Talk:Clovis I

message: To correctly enumber the Kings of that name:
*Aside from Clovis I, we have Clovis II, III and IV. = 3
*Nine Carolingians were called Louis (the family included the royal names (C)Louis and (C)Lothar only after having acceded to the throne, the first are two sons of Charlemagne):
#Louis the Pious, Emperor, King of the Franks
#Louis II, Emperor and King of Italy
#Louis the German, King of the Eastern Kingdom
#Louis the Younger, King of the Eastern Kingdom
#Louis the Child, King of the Eastern Kingdom
#Louis the Stammerer, King of the Western Kingdom
#Louis III, King of the Eastern Kingdom
#Louis IV Transmarinus, King of the Eastern Kingdom
#Louis V the Indolent, King of the Eastern Kingdom
*The French count 18 Kings called Louis, but since these start with Louis the Pious and follow the Western Kingdom (which eventually became France) five are already included above, which leaves 13 non-Carolingian Kings of France.
**Louis XVII should be included as he is part of the history of the Franch monarchy, even though he did not rule in effect.
*Finally there's also Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor - the only non-Carolingian ruler of the Eastern Kingdom/Germany going by that name. However, the name also features prominently in second-tier German dynasties of Bavaria (10 Dukes and 3 Kings of that name) and Hesse (10 Landgraves, four Grand Dukes) but I have left them out of the article.
Str1977 (smile back) 13:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kings called Clovis or Louis

message: I read in some sources Clovis used title of Augustus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustus 

message: I feel as though the references to Clovis and others being of Catholic Christianity to be ignorant, as there was no "Catholic Christianity" in the sense, as this term was not coined until the East-West Schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Therefore, Christianity before hand was simply Christianity, and because of this we cannot simply assume that Clovis was Catholic as is it did not exist at the time. Overall, Catholic Christianity needs to be replaced with Christian/Christianity in this article.
Limonns (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The implied comparison at this time is with Arianism; Clovis was a Trinitarian Catholic. An important point: cf. Visigoths. The text clearly needs to be made more obvious.--Wetman (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism 

message: Why is this sentence repeated? How did the person who wrote and/or edited this article miss this?
Pictonon (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clovis called a synod of Gallic bishops to meet in Orléans to reform the church and create a strong link between the Crown and the Catholic episcopate 

message: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Clovis was the latin version of the name (not Ludovicus).
Clovis seems closer to the versions seen in modernday "Latin languages" (Luis, Louis, Lewis etc.) while Ludovicus seems closer to the "Germanic" versions (Lodewijk in dutch and ludovic in Vlaams(Belgian dutch)).
Ofcourse this is OR and should not be added to the article without a source but the current text could very well be OR as wel as it is unsourced. Cheers Ineverheardofhim (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: In the end of the introduction this was in place:
"At first he was not a Christian but he married a Christian girl. Written by: Joseph G"
First, it was already implied he was not first a christian. it said in the previous paragraph he was converted. Second, the written by thing should not be there. I took out the material I have quoted, please yell here if you dislike the change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Junk in the article

message: This page is so ridiculously full of vandalism. I'm going to try and fix it when I have time, but if anyone has the time before I do, please do it ASAP Миша I, Швейца́рская Император 07:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: "Pagan" is a pretty vague term. Should be clarified what specific religion it was. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Clovis converted from Arianism to Catholicism. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently provides no scholarly support for the claim that Clovis was an Arian prior to his conversion to Catholic Christianity. There is a reference linked to the claim, but if one reads the text referenced (look it up on GoogleBooks), it becomes clear that it is claiming nothing of the sort. Thus, the statement should be removed from the article. Further, it is well documented that Clovis was babtised. This is significant, for it was generally forbidden to repeat any Christian babtism - even upon an Arian Christian. When an Arian converted to Catholicism, s/he was annointed. As for the original question: The only way to really specify Clovis' birth-religion would be as "Franko-Germanic Paganism" or something of the sort. But the folks around here generally frown heavily upon such labelling, thus "Pagan" is most likely the best term. 178.83.85.111 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Prepare to be surprised and/or astounded: Muldoon (1997:88): “We learn that along with Clovis (and over 3,000 members of his army) his sister Alboflede was babtized and that his sister Lantechilde, ‘who had fallen into the Arian heresy,’ was converted to Catholic Christianity and, as was customary in the cases of converted Arians, was anointed.” 178.83.85.111 (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: PLRE says "He was originally a pagan (primary refs); after invoking Christ's name and winning a surprise victory over the Alamanni at Zülpich, he became a Christian and received baptism; (more primary refs). The date of the battle and the conversion is uncertain... " That's it. PLRE omits our current reference to the Grandes Chroniques de France (the Chronicle of St Denis) which were compiled several centuries later. PLRE is in intention a comprehensive account of the primary sources and I suspect that any further "information" is speculative at best. I suggest that we should have a brief section on the details certified by PLRE, and, perhaps, a longer one on later speculation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see a source for Clovis's anointment in 496. The 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica mentions this year, Christmas Day, as his baptism; does a French source show that it was indeed anointment? The article could really use it.Gio, James, Jaime, or Shamus (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have cites on hand but I'm reasonably sure that Clovis converted from paganism (and Frankish pre-Christian religion is poorly documented, so that's all we've got) to Catholic Christianity. --Jfruh (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion from what? 

message: I'm pretty sure this sentence isn't right:
By the time of the ascension of Clovis, Gothic Arians dominated Christian Gaul, and Catholics were the minority. 
My understanding is that Catholicism (here meaning followers of the Nicene creed, as opposed to Arians) was always the majority church in Gaul during the 5th century.  What happened as the Roman Empire dissolved is that German tribes with Arian ruling classes -- the Visigoths and Burgundians, mostly -- took over the area. But the Goths and Burgundians were only a thin ruling elite and the majority continued to adhere to the same church they had under Roman rule. This is why Clovis's conversion to Catholicism was so important -- it allowed him to present the Franks as less alien to his new subjects.
Unless someone has a cite showing I"m wildly off about this, I'll fix this soon. --Jfruh (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is also my understanding. john k (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholics the minority? 

message: There appears to be some uncertainty as to who exactly is the founder of the Merovingian dynasty. Most places cite Clovis's father, Childeric I, as the first Merovingian king, but then in somes - sometimes even in the same paragraph - say that Clovis is considered the founder of the Merovingian dynasty. So which one is it? Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't choose.  I would edit the sentence in the intro to read "considered by some as the founder," then add language in the paragraph on Childeric that he is also referred to as founder, with a footnote saying pretty much what you state above, with a cite or two. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founder of the Merovingian dynasty 

message: I haven't read through all the lengthy interchanges above, so I don't know if anyone has pointed out that a good part of this takes theories on Clovis' motivations in his interactions with the Church and treats them as established. While these are credible hypotheses, nothing in the source material plainly states them and I would be surprised if an historian or two hasn't disputed them. Would it not be better to plainly report what Gregory of Tours said and cite interpretation as just that?
Also, it is strange to see it claimed that the ewer of Soissons was returned. I don't know if the author cited makes the case for that happening, but the most common account of the "Vase of Soissons" shows the ewer (if that's what it was) being destroyed by an arrogant warrior whom Clovis later murdered before his troops.
2600:1700:8D40:9B60:F540:6684:82BA:E13D (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments sound reasonable as a general principle but apart from the ewer, which part of the article are you looking at?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories as fact 

message: While the alliterative headings introduced by  in 2018 (Barbarian Bonding, Assault of the Alemanni, Business in Burgundy, Armonici Allies, Visiting the Visigoths, Ravishing the Reguli) are mildly amusing, this sort of gag seems more fitting for a blog than an encyclopedia 108.26.215.172 (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know what you are talking about, all that of that must be coincidence. I believe these headlines perfectly reflect their respective sections, and I'm unsure how would one even go about substituting, or why there is even need to. Go-Chlodio (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliterative headings