Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nowhere else

I'm really surprised that someone invented a medival Kingdom of Germany here. Is no one bothered by the fact that you don't find that in any other wikipedia, not even in the german one? --217.83.3.106 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The real inventor of the kingdom must be J. Gillingham, author of The Kingdom of Germany in the High Middle Ages. Or maybe it was Frederick Barbarossa, when he announced his receipt of the coronam Theutonici regni in 1152. Or perhaps the chronicler from Salzburg who thought that Arnulf of Bavaria laid claim to a regno Teutonicorum in 918. But in any case, doesn't bother me. Srnec (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn’t bother me either. But I do as well find it strange that it is not included in the German Wikipedia.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a wikilink to the german article Ostfrankenreich, which leads back to East Francia. That doesn't work. --217.83.34.68 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently started the a German article about this matter, it's about as highly controversial as this one.--84.190.255.130 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Established usage

"Kingdom of Germany" is established usage in English.

Look at this cropped map: [1] On the left you have "The German empire to 1250" from The Times Compact History of the World. It shows the Holy Roman Empire with its constituent kindgdoms, among them the Kingdom of Germany, in the same font size and in bold. If you now look at the German translation on the right (from Knaurs historischer Weltatlas) you'll find the constituent "Kingdom of Germany" replaced by the umbrella term "Heiliges Römisches Reich", without changing the font size! What more proof do you need that modern Germans have a problem with a "Kingdom of Germany". Maybe the translator wasn't even aware his translation is wrong. (On both maps the violet outlines mark the borders of the Holy Roman Empire; it says so in the captions.) The DK Atlas of World History too has the "Kingdom of Germany" on several maps. Cropped examples: [2]. I have cropped the maps drastically so as to reduce them to what we are talking about. I hope this is fair use then. If you think otherwise let me know, and I'll remove them. --Johnboyx (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely serves to prove the point about English usage to our sceptical German friends. Srnec (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not prove that "The Kingdom of Germany was a medieval state" any more than the current EU is a European State. --PBS (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that's been proven elsewhere. Though one wonders what a "kingdom" would be if it is not a state. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, why wouldn't it be a state? Is it supposed to be a band, a tribe, a chieftancy? What? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One can hold the title of king of an area without it being an internationally recognised state, particularly when the sub national entity is also governed by someone who reigns over an area larger than the sub national entity. There is also the problem of pretender to a throne that either does not exist or is claimed by more than one. See above #Last King of Scotland --PBS (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Who denies that it existed? The only potential problem I can see is that its name wasn't really official. But what else are you gonna call the core kingdom of what became the HRE but the term medieval writers used? Besides that, it is verifiably used by academics writing in the English language, so I really don't see the problem. The Last King of Scotland parallel is nonsense. These rulers did actually rule Germany, while it is not the case that the Ugandan dictator ruled Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Otto discussed this very problem

Otto of Freising, after mentioning the succession of Henry the Fowler, wrote:

From this point some reckon a kingdom of the Germans as supplanting that of the Franks. Hence, they say that Pope Leo in the decrees of the popes, called Henry's son Otto the first king of the Germans. For that Henry of whom we are speaking refused , it is said, the honor offered by the supreme pontiff. But it seems to me that the kingdom of the Germans — which today, as we see, has possession of Rome — is a part of the kingdom of the Franks. For, as is perfectly clear in what precedes, at the time of Charles the boundaries of the kingdom of the Franks included the whole of Gaul and all Germany, from the Rhine to Illyricum. When the realm was divided between his son's sons, one part was called eastern, the other western, yet both together were called the Kingdom of the Franks. So then in the eastern part, which is called the Kingdom of the Germans, Henry was the first of the race of Saxons to succeed to the throne when the line of Charles failed ... [western Franks discussed] ... Henry's son Otto, because he restored to the German East Franks the empire which had been usurped by the Lombards, is called the first king of the Germans — not, perhaps, because he was the first king to reign among the Germans

Given the discussion above, I thought some of you would be interested enough in this to make it worth my while typing it out. Distinguishing these things was hard even for 12th century bishops and members of the German imperial household! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an awesome quotation! It's a more succinct and accurate, comprehensible and reasonable account of what actually happened than one is likely to encounter from a modern historian. I think it ought to go in the article somewhere. Referring to the kingdom of the Germans as "having possession of Rome" is an excellent way summarising an argument I tried to make to Michael Sanders some time back that the relationship between Germany and the Empire was something like the former possessing the later: in the German kings' opinion by right, in the Pope's opinion by their approval. "Rhine to Illyricum" is accurate for the boundaries of "Germany" in Charlemagne's time. "When the realm was divided between his son's sons, one part was called eastern, the other western." Asides from the simplification, it is essentially accurate: the realm thenceforth had two halves yet was still one regnum Francorum. "Henry was the first of the race of Saxons to succeed to the throne when the line of Charles failed." True: Henry was the first Saxon to succeed to the (German) throne of Charles' line after it failed. And Otto, because he conquered Italy ("the empire which had been usurped by the Lombards", Carolingian Italy was referred to as an empire in foreign sources, i.e. from West Francia), was the first German king of that realm, first German emperor.

Your time was certainly not wasted. My day has been brightened. Srnec (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there, missed your reply. The source says "ad been usurped by the Lombards" because the Lombard kings were ruling as emperors; this becomes obvious in Otto's list of emperors. That cuts off the real emperors at Irene, being transferred to the the Franks [with Charlemagne], taken by the Lombards [from Louis], and then with Otto I taken by the Germans. The source could usefully be inserted in the first unexpanded section. Do you need the cite details, or shall I add it? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Even more interesting. I agree that it would make a good addition to the article. You can add it yourself, or if you'd like just give me the necessary details and I'll add it. Whichever way you please. Srnec (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Language barrier?

I think the problem of this huge debate is that there's simply no English translation of the words kaiser, khan, tsar etc. In English they are all called "monarchs" or "kings", it seems? What they all have in common is the fact that they were the bosses of certain regions and subregions. Different terms, but the same function.

Was Karl the Great a king or a kaiser?

Was Ivan the Terrible a king or a tsar?

Was Kublai Khan a king or a khan?

What's the difference between Japan and Nippon? In English language there's no Nippon. In Japanese there's no Japan. Did a German Kingdom exist, or did a Deutsches Kaiserreich exist? Debates solely on word definitons are endless. Why? Because everybody is right in light of his or her native vocabulary. There's no ultimately true meta language deciding which phrase describes the function of a boss correcter than the other. Just my opinion. – Sayonara --Suaheli (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Karl was King (= "König") of the Franks and roman emperor (= "Kaiser"), so where so later German kings first king and later emperor. English "king" and German "König" share the same origin. "Kaiser" derrives from "Caesar" where as "emperor" comes from "imperator" which means the same in latin. Latin was the common language in the Middle Ages, so you where a "rex" or an "imperator". "Deutsches Kaiserreich" would be wrong, there was no "German Kaiser". "German Kingdom" means "Deutsches Königreich".--MacX85 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there was no "Deutsches Kaiserreich". Sorry, my fault. But my point was that those guys were all – in other words – "bosses of large regions"; this is the function what they all have in common, just the name of their titles vary from culture to culture. So, to me, it looks like this long debate above is not about historical hierarchies per se, but about title translations only. I think it's impossible to translate every word of a language literally to another language. The word "tsar", too, comes from "Caesar", but Russia wasn't really a Roman region. Some "bosses" had a huge empire, greater than that of Julius Caesar. Still, they called themselves "king" instead of "kaiser" (rex instead of imperator). For example, in some countries that chief with the greatest power is called "president", in other countries "chancellor". Now one could debate about the question whether the titles vary or the functions vary. Their power remains the same. The events remain the same. – That's what I'm trying to say. --Suaheli (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is indeed historiographic rather than historical: the German kingdom existed, there is no doubt about it. Nationalism and counter-nationalism have a lot to do with discrepancies. The Germans became very nationalistic sometime during the nineteenth century. Then Hitler happened. Now the Germans are about the last people in Europe who want to sound nationalistic, so a lot of Germans have come here trying to deny the existence of an entity justifiably and historically labelled "Kingdom of Germany" in the English academic (and popular) literature because they fear it creates a false notion of a "German nation" before there was one and therefore plays into the hands of German nationalists. Of course, many persons with grudges against Germany for what happened decades or even centuries ago also dislike the notion of a medieval German state because they believe it grants legitimacy to a modern German nation-state encompassing large swathes of territory currently outside Germany. The "Kingdom of Germany" or "German Kingdom" (the terms do not define different things in English) was not a nation-state as we today understand the term. There is no danger that it plays into the hands of German nationalism or that it means that the Netherlands ought to be a part of Germany. It encompassed Germanophone, Francophone, and Italophone territories, various regna (realms) such as Bavaria, Swabia, and Saxony, and different peoples (Franks, Saxons, Alemanni, etc.). It covered territory from the North Sea to the Adriatic and from what is today eastern France to what is today the Czech Republic. It is not a direct predecessor of the modern state of Germany, though there is an unbroken line of "Germanies" from the treaty of Verdun until today (though some were not sovereign states). I was going to go on to discuss the historiography a little more, but I fear that I may be rambling... Srnec (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

@Suaheli: I get your point but I don't think this is the basic problem here. The understanding of what is "king" in the English-speaking and "König" in the German-speaking world is pretty much the same. Nobody denies that thoses German kings were kings and roman emperors when they were crowned by the pope. The problem in this context is whether the labeling as "German" for both kings and the kingdom/empire is justified since the kings always used to call themselves "rex romanorum" and the empire Holy Roman Empire. The less-worthy "German" connotation seems to be very disliked among those rulers. I can pretty much agree to Srnec's thoughts about feelings many Germans have about their older history. This certainly has to do with 19th century's nationalists and the nazis but also with German-speaking countries that don't like to be called "a part of Germany" some hundret years ago...--MacX85 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The kings sometimes refered to themselves as German during the Middle Ages. The use of rex Romanorum was ideological and rather reinforces their German-ness. Srnec (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Srnec and 84.190.226.38 – thank you for your feedback. Well, OK, if the basic question is as to whether the empire is a German one or a Roman one, then I see your point as well. On the other hand, this, too, is a debate solely on name definitions. So, nobody can give an ultimately true answer, as those name definitions are too subjective (everything but math is subjective, this one, however, is extremely subjective, just think of the great variety of diverse sources). – Secondly, as for "Srnec's thoughts about feelings many Germans have about their older history": Hmm, this hypothesis sounds a bit too simple and too generalized to me. Let me add three thoughts on this:

1. Those Germans who have nationalistic feelings would be proud to call the empire German instead of Roman.

2. Those Germans who have less or no nationalistic feelings could be devided in two tendencies:

a. Those who keep their eyes closed because they don't want to see the ugly past: They don't mind whether it's called Roman or German, they are not interested anyway.

b. Those who are analytic and critical: They neither prefer the word "Roman" nor the word "German", they have no specific feelings for one or the other word, they just want a clean analysis.

And this just a start. I think if we get into socio-psychological hypotheses the topic gets overwhelmingly complex and subjective. (P.S.: Just out of curiosity, 84.190.226.38, you are a native German speaker, right? I have never seen English speakers using the @-sign to address a person.) – Best regards --Suaheli (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It was never my intention to delve into socio-psychological hypotheses, only to share my hunch about some "collective guilt". I agree with your first point: German anti-nationalism is therefore quite likely to overreact (as so many counter-movements do) and seek to dispel any notion of a German nation/state prior to the Napoleonic wars/1871. Those in your cateory 2a might care whether it's Roman or German, in order not to see it [as part of their ugly past] they could simply deny its German-ness, no? Those in 2b would choose the word they think best and argue for its superiority (or they might reject both words as idealogical/normative and not descriptive). But this isn't about Roman vs German, rather it is about whether an entity called the "Kingdom of Germany" existed or not. It did, the article has been designed to prove that. Any argument against the "Kingdom of Germany" on purely terminological grounds is a waste of time, I believe. Srnec (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Any argument against the 'Kingdom of Germany' on purely terminological grounds is a waste of time, I believe." – I concur. That's what I've been trying to say. – Best regards --Suaheli (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

@Suaheli: funny, I did never realize the @ symbol is not used by non-Germans, I hope this would be the only thing that blew my cover ;P As for your analysis: sounds pretty much as the way I feel about this. @Smec: I think its both: many German writers use to call the HRE the (first) German Empire which is mostly been countered by the fact that the HRE consisted of more than just "Germany" which is categorized as both poltical entity and a territory of (mostly) German speaking people, AND the fact that the HRE would have never been about German-ness but about Roman-ness and being holy and so forth. A German character of the Empire cannot be denied and so one could pick out the German kingdom which did function as separate entity within the Empire, or let's say it was the heart of the empire and therefore to a certain extend identical. And because we have evidence that this kingdom was called "German" in the middle ages it is easier to just deny its categorization as kingdom and therefore its existence... man, I think I lost my point ^^ btw: you said the kings did refer to themselves as "German". The only thing I can recall is Frederick Barbarossa writing about getting the "crown of the German regnum" but never actually a king calling himself "rex teutonicorum" or the like.--MacX85 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

State

From the history of the article:

• 12:44, 8 June 2008 PBS (Gillingham does not say it was a state, and he mentions that the kings had no ability to raise taxes which suggests it was not a state
• 00:03, 9 June 2008 Srnec ( (rv since a kingdom is a state) (undo)
• 18:43, 11 June 2008 PBS (revert to last version by PBS the source does not support the contention that it was a state. If it does which page and paragraph?)
• 21:16, 11 June 2008 Srnec (the use of the word "kingdom" supports the contention, see kingdom)

At the moment it is written in the article that "The term rex Teutonicorum, or "king of the Germans", first came into recorded formal use during the Investiture Controversy perhaps as a polemical tool against Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Gregory VII in the late eleventh century" if true then the there does not have to be a state. Srnec you cite Gillingham. Where in his pamphlet does Gillingham claim that the kingdom was a state? --PBS (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In the title? I don't have the pamphlet and I cannot recall him referring to it as a "state", but I don't see that that's an issue, since there should be no controversy in referring to it as a state. Also, don't forget that there is a probably usage of the term regnum teutonicorum dating to the early tenth century and there is no need to regard the papal formulation as completely original. Gillingham, in another work, does seem clear enough:

The medieval kingdom of Germany was a conglomerate, an assemblage of a number of once separate and independent peoples and kingdoms, gentes and regna. So too, of course, were the kingdoms of France and England. But the boundaries of the Reich were even more uncertain than those of France and England. The ruler's standard title was simply rex; there was no German equivalent of rex Francorum or rex Anglorum—titles which at least seemed to make clear just who the king's subjects were. Moreover, Germany was always a highly regionalized society. Yet for all the strength of local loyalties and the fuzziness at its edges Germany remained a single, indivisible political unit throughout the middle ages. (Opening sentences of Elective Kingship and the Unity of Medieval Germany, German History, 9:2 (1991:June).)

Is that enough? We have the testimony of Barbarossa and of Otto of Freising. I'm sure I could scrounge up more. I believe Averkorn in her paper referenced in this article speaks of the German "state". Must we really argue over whether a kingdom (for which sources are numerous and not hard to find) is a state or not? Srnec (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

When it is in the opening sentence of an article yes we must as it seems to me to be a synthesis of published material which advances a position. I have the pamphlet and I could see no part of it where he made that claim. For example he mentions that the king had no direct tax powers. How many states can be said to exist when the state can not raise taxes? --PBS (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just don't regard the word "state" as a controversial or nuanced one. We could use "realm" or "kingdom" instead, but I see those words, in the context of the first sentence, as implying "statehood". Not all statehood is the same, of course, and I don't see why powers of taxation are a requisite for it. I am not able to name a state off the top of my head without taxation, but I don't see why it couldn' exist. There are other methods of revenue generation. If the Kingdom of Germany was not a state, what was it, considering it had borders and a government ("king", "electors")? Srnec (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gillingham explains in the pamphlet that the King of the Germans controlled two types of lands. Those over which he had direct and personal control and others that he was expected to lend out to others. Other large noble families had two types of land those which they owned and those gifted to them for life by the monarch which on death reverted to the ownership of the monarch who was then able to gift them to another person (often the son of the previous owner but it did not have to be). So the King had some limited ability to influence the Larger noble families through this gifting of certain lands, but the relationship between the King of the Germans and the people over which he claimed kingship was nothing like that of the King of England and the English, both before and after 1066. Using the word state in the first paragraph implies to an English reader with a general education that the King of the Germans controlled a medieval state similar to that in England which is misleading. --PBS (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure those are the types of pressupositions we should be worrying about here. To call a legal power of dispensation over land (and its wealth) a "limited ability to influence the larger noble families" looks like understatement to me. Most medieval monarchs derived as much power from their private possessions and sub-regal titles, fiefs, and offices as from their kingship, I would guess. Also, I read in B. S. Bachrach and D. Bachrach, "Saxon Military Revolution, 912–973?: Myth and Reality" (in EME, 15:2 (May 2007), pp. 186–222), that "Burchard handed over (tradit) to royal command all of his fortifications (urbes) in Swabia and his entire military force (populus suus)." I am not going to mount a grand argument on this short sentence, but I raise it to point out that there was such a thing as "royal power" in Germany. Medieval statehood, especially in the early and early high middle ages, is not the same thing as modern statehood, early modern or contemporary. Germany was more decentralised than France or England, granted, but not less a "state", in my opinion. If you still feel the intro is misleading, please go ahead and propose a new version which tells us what the Kingdom of Germany was (and not just when it arose or how). I will continue to look into the nature of medieval Germany more, to refresh my memory. The major reading I did on the topic was some time ago. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sceptical that "king of the Germans" ruled over a kingdom, but given the current page name the term "Kingdom of Germany" will remain in the first sentence, so if your understanding, Srnec, is that kingdom means state then there is no need to state it. (pun intended) as writing "The Kingdom of Germany grew out of East Francia in the tenth century." is more elegant than writing the more clunky "The Kingdom of Germany was a medieval kingdom which grew out of that of East Francia in the tenth century." --PBS (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(late in coming) I am plodding through Otic C. Mitchell Two German Crowns right now. The two are the royal and the imperial. I will, if you like, report back when I find anything pertinent to our discussion, but I think the "king of the Germans" definitely ruled a kingdom. Are you saying that you still do not believe there was a Kingdom of Germany? Any wording issues must take a back seat to that. Srnec (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You still have not justified the use of "state" in the first sentence, explained why it should not be just called a kingdom and left at that. Personally I do not even think that kingdom is the correct title, but for a sake of a compromise it will do for the time being until a consensus on whether there was ever such an entity or if it was only a Papal polemical tool from the Investiture Controversy, much as the Bishop of Rome was a tool used by Henry VIII of England see for example See of Rome Act 1536. --PBS (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also if you wish to use Gillingham as a source, please include the page number. --PBS (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a kingdom, as the Annales Iuvavenses attest, as Henry III proved in an action against his father the emperor, as Otto of Freising wrote, as Frederick Barbarossa admitted in a letter to the Pope, and as late medieval political theory had it. According to dictionary.com, a kingdom is "a state or government having a king or queen as its head". And "Bishop of Rome" is a very real office, not at all a polemical tool. I wish you could make it clear why you think that a Kingdom of Germany did not exist. What is it that Conrad I, Henry the Fowler, Conrad III, and Conrdad IV ruled? Why do medievalists speak of a kingdom of Germany if it didn't exist? Srnec (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted

I'd like to mention that an article corresponding to this one on the German Wikipedia has been deleted three times because the concept itself was repeatedly found utter nonsense, once on July 3rd 2006, and then again in two different incarnations ([3] and [4]) on June 15th 2008 (the latter being a literal translation of this one) by community consensus. There was a kingship, a title of being a king, which historically related to the Kingdom of East Francia which developed into the Holy Roman Empire increasingly since the translatio imperii, and that was the proper and official name of what most resembled a state. Above PBS also expounds on the numerous examples of powerlessness of the nominal king such as not being able to raise taxes that were also referred to further above by others. Nor does a ruling class (it's teutonicorum, not teutonicum or teutonia(e)) make a nation or nationality (which is not the same as a state, such as a kingdom, either) by pure ethnicity or language, especially if a sizable portion of their subjects are not of the same ethnicity or language (see Ostsiedlung, for instance, or the fact that the Holy Roman Empire included half of Italy).

Also see one of the relating AfD discussions which concludes that such an article name can only re-direct to either East Francia, Holy Roman Empire, or King of the Romans, and which was accordingly summed up by closing admin Finanzer, the main contributor on the German Holy Roman Empire article:

Gruseligeer Artikel der jegliches Wissen über das mittelalterliche "Staatsverständnis" vermissen lässt, und grenzt zudem an Theoriefindung. Der Begriff wäre höchstens rezeptionsgeschichtlich bezüglich der Sprachweise des 19. Jahrhunderts denkbar , wird aber in der modernen Geschichtswissenschaft nicht verwendet. Und vom Begriff in den Quellen "König in Germanien" auf ein deutsches Königreich zu schliessen, offenbart jegliche Unkenntnis der Geschichte des HRR und des Ostfrankenreichs. Dass der "Artikel" dann noch etliche faktische Fehler aufwies, gibt dem ganzen die Würze.

A horrible article lacking the most basic understanding of Medieval political philosophy, and bordering Original Research. Wikipedia may only have an article called Kingdom of Germany on a short-lived 19th century ideology term that was seldomly used during 20th century historical research. Deducing a "Kingdom of Germany" from finding the title King in the land of the Teutons in a few scattered old sources reveals total ignorance of any historical facts of both East Francia and the Holy Roman Empire. This atrocity of an "article" is perfectly complemented by a plethora of factual errors.

That's what closing admin Finanzer had to say about the literal translation of this article. And finally Deutsches Reich means Kaiserreich, not Königreich. --87.154.19.130 (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who's ignorant here? There was more than a title, there was a kingdom, as numerous English sources attest, see the bibliography attached to the article. The Holy Roman Empire was less a state than the Kingdom! Timothy Reuter remarks that the only thing the imperial title added to the royal was some sort of "claim" to southern Italy. It did not increase Otto I's powers in Germany. Also, the imperial title was pretty clearly related to the rule of Italy as well as Germany, and Italy was definitely not the same as Germany. They were distinct kingdoms, as distinct coronations down through the Middle Ages attest. Not to mention many other distinctives. Also, the title regnum teutonicum was used, by Barbarossa. And various other titles, Alamanniae, Germaniae, Germanorum, Alamannorum, d'Allemagne, etc. were used in foreign sources. Medieval Germany comprised many different peoples, like all other nations of the time. The English kings called themselves reges Anglorum (kings of the Angles [English]), yet they ruled Welsh and Danish subjects.

Now your translation of Finanzer suffers from several problems. One is that you are translating German terminology and expecting to find that the same is true of the translated term(s) in English as of the German in German. This is dangerous practice. "Seldomly used during 20th century historical research" is just not true of English scholarship, though it was truer once than it is today, since outdated notions of medieval statehood have been swept under the rug. I am not aware of the title King in the land of the Teutons ever being used. And those "few scattered old sources" are called "primary sources". They form the only written record of the Middle Ages. They are indispensible. East Francia developed into Germany. Eventually it simply ceases to be called East Francia. That's all. The factual errors are entirely Finanzer's, yours, and Philip's. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anglophone historian John Freed's observation that medieval Germany is not a politically neutral subject in German historiography suffices to explain events at the German Wiki. Srnec (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who tried to put up a German version of this article because I found that the "Ostfrankenreich" article was neither good nor enough. There was a quite well-grounded discussion prior to the deletion and it has been obvious to me that Finanzer didn't even read it. He alleged that my only argument to prove a "German kingdom" (I called it "Deutsches Königreich" which is a rather arbitrary translation, I admit) was based on the title "king in germany" ("rex germaniae" or "König in Germanien") since the 15th century which is a mere impudence in several ways. My protest to this statement has simply been deleted... After all this term is clearly and most often used in modern German literature.--91.10.96.164 (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)