Talk:Salian Franks

message: I removed this:Alternatively, it may be derived from the Roman name for a river in the Netherlands: Isala, currently named IJssel in Dutch. removed: a very far-fetched claim and not probable. --FlammingoHey 09:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flamingo, in which chapter of Tacitus I can find a reference to the Salian Franks? And why do you link your reference to an unsourced site? johanthon 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flamingo, internet is not a source. It's common here that your changes are based on primary sources, or recent well known scholars. Tacitus  wrote several primary source and you will not find the Salii in his texts. Gregory of Tours is another primary source and he clearly states that the Merovingian kings are of the Salii. He never wrote that those Merovingian kings descended from the Sicambri. Just follow the link and check out the article on them. johanthon 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Again: internet is not a source. And Wikipedia Germany is certainly not a source on the Franks. It is full of rather notorious pulp. If you want a citation of Gregory, why don't you look in the index to look it up? johanthon 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Isala and Tacitus

message: Umm, about this bit here:
: The name Ripuarian is believed to mean 'river-dwelling'.
Believed to mean?  If one looks at Riparian zone, one will see that it says there:
: The word "riparian" is derived from Latin ripa, meaning river bank.
I suppose there could be some doubt about the origin of the name: "Ripaurian" may merely resemble the Latin word for riverbank, while being derived from some other Germanic etymology.
For that matter, does anyone happen to know if the word "Ripaurian" occurred in contemporary accounts, or was it invented later by scholars to distiguish the Franks?  Myself, I am pretty sure it was contemporary. --Saforrest 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word "Ripaurian" is not in the sources. The word "Ripuari" is, for example in the "Lex Ripuari", a law code book for the "Ripuari" dated to the first part of the 7th century. What is more interesting is that the ethnic core of these peoples lived at both sides of the Rhine  around and north of Cologne and south of Nijmegen. Before the 7th century this area was largely occupied by Frankish Bructerri and Brucovarii. The Frankish word bruc is believed to correspond with the modern Dutch word Broek which means exactly the same as both "Riparian Zone" and "riparian vegitation". ("A riparian zone is the interface between land and a flowing surface water body. Plant communities along the river margins are called riparian vegetation, characterized by hydrophilic plants.") Now I am very convinced about this, but my problem is my opinion is just a POV. And above all it is original research. You won't find this kind of thing in English speaking scholars for the sheer reason non of them speak Dutch, so non of them is able to relate Frankish words to their most likely meaning. Cheers. johanthon 19:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ripuarian" is an obvious anglicisation of the Latin term, so it does appear in the sources. ("Franks" never appear in primary sources either, but the "Franci" are distinctly numerous.) Etymological hypotheses like that concerning the tribal names as they have come down to us in Latin are always tenuous at best, just like place-name research. But it does seem pretty likely that "Ripuari" is related somehow to the Rhine. Can anybody quote a secondary source? Srnec 00:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to all move over to the Ripuarian Franks page. I almost missed your discussion. I've added 1 first and 2 second sources on this topic of the Ripu- or Ripa- name, when working on the Ripuarian Frank stub. Although not given "primary source" respect, one of the secondary sources did send me in its footnotes to a Latin primary source of 5th century where I found them in a "primary" source listed as the Riparii. (In Latin, I  think the "ii's" mean plural people.  Later it seems to become the "Ripuarian". To be exact I don't know if you would say it was either "Germanized", "Franconized" or "Anglicized". (... & Too bad we can't use Johanthon's most commendable original research above about the Broek...)  Goldenrowley 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ripaurian 

message: the phrase "Contrary to popular opinion" in the first section is argumentative and unencyclopedic in tone. Whose opinion? It doesn't say. So this non-notable opinion becomes a straw man to argue against.  Can we do away with this phrase whereever it occurs, unless notable and encyclopedic? User:Pedant 76.95.104.7 (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds to me like this was taken out of context. Amongst the Franks there was no clear distinction between just these two groups. Instead there were many tribes that can be considered Frankish. As mentioned in this very article, the Salian Franks are originally considered a subgroup themselves, like the Chamavi. Since this article is about the Salian Franks in particular, I feel it can do without that particular phrase. Dæron (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrary to popular opinion 

message: The Zuydersea did not exist until the High Middle Ages. During the Frankish migration the area was occupied by the Lacus Flevo, a lake containing fresh or only mildly brackish water. The etymological connection of Salii and Salland with the "Salty" coast of the Zuydersea must therefore be incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.17.64.236 (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I notice a source mentioned but it just says "Perry". Anyone know what that means?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this one (seems quite an old one):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Perry does not even mention the theory, only the river theory, so I will remove it and fix the source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salian Franks and the Zuydersea 

message: I find reference to sea faring Salians a bit hard to follow. How are we sourcing this? We seem to also even associate them with eastern Europe? Maybe the sources we are using did not specifically mention Salians? Similar concern with the various parts of the article where we treat use the word Salians to refer to the later Merovingians. I also already removed a remark implying that Salians were the early Dutch! We should not be using sources about Franks, Merovingians, Dutch etc and equating those things to Salians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who originally reverted the change. No problem with the map being French as such, but saying that the Salians moved into this one specific area around Tournai is not a consensus as I understand it. I realize it is a proposal of some authors. Effectively this is the proposal where the late Salians equal the early Merovingians, right? The problem is that there is no known description of any Salian kingdom's bounds, and also the exact bounds of the early Merovingians are not undisputed. Can you maybe adjust the wording to accurately reflect the fact that it only one proposal? The map which was removed focused more on the known homeland. What we do know from late classical sources is that the Salians first probably settled in Toxandria, which is an area you show as NOT having been a place they lived. Come to think of it, don't the two maps show different things? Why not have both? (But note my proposal to use more cautious wording.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the other map and expanded the captions to correspond to what I (think I) know. If you think the description in either caption is contentious, you'll have to point me to other sources with other theories. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Wish I had more time for it. :) Just in case it helps I believe an example of an historian who questions the idea of the Salian Franks becoming the Merovingians, and moving in steady progression to the area you give, is Guy Halsall.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all Franks were Salians. Sea-faring Salians? Clovis King of the Salians? 

message: I've restored the map that shows the Franks moving from (i) Betuwe throuh (ii) Toxandria to (iii) Tournai/the Somme. Yes, it is in French. Yes, it could be better. It could actually show them in Toxandria (the map that did that was removed recently). It probably should say "300" for their residence in Betuwe. It helpfully shows the Rhenish Franks. It is much better than a map of Germany that has the word "Salii" on it and an arrow pointing to the Rhine at the very edge of the page. See Alain Dierkens and Patrick Périn, "The 5th-Century Advance of the Franks in Belgica II: History and Archaeology", in Essays on the Early Franks, for support for this maps understanding of the whereabouts of the Salian Franks. Srnec (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who originally reverted the change. No problem with the map being French as such, but saying that the Salians moved into this one specific area around Tournai is not a consensus as I understand it. I realize it is a proposal of some authors. Effectively this is the proposal where the late Salians equal the early Merovingians, right? The problem is that there is no known description of any Salian kingdom's bounds, and also the exact bounds of the early Merovingians are not undisputed. Can you maybe adjust the wording to accurately reflect the fact that it only one proposal? The map which was removed focused more on the known homeland. What we do know from late classical sources is that the Salians first probably settled in Toxandria, which is an area you show as NOT having been a place they lived. Come to think of it, don't the two maps show different things? Why not have both? (But note my proposal to use more cautious wording.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the other map and expanded the captions to correspond to what I (think I) know. If you think the description in either caption is contentious, you'll have to point me to other sources with other theories. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Wish I had more time for it. :) Just in case it helps I believe an example of an historian who questions the idea of the Salian Franks becoming the Merovingians, and moving in steady progression to the area you give, is Guy Halsall.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I did a lot of rearranging and cutting because the article had lots of duplication and was weighed down by stuff not specific to the Salians. But it's still badly organized. I tried to streamline "Origins and early history" and "History", but the order of presentation made no sense and still doesn't (to me). Srnec (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup