Talk:Austrasia

message: Not trying to be a pain, but DW created this, I think -- could someone look at this picture copyright infor.  I'll check tomorrow, but it looks very much IIRC like one in Hollister's history of Medieval Europe -- the fonts are not very common.  Like I said, I'll check, but it would be good to make sure. JHK
:Looks a lot like this one, with the major areas re-labeled.  Don't know the copyright status on it though. Hephaestos
::A scan from an old edition of Bulfinch? - don't see it in my reprint copy though.  The map's style is old-fashioned, could easily be pre-1923. In any case, it's not a particularly good map, we should try to do better. (A sign of Wikipediholism: I was browsing old maps in a bookshop last week, with an eye to  good candidates for scanning... :-) ) Stan 12:30 30 May 2003 (UTC)
::: I looked at that map, and I'm now almost positive it's from Hollister.  I'm in the office now, but will check when I get home.  I also e-mailed the webmaster for the Bullfinch site, asking if they could let us know the copyright status.  JHK
:::I checked Hollister, and it's quite similar, but not the same.  I'm also going to check my copy of EInhard, but have more hopes that we'll find out something from Bullfinch.  As far as I can tell, though, it's nothing to do with a particular edition of Bullfinch, though. JHK
The article says: "After the death of the Frankish king Clovis I in 511, his kingdom was partitioned among his four sons, Theuderic I receiving Austrasia."
: I wonder if this is not misleading as it sounds as though Austrasia already existed during the reign of Clovis. To the best of my knowledge, in 511, when Clovis' kingdom was divided among his four sons, it created four political units, made up of the Kingdoms of Reims, Orléans, Paris and Soissons. In 561, another 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.  Triton 13:21 31 May 2003 (UTC)
:: I believe you are correct in this. At least my historical dictionary (dtv-Atlas der Weltgeschichte) words it this way, and the terms Austrasia and Neustria are not used until 561. -- djmutex 13:35 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Excuse me again, please -- As to the old fashioned hand-drawn map creation, it seems to look like a touched-up version from Bullfinch, 1913 if memory serves me correct. I think I may have seen variations of this in several places. But, we should wait for Ms. JHK. Thank you, and may the Prophet bless your good efforts. Triton 13:31 31 May 2003 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr.djmutex, sir. I was only shooting off the top of my head (plus I am not a qualified historian) so didn't want to change the article without any sort of proper information to back it up. I'll reword it shortly and maybe see if I can find a little more about this when I get the chance. Thank you for your assistance, sir. Have a joyous visit at Wikipedia. Triton 13:41 31 May 2003 (UTC)
The article refers to the Merovingians but the map clearly shows regions like Bavaria already under Frankian rule. Isn't this a bit of an anachronism? I think the map is more Karolingian than Merovingian. That also affects the definition of Austrasia. I dont think it stretched as far east in Merovingian times. :af:Gebruiker:Jcwf
:Don't know if it helps, but as far as the Bavarians are concerned, we're pretty sure that by the end of the Merovingian period the dukes were Franks.JHK
Maybe I'm daft to reply to a 12-year-old thread. But, if it would help, I could put the maps at http://www.maproom.org/00/08/present.php?m=0020 onto commons. The last two insets show borders for Austrasia, in 561 and 587. Maproom (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Austria" may indeed be connected to "east", but this is less than obvious. If it does, some linguistic explanation is needed. The name would be practically Common Germanic, *Austro-. In Latin, it doesn't mean anything like "east" but much rather "south" (as in  australis). --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "east"?

message: It would be nice if a better map could be found. The current map is clearly wrong, since the current Flanders, Hainaut, Nord and Picardy were Salian and thus part of Neustria, while the current Gelderland, Overijssel en Drenthe were Saxon, and thus not part of Austrasia. Regards JRB-Europe (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I believe you'll find maps which both include and do not include the first region you mention, because it is not certain (Belgica secunda). It seems you are equating Neustria to the area covered by Salian law, and this makes some sense. Perhaps someone should make a map where this section is shown as uncertain. In general making maps for this period is a challenge and it would be great if someone could develop some clear ways to show uncertainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Map