Talk:Franks

rolled back some big insertions of translations from French Wikipedia

@ZamboniZoomer: I have rolled back several big edits of yours. I think I am correct in saying that the large sections you added are translations from French Wikipedia's article? You should always note it in your edsum when you insert material from elsewhere in Wikipedia. I have reverted those edits because the materials inserted duplicated topics already in the article, and were not better in any way I can see. (The sources seem older and fewer. The information looks more like notes based on someone's opinions. It gets distracted by side topics, and when it is on topic it is much less comprehensive.) It is important that you took no account of the structure of this article which already existed. I don't think that is a good way to edit. I see you've done something similar on Carolingian dynasty? Please be careful, at the very least, to read the articles you are modifying before you make major changes. Also please remember to always note where you information comes from. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The name of Franconia etc

Hi Andrew Lancaster, and thank you for your latest edits on the evolution of the term. Did you come across any good RS for that material by any chance? It's good and useful, but in some danger of being removed, as that entire large section is completely unsourced. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Arminden: do you mean this edit? It should indeed eventually get some footnotes. For now I inserted this topic back into this article after I saw the recent edits by you and Vlaemink. I agree with you, in other words, that German and French might need to be explained but my reasoning is different. I feel these two languages will sometimes be important to English-speaking readers, partly because of the terms France and Franconia. I apologize for not immediately posting a source yet, but OTOH what could you possibly consider controversial in the meantime? If you can specify that, then maybe we can more quickly find the most satisfactory source. Just to remind you: we do not NEED to delete every uncontroversial sentence without a footnote. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Andrew Lancaster. Either I'm more confused or confusing than I imagined, or you're conflating my comments with Vlaemink's: I'm all in favour of your edits, and I'm just worried that others might start taking apart the very satisfactory material we have now, and it will be hard to revert them, because it's unsourced. I'm also sorry, but I won't be able to do any more work on this article for the time being. My main interest was in understanding how you get from the Germanic tribes to the term used by Middle Easterners for Westerners during the Crusades. With all the mergers and initially unmarked spin-offs (Farang), I was lacking a stable target for a "Franks/Frankish" Wikilink in Crusader-related articles. Now it would be fine, if I could trust it staying this way, which means: ref-ing up the relevant section. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem, but like you I don't necessarily have time to patch everything up perfectly. I think that many edits we do on WP are like this? We put in placeholders, and then there are knock on edits which we should do "in a perfect world" - but actually we have to prioritize. You've drawn attention to it, so thanks for that, and maybe someone else can quickly spot a good source. At least I tried to make this a fairly uncontroversial placeholder for now. This is an article I watch, so if specific concerns are raised I'll do my best. Concerning the Farang article I find it a lot more "unfinished", and I was hoping the Name of the Franks article would give a better anchor for the use of the term Frankish for westerners?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. As to Farang, or what I'm more interested in: al-faranj or al-franj in Arabic, that I find remote enough of a phenomenon as to deserve a spin-off article of its own. How well it's constructed is another matter. Arminden (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Someone will need to work on the Farang article in order to make it a more convincing spin-off, but it is also a matter of finding more sources. The article has improved since it started, but it currently seems to imply that all the words come from Persian, whereas I think Latin itself might be the probable origin, possibly via Greek? Anyway, the Name of the Franks should also mention the topic, and it is also a place where the Franconia/France connection can be discussed at more length. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course someone will need to, but will they? In the meantime, I still need a target for redirects from Arabic al-faranj / al-franj in Crusader contexts. I prefer the poor article we have now, to none. Arminden (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Including modern French and German translations of "the Franks" in the article introduction

Hi all, I recently removed the German and French translations from the article's introduction; leaving Latin alone, as the only non-English translation mentioned in the text . This edit was recently reverted by @Arminden:, who claimed that inclusion was desirable because German/Germans/Germany and (the) French/France are "the main heirs" .

I don't think this a very convincing or valid argument to include modern French and German in the article lead, and I'd like to put forward the entire argument for keeping Latin, but removing French and German.

Keeping the Latin term makes perfect sense: most contemporary written sources about the Franks (chronicles, legal texts, administrative records) were produced in Latin. The term Franci is therefore how the Franks were actually recorded and described in their own time, so in stark contrast to German and French, Franci is not a translation but an original attested form used by authors who were contemporaries or near-contemporaries of the Franks. Additionally, the word Franci is routinely used by historians when discussing early medieval Europe because it reflects the language of the sources. As a result, including Franci helps readers connect the article to primary texts and academic literature should they want to delve deeper.

Putting modern French and German in there however, makes little to no sense. For starters, it's a complete anachronism to project today’s national identities backward onto the Franks, which imposes categories that didn’t exist at the time. The Franks were an early medieval people, while modern nation-states like France and Germany formed many centuries later. Both France and parts of Germany might claim some historical connection, but neither is a singular or exclusive “heir,” so privileging these modern languages is arbitrary. It also completely fails to differentiate between the people and their realm. Sure, France can claim a certain continuity from West Francia. Same goes for the Holy Roman Empire and East Francia; and therefore, a millennium later, Germany ... but that's a political state, not a people and perhaps more importantly; a 10th century phenomenon. The Frankish world fragmented and influenced multiple regions across Western and Central Europe and their influence is highly mosaic.

Naturally, there is no linguistic continuity argument either. The Franks themselves used a Germanic language, while French developed from Latin and modern German was at best influenced to some degree by this language, but is far from a direct or even indirect descendant of Frankish. So modern translations don’t represent a unique historical continuity.

And lastly, mentioning the French and German translations is completely irrelevant to this article’s purpose, which should focus on the historical people, their culture and language. Modern national claims of inheritance don’t clarify who the Franks were, and including modern translations on that basis introduces present-day identity politics rather than improving understanding of the historical subject. Vlaemink (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Lots of commonplace mumbo jumbo dressed up as high academic rediscovery of the wheel. Those who inherit the demonym in a direct line are the Franconians, who happen to be in Germany, and the French. Fact. That's why a popular encyclopedia like Wikipedia should keep those two in the intro, as part of its attitude of user-friendliness, because people come here with their regular baggage of common knowledge and are trying to expand it starting from there. Even if they're sometimes learning that their assumptions are inaccurate or totally incorrect.

If anything Saxon would be the topic, I'd primarily mention the Saxons from the two relevant German federal states, and the Transylvanian Saxons, even if the latter aren't even related, but keep the name: users would be best served that way. I'd also consider the Anglo-Saxons, but they're history. Arminden (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to take a step back and ask ourselves whether extra languages like this should ever be about national sensitivities or recreating the past or anything like that. To me, the reason for including especially Latin, but I think at least French as well, is that they can help readers avoid misunderstandings because of what they are likely to come across in English published texts - such as, for example, the English words France, French, and Franconia. So I think my reasoning is reasonably close to Vlaemink's, but I just think that some of the terms related to be French or Frankish went through a long period where they could mean several things. To be clear, I know that Vlaemink used the "inheritance" argument in an edit summary, but I don't think that was a valid argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Intro

Hi Andrew Lancaster, and thank you for taking over.

I wanted to introduce into the first paragraph the essence, or the definition, and leave the details for further down, as one should in a reference work (compare with the Britannica article). So you reintroducing it after first removing it and editing it to sound better in English is great.

What I'm missing ar a few minor issues.

• Either they appear in C3 (1st paragraph), or Roman historiography introduces the term in C3 to name a much oldet demographic reality (2nd paragraph).
• The term is an artificial creation, same as "Saxons", so I do support keeping at least a short mention of the "Saxons" in the larger lead. I'm from Romania, where thanks to the Transylvanian Saxons, who're not "Saxon" at all as they didn't come from Saxony, this Roman creation lives on. To compare: Franks were not "from" Franconia either, but Franconia does belong to the larger "Frankish" realm. Roman and medieval Latin terms tend to have a very long life.
• Very minor issues: it's Lower Rhine, not lower Rhine, and it should be wikilinked as such. Similarly, it's Rhine River, not Rhine river. The Franks were indeed on the Lower Germanic Limes, but wikilinking "the *military border* of the Roman Empire" with Lower Germanic Limes is misleading (that would be the Limes Germanicus as a whole). I know, the context helps, but still. I did think through all these issues when I made my edits and some awkward turn of phrase was due to going for a compromise.

The to and fro between tribes (Britannica's term of choice, which I think is correct) and peoples, is typical for Wikipedia and shows that scholars use both, which is a gain for the user. I would still hint somewhere that it's not just an editing mistake (lack of consistency), for instance by writting "a group of Germanic tribes or peoples". Arminden (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Arminden. I don't quite follow your first bullet. Concerning the second point I am not strongly against including Saxons (I think I added it) but we need to make sure it is not a distraction during the earliest definition phase. I'll look at the linking and terms you mention in your 3rd bullet. Concerning your final points, although we tend to be careful on WP about the term "tribe" I am not opposed to using it for part of this history, but I think "or" would be too vague. Arguably the Franks started as a group of tribes, but what united them within this category? I think this changed a lot over time and so the opening lines. (X were a Y that began as A and became B.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

What I meant is: either they appear in C3, as written in the 1st paragraph, which I understand to mean that they came from elsewhere, or crystallised from among different populations; or Roman historiography introduces the term in C3 to name a much older demographic reality, as written in the 2nd paragraph. The latter means: they had been there since much earlier, but Roman historians only bothered to mention them in C3.

I suggested "tribes or peoples" to indicate that here on Wiki these terms are being used interchangeably, at least in this context. Arminden (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think all of most of the best available sources treat the 3rd century Franks not as new comers to their area, but as a new name for the tribes who already lived there. OTOH they were not unchanged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

​It's getting much better, thanks Andrew. Two observations:

• "were a northern European people" - not. Several distinct tribes don't make a people.
• In France they probably did merge into other groups (Romanised Gauls mainly, I guess), but east of the Rhine? I don't know anything about the fate of the Franks in the centuries between those early days and modern Franconia, or to German areas closer to the Rhine than Franconia. Don't they have any direct descendants in Germany and the neighbouring Germanic-speaking countries and territories?

Arminden (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, they were one category of ... something. I am tempted to use a term like "cultural group" or "ethnic group" but I suspect this will not make everyone happier or wiser. What is a better term? I don't understand your second bullet very well. What part of the text is it addressing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The German article, although insufficiently sourced, has a lot of good material clarifying several issues.

Nobody seems to touch on the topic of "descendants", which probably looks very unacademical nowadays. The linguistics offer the only acceptable angle, and for that it's worth looking at Fränkisch (Sprachwissenschaft) (Franconian (linguistics)) and within the languages & dialects there maybe a bit more at Ostfränkische Dialekte (East Franconian German). Even if nothing should be stated about ethnic or cultural descendance, the evolution of the Frankish language into several modern languages & dialects is worth being mentioned in the lead.

This goes hand in hand with the important issue (important for a reference work such as this) of: when do we stop talking about Franks as an ethnicity or culture? If the term has a C3 birthdate, when is the termination date? I mean a century or even a wider process, which has a name and can be linked. Arminden (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think the evidence for a single distinct Frankish language is in fact very weak, which is probably why it is hard to find sources, and the existence of the Franks does not necessitate the existance of a Frankish language. Language and culture often overlap but they are not the same thing. Concerning the end of the Franks, I don't think there is any simple answer either. The concept evolved into several other concepts, such as the French and Franconians and the Franks in the broad western European sense. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

We don't need to go now and study the topic to its full depth. If we do have reasonably well-researched and sourced enWiki articles, can't we just link to them? Every language is a continuum of varieties, if terms like Frankish language become established and accepted in philology, even as theoretical reconstructions, that's good enough for me, and here it looks like more than that.

The intro at Frankish language states that it was "spoken by the Franks from the 5th to 10th centuries." Maybe the 10th century is a useful end point for the Franks as such, too? Again, if a good RS offers a conventional terminus ante quem, that would do. No extinct nation ever died out even in one generation, it's all a matter of convention, and end dates still are used in reference works. One can always add a caveat, to stay on the safe side. Arminden (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The WP articles you are looking at might need changing. We can't in any case cite WP on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I never said cite, I said link. Arminden (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course we can use wikilinks, but if we also copy the information from another article then best practice is to make sure the other article is itself properly sourced. However, it strikes me that I am not really sure what change you are proposing to this article here. Do you suggest that the lead should mention a single Frankish language?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Germanic tribes, in the plural. Not one group of any kind, just keep it simple (consensus).
• "As the original Frankish communities merged into others, the term Frank lost its original meaning.". Did they all merge into others? "Merge into" suggests a worrior upper class assimilating into conquered majority, is it not? In France they probably did, but east of the Rhine, or in the NL?

Arminden (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Ideally the opening sentence should define what unites the subject. Again, I think they were one "something", even if this changed over time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

A grpup of Germanic tribes from one area, from a Roman perspective, are a "something". They don't need to be a people, not even a confederation. Arminden (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and the current version says that in the first phase they were a group of Germanic tribes. But in the first words of the whole article, is there anything we can say which unites both the earlier and later conceptions of the Franks? I am not sure I understand the problem with calling them a "people" .--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"A people/one people" is much more compact of a concept than a group of tribes from the same region, even if all Germanic. They might have started off as a bunch of very different groups, maybe speaking mutually unintelligible Germanic languages and fighting each other more often than acting in any kind of unity. How can you then call them "one people"? I think the difference can be huge, and it doesn't seem as if we have the sources to decide about that. So no, not "one something" except in Roman eyes, which does not count for much (blonde Barbarians, poorly organised, communicating in a primitive mumbo jumbo and running around dressed in furs, hardly good enough as auxiliaries). Arminden (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox?

It's maybe simplistic, but basically I'd like to have an infobox with a few simplified basic data:

• since when till when
• origins (tribes)
• descendants (ethnically and in terms of political entities)
• language, with linguistic descendants
• own political entities, with respective capitals

Arminden (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC) Is there any more appropriate one than "Infobox ethnic group"? See for instance at Angles (tribe). Arminden (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes I think this would be too simplistic. Infoboxes being proposed in situations like this are in a sense attractive to our human emotional desire for order. They create order which is conflict with the reality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)