Talk:Clovis I

Older

"Aside from these acts of more than just national importance, division of the state, not along national or even largely geographical lines, but primarily to assure equal income amongst the brothers, on his death, which may or may not have been his intention, was the cause of much internal discord in Gaul and contributed in the long run to the fall of his dynasty, for it was a pattern constantly repeated."

I can't understand this paragraph. It would be cool if someone could rewrite it.

I changed the wording around a bit. See if it's any better, if not, I wouldn't mind having my edit reverted. Detgfrsh (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

--

---

---

The James book Triton keeps referring to is listed as available at UW, so I'll try to pick it up today. I've got a pile of papers to grade, though, so may not get to the check till later. Please remember, this is not an accusation of plagiarism, just a check to make sure that the facts listed get listed in the right order and that interpretation isn't mixed in without citation. Triton added a lot of really good information -- it just sounded very textbook-y, and wasn't in his usual style. Much of it should be incorporated, but only if we can do it without infringing on fair use. Triton -- please remember the stuff isn't gone -- just not out there to be read at the moment. Better to have a carefully written entry than one cobbled together with the intention of proving a point, and better to make sure we don't put the project in a legally difficult position. JHK

correction -- had to come home early -- will get to the library ASAPJHK

Ms. K: As stated earlier, I never use one source only. I don't know what training you may have had, if any, but one source usually leads to much embarassment. Why, if there is a lot of good stuff here that I posted, did you delete most of it. I really think an adult of moral integrity would apologize when things are deleted and then there unwarranted action is proven wrong like the Wotan and the maps? Don't you? Plus, you might want to apologize to the other user you called a "obtuse", a "misrepresenter", and "liar". You drove him away but an appology is still in order, isnt it? After your conduct here, why would anyone believe anything you try to say? And, who are you to judge my writing style or abilities. Also, you know nothing of plagarism laws -- nothing. So don't even attempt to raise such a complex legal issue. Please add the other resources I listed on Merovingians to your reading list so you then can talk with knowledge. Too, read the Encyclopedia Britanncica websites. According to Wikipedia, it is the best source.Triton

We now have someone calling themselves Slrubenstein reverting my facts. Why is this vandalism going on? Triton

• "...unwarranted action is proven wrong like the Wotan and the maps"
  • When Jules deleted the map you had not come up with a source for it. Although it looks old it could have been covered by copyright. As to Wotan, I said she is wrong, but that is hardly a definitive judgement. I think, given the Germanic pantheon, one would have to show that a specific germanic tribe did not have one of the main gods in its pantheon rather than show that it did, but that kind of reasoning is not binding on her or anyone else. Fred Bauder 11:24 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Triton, the main problem remains your combativeness, not the specifics of your edits. Other people have their problems but there is a definite beam in your eye. Fred Bauder 11:24 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder, sir, Ms. K deleted my photo the second time AFTER Mr. Vibber posted the notice that it indeed was proven by me to be copyright free and 100% unquestioningly usable at Wikipedia. As a lawyer sir, please check your facts before you insinuate I have made a false allegation. And sir, as to my conduct, I am not combative other than to defend what I believe as fact as I support you, Ms. K and everyone do so as to make Wikipedia the best possible encyclopedia. I believe that is the goal, is it not? My conduct has been extremely restrained in light of Ms. K calling my sincere efforts as "nonsense" and "ridiculous" and as you are well aware, she deleted them without just cause. And sir, her behaviour could not possibly be my fault. She has clearly demonstrated that pattern of dismissive and insulting conduct with other contributors and drove them away. Do you condone that, sir? If I have in fact offended even one person at Wikipedia, I will apologize. If I have fought hard for my beliefs against someone who belittles me in public, then sir, I will never apologize but I will never stoop to their level of hurling insults. I believe that being polite helps create bonds of goodwill between all peoples of all nations and races, even if their English is not absolutely perfect. And, as to my conduct Mr. Bauder, sir, should I use the example set by all those contributors at Talk:Communist state and its archives? Triton

---

FOr everyone's information. I posted an inquiry on at least the Wotan thing on a mailing ist for medeival academics -- I didn't ask for verification, just the source, because I'd never heard this before. I fully intend to do some serious editing on this and other articles, but not till after I've corrected a large pile of review papers. JHK

Good day, Ms. K. I hope you are rested and that we will work with great diligence together to resolve the problem with putting the correct information into List of French monarchs. And, I do hope you will refrain from harsh language, swearing, or derogatory remarks about me or anyone else who might wish to contribute to Wikipedia. I give you my word, that I will go out of my way to assist so long as you support your theories with facts. I look forward to us cooperating to achieve Wikipedia's goal. I do apologize if my English is not perfect, I work very hard at always improving it. If I may, perhaps you should communicate with the person who wrote the article on Wotan. He is only a blip in Clovis history and I have no real interest in him (it?). Thank you, and may you have a wonderful experience here today. Triton

Hi Triton, I know who wrote most of the Wotan article -- an ex-user called HJ, and this is one of the reasons I questioned the information. I will eventually work on the French Monarchs article, but I am afraid that, unless you are willing to discuss the following, it will end up being more of the same.

• Several wikipedians have posted reasons for choosing to have the article as it appears, with much explanation, and sources for much of that reasoning
  • You continue to argue about these things, and cite sources back -- even though several people have pointed out that those sources as cited do not support your claims.
  • Because of this, you have been given to opportunity on numerous occasions to bring forth exact quotes that support what you believe to be true, but you won't do that.
  • On the very top of the newest talk page, I suggested a solution, and john suggested something similar lower down. We both asked for opinions. A good start to cooperation would be offering your opinion, with reasoned explanations.
• the new Con-triton ;-) is a pleasant change, but actions speak louder than words. Let's see what you're capable of.JHK

Thank you, Ms. K. Any discussion should be on the talk page of the article being dicussed, should it not? I'm not 100% sure, but I think you are talking about the List of French monarchs ? If so, move your last bit to that page, please or enlighten my slow mind. Triton

Ms. K. You confuse me so much. I’m sorry I’m not quick enough and am overloaded answering questions to fully grasp all the intricacies. Above on this page when you deleted my large amount of facts from the Clovis I article including the information on Wotan you said: (QUOTE FROM ABOVE:)

• also the nonsense about Wotan -- not a Frankish god

Now, if Wotan is not a Frankish God, why were you a contributor to his article that said he was a German God?

• (cur) (last) . . 18:14 4 Dec 2001 . . JHK (This is not NPOV, and if Wotan only became a bad guy after Christian influence, how come his name comes from the German for rage?)

You say you are highly knowledgeable on the Germanic tribes and the Franks are a Germanic tribe, are they not? Please correct me if I make any wrong assumptions because I am not an expert on German Gods. But, Ms. K, it matters not if I am right and you are wrong or vice-versa. If I am wrong I would welcome polite input to make a better Wikipedia article. But, why would you call my facts "nonsense" in light of the actual fact that you already had full knowledge of the Wotan article here at Wikipedia? And, why did you not check on it first because I did link it like this: Wotan and the link was there when you deleted it in your Revision as of 19:00 26 May 2003. What you did was make comments that deliberately made my work look bad in the eyes of others and debase my fledgling reputation at Wikipedia by falsely making it look like you knew what you were talking about. That makes me sad, and certainly is a discouragement for not just me, but other diligent contributors. Can you please not do that again? I really want to make positive contributions and help anyone in any way I can. Thank you. Triton

Triton -- I've explained that that article is problematic -- what I contributed was to edit some egregious mistakes. I've also said that I would double check on the Wotna reference, because I was not entirely sure,having never seen this reference in a primary source, nor having heard anything but that the merovingins claimed descent from some kind of sea monster. As for why I assumed it was nonsense, I am sorry to tell you, but your fledgling reputation would not be in any danger (although I doub anything I could have said would make it so) had you not already made so many contentious assertions. I'm sorry it hurt your feelings, but when a person has already made a bunch of unsupportable claims, and then just haphazardly throws a large amount of information into an article, the general view of that article might convinve that it is just more of the same insupportable stuff. I've said I would check it, just as I will check out the rest, and rewrite the article, incorporating your information using good information, if it turns out to be all verifiable and not too close to someone else's copyrighted work. As for my calling it nonsense, I'd quuit while I was ahead, if I were you -- you've called my contributions and me much worse on several pages. JHK

Ms. K says: egregious mistakes - name just ONE?

Next Ms. K says:then just haphazardly throws a large amount of information into an article - really, you mean the exhaustive work and neat inserting in a well-formatted manner that I did? And the "haphazard" work that you had to admit was right. Hmmm. Whatever credibilty you had....

Next Ms K says: had you not already made so many contentious assertions

Well, here are my prior assertions:

First insertion into Clovis I - cur) (last) . . 11:32 26 May 2003 . . Triton

Inserted first info into List of French Monarchs on: (cur) (last) . . 16:56 26 May 2003 . . Triton

Gee, Ms. K, please help me with the prior assertions. I can't seem to find them. Or do you mean discussions on talk pages which I properly did BEFORE ever making changes in any article, unlike you. Triton

And now I will depart to recharge my batteries and eat something. Ms. Kermp's un-Wikipedia like hostily is tiresome. Triton

I've been planning on making some changes to this article also, & have recently read enough about Clovis to agree that Triton is introducing some needed details, but also errors. To wit:

• Localizing Clovis' original realm as "the west of the lower Rhine, with their own center around Tournai and Cambrai, along the modern frontier between France and Belgium, in an area known as Toxandria" is correct.
• This part, "As the chiefs of the Frankish tribes were chosen from a single extended family claiming descent from the god Wotan, Clovis began killing off the other members of his family, reducing the number of people who could compete with him for power. By consolidating the other tribes under his leadership in this manner, within five years he had united the Franks under his personal rule" -- is not attested in Gregory of Tours, nor mentioned in any of the secondary sources I have read. One could argue that my secondary sources are incomplete in their research, but one article (which is not immediately at hand, but I can supply the reference when I get home) argues that Clovis' destruction of the Frankish reguli after the Battle of Vouille was with the intent of removing his competition -- which would not make sense if there was evidence he had already done this.
  • The reference was that within his tribe he ruthlessly eliminated the competition then, after achieving total control, within 5 years he was able to expand his territory by also eliminating the other tribal rulers. Maybe I worded it poorly but it seems to make sense to me. Please fix as you see necessary, with thanks. This is anecdoctal stuff, but I do think Clovis’ ruthlessness is important as part of a way to demonstrate how he succeeded conquering so much territory when others had failed. (Is it not reminiscent of Henry IV?) As to Wotan, I have no interest in Gods or any form of idolatry but it seems others do. That was why I noted it. Triton
• The material concerning Clovis & the Fleur-de-lis is not in Gregory of Tours, & I'm not sure where this is coming from. Much as I like this detail, I suspect this is a case of a myth of uncertain age being confused with fact. Moreover, Clovis' association with it in the article is the contribution of Triton, & unless we are provided some evidence where this came from, that article may face needing reversion also.
  • I intended the Fleur-de-lis and the oil to be clearly questioned as probable myth. In fact, I had wanted to research more because this is a huge story in most Catholic-influenced history. For the life of me, I cannot remember, and I have a heck of a memory (some say), but later on there is some big deal about the oil being destroyed or stolen or something for the crowning of another king, or the king broke the vial so no one else could be crowned. Not sure at all, I just know it’s important for some of the French and Catholics. And all myth as far as I know. But you are right, it is interesting stuff. Triton
• "Clovis' conquests expanded his kingdom westward to the Seine River, then to the Loire. After a battle in Dijon in the year 500, he gained control over Burgundy." This does not make sense. The region Burgundy does not come into existence for another couple of centuries; & the contemporary kingdom of the Burgunds remained in existence for some decades after Clovis' death. He did attempt to conquer the contemporary kingdom, however.
  • I instinctively typed in my "today" name in English because a great many sources seem to always use the French "Bourgogne" for both past and present. It should read the earlier name of Burgundia instead of Burgundy which indeed did exist before Clovis. I think the creation of the Burgundy region you are talking about centuries later is the splitting of Burgundia in 879 into the kingdom of Cisjurane Bourgogne in the south, and in 888 the kingdom of Trans-Jurane Bourgogne in the north. There were also another two divisions: the duchy of Bourgogne and the Free County of Bourgogne, (Franche Comté). Is this what you meant? Burgundia is quite important to Clovis I because there was some backstabbing deal based on fear or intimidation made after his victory at Dijon so that Clovis got control. This could be quite important in the article because it ended up that the Merovingians had to conquer Burgundia in 534 after Clovis wasn’t there in order to maintain control. If you look at Dr. Halsall’s teaching map for Fordam University that I put on the Clovis page, you can see the size and importance of Burgundia to the Merovingians. The Map is 511-561 so of course Burgundia is there as part of the Merovingian kingdom. I will gladly research and expand on this more; this kind of stuff interests me and is important. Triton
• "Trying to make the best of an earlier humiliation, Anastasius, the Byzantium-based emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, finally gave the kingdom of the Franks his legal sanction, granting Clovis the title of "Consul," allowing him to assume the regalia and title of king." Gregory of Tours claims that Anastasius made Clovis consul; however the List of Late Imperial Roman Consuls does not list any reasonable version of the name Clovis in the years 507 to 511.
  • Is it possible that Gregory of Tours was right and he was appointed Consul but instead wanted to be called King so was never listed as a Consul? I know from experience that this type of information usually is based on some reality of some sort. And, I do know his crowning at Reims (?) is a very big deal. I had actually planned to do a significant bit on the crowning as part of the Fleur-de-lis & oil stuff until this rather overwhelming discussion sidetracked my research. Triton
• "Christian scholars codified Frankish law, producing the "Pactus Legis Salicae", or Salic law. Thereafter, Clovis called a synod of Gallic bishops to meet at Orleans in 511 to reform the church and create a strong link between the crown and the Catholic episcopate." Clovis' relationship to the Salic Law is unclear, & debated by the experts. But I do remember it being stated that Clovis had a hand in the codification of law, & summoning at least one synod of bishops.

I hope this makes it easier for all of us to arrive at a consensus on what this article should contain. -- llywrch 23:43 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks for your valued input, it is indeed welcomed and a true breath of fresh air. If it is appropriate for me to do it this way, I will copy your text then insert a few notes in between yours (above) so as to avoid confusion. My computer skills are sorely lacking, so please bear with me if I screw it up trying.Triton

---

My comment posted this afternoon on Llyrwrch's page: Hi there! Thanks for the exhaustive work. It's what I was planning to do, but have actual responsibilities to my students that need to be taken care of first! BTW, the Wotan thing (almost exactly) is on Prof. Lynn Nelson's web lecture page -- I'm on a mailing list with Prof Nelson, and asked about a source.

If you want to do the insertions, that would be great -- as I've said repeatedly, it's not that the information was bad, I just wasn't sure how someone who keeps claiming language misunderstandings and cultural difference could suddenly come up with chunks of text that were well-written, but not necessarily in the right place. I was uncomfortable with leaving them without checking a couple of texts and it's easier to revert entirely than to pick things apart. Oh -- and if Greg says he was made a consul, I'd just say that. It doesn't have to be true that he was, but if Greg said it, it shows a concept of Romanitas in early Frankish Gaul ... anyway, thanks again for your help! JHK

Mr. llywrch, thank you for your cooperation. I shall provide the details on Clovis and Burgundy but having almost all of my work reinstated is pleasing and makes research worth while. I will try to have the other bit completed soon but this has worn me out. Hopefully Ms. K will refrain in future from deleting without research or reason accompanied by snide remarks and follow proper procedure and edit in something approaching a professional manner. Of course, she drove others away and probably is motivated by the idea that I will soon leave if she keeps it up. Back to Burgundy, my old Encarta has a pretty good layout on its early and later history as I stated above. Strangely, they have almost nothing on Clovis, maybe that's why I rarely use it. And, if I may, the Clovis article now says:

• The conversion of Clovis to Roman Catholic Christianity, the religion of the majority of his subjects, strengthened the bonds between his Roman subjects and their Germanic conquerors. However, Bernard Bachrach has argued that this conversion from his Frankish pagan beliefs alienated many of the other Frankish sub-kings, and weakened his position over the next few years.

I am no expert but should an encyclopedia be structured to point out one person’s argument? If proper, should we not make sure beforehand that we can link the reference name to a proper article outlining their credentials to justify recognizing them as an authority? My guess is that most ordinary people doing research like me or someone just enjoying a little history would probably want to know who Bachrach is to justify Wikipedia’s using his ideas.Triton

How about just "However, Historian Burt Bacharach" or whatever? It's rather onerous to have to write articles on every source one wants to quote the opinion of. Then the person's book can be referenced on the sources list, with information to allow the person to look up the book on Amazon. Is that fair enough? john 04:03 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't really know. And it is an onerous proposition. Do encylopedias normally quote only one argument? (my Britannica does not). Good night, and thank you. May you have a joyous visit here and may the Prophet bless you. Triton

In response to Triton's objection, that "should an encyclopedia be structured to point out one person's argument", I would state that Wikipedia is different from the average encyclopedia in that it is supposed to be the gathering of many different people's arguments on various topics. The more we debate a subject, the more detail we add to the discussions that have surrounded various topics or individuals, the stronger the treatment of the topic becomes. But kindly allow other people to fill in the holes they see in your presentations.

I mentioned Bachrach because his article (I can't find my copy at the moment, otherwise I'd add it to the subject) was persuasive for me. As soon as I can find it, I will be happy to add it as a reference to the main topic (I think it was published in Viator, but I'm probably wrong). Other students & scholars of Clovis & his time will have different opinions, but instead of taking what they say & entering it here as fact, I believe it is better to cite them, & allow the reader to verify whether they are believeable.

As for John's comment, my edits were done in a hurry, & probably need a lot of polishing. Feel free to make the change: I know my prose is not golden, & almost always is improved by others. But then if I felt my prose was precious, I shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia. -- llywrch 04:33 29 May 2003 (UTC)

You and I need to talk -- not that many people read Viator -- you'll be quoting Herwig WOlfram next! If you're talking about the article I think you are, IIRC, it's pretty good. One caveat I might have at this point is, however, that Bachrach sometimes can be a point of, um... contention? I'm not saying he's wrong -- just that I'm not sure he's as representative and generally accepted as a Wallace-Hadrill or McKitterick. So if only one authority is quoted, I'm not sure it should be the very famous Bernie B. JHK

You embarass me, Julie. This was but a fragment of my research I threw myself into back in the 1980's, & while I was something of a medieval history nerd in those days I haven't kept up in my reading of either the primary or secondary literature, so I'm probably more trouble than I am worth in European history c.AD 300 - 800. Look at the articles I wrote on Gildas, Constantine III of Rome & the Historia Britonum, then make up your mind.

Anyway, Bachrach's article (which I re-read a month or two ago) was persuasive to me because he emphasized the fact that people -- either in days past or now -- rarely were of one mind. Clovis made a drastic act when he converted, & it is to be expected that some of the Franks weren't as enthusiastic about it as was he -- let alone the Gallo-Romans. Bachrach also points out that Clovis endured a setback in terms of military power following his conversion, which might be explained by disaffection of the other Franks. Once Clovis succeeded in getting the upper hand in Gaul, he served out his form of justice, a la Saddam Hussein, on the other Frankish reguli.

As I said, I'm self-taught about this subject & probably have gaping lacunae in the subject matter, but my other secondary source, Ian Woods' The Merovingian Kingdoms, doesn't mention anything to contradict Bachrach's thesis. If my point is better argued by a better authority in the secondary literature, feel free to make the necessary emendations. I just don't want to convey the impression that we know more about Clovis' lifetime than we actually do. -- llywrch 05:36 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi L -- I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way -- as I said, I don't disagree with Bachrach, and am not sure of the state of this particular question. I only meant that his assertions sometimes raise all kinds of arguments, for ans against (which is good) but also makes him not necessarily representative in some cases! As for the rest, below -- yeah, WHAT-ever. JHK

I am inserting: Traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy, - This is very brief but relevant and important information to the essential role of Clovis and the Merovingians in the Wikipedia article History of France. The source is [1], noting it here as a referenced source. Brief wording of no special constructive nature is fair use when referencing but I used my own wording anyway with the exact same meaning. Triton 14:55 29 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Triton Adding a copy of communication so as to provide a reference for input on this article:

Mr. User:Llywrch sir, please see that I am paying extra attention to my presentations to have proper English. This means much work but I hope what I write is clear for you. In preparing my work on the List of French monarchs, I have come across more on Clovis I that I knew would be of interest to you.

• "A. D. 508. A short time after these events, Clovis received the titles and dignity of Roman patricius and consul from the Greek emperor Anastasius." Walter C. Perry, The Franks, p. 85.
• "In 508 Clovis received at Tours the insignia of the consulship from the eastern emperor Anastasius." Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., art. "Clovis," Vol. VI, p. 563.

Mr. User:Llywrch, on the talk pages Archive 3 for List of French monarchs, john said, QUOTE:

• "French Monarchs - Getting to more substantive points, I agree with you, Clovis is traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy. Britannica says that, you say that, I say that, JK says that. The question is: Was he the founder of the French monarchy? That's a harder question to get at, but Britannica certainly doesn't say he was."

I think Mr. john has a valid point that some others did not see the same way I did although some of his later statements appear to contradict himself. There are many credible references, including the Encyclopedia Britannica, that unequivocally states Clovis to be the first king of France but Britannica does leave open the idea that someone before him could be the founder when it says Clovis I was "traditionally regarded" as the founder. This of course fits with the University of Washington’s teaching list that begins with Clodian. You can access the entire Encyclopedia Britannica free for 72 hours but here are exact words from the Encyclopedia Britannica at Britannica.com (2003 edition):

• He (Clovis) defeated the Burgundians, 500, fixed his court at Paris, 507, defeated the Visigoths at Voulon near Poiters, 507. At the time of his death he was the sole king of France.
• The first of the many French kings to bear the name Louis was actually Clovis (see Clovis). He ruled from 481 to 511 and founded the kingdom of the Franks. Later the “C” was dropped and the “v” was written as “u,” thus making the name Louis. It is the same as the English Lewis and the German Ludwig.

I will have more for you on Clovis I as I find it then maybe a good article can be created. Thank you sir, please have a joyous visit to Wikipedia. Triton 13:44 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I cut this phrase: "Traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy," for three reasons. First, I followed Triton's link to the online Britannica, where it indeed says "Traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy." Given that the wording is the same in the Brittanica article, to include it here without quotation marks in my mind verges on plagiarism. Second, even if we used quotation marks and provided the correct citation in the article itself, I would object because I do not think an encyclopedia article should quote another encyclopedia article; indeed, I do not think we should use other encyclopedias when researching our own encyclopedia. I think it is fine to consult other encyclopedias -- but looking at the Brittanica article, I wonder "Who, exactly, regards Clovis as the founder of the French Monarchy?" So third, the word "traditionally" is notoriously deceptive and too often a crutch masking ignorance. I would have no objection to "Often regarded by x, y, and z as the founder of the French Monarchy" if we could fill in the x y and z with some specificity (e.g. Carolingnian chroniclers, or French High-School history textbooks, or something). Of course, I would then wonder why these people regard Clovis I as the founder of the French Monarchy. I imagine it has something to do with invented traditions and imagined communities, and that would be the stuff of a great encyclopedia article -- but not this one! Perhaps what we need is an article on the construction of the French nation? Slrubenstein

Why do I suddenly think of Eric Hobsbawm, Sirubstein? :-) FearÉIREANN 18:58 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

Maybe because I used the phrase, "invention of tradition?" But Terence Ranger is as important to that concept as Hobsbawm, I think, ;) Slrubenstein

I think this article should say something about the tradition, otherwise randoms are going to keep coming along to re-add what they'll think is a glaring omission. There could be a separate article on the controversy, but most readers are just going to want to know "is this the same Clovis that my high-school teacher told me was the founder of France" (as I was :-) ) without getting into any more depth. We should always give our readers the option of saying "OK, this is all I wanted to know", as much as we might like to have them read endlessly on what is important to us... :-) Stan 17:36 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree in principle, I just don't think there is any meaning to "traditionally...." -- I am just asking for some reasonable specificity. Slrubenstein

Mr. Slrubenstein, sir, my words are no where near plagarism, and you sir, no right to make such an accusation. Second, all credible historians, including the Encyclopedia Britannica as I clearly outlined above state clearly that Clovis I was the first King of France. You might do a little research before you remove my work. As Mr. Wales declared, the right to edit is the basis of Wikipedia's existence, but you changing a proven fact in Wikipedia with your opinion is unacceptable conduct. I shall fix this matter when I am ready with my complete rewrite of Clovis I, king of France. Thank you sir, may the Prophet bless you. Triton 22:22 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm going to add something back again about tradition, because it ought to be there, and it might calm Triton down and prevent an edit war. john 22:36 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Triton, encyclopædias do not use each other as sources, much less use each other's wording, however inadvertently. Word Book does not quote Brittanica, nor vice versa. It is both a gentleman's agreement and because no encyclopædia wants to use its text to highlight the text of a rival. FearÉIREANN 22:52 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think there will need to be even more rewording. After all, the tradition, while inaccurate, is based in French national tradition, it is not just French. The difference is not in just what French people consider true and what others do -- rather, it is a questions of general tradition as opposed to historical fact. And in this case, I think it IS important to mention it, if only to clarify the separation. JHK

has generally been seen as the first King of France. Would this be better as "is generally seen"? Is this not still the case? Traditions usually do not change much. My understanding of English grammar is that "has generally been seen" does imply that it is still the case (as opposed to had), but also that there is some kind of change happening right now. If that is the case, perhaps further elaboration is necessary. --Eloquence 23:03 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What about qualifying it further, by stating that there is a difference in opinion between laypersons and experts? --Dante Alighieri 23:12 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Might sound a little condescending (they're laypersons -- so they're obviously wrong!), not be 100% correct (French historians writing from a national perspective?) and get us into the whole "What is an expert" territory. I think it's quite clear to the reader if we simply refer to a national tradition that there is a separate scholarly tradition that places the beginnings of France proper at a later point. --Eloquence 23:18 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, please, very much. I will again amend the wording as to "King" because referring to the fact that credible resources support the claim beyond more than "John Doe" who shows up at Wikipedia under a "User name" without verifiable credentials, only adds to the credibilty of Wikipedia. Too, I said, please, that "After this, Clovis secured an alliance with Theodoric the Great, marrying his sister Audofleda." That too, is correct but was removed by someone. Now, I have to finish the research I promised for the List of French monarchs to be posted. Thank you. May the Prophet bless each and every contributor to Wikipedia. Triton 00:07 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Triton -- I removed it because I didn't have time to go over all of your edits, as explained above ad nauseam. Clovis did not marry his sister Audofleda. He did not marry Theodorics's sister, Audofleda. These are the two possible ways of understanding what you said, and it's just plain wrong. However, Clovis did marry off his own sister, Audofleda, to Theodoric. That is, Thjeodoric married Clovis' sister, whose name was Audofleda. Please don't cast aspersions about other people, when it seems clear from wverthing you write that your English skills may not be the best and they may in fact be detrimental to your understanding of what we write.JHK

I reverted the French national tradition thing. It's more correct than slrubenstein's edit, but is not really correct. I would say it's popular tradition, based on on a French royal tradition. But then we have to say that it really isn't the case, and why -- or we can just leave the whole thing out. JHK

Changed royalist to royal -- it's more accurate. The important thing here is that, if we include the tradition, we not demean it. This isn't like HJ's claims that everything is Prussian -- this is a real popular tradidtion, part of a national identity, and popularly accepted for many years. It's only in the last 40 or 50 years that Germanic peoples have been a focus of study outside of a connection to modern European nations. We can see from these pages that even these studies are making their way into a "popular" historical consciousness -- it's just that the two conceptions are still being resolved in peoples' minds -- and I hope you folks understand what I'm trying to get at here. JHK

"modern French "Louis" " I doubt Clovis is still in use as a first name in France (but very uncommon I admit) while Louis is generally considered to have the same origin as Ludwig. Can someone confirm that Ludwig xcame from Clodovech ? Ericd

To the best of my knowledge, it did -- it helps if you look at it this was Clodovech (maybe with a not-very-voiced C) is Clodovicus >Ludovicus in Latin. Ludovicus >Ludwig (easy) and Louis in German and French. Don't forget, the French Revolution revolutionized what we know of spoken French by helping to kill off local dialects. I've always seen this as being etymologically correct. JHK

Most sources on the web seems to agree. I missed the step from Clodovech to Ludovic. This is possible but not obvious, Clovis seems to comme from Hlod-Wig. There are some source that connect Ludovic/Louis with Lux but this may well have been created later... during the reign of Louis XIV for instance... Ericd

For the record, I learned the name as Chlodwig in school (pronounced with a leading "k"), which isn't far at all from Ludwig. djmutex 12:57 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Dodgy paragraph

I'm inclined to think that the para begining (Interestingly... should go; a) because it begins that way (so the rest isn't interesting?) and b) because it probably tells us more about Gregory of Tours than it does about Clovis. That is, Latin scholars and writers tended to translate native gods to their Roman equivalents (see as other examplesTacitus' Germania , and Caesar's De Bello Gallica: Among the gods, they most worship Mercury. There are numerous images of him; they declare him the inventor of all arts, the guide for every road and journey, and they deem him to have the greatest influence for all money-making and traffic. After him they set Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva. Of all these deities they have almost the same idea as all other natioins: Apollo drives away diseases, Minerva supplies the first principles of arts and crafts, Jupiter hods the empire of heaven, Mars controls wars. ...The Gauls affirm that they are all descended form a common father, Dis, and say that this is the tradition of the Druids. Filiocht 14:15, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Kings called Clovis or Louis

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):

1. Louis the Pious, Emperor, King of the Franks
2. Louis II, Emperor and King of Italy
3. Louis the German, King of the Eastern Kingdom
4. Louis the Younger, King of the Eastern Kingdom
5. Louis the Child, King of the Eastern Kingdom
6. Louis the Stammerer, King of the Western Kingdom
7. Louis III, King of the Eastern Kingdom
8. Louis IV Transmarinus, King of the Eastern Kingdom
9. 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)

Augustus

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

Catholicism

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)

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)

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

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)

Name

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)

My understanding of the formation of the name Clovis is that it's an abbreviated form of the Latinised version of his Frankish name. With the earliest record of his name printed in Latin, we are given some variation of Clodovicus. Taking into account that the '-us' suffix is due to the 2nd declension nominative case Latinisation (or perhaps the 4th declension — on this point I'm still a little fuzzy), we can reverse engineer a back formation of his Germanic name as something akin to Clodovic. Accounting for the classical pronunciation of the Latin alphabet — that 'v' was merely another form of the vowel 'u', and therefore interchangeable (again, I'm vague as to the origins and purpose of this ancient stylistic choice), and that the letter 'w' did not yet exist, but is essentially meant to represent a very long 'u' or indeed a 'uu' (double-u), we can accurately render his spoken name in modern print as Clodowic. Next, taking into account Grimm's Law of the Germanic sound shift that softened hard 'k' sounds to an aspirated 'h', which may have been still in progress at the time of Clovis, we can intuit a softening of both 'c' sounds in his language, giving us (C)Hlodowi(c)h — but since the consonant cluster 'hl' and the Germanic 'ch' would have sounded alien to Roman ears, for practical purposes they would have rendered it using syllables that made sense to them. Hence, the spoken Latinised form 'Clodovicus', which would eventually be abbreviated as 'Clovis' through much the same long-term vernacular evolution that caused, say, the name of of the city 'Aurelianus' to transform over time into being pronounced 'Orléans', with the new orthography representing in print the contemporary pronunciation during the period in which it was recorded.

Meanwhile the spoken Germanic form would lose the initial aspiration entirely, as indicated by the Latinised Carolingian form 'Ludovicus'; and while 'Ludowigh' would be more or less preserved in Eastern Francia as 'Ludwig'in Modern German, the Latinised form would lose the middle 'd' and final 'gh' sounds — a phonological process common in the evolution of Gallo-Romance into modern French — to give us first 'Louis/Lewis', still with the pronounced 's' as it would have entered English following the Norman conquest, and eventually modern French 'Louis' with the silent-s still written but no longer pronounced (akin to 'Heinrich' mutating into 'Henry' in Middle French and Anglo-Norman, and then 'Henri' in Modern French).

Again, that's my understanding. Perhaps someone can shed more light on the subject? Key of Now (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Junk in the article

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)

Vandalism

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)
Please add a note :- Also Clovis_point : Style of prehistoric spear point, first found at Clovis, New Mexico, USA. 78.144.93.76 (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Conversion from what?

"Pagan" is a pretty vague term. Should be clarified what specific religion it was. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Clovis converted from Arianism to Catholicism. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

I don't know for sure, and if you do know, proceed; but I find it astounding that an Arian would not have been baptised if they entered the Catholic Church. The equivalents today converts to Catholicism from Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are baptised, precisely because those religions don't believe in the Trinty, and therefore Catholics regard them as not truly baptized. Now if you have sources that the practice was different at that time of Clovis, go for it. Personally, I'd just be very surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Catholics the minority?

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)

That is also my understanding. john k (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Founder of the Merovingian dynasty

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)

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)

Religion

We appear to have a slow-motion dispute in progress over the listed religion. Instead of cryptic edit summary arguments, could we please have a discussion over the issue? I take no position, but the frequent changes are not helpful and should be resolved here. Notifying interested parties: Hebel, Sigehelmus, Richard Keatinge, 86.90.239.115. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add other than it is self-evidently excluding of the Eastern Orthodox Church to list a ruler's religion as "Roman Catholic" when the Council of Chalcedon itself had only recently happened and the Great Schism would not transpire officially for about 6 centuries. Is there a convenient, short ad hoc term for pre-Schism figures' religions? No, and it is theologically controversial, but what is even more controversial is to call Clovis just "Roman Catholic". Imagine if Constantine the Great's religion was listed as Eastern Orthodox merely because he is, well, the namesake and reinventor of Constantinople itself, and more venerated in the EOC as isapostolos. Roman Catholics and other Christians would no doubt raise an uproar. Clovis I is also venerated in the EOC as a saint. I uphold my position in the name of WP:NPOV.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 02:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Laszlo and Sigehelmus. Indeed, the Catholic church, in the modern sense and excluding Orthodoxy, didn't exist for centuries after Clovis. I can't see bald use of the word as defensible here, however much modern Catholicism may want to claim Clovis. What form of words do people suggest? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We have an article on the term Catholic (universal) as used by ancient Christian sources, and it quotes uses of "Catholic Church" by Ignatius of Antioch (who possibly coined the term "Catholic Church"), Cyril of Jerusalem, the emperor Theodosius I, Augustine of Hippo, and Vincent of Lérins. It seems to have been used as a self-description by the dominant Christian faction of the Roman Empire in the late 4th century and the 5th century. It does not mean "Roman Catholic".

The term Catholic is still used by the Eastern Orthodox Church partly as a self-description. Per Catholicity: "The Orthodox Church considers itself to be both orthodox and catholic. ... "In a Christian context, the Church, as identified with the original Church founded by Christ and His apostles, is said to be catholic (or universal) in regard to its union with Christ in faith. Just as Christ is indivisible, so are union with Him and faith in Him, whereby the Church is "universal", unseparated, and comprehensive, including all who share that faith. Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware has called that "simple Christianity".[51] That is the sense of early and patristic usage wherein the Church usually refers to itself as the "Catholic Church",[52][53] whose faith is the "Orthodox faith". It is also the sense within the phrase "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", found in the Nicene Creed, and referred to in Orthodox worship, e.g. in the litany of the catechumens in the divine liturgy."

True enough, the term "Catholic" is used in the "Four Marks of the Church: ("one, holy, catholic and apostolic") as the self-description of Nicene Christianity. You might link to that article if you want to emphasize in what kind of Christianity Clovis converted to, those adhering to the Nicene Creed. If you want to instead emphasize the decisions (and split) of the Council of Chalcedon, link to the article on Chalcedonian Christianity. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I know your point, but ultimately it is moot for a very simple reason. Wikipedia is not an academic resource for theological experts acquainted with Saint Ignatius and the Creed, but the average layman reader who may have barely any knowledge of Christianity. When the average person hears "Catholic"--even within the EOC--they always snap immediately to the Roman Catholic Church. That is why Chalcedonian is the best term for pre-Schism post-Council Christian figures such as Clovis I. It's just a matter of neutrality and fairness. Enough people in the West already think Christianity is just RC and Protestant.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 18:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

In my idea the pre schism church was Catholic. Chalcedonian is a theological term, but not the denomination of a church. The pre schism church recognized the Pope in Rome as it's head and the schism came about when Eastern Orthodoxy stopped being in communion with the rest of the Church and with the Pope. The association with Roman Catholic in not all that unnatural. This had been the Church of the Roman Empire. Also, Chalcedonian Christianity is not precise enough. Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists and Methodists and what have you today can also be described as Chalcedonian Christians. The term seems like a self invented solution to me and that is basically WP:OR. Most published sources would describe these people as Catholics or even Roman Catholics, as they took their lead from the Papacy. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The other Patriarchs of the Pentarchy saw the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares in theory, but never as Supreme Head which was/is a point of conflict. To add onto that, even if you don't agree that Constantine made Byzantion into New Rome in both name and essence, the WRE collapsed to barbarian rule in 476 AD, while the ERE lasted until 1453 AD. That is a massive disparity.

The most I could accept perhaps is the label Nicene, which is a widely used term especially for the Early Church distinguishing from heresies; the only problem that faces is that Oriental Orthodox Churches like the Coptic Church do not accept Chalcedon, only the Council of Nicaea. That might be unclear as Clovis died after Chalcedon. My point stands that Roman Catholic ignores the Schism for the average reader.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 04:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The position of the Pope was never a problem for the Eastern Church as long as they essentially controlled him. The idea that the Pope was a primus inter pares in theory, means that he was acknowledged in theory as primus and the split came after the other Patriarchs stopped acknowledging him as such. That makes for a seceding party in this matter. I have the feeling that this terminology was introduced to solve a perceived problem that I'm not so sure is really there. That is never a good idea without academic sources. To call it Nicene Christianity is an even worse solution, because it includes even more groups that had already seceded or seceded later. I think we should follow what sources say on the matter and not come up with terminology ourselves. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but we need to get away from later labels - indeed Lutheranism etc etc can perfectly well be described as Chalcedonian Christians. To rephrase my earlier question, what label, or longer explanation, will express the fact that Clovis was converted to a version of Christianity that was acceptable across much of the Empire, including most of what remained of Roman culture, but not to neighbouring barbarians? Explaining that that version has a continuity claimed by various mutually-incompatible descendants may be optional here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if I've come to the right debate, but today (19 July, 2017), the section on religion describes "most" Franks and Gauls living in Clovis' realm at the time of his death as "Catholics". I'm fairly sure that this is flatly contradicted by the earlier suggestion that Arian Christianity was more widespread among the Germanic peoples. Am I correct in thinking that there is something off here? Abedwayyad (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Theories as fact

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)

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)

Alliterative headings

While the alliterative headings introduced by Go-Chlodio 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)

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)

Bizarre alliterative stuff in one of the sections

Reading this article I couldn't help but notice almost all of the subheadings were alliterative: "Visiting the Visigoths"; "Business in Burgundy" "Barbarian Bonding" (whoever heard of such a thing?); "Ravishing the Reguli" (good Lord!). Furthermore, all of this was quite clearly deliberate. Humour has no place in an encyclopedia, and triteness of this sort is an insult to the many millions who died in the Frankish wars of unification, some of whom I personally count amongst of my ancestors. Several more of my ancestors, I might further add, were ravished by the Reguli on numerous occasions, while indeed others were Reguli who were ravished by non-Reguli (or, as they were known then, Irreguli). The perverted originator of that phrase no doubt found his little gag rather amusing. This only makes all the more evident the depths to which the average Wikipedia editor's depravity extends. To make a mockery of their suffering with a bunch of hokey catchphrases and jingles, clearly designed to amuse perusing schoolchildren, or anybody with a similarly truncated attention span, disgusts me to the very core of my being. Shame on you, sir.

It's not as if they did a very good job of it either, I have to say. If "Assault of the Alemanni" and "Armonici Allies" was supposed to help people remember that the Alemanni were assaulted and the Armonici were allies, the disturbed individual at the other end of this beastly experiment clearly overlooked that as far as the alliteration went, the two phrases might as well be interchangeable: "Assault on the Armonici" and "Alemanni Allies" would be equally as memorable as the filth that was ultimately spewed forth. I hope that the persons responsible for this outrage resign effective immediately. An amateurish disgrace such as this would have no place in a professional encyclopedia. But I suppose if the Wikipedia Corporation refuses to pay its workers such mistakes are only to be expected. I don't have much hope, personally, for this once-great institution. 121.99.69.54 (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)