# Talk:Charlemagne

The old version claimed Charlemagne was born in Aachen, Germany or Herstal (in present-day Belgium), which was contrary to the current Wikipedia page, whereas the Frankish palaces in Vaires-sur-Marne and Quierzy have also been proposed as possible birthplaces in the current version.  Alleged editor (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The current version takes into consideration the latest scholarship, instead of solely relying on much older works. --Obenritter (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
In fact, the | version from before I started my rewrite made the claim of Aachen or Herstal (along with Quierzy and Prüm) with no citation. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

What is the source for the name pronunciation? I feel like it is wrong - the original french pronunciation does not end in "main" but in something closer to "ma-nie". I don't know the rules about default pronunciation on Wikipedia (do we take that of original language or wiki language?), so this might be the english vernacular pronunciation - but even if it is the case, I don't think you're supposed to say "charle-main" in english? DommageCritique (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello! The pronunciation is indeed the correct one for how Charlemagne is pronounced in English. Pronunciation guides on English-language Wikipedia usually take into account the English pronunciation of the article subject (if and when an established English one exists), and relevant pronunciations in other languages, such as a modern non-English speaking person's name pronunciation in their language. Rudde99 (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I am wondering what happened to the extra details on the campaigns [[1]] of Charlemagne. I believe that we should bring back the sections of the campaigns. Or at the very least have subsections. I do not believe that Seltaeb Eht getting rid of the sections had merit. Zman19964 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I think you'll find that, after the reorganization of the article, the same information is present. However, it is organized chronologically rather than topically - i.e., rather than narrating all wars against the Saxons at once, and then those geographically near it (an odd structure), these events come up chronologically as they come up in Charles' life - a more appropriate structure for a biography. The old structure of the article caused the timeline to constantly jump back and forth, making it difficult to construct and follow the biography of the person the article is about. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly with Seltaeb Eht here. A chronological structure for a biography offers several advantages over a thematic approach, particularly when the goal is to trace historical development, preserve narrative integrity, and foster contextual understanding. First, chronology enables the preservation of causality by situating events in their actual temporal sequence, allowing readers to see how early experiences influenced later actions. This reinforces a realistic sense of progression and embeds the subject within their historical milieu. Hermione Lee notes in Biography: A Very Short Introduction that such a structure helps readers grasp the evolution of identity over time, offering a more nuanced view of the subject’s transformation across life stages. From a methodological standpoint, chronology aligns closely with the documentary record; primary sources are produced sequentially, and organizing them accordingly preserves evidentiary transparency.--Obenritter (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The article currently states that Charlemagne was known to contemporaries as Karlus in the Old High German he spoke. This claim is sourced to Janet Nelson's King and Emperor, but it strikes me as dubious. According to Wiktionary, the OHG form of the name was the same as the modern form: Karl. Where is the Latinate ending coming from? Zacwill (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary isn't a source. Janet Nelson is. I wrote a little bit about what she and Becher each discuss here. We need to report what our reliable sources do. I also lay out my entirely OR opinion on what I think is going on there, but that's not really releveant for the article. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Becher's notion that the true etymon is Hariolus (which apparently originated with a scholar named Henning Kaufmann) is dismissed by Germanische Altertumskunde Online as "hardly tenable". GAO has no doubt that the name derives from the word karl, meaning "man" (see this entry also), but unfortunately it does not explicitly state that Charlemagne would have been known to his contemporaries as Karl. I still find Karlus dubious. Zacwill (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
I share your notion that it doesn't seem quite right, but I don't know that that's grounds to consider it dubious unless we have another source that call it into doubt. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
By which I mean - the only source I've been able to find that explicitly says "Charlemagne was known as ________ in German" is Nelson. On the flipside, I don't know that Nelson has any specialization in German linguistics, and as it's in the introduction to the book it isn't footnoted. It's a difficult issue. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
There's no reason—considered the period of Charlenmagne's life—to be surprised that there was a Latinate version of his name among people other than the Germanic tribesmen themselves. For instance, we know for sure he is referred to in some period sources as rex Carolus (St. Giles' Vita for example), so an abbreviated Karlus is not a leap. To this end, he is referred to as Karlus in a fifteenth-century work. [See: Hafner, Susanne. "Charlemagne’s Unspeakable Sin." Modern Language Studies 32, no. 2 (2002): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/3252039 (pages 1 and 10)].  There's also a medieval coin bearing the inscription DNKARLVSIMPAVGRFETL, which stands for the title Dominus Karlus imperator augustus rex Francorum et Langobard [COUPLAND, SIMON. “Carolingian Single Finds and the Economy of the Early Ninth Century.” The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) 170 (2010): 287–319. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42678894 (see page 311)] Such evidence indicates to me that whether Nelson is a Germanic linguistics specialist or not, her contention is not unfounded. --Obenritter (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
The question isn't whether the form Karlus existed, it's whether it was used in Old High German (or whatever you want to call the Germanic dialect that Charlemagne spoke). Zacwill (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
From the numismatic evidence, there's no reason to suppose it's entirely unfounded. Whether or not we can actually know this is another matter. If you find a source that outright refutes it, add the commentary accordingly.  Ermenrich if you are free, can you check around on this matter? D.H. Green does not mention this anywhere in the sources that I have and I've neither read as much of the Germanische Altertumskunde Online recently as you,  nor am I up on Germanic linguistics to your degree. I only know the modern Germanic languages (aside from some rudimentary Gothic from my research in Late Antiquity), but I know your expertise is much more extensive than mine. Any thoughts?--Obenritter (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
My first reaction is that the idea that Charlemagne was called "Karlus" in Old High German is more than dubious - words ending in -us are Latin, not Old High German. I don't think that Charlemagne himself is referenced in any Old High German texts, but Charles the Bald is attested in the Strasbourg Oaths as "Karl" in Old High German. Karlus appears there to, but in Proto-Old French. So my conclusion is that Nelson identified that form as the wrong language and extrapolated that Charlemagne's name would be the same - which is also not certain, since then why is his name always "Carolus" with an extra syllable in Latin? Language changes over time.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Seltaeb Eht - Given the feedback provided by both Zacwill and Ermenrich, I think you should probably omit/delete Nelson's observations. While I think it possible such a form may have existed, it is probably less likely and that Nelson was in error. It's not like it's well-supported anywhere else.--Obenritter (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
It would be better if we could replace Karlus with a more accurate reconstruction of Charlemagne's Frankish/German name, but unfortunately, there seem to be few or no sources that address this. Zacwill (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Zacwill From what I have researched on this, you seem 100 percent correct; in that, there is no well-attested or widely accepted form of Charlemagne’s name in the Frankish vernacular preserved in any contemporary source—nor has any major modern philologist formally published a definitive version of it as it would have been spoken in Old Frankish. Einhard’s Vita Karoli Magni (early 9th century), the most intimate biography of Charlemagne, never names him in Frankish—only in Latin: Karolus (subject) or Karolum (object). Dennis H. Green, in Language and History in the Early Germanic World, discusses Frankish naming practices and confirms the usage of Karl as a Germanic name of widespread nobility, but this is not definitive either. While Rolf Bergmann and Stefan Sonderegger, in studies of Old High German and early Germanic anthroponymy, confirm that Karl derives from karilaz, common across early West Germanic dialects, they offer no clear statement on the matter either. In the end, I think it best to omit Nelson's potentially erroneous suggestion and leave this aspect of the article out until a scholar with the appropriate linguistic background mentions it. --Obenritter (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I removed it. I wouldn't be the only small error in Nelson's otherwise great book. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Seltaeb Eht We all agree that the late Janet Nelson's biography on Karl der Große is great, just cleaning up a small error. Your work on this article has been spectacular IMHO. --Obenritter (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Giving Charlemagne's Romance and Latin names while ignoring the language he spoke natively strikes me as somewhat unbalanced, but there isn't much we can do about that without sources. Zacwill (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
To be fair, he probably spoke an early form of Old French too. It's only the reign of his grandsons when the Strasbourg Oaths are sworn bilingually - with the "Germans" swearing in Proto-Old French and the "French" swearing in Old High German (rather than in the native language of their half of the empire).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)