Talk:Ripuarian Franks

message: Time to rewrite this article. The above discussion is very interesting but frankly peevish. The distinction of Ripuarian Franks is generally accepted, always has been. To swear a campaign to prove they did not exist is a crank view. I shall not take that view. How early the distinction was made, well, that is something else, but then that is a relatively minor problem. Here on WP we are not generally interested in the remote ancestry of individual editors unless they are sufficiently noteworthy to have an article. You can be sure, we all have the great and glorious credential of descending, direct-line ancestry, from the first life on Earth. Unfortunately such a descent means we are all going to die. So spare us the argument, hey?Dave (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: "The people who came to be known as the Ripuarians probably composed the Frankish army that was defeated by Emperor Maximian (250-310) in the battle at Treves.Perry 1857:50. They began to populate the regions of Andernach down the Rhine through the 5th Century and took possession of  Cologne, where they"
None of this is supported in any way by Perry (whom you can see for free). As Andernach was a village, I'd like to know how they began to populate it and where all these Franks came from that populated the whole river. From Andernach? Moreover, I don't know why they should take possession of Cologne when they had it all along as Ubii. It passed out of Roman hands after the fall of the empire, but that was of no consequence as it had been in Frankish hands all along. The only consequence was, they were now independent of Rome, but their attachment to that state was only nominal by then as the Franks had been running things on the Rhine for the Romans for some time. As the article said, they had a "franc"hise (yuk yuk). I'm rewriting that one and expanding.Dave (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spread of the Franks from a village

message: There seems to be some impressive scholarship behind the recent editing of this article, but I find it now simply too difficul to read. The tone of the article is no longer encyclopedic in nature. It's become too scholarly, too academic, too mired in detail. This starts right at the introduction. I've read it four times and I'm still not sure of what it is saying about the Ripuarian Franks. The article is no longer particularly interesting or informative to the average reader. It seems to be aimed at English-speaking academics interested in certain arcane details about this subject, not at general readers who might want a logically sequenced, orderly explanation. There's more I could say about this, but I'd like to just throw that on the table. I don't mean to insult anyone or denigrate the scholarship involved. I suppose in the end it's the style that concerns me. Schildewaert (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not only the style, but the content also. It lreads like a tale from 1900s, not suprising given the references used. Contemporary scholars, folowing Mathias Springer, see no such thing as "Ripuarian Franks". Their first attestation is in the Middle Ages, thus the idea of Rip. Franks is an anachronistic interpolation. The Ripuarii were the Roman Gallic field army who sided with Aetius and simply 'became Franks' as they broke with central (Italian) authority, albeit with an already heavy "Germanic" proportion of soldiers (estimate from 25-60%, +)> 58.172.242.105 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not only the style, but the content also. It lreads like a tale from 1900s, not suprising given the references used. Contemporary scholars, folowing Mathias Springer, see no such thing as "Ripuarian Franks". Their first attestation is in the Middle Ages, thus the idea of Rip. Franks is an anachronistic interpolation. The Ripuarii were the Roman Gallic field army who sided with Aetius and simply 'became Franks' as they broke with central (Italian) authority, albeit with an already heavy "Germanic" proportion of soldiers (estimate from 25-60%, +). Eg see  pp 84 onward Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is not controversial to say that it would be good to include more modern sources indeed, and better discussion about some of the real debates about ethnogenesis. It is not unusual that a Wikipedia article starts out based on older ideas, because these are often easier to find. All that is required is someone with the time and access to the sources. Every edit that improves the article should be welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Style of this article

message: I have been trying to find better sources, but I note some strongly avoid using the word Ripuari to refer to a people rather than a set of laws.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be called "Rhineland Franks"