Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

[Untitled]

This rather messy text, which is full of typo's, ignores the current page, and duplicates existing info, was contributed by an anonymous editor; I find it sub-standard and moved it here. Tom Peters 01:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franks was a general name given to Germanical tribes by inhabitants of the Roman empire. The name Salian Franks is a subdivision, indicating they were paid by Rome in salt (as in English the word Salary is deriVed from 'salt'). Typically they would be hired outside the 'limes' (+- following the course of the Rhine at that time)(Ps the course of the Rhine changed course in the 16-17th century and ended up in the Rotterdam bassin, instead of the Westerschelde, after following the Maas or Meuse course over a large area)(+-frontier Belgium-Netherlands)
After one or two periods of 20 years of service, where they would typically be sent to other areas of the empire, they would receive a lot of land given by the roman emperor. The Salian Franks typically would settle in the same area in Belgium, called Taxandria during Roman times , now known as the 'Kempen', a stretch of land, running from Antwerp to Liège, which was non- or little inhabited, due to the infertility of the soil.
They evolved to a little kingdom of 'foederati', that is they had the right to select their own king, who swore allegiance to the roman empire and emperor, and even had the right to wear the 'toga'. They were relatively independant. This was so until the fall of the Roman empire.
They were closely related, but distinguished themselves from the 'Ripuarian Franks', that are the Franks that have remained outside the Roman Empire, and wherefrom probably the Salian Franks were gradually hired and brought into the Roman Empire.
They only made their entrance in history by the end of the Roman Empire, when different incursions had taken place and the power of Rome was definitely falling to pieces. After having seen teh majoority of the Roman aempire being invaded by Wisi-, Ostro Goths, Vandals, Alamans, Burgunds, etc....There was a stretch of land which was not invaded by barbarians, corresponding to the north of France up to the actual Orléans area. Though it was still occupied by Romans, it was about to fall. This is the time when Clovis 'invaded' this area and took over power, with the willingness of the local population, after his baptizing)(see the history of Ste Geneviève in Paris for example). He installed the Merovingian Dynasty, called after Meroveus, one of his ancestors. And from this area the merovingian dynasty undertook the conquest of 'Western Europe' from the Pyrenees to the Alps and what corresponds now +- with the Netherlands and Germany(the majority was never part of the Roman empire)until Denmark.
After the conquest typically they would settle in the conquered area, install their local potentats and have them integrate with the local population. After two generations typically the potentates would be considered as 'locals, try to gain more independance, start an uprising and cause the inervention of the frankian army. Frankian society was also quite open to non-frankians, intermarriage and adjusting to the local culture. (probably the reason why they never imposed their language upon conquered tribes).
Typical for these were the separate law systems for the different populations, Salian laws, Alaman laws, Burgundy laws, Roman laws etc..., which existed next to each other. The most known extract of Salian law is that the kinghood is each time divided between the sons in equal parts. Therefore the whole Mervingian period is a very confused one, where it is difficult to set boundaries and frontiers. Generally one speaks of three parts: 'neustrie' the middel part and origin of the empire, including Belgium, nothern France and lower rhineland in Germany. Ostrië or Austria, what lay east of that (the actual Austria did not become part of the empire until this area was conquered by Charles the Great or Charlemagne upon the Hungarians. Westrië, is the part to the West. Italy and Spain were not part of the empire.
The reason for the success of the salian franks lies in a good military organization; During the Roman period, the 'germanical' tribes or franks of the area were already considered invinceable, hence the active hiring of legionnairs of Frankian origin. There they must have perfected their strategies and techniques, where Romans were best at, which made them really invinceable. Combined with the volontary military service (obligatory but also the privelege of every 'free man' or 'Frank', an army would be levied Each year in spring of every man in the family, with age boundaries, leaving the necessary man-force in the home.
this also gave opportunity to make a career or to own property , sicne if a battle was won, there would be a need for putting the local control in place, that is people having fought on their side.

I think this page should have a word about Salii. For the ancient sources spoke of 'Salii and not of Salian Franks. The Latin word Salii ressembles a reference to salt, and therefore it may be translate as salters but it is also a college of the Priests for Mars. This group of people lived north of the Rhine in Salland, and not east of the river. user: Johanthon—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanthon (talk • contribs) 13:45, 18 October 2006

That is not clear, but possible, maybe in Salland people gained salt, maybe there were salian Franks too, but the mars priests are not related to salt, but dancing. Both dance and salt are not limited to one group, and they might be named after one of these words for totally unrelated reasons. That's now in the article, too--FlammingoHey 09:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THOUGHT ON SAALE. In Afrikaans - a Germannic Language - the word 'Saale' means "halls", the type of buildings quite common in the north of Germany - big country, hall-like houses. Along the Danube these relative huge buildings were erected from the earliest times in which groups of 20-30 people were apparently operating from. The present town of Halle (meaning 'hall' in German) is situate on the Saale River. There are at least two other similarly named rivers in Germany. I would have thought it obvious that one could assume that the people living in these big houses could be called Saalii by the Romans - that's what they were, peoples who lived in 'Saale'. Refer to the explanation of where the name Brussels come from and the words 'brook' + 'cell' bring one back to 'cell' = 'saal' (= unit = hall).

Against Georges Dumézil

Rokus, Actually there is so much I don't know were to start.

  • First you delete valid information without giving good reasons - like for example on Ammianus, but also on the meaning of the word Salii.
  • Second you add things that are simply not true. For example you state that Ammianus describes their Migration. But Ammianus does NOT.
  • Third. This is my strongest point agianst your revision: An article about Salian Franks is not meant to spent half of the text on the highly controversial works of Georges Dumézil and his followers. It is also very not done to come up with Wodan, Frey and Thor while you can't prove if they have anything specific to do with Salians. Please remember in about any college room in our countries Dumézil is called a Domme Ziel. johanthon 13:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johanthon, with your reverts I am as puzzled as you are.

  • I am not aware of deleting any information from Ammianus. Instead I even inserted the name into the text. That is why I took your first comment on Ammianus for criticism on using him as a reference, and even though I decided to remove this sentence I was on the brink of asking you what was your problem with mentioning him. It is custom at Wikipedia to add references to the phrases derived from your sources, this will avoid the risk of those phrases to be merged into other phrases or otherwise affected by other editors. If I removed some theories on the word Salii this might have been because they were not clearly sourced. You have to understand that just mentioning a book on the lower lines won't always do.
  • Second, I did not use Ammianus to describe migrations. How come you think so?
  • Third (I see you already removed this point), again, also the reference to some Adrian Goldsworthy is not mine, but a result of merging info from another article. I will give you the details for having this clear for once and for all: [1] I just think it is inappropiate to delete information while merging, especially when this information has been there for quite a while. This does not mean I think this information is useful, and in the case of this Adrian I have to agree the information is superfluous at least.
  • Last: It is true my source on mythology makes reference to the person you seem to contempt. However, I don't think you are justified to argue with recognized scholars. You have to find published articles that represent your view and be encyclopedic on the different views that exist and develop on the battlefield of science. I am very curious to know about contrary views on the tripartite structure he proposed. I think this tripartite structure is well documented and in accordance with what we know of Indo European mythology. The same still applies to Hindoeism, where according to time, place and social class people worship Brahma, Krishna or Shiva. What about somebody calling a scholar a "Domme ziel"? How can you prove this rejection of such a tripartite structure is generally accepted and not just your personal view?

By the way, I think the version of the article you keep reverting to has a terrible structure. This has to be improved, and I would appreciate your help. I am sorry if I deleted some phrases you were especially attached to while making a try, so why wouldn't you insert this phrases again on the proper place? Rokus01 19:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rokus, I don't need to prove a thing against Dumezil. This article is about the Salians. It's not about Tripartite. It is not about Wodan. Nor is it about Mythology. Wikipedia has articles about mythology and Wodan. If you have valid information you can put it there.
If you want to merge articles than make sure you don't delete valid information and don't bring in information that simply is not accurate. johanthon 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And "How can you prove this rejection of such a tripartite structure is generally accepted and not just your personal view?" Quite Simple. The 2 most cited scholarly books on the Salians (James and Wood) ignore him completely. Actually, do you know one regular scholar on the Salians that subscribes him fully and take over his views? James? Wood? Wallace-Hadrille? Murray? Goffart? Ganshof? Mckitterick? Drew? Thorpe? Todd? Bachrach? Fouracre? Van Dam? Bloch? Euwing? Geary? Riché? Fichtenau? Hallsal? Efros? Heinzelmann? Please, let me know. johanthon 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like at all your belligerent attitude. Wikipedia is for working together and not for sneering and AGF. Of course you have to respect scholars, especially when they are highly esteemed within their area of investigation. Your concept about scholars is narrowminded and completely wrong, since it is not a custom to have scholars cite sources of different disciplines. For instance, an archeologist will not easily cite a linguist or an anthropologist, and when they do this rarely means they are agree. So why you come up with such a list of scholars, if mythology is not their prime field of investigation? Anyway, for this reason alone it might be a good idea to separate mythology from history in a different article.

For now: please show your abilities and knowledge by improving on this article, since this is still quite confused and ill structured. You could start with putting events in an chronological order, to introduce chapters and to introduce logic. For instance, what does "it" mean in "and it appears like an exercise in interpretation, rather than simple implementation of a new model of succession"? If you are not able, then somebody else have to do it - even when this implies the accidental deletion of unsourced statements and confusing theses. And by the way, the Salian people were not known for being very much more warlike than other Germanic tribes. If you read your sources well, you will discover they -contrary to most other Germanic tribes- developed soon to an organized society that tilled the land and did not pose a threat over the neighboring Romans. Your theory on Mars should be expressed -and sourced with author title and pagenumber-accordingly. Rokus01 22:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, I don't mind you "reistate" this discussion on Georges Dumézil, especially since this discussion shows your very unrepresentative POV against one of history's most respected mythologists. Also, your personal wrath against this person shows you are not the expert we are waiting for. All I have heard from you is senseless waffle. Rokus01 19:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isala and Tacitus

I removed this:Alternatively, it may be derived from the Roman name for a river in the Netherlands: Isala, currently named IJssel in Dutch. removed: a very far-fetched claim and not probable. --FlammingoHey 09:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo, in which chapter of Tacitus I can find a reference to the Salian Franks? And why do you link your reference to an unsourced site? johanthon 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt find Tacitus ref, so changed that and some more. Shall I ask the site's admin to name his sources? --FlammingoHey 08:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo, internet is not a source. It's common here that your changes are based on primary sources, or recent well known scholars. Tacitus wrote several primary source and you will not find the Salii in his texts. Gregory of Tours is another primary source and he clearly states that the Merovingian kings are of the Salii. He never wrote that those Merovingian kings descended from the Sicambri. Just follow the link and check out the article on them. johanthon 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's common here to cite sources in general, not primary sources only; in fact, those are usually less reliable than secondary literature, which may indeed be available online, like encyclopediae. Now; Gregory is not clearly free of the suspicion to have tried to please his royals, however independent he was in Tours. If you have the quote from Gregory, then please let us hear it. The link, though, doesnt mention either Gregory or the Merovingians. Are we talking about the same link, Zosimus? The Sicambri (sugambri) origin is an idea from de:Merowinger, which is unfortunate since there's no source given. So, why do you think Even nowadays, this area is called Salland should stay? Since Salland is not the place in question, it's further east, and the repeating of "currently", "even nowadays" and the ahistorical The Salian Franks formed the foundation for early Dutch culture and society (what is that early Dutch culture? In what way? Or just the language, but then it should say so; and what time periods are compared in that sentence?) are not perfect. And The word Salii otherwise is used for the dancing priests of Mars - the early Salian Franks were known to be another warlike Germanic people sounds as if there was a relation between the two statements, which is not really expressed, a but the two are not related is missing. --FlammingoHey 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again: internet is not a source. And Wikipedia Germany is certainly not a source on the Franks. It is full of rather notorious pulp. If you want a citation of Gregory, why don't you look in the index to look it up? johanthon 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johanthon is perfectly correct in iterating that primary sources are the major and more weighted reliable documentary evidence. There are other sorts of evidence for history - archaeological, for instance. It is always possible to claim, a thousand or so years after the fact, that the primary documentary sources are dubious, and indeed we know of some that are. However, much of Gregory of Tours must be taken as based upon evidence, freely propagated tales and eyewitness accounts gathered at the time of writing. Thus Gregory is more reliable than an unknown and significantly later scribe whose name is not known (but who is referred to as Fredegar in the English-speaking world) and who might in any case be more than one writer. That is an example. More weight must be given to the earlier source, particularly since the later source in this case mentions clearly apocryphal elements that are contradicted by other contemporary historical sources, by court, royal or legal documents, by archaeological finds, and so forth.

Encyclopaedias are not primary sources. They do not represent actual evidence. Articles in encyclopaedias represent the view of the scholar writing the article, and although this scholar may be knowledgeable, it would be childish of us to assume any one scholar can reasonably be representative of the entire scholastic research of a particular field, particularly if there are (and there so OFTEN are) disputes among scholars concerning dates, events, correlations, evidence, interpretation and much more. One does not go to an encyclopaedia for source material. One goes to the primary sources. That is standard historical research practice.

It is always good to approach primary sources with caution. There is no reason to assume any writer of the past is more likely to have been able to resist writing with a particular slant than writers today. But at the same time, we must not devalue primary sources. They remain the best source for knowledge of the past, for they bring with them the language of the past, the attitudes (often unconsciously related) of the past, the social customs of the past, the method of historical writing of the past and so much more... even apart from the names, dates and happenings. Almirena 09:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ripaurian

Umm, about this bit here:

The name Ripuarian is believed to mean 'river-dwelling'.

Believed to mean? If one looks at Riparian zone, one will see that it says there:

The word "riparian" is derived from Latin ripa, meaning river bank.

I suppose there could be some doubt about the origin of the name: "Ripaurian" may merely resemble the Latin word for riverbank, while being derived from some other Germanic etymology.

For that matter, does anyone happen to know if the word "Ripaurian" occurred in contemporary accounts, or was it invented later by scholars to distiguish the Franks? Myself, I am pretty sure it was contemporary. --Saforrest 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Ripaurian" is not in the sources. The word "Ripuari" is, for example in the "Lex Ripuari", a law code book for the "Ripuari" dated to the first part of the 7th century. What is more interesting is that the ethnic core of these peoples lived at both sides of the Rhine around and north of Cologne and south of Nijmegen. Before the 7th century this area was largely occupied by Frankish Bructerri and Brucovarii. The Frankish word bruc is believed to correspond with the modern Dutch word Broek which means exactly the same as both "Riparian Zone" and "riparian vegitation". ("A riparian zone is the interface between land and a flowing surface water body. Plant communities along the river margins are called riparian vegetation, characterized by hydrophilic plants.") Now I am very convinced about this, but my problem is my opinion is just a POV. And above all it is original research. You won't find this kind of thing in English speaking scholars for the sheer reason non of them speak Dutch, so non of them is able to relate Frankish words to their most likely meaning. Cheers. johanthon 19:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ripuarian" is an obvious anglicisation of the Latin term, so it does appear in the sources. ("Franks" never appear in primary sources either, but the "Franci" are distinctly numerous.) Etymological hypotheses like that concerning the tribal names as they have come down to us in Latin are always tenuous at best, just like place-name research. But it does seem pretty likely that "Ripuari" is related somehow to the Rhine. Can anybody quote a secondary source? Srnec 00:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to all move over to the Ripuarian Franks page. I almost missed your discussion. I've added 1 first and 2 second sources on this topic of the Ripu- or Ripa- name, when working on the Ripuarian Frank stub. Although not given "primary source" respect, one of the secondary sources did send me in its footnotes to a Latin primary source of 5th century where I found them in a "primary" source listed as the Riparii. (In Latin, I think the "ii's" mean plural people. Later it seems to become the "Ripuarian". To be exact I don't know if you would say it was either "Germanized", "Franconized" or "Anglicized". (... & Too bad we can't use Johanthon's most commendable original research above about the Broek...) Goldenrowley 00:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular opinion

the phrase "Contrary to popular opinion" in the first section is argumentative and unencyclopedic in tone. Whose opinion? It doesn't say. So this non-notable opinion becomes a straw man to argue against. Can we do away with this phrase whereever it occurs, unless notable and encyclopedic? User:Pedant 76.95.104.7 (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like this was taken out of context. Amongst the Franks there was no clear distinction between just these two groups. Instead there were many tribes that can be considered Frankish. As mentioned in this very article, the Salian Franks are originally considered a subgroup themselves, like the Chamavi. Since this article is about the Salian Franks in particular, I feel it can do without that particular phrase. Dæron (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salian Franks and the Zuydersea

The Zuydersea did not exist until the High Middle Ages. During the Frankish migration the area was occupied by the Lacus Flevo, a lake containing fresh or only mildly brackish water. The etymological connection of Salii and Salland with the "Salty" coast of the Zuydersea must therefore be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.17.64.236 (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I notice a source mentioned but it just says "Perry". Anyone know what that means?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this one (seems quite an old one):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perry does not even mention the theory, only the river theory, so I will remove it and fix the source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Franks were Salians. Sea-faring Salians? Clovis King of the Salians?

I find reference to sea faring Salians a bit hard to follow. How are we sourcing this? We seem to also even associate them with eastern Europe? Maybe the sources we are using did not specifically mention Salians? Similar concern with the various parts of the article where we treat use the word Salians to refer to the later Merovingians. I also already removed a remark implying that Salians were the early Dutch! We should not be using sources about Franks, Merovingians, Dutch etc and equating those things to Salians.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I've restored the map that shows the Franks moving from (i) Betuwe throuh (ii) Toxandria to (iii) Tournai/the Somme. Yes, it is in French. Yes, it could be better. It could actually show them in Toxandria (the map that did that was removed recently). It probably should say "300" for their residence in Betuwe. It helpfully shows the Rhenish Franks. It is much better than a map of Germany that has the word "Salii" on it and an arrow pointing to the Rhine at the very edge of the page. See Alain Dierkens and Patrick Périn, "The 5th-Century Advance of the Franks in Belgica II: History and Archaeology", in Essays on the Early Franks, for support for this maps understanding of the whereabouts of the Salian Franks. Srnec (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who originally reverted the change. No problem with the map being French as such, but saying that the Salians moved into this one specific area around Tournai is not a consensus as I understand it. I realize it is a proposal of some authors. Effectively this is the proposal where the late Salians equal the early Merovingians, right? The problem is that there is no known description of any Salian kingdom's bounds, and also the exact bounds of the early Merovingians are not undisputed. Can you maybe adjust the wording to accurately reflect the fact that it only one proposal? The map which was removed focused more on the known homeland. What we do know from late classical sources is that the Salians first probably settled in Toxandria, which is an area you show as NOT having been a place they lived. Come to think of it, don't the two maps show different things? Why not have both? (But note my proposal to use more cautious wording.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the other map and expanded the captions to correspond to what I (think I) know. If you think the description in either caption is contentious, you'll have to point me to other sources with other theories. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wish I had more time for it. :) Just in case it helps I believe an example of an historian who questions the idea of the Salian Franks becoming the Merovingians, and moving in steady progression to the area you give, is Guy Halsall.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no sourcing at all for any of the parts of the article which equate the Salians with the Merovingians, as if the two words were interchangeable. They weren't. The Salians were one of the groups of early Franks. They moved into Batavia and then to Toxandria. The relationships between those various early groups and the later Merovingians is debated, and not likely to be simple. The Merovingians are first recorded in the area of Paris and the Loire as a group clearly associated with the Roman military. They pushed northwards from there, taking over the older areas where the Franks, their relatives presumably, had settled much earlier. This eventually needs cleaning up. I've mentioned Halsall as a source above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I did a lot of rearranging and cutting because the article had lots of duplication and was weighed down by stuff not specific to the Salians. But it's still badly organized. I tried to streamline "Origins and early history" and "History", but the order of presentation made no sense and still doesn't (to me). Srnec (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salian_Franks