Talk:Charlemagne/Archive 1

message: Two things -- is there any copyright on the picture, and shouldn't it say something like "statue of Charlemagne in ... dated .."? JHK
:Partly done. I've added "19th century" but a more exact date would be welcome. --Wetman 09:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image 

message: Only a small part of the monogram displayed on the page is actually autograph: viz. the V-shaped mark in the central diamond (appearing in red in the picture below). The rest of the royal monogram used to subscribe solemn charters was previously drawn by a scribe of the imperial chancery. An Henskridonier Kuzh
--------
The portrait of Charlemagne that is shown on a link from the article, isn't necesserily true. In Einhart's Vita caroli Magni, chapter 22, he is described from Einhart's point of view, meeting Charlemagne at his older days. Therefore Einhard says "canitie pulchra" when describing his hair, which meens "beautiful white hair (from age)" which has been translated to blond or fair in the translations, altough the latin word for blond is "flavus" (not subflavus as caesar Augustus' hair according to Suetonius, see the reconstruction of the pigmentation at Glyptoteket, Copenhagen, ClassiColor), and "rutilo", (red, golden, auburn) the word Tacitus uses for the Germans' hair (Charlemagne is often said to be of German decendance). Altough there aren't anything at all that says so, a lot of people think that Charlemagne was blond, and that his descendants should be so too. Claiming that these historical heroes were blond is a part of racistic propaganda. (Anon. user)
*Vita Caroli Magni in Latin 
* "Canities" in a dictionary
:I've entered the neutral factual statements among those above into the entry. --
Wetman
-i heard Charlemagne liked men
Charlemagne was a very loving husband and he has may wifes.
He was a very loving father especially with his daughters.
At the begginng of the Charlemagene ruling the church was not involved in marriages as is today. Charlemagene himself was not from a "legal" marriage.CristianChirita
----
I changed back the references to Pippin, because we went over this a long time ago, and Pippin is the more often-used English spelling.  It used to be that English-speaking historians used the French spellings, but that isn't so much the case any more JHK
Ah. I nearly changed that back to Pepin, but I guess I'll leave it now. -Mareth
IMO, Pepin is preferable to Pippin (calling him what he was really called is important, I think, though a reference to his real name on his own page *may* suffice, since we want the 'pedia to be accessible, too, where readers find what they're looking for when and where they look for it (the Occam's Razor/Ockham's Razor article comes to mind, with its extensive discussion on the topic).  But much more important than the Pepin/Pippin difference is that he be called "the Younger" not "the Short."  This is a common mistranslation, as is explained on the Pippin the Younger page (where Pippin the Short redirects).  Happy editing!  --216.20.219.65 22:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlemagne's "autograph" 

message: Removed from the account of Harun al-Rashid's gift:
: Some of the details of this gift baffle modern day scholars.  (See Charlemagne's Elephant.)  However, modern day Revisionists speculate a theory to explain the ambiguities.  (See Origins of chess and Great Pyramid of Giza: Labor for details.)  From the evidence presented, if the modern day Revisionistic theories prove to be correct, Charlemagne may have been clandestinely involved in something more than previously historically speculated.
What details baffle modern scholars and how? What are the ambiguities? What do these revisionists (who are they, by the way?) postulate as explanation? How does this relate to the origins of chess and the Great Pyramid of Giza? What was Charlemagne supposedly involved in? This is all terribly vague. . . —Charles P. (Mirv) 12:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the elephant 

message: You may want to have a look at the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia. Revised in its entirety recently, it'll give you a lot of additional information and stimulus as well as hints on how to improve the English article that is--sorry to state this quite frankly--rather poor and inadequate. (German user: Wolpertinger)
----
WTF?  What happened to this?  it used to be a decent article, and now it's totally full of pseudohistorical crap???  JHK 04:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which revision would you recommend reverting to? Stbalbach 05:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested: revision of this article 

message: Did Charlemagne use the titles Kaisar (Caesar) or Augustus? --Tokle 19:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Going back 40 generations, one has 240 ancestors.  Plenty of room for everyone to be descended from both Charlemagne and everyone else living in Europe at that time. john k 07:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: but, of course, you don't have anywhere near that many, due to intermarriage. Arniep 12:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaisar 

message: Why is the Norwegian form of his name listed?  I understand the German, Dutch, and Latin.  I understand why the French is not listed (it being the same as the English), but Italian would be more useful than Norwegian, since he actually ruled there. Srnec 04:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegian? 

message: Who the heck in Coo Sheba? I have never ever heard of her before. Anybody who knows just say so right here.
:its sneaky vandalism. Thanks Arniep 01:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New wife? 

message: After spending the last year researching this subject for a book I'm involved with, along with several other medieval subjects (not just the internet, but library references in the US, UK and France as well), I can only say there seems to be a fair amount of confusion about Charlemagne's children, both legitimate and otherwise, as to just who their mothers were.  So far my research has revealed the following "family" created by Charles The Great in his lifetime, and it must have been quite a life with a lotta free time, 'cause this guy definitely got around... and he did it all 12 centuries before Viagra.
Charlemagne(744-814), by the age of 70, had 4 sons & 5 daughters from 5 wives. He also had at least 3 sons & 2 daughters from at least 4 concubines, with conflicting historical sources claiming anywhere from 8 to 30 more illegitimate children, from 8 additional concubines!
**Update #1 - Changed appearance of wives and concubines to correspond with the date of each child's birth, so that their involvement with Charlemagne, makes better sense.
        Wife #1 Himiltrude (married 766, was never "officially" annulled)
                Son(s): 1) Pepin the Hunchback (767-811)
        Wife #2 Desiderata (married 768, annulled by Pope 771)
        Concubine #1 Gersuinda
           Daughter(s):	1) Adaltrud (774-??)
        Concubine #2 Madelgard
           Daughter(s): 2) Ruodhaid, Abbess of Faremoutiers (775-810)
        Wife #3 Hildegard (758–784, age 26, married 771 for 13 years)
                Son(s): 2) Charles (778-811, age 33)
                        3) Pepin or Carloman (780–810, age 30)
                                Married:        Bertha De Toulouse (777-??)
                                (When Carloman dies in 810, Charlemagne adopts
                                 each grandchild as one of his own children.)
                                Grandson:       Bernard (797-818)
                                Granddaughters: Adelaide
                                                Atula
                                                Guntrada
                                                Berthaid
                                                Theoderada
                        4) Louis (783–840, age 57)
           Daughter(s): 3) Hruodrud (777-777, died at birth)
                        4) Bertha (779-823, age 44)
                        5) Gisela (781-808, age 27, named after sister)
        Wife #4 Fastrada (??-794, married 784 for 10 years)
           Daughter(s): 6) Theoderada, Abbess of Argenteuil (784-??)
                        7) Hiltrud (787-??)
        Wife #5 Liutgard (??-800, married 794 for 7 years, died childless)
        Concubine #3 Regina
                Son(s): 5) Drogo, Bishop of Metz (801-??)
                        6) Hugh, Abott of St. Quentin (802-??)
        Concubine #4 Ethelind
                Son(s): 7) Theodoric (807-??)
:Added this information. Srnec 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to Charlemagne's wives and children 

message: I am restructuring this article and increasing the information greatly.  Currently, the sections of cultural significance and administration need work.  A section should be added about his character. Srnec 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice job, btw Jrenier 11:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring and additional info 

message: I added the German name "Karl der Große" to the top of the article, because I think that the Franks should not be confused with the French, as could easily be done by only giving the French/English name. The mentioning of the German name should emphasise that both countries, France and Germany, see Charlemagne as one of their forefathers. MikeZ 09:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only English and Latin names are given at the top of the page.  Other important versions appear in the footnotes.  In English, his common name (Charlemagne) just so happens to be his common name in French.  Furthermore, far more countries than just France and Germany could consider Charlemagne a founder: Belgium, for one; Switzerland, for two.  He was also king of Italy and he ruled over all of what is today Andorra and the Netherlands.  He was a ruler in part of what is modern Spain and his conquest of Catalonia is really the "founding" of that region as independent culturally from the rest of Spain or France.  Finally, his German name is no more special than his name in any of these lands, though it is important enough to be mentioned, hence the footnote.  I hope this justifies to you my reversion of your edit and a subsequent one.  Srnec 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I still disagree.  The footnote explains it all.  You do not explain the specialness of Germany well.  Why not Italian or Spanish or Catalan (which I think I explained owes as much to Charlemagne as any other language for its separate existence)?  Furthermore, you removed the alternative spelling of his Latin name, which removal was unnecessary.  I think the addition of the German name is more agenda-driven than anything.  It appears in the footnote and no other language (not French Charles le Grand) but Latin is mentioned at the article's beginning. Finally, Charlemagne is his English name, it just so happens to be identical to his main French name. I will remove the German from the top of the page unless its existence there is more well justified. Srnec 04:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Charlemagne should be considered his English name in an English article.  It just so happens that the close relation between English and French means that the common name in both languages is identical.  He did not speak modern German, however.  Nor did he speak modern English or French or any other modern language.  His name is recorded in charters and chronicles and in other writings as Carolus Magnus or Karolus Magnus: the Latin.  This is why only the Latin (asides, obviously, the English) appeared at the top of the page.  And again, why not present the Italian, Catalan, or Dutch form?  The German name should appear both with ß and ss in the footnote, but not at the top of the article.  I don't know what his name is in his language (Old Frankish), but it would be so obscure to any reader as to be unnecessary as well.  Even if Charlemagne stands more specially at the head of the Holy Roman Empire than of Catalonia, the Holy Roman Empire was not, in any way, a specifically German-speaking nation.  I still advocate the removal of the German name from the opening paragraph and the re-addition of Karolus, otherwise there is no logic for denying or reverting the addition of the Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Catalan, or Frisian translation (which is all the German name is, like the English "Charles the Great").  Srnec 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Srnec that we should not add all kinds of translations. This being an English encyclopedia, the English should be in there. In this case, the latin use of the name should also be in there since that is the name on the 9th centuries documents. Another good argument is that modern German did not exist in the 9th century, making the choice of modern German as arbitrary as any other Germanic version (Dutch, Frisian, Danish). Arnoutf 22:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, IMHO the amount of speakers of German vs the other Germanic languages/dialects you mentioned does make a difference, don't you think?
A second thought, just a little bit out of context: I once heard that the word for king in many Slavic languages derived from the German name "Karl" of Charlemagne (Czech: král, Slovenian: kralj, Polish: król et al.) - Does anybody know if that's true? MikeZ 17:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In regards to the above comments: the page Carl (name) says nothing of Slavic words for king, though I think MikeZ is correctly informed on that point (I've have heard it from many sources).  As regards the inclusion of the German name (which I still intend to change back): the number of speakers of a given language should not decide whether or not that form (or translation, as the German name is) of the name should appear at the top of the page in preference to other translations or forms.  I have tried to show that, culturally, the Catalan form is as important as the German.  I say let's not open up a can of worms by subjectively added the German translation just because their are many German scholars (and Wikipedia contributors) who have studied Charlemagne, in contrast to the number of, say, Catalan scholars.  Finally, the info about the Slavic words for king could be added in a footnote as well.  Srnec 04:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I will just say this: why is his founding of an emprie (much later called the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) more important than his position in the founding of Catalonia and in his effect, historically, on France?  Neither the Catalan nor the French appear at the top of the page.  Srnec 23:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German name "Karl der Große" 

message: In the date of birth section, it gives the fact that his parents married in 749 and that there is no evidence he was born out of wedlock as evidence against his being born in 742.  However, all the other dates mentioned are also before 749.  Is this maybe a typo?  Otherwise, this statement makes little sense. Grokmoo 20:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  That made no sense at all.  I don't know how I missed it.  Charlemagne's parents were married in 740 and nothing else in the paragraph suggests that Charlemagne's legitimacy has anything to do with the doubt cast upon the date of 742.  Fixed.  Srnec 22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth? 

message: Does the phantom time hypothesis and Heribert Illig really deserve mention in this article?  I will remove it without an adequate defence. Srnec 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phantom time 

message: Here's a question:
All of the articles of the Holy Roman Emperors are called "(ruler's name) (regnal number), Holy Roman Emperor". Since Charlemagne is considered the first Holy Roman Emperor in all accepted lists of Emperors...should this article be retitles as "Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor"?
-Alex, 12.220.157.93 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that would be unecessary for three reasons.  Firstly, he was never in fact titled Holy Roman Emperor, so he is only such in hindsight.  Secondly, he is so well known as Charlemagne that he is an exception to the rule (see Alexander the Great).  Thirdly and finally, it wouldn't be possible to do so easily since "Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor" is already an article edited three times.  Srnec 04:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retitle? 

message: The intro claims April 2, 742 or 747, while the 'date and place of birth' section says:
'The best guesses include April 1, 747, after April 15, 747, or April 1, 748...'
Why has April 2, 742 or 747 been decided upon in the intro? Ben davison 16:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to just say "742 or 747".  A while back, someone added Apr 2 on the basis of an online genealogy site.  I removed the site from "Sources" and amended the first paragraph. Srnec 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth...again 

message: "The brothers maintained not-so-friendly, not-so-hateful relations with the assistance of their mother Bertrada".  The phrase "not-so-friendly, not-so-hateful" seems a little unacademic.  I am all in favor of using accurate language, however sophisticated or unsophisticated, but would "lukewarm" convey the same meaning?
:Sounds good. Srnec 23:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  joint rule minor issue 

message: Since most of the text in this current version of the Charlemagne article is my own, I can verify that I used the Commonwealth spellings, including "organisation" and the like.  According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, spellings need not be one form or the other if both are legitimate, but they should be consistent.  Therefore, it is consistent only to spell the word with an "s" and not a "z." Srnec 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Organisation 

message: The tweaks of the edits by Cosal were minor, but I wanted to explain them. Firstly, I delinked thing already linked previously or where the linke provided no help to a reader (i.e. "count"). Secondly, I reinserted some phrases. The campaign of 776 was notable for the rapidity with which Charlemagne arrived on scene. The assaults on the church are an integral part of the revolt following 782's campaign. I changed "support" to "presence" to emphasise that the support was the actual presence of contingents in the field. Finally, there was a minor spelling corrections and a rewording to remove redundancy. Srnec 18:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent tweaks to Saxon campaigns 

message: Since it worked with the spelling of "organisation," I will explain why I keeping changing it back from "fall of the Roman Empire" to "fall of Rome." Firstly, what the fall of Rome (or the Roman Empire) is is debated. To link to the article opens up that debate to the reader. Secondly, it is more accurate. The Roman Empire in no way fell by Charlemagne's time. Rome, however, had. That is, the Eternal City had gone to the barbarians and thence to the popes, but it was hardly imperial and certainly no capital of state or culture. Srnec 04:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another explanation 

message: Substituted at 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment