Talk:Merovingian Dynasty
Wikipedia's article about Clovis I claims that his Kingdom was separated between his four sons:
- Theuderic, ruling from Reims.
- Chlodomer, ruling from Orleans.
- Childebert, ruling from Paris.
- Chlothar, ruling from Soissons.
If the Kingdom was divided among four different Kings with four different capitals, is there any particular reason why this article only lists those Kings who either ruled from Paris or controlled? Shouldn't the others be added? User: Dimadick
ANSWER: In 511, Clovis' kingdom was divided among his four sons, creating the new political units of the Kingdoms of Reims, Orléans, Paris and Soissons. In 561, a new division was made, and when one of the four kings died in 567, yet another partition created Austrasia from the Kingdom of Reims, Neustria from the Kingdom of Soissons, and Burgundy from the Kingdom of Orléans. This repeated partitioning not only reaffirmed these new political units, but they also undermined the strength of the Frankish Empire, which ws being raided at its frontiers. The Slavs and the Avars posed a threat on the northeastern frontier, the Lombards on the southeastern frontier and the Muslims on the southwestern frontier. In 613, the king of Neustria took control of the other two kingdoms and a united Frankish Kingdom was created with its capital in Paris.
Yes, the article titled "Merovingian" makes that clear. But if you notice this article's list of Merovingian monarchs only includes those of them that had controll of Paris and in succession to each other. It makes no mention of as many as Four Kings, holding power at the same time. Shouldn't the Kings of Reims, Orleans, and Soissons also be listed? User: Dimadick
Yep -- it should. New project for me, I guess. JHK
Triton or whatever your name is -- Please explain why you continue to remove the annotation about the Hundred Years' War. You and Jacques both claim this to be untrue, but it is basic procedure for historians to question their sources. A good historian always asks about such a work: 1) who is the author? 2) why was it written -- i.e., was it commissioned, and who by? Was it a response to a particular event, etc. 3)Who was the intended audience? 4)How close n time was it written to actual events 5) WHat biases might a modern author have to consider -- these are just some of the questions we have to ask. If you do not accept this methodology, I am afraid you don't have much credibility as a history editor, professional or otherwise. JHK
One does not insert personal opinions into references as you did. If you disagree with the findings of a particular reference, document it here in the discussion page.Triton
- I would like to point out that you don't answer the question. What you do say makes me question how much history you actually do read. This kind of discussion is perfectly normal in the footnotes of any scholarly book or article, and is often included at the end in what we call an annotated bibliography. SO, in fact, one does do that. And goodness knows, I've discussed this -- just never get any discussion from you guys. JHK
efghij -- please watch what you are doing -- we need to stick to one naming convention, and that should match the articles that are already in existence. Please try to make sure you aren't accidentally creating duplicate pages. The names as they were were pretty much ok, and if you pipeline them, you get them to say what you want. Not trying to be critical, just trying to make sure there's not lots of reduplication of effort or lots of link cleanup. Every time you change links in masses, there's a big chance that, if links to those articles exist, they won't get repaired. Since this is still undergoing a lot of discussion, it might help to leave the page as is until there's some sort of consensus on where it's going. Thanks! JHK