Talk:Chlodio

Untitled

I'm thinking of a RADICAL change of this page and would like to know if there is an editor active of this page. Anyone? Johanthon 12:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, check the history who made importnat contributions. What do you think is wrong with this page? Tom Peters 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What I think is wrong is his birth date and his first appearance in history and of course the thing "semi-legendary" for he was not. Furthermore there are things like "castle rather than a village", Artois, Hesdin and "agressive". Needless to say that the tabel of the Merovingian kings is really full of errors.

Doubtfull are things like his date of death, Salian Franks (was he?), Pharamond, Argotta, Marcomer, "regrouped", Tournai, "ültimately created the country that is now France" (which was created by Carolingians after the death of Louis).

On top of that there are no sources used but internet and a context is completely missen. johanthon 14:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

This page is actually pretty good. The semi-legendary status fair. Gregory of Tours, the main source for him, is writing well over a hundred years later, and from dubious sources, its very difficult to argue anything more firmly. See Ian Wood's book The Merovingian Kingdoms, for more details.--Snozzbert12 16:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispargum = Duisburg ?

Please see: Talk:Duisburg#Dispargum_equals_Doesburgum_equals_Duisburg_.3F 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'm too lazy to add sources, but here are some below:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CSqu7yu4E30C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Chlodion%2B428&source=bl&ots=KjcfUXNDLA&sig=w7p-xEGutEEBEt3vS9hcFkaZxd4&hl=en&ei=8Y2TS7qHHoO1tgfT1OnUCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Chlodion%2B428&f=false

http://gw1.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=frebault&lang=fr;p=chlodion;n=de+toxandrie

http://www.suttonclonard.com/Z_DescendantsChlodionCheveludDesFrancs.htm

Ryoung122 11:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Myth versus Reality

The Pharamond story seems to be wholly fabricated...read it. Modern scholarly research suggests that Clodion did have a father, and it was not this. It appears that, contrary to the myth, there was a man who was a leader (chieftain) of a group of Salian Franks who proclaimed himself "king" after winning a battle against the Romans in 428.Ryoung122 11:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

More Sources

The "Stirnet" as a source, is problematic for a few reasons: Paid site, Annoying Navigation, Hard to read unless you turn all browser enhancements off (really, black text on a dark wood grain background?). but those are personal issues. This article is best pointed to some of the sources mentioned previously in this "talk" page, and here are some more to legitimize the data (all free to access online or your library):

http://books.google.com/books?id=XstBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA33&dq=CLodio+long+hair&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zy3pT9aLAfPq0QGm14S9DQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Clodio%20long%20hair&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=yrqeY839bMwC&pg=PA614&dq=CLodio+long+hair&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zy3pT9aLAfPq0QGm14S9DQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=CLodio%20long%20hair&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=n_NSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&dq=Clodius+of+the+salian+franks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjHpT-7xCojC0QGT04C2DQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Clodius%20of%20the%20salian%20franks&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=O-ZAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA59&dq=Clodius+of+the+salian+franks&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjHpT-7xCojC0QGT04C2DQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Clodius%20of%20the%20salian%20franks&f=false

Just my 2 cents Collision-Shift (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

addendum: searching around for the owner of stirnet and his credentials, i came across a post on another site regarding Stirnet (http://www.geni.com/discussions/64827):

Hello XXXX,

Thank you for your interest in Stirnet and for your courtesy in asking the question. I have no problem with people taking data from Stirnet as long as (as you appreciate) :credit is given should the amount taken be more than trivial. That is certainly acceptable. There are many subsites within ancestry.com and such, as well as independent sites, :which do that already. Indeed, one of the main purposes of the database is that people can use Stirnet to source (some of) their data rather than have to dig around :themselves. None of my data is 'original' (it would surely be questionable if it was!), it is just the database as a compilation that is copyrighted. I am pleased to say that :it appears that Stirnet is steadily obtaining a reputation for reliability but I must stress that no source is 100% reliable and that, in some of the pages in the database, I :have yet to find a 'good source' myself on the relevant families (something which is usually made clear on the page). However, I am steadily broadening the range of sources :that I use. My main problem is that it is such a huge project that I cannot do it all at once. It will keep me busy for years, which I view as no bad thing.

Yours truly,

Peter Barns-Graham

Also: from another post, same discussion site:

As Peter Barnes-Graham said in his e-mail to me (page 1 of this discussion) the information has been compliled from websites.

I do not begrudge Mr. Barnes-Graham his hobby, but he is not a historian, and his site is like many Genealogy sites, a compilation of already available information (a tertiary source if you will), and if this is a Suitable source, then what about similar sites like fabpedigree.com, geneajourney.com, or ThePeerage.com.

Primary and reliable Secondary sources should be used, just my thoughts. Collision-Shift (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree. Using secondary sources (somebody mentioned Ian Wood's book, for instance, or, for those who can read German, Eugen Ewig's "Die Merowinger und das Frankenreich") should suffice to reference this short article properly. Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Impossible

How can he have been king of the Salian Franks when he himself lived in Thuringia? That's impossible. The Salians lived way further west. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Lifespan of Chlodio

Hi everyone, just a random user (fairly new to Wikipedia) here. I am very interested in the Frankish Kings and would like to discuss the birth and death dates of Chlodio (said to be one of the first, and supposedly the grandfather of Childeric whom we have concrete evidence on his existence). Most sources say his birth date was 392/395,and his death is said by the source on the page on this said kingdom be after 450. However, by 451 we do know that the battle of Chalons took place and by then Merovech was in power (he was mentioned as one of the Kings who fought Atila). Would it be ok if I mention that he died around early 451 aged circa 59 or 56 (if we take 392/395 as his birth date)

Thanks PrinceofFrancia (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I recently looked into the question of what reliable sources really exist for such statements, and what I found was different. Merovech is not mentioned in any contemporary records I could find out, and serious historians do not claim he was. On Wikipedia those are the sources we should use. The first mention of him is by Gregory of Tours, who simply names him as a father of Childeric. He does not explain his exact relationship to Chlodio but only says people say they were related. (It makes sense to think Merovech and Childeric were not in the main line of the family because they were working in the Roman empire and only once Clovis became powerful did he start knocking off his cousins with the very noble blood.) Chlodio's birth and death dates are also unknown and can only be very roughly estimated. You may have found websites or popular books which tried to give a more exact story but these are basically just story telling, and not suitable for Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. But then again these sources don’t claim to be completely accurate. Like Merovech his supposed son would be born around 415, therefore Chlodio would be born around 20-25 years before that, which probably explains why people give his birthdate as 392. Also, being that he was dead by 451 and after 450, early 390s seems likely as a birthdate as he would be around 60 by his death and would be quite old already. I guess having a date with a circa would be good as people can tell we don’t have his birth date.

As for Merovech, it is true we don’t have sources on him confirming his existence..yet, unlike his supposed son Childeric or grandson Clovis who had to bump off cousins. So maybe we could just leave it that Merovech was Chlodios successor but we don’t know how they were related PrinceofFrancia (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But the very basic question is what published sources you can find. Please have a look around. Basically the magic trick of Wikipedia is that the editing idea is very simple so that everyone can more or less follow and create a serious reference source. That basic idea is that we just try to summarize what has been published by the best published sources, and NOT to go beyond them (except in terms of better presentation and explanation of course).

The best sources for Chlodio are the types of historians who all the other books cite, and those books tend to say something is uncertain when it is uncertain. What I think you'll find is that the types of books which make up dates in order to make the story easy to relate to are not the best ones or the most correct ones, and so they are not really the ones we would choose for making an encyclopedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I’ll make it a minor mission then, to hunt for such sources.

However, I don’t think the sources try to “make up a date” per se. It’s more like an estimate given what we know. We know that Clovis was born in 466 and his father around 440, so if we count back, having Chlodio born around 390 doesn’t seem a big leap. I think we just need an emphasis on circa being a rough approximate then;) PrinceofFrancia (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There might indeed be a way to write an estimate, making clear it is an estimate. But often people fail to write in this way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course the estimates should be from a reliable source, and if there are disagreements between sources we have to consider how to handle that in a balanced way. If there are disagreements between the best sources, then we report that "debate".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you think debating it among wikipedians would be good, which is more probable? PrinceofFrancia (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean to ask here. In any case debate without sources to discuss would be useless. Normally getting some good sources makes all discussion easier.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I know this is a bit late but I’ve found a journal article on frederick Hohenstaufen which talks a bit about Chlodio.

http://www.nobility-association.com/PDF%20Files/2%20TEST%20%20THE%20COURT%20OF%20%20FREDERICK%20II%20HOHENSTAUFEN%20BOOK-1.pdf

It says “Chlodio V, a Merovingian king,(390-450 approximately) was precisely named ‘le chevelu’”

On page 20 of 132

PrinceofFrancia (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

1. It appears to be someone's self-published book? 2. It also does not appear to be a book mainly about this subject, so that any comment about Chlodio is a side concern for it? 3. It also gives no sourcing information like good historical works do. 4. I also notice it calls him "Chlodio V", right in the same passage you want to use. But this shows clearly, as does the chevalu, that this work is not mainstream. (I've already looked through all the primary sources and many of the biggest name secondary comments on them. Anything that disagrees with those has to be looked at pretty critically.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Noted. Thanks for the assessment anyways:) cheers PrinceofFrancia (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

useful recentish source

https://www.academia.edu/16260039/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

vicus helena

new consideration on vicus helena pdf eric capron and to be done with vicus helena pdf eric capron 2A01:CB0C:308:9F00:B9E9:5D35:E1D:D930 (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)