Talk:Francia

message: " The kingdom was repeatedly divided among several kings; the division of 843 after the death of Louis the Pious turned out to be permanent, eventually giving birth to the nations of France and Germany."
I sincerely object to the use of " eventually", because "EVENTUALLY" these kingdoms gave birth to various nations. (as was the conclusion on User:Oldwindybears talkpage)
 Rex  13:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever happened to your efforts to convince someone at RFM to agree with your idiosyncratic take on Francia Orientalis and Francia Occidentalis not being Germany and France ? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Recently, User:Ulritz has added the following templates to the topp of the page; and . These templates were already included at the bottom of the page, along with evey other national template for Germany and France by far aren't the only modern nations with historical ties to the Frankish Empire, this user refuses to debate other wikipedians on talk pages, and chooses editwarring instead, he tries to justify his edits by his edit summaries which, as I have experienced, contain either a very strange explanation ... or an insult. This time User:Ulritz refered to a "mainstream theory", and I wonder, User:Ulritz, what are you talking about?
Rex 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were not talking about modern nations, but entities/concepts that actually existed at the time. By your reasoning we should add a History of East Timor template.to the Dutch Empire article, because it used to be a part. Youre applying modernist concepts to historical articles. Ulritz 10:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by User:Ulritz 

message: I think this article could be improved by adding a bit in the Society in Frankish Gaul section about the improved treatment and increased freedom of women.In my eyes 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the section on Frankish Society be moved to the article on The Franks.  This article on Frankish Empire is more in the nature of a political and military history; the article on the Franks seems to be a more appropriate place for social history.  --SteveMcCluskey 12:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women in Frankish Society 

message: Apparently since the original article was split into The Franks and Frankish Empire, there has been little concern for the division.  The Frankish Empire, for example, is treated extensively on both pages.
For the moment I've added a notice to each of the two articles referring to the other ones.  If this doesn't work, I would suggest merging them again.  --SteveMcCluskey 12:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Franks / Frankish Empire 

message: "At his [Charlemagne's] death, the Carolingian Empire was larger in terms of land mass than the original Roman Empire."
Eh? Francia was certainly not larger than the entire empire, or even the original western half. It was  larger than the disintegrated remnants of the western empire at the traditional date of its "fall" in 476, but that's hardly representative of the empire for most of its history. And since the author brings up the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in the next sentence, he/she does seem to be talking about the empire's entire history. I would simply delete this sentence, but I feel it would disrupt the whole structure of the paragraph.
A. Parrot (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked it. How about now? Srnec (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to the Roman Empire

message: French or German? --71.106.173.110 (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Frankish/Old Dutch, Old High German (evolved into modern German), and Vulgar Latin/Old French (evolved into modern French). Some learned Franks could speak Latin. It all depended on where and when an individual Frank lived. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What language did the Franks speak? 

message: I've made some changes to the Infobox, I hope that now this inofobox will stay now and that in continuation to what User:Paedia has said above, it's place in the article will be resolved for good. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the problems have not been solved, nor can they be. For instance, Clovis inherited his position from his father. He did unite all the Frankish tribes, but that was not in 481. That didn't happen until 509. But why is that the start date for "Francia"? Obviously Clovis and his Franks were ruling a large sub-Roman state before that date. The date of 843 is equally arbitrary. In that year the separate jurisdictions of three brothers were delineated, but the empire remained one in the same way that the old Roman Empire had remained one during the period of the Tetrarchy. Srnec (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored Infobox Former Country 

message: It would be good if the article had section about the Eastern vassal states. This theme would deserve an own section. I think this subject has not entirely discussed yet. For instance:
*According to page of Principality of Nitra, the principality was an independent state??Fakirbakir (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the vassal states 

message: I am looking for the source of that edit: . I especially interested in the first two sentences: The first time that Francia is named is in the Panegyrici Latini in the early 4th century. It is the area north and east of the Rhine, roughly in the triangle Utrecht - Bielefeld - Bonn. Could somebody help me with that? Igor Filippov (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for source  

message: Currently Frankish Empire redirects here, even though there is a separate article called Carolingian Empire? This is absurd, Frankish Empire and Carolingian Empire are the same thing. Post-Carolingian Empire has a separate article anyway. I guess this article is named 'Francia' as a compromise between 'Frankish Kingdom' and 'Frankish Empire', but this naming is very unusual. It's certainly the least usual of the three choices. Even more, Francia mainly referred to Austrasia and Neustria. And then on the side of the article we have the infobox titled differently than the page: "Frankish Empire" (which was now founded in the 3rd century?). It is all an incredible mess. If we are starting with the 3rd century, why not merge this page with the Franks page? I know it is a wikipedia-practice for the Germanic tribes to have an article separate from the articles on their kingdoms, but this would solve the naming problem of this article (Frankish Kingdom or Frankish Empire) without compromising with wikipedia-specific 'Francia', and most importantly we would have an article with continuity between Merovingians and Carolingians, which must be the main purpose of this article. The Frankish 'realms' are traditionally categorized by dynasties. So, we should have Franks as the main article (Frankish Kingdom would redirect to it), and then separate articles on the Merovingians and the Carolingians. This would be in accordance with the already existing separate article Carolingian Empire (preferably named Frankish Empire). Carolingian/Frankish Empire, of course, has to have a separate article. Francia should be a disambiguation page, or a separate article describing the shifting usage of the name. Zhmr (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the article 

message: I'm a bit confused about something from what I've read in various articles.  Was the Kingdom of the Lombards ever officially part of the Kingdom of the Franks after Charlemagne's conquest of it or was it merely in personal union with the Kingdom of the Franks under Charlemagne?  Emperor001 (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Something more like personal union. It was certainly not just absorbed into the kingdom of the Franks the way, say, Burgundy was at an earlier date. Srnec (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lombardy

message: Substituted at 15:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Francia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921232251/http://www.bu.edu:80/english/levine/grch4+5.htm to http://www.bu.edu/english/levine/grch4+5.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Francia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bu.edu/english/levine/grch4+5.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140721112701/http://uralistan-intermarum.net/etno/fr_Frankish_Kingdom_Capitals.pdf to http://uralistan-intermarum.net/etno/fr_Frankish_Kingdom_Capitals.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The source added in this edit only talks about how 17th century French people interpreted what they perceived to be a Merovingian symbol. The author does not appear to claim to represent modern thinking on the meaning of the bees.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing—to my knowledge—that associates the bee with the Merovingians other than the curious objects 300 of which were found in Childeric I's tomb in the 17th century. They were originally identified with bees, but have since been identified with cicadas, flies and flowers. They almost deserve an article of their own... Srnec (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is an interesting subject. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bees 

message: I'm not sure it's correct to describe Francia as a hereditary monarchy.  Einhardt's biography of Charlemagne mentions that the Merovingians were "chosen" as kings before the Carolingians.  That plus the manner in which Charlemagne and Carloman were selected as co-kings over different regions indicates that Francia was technically an elective monarchy that they simply made de facto hereditary by always being elected, not unlike the Habsburgs and the Holy Roman Empire.  Emperor001 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite see how this type of "elective" is opposed to being hereditary at least in any simple sense. But more to the point on Wikipedia we summarize what has been published, so basically we can only really use these ideas if they are published in a significant source, or preferably many.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Hereditary Monarchy

message: Francia → 
I opposed kingdom of the franks but, thinking about it, Frankish kingom is a much more common name. Francia is used in the context of East Francia and West Francia, and in other contexts as well, but not so much when it comes to this earlier period to be the title of the article. I thought Francia was useful to have readers understand where East Francia and West Francia come from but, reading about it, i just don't see books on the Franks using this term more than Frankish kindgom. Readers will understand anyway, but I think it's time for a more common name to prevail.
Barjimoa (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 23 April 2020

message: Why is it part of the History of France series?  Either it is both the history of Germany and France or it is left out completely. Adrianolusius (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of France? 

message: So the various names listed for Francia in the opening include Francia/Kingdom of the Franks/Regnum Francorum/Frankish Kingdom/Frankland/Frankish Empire.
Should France not be included? I mean France is literally just the French rendering of Francia (and given that we use France in English and not Francia the English rendering as well) and given it being by far the longest-lasting rendering of the name it's at least as notable as the Latin rendering of Kingdom of the Franks. 14.2.37.113 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: How do you pronounce Francia in English? Frankia or Frantsia? Or are both pronounciations allowable/common? If not, there should be an IPA spelling in brackets. 2001:4BC9:A42:3BA6:85CF:976:7394:BC23 (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation 

message: I see there is an edit war about the official language in the infobox. I suggest part of the problem here is that there was no such thing as an official language of Francia. It is however clearly correct that the only widely used written language was Latin. So I suggest we can delete that category or else use Latin. Your edsum makes no sense to me  Clearly the empire had no single mother tongue and clearly mother tongues are not the same as official languages. It is also very clear that Latin was not gradually adopted but rather a language which was already widely used in this area. I think the list of commonly used languages should also include Latin and Frankish? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  official language