Adding an infobox[edit]

Kingdom of Germany
Regnum Teutonicorum (in Latin)
Deutsches Reich (in German)
Kingdom of Holy Roman Empire
911–1806

The Kingdom of Germany within the Holy Roman Empire and within Europe in the early 11th century.

Map of the Kingdom of the Germans (regnum Teutonicorum) within the Holy Roman Empire, circa 1000
CapitalFrankfurt (de facto)
Government
 • TypeNon-sovereign elective monarchy within the Holy Roman Empire
King 
• 911–918
Conrad I of Germany
• 919–936
Henry the Fowler
• 936–973
Otto I
History 
• Established
911
• Disestablished
1806
Preceded by		 Succeeded by
East Francia
Confederation of the Rhine

I think the article could benefit from a basic infobox, I decided to create one with Template:infobox former subdivision as that's seems to fit best as the Kingdom of Germany was a subdivision of the Holy Roman Empire. It mostly just the map already in the article, the countires/subdivison that came before and after the Kingdom of Germany that's were on the same land of it and the start date (the year the HRE was founded, I'm okay with it being removed but I think it's better to have it). – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above. There is a consensus against an infobox in this article. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, the consensus must change. I agree with BrandonXLV and others who inserted own infobox version to the article. The infobox is needed or it may appear that the state/subdivision didn't exist and "Kingdom of Germany" was just a word for something imaginary. Every article about state or subdivision has it and there is no reason to make an exception here. It's necessary to follow the same style and rules, not someone's weird opinions that it fits somewhere. Dragovit (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hahaha. There are some who would say the "Kingdom of Germany" didn't exist and is a loose phrase for something imaginary, which is why German authors don't use it. In view of that, not only is there no reason why "the consensus must change" but for consensus to change needs... a consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hahaha, but seriously, what exactly you don't understand the meaning of the term "subdivision"? Or "former country" or "location" etc.? There are many types of infoboxes, no matter which one is used. Dragovit (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you've overridden the consensus anyway and added an infobox, so you clearly have a different understanding of the word 'consensus' from everyone else. No matter, sooner or later, the infobox will be removed again. Bermicourt (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, this is also your specific understanding of 'consensus'. The fact is that your 'consensus' is not unquestionable. I am not the only one who considers the infobox to be a suitable tool, without which the article is confusing. I see that there are many more people who are in favor of the infobox and they can make a new consensus together. In addition, there are two articles in which infoboxes are - Kingdom of Arles and Kingdom of Italy, which are related to this and they have their own consensus, so the Kingdom of Germany is only an illogical exception, this was probably not taken into account. Dragovit (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding = that of the Cambridge Dictionary which states that a 'consensus' is "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people". This appears to be consistent with WP:CONSENSUS. A consensus view is not necessarily right and may be questioned, but cannot be overturned unless the majority (=consensus) view changes. You are free to argue for a change through persuasion, but Wikipedia doesn't allow one editor to override the views of the rest. HTH.
Re Kingdom of Germany - you are equating 'real' kingdoms, like Italy, with the phrase 'Kingdom of Germany' which, as many editors here have pointed out, was not a 'kingdom' in the generally understood meaning of the word. You don't have to agree with that, but if you read the discussion it will help you understand why we are where we are. Bermicourt (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's alright. My approach is in accordance with the Cambridge Dictionary. I said I wasn't the only one who's added an infobox recently. I see that we are a relatively large group. Dragovit (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally believe an info box is appropriate for the article, as despite the fact that the Kingdom of Germany was more of a quasi-state than a real sovereign kingdom, I would say was still tangible and "real" in some aspects (otherwise we wouldn't have had any information to put in the original info box anyways, such as the date of its "creation" from Otto the Great's coronation as Holy Roman Emperor in 962, or its arguably real dissolution into the Confederation of the Rhine in 1806). However, I must agree that the consensus is against the addition of an infobox, as Bermicourt mentioned, and the lack of truly firm information for such a questionably real polity makes it difficult to add one anyways. If we do consider adding one, we would have to dig up as much research as we could into finding definite dates, names, and all information we would add. Otherwise, it's best not to. --2600:1700:FCE0:A890:1A2:4211:6347:172B (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-name the article to Kingdom of the Germans (or Teutonics)[edit]

Perhaps the article should be re-named from "Kingdom of Germany" to "Kingdom of the Germans (or Teutonics)". This would be more inline with historical references, which user the latter term — Latin: Regnum Teutonicorum or Kingdom of the Teutonics/Germans. --E-960 (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It either needs renaming to Regnum Teutonicorum (or its common English equivalent) or the article needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that a) it is a term used (very loosely used in my view) in some of the English literature, but that it was never a 'kingdom' in the normal sense and that b) German literature rarely uses the term. In other words it's modern English shorthand either for the Holy Roman Empire (in which case that title should be used) or as an umbrella term describing the German-speaking peoples (although even that fails to recognise that German dialects are so different that, historically, a Swabian would have struggled have understand someone from Schleswig). For a German perspective see the German Wiki link to this article here. But this has been endlessly debated and we have not reached a consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There isn't a source on earth that uses the term "Kingdom of the Teutonics", so I have no idea what the OP is referring to. I think the term is used quite clearly in English to refer to the kingdom of Louis the German and Otto the Great, which together with the Kingdom of Italy (or of the Lombards) and the Kingdom of Burgundy (or Arles) came to make up the Holy Roman Empire. What is unclear about that? Srnec (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's right. Historically the situation is quite well summed up in the introduction to the German Wikipedia article (which has good article status):

The Holy Roman Empire (Latin: Sacrum Imperium Romanum or Sacrum Romanum Imperium) was the official name for the sovereign territory of the Roman-German emperors from the late Middle Ages to 1806. The name of the empire derives from the claim of the medieval Roman-German rulers to be a continuation of the tradition of the ancient Roman Empire and legitimizing their rule as God's holy will in the Christian sense.
The empire was formed under the Ottonian dynasty in the 10th century from the former Carolingian empire of East Francia. With the imperial coronation of Otto I in 962, the Roman-German rulers (like the Carolingians before them) took up the idea of the continuity with the Roman Empire, which was at least adhered to in principle until the end of the empire. The territory of the East Franks was first referred to in the 11th century as Regnum Teutonicum or Regnum Teutonicorum ("Kingdom of the Germans"); but it was not the official imperial title. The name Sacrum Imperium is documented for the first time in 1157 and the title Sacrum Romanum Imperium in 1184. The addition of the words “of the German Nation” (Latin: Nationis Germanicæ) was occasionally used from the late 15th century. Because of its supranational character, the empire never developed into a nation state or a state with modern characteristics, but remained a monarchically managed, stately structure of emperors and imperial estates with only a few common imperial institutions.

However, it's also clear, from several English sources that I've seen, that "Kingdom of Germany", which is nowhere found in the Latin or German sources, is used by some English historians in the sense you suggest i.e. that the HRE comprised 3 'kingdoms', one of which was the former East Francia. What I haven't discovered is whether they put a time frame on this or even whether the sources are consistent with one another. Interestingly, Susan Reynolds in Fiefs and Vassals has a chapter entitled "Kingdom of Germany" but has to open by defining it: "the Kingdom of Germany is taken here to cover all the territory included in the great kingdom, whatever it was called at various times before 1300, that developed out of the eastern part of the Carolingian empire." Yet she does not feel the need to define any of the other kingdoms in this way: England, France, Italy or Burgundy. She is clearly using the term "Kingdom of Germany" for convenience to describe the collection of separate, largely German-speaking states that came out of East Francia. Bermicourt (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bermicourt, I would also argue that it is well warranted to rename the article, based on the actual historical references. Also, what many people fail to realize is that before the year 1000 the concept of tying people to a land was not yet fully established, for example you had the Kingdom of the Visigoths and the Kingdom of the Vandals. There still was a semi-tribal mentality in place, where someone was a king of a peoples, and those peoples who could move from one place to another. Only after the year 1000, a concept developed of a state which rested on a fixed geograhical location as in Kingdom of France, which was earlier called the Kingdom of the Franks. However, in the case of Germany that switch never occurred, as the concept of a Holy Roman Empire took hold in its place, and a honorary title was retained king of the Germans, but the actual kingdom in a territorial sense was never defined. In any case, if we just follow the historical terminology we should use Regnum Teutonicorum or Kingdom of the Teutonics/Germans. --E-960 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Srnec, the other point, if there are no solid sources to back up any claims for this article, then it should be renamed using italics to signify that the article describes a name and not an physical entity. --E-960 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bermicourt: I don't see how you can get a "collection of separate, largely German-speaking states that came out of East Francia" out of Reynolds' "all the territory included in the great kingdom, whatever it was called". The kingdom of Louis the German never broke up. Only under his sons was it divided at all. Charles the Fat was succeeded by Arnulf, who was succeeded by Louis the Child, then Conrad I, then Henry I, then Otto I, and on and on without break. There are no "states that came out of East Francia". It was a kingdom just like its ex-Carolingian neighbours (France, Italy). The term "Kingdom of Germany" is somewhat anachronistic for the early period and is certainly not an official term in any way before the 11th century, but you could say the same about "Kingdom of France". Srnec (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Srnec:, can you provide us with an example of a contemporary early medieval source which says Kingdom of Germany. Also, regarding your reference to "France" please note that there are two Wikipedia articles Kingdom of the Franks and Kingdom of France. I almost want to say that the concept of the Kingdom of Germany is internet driven, for example I'm struggling to find any reference to it on Britannica, or other encyclopedias, but there are Youtube videos about the Kingdom of Germany and Wikipedia articles in several languages. --E-960 (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Srnec:. To answer your question, let me just quote from the HRE intro: "The empire never achieved the extent of political unification as was formed to the west in France, evolving instead into a decentralized, limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units: kingdoms, principalities, duchies, counties, prince-bishoprics, Free Imperial Cities, and other domains. The power of the emperor was limited, and while the various princes, lords, bishops, and cities of the empire were vassals who owed the emperor their allegiance, they also possessed an extent of privileges that gave them de facto independence within their territories. " Of course, it's referring to the emperor here, who was also 'King of the Romans', but never 'King of Germany'. Either way, he did not command a kingdom which is why German sources never use the term. The idea that there was ever a Kingdom of Germany is, I'm afraid, a myth perpetuated by a few English historians misleadingly using the term for convenience. "German nation" is better and at least historical, but even that gives the impression it was a single united entity which it plainly wasn't. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article with this title; it just needs to be very clear in describing how it is used in the sources: that it is an English-language term used by some historians in various ways to describe the collection of states making up the German-speaking part of the HRE, but with the sort of caveats I and others have raised. Bermicourt (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are deeply mistaken. The kingdom of East Francia was a single united entity, more so than West Francia where the king's power barely extended south of the Loire by the late 10th century. The contrast you quote between the HRE and France is only applicable to the late Middle Ages. Srnec (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Srnec, can you please provide a contemporary source which refers to the kingdom, so far you have NOT, also you reverted my edits which tried to at least in some way reconcile the discrepancy. You are stubbornly holding on to the idea, and provided no evidence that a Kingdom of Germany existed other than in name only. The historical progression is simple, kingdom of East Francia and then the Holy Roman Empire. The Kingdom of Germany never exited other than in title/name. --E-960 (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think that adding the following statement in the intro paragraph "...kingdom of the Germans is an informal historical designation" is well appropriate in this instance. --E-960 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read the archives. In fact, I don't have to provide a contemporary source for anything since that would be WP:OR. I've quoted many WP:RS over the years. They are in the archives and in the article. Your personal opinion about the appropriateness of the term "Kingdom of Germany" in English is of no value next to the published opinions of many scholars. Srnec (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Srnec, I looked at the "references" in this article, and what's actually written. In the intro paragraph, there is no reference source which affirms that "German Kingdom developed out of Eastern Francia". If you look further, some of the claims in this article have NO SOURCE or the the text does not correlate with what the source actually says. Quite frankly, this article seems dubious. The article has glaring inconsistencies, like this one "when Otto I was crowned emperor, East Francia formed the bulk of the Holy Roman Empire along with Italy". How do you reconcile this statement with the one above that the Kingdom of Germany grew out of East Francia? --E-960 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • At best, the sources referenced suggest that the "Kingdom of the Germans" was an informal alternative name used for the Kingdom of East Francia, kind of like England and Britain are often used interchangeably, or Wiemar Republic for the German Reich in the 1920s. --E-960 (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Srnec, the intro paragraph is a SYNTH, none of the sources say that the Kingdom of Germany "grew out of" East Francia. The cited reference sources such as The Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis, 1245-1414 clearly state there there was ambiguity about the term, and that it probably was a reference to a German realm without alluding to actual territorial boundaries. --E-960 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@E-960: the title and content of this article have been hotly disputed since 2007 with numerous proposals to merge, retitle or move it. It has always been highly controversial for the reasons you point out, but there has never been enough consensus for change. If you want to make headway with this, and I would support that, you probably want to read the archives which provide a good summary of arguments on both sides and make a proposal. Arguing with Srnec, who has staunchly defended 'his' article over the years, will go nowhere. Bermicourt (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bermicourt, I definitely agree with you that this article has been vigorously debated — looking at the past arguments. In this case though (related to the intro paragraph), Srnec cannot argue with the fact that the disputed statement is NOT SOURCED, and most likely results form SYNT. Nowhere does it say the Kingdom of Germany "grew out of" East Francia, however sources do say in fact that both names for a time were used interchangeably (with the term(s) King of the Germans, German Kingdom or Kingdom of Germany used less often). But again, nowhere does it say that the Kingdom of Germany replaced East Francia, because the Holy Roman Empire did that. For the moment, user Srnec's only argument is I just don't like it. --E-960 (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At this point, with no source to back up the statement, the intro paragraph claim stands as either SYNT or original research. --E-960 (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not wedded to the words "grew out of". In fact, I rather dislike it myself since, as you correctly note, the terms "Germany" and "East Francia" are used interchangeably. Just from a quick Google search:
"In East Francia there grew up the German kingdom..."
"East Francia was the forerunner of the kingdom of Germany..."
"East Francia, which soon became the Kingdom of Germany..."
I think the difference in attitudes towards this article/topic among Wikipedians/scholars stems from just what the use of "German(y)" is taken to imply. It is a real-world difference of opinion and usage and not just a Wikipedian one. There is a fundamental discontinuity between medieval Germany and modern Germany (the FDR) that isn't there for, say, England or France.
I'd be warmer to moving this page to Regnum Teutonicum if my Germanophone interlocutors ever quoted Müller-Mertens against me, but their apparent disinterest in the doyen of its history is puzzling. —Srnec (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@E-960: Any citation for "is a historical name sometimes used to denote"? This article isn't about a name. Srnec (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Srnec, just to quickly respond, this very topic was discussed by the 12th century historian Otto von Freising, who addresses this issue, and is covered in the Saxons and Salians, 911–1125 section. In any case, this 100% confirms that the two names coexisted for a time, however NO official transformation occurred, that's an undisputed fact. Also, this is not the only bizarre case when it comes to monarchic claims, take the Kingdom of Lodomeria, which was created out of the Austrian partition of Poland. Quoting from the article: "However, Lodomeria existed only on paper, had no territory and could not be found on any map.[1]" Similar case here, in which the German Kingdom or King of the Germans had more to do with titles and rights, rather than with a physical state. You can't dispute that the two names existed (period), however you can endlessly argue what that meant in practice, and even contemporary medieval historians were confused as how this reflected on reality. --E-960 (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody claims that an official transformation occurred. You keep reading things ("official") that are not there. You keep saying "physical" state, but what is that supposed to mean? Do you think you could reach out and touch the Holy Roman Empire? You say "titles and rights" as if titles and rights are unimportant to kingdoms. If it's maps you want, see Bernhardt 1993, map 1, p. 312, which has a bold black line labelled "Bounday of the German kingdom, c. 962"; Reuter 1991, map 7, p. 335, which says "GERMAN KINGDOM" right on it; or Müller-Mertens in NCMH, map 4, with a line denoted "Approximate boundary of German kingdom, c. 1000". Srnec (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with the map(s) you are referring is that they are based on opinions of some historians, and are not universal — other sources cited are not as clear cut about this. Unfortunately, this issue of the German Kingdom came up in the 19th century, when German scholars wanted to diminish French links to Germany, and the same thing occurred in France, where the French highlighted the Gaul identity over the Franks who were a Germanic tribe. Also, even Otto von Freising says "From this point some reckon a kingdom of the Germans as supplanting that of the Franks.", key word "some" and as early as the 12th century alluded to the fact that there was confusion and ambiguity of the term what it mean in practice given that the HRE was in place. --E-960 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bermicourt: "Of course, it's referring to the emperor here, who was also 'King of the Romans', but never 'King of Germany'." The emperor's official secondary title was "rex Germaniae" from 1508-1806. I'd say it's fair to translate that with "King of Germany". --MacX85 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MacX85: Firstly, it was never an official title - as Freeman says "Rex Germaniae", "König in Germanien"... this description was common in the 9th century, though it was not used as a formal title. Secondly, as Beck et. al. say "rex Germanorum and rex Germaniae can never be translated as "King of the Germans" or, worse still, "King of Germany"... Only the West Francian sources name the East Francian king rex Germaniae and his part of the empire Germania..." The whole concept that there was a Kingdom of Germany is a glaring error perpetuated only by some English-language historians who have either fallen into the trap of simplistic translations or failed to grasp what the Germans know about the history of their nation. That's why the Germans talk about "King of the Germans" or "King in Germany" but never "King of Germany" or "Kingdom of Germany". They know better that to do that. However, my sense is that there are enough English authors making this mistake for an article describing their (mis)use of the term, but it should not be an article perpetuating the myth as truth. Bermicourt (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bermicourt: It absolutely was. The first to use it was Maximillian I in 1508. You can find it in every crowned emperor's titulature after that.--MacX85 (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems I missed this discussion. Anyway, @MacX85:, you've made one of the several exact mistakes that have made this article so problematic. This was also pointed out by Bermicourt. First of all, Rex Germaniae can not just be translated to "King of Germany", it technically can't even be translated to "King of" anything because "Rex" can mean a lot of things other than "King". More importantly, though, there is a reason Germania is its own article. "Germania" and "Germany" are not interchangeable, and even the word "German" used to have very different connotations than it does today (it used to be closer to how we now use "Germanic"). Second of all, be honest about what exactly you believe their self-proclaimed title was. Regnum Teutonicorum was not the same as Regnum Germaniae, which was not the same as either "German Kingdom" or "Kingdom of Germany". The closest would be "Germanic Realm" or "Realm of the Germanics" (typically as Regnum Teutonicorum). This kind of stuff needs to be taken into consideration because it greatly confuses the reader. For evidence of that, just look through the archives. Germans themselves seem to be among the most surprised to find this article, and Googling "Kingdom of Germany" will still provide you with very little information. Also, sorry to say, but is this a single purpose account? 179 edits since 2008, and all on German history. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prinsgezinde: Well, back when the title "rex Germaniae" came into use (16th century) "Germania" used to be translated with "Deutschland". However, the actual title of the king (and yes, "Rex" meant king by this time) was "König in Germanien" rather than "König in Deutschland". Why? I don't know. Maybe it sounded more classy to contemporaries.--MacX85 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MacX85: Back then this actually made more sense. Deutsch meant more than it does now, hence the English form Dutch surviving both in "Dutch people" (Dutch/Netherlandish) and "Pennsylvania Dutch" (German). Do you see my point? The meaning of these words has demonstrably changed over the centuries. We can't just ignore that, especially when so few sources actually use such concepts as a "Kingdom of Germany". Besides, König in Germanien would be "King in Germania", not "King of Germania". And the existence of a title does not prove the existence of an entity, as we've discussed previously. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prinsgezinde: I don't really. Nobody is trying to say that it's the same Germany that exists today. I also find it pretty pedantic to insist on calling it "Germania" when that's the latin word. It was translated with "Germany" in English back in the day too. About the "in" "of" distinction: it's not really important. They also used "zu" which would make Charles V "king to Castile", right? In latin it was often "Germaniae rex" being a genetive form, the same the king of France and England used.--MacX85 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MacX85: I'm sure you know that "zu" and "von" in German have different meanings even though we translate both as "of". In the case of Charles V it meant he was King of Castile but not from Castile. But the linguistic fencing doesn't get away from the fact that German historians do not recognise a "Kingdom of Germany" and for good reason - it did not exist in the normal sense of a kingdom. German Wikipedia refers to Germania as a Vorstellungsraum im Mittelalter which can be translated as a "an imaginary space in the Middle Ages". I think that sums it up quite well. Bermicourt (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, sure. It was largely a nominal kingdom but it couldn't have been totally meaningless, otherwise there would have been no point in differentiating between the various kindgoms of the HRE and have different chancellories for each of them. I'm not sure I agree on "German historians do not recognize it". I've often come across terms like "deutsches Reich" (sometimes "deutsches Königreich") and "deutscher König". It's just that they don't use the exact words "Königreich Deutschland" which would be the literal translation.--MacX85 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MacX85: And yet you are still standing by using the word "Germany", which in people's minds today is intrinsically linked with the modern country and should not be used liberally. As Bermicourt says, historians do not recognise a "Kingdom of Germany". This can be deduced from the many discussions we've had here. Proper, plentiful sourcing would've quickly resolved the issue, yet nearly all were problematic. As to why it's even a problem, well, when Wikipedia has an article like this that takes some liberties in its factuality, it may very well be taken as proper fact anyway. Wikipedia is seen as a fairly authoritative source, and can do a serious bit of damage to what is considered "truth". Readers may believe there really was such an entity by this name when in fact the sources remain sorely lacking. Besides, saying we can't use the more apt "Germania" because it's an originally Latin word is a bit strange. Like many Latin words, the word exists in English, as many dictionaries will show you. Again, there is a reason we have a page for Germania and why it doesn't just redirect you to Germany or History of Germany: they are not the same. "Germany" derives from "Germania". It's not a translation. I've allowed you some liberties with prior claims but saying things like "It was translated with "Germany" in English back in the day too." needs some serious specification. When in the day? What region exactly? By whom? According to whom? Prinsgezinde (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Historians do recognise a Kingdom of Germany. That's why there is an article Germany, Kingdom of in the Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. That's why John Gillingham puts the term in the title of his pamphlet. Horst Fuhrmann uses it liberally and even writes things like, "Undoubtedly the strength of the German kingdom suffered as a result of the imperial burden" just to make sure nobody thinks he's talking about the empire. Search the archives for Robert of Gloucester to see a medieval use of Germaine (=Germany). You need to stop wasting people's time with your speculation and opinions, since we won't be editing them into the article any time soon. "Germany" is a well-established term in English scholarship and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Srnec (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some English-language historians use the term, that is true. But the overwhelming majority including all German historians don't and we are supposed to reflect the consensus view, not the minority view. Its time to end the debate and put it formally to a vote. Bermicourt (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On what basis do you claim this ("overwhelming majority")? I've cited Wolfram, Fuhrmann, Müller-Mertens as examples of German historians who clearly talk about the German kingdom and can be read in English translation. We've had an RM, but if you want another or an RFC or AFD, go ahead. Srnec (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"But the overwhelming majority including all German historians don't" curious statement. I can list just a couple of German historians who do use terms like "deutsches Reich", "deutsches Königreich" or simply "Deutschland" when speaking about the "regnum teutonicum", among them Stefan Weinfurter, Gerd Althoff, Walter Mohr, Karl Ferdinand Werner. In some of my history school books those terms were used quite liberally as well, so I don't see how it's a controversy. As for "Germany" being used in English speaking sources of the 18th century and prior, that doesn't strike me controversial either.
Here's some 18th century maps clearly calling it "Germany": http://gallery.oldprintshop.com/public/uploads/jpg/48475.jpg
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2014/1/19/8/8/3/883ab62e-80fc-11e3-8877-0d43941eb1a3.jpg
https://www.mapandmaps.com/de/deutschland/4121-a-new-map-of-germany-antique-map-switzerland-copper-engraving-by-rollos-1764.html
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2015/12/5/8/4/4/84406bd0-9b4a-11e5-98ab-3f3e387485cf.jpg
https://imgur.com/kobe2vT
https://imgur.com/fnox4H4 --MacX85 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MacX85: I'll tell you what's curious. Notice that in your maps, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands are included as parts of "Germany". Now tell me this: why are the Netherlands and Switzerland, two country that became fully independent from the Holy Roman Empire in 1648, part of "Germany" in maps you claim are from "the 18th century and prior"? It's because there was no country called "Germany" before 1871, and the term was instead used to refer to the region (same as Balkans, Levant etc - see here for more). We're not saying "Germany" wasn't used by the 18th century. We're saying there was no kingdom known as the "Kingdom of Germany" several centuries before that. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Srnec: in all this time you have not found a source that actually describes this "Kingdom of Germany" in the way you have been describing it. The term "Kingdom of Germany" (not "German Kingdom"), when used in English and when actually discussing an entity, has been shown time and time again to refer to East Francia (if not the later Empire). Other variations of the name, such as "regnum Teutonicorum" in the article's lead map, refer not at all to a kingdom but to the realm in the HRE that was inhabited by ethnic Germans. If you want to add "Kingdom of Germany" as an alternative title to East Francia, that's fine, but you appear to still be convinced there was a "Kingdom of Germany" with lands, (semi-)autonomy and a King, that was separate from East Francia. That being said, the topic is not an outright myth and I actually agree it deserves an article discussing the term. But it would be much better to use the original term rather than the misleading "Kingdom of Germany", and it should not be presented as a real kingdom, especially not one known as "Germany". Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If you want to add "Kingdom of Germany" as an alternative title to East Francia, that's fine" I don't think neither Srnec nor me mean to say anything but that. It was a region/realm within the HRE that was nominally recognized to be a kingdom. Whether or not it was autonomous is an entirely different point.
"Now tell me this: why are the Netherlands and Switzerland, two country that became fully independent from the Holy Roman Empire in 1648, part of "Germany"" iirc they were still part of the HRE in some sense without having to adhere to imperial law. Some of the maps do show the Netherlands and Switzerland in different colors than the core German regions.
"and the term was instead used to refer to the region (same as Balkans, Levant" That's certainly not true. It was used as both a geographical and political term. Most of the maps I referenced call it the "empire of Germany" or "Germany and its circles". By that time it was a stand-in for the Holy Roman Empire as such. The last two biggest documents concerning the empire, the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss and the resignation of Francis II 1806 call it "deutsches Reich"/"Deutschland" exclusively, as well as Napoleon calling Francis II the emperor of Germany and Austria in the treaty of Pressburg 1805.--MacX85 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I have read, Srnec is spot on. There is no reason to rename this article as no title will do the subject complete justice. But then again, we are writing in modern English, which did not exist anywhere at the time, let alone in the territory concerned. Hence, the demand for a contemporary historical source that says "Kingdom of Germany" is absurd. It is a common name used in English.
Srnec is right that the Eastern Frankish Kingdom was a united entity that, with the exception of the sons of Louis the German, always remained united. It was just as united as the Western Frankish Kingdom. Over time, the western kingdom developed into a highly centralised state, while the Eastern kingdom developed into a fragmented assembly of territories and eventually was dissolves. But both developments took centuries and started out under pretty similar circumstances. Nor did the development go into those directions from the start. The west first had to overcome the fact that after 1154, most of its territory belong to the English king, while the east's fragmentation only began with the Staufen and Welf families squabbling and Fredrick II giving way to the princes.
A lot of pseudo-arguments have been brought forth:
  • "before the year 1000 the concept of tying people to a land was not yet fully established, for example you had the Kingdom of the Visigoths and the Kingdom of the Vandals"
    Both kingdoms are from the migration period and long gone before 843. But there is a closer kingdom that was also named after its population, the Regnum Francorum Occidentalium. So if we can translate this into "France", why can't we translate the Regnum Teutonicorum" as Germany? The argument also severely underplays that early medieval rulers were indeed rulers of territory, not just over people.
  • "and a honorary title was retained king of the Germans"
    There never was such an honorary title in the Middle Ages. The ruler of his kingdom was first simply called "king", if necessary added "of the Franks" or "of the Eastern Franks", but then, in conflict with the Pope, the rulers stressed their title as "King of the Romans". There was no honorary "King of the Germans" beside this.
  • "the actual kingdom in a territorial sense was never defined"
    Which is equally true for any "state" of the time. They didn't put up signs on the border saying: "Vous etes departer la Royaume des Francs occidentale" or something like that.
  • "If you want to add "Kingdom of Germany" as an alternative title to East Francia, that's fine, but you appear to still be convinced there was a "Kingdom of Germany" with lands, (semi-)autonomy and a King, that was separate from East Francia."
    Nobody is making such a claim. The "Kingdom of Germany" is the "Eastern-Frankish Kingdom", though in a different phase of its existence, when Franks no longer wielded such a dominating influence. Between 919 and 1250, two of the major ruling families were not Franks: Ottonians and Staufen (whether the Welfs are Franks is debatable). Hence the change in historical nomenclature. If you want to suggest a merger of this article and East Francia, then go ahead. If you don't, there is no point in squabbling about the name of this article.
    (And why, oh why, is there no opposition to the title East Francia to begin with, as the arguments raised above would fit as well. Even more so as "East Francia" is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the Duchy (basically Franconia, Hesse and the Palatinate) or the entire Kingdom? This is why I try to avoid that name for the kingdom.)
  • "Other variations of the name, such as "regnum Teutonicorum" in the article's lead map, refer not at all to a kingdom but to the realm in the HRE that was inhabited by ethnic Germans."
    But that "realm" is this kingdom. Since this gets complicated in English, let's explain: you say "realm" which you, not without foundation, claim to be the best translation of "Reich". So you admit that there is a "Reich" covering Germany within the Holy Roman Empire, the "Heiliges Römisches Reich". But this "Reich" was ruled by a "König" (King) and hence it was a "Königreich". It was in fact the "Königreich" to which the "König" was actually elected. He never was elected King of Italy or King of Burgundy (and yet, nobody dispues these realms). This "Königreich" was the foundation of the entire edifice called the Holy Roman Empire. It was one of three Kingdoms in the HRE (four after Bohemia was elevated to a Kingdom, but nevertheless remained part of that first, predominantly German-speaking Königreich).
    The Eastern Frankish Kingdom (843-919) morphed into the Kingdom of Germany, which after 962 was the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, which eventually shrunk back to this kingdom, without ever resigning its Roman pretensions.
Theoretically, terms like "Kingdom of the Germans" or "German Kingdom" are equally feasible - but never "of the Teutons" - but arguing for a change while staying silent about the fact that the term France is used without any qualifications when speaking about the Western kingdom is wrongheaded. Str1977 (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the title Rex Germaniae, we can just ask the ″father of German Constitutional Law″ Johann Jakob Moser. In 1767, he wrote in his treatise Von dem Römischen Kayser, Römischen König, und denen Reichs-Vicarien (″About the Roman Emperors, Roman Kings and Imperial Vicars″): „Endlich nennet ein Röm. Kayser Sich auch noch: König in Germanien, und so auch im Lateinischen: Regem Germaniæ. Unter: Germanien verstehet man Teutschland. Warum man aber lieber: Germanien als: Teutschland gesezet habe? ist nicht bekannt, noch wohl zu begreiffen.“
(″Finally, a Roman Emperor calls himself King in Germania or in Latin Rex Germaniae. Germania means Deutschland (Germany). Why the title uses the word Germania instead of Germany is unknown and hard to understand.″) -- Orthographicus (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Kingdom, no King or Queen[edit]

Just to give some native speaker remarks: in the German language, there is no whatsoever use of the terms "König von Deutschland" (king of germany; except for a pop song) or "Deutscher König" (german king), "Königreich Deutschland" (kingdom germany). There is, on the other hand, a de:Deutscher Kaiser, but that reflects a much later period of time. There is also a new term de:Römisch-deutscher König to be more precise in specialised scientific literature when referring to a period of time before emperors were enthroned as Kaiser. I'm not sure, if this is relevant for the discussion, as this article is not about the German terms, but I was confused seeing this lemma, as the term "Deutschland" (Germany) was not used officially before 1945. --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 16:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's highly relevant in helping us realise that the article is not about a real political entity, but about the usage of the phrase 'Kingdom of Germany' in some English sources in a rather loose and inconsistent way to refer to the German-speaking states in history, the Holy Roman Empire north of the Alps or the region roughly covered by modern Germany. Like the phrase 'King of Germany', it reached its peak in the mid-19th century and has tailed off since, but its use is far exceeded by the term Holy Roman Empire. However, there appears to be a minority view that it really existed. Bermicourt (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Müller-Mertens in his book Regnum Teutonicum uses the terms "Deutschland", "deutsches Reich" and "Reich der Deutschen" many times throughout. The term "Reich" does not translate easily, but it is certainly not "empire" in these instances. The Latin sources use regnum and in English we say "kingdom". Srnec (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sry für dieses kleine "Interregnum" ... "Reich" gab's doch auch im Englischen, bloß heute nicht mehr, außer in e.g. "bishopric", wo das "-ric" (derzeit auch -rike, -riki) eben "Reich" bedeutet. Nur ums erwähnt zu haben. Hut ab für Geduld, übrigens. Vielleicht sollten einige sich der Abwechslung wegen mal über "France originated as West Francia (Francia Occidentalis), the western half of the Carolingian Empire, with the Treaty of Verdun (843). A branch of the Carolingian dynasty continued to rule until 987, when Hugh Capet was elected king and founded the Capetian dynasty. The territory remained known as Francia and its ruler as rex Francorum ("king of the Franks")" aufregen. Als ob Deutschland irgenwie eine Sonderstellung einnimmt. T 88.89.219.99 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"-ric" is not an English word but only a suffix. Even if there once existed a word in Old or even Middle English, no such word now exists in modern English. I agree with your point about Germany being singled our for a special role here. Str1977 (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes but that was written in 1956, and so is not contemporary. Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor (1493–1519) was the first to use the title "Germaniae rex" (King of Germany"), see [1]. But did it refer to a territory distinct from the HRE? That is the central question. It could be seen as excluding Territories of the Holy Roman Empire outside the Imperial Circles, but there is no particular evidence that the title referred to territories excluding those; and indeed the Old Swiss Confederacy would probably have been seen as Germanic (or at least the German cantons), despite being outside the Imperial Circles. But it is convenient for historians to use the term "Kingdom of Germany" in this way. The ref ...it is the relative fewness of references to a German realm, and the instability in the term's use, that must above all be kept in mind.[2] says it all to some extent. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry but I'm quite perplexed by this debate, doesn't the article cite statements showing that the term Regnum Teutonicorum or variants were used in the High Middle Ages to indicate the division of the Empire besides the Kingdom of Arelat and Kingdom of Italy, with the Archbishop of Mainz as its Archchancellor separate from the other two? There seem to be plenty of cited statements in the article where contemporaries from all sides, and occasionally even the Emperor himself, used some variant of the term, just inconsistently. Are we at least on agreement on that point? If yes, "Kingdom of the Germans" seems to be the most common translation for Regnum Teutonicorum, at least on Google Books. As for use of the term after the loss of Imperial Burgundy and Italy, that's a different issue which needs to be addressed separately. 42.61.172.8 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well for most of the HRE history they called themselves King of the Franks or King of the Romans, it wasn't until the 16th century they called themselves Germaniae rex, Regnum Teutonicorum was actually more of an insult as anything. So did the Kingdom of Germany come about in the 16th century? Also the Kingdom of Germany was rarely referred to, didn't have an independent ruler, governance was via the Imperial Diet (of all the HRE), and didn't have a clear definition of what it included. So there are a number of pertinent questions. The Prince-Archbishop of Mainz was the Archchancellor of Germany, but there is no evidence of Germany having separate governance than the rest if the HRE, or even what it referred to. In reality, the HRE was a loose federation at that point, so you could even argue that the Emperor was essentially a figurehead. But if the HRE was vague, the Kingdom of Germany was doubly so. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hear, hear! Bermicourt (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok the issue is, I just added a number of cited statements from Scales and a few others that I came across reading, which say that the term was also used occasionally in a non-insulting sense by representatives of the emperor, and in the Concordat of Worms which specified a separate legal jurisdiction of the Regnum Teutonicorum from "other parts of the empire", and also unofficially by some Germans at the time because of growing sense of national consciousness. Even though it's not much, there seems to be some contemporary political meaning to the term. I understand that there was no concrete political structures for this Regnum Teutonicorum entity. Again, this is not talking about the 16th century introduction of Rex Germaniae; I agree that by that point any distinction between a "German kingdom" and the HR Empire of the German nation was definitely meaningless. I'm only discussing the High Medieval concept of that part of the empire that does not include the Kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy. Aelmsu (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes looking through the article it doesn't seem that bad at all. There was definitely a German identity, mainly through language, and the Imperial Circle concept somewhat formulated that; by excluding the Swiss, it gave a sense of jurisdiction that excluded some German speakers. The German identity was somewhat tempered to avoid giving away their claims to Bohemia and Northern Italy. So while the concept of the "Kingdom of Germany" may be somewhat ill-defined, the large number of sources suggest an article is needed, and I feel that the Wikipedia article does a reasonable job. The main issue I have here is with people claiming a clearly defined and unquestionable concept of a Kingdom of Germany within the HRE, which I definitely object to that. I think that you also have to realise that the concept of nation state was quite weak at that stage anyway, that only came about quite a bit later, nations and national identity didn't really exist early on when feudalism dominated. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
" Just to give some native speaker remarks: in the German language, there is no whatsoever use of the terms "König von Deutschland" (king of germany; except for a pop song) or "Deutscher König" (german king), "Königreich Deutschland" (kingdom germany)."
"Königreich Deutschland" and "König von Deutschland" are indeed uncommon in modern German. "deutscher König" and "deutsches (König-)reich" however aren't uncommon at all. And both would be more correct than speaking of a "deutscher Kaiser" in pre-modern contexts.--MacX85 (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prince-Archbishop of Mainz

@42.61.172.8 I think you're using the fact that the Prince-Archbishop of Mainz was Archchancellor of Germany in the Imperial Diet as evidence for the "Kingdom of Germany". Might I also remind you that the Elector of the Palatinate was Archsteward? Or that the Elector of Saxony was Archmarshal? Or that the Margrave of Brandenburg was Archchamberlain? But there is no suggestion that these entities were outside the so-called "Kingdom of Germany". Just because a title exists, it doesn't necessarily give credence to a defined area of juridiction. Also there was no Archchancellor of Bohemia, so by that logic Bohemia was part of the Kingdom of Germany. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was in the middle of a reorganisation to merge the awkwardly separated bottom sections with the main narrative in "terminology". and I've now added a few more references to a legal distinction between the German part of the empire and the rest of the empire. Also, I'm having a lot of difficulty verifying the source (Bryce) which connects the Imperial territory within the circles to a German identity? Can someone provide the chapter? 42.61.172.8 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mrjulesd: See archive 6 for the discussion of whether Bohemia was a part of the kingdom of Germany. There is scholarship on the topic, and remember that Bohemia was a duchy before it was a kingdom. I'm not sure your point about the arch-titles. Although the archchancelleries of Germany, Italy and Arles were honorifics, the chanceries had been separate into the reign of Henry V. Only then were they merged into one for the whole empire. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Srnec: my point may be a little unclear, so allow me to explain. I think the position of the IP is that the position "Archchancellor of Germany" infers the "Kingdom of Germany". But I disagree. First of all, the "Archchancellor of Germany" would have sit in the Imperial Diet, and therefore represented the entire HRE, right? So it was more likely that the Archchancellor of Germany was actually the "Archchancellor of the HRE, but appointed from a German state, and therefore given the title Archchancellor of Germany". In my mind the Archchancellor of Germany was the second highest rank of the HRE (after the Emperor), and represented the entire HRE, and was unlikely that there was a particular significance in the title "Archchancellor of Germany" other than it was an Archchancellor of the HRE chosen from a German state, but with no special jurisdiction over the so-called Kingdom Of Germany. So the inference is wrong. Hopefully you can follow me. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, the "Archchancellor of Germany" would have sit in the Imperial Diet, and therefore represented the entire HRE, right? Why do you think this? There were no fixed seats in the diet until the 16th century. The archbishop of Mainz was archchancellor of Germany only, but there was in fact only one chancery. Over the years the formal role of Mainz in its administration waxed and waned but ultimately prevailed. Thus the other archchancellors had no formal role or rights in virtue of their titles, but that of Germany did, because he was in charge of the actual single imperial chancery. I don't believed the formal titles ever changed. The titles are evidence of a division that once existed, but they do not show that it persisted until 1806. Srnec (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK hang on there, the Archchancellors of Italy and Burgundy are also from German states. The Archchancellor issue (which is weak evidence) is no longer the sole evidence of a German-Imperial legal distinction. from Len Scales' book: there are a very large number of concrete examples of contemporary German writers and virtually all non-Germans making references to a "regnum Alemanniae" or "Regnum Teutonicorum" that is a part of the Empire but not all of it. There are also many examples of a legal distinction in Imperial law between the German lands of the empire and the rest of the empire. But the emperors were very reluctant unless required by diplomacy to specifically refer to a German kingdom because doing so would weaken their own link to the universalist Roman throne. 42.61.172.8 (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Elio Corti. "Lessico: Regno di Galizia e Lodomeria". Origine e variazioni del nome. Summa Gallicana: La Genetica del Pollo. Retrieved 11 February 2014. La Lodomeria esisteva solo sulla carta; non aveva territorio e non poteva essere trovata su alcuna mappa.
  2. ^ Len Scales (26 April 2012). The Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis, 1245-1414. Cambridge University Press. p. 179. ISBN 978-0-521-57333-7. Retrieved 3 April 2013.
Another "native speaker remarks": that there is no title "König von Deutschland" is beside the point. That has long been discussed. The king was first "King of the (Eastern) Franks" and later "King of the Romans". But the kingdom he ruled was never called "Kingdom of the Romans"
Regarding the "Archbishop of Mainz as the Archchancellor of Germany" etc. - these Archchanceries are pretty late development. Frederick I's chancellor was the Archbishop of Cologne. Only later did the Archchancellorship develop into honorifics, three for the three Archbishops. They are just honorifcs as the Duke of Saxony being Archmarshall. But that these honorifics were given also indicates that separate kingdoms existed, at least in theory.
"So it was more likely that the Archchancellor of Germany was actually the "Archchancellor of the HRE, but appointed from a German state, and therefore given the title Archchancellor of Germany"."
By that logic, how did the titles of Archchancellor of Italy" or "Or Burdundy" came about? Cologne is not in Italy and Trier is not in Burgundy. No, these honorifics do denote the existence of three separate (not independent) kingdoms. Str1977 (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Au contraire. If there is no king, there is no kingdom. And even if there is a king (of the Romans), you are absolutely right that there was no kingdom (of the Romans) in this case; it was an honorific, as you call it, for the emperor-in-waiting. And please don't dismiss all Germans ("native speaker remarks etc.") as if we know better than they about the history of their country. The reason this is even an issue is sheer ignorance or imprecision on the part of English writers who either don't have sufficient German (or Latin) to understand the sources or choose to oversimplify the history of the Holy Roman Empire for the sake of English readers who aren't familiar with the very different landscape that existed in Central Europe. Bermicourt (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The title of the king was certainly not an honorific. If anything the title of the emperor was since it changed nothing about their legal position within the empire but gave them more legitimacy.--MacX85 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's incorrect. To become the legitimate emperor, you had to be crowned by the Pope. No King of Italy was going to pay homage to a prince elected by a bunch of electors north of the Alps. The imperial coronation was what gave the emperor legitimacy as well as dominion over a much larger territory than that represented by the Regnum Teutonicum. Bermicourt (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no other king of Italy other than the Roman/German king who assumed this position by his coronation in Aachen.--MacX85 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last King of Scotland revisited

Just to butt in here. I raised this issue Talk:Kingdom of Germany/Archive 1#Last King of Scotland back in February 2007. I thought then and still think that "King of the Germans" (which currently redirects to "King of the Romans") is a better article title for this article, principally because using "Kingdom of Germany" implies a unified state as per England and to a lesser degree Scotland during the period this article covers and that is therefore misleading for those who are not familiar with German history. I used "Last King of Scotland" as the section header because it was topical at the time. There is no doubt that Idi Amin assumed the title, but as with many pretenders it does not mean that it was recognised as a title of a sovereign state. What has surprised me is that very few editors support the current article title with the notable exceptions of users Srnec and Str1977 who have supported the current title since I originally questioned it on this page. The problems with the current article title have been raised repeatedly, so perhaps it is time to hold a "requested move" (RM). Nothing ventured nothing gained and AFAICT more discussion is unlikely to persuade Srnec and Str1977 to change their opinions any more than they are likely to change mine, so perhaps it is time to see which way the wind is blowing. However because at least two editors will object to any move I suspect that such an RM will be closed by a disinterested editor as no move because of no consensus. If someone does initiate an RM please ping all the users (but not IPs) who have discussed this over the years, so that informed editors who have previously discussed this issue can express an opinion. -- PBS (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PBS:: Since I haven't stopped by this discussion in two years I just want to say I'd reluctantly agree with that compromise. I still strongly prefer the German Wikipedia title "Regnum Teutonicum" (which we can then optionally translate as "Kingdom of Germany") but whatever, this has gone on for long enough. It's insane that we've had a disputed tag on the article for 5 years but the discussions never ended so it can't be removed either. It really is time to resolve this. I'm not the best RM maker so I'm hesitant to do it, but if someone more experienced wants to make one I would suggest the following:
1. Gather a small number of the most often repeated solutions from this talk page over the last year
2. Provide these the possible options in an RfC or RM (is that allowed?) plus an option "Other"
3. Ping everyone who has been at all involved in this discussion.
4. Have everyone (hopefully) make peace with the result. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or just stop flogging a dead horse? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree it would be good to bring closure to this. My sense is that the problem here is more to do with the title and lede than the content. In English, "Kingdom of Germany" implies a sovereign territory ruled absolutely by a king. That was not the case: there was never such a kingdom which is why it is never called that in German. It is one of several possible translations of Regnum Teutonicorum but not a good one because it doesn't convey the real meaning which is more like "realm of the Germans" i.e. the collection of states which were individually ruled by peoples who identified themselves as teutsche, most of which came together under the HRE from 962.

In fact the article itself is less about a kingdom, but about the emergence of '"German" terminology', as its main section is entitled, which is an entirely valid topic. Interestingly, in that section, Regnum Teutonicorum is translated "Kingdom of the Germans" which is closer to the right sense.

However it seems to me that the lede doesn't chime with the body of the article. The opening line gives the impression that the article is not about terminology, but a real entity equating to East Francia. Moreover, since the term Regnum Teutonicorum does not appear until 920, it's not historically accurate either since East Francia folded into the HRE in 962 becoming a collection of states and did not remain as a separate entity renamed the Kingdom of Germany.

My sense is that we could improve the situation as follows:

That way, we keep the bulk of the text, but bring the title and lede into line. Bermicourt (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be interested to see any valid refutations of the arguments presented in the posting marked " Str1977 (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)" first; if there are any. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bulk of the discussion here refutes Str1977's arguments which boils down to "we need a modern term for Regnum Teutonicorum and I think Kingdom of Germany sounds best." But it doesn't even line up with the what the main body of the article is about. Bermicourt (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get it. Perusing the archives, this is a slow-burning edit war that has gone on for 15 years ...! AFAICS, the "KoG" crowd has the support of the better arguments, refs and Wiki public opinion, while the "There was no Germany" team's main support, I'm sorry to say, seems to be "I don't like it", covered with with more or less relevant and valid rationalizations; for example the claim that Germany wasn't a thing since it wasn't a proper state, which IMO is pretty pointless, given the variety of constitutions and historical development lines one can find for political entities from Sumer up to our times - and even rendered absurd when it was pointed out that the arguments fielded for not calling Germany a state, as opposed to e.g. France, fit France even better than Germany. Find better arguments, or drop this Quest. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid you won't resolve this lengthy dispute in 5 minutes by jumping in and venting your frustration with one side because you happen to like the term KoG. That's just another WP:POV. If you do a little research you will find that KoG is scarcely used in German sources because they understand their own history and don't recognise any such entity. Most English sources use HRE; those few that do use KoG tend to do so rather loosely and apparently for convenience; that of course is worth including. And you've completely ignored the lack of coherence between the title and lede and the rest of the article which even an editor with no knowledge of the subject can see is not logical. And please don't tell other editors what they should do - it sounds a bit patronising and, in the Wikipedia democracy, we are all entitled to our views. Bermicourt (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I guess I wont. Part of that is the style of argument established here: I say that in my opinion, the KoG people have the better arguments; in your recap, that has become "you happen to like the term KoG", which possibly might not demonstrate the highest attainable level of intellectual honesty. Likewise, the "scarcely used": in even a brief glance through scientific articles online, the terms König and Königreich appears aplenty. And so on, examples are legio, and this is what I mean when I say that this level of argument is ineffective (which is why "Get better arguments" is merely a friendly and enthusiastic exhortation, not a command). The main, i.e. underlying point of contention, AFAICS, is what is meant by "entity", how that applies to the KoG (or not), and what properties of such an entity are and what criteria for applying the term to KoG are; which should be resolved by editors before it is possible to proceed further. How did the Germany of Heinrich I differ from what Germany is today wrt. being a federation of Stammesherzogtümer / Bundesländer ? How organized - and organized in which way - does a political unit have to be to be considered a nation? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree that a comparable translation to "kingdom of Germany" is not used in German. The German terminology has been "Deutsches Reich" since roughly the 16th century. Whether this meant the kingdom or the empire is a bit up to interpretation. However, expecting the use of "Königreich Deutschland" which would be the literal translation strikes me as misled since calling any kingdom "Königreich X" hasn't been common in German until rather recently.--MacX85 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the Infobox is not allowed?[edit]

Well I used to made a Infobox for "Kingdom of Germany" and someone undid my edit, saying "Consensus against infobox" i'd love to know why ! Thank You Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion is at the top of this page... Furius (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Info box[edit]

So I have a question because of the info box, why was it removed? because there was no real "Kingdom of Germany" that's righst but the term Germany is not wrong but right, Germany means land of the Germans that means a "region/ or the Lands" where the Germans live or rule, usually both so that the term makes sense, even today Germany only has the sense of attributing the place where Germans live or the land of the Germans is and that's what it was at the time too, so I don't see a problem when we call the realm or kingdom of Germany bcs it was the Kingdom the Germans and both had the same meaning as I explained before. AsuraZC (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The infobox was removed because infoboxes suck. More seriously, it was removed because you cannot convey what the medieval kingdom of Germany was in a box. It is hard enough in prose. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why there are texts and pecific Infos writen about it too, it would help to find out some properties faster AsuraZC (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are looking for the kind of information typically found in such infoboxes, you will be disappointed. The kingdom of Germany did not have a capital or official language, flag or coat of arms. It has no precisely datable beginning or end. Srnec (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Srnec: I don't really see a recent consensus against adding an infobox. I think we should start an official WP:RfC on the matter per WP:CCC. Personally, I think the article can benefit from an infobox as it links what the Kingdom of Germany was before, and what it became afterwards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think came before and after? (There have been three discussions of the infobox, see above and archive 7.) Srnec (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Srnec: I saw them, the discussions were mostly small with a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This should have an WP:RfC to attract as many viewpoints as possible for a solid consensus that isn't dated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be opposed to an infobox. All the factors that an infobox presents (start date, capital, official language, predecessors and successors, etc) are complicated for the kingdom of Germany and infoboxen aren't good with complexity. But if you think an RfC would be worthwhile, you should go ahead and open one. Furius (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Furius: I don't see how this is different from Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire). The "Kingdom of Germany" was a constituent kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire. I will note that a similar discussion was held here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a pretty dire infobox. The flag and coat of arms aren't actually that of the Kingdom of Italy, but the HRE as a whole. The set of events in "historical era" are important, but fairly randomly chosen. I doubt that the HRE kingdom of Italy really had an ISO code. It strengthens my opinion in the previous comment that infoboxes aren't good for these entities. Furius (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: I'm with Srnec. Not including an infobox is one of the few things every side can agree upon. This is also a somewhat problematic topic for RfCs - it's too low profile and niche to gather much interest on its own, and those that do find their way here take one look at the talk page and decide it's not worth it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories