody could find it, so it was almost unanimously decided that he not only faked the source, but made up the whole genealogy. Whether or not he faked the source is still uncertain, since it has never turned up, but he definitely didn't fake the genealogy, because the very same genealogy has also been shown to exist in plenty of older sources, going all the way back to, I believe, the RFA. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all by all academical reason Trithemius is not a source. He is a scholar. That's something completely different. The general rule here on Wikipedia is that we use sources, not scholars. If we use scholars we should pick the most recent and accepted scholars, not the most freaky ones. If you think the genealogy is in plenty of older sources than why do you have so much trouble qouting them? Don't you know your own sources? I know one thing for sure and that is that the genealogy you present is not in the RFA. Whatever you believe!!! Furthermore Trithemius has his own article, feel free to expand it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johanthon (talk • contribs) 11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

This information is also apparently found in Aethicus Ister - which, even if it is a forgery, is definitely older than 741 AD. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read French, here is a great source about the early legends and myths of a Trojan/Sicambri origin. The earliest sources for the legend that it mentions are: Fredegar, AD 660, Historia Francorum, followed by quotes from an anonymous work of AD 727 it calls Gesta Regum Francorum, or Liber Historiae Francorum. I believe that is the same work I may gave been confusing with the Royal Frankish Annals.

http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/FE/05/anthenor2.html

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

For an old hand you need a mighty lot of words to admit your previous claims are NOT in RFA. It is a nice try to come up with the Liber Historiae Francorum (LHF), but I have that (just like the RFA) at home. And would you believe it? The word 'sicambri' is not in it. Nor is there something on a relation between Cimmerians and Sicambri. The only thing that LHF says is that some Franks once lived in a city called Sicambria. It must mean something, but the text does NOT say the Merovingians descended from Sicambri.

Furthermore you keep coming up with a 'Merovingian claim'. What's that? If a Merovingian claims something he should speak or write for himself. Untill now you have not named ONE single Merovingian claiming 'hey, I am descended from Sicambri' and that is because we don't have any source on that. Again the RFA is a CAROLINGIAN source, and so is the LHF! Even Fredegar is very HOSTILE to Merovingians. None of the sources you name can be used for a Merovingian claim! Johanthon, 23:10hrs, 25 november 2006

By the way, Codex Sinaiticus, Do you understand that internet is not source??? Why should I look at sites if I have nearly all relevant sources on my bookshelves? And why is it that you keep on changing your sources and keep on changing on what they say???

Do you understand this article is not about the origins of the Franks??? Do you understand that Franks and Sicambri are not identical??? And if you want to write an article on Franks, why don't you go to that article??? Johanthon 02:15hrs, 26 november 2006

I am researching the primary sources now to find out exactly what they say about the subject of this article, to make sure nothing is misrepresented.

You mean to say that you didn't do that in the first place? That's honest!! Johanthon 31-01-2007

I have found a book with both the original Fredegar and LHF texts in Latin online at http://dmgh.de, and it seems to say similar things; here are the relevant extracts, I wonder if anyone with better knowledge of Late Latin than I can help out here: a relevant footnote about the Aethicus reference, on p. 242 of this edition of LHF reads: "Cf. Aethicus ed. Wuttke. p. 77: (Francus et Vassus) Rhaetia penetrantes; ad invia et deserta Germaniae pervenerunt, laevaque Maeotidas paludes demittentes, more praedonum pyratticum et ferofosum atque latronum degentes, urbum construunt; Sichambriam barbarica sua lingua nuncupant, idem gladio et arcum more praedonum externorumque posita. Cosmographiam post Historiam conscriptam esse, supra demonstravi. Aethicus 'terminos finitimos Pannoniae' pro 'Rhaetia' habuit, 'secus Meotidas paludes' in 'laeva M. p.' immutavit, at 'Sicambriam' civitatem retinuit.

LHF later also tells the same account from Gregory, of St. Remigius addressing Clovis as Sicamber. Then, this same volume also includes some other translations of Medieval hisories of Franks that reference the Sicambri: "Passio Sancti Sigismundi Regis" p. 334, "Vita Sancti Arnulfi", p. 439, and "Vita Dagoberti III Regis Francorum", p. 513. Would your expertise be able to shed any light on these works and when or by whom they were produced? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I can shed some light on this matter. First of all: that Chlodovech was called a sicamber by Remigius is not disputed. Sigismund is a Burgundian king and Arnulf is supposed to be a Carolingian. Dagobert is the last effictive Merovingian ruler before the 'do-nothing-kings'. If you read his vita you can understand the use of the word sicambri easily. For the word is not used on Dagobert, but on the Franks. That the word sicamber/sicambri is used to describe Frank/Franks is far from unusual. Just see the passage of Remigius in Gregorius. In fact there are much more sources that use the sicamber-word for Frank. This whole thing derives from late Roman culture and poetry. Late Roman poets (panegyrici) used to make a point of using archaic words and names from the republican days and Greek myths for contemporain things and peoples to demonstrate their elite education. In this atmosphere it was common to say 'Trojans' when they really meant 'Romans' and 'Sicambri', when they were talking about Franks. The common opinion amongst historians on Remigius is that he simply called him 'Frank' in a poetical way. This becomes more clear if you read the full lines "Bend down your head Sicamber. Honour what you have burned. Burn what you have honoured". This is clearly a declaration, for no one talks this way, and certainly these sources do not support a 'Merovingian claim'. If you are interested in this matter I would advise you to read and studie the "Panegyrici Latini", that are translated as 'In Praise of Later Roman Emperors' by Nixon and Saylor-Rodgers. Johanthon 31-01-2007. 13:30 hrs

Actually, now I am rethinking this whole thing. Is this it? Does this whole dispute come from the misunderstanding of the use of the word sicamber by Remigius????? Johanthon

But Romans were called Trojans because of Aeneas. So the Romans did make a connection between themselves and the Trojans. This does not mean that Romans actually descended from Trojans, but there was a legend (and who's to say there's not some truth in it?). So, if Franks were referred to as Sicambri, then surely at least a mythical link exists. In my humble opinion, this link should then be mentioned with the connotation that it was the Romans/Franks own belief they descended from the Sicambri.

By the way, you might also be interested to know that a similar discussion is going on in the Scythian article. In my opinion, these links must be mentioned, since they are historical (in the sense that the links between them were believed to be true in historical sources). But, as I said, with the connotation that they are beliefs, not actual facts (yet). Hrothberht 19:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hrothberht, I agree that the link between Franks and Sicambri is well attested and should be mentioned in the article. That is why I expanded the Remigius-thing and kept it above the disputed-tag. But the link remains problematic since modern scholars don't understand the nature of the link. I don't know a single primary source that calls it "mythical", so for example the link may be purely geographical. All we know from the sources is just that there is a link. Since both Romans and Franks used it, the Franks must have believed in it, but since the sources don't explain this link we do not know exactly what they believed. It is possible that Franks believed they descended from Sicambri, but it is also possible that they believed they were living in the land formerly held by Sicambri. Just think of the relation between Alamanni and Allemagne (Germany).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your analogy with the Alamanni and Allemagne. Do you mean that the name for one tribe got to be the name for all tribes from a geographic area? (Like Tungri/Germani and Germania? Boii->Bohemia->Baiuvari?)

If so, why not mention what (we believe to be) the truth in the wikipedia article? That a link between the Franks and Sicambri is attested, but it is not certain if this is a geographic or genealogic link.

You understand my analogy correctly, and my main point is that scholars don't understand the exact nature of the link. So it is hard to mention the "truth". But the link is allready in the article and is not disputed. Johanthon. 02-02-2007. 14:50hrs

Thanks for the Scythian-link. This discussion was certainly interesting. I understand know that I'm not original :-)

Considering the Scythian link with Franks I think it should be mentioned on the Franks-page. I think this is a very interesting one, but I'm not aware of any sources on a relation between Sicambri and Scythians. Johanthon, 02-02-2007. 02:02hrs.

I was under the impression that the Chronicle of Fredegar was such a source. But I have not read it myself, so I can't judge. Is it not the case? Please tell me. Also, do you happen to know if the Chronicle of Fredegar is available somewhere on the internet? It doesn't seem to be in any local library where I live and I wish to be better informed. Hrothberht 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Codex Sinaiticus repeatedly to detail exactly his source and the last time he changed it to Fredegar. However he gave an internet-link (which is on this very page) that does not support his claims and you can see that for yourself if you follow his link. The latin text of this link is translated by Wallace-Hadrill and can be obtained from Amazon (that's what I did). Fredegar was -according to Wallace-Hadrill- probably a Burgundian that lived in the 7th century when the Sicambri were long gone. He writes some things about the origin of Franks, but these lines are not accepted as historical by modern scholars. This makes them troublesome, but some of it is (incorrectly) mentioned at the Franks-page. Anyway, what Fredegar writes can (and should) be attributed to the believes of Franks, but not to the believes of Sicambri. This page is on the Sicambri and it inludes the link with Franks. Johanthon, 02-02-2007. 15:25hrs

Origin of Sicambri

User:Codex Sinaiticus: do you have reliable sources for the details you write? Are there sources that the (Merovingian) Franks actually believed that they descended from the Sicambri and or a man Franco, or is it just a story by Gregory of Tours?

It is known that Remigius called Clovis a Sicamber at his coronation: but that may very well be because Remigius came from the Mediterrenean and only knew about the northern barbarians through old and obsolete books he read that had been written during the Roman conquests centuries before. That in any case is the opinion of the Dutch historian Jona Lendering, who wrote a booklet on how the "civilized" Romans saw the barbarians in what now are The Netherlands. He shows other examples where the "civilized" people maintained stereotype views from obsolete books, if only because they liked the quality of Greek in them better than more recent works - if at all available. In any case it is weird that the Sicambri had disappeared from written history for over 4 centuries, and then re-appear once at that occasion.

Also that the Sicambri came to live in Gelderland is new to me. They never appeared in the Dutch history classes. In the Betuwe area (also in Gelderland, south of the Veluwe) there used to live Batavi; but they were probably overrun by Frankish tribes from the Ijssel area in the 3rd century, who may or may not have taken a route over the Veluwe. Romans did re-establish control over the Betuwe towards the end of the 3rd century and kept it for most of the 4th century. They still talked of Batavi, but most likely that was a continuation of what the area and its people had been called forever, and in reality the original Batavi had been replaced by Franks by that time - yet another example of Romans holding on to obsolete pre-conceptions. Tom Peters 12:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Are there sources that the (Merovingian) Franks actually believed that they descended from the Sicambri and or a man Franco, or is it just a story by Gregory of Tours?"

What kind of question is this? Isn't Gregory of Tours a "source"? Even if it's just a story, or even a wrong one, it's still a source, like any other. I don't think it is the only source either, because all the Germanic tribes had sagas with genealogies, and those of the Merovingians trace themselves all the way through Franco, Sicambri, Cimmerians, etc. all the way back to Troy. The Merovingians might have been wrong or mistaken about their own genealogy. In the event of any dispute, all data must be presented and carefully sourced, and none omitted. The reason I wrote "Get serious" in the edit summary was because the edit I was reverting said something like "This was added by a German contributor without any evidence" or some such, right in the article -- (not to mention deleting all the reference section). That is hardly serious encyclopedic language. There are ways to get your point across in encyclopedic voice, but that's not even close. Best to put such comments on the talk page. I originally merged this article from another of similar name, if you check 'what links here' for the article and history for all the redirects, you should be able to find exactly who contributed what, but maybe not their nationalities! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"What kind of question is this?" - A very good one! I agree with Tom.Gregory of Tours is indeed a source. And yes, he states that Remigius called Clovis a sigamber. But this is Gregory citing Remigius. Now, was Remigius a 'merovingian'? You stated that 'merovingians' claimed descent from them. And Remigius is not known to be a Frankish prince. Now I repeat my comment: based on what source do you justify a claim from Merovingians? because Gregory of Tours does NOT wrote that his Frankish Kings did have a claim on their ancestors. On the contrary! Gregory is looking for the first King of Franks and he writes he can't find him! One of the old 'regulus' he names are Sunno, his brother Marchomir and his son Faramond. These men are from the late 4th century AD. The word 'merovingian' is an invention used by Carolingian historians, not by contemporary people. Sunno and Marchomir are also named by Ammianus Marcellinus, but neither Ammianus nor Gregory wrote about older familly relations. Franco is named as ancestors of the Franks, but he is NOT called a sigamber. Johanthon. 16 oktober 2006 - 15:10hrs

The Merovingian sagas and traditions that trace their own ancestry to the Sicambri, Cimmerians and Troy are quite well documented, and do not rely on Gregory of Tours, who alluded to these traditions. I will do some research and get an exact citation to these sagas when I get a chance. Note that it would be POV for the article to make any unsupported comment that these traditions are true, or that they are false. We are only factually reporting on what the Merovingian origin traditions were, even if they are pure fantasy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thw wikipedia procedure would be for you to add {{NPOV}} or {{Totallydisputed}} to the top of the article. That diverts all debate to this discussion page to avoid edit warring, which is frowned upon. If you continue to edit war, you could get blocked, or the page could get semi-protected. Deleting sources could also be looked at as vandalism, especially seeing as you have provided no sources whatsoever for anything you say, but delete the ones you don't like. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read "‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› " to learn about how to provide sources or references in an article on Wikipedia. If you add sources, and don't delete the sources that are there so far, this won't be a problem. I will be adding some sources myself soon for the Merovingian connection, so please stop deleting that. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I must have missed where you mentioned any of these sources. Where was this? The mediaeval sagas that provide the Merovingian genealogy VIA the Cimmerians all the way back to Priam of Troy include De Rebus Francorum and Kriegschronik.. Fredegar or Fredegarius Scholasticus is also used for support, since he states that after the war some Trojans fled to the Danube under a king 'Friga', and he later states that they settled at the Rhine under king Franco and built a 'New Troy' at Xanthen. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the book I am referring to is dated to at least the 8th century, and Kriegschronik apparently somewhat later. As for why excavations never uncovered 'New Troy', remember that I am not arguing for the accuracy of these accounts, only that the accounts existed well before Charlemagne. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I may have the Latin title wrong, but it was written by Einhard, about 804. Often known as the "Frankish Chronicles". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Kriegschronik" should have read "Koenigschronik"... My bad... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"By the way, I must have missed where you mentioned any of these sources. Where was this?"

As for Siegen, I didn't add that part originally, it cme from somewhere else (probably one of the merged redirect articles) so I will have to look into what you are talking about. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have nothing to do with the anti-vandalism bot. It probably is programmed to revert additions in all caps. If you need help I can add a proper "factually disputed" tag for you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article is on

Why do you say 'merovingians claimed descent from sigambers' and relate that to the Annales Regni Francorum? This is book is translated in English as "Carolingian Chronicles" and as the name suggest it is written for Carolingians, not for Merovingians. Those Carolingians used people as Einhard to make propaganda for them and against merovingians. There is nothing on Cimmerians or Scythian in this book. If you continiue your claim on this, please pagenumber of Scholz' translation. I'll keep it on the table here. Johanthon 16 oktober 2006, 21:50

AGAIN: The Royal Frankish Annals are written for CAROLINGIANS, not for Merovingians. The word sicamber is NOT in the RFA!

Tom, I agree with you that the date of Clovis baptism should be deleted. I proposed that once, and deleted it later, but it was reversed by Codex S. I'm happy with this paragraph now. Johanthon, 22 oktober 15:40hrs

Minores. Pasquale, you are so right! Thanks for your help. user:Johanthon, oktober 31, 11:hrs

The Annales Regni Francorum were written for Carolingians - but earlier parts of the so-called Fredegar or the Liber Historiae Francorum - the two sources that contain very different versions of the Trojan origins (only the latter including Sicambrians) - were not. Trojan descent was not claimed by Merovingians or Carolingians but the Franks in general, including these two families.

Whether Remigius wanted to say that Clovis descended from the Sicamrians or was just being poetic, but his words were not said at Clovis's coronoation but his baptism. Nor did Remigius "came from the Mediterrenean and only knew about the northern barbarians through old and obsolete books ..." He was born in the north of Gaul, served as bishop of Reims and knew the "northern barbarians" first-hand, not from old books. Remigius was not the first to use the archaic name "Sicambrian" in reference to the Franks. That does not prove a Sicambrian descent for the Franks, but it is not so outrageous as it is sometimes claimed. The Franks as such originated as a federation of Germanic tribes and the Sicambrians lived in the rough area that was later occupied by the Franks.

Cimmerians or Scythians indeed do not appear in early Frankish sources at all. They were introduced by Trithemius, whose content is obviously fictional. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk) 15:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes to this talk page

Johanthon, why did you make this edit where you deleted nearly all of your own comments, leaving only my responses? Messing with the discussion like that is not a good idea; the only way anyone will be able to follow it now is by going along the article history edit by edit... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you have chopped this talk page up pretty badly in your response, making it all but impossible for anyone to follow. I strongly recommend anyone who wants to follow this page to use the article history and go edit by edit to find out who said what, and in what order.

I notice in some of the newly-appeared remarks you accused me of lying, and declared that Caesar's account is the "scientific standard". ROFLOL This has nothing to do with science - do you even know what "science" menas? This is about history! There is no way anything can be "scientifically" proven or disproven using Caesar or any other documentary evidence. Caesar wrote an account, it is prone to bias just like any historical account, and may be looked at and quoted objectively; I am not aware of any scientist elevating it to supra-gospel status! Now that was funny! And once again, as I've pointed out several times, we as wikipedia editors aren't out to "prove" anything or develop any new formulas or theories here - in fact, that's expressly prohibited. All we are allowed to do is to quote what all the primary and secondary sources say, in the most neutral manner possible. If you only stick to that, it becomes easy, no need for all of this rancour over the subject. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So you don't see history as a science? That's an eye opener. It may explain why you need to talk about Caesar's bias, ignoring that what he say is completely in line with Strabo. I wonder why it is that you try to discredit a prmary source like Caesar with a bias while you accept very questionable scholars? And are you certain that you are not out to prove anything? For all your contributions and reversions seem to have an awfull lack of primary and secondary sources. I would like to point out that Caesar is a primary source, and that Strabo is well accepted as secundary source. Untill now the Wikipedian editor called Codex Sinaiticus has not come up with one single primary source for a relation between cimmerians and sicambrians, nor has this editor come up with an primary source that traces Merovingian ancestry to Marcomir I in 412BC. If you would have done that in the first place we wouldn't have this discussion at all. It seems to me you are doing things that are "expressly prohibited" - as you say. Johanthon 31-01-2007. 15.30 hrs

Actually Caesar and Strabo are both primary sources, and are subject to the same scrutiny as any other primary source. I'm not trying to discredit Caesar by stating he may have had a bias: his testimony is valuable and has its proper weight. But he certainly would have had biased relationships with the peoples he encountered and this should be presented objectively, not with subjective language. All the primary sources for all the information on the page should be provided; like I say, if we stick to that, the rest will be easy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Strabo is not an eye witness. I have 3 versions of his work at home and all 3 say that Strabo's work is based on other sources. In fact Strabo himself does name quite a few, and an important part of Strabo's work is his attack on a primary source called Pytheas of Marseille. Given that Strabo used other sources and is not an eye witness he is a secundary source in the strict sense. Your confusing is again eye opening.

And if we REALLY stick to the accepted sources it indeed becomes easy. So why don't you delete everything under the disputed-tag? Than all this is over and we are friends. Johanthon 31-01-2007. 16.30 hrs

It seems that when you say "accepted" sources, you propose to exclude even mentioning all the traditional mediaeval sources that detail the supposed connections between the Franks and the Sicambri and the Scythians, because you have deemed them not to be "accepted". This is this gist of the problem here. We don't have to "accept" them nor "reject" them. But we do have a duty to report that these traditions existed at one time, and not summarily censor them, just because they may be false, and you are oviously convinced they are. They are part of historiography, and simply doing away with them is pure revisionism. And a substantial number of secondary (modern) sources even take the accounts more seriously than you do, indicating that there is more than one school of thought on them, so we have to write in a less POV-pushing manner than you have been doing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a gross misunderstanding about what the purpose of this page is and what my position is. The purpose of this page is to make a sensible article about sicambri. This article must be understandable for every Joe who read it. My problem with you is first of all that you don't seem to feel any responsabillity to make the article understandable, and you don't seem to understand that an encyclopedia does not necessary contain every bit of information on a subject. Sometimes an article reads better if you are conservative with giving information. This article really needs conservatism to make it understandable. You must understand that you don't have a duty to report everything, especially if this is clouding the gross understanding of the article. Therefore I did a PROPOSAL to delete everything under the disputed-tag.

Right under the window in which I'm typing there is the sentence "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". And this is my second problem with you. You keep on changing on your sources and what they say. And you seem to have a problem understanding what sources can be used in an encyclopedia. You just can't use your neighbour, internet, or a nutty scholar for an encyclopedic article. If Wikipedia encyclopedia does not make a difference between a nutty scholar and a serious scientist it stops aiming at being a serious encyclopedia. So please stop give me that POV-nonsense of you. I'll stop to use this language as soon as you stop with your claims on unindentifeid and unverifiable 'traditions'. Johanthon 31-01-2007. 19.30hrs

By the way: 'accepted sources' for me are simply the sources that are commonly used by modern scholars. Plain comments on the genealogy of Merovingian can be found in Ian Wood's "The Merovingian Kingdoms" (this is the world's most cited book on Merovingians). Detailed lists and discussion of sources on the genealogy of Merovingians are found in Settipani. Both scholars discredit the contributions you defend. It's very strange to see you accuse me of excluding the link between sicambri and Francs for I have expanded the Remigius-thing in the article from it's original state and as you can see above I do not have a problem with this. The Remigius-thing is not disputed by me. Nor do I dispute that Gregorius suggests there may be a link between Franks and Scythians. Johanthon 31-01-2007. 19.45hrs

I strongly suggest you take this case to RFC and arbitration, since you seem to be absolutely determined to be difficult about the sources for this article, and indeed it seems we do have a fundamentally different idea about what the purpose of the article is. The purpose is not to persuade people, or argue anything, it is merely to inform researchers of what ALL the sources throughout history have said and are saying about the subject of Sicambri over the years, without suppressing / censoring any or leaving any out, solely for modern political reasons or whatever it is. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Political reasons? Are Wood and Settipani political? Be serious. If I am difficult on the sources this is because you keep on changing about your sources and on what they say. Count your blessings and be happy. After all, you are the Wikipedia-editor of this page. And it is you who should be difficult about sources. I'm just doing your work.

If you delete everything under the disputed-tag you still have your link between sicambrians and franks. Why don't you take the proposal? Johanthon, 31-01-2007. 20.00hrs

I won't mind if you take this case to RFC and arbitration. Allthough I'm not sure what RFC is, I certainly don't mind to end all this. That's the one thing we agree upon. You are the expert, so be my guest. Johanthon, 31-01-2007. 20.15hrs

Edit warring

This sentence is completely unencyclopedic and Original Research, and cannot stay in the article:

C

Aside from being an ungrammatical sentence fragment written in totally unencyclopedic language and poor English, it is Original Research because "the story" makes no claim that anyone lived 2000 years, you arrived at that calculation through your own deductions that cannot possibly be sourced to anyone else. ANother problem is that words like "nonsensical" betray your own POV, and this is supposed to be NPOV, so please keep POV language like "nonsensical" out of it, and let the reader decide for themself what to think about it, which they will if the facts speak for themselves.

Repeated edit warring will do absolutely no good, the sentence is a blatant POV and OR violation, and policy says it has to go.

Furthermore, please learn the difference in English between the terms "myth" and "mythology". In your wholesale revert-warring, you keep going back to "furthermore, this mythology does not come from the Sicambri..." when normal English usage calls for "myth" in this case.

Til Eulenspiegel 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Til, but you are wrong about the sources. First of all: the primary sources does claim that Marcomer, king of the Franks was the son of Priam, king of Troy; so that's not original research, it's what the source says. Secondly: the sentence "But most of all the story is simply biologically nonsensical, for a man does not live 2000 years" resembles what a secondary source (Wood) says on this matter. So that's not original research either. I have only tried to summarize this and I appreciate it if you improve my grammar, but please keep both what primary and secondary sources say. Furthermore: you have tried to change "incorrect geopgraphy" in "some incorrect geography"; that is not what the secondary sources says and I like to keep this text as close as possible to the source that was used.

Again: I don't mind if you change some of the grammar. For you I have changed the word "mythology" in "myth". Allthough there was more than one myth (Fredegar has his own), which explains the word "mythology". For the rest: I hope you take notice of what I say on the sources and that you understand what "assume good faith" stands for. Check the sources given, before you accuse someone. johanthon 08:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I could understand if you wonder why modern scholars use such strong words as "non-sensical", but believe me: they do. The reason is simple. There is a whole range of known hoaxes that relate to the origins of the Franks that remain very persistant en persuasive to peoples. For example, one of those well known hoaxes forms the basis of The Da Vinci Code. Apparantly the major scholars see it as their task to make a stand. If you look into this talk page and into the previous edit-war, you will understand why they do so. johanthon 10:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read every word of this talk page and obviously there is a dispute, you waited for the other editor to go "on strike" then you ran hog wild with the article, but the matter is still under dispute and even more POV-pushing than ever now. You have got to be kidding, do you seriously think readers want to be told "But most of all the story is simply biologically nonsensical, for man does not live 2000 years." ??? There is only one term for that kind of language, and that term is POV PUSHING. If there ever was a clear example of PUSHING your own POINT OF VIEW onto the reader, this is it. You are twisting the primary sources to produce an originally-synthesized claim, never before published anywhere, that a man lived for 2000 years, then tearing down your own strawman with emotional, unencyclopedic, and conentious language like "nonsensical". Stop it, Wikipedia does not allow that by any means. There are differences of published opinion on how to analyse these stories, and you can certainly cite those authors that agree with your POV, but please try also to look past your own nose and realise that "neutrality" for wikipedia means not siding with one school of thought, while attempting to ostracise all other schools of thought. Til Eulenspiegel 11:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So what are you disputing? Do you dispute the primary source? Or do you dispute Ian Wood? Or Wallace-Hadrill? Have you read both the primary source and those main, well respected scholars? And if so, what is your dispute with them? johanthon 12:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be facetious, my dispute is clearly explained above. Since you seemed to have missed it, I will repeat myself only one more time: I am disputing the neutrality, POV-pushing, and original synthesis of the statement: "But most of all the story is simply biologically nonsensical, for man does not live 2000 years." Readers do not need to be told that man does not live 2000 years, and no source makes any such claim, thus it is your own personal and original strawman argument. We are supposed to be laying out all the facts and primary sources for readers to make their own judgements, not debating or arguing the case with our own arguments. Policy is crystal clear on that point. Til Eulenspiegel 12:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Til, but the Liber Historiae Francorum really says that King Priam of Troy had a son called Marcomer that arrived at the Rhine in the late 4th century. And the most cited scholar on early Franks world wide Ian Wood really says that this is nonsensical. Now I don't mind if you change the text into "for a man does not live more than 1000 years" or so but the point of the scholars given in the text is that this is not possible. Do you really want to dispute this? johanthon 12:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And do you really insist that a "citation is needed" for a statement that this is biological nonsensical. Do you believe this is possible? johanthon 12:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I object to it because it perfectly meets the definition of Original Synthesis and Original research, please read WP:SYNT. There is no primary source, no secondary source, no source anywhere whatsoever that makes the argument that these texts claim any man lived 1000 or 2000 years. That is your own personal argument based on your own calculations (besides being a strawman) and it is not allowed as such. If I am wrong and one of your sources does indeed make the "2000 years" argument, please present it as a cited quote. Til Eulenspiegel 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

But I have allready given the sources for that: They are in the current text: Wallace-Hadrill, Edward James and Ian Wood. I certainly can give a full citation. That is not the problem. The problem is that it would take MUCH more space, and if necessary I can give MUCH more negative remarks on this myth that seems so dear to you. Expanding the text with a full scale academic discourse will not help the average reader, nor will it enlighten the current text more. Why do you dispute sources that you haven't read? johanthon 13:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am challenging you to prove that any of your sources really make the "2000 year" argument. Since you just now offered to change it yourself to a "1000 year argument" that tells me even more that it is your argument, not your source's. If your source mentions a man living 2000 years, we can quote it. If it mentions 1000 years, we can quote that. It's not up to us to tinker with the sources or invent our own arguments, which this clearly is. Til Eulenspiegel 13:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not much of a challenge. You can simply pick up the sources given. If that's to much, why don't you take a look at the Troy article on Wikipedia and make your own timeline from King Priam to King Marcomer? johanthon 13:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be good enough to quote the secondary sources that specifically claim the primary sources ascribe anyone a lifespan of 2000 years (or is it 1000 years now ) here since I do not have them here to pick up.

A strawman argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to tear it down. Original or not, that is what this is, since the primary sources obviously had no such intention as ascribing anyone a lifespan of 1000 or 2000 years, and that is a misrepresentation. Til Eulenspiegel 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary source is Liber Historiae Francorum and is in the article. johanthon 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"but the Liber Historiae Francorum really says that King Priam of Troy had a son called Marcomer that arrived at the Rhine in the late 4th century."

Actually, it doesn't. It says that the people later called Franks departed from Troy under Priam (not necessarily the famous Priam of Homer's epics) and Antenor and moved up the Maeotis and the Tainais to Pannonia. There they founded a city called Sicambria, came under Roman rule and helped an Emperor called Valentinian drive off the Alans. On this occasion they were called Franks, supposedly meaning "fierce" in Greek. Later they rebelled and had to leave to the Rhine under Marcomer, son of Priam.

The LHF gives no timeline. That the author was so ignorant to condense events happening from the 12th century BC to the 4th century AD into two generations is just one possible interpretation, which has to assume more than just chronological ignorance or nonchalance. Priam of Troy did not survive his city, hence the Frankish Priam would have to be someone else. It is not obvious that there is only one Priam in this story. And then there's always the question of how literal one should take a word like "son".

However, if one accuses the LHF author of such chronological ignorance or nonchalance, this would not mean giving anyone a thousand-year lifespan. It would just mean that the author didn't know or didn't care that his presentation was impossible.

Finally, in order for any arguments to be included, they would have to be referenced to a secondary source making such arguments. Even then, they would have to be presented as arguments, as opinions.

So, Til is actually right in his objection against what he correctly called POV pushing and Original research: POV pushing because an opinion is presented as fact, and original research because, well Johanthon said it himself: "You can simply pick up the sources given. If that's to much, why don't you take a look at the Troy article on Wikipedia and make your own timeline from King Priam to King Marcomer?" This is the call to do original research (though on a very flimsy level). This is not allowed in Wikipedia. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Location Sicambri ≠ The Netherlands

According to my material this tribe stayed in the region between the Dutch border and Wesel in Germany. The tribe received land from Tiberius over the Rhine near Xanten.

Very interesting is the remark the leader was called "Baetorix". Is there a connection between the founding father of the Batavus tribe Baeto and the Sucambri? Could this be the former Batavian tribe from the Chatti or Saxoni?

F.N.H., January, 13th 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.98.197 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. The "Baeto" tradition was exposed as unhistorical in the late 16th century (here, p. 6). It seems to have originated with the work of the chronicler Cornelius Aurelius (c. 1460 - after 1523). According to this source, Aurelius may have coined the figure himself (as "Battus" or "Batto"). In doing so, he may have been inspired by a Roman inscription of c. 200 which was found near Roomburg in 1502 and which mentions a Caecilius Bato. Iblardi (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Lived in the area of modern Germany or modern Netherlands?

The following is copied from the User talk:Prinsgezinde of User:Prinsgezinde. I think it is best to have it here on the article talkpage for future reference, or for continuing discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

CLICK (SHOW) TO SEE COPIED SECTION HERE

Please do not accuse me of being a POV pusher, and if necessary please give a more detailed remark on the talk page of the article. Looking over the comments you made so far you are possibly mixing up the citations about the Menapii with those about the Sicambri? Please look at it slowly first. The sources clearly normally place the Sicambri in what is now Germany, and only in one incident during the times of Caesar are they reported as a MOVING group who crossed over towards the modern Netherlands. I think the wordings I accepted already are therefore really stretching the facts already. In any case, you have made a LOT of edits which are all clearly making far too much of modern countries, and arguably in an anti-German and anti-Belgian way. These are articles about ancient peoples who are now reasonably mysterious. The remarks about modern borders should only be there to help people understand the geography involved. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Andrew, you have made about 25 edits to the article, almost all of which did not privide any sources and many of which drastically changed against what was previously there. I am tempted to remove everything you have added to the article and revert any changes that did not provide any sources for (meaning all but around 2). You have claimed this article as your own, censuring anything you don't like to be in it. I have not seen you start any discussion over your edits, yet my reasonable revert is clearly unacceptable. Don't tu quoque me for what happened on entirely different articles, take that over there. Nearly every article says Germanic, please tell me what's anti-German about pointing out a tribe is part of a country's history. Dutch sources support this feeling. I have never made an anti-Belgian edit, and it seems you are the one currently assuming "anti-"s from me. The only one who claimed it was a Germany-residing tribe were you, after making two drastic edits to the article that went from "Netherlands" to "Netherlands, close to Germany" to "Germany". Without sources and with weasel words such as "many historians agree with me", this can quickly be reverted. Let me show you for example why everyone else feels the tribe lived in the modern day Netherlands: Caesar commented that "these men are born for war and raids". "No swamp or marsh will stop them". After the raid on the Eburones they moved on against the Romans. They destroyed some of Caesar's units, in revenge for his campaign against them, and when the remains of the legion withdrew into the city Atuatuca, the Sicambri went back across the Rhine. Claudius Ptolemy located the Sicambri, together with the Bructeri Minores, at the most northern part of the Rhine and south of the Frisii who inhabit the coast north of the river. Strabo located the Sicambri next to the Menapii, “who dwell on both sides of the river Rhine near its mouth, in marshes and low thorny woods. It is opposite to these Menapii that the Sicambri are situated". This seems more than enough. And please don't go and argue now that the Rhine mouth into the North Sea is actually in Germany. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) I have not been asked for sources for anything specific, but for sure let's improve this article. I have no problem using Dutch sources. I live in Flanders BTW. Just looking at the sources in our article: Caesar says they came over the Rhine in order to get in the fights you mention. He reports that the Menapii's range at his time was all the way to the conjunction of the Rhine and Maas, so all the way to Germany apparently. Ptolemy is known to be confused for this region but his northernmost part of the Rhine is normally thought to refer to the area where the Rhine turns west, in modern Germany. This corresponds to where the Sicambri are reported in other sources. Strabo describes them as Germanic, and that beyond them are the Suevi and other peoples. That puts them in Germany. Have a look where the Lippe river is on the map. Here is a Dutch source already being cited. (I think I inserted it.) http://books.google.be/books?id=6HCeJU_7SFwC&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false They are pretty clearly in modern Germany? Strabo describes them as Germanic, and that beyond them are the Suevi and other peoples. By the way, should we move this to the article talk page? Please feel free to move my posts, or copy them, to there. Or let me know if I can do it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually have done more research and can say I have come to dispute my earlier claims. I believe they originated from North Rhine-Westphalia where they got their name from the river Sieg. My Harm Pinkster Latin dictionary claims Caesar placed them "between the Sieg and the Ruhr (rivers)." It also states a part was then forced to move to "the left side of the Rhine." This would explain confusing reports. Although this could mean a lot of places, I doubt they were banished into Roman territory (they waged a war again not much later). It seems the Sicambri were a somewhat ambiguous label for tribes that were sometimes linked to an ancient Trojan group of survivors, at other times used for the Franks (being part Sicambrians merged into Salians) and thirdly the Sicambri were defined by Caesar as the Westphalian tribe I mentioned earlier. Our most reliable sources for the tribe come from the Romans, so I agree this is our best bet. We know they took part in a lot of wars, mostly against Romans, and may have been pushed West by the Saxons. They were constantly moved after eventual defeats until they ended up living among the growing Salians. Most sources will talk about nearby rivers. These are probably best to include? Also the interpretations, though of course with the Trojan/Frank ones given far less attention than Caesar's. Euratlas (which appears to be legit), though, shows this. Maybe that's about their later stages or just the Salian Franks?

Sources:

• perseus.tufts.edu
• historyfiles

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In general more sources sounds like a good idea, but I suppose we should be a bit careful of these. the Perseus html is to a copy of a 19th century work which I have cited a few times on Wikipedia, but only when I had nothing better. The other two websites might not be considered strong sources. One suggestion: if you read Dutch have a look at the Dutch source which we are already using. It seems to try to cover most of what is known, and maybe we can squeeze a bit more out?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad edit to mythology section needs fix

Someone editing the section on Frankish mythology has created a mess, leaving previous contradictory content on the post with the label "False" and adding a label of "True" to their own content. Compounding matters, the assertions in the "True" section do not represent NPOV and would not be supported by most historians. This section needs substantial revision. Ftjrwrites (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I simply had to hit the "undo" button on that one. If the editor in question feels the need to try again (some of it being quite interesting in and by itself), please do it with more consideration to the way Wikipedia is supposed to read. Trigaranus (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Updates in order

Hi there folks, as usual time has gone on. In this case archaeology has gone on. The Liber Historiae Francorum and also Gregory of Tours promulgated the idea that Sicambria in Pannonia was populated by Trojans and they were called Franks by one of the emperors and subsequently brought to the Lower Rhine, an idea too outlandish to attract anything but outright rejection. To make a long story short the whole topic was considered in a relatively recent article by a Dutch linguist Josef Van Loon. He brings us up to date on the archaeology. It seems the inscriptions reveal a heavy Frankish prsence in Pannonia. He covers Hludana and Merovingians of Sicambria, credibly. The article needs a rewrite. The first thing I notice offhand is the lumping together of names and concepts that are distinct. Sicambria is not Sugambria, you know. Not even in the same place. Opposite sides of the river. These distictions need to be made upfront. So, I'm doimg a rewrite. I worked on Genobaud (3rd century) and am working on Hludana. If you can contrive not to murder me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.Botteville (talk)

I have reverted the latest edits so far because they made the article worse. Why did you delete the lead sentence and make the article open in the middle of a discussion about etymology? You're giving no sources for any new information, but it seems to be mainly personal opinion, and not well founded. Caesar did not conquer the Sugambri for example, and you should really look where the river Don and Sea of Azov are. I can see one article on this topic by Van Loon online which mentions Sicambria, but it does not appear to contain a justification for the edits made so far. Did you read it carefully first? It does not for example argue that Budapest was called Sicambria but only mentions that this was "even" claimed by Fredegar. Maybe that article's speculations are notable enough for inclusion, but then it would have to be done much more carefully. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

How are you Andrew? I'm reverting you. In your own words in your rambling user page, I don't find you either civil or a good communicator. You depend a lot on boxes but not on substance. Who put those in there, you? Here is the answer to your thoughtless criticisms.

"open in the middle of a discussion about etymology?" In English this phrase is not comprehensible. What discussion? There is no etymological discussion. It is generally accepted that Sicambri comes from Sugambri. They are the same people separated by time. Otherwise why would you include Sugambri with Sicambri? Take a look at the map. Sicambria is on the other side of the Rhine from the Sugambri

I know I have not placed the sources there. That is because this part is not the general article, only the introduction. The policy specifies the introduction be an overview not clogged up with references. The references go in the body of the article. None of that is personal opinion.

Caesar did too defeat the Sigambri along with the Ubii and the other tribes on that side of the Rhine. Book 6 article 29-44. The Loeb edition is readily available. They attacked his camp and he drove them away.

Why should I look for the Don and the Sea of Azov? The evidence is from Pannonia.

You have not found the Van Loon article. "Lanaken en de vroegste geschiedenis van Franken en Merovingen, Jozef Van Loon, KANTL. You can download the pdf. I use Google translate.

Speaking of working carefully, I see little of that either in your comments or in the article. I will stay with you for a while but I have no intention of spending all my WP time with persons of bad English and no knowledge of the topic. I can only hope your intention is good.~~~ Botteville (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the article I found, and you do not seem to have understood it, or WP policy. It does not justify the original commentary you have added, and nor have you cited it in your edits (not only not in the lead, but anywhere). Please also reinstate the opening lines which summarize what the article is going to be about, as per normal WP style guidelines. Statements like these are apparently just your own ideas: Following Caesar's writings, they most certainly have to be classified as Germanic speakers. or The poverty-striken Sugambri sought to sell their mercenary services to the Romans, who were all too happy to entertain their requests.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is Van Loon's ONLY mention of the word a place called Sicambria which has become so concrete and important in your edits: Het minder betrouwbare Liber Historiae Francorum van 727, dat de Franken van de Trojanen laat afstammen,36 beweert zelfs dat Aquincum (Boedapest) in de oudheid Sicambria werd genoemd (Ewig, 1997, p. 836). So he only says it comes from Fredegar and specifically notes that this unreliable. He is himself simply citing Ewig for this short aside, not making any new proposals. Van Loon's real proposal is only that the Merovingians may have descended from Sicambri who'd been posted near Pannonia somewhere, and could probably be added to this article at the end. If his article were really an article which topples all previous ideas about the Sicambri, as you seem to think, then we would have to find evidence that his article is at least read and cited by experts in this aspect of history. WP only aims to summarize what the field is publishing. None of this justifies the deletion of the opening lines of this article and the insertion of speculations about other matters such as the language of the Sicambri in the time of Caesar.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Two-article proposal

Hello again Andrew. I've thought more about this. There is an underlying problem that is hanging us all up. You can see how disproportionately long the discussion is. Now, we can butt heads some more and make it even longer and multiply the bad feeling. But, why not address the underlying problem? It is that the article combines two different ethnic groups into one. Sicambri and Sugambri are not alternative names of the same people. Sicambri are located on the Danube and on the left bank of the lower rhine. Sugambri are located on the right bank of the lower Rhine. Chances are, they don't speak the same language; in fact, after a certain time they certainly don't speak the same language. Why are we combining them? I was surprised, myself. Here is what I propose. I will put up two notices, one on the accuracy and another a suggestion that the two have separate articles. I think the current Sicambri would fit much better. Sugambri would have to be worked up. Once these tags are up they have to be addressed before taken down. Andrew Lancaster (talk) Botteville (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is whether to split the article into Sicambri and Sugambri. The current article treats them as identical, when they have different times and places and linguistic contexts. Sugambri lived lived in the late republic and spoke Germanic. They became Germanic Franks. Sicambri lived in the 3rd century and represent resettled Franks. They may not have spoken Germanic. Input?Botteville (talk)

Please keep discussion together in one place. Your proposal would certainly be WP:OR and against WP policy because this idea of separating the Sicambri into two topics does not come from the only source you've mentioned. It is very strange to say that WP has taken two topics and put them together, because your own source, and all others, do not treat this as two topics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved here from below. I'm not sure whether some kind of split is necessary. RE's entry for Sicambri is literally a redirect to Sugambri. As to whatever Van Loon says, which I am now looking into, the onus is on the adding editor to actually cite him and to do so fully. It is not sufficient under WP:BURDEN to add assertions and, when challenged, only give references in talk pages. Ifly6 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have now searched through Van Loon and not found anything which says that the two tribes are different; VL p 60 says actually the opposite, equating the two: there is one name that keeps coming to mind: that of the Sugambri or, as they are called mainly in literary and later sources, Sicambri (translated via Google Translate). Please quote the portions of Van Loon (I don't really care whether translated or not; I don't read Dutch) – per WP:BURDEN – which support your claim that Sicambri ≠ Sugambri. Ifly6 (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ifly6, Botteville I speak Dutch and English every day, and often have to translate between them. My experience is that you'll get better translations from ChatGPT than Google translate. In any case, I agree that Van Loon does not divide this topic into two. I think more generally his speculations have been built upon and adjusted in various ways in the new material that was added here. I would think that if we report his ideas this would be within something like the section we have about the Sicambri in Frankish mythology. A good future version of this article would probably contain more secondary commentary than Van Loon, because I think these topics have been commented upon relatively often. (Van Loon himself cites Ewig and others.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I must say I'm happy to see that someone involved can read Dutch. In van Loon 2016 pp 62–64 do you agree that what's presented is essentially a story about Frankish leaders having served in Pannonia with the legions, contra a Sicambrian migration? Ifly6 (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that basically how I read it. I think he is implying that there will have been Frankish troops as well an elite, as if the ethnic names of Roman units imply a genetic connection over many centuries. (I think many scholars still like believe in such things, but this type of thinking is controversial, and Van Loon does not really explain how far he would take this idea of genetic continuity within the military units. The Traditionskern idea of Wenskus is a possibility but Van Loon himself makes it clear, without mentioning that specific concept, that Wenskus would not have applied that to the Sicambri.) Anyway, even assuming a kind of tribe of military Franks who stuck together as a "people" for centuries, this is not what most people would call a "migration". Indeed Van Loon seems to think many of these early military Franks were actually moved out of the Pannonian area to other places such as northern Britain, before eventually turning up in Gaul. I presume that he would have no problem with the idea that the actual amount of Sicambrian DNA (so to speak) might be quite small among the Merovingian-ruled Franks in Gaul.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that we are finally getting to face this issue of content. What it took to bring that about is very stressful. I am pleased also that you speak Dutch, Lancaster. You are, so to speak, a Frank, the very people of the topic, though with an English name. But that is irrelevant. Humor me along. Van Loon's complete story as far as I can make out is that from the unit inscriptions at Budapest (Sicambria) we can at last reconstruct what tribes the Franks were. The oldest in the area were the Sicambri, who went back to ethnic Sugambri a few hundred years earlier. But, these Romanized Sicambri were being settled on the opposite bank from the wild Sugambri. It just so happens that this Romanized Sicambria is the range of the 5 inscriptions (more or less) mentioning Loudana, the goddess of success bearing a name later favored by the Merovingian dynasty. These it is proposed were the original Franks. After the Franks got together in some kind of national unity the Sicambria name spread to the whole lowlands on either side of the river before being generally supplanted by Frankia. What I was hoping to see is the two phases, pre-Pannonian and post-Pannonian, covered separately. That is why I began with a different intro. But, if you admit Van Loon as a source and generally agree that his story is more or less the latest it would be better if you did it. I can't tell you what to do, however. I know the German wikipedians are treating it as all one people with variants of the name only. I don't agree with that, which is why I have pushed you into this consideration. You decide, one article or two? If it is going to be one, and you are aware of the newest developments, it is better if you arrange it all. I will therefore retract my reversion and put it back the way you had it. If it is going to be two, there is a lot more writing and reorganization. I got no immediate plans for that. I cannot really get back to Genobaud until we know what we said in Sicambri. There is also the Wikidata data to consider. And, I have been avoiding it, but there is an update of the Franks article. So don't be surprised if I get picky over these articles. Maybe we'll be able to do better than Gregory of Tours (whimsical). This is about the best I can say at this point. I need a break! What I meant in one of my previous comments is that if you continue to resist changes sweeping it all under the rug of non-encyclopedic writing I will just leave you with it all and it can go on flawed forever. But, I suspect I will not be the last person interested. However all this seems to be unnecessary as you are coming down accepting Van Loon and the work of Panegyrics so favored by the previous editors. If I do not reply immediatley to your next communiques it is because I need a little break. Since you assure me of your professionality I am certain I can count on your understanding, tolerance, flexibility and cooperation. Ciao. Botteville (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

But can you please help me out? Where in his article Van Loon says such things as these? Romanized Sicambri were being settled on the opposite bank from the wild Sugambri; the Franks got together in some kind of national unity the Sicambria name spread to the whole lowlands on either side of the river before being generally supplanted by Frankia I don't see any suggestion that he believes there was a country called Sicambria. Also I don't see that he mentions unit inscriptions at Budapest? Can you give page numbers for any of these statements?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Botteville: Please cite the specific passage in van Loon 2016 which states the things you claim it does. Please refrain from posting massive walls of text (WP:MWOT) with long asides about interlocutors' Frankish inheritance that are irrelevant to the discussion. Frankly (pun intended) if you can provide in list form an enumeration of the points you want to make, along with direct citations supporting them, that would probably be best. Ifly6 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh come on now, all effective communication includes a jest once in a while. It helps to ease the tension. How can I talk to you if you find fault with everything I say? It seems as though you utter a threat at every communication. Maybe you should just go ahead and do it. Then WP will not have my services. If you are going to continue to talk to me please refrain from finding fault with everything I say. Actually I'm delighted that you are asking for such a list as I was beginning not to see how I could possibly work on that article. I do have some items. One of the foremost is the geography of the Sicambri. Exactly where were they and when? But, I am not yet in a position to provide you with the kind of detailed information you have asked for. I started cleaning up Genobaud and I need to do more research in developing the subsidiary articles. Sicambri is more or less OK as it is now although it could cover some things in more detail. Your request although not a back-burner item is not a short-term project. I think you will have to be patient.I want to do it and it should be done. The discussion page on that article is so massive that I doubt anyone looks at anything on it. Maybe we do need an expediter, you! Botteville (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If that remark was intended as a joke, my apologies for not taking it as such then. Ifly6 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Update

I have asked for third party perspectives, so just to summarize where I am at, I think the recent large changes to the current article [1] should be reverted again because:

• The changes to the lead do not match the contents of the article or our normal recommended style. Based on discussion above on this talk page I can see that the new opening reflects an idea that there are two different types of Sicambri, in two different periods. No publish source ever seems to have said anything like this. The terms Sicambria and Sicambrian seem to come from the medieval writer Fredegar.
• The block of new unsourced material should be deleted. Apart from being unsourced and speculative, it reads like someone's personal musings, and it does not stick to the topic. There is a lot of digression, but nothing concrete which we need in this article.

I do of course accept that this article needs work. And Botteville might be right that it is worth mentioning the idea somewhere that the Merovingians might have descended from a Franks who'd been posted on the Danube, who possibly remembered a connection to the otherwise non-longer existent Sicambri, if this is a serious published theory.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I was brought here by a WT:CGR message noting a teahouse post. The most relevant edit to summarise what exact content was added, on first glance seems, to be this. I think Andrew is correct in identifying two issues around sourcing and style. The added material doesn't seem to be supported by the body text. At the same time, I have serious concerns as to the reliability of much of that body text given its over-reliance on citing the primary source Tacitius.

As to the style, the reading is markedly strange. It's like some kind of staccato half-sentences rather than full sentences that convey entire ideas. I don't think this is at all consistent with best practices relating to the stylistic tone of Wikipedia articles, ledes, etc. See WP:ENCSTYLE. Substantial reworking of the sentences for flow is probably necessary if this content is to be kept. If everyone refuses to do it then I would keep the pre-edit status quo given that many of the additions don't comply with WP:VER. Ifly6 (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ifly6. I hope we can get more feedback and build up some perspective. I think by the way BTW no one is disputing that this article needs some love and attention eventually. Can you also look at Genobaud (3rd century)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't say that I understand what the problem is. Lancaster is denying that the two cultures are separate peoples, refering to one source. It is true in one sense, that the Sicambri came from the Sugambri. Many on-line encyclopedias do treat them as the same people. Lancaster wants to follow this model. On the other hand they live in different times and places and probably don't speak the same language. The imperial Franks originated with the Sicambri, the later brand. After they appeared the old Sugambri were assimilated. Before the assimilation they have two quite different histories. My suggestion is to treat them in two different articles. It is shorter and easier. The Sugambri are the oldest. It was the Sicambri that were assigned the name of Franks. You the editorial public have to decide. If you do not take my suggestion then it would seem that these matters have to be explained in the article. The intro would have to cover it. That is why I stopped on the intro. It seems to me what is said in the intro depends on this decision, which is why I stopped. If you are not going to use it, revert it by all means. I think you are beginning to realize the body of the text is full of holes. Whichever way you go, they should be addressed. I think we may have to request a bona fide expert on this topic and also an administrator. Whatever they decide we can just do. I notice some criticisms of my style, that it is half-sentences and staccato. This is slander ad hominem. I dare you to find even one half-sentence. Lancaster and his obvious friends are the ones who cannot express themselves in basic English. Much of what they say is incomprehensible. Why do we need these huge discussions? I object. It isn't right. Botteville (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Please practice what you preach and keep your posts short and free of personal accusations. If I understand correctly the only source you have for your idea of creating a new article for the later Sicambri, and completely changing the lead of this one, is the linguist Van Loon's article. But for him the later Sicambri are the people who are normally called Salian Franks, and especially their ruling Merovingian dynasty. But we already have articles for those, under the names historians normally use for those topics. Taking Van Loon's position the most we need to do seems to be mentioning the possible links etc in those two articles? These speculative links are not of central importance to either topic though, because they involve what happens in an unclear period. Why completely restructure any articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment from ifly6 moved up. Ifly6 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The reply above misidentifies my identification of non-encyclopaedic style (res contra hominem) as ad hominem. It is in fact ad rem. The claims that I cannot express [myself] in basic English and came here with unclean hands as [Andrew Lancaster]' obvious friends [sic; recte singular] are both WP:ASPERSIONS. In two matters – (1) to find a bona fide expert on this topic and also an administrator and (2) objecting to huge discussions – buried in that huge paragraph: neither are how Wikipedia works. This is a collaborative encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Decisions are made by consensus and reference to guidance, not by administrative fiat; moreover, communication is required. Eg for the first sentence, which is currently on etymology, MOS:FIRST requires that it be reframed into an introduction of what the article is about. Ifly6 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it is ad hominem. The style is in fact encyclopedic. You are trying to asperse my style so you can discredit it. You tell untruths about it, saying that it is half-sentences and staccato. Exactly what are those things? You bury your aspersions under inscrutable language. This is edit warring, and that is what you are doing. Moreover you are quite wrong about how Wikipedia works. It does too provide for requesting an expert in the case of content problems. These huge discussions are not about content. They are mainly personal. If consensus cannot be reached, which so far it has not, then administrators often do decide. The first sentence is NOT about etymology. Your inability to grasp what is going on suggests that you ought not to be in this position. If you cannot do the job, please withdraw. Botteville (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

These huge discussions are almost entirely about the content of the page, viz (1) whether it should or should not be split; (2) disposition of the massive lede, reverted since the previous comment; (3) what the first sentence should say; (4) whether the style and tone of the article is consistent with WP:ENCSTYLE; etc. Conclusory assertion that everyone else in this conversation is wrong or is incapable of grasp[ing] what is going on is, frankly, another species of WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Other than the content disputes, this page has been filled to some degree with allegations of personal attacks. This is not the proper forum in which to accuse other editors of misconduct. I have made a post on your user page consistent with guidelines as to conduct I believe objectionable and proper dispute resolution processes for your accusations. Ifly6 (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Page numbers for Heinrichs 2005

@Andrew Lancaster: I'm looking at the De Gruyter web version and it seems to have page separators. Could you use them in your short footnotes if possible? Thanks, Ifly6 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yes. That's what I should indeed have done. Will see what I can do this evening.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Ifly6 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, did the obvious ones. I will stop for this evening. I have so far left the Pannonia story pretty much alone, because it would require looking at a whole other set of sources, and I have other things to do at the moment. I presume that both the literary topic and that myth topic might become small sections of their own eventually. I also wonder if anything more has been written about those military units.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely there has been anything written about the military units themselves, given that the references to them are archaeological or vague ancient statements that there were some scruffy semi-exotic Sicambrian-looking fellows over there.

As to the Pannonian story, the #Origin of Sicambri section above is actually somewhat illuminating, even though both major contributors are gone (one seems to have been banned from all WMF properties for being a raging homophobe abusing admin tools and the other seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth). That said, the description in Wood 1993 which someone around that time cited for us, is reasonable cogent and I'll take a stab at it later today. Ifly6 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I don't expect anything detailed on the military units, but there might be a better listing or analysis of where they were posted. Concerning the Pannonian story I have looked at it in the past. Wood is probably indeed a reasonable place to start. I believe there are 3 distinct primary sources for this story and the differences are quite big.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sicambri and Sicambria in medieval literature

The medieval use of Sicambri and Sicambria will apparently be a topic which eventually becomes a bigger section. I can see that it has been a topic of discussion for some generations. On the Reallexikon part of the De Gruyter website there are some articles by well-known figures such as Wenskus and Ewig, both cited by Van Loon. (Search "sicambria".) Of course this is partly connected with the topic of Frankish origin myths so it involves other articles. I don't know of any which is currently in a good finished state though. FWIW:

• One of the common theories about the origin of the Troy part of such stories is that it is simple folk etymology based on the Traiana in the Latin name of Xanten. (It really referred to Trajan, not Troy.) You have to consider that residents of the civitas would have been called Troiani.
• Wenskus thought some of the Sicambri became Chattuarii. He apparently thought the Chattuari had settlements in what is now France, and that these influenced folk memories of the Sicambri etc.
• There is also an idea that the Pannonia idea came from an interest in stories connected to the Huns and their circle, which were popular in a large area.
• Ewig seems to see a connection between the Alans and the story. They had a real link to the distant Don and Sea of Azov, mentioned in one version of the story. There were also Alans who stayed in Gaul.

I did not read very far into this but of course the Huns themselves had been to Gaul, and Aetius and probably some Frankish allies stayed with Attila before returning to Gaul and defending it from him. It is not hard to think of connections between Gaul and Pannonia. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Adding another:

• For those who don't know, the Romans also claimed descent from the Trojans, and both the Franks and Burgundians liked to see themselves as related to the Romans (as did the British later).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)