Talk:Franks

rolled back some big insertions of translations from French Wikipedia

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

The name of Franconia etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro

Hi Andrew Lancaster, and thank you for taking over.

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

What I'm missing ar a few minor issues.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox?

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

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

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

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

About my Edits to the Franks and Carolingian articles

Hi Andew. I was wondering if you could expand more on your reasons for reverting.

- 1. The Franconian dialects south of the Benrath line (including the area of the Ripuarian Franks) are all considered by historians to be Old High German after the second sound shift — which is considered by historians to be a process that started between the 3rd to 6th Centuries, and the first literary attestations in the mid 8th Century (well, first clear latin writing system attestations because they used runes for writing before that, although they were like other Germanics mostly reliant on oral traditions). The Ripuarian Franks were located south of this line and most historian agree based off of both this and Einhards testimonies that Charlemagne spoke a dialect (even if atypical) of Old High German. This is uncontroversial as far as Im aware even if many sources from the time are scarce. Although the writer mentioned a shift from the Merovingian Northern France as being a shift to German-speaking Rhineland areas, I took that to be an improper way of referring to Old High German. So im confused by your opposition to the description of the Low Franconian dialects that made the shift to Old High German as being described as such or its associated with the Carolingians, as Old Dutch is also described in association to the Salian Franks (and the Merovingians).

- 2. While the 1917 description is indeed quite awhile ago the quote was both dated (so readers could taken into account the older context of the passage) and gave an excellent description (that I have not seen contradicted by modern research, which is the main reason — along with potentially offensive content based on the standards of the time - why using older material would be an issue, not otherwise) as to why the Franks are more confusing to deal with than other migration-era Germanic peoples; they remained in their homeland as well as their conquered territory. Perhaps it was indeed the wrong section (I personally dont agree, because it is paramount to the question of "Evolution as demonym" of “Franks”) ) but it does a better job of making that aspect clear than any other source Im aware of.

Thx M.S. Asher (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for posting. I see you're making an effort on some difficult topics, and that's definitely a good thing. However, no. To begin with Old High German does not exist anymore, anywhere. Don't mix up the periods. Secondly you are wrong about what defines High German. The Benrather line is up near the fully "Low" dialects. See Speyer line, Upper German, High German. Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns with my edits. Secondly, yes the quote you added is not a great source, but perhaps more importantly it does not fit where you placed it. The quote is indeed not so shocking or different from what other more recent sources say. However, even if you used a better source and placed the big quote in the relevant sections, that would not mean it fits in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry but you seem to be confused on the OHG point. The Benrath Line is in fact the border between what is considered High German and Low German (and also Old High German), although the line has indeed changed (not including its use north of it due to the standardization of the German language in general especially post 1871). And even the early Middle Ages Benrath line was north of Köln. See , , and . I also never confused Modern High German with Old High German. But regardless the Benrath line is the Low vs High divide in the modern day as well as old, although the exact position has changed. Both Upper German and Middle German make up High German.

Some sources:

long source quotes

- From The Germanic Loanwords in Proto-Slavic, By Saskia Pronk-Tiethoff, 2013 (pages 11-12): "The written tradition of Old High German starts by the end of the eighth century (Braune/Reiffenstein 2004: 1). The name Old High German does not refer to one uniform language, but rather comprises a number of substantially different dialects, which are united by the distinguishing feature that they underwent (at least to some extent) the High German consonant shift. These dialects include Old Bavarian, Alemannic, (Upper) Franconian dialects (High, Central and Rhine Franconian) and probably Langobardic. […] The Franconian dialects that underwent the High German sound shift belong to the High German dialects. The Franconian dialects that did not undergo the sound shift form a separate Low Franconian dialect group within West Germanic. […]The so-called Benrath line (G Benrather Linie) marks the border between the High German dialects and the German dialects in the West Germanic dialect continuum that did not undergo the High German consonant shift. To the north of the Benrath line, Low German dialects are spoken. The oldest attested form of Low German is Old Saxon, which is first attested in the ninth century and developed into Middle Low German after the 12th century."

- From German: Biography of a Language, By Ruth H. Sanders , 2010 (pages 9-10): "'Charlemagne (German Karl der Große) used German to carry out his program of Christianization, and so the Lord's Prayer, the Confession of the Faith, and the confession of sins had to be translated into German. Also Christian concepts for which there had been no words in pagan times had to be brought into German: the tribal world had not spoken of Feindesliebe 'love of the enemy'; nor had the pagan Germanen, who worshipped their gods outdoors rather than in temples (Ernst 2005, 82), needed words for Kloster 'cloister', Mönch 'monk', or Kirche 'church'. German compound words were coined to express the new church concepts: Latin regnum caelorum 'kingdom of the heavens' became Old High German himilribbi; Latin oratorium 'oratory', a prayer room, separate from the main church, became Old High German betahûs, 'prayer-house"

- From Handbook of Medieval Culture: Fundamental Aspects and Conditions of the European Middle Ages, edited by Albrecht Classen, section authored by Oliver M. Traxel) - Volume 2, 2015 (page 812):"High German is distinguished from Low German by a number of sound changes known as the High German Consonant Shift, which happened to various extents in the German dialects south of an isogloss known as the Benrath Line. Five major dialects may be distinguished, all of which have been named with alternative terminologies: West Central German or Rhenish Franconian, East Central German or East Middle German, North Upper German or East Franconian around the river Main, West Upper German or Alemannic in south-western Germany and Switzerland, and East Upper German or Bavarian in south-eastern Germany and Austria. The geographical distribution of these dialects varied throughout the medieval period and East Central German is not found during the earliest stages since most of the respective territory was settled by Slavs. Moreover, these dialects may also be subdivided even further, for example the larger Alemannic dialect group includes also the dialect of Swabian. The earliest evidence of High German is found on archaeological artefacts from the sixth and seventh centuries and is written in runic script (Looijenga 2003). At the time various missionary activities were already taking place, for example from Ireland, which also introduced the Latin alphabet. Generally, Latin was the main literary language during the Old High German period, which started properly in the eighth century with the emergence of glosses and glossaries, such as the Abrogans, which has been called the first book in the German language. In fact, many German translations of religious texts were conducted during this period, with Notker Labeo of St Gall being among the most important scholars in this context."

- From The Languages of Early Medieval Charters: Latin, Germanic Vernaculars, and the Written, Word edited by and section written by Wolfgang Haubrichs, 2020 (pages 76-77):"In order to date the beginnings of the integration of the remaining pre-Germanic names, the criterion of the Old High German sound shift must be considered, although this principle can only be used south of the border with Low Franconian (the 'Benrath line' near Düsseldorf), a dialect that did not undergo the sound shift.30 For the Ripuarian dialect in the Cologne region, the sound shift is assuredly testified at the latest in the eighth century. All top-onymic examples show the change of [k] > [x] (in German written as <ch, h>) around the seventh or eighth century, e.g. *Lacîniacu > 1135/42 Lechenihc, today Lechenich north of Euskirchen;3l third century Antunnaco > 804 Antiniche, today Andernach on the Rhine. 32 But considering the earlier shift of [t] > [ts] (written as <z, tz, c>) in the sixth century, one notices a remarkable division: we find at the outer margins of the Rhenish centres, e.g. Merzenich near Düren, 1140 Mercinich < *Martîniacu;33 Zons near Dormagen, 1020 Zu(o)nce, 1057 Zuonozo < *Tônatio;34 Gürzenich west of Düren, 1170 Gurcenich < *Curtîniacu. 35 Quite the opposite is found near the Rhine and in the suburbs of the Roman centres. As evidence of Romance continuity, pre-Germanic [t] is preserved there, e.g. Metternich near Koblenz, 1184 Metterich < *Meteriacu; Ober-winter near Remagen < Latin *vînitôriu 'wine cellar'; and, as above, Antunnaco. 36 One could point to further cases near Cologne and Jülich. The phonetic re-ception of Latin [v] corresponds to this picture of a relatively late integration on the Rhine limes and around Jülich (Juliacum). In the earlier period, Latin [v] was a bilabial sound and therefore substituted by Old High German [w), but after c.7oo, when the pronunciation of Latin [v] had probably changed, it came to be substituted by [f] (written also as <v> or <f>),37 To the first period belong (e.g.) Königs-winter near Bonn and Ober-winter (see above). We meet cases of [f] only in a narrow circle around Cologne and Bonn, and near Koblenz < Confluentes, especially just to the south in the so-called 'Rheinengtal', e.g. Virnich southwest of Euskirchen, 1140 Virnich < *Verniacu.38 The first Old High German phonetic change, which, after the shift of [k], prevailed across the whole region, is the 'umlaut, the vowel mutation of [a] before [i, j), e.g. in Kerpen west of Cologne, 870 Kerpinna < *Carpinea 'plan-tation of hornbeams,39 or (as mentioned above) Merzenich < *Martîniacu. Thus, in the northern Rhineland, the era of bilingualism had come to its end at the latest in the first half of the eighth century, when the Old High German 'umlaut'—as seen in gast, 'guest', plural gesti (Modern German: Gäste)-was completed.”

Is this a satisfactory explanation? Also I can move the quote then about the Franks and their home territory. What makes it not such a great source? Which would I use in its stead to describe the unique territorial distribution and only partial migration of the Franks?M.S. Asher (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

No. You are indeed right that the term can be used this way in modern linguistic contexts, but the way you used it is not clear or useful for the history-writing purpose you have used it. So you can say I was wrong in my wording. However, if you use the term this very broad way way then "High German" includes many dialects that are not even always considered German, such as the Dutch dialects in Belgian and Dutch Limburg, and even into Brabant, which are certainly seen as being core areas of Carolingian Austrasia (despite what your language-oriented source implies). The source you cite also only says in passing that the German Rhineland spoke "German", without distinguishing Low and High in that place, and if you turn to the next page it is sometimes including Low German in the discussion (and Low German was spoken in the Rhineland). It also does not mention the Benrath line (or Uerdinger line), and the Benrath line does not encompass the whole Rhineland, so this is a text you wrote (please read WP:SYNTH). But in any case I would also argue that your source is itself not using a wording everyone would agree with, and it is not a history source to begin with. But all this is still also only one aspect of the problems with those edits.

Please don't respond here. If you want to discuss the details of these edits further, then post on the talk pages of the articles, not my talk page. Then other editors can also see what is being discussed, and find it again for future reference. Also, please don't post such enormous amounts of text unless you have a good reason. Give a shorter and clearer explanation, and make sure you don't ignore what other editors have already said to you in edit summaries or anywhere else. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

(above reposted from talkpage of Andrew Lancaster for purpose of showing previous discussion, enabling discussion on talkpage from here on)

Firsly; how am I using it in a way that is only appropriate for modern contexts? I am referring to Old High German and did so exclusively in my edits, not modern High German. I have given you numerous sources confirming, for context now, and that should be plainly obvious. Nowhere did I try imply modern High German. If you mean I’m abusing the word and trying to expand its area as it existed in the early Middle Ages then how? I’ve clearly sourced to you the definitions and extent of Old High German, highlighting in bold the parts most relevant to our discussion (although citing longer chunks with other information on its extent and terminologies, was useful, sorry if that wasn’t appropriate for your talkpage but if you even read the bolded parts I’m genuinely wondering how on earth you came to your own defintion as you describe.

The Benrath Line ran above Cologne and near Düsseldorf. Note that the Benrath Line did change, but further east, the Benrath Line ran above Cologne in the 700s-900s. I’ve given you numerous sources and links showing you that. You could try producing sources of your own, because while my lengthier quotations might be annoying, it’s also fair to say that most of what I’ve heard are opinions from you that contradict the available evidence here; the Benrath Line is and that it is something that historians apply from the Middle Ages at this time onward. As far as “what my source implies”, if you mean the original one I posted, as the Carolingians are considered Ripuarian Franks, and the Ripuarian Frankish dialect area is considered to have made the shift into Old High German at the time, I see no problem. Nowhere is it implied that the Low German dialects are included. Aachen is also located within the Benrath line as it is defined by historians. Aachen was the Carolingian capital when Charlemagne came to power. He and his father and grandfather are believed to have been born in Heristal, which is located on the border of all three (Old Low German dialects/Old Dutch, Romance, and Old High German), and while they had residences everywhere they associated primarily with the Ripuarian and Eifel area.

"The source you cite also only says in passing that the German Rhineland spoke "German", without distinguishing Low and High in that place, and if you turn to the next page it is sometimes including Low German in the discussion (and Low German was spoken in the Rhineland). It also does not mention the Benrath line (or Uerdinger line), and the Benrath line does not encompass the whole Rhineland, so this is a text you wrote (please read WP:SYNTH)." Oh gosh, really? It refered to the Rhineland without clarifying exactly, although that doesn’t necessarily mean he is saying all of the Rhineland, which I took to mean Old High German, especially given the rest of what the author wrote.

If I may post another “Wall of text”, from the cited page I used on the Carolingians article (I do in fact feel the whole paragraph is necessary here so you can see how the author uses the word):

long quotation from source

“The shift of political power in the Frankish Empire from northern France to the Rhineland with the rise of the Carolingians meant that the center of political influence was firmly established in a German-speaking area. Because Latin served as the traditional written medium for affairs of state, the church, and the legal system, the Carolingian church and state needed to develop a large cadre of ecclesiastical and administrative personnel literate in Latin. Faced with the challenge of strengthening the clergy, developing an efficient legal system, and converting the many still-pagan Germanic tribes to Christianity, the missionaries quickly recognized the utility of encouraging the use of German as a written medium. It may seem paradoxical that the first sources of written Old High German originated in Bavarian and Alemannic scriptoria, far from the center of Carolingian power in Aachen. But it was these more peripheral areas of the Empire and the Christian world where the need for conversion and for the education of an indigenous clergy was most pressing. […] The earliest glosses and translations of Latin texts into German served as a pedagogical bridge between the German vernacular and Latin, but by the late eighth century Old High German began to be used in original texts of considerable sophistication.“

The next page he talks about the differences in definition between Low and High German and I see none of the confusion between the two that you are implying or attempts to lump Low German dialects into High ones; he concedes the first written evidence of Old High German was far from Aachen in the south, but it seems to me he is saying that in terms of only the written element (using latin characters) of course I could use one of the sources I listed earlier on that page too if you’d like, since based off of the contemporary topographic names the areas is considered to have already shifted there into Old High German anyways. I see no WP:SYNTH on my part when even the text itself implies he is referring to Old High German when he is talking about the “German-speaking” Rhineland, given how “surprising” this author finds it that the first written Old High German isnt in the Aachen area, but if I was too interpretive would you have problem with my adding these other sources as well to the article to make it clear? Perhaps in a different section? I fail to see the problem with the type of sources I’m using with regards to Old High German; these are Linguistic History books with a focus on German for the most part, can’t think of a better type for this topic.

Anyways the Ripuarian Franks (the only word of my own that I inserted that isn’t in the source, although he doesnt use Old High German in that exact sentence — I wasn’t quoting him verbatim anyways — but that is the term used for the Cologne Franks so lets not be pedantic, although I should have cited another source for that you’re right, my bad) southward are considered by authors to have transitioned into Old High German, so my point still stands on the use of the term Old High German which is clearly not too broadly applied here; there is zero reference to Limburgic etc being included into Old High German at the time from my sources from what I am reading. But I see your problem with the author referring to generically the Rhineland in an unclear way even if I took the next paragraph and his references to Aachen to mean that. Could I adjust the edit to where it just mentions that the Ripuarian Franks of the Carolingian dynasty are generally regarded as having spoken Old High German? The Charlemagne article does feature the consensus that Charlemagne himself spoke some form of Old High German.

“and make sure you don't ignore what other editors have already said to you in edit summaries or anywhere else.” what have I ignored? Regards. M.S. Asher (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Well for one thing you are continuing to post more walls of text, and for another you are now spending all this time on the term "Old High German" which is only one small aspect of the problem, and I have already explained that to you. So there are a few things you haven't considered in my posts so far. For reference, here is my revert of 5 of your edits: . The first problem here is that you've copied all this mess now on to the wrong article. Your above wall of text is about your edits on another article, which I also reverted. Breaking up the problems on your edits on this article:

• Block of text from a 1917 book which makes vague generalizations about the Franks based on popular ideas of the time (e.g. "They kept permanently their territory in Germany, drawing from it continual reinforcements of fresh German blood"). Bad source. Not a useful or up-to-date text. Large direct quote. Most importantly it has NOTHING to do with the section you inserted it into.
• Random broken sentence inserted: The nature of the Frankish expansion fundamentally differed
• After a mention of "the Rhenish fan pattern" you added some un-needed "explanation", a subset of Old High German. A pattern is not a language. Why were these extra words needed and how do they help explain the topic of this article here?

Please don't post more walls of text here or elsewhere. If you want to make the case for something first consider what other editors are going to think is important, for example what the relevant Wikipedia article or section is about. Don't just give lectures about linguistic terms used in conversations.

@M.S. Asher: thanks for collapsing at least some of the big copy-paste text, but unfortunately you also proceeded to make proposals about this article on the Carolingian dynasty talk page. To cut a long story short you have made a draft in your sandbox, where you would add the words in red. I am not strongly opposed, but I have not checked the cited sources, or looked at it very critically but maybe the whole section needs review. I hope other editors will also look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

As a result, the distinction between Old Dutch and Old Frankish is largely negligible, and "Old Dutch" (also called "Old Low Franconian") is the term used to distinguish the variants which were not affected by this Second Germanic consonant shift. The Frankish dialects below the Benrath Line are considered to have developed into dialects of Old High German by the 8th century at the latest; by the first half of the 8th century in the case of Ripuarian Franconian.

References