Talk:Austrasia

Untitled

Not trying to be a pain, but DW created this, I think -- could someone look at this picture copyright infor. I'll check tomorrow, but it looks very much IIRC like one in Hollister's history of Medieval Europe -- the fonts are not very common. Like I said, I'll check, but it would be good to make sure. JHK

Looks a lot like this one, with the major areas re-labeled. Don't know the copyright status on it though. Hephaestos

A scan from an old edition of Bulfinch? - don't see it in my reprint copy though. The map's style is old-fashioned, could easily be pre-1923. In any case, it's not a particularly good map, we should try to do better. (A sign of Wikipediholism: I was browsing old maps in a bookshop last week, with an eye to good candidates for scanning... :-) ) Stan 12:30 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I looked at that map, and I'm now almost positive it's from Hollister. I'm in the office now, but will check when I get home. I also e-mailed the webmaster for the Bullfinch site, asking if they could let us know the copyright status. JHK

I checked Hollister, and it's quite similar, but not the same. I'm also going to check my copy of EInhard, but have more hopes that we'll find out something from Bullfinch. As far as I can tell, though, it's nothing to do with a particular edition of Bullfinch, though. JHK

The article says: "After the death of the Frankish king Clovis I in 511, his kingdom was partitioned among his four sons, Theuderic I receiving Austrasia."

I wonder if this is not misleading as it sounds as though Austrasia already existed during the reign of Clovis. To the best of my knowledge, in 511, when Clovis' kingdom was divided among his four sons, it created four political units, made up of the Kingdoms of Reims, Orléans, Paris and Soissons. In 561, another division was made, and when one of the four kings died in 567, yet another partition created Austrasia from the Kingdom of Reims, Neustria from the Kingdom of Soissons, and Burgundy from the Kingdom of Orléans. Triton 13:21 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I believe you are correct in this. At least my historical dictionary (dtv-Atlas der Weltgeschichte) words it this way, and the terms Austrasia and Neustria are not used until 561. -- djmutex 13:35 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Excuse me again, please -- As to the old fashioned hand-drawn map creation, it seems to look like a touched-up version from Bullfinch, 1913 if memory serves me correct. I think I may have seen variations of this in several places. But, we should wait for Ms. JHK. Thank you, and may the Prophet bless your good efforts. Triton 13:31 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr.djmutex, sir. I was only shooting off the top of my head (plus I am not a qualified historian) so didn't want to change the article without any sort of proper information to back it up. I'll reword it shortly and maybe see if I can find a little more about this when I get the chance. Thank you for your assistance, sir. Have a joyous visit at Wikipedia. Triton 13:41 31 May 2003 (UTC)

The article refers to the Merovingians but the map clearly shows regions like Bavaria already under Frankian rule. Isn't this a bit of an anachronism? I think the map is more Karolingian than Merovingian. That also affects the definition of Austrasia. I dont think it stretched as far east in Merovingian times. af:Gebruiker:Jcwf

Don't know if it helps, but as far as the Bavarians are concerned, we're pretty sure that by the end of the Merovingian period the dukes were Franks.JHK

Maybe I'm daft to reply to a 12-year-old thread. But, if it would help, I could put the maps at http://www.maproom.org/00/08/present.php?m=0020 onto commons. The last two insets show borders for Austrasia, in 561 and 587. Maproom (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"east"?

"Austria" may indeed be connected to "east", but this is less than obvious. If it does, some linguistic explanation is needed. The name would be practically Common Germanic, *Austro-. In Latin, it doesn't mean anything like "east" but much rather "south" (as in australis). --dab (𒁳) 15:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the Franks were Germanic --82.47.43.217 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Austria" is a corruption of that country's German name, Österreich, which certainly does mean Eastern land. I don't really see where Latin comes into the matter.74.101.26.69 (talk)

Agreed - this is a latinisation of Ēostre, a dawn deity that denotes the East. "Etymology: Ēostre derives from Proto-Germanic *austrō, ultimately from a PIE root *au̯es-, "to shine" and closely related to the name of the dawn goddess, *h2ausōs, whence Greek Eos, Roman Aurora and Indian Ushas." 128.250.5.247 (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And where the Dawn comes from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Better Map

It would be nice if a better map could be found. The current map is clearly wrong, since the current Flanders, Hainaut, Nord and Picardy were Salian and thus part of Neustria, while the current Gelderland, Overijssel en Drenthe were Saxon, and thus not part of Austrasia. Regards JRB-Europe (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

ei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.97.114 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually I believe you'll find maps which both include and do not include the first region you mention, because it is not certain (Belgica secunda). It seems you are equating Neustria to the area covered by Salian law, and this makes some sense. Perhaps someone should make a map where this section is shown as uncertain. In general making maps for this period is a challenge and it would be great if someone could develop some clear ways to show uncertainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Did it really stretch to the coast, through the future county of flanders?

This came up concerning the map, in discussion above, long ago. I have been looking on and off, ever since. Apart from a few such maps, all the evidence I keep finding seems to indicate that the Silva carbonaria was seen as the boundary. Ulrich Nonn's Pagus und Comitatus gives a literature review and shows medieval examples of it being used this way. So does anyone have any evidence at all for the question in this section title?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Quote from Nonn p.229, after having mentioned how Clovis was recorded as having the forest as his border with the Cologne franks (until he conquered them): Diese Auffassung des Kohlenwaldes als Grenze Austrasiens spiegelt sich auch noch in späteren Quellen. So schreibt der Lütticher Kanoniker Nikolaus (1. Hälfte XII. Jahrhundert) in seiner Bearbeitung der Vita Landiberti: Austria dicebatur ea pars regni Francorum, que a Burgundia usque in mare Fresonum extenditur et hinc Reno, illinc silva Carbonaria seu Argonaria concluditur. Mit unzeitgemäẞen Ausdrücken umreiẞt im XI. Jahrhundert die Vita s. Evermari die Ausdehnung Austrasiens zur Zeit Pippins d. M.: Germaniae monarchiam, a silva Carbonaria usque Rhenum, et a Mosa usque Mosellam. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the map seems to show Austrasia stretching too far west beyond the Meuse, but if not there then where usque in mare Fresonum extenditur? This map would seem to be equally deficient. I see that Droysens does not even attempt to draw the Austrasian–Neustrian border, although he is unclear about the Rhine–Meuse–Scheldt delta after 587. This map, if you look at the inset for the partition of 625, seems to align somewhat with the map we are discussing, since it makes the northeast of Neustria part of Dagobert I's kingdom. James Birchall, "French Frontiers", pp. 250–51 and map, makes the Scheldt the boundary and includes the delta, very similar to this map. Page 259 (PDF) of this source refers to the border shifting west from the forest to the Scheldt, citing Nonn. Srnec (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am presuming that the challenge here is coming from lots of books and maps published which discuss the kingdoms of specific kings at specific times - such as Dagobert. As I understand it, Austrasia was a more or less fixed geographical concept, but at any particular time it could be chopped up into pieces or have bits added to it. It does not seem Wikipedia is explaining it this way and this might be because of misunderstandings among our editors (and maybe even some authors)? (Or perhaps I am the one misunderstanding.)

Concerning the Scheldt, this is not so different from the quotes I found mentioning the Silva Carbonaria. It would mean the forest itself, and a bit extra, went to Austrasia. This makes it a bit bigger than the old Germania Inferior, but is in effect the same as the later Lotharingian boundary, giving the Frankish Franks the old civitas of the Nervians. That became a very long-term boundary. The Scheldt had been a civitas boundary in Roman times and I understand all these entities were developed with those in mind, because they were the established ways of carving up the country, and also connected to the church jurisdictions. (In the church Reims kept jurisdiction over Cambrai even though it was in the Ottonian empire.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way I think there is no complete consensus about the boundaries north of the Scheldt, not even in Roman times. Between the Rhine and Maas at least was Germania Inferior, but between the Maas and Antwerp... I have seen it argued that Germania (and later Frisia) stretched approximately as far south as the modern Netherlands/Belgium border.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)