Talk:Royal Frankish Annals

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Middle Ages Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books

This page needs some help.... I'm going to make some changes, but I don't know much about the topic. However, the current article focuses on a very teeny part of the information contained in the Royal Frankish Annals, and misses the bigger picture. Morgan2317 17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do fix it! --Joy [shallot]

Croats and Serbs? This article really misses the main issues surrounding the document.

The article is in poor shape. I suggest the following remedies:

1. Remove the section about Croats and Serbs, which is really only a tiny part of the entire document. That text should go into the
   Ljudevit Posavski
   article. (Note that the Annals do not mention any "Croats" in the first place.)
2. Add a few bits from the German article, which appears quite complete.
3. Include a link to the digitised version hosted by Monumenta Germaniae Historica.
4. Remove the "rebuttal" weblink. It might be relevant on Croatian Wikipedia, but it is utterly inappropriate here. Again, Croats vs. Serbs does not belong here. --El Cazangero 22:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Reichsannalen be merged into this article as it appears to refer to the same group of historical documents as the Royal Frankish Annals. This is reflected at German Wikipedia which has de:Reichsannalen as a redirect to the equivalent of this one at de:Annales regni Francorum. Bermicourt (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are definitely not synonyms as used in their respective articles here. The basis for the Reichsannalen article is the old Catholic Encyclopedia. (I have now provided a link to the article.) The term Reichsannalen as used there is much broader than the Royal Frankish Annals and those dependent on them. I don't see how a merger makes any sense. It would require one article to cover all the Carolingian annals with a secular and empire-wide focus. Perhaps re-naming would be in order. I am not sure how the term Reichsannalen is actually used in English; it isn't used much. Srnec (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is: are the articles right? If so, both articles could be make clearer what their relationship is to one another and which annals they actually comprise and exclude. But at least one English source suggests they are the same since they covered the period of the Frankish Empire; after which the subsequent annals were linked to one or other of its successors and were hence not 'imperial'. And if Reichsannalen is not used much in English, do we need an article on it? Or if we do, why does it not cover its use in the German language whence the term is derived? I just think there is a lack of clarity that needs sorting out here. If we are able to untangle it, that would be good. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand you. My understanding is that the Royal Frankish Annals is a single work, a single set of annals. While all or part of it may have been used as the source or stem text for other annals, those are independent works and not "part of" the Royal Frankish Annals. I created the Reichsannalen article based solely on an old Catholic Encyclopedia article because I thought we needed an overview of the secular Carolingian annals. That's basically it. I cannot claim that that is the main meaning of Reichsannalen in English-langauge scholarship today. If it isn't, then that article ought to be moved and the term redirected here (although I've never heard the Royal Frankish Annals called Reichsannalen in English). The Reichsannalen article was a quick-and-dirty job because I saw an available public domain text and clear need. Srnec (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: Do you still think there should be a merger? Do you have an opinion on renaming the Reichsannalen page? Srnec (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. If you're clear they are different, I'm happy to remove the merger tag for now, as I don't have time to research it. I'm still curious as to why the Germans think they're the same, though. After all it's their history... --Bermicourt (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is just a matter of how words are used. Reichsannalen is used at the German Wiki (and I presume in German scholarship) as a name for what is usually called in English the Royal Frankish Annals. Note that the German Wiki distinguish the Reichsannalen/RFA from the Annales Laurissenses minores: it is not talking about a generic term for a class of annals, but about one specific literary work. Here at the English Wiki, the term Reichsannalen is used differently, to refer to an entire genre of history writing from the Carolingian Empire, of which the RFA is only one example (and the Annales Laurissenses minores another). This usage is based on a single, old source, so I am quite willing to believe it is idiosyncratic and should be changed. Srnec (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• merge tag removed as Keep - no merge.