Talk:Charlemagne

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Iv read lots of info that says that the big C carried the Lance of Longinus as his weapon and aparently he lost his first battle after dropping the lance int he river. I think it was the venice lance of longinus that he carried. I couldnt find any reference to this in the article, dont you think its kinda important seeing how he may of used a weapon that peirced a God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.24 (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Alpaida

Is there any possibility that Alpaida was born earlier than 794, perhaps closer to 775?
Odin of Trondheim (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth

The section on Charlemagne's date of birth discusses dates in 752 and 757, but the info box at the top right seems to be showing dates in the 740s. Which is supported by the evidence? EdChem (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been fixed. EdChem (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Obsession

Whoever it was who wrote this article on Charlemagne sure liked Einhard. o_O Snick! (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Einhard made the only contemporary account of him, just after his death. He was part of Charlemagne's court. Nokter the Stammerer wrote about him a few decades later. They are the only sources we have of the time period about him. Staples11 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While Einhard is undoubtedly one of the most important sources, he and Notker are not the only written primary sources for Charlemagne's life and reign. There are capitularies, for instance, which emanated from his chancery, and then there are chronicles, like the Reichsannalen. These are just two examples. Srnec (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Karl der Grosse

Charlemagne is a historical figure specific to the monarchies of France and Germany, so his German name should be included in the introduction. Charlemagne's Roman Empire soon became the Holy Roman Empire which was ruled by German monarchs continuously from Otto I in 962 until Franz II in 1806. It was a German empire in all but name until the 16th century when it was officially named the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. On German Wikipedia he is referred to as Karl I, der Grosse, meaning that Germans officially regard him as their first monarch. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Charlemagne is a pivotal historical figure to all of Western Europe - not just France and Germany. Will the Letzeburgish translation be added? Secondly, it doesn't matter what the Frankish Empire became, Charlemagne didn't rule it. George Washington came from Virginia, but nobody's going to describe him as first President of the Confederacy. Thirdly, it wasn't a German Empire in all but name - just ask the Flemish, Swiss, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Danes, etc. etc. Forthly, Henry the Navigator was never king of England to my knowledge, but this is how the English-language Wikipedia refers to him. Fifthly, this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the German, or the Dutch, Lezteburgish, Danish, etc. etc. Sixthly, we've been over this already. Slac speak up! 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire was a German empire ruled by German emperors from beginning to end, and Charlemagne was Karl I, der Grosse, of the Holy Roman Empire. Are you going to remove Pyotr Velikiy from the Peter the Great article for example? --Hereward77 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply not true. Charlemagne was not a German, and did not speak German. The Russian language (and Russia) at least existed during the lifetime of Peter the Great. Slac speak up! 09:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He didn't speak German? Surely that is wrong. (Obviously, he didn't speak modern German, but he spoke a Germanic dialect). john k (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what harm would come from including his German name in the article. john k (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In the simplest possible terms: the problem is that it's an anachronism. We don't know what Charlemagne's native language was, whether it was Frankish or Old Low Franconian; either way, it wasn't the ancestor of Modern Standard German. We might as well give Henry VIII's name in Dutch and say it was close enough. And to reiterate for the Nth time, Germans aren't the only people who claim heritage from Charlemagne: why are they, and not any one of half a dozen other peoples, singled out in the opening sentence of the article? Slac speak up! 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have an argument here, Henry VIII wasn't king of Holland. Charlemagne was officially numbered Karl I of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation) and the Holy Roman Emperors named Karl were numbered after him. BTW, Germany was named by the Romans 2,000 years ago, and the Frankish people were from Germany. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", and we're talking about Charlemagne. You're obviously missing the point. And I don't really see what the Romans naming Germany 2000 years ago has to do with it. The Romans were surely not talking of the Germany as Charlemagne knew it. No, Charlemagne was never officially numbered Karl blablabla in his lifetime. He was crowned Carolus, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, period. This Empire became "of the Germans" 62 years after his death and is different of the Carolingian Empire, founded by Charles Martel. Slac has already answered your question. Anyway, I see there's an article about the names of Charlemagne, you should be happy, no ? Somwherelse 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.32.207.68 (talk)

Actually, he wasn't crowned Holy Roman Emperor at all - that title would not exist for centuries. Slac speak up! 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a very strong anti-German bias here. It doesn't seem to matter the Franks were a Germanic tribe, and that the Germanic tribes are the fore-fathers of the Germans (and French, btw). - History is written by the victor: Latin Proverb Barking1 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's strange, in the proper meaning of that word, that English Wikipedia uses the French Charlemagne rather than the established Charles the Great or the documented Latin Carolus Magnus. I'm adding Karl der Große to the intro, and the etymology of the name, found at Churl. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

pretty sick all the arguments that are being brought up against Karl der Große could be also applied against Charlemagne. I mean it would be more logical to defend Charles the Great against Charlemagne and Karl der Große. But Charlemagne yes, Karl der Große not? That´s stupid. Why don´t you move it to Charles the Great and include his German and French name in the introduction? Everybody would be happy.--Tresckow (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Charlemagne" is his English name, see the English literature. The French and English conventions are the same. "Charlemagne" is not modern French for "Charles the Great", that would "Charles le Grand". Srnec (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, "Charlemagne" is his French name. He's called that in English-language popular writing . . . but the more scholarly sources generally refer to him as "Charles I." Personally, I would prefer that. It feels very peculiar to be talking about the early life of Charles "the Great" -- the implication being that he was born great. Also, referring to Charles (and the language he spoke) as either "French" OR "German" is entirely anachronistic. He was a Frank and he spoke Frankish. He would not be easily understood by modern Frenchmen or Germans. Most of the above arguments bickering is therefore a pointless exercise in nationalistic jingoism. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

i dont get the anti-German argument here. I get that he a is a figure head of Western Europe as a whole and thats fine but that would only validate an arguement to include his name in all of western Europe's languages not just French and Latin. He is very clearly an important figure in German history and it is actually very clear that the language of choice for the ruling class of the Frankish Kingdom, aside from Latin, is a GERMANIC, Old Frankish language. Now this is not modern German of course but i dont see what the big deal is about adding it in German afterall there are many articles on wikipedia that put what would probably be considered by those arguing against "Karl der Große" unnecessary languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacman7922 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We just don't need more clutter in the lead, that's all. The fact is, the German name is never seen in English literature, so there is no need to familiarise the English reader with it. If the English reader is going to read about Charlemagne in German, he might as well go to the German Wiki. The French name just happens, because of history, to be the English name. The Latin name is included because one is likely to encounter it in the English literature and it is the origin of his English name (Carolus Magnus → Charlemagne). Srnec (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is to be done the same way as it is in the other articles of the like, a French rendition of the pronunciation must be given, and the German name Karl der Große. The Franconian Empire was later divided into exactly two kingdoms, France, and Germany. It is inaccurate to call the Benelux States successors or Switzerland successors of this Empire, as they are successors of counties of these kingdoms, having become independent. I am not speaking of Italy, as it was indeed a somewhat independent part of the Holy Roman Empire, but then again, Charlemagne at least was a foreigner in Italy. Likewise, the question of Austria is one of its own (whether Germany or Austria is to be called successor of the German part of Charlemagne's Empire), but fortunately the Austrians speak German too. --84.154.98.67 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

i don´t get the point of the discussion. "We just don't need more clutter in the lead, that's all. The fact is, the German name is never seen in English literature, so there is no need to familiarise the English reader with it. <" (Srnec, 13.12.08) is this thing here an encyclopedia? why do you decide if there´s a need for that or not?

btw, take a look at the disambiguation for Charlemagne: People: - * Charles the Great, (742/747 – 814), King of the Franks

78.50.51.229 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the size of Charlemagne and the meaning of his epithet

I've just removed the following piece of dubious information from the article,

The Germanic variants (den Store, de Grote, de Grutte, der Große, and de Groussen) also refer to the fact that Charlemagne was tall (seven of his own feet, or 1.93 m (6 ft 4)).

Names of other Carolingian rulers also refer to their physical features. For example Pippin the Short, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, and Louis the Stammerer.

There also was a footnote to the first passage that run, Which means that Charlemagne had modern European shoe size 44 or American shoe size 10.

This information is questionable for several reasons (and therefore does not belong into the article):

• The information that Charlemagne was 1.93 m tall is outdated. It is derived from a measurement when Charlemagne's shrine in the cathedral of Aix-la-Chapelle was opened in the 19th century and his bones were measured. In the 20th century, the shrine of Charlemagne was again opened and his bones were measured again, but then, with improved forensic methods, it was discovered that he was "only" 1.82 m tall.

• Besides, the removed information mingled the first outdated measurement of Charlemagne's bones with a fact reported by Charlemagne's biographer Einhard, namely that Charlemagne was seven of his own feet tall (Einhard, Vita Karoli magni, chapter 22). Then to speculate in a footnote out of Einhard's "seven-feet"-remark combined with the outdated measurement what Charlemagne's shoesize might have been today is truly dubious and constitutes original research.

• Moreover, it is one-sided (and again constitutes original research) to conclude that Charlemagne's epithet/cognomen "the Great" (den Store, der Große or whatever) therefore referred to his physical tallness. It did not necessarily, because AFAIK modern historians agree that his cognomen "the Great" (which had already been given to Charlemagne by his contemporaries) was mainly a name of honor and an allusion to his political significance.

--Consputus (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job! Srnec (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Revival/secession

There was no such concept as Byzantine Empire in 800 either. But note that the version I want does not say (though it does link) "Western Roman Empire", but rather "Roman Empire in the West", which is accurate. Charles' coronation was a revival of the concept of the imperium Romanum in the West(ern Europe). The Roman Empire had been ruled by two emperors in the past, so crowning a second emperor is not ipso facto secession. Besides, the pope tried to justify it. It may be a 1200-year-old POV, but it's still a POV that it was a "secession". On the other hand, "attempted revival of" is accurate. If don't want the link to W. R. E., remove it and just link Roman Empire; I won't mind. But to refer to Charles' coronation in 800 as a secession from the Byzantine Empire is misleading to most readers. Besides, you haven't specified what, if not the Franks, was seceding. The pope? He can't secede because "the papacy" isn't a part of a state, like Byzantium. The duchy of Rome? Sure, maybe, but that's not nearly as relevant to Charles' coronation as the revival of a Christian idea of "emperor" in Western Europe. And, of course, Rome was de facto outside Byzantine control and had been for a long time. Srnec (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First you're not right that Rome was ouside Byzantine control at the time. In fact the papacy tried to secess even earlier - at 727 when Gregorius II condemned iconoclastic edicts of imperator Leo III. But then imperial general Eutychius suppressed the upspring and recaptured Rome. After Irene denounced iconoclasts there was no trench between Rome and Constantinople until the proclamation of Carolus emperor in 800. Second. You're right that Byzantine empire is also a concept invented in much later time, so we indeed better to use the term Roman empire. But if such, then no "revival" of Roman empire could be, because from point of view of contemporaries Roman empire never ceased to exist. How one can attempt to "revive" what is not dead? In fact it was rather an anti-imperial move, a move against Constantinople's dominance.--Certh (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Rome was de facto outside Byzantine control. It was ruled by the Popes on a day-to-day basis and Byzantine attempts at influence in the ducatus Romanus were sporadic at best. My chief problem with your edit (besides the word "Byzantine") is the word "secede": it may be technically true in a legal sense that the ducatus Romanus was "seceding" from Byzantium, but it is misleading to state it outright, since most readers will not know the finer points, they will assume that some entity (and your edit does not make clear what) was leaving the Byzantine Empire when in fact the entity was a small one which Charlemagne had never before ruled and which was not under Byzantine control at the time anyway. The word "revival" is meant to connect "Roman Empire" to "in the West". The Empire did not cease to exist, of course, but it ceased to be recognised in the West: the Franks didn't recognise it (as the political authority), nor the Goths, nor the Lombards. The move was only anti-imperial from the Constantinopolitan point of view, but from Charles' and Leo's it was the only imperial possibility, since God was (clearly) smiling on Charles and Constantinople was out of His favour. But we could debate this—as historians still do and I did once before, see Talk:Charlemagne/Archive 1#Roman Emperor, East and West—until we're blue in our faces, so I just suggest we find a compromise wording superior to both versions. How about this:

During his reign, he conquered Italy and was crowned [Imperator Augustus] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) by Pope Leo III on 25 December 800 as a rival to the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople and the first Roman Emperor in the West since 476.

It has the advantages of including mention/links of Byz. Empire, Const., and W. Roman Empire. It also changes "secede" to "as a rival", which gets the point across but I don't misleads the reader as much. Finally, it also explains what "revival" really meant. What do you think? Srnec (talk)

Franks and Lombards were outside of the Empire and the Gothic kingdom had dispeared centuries before 800 (it was defeated during the rule of Justinian I). Imperial authority was recognized in Rome (where the Pope was located). We have no reason to say that the empire had no control over Rome. Also I object your wording because of the following:

• It was not 476, but 480 when the empire was reunified after the death of Julius Nepos.
• But even if we change it to 480 it would be incorrect. You state that Carolus was the first Roman Emperor in the West since the end of 5th century. In fact, Phocas, Maurice, Constans II all visited Rome and made orders there. So they were Roman emperors in the West. There was no such title as "Eastern Roman Emperor" - all of them were simply styled "Roman emperor".--Certh (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to Western Europe in general, not just Italy or Rome. Imperial authority had evaporated everywhere but parts of Italy, where it was constantly waning. (I meant Visigoths.) In Rome itself it was, to my knowledge, weaker than it had been in either Ravenna, Naples, or Bari. If you have sources to state otherwise, please bring them to the table.

As to the date, I chose 476 because Nepos was in Dalmatia until 480 and that area is not part of Charlemagne's empire and so is not relevant. Constans II died in 668, long before 800 and much had changed in the interim. You have too high an idea of Byzantine power in Italy during this period: they were "Roman Emperors" until 1453, but they did not hold Rome during all that time. It wasn't to the emperors that the pope cried for help in the 8th century. Byzantine power in Italy would not see a real resurgence until the reign of Basil II, and that was brief. How about just chopping of the Western empire stuff:

During his reign, he conquered Italy and was crowned [Imperator Augustus] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) by Pope Leo III on 25 December 800 as a rival of the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople.

Does that suffice? Srnec (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Charlemagne (disambiguation)

There are many uses of Charlemagne, yet there was no Charlemagne (disambiguation) until now. In the intro, only a link to some band was given. Webcruft galore. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a great many issues that may need to be addressed. The first and most noticable of these problems is sourcing; some parts of the article are barely sourced at all and in others sourcing switches between the inline citations and the less popular (Harvard p. 42) citations. These should all be made to conform to one single citation system (I prefer the former, but will be happy with the latter so long as the article is consistant). If someone takes responsibility for this problem and begins to fix it then I will work with them to deal with the other problems that beset this article, which include poor prose and incorrect formatting. I will check back and if progress is being made and issues are being addressed, then work can continue. If no one has come forward in the next seven days however, this article will be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No work in the last week, this has been delisted from GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Andorra

The sational anthem of Andorra says that Andorra is "the only remaining daughter of the Carolingian empire". Any truth in this? I thought France, Francia occidentalis, was the only remaining "daughter" of the empire. Aaker (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is based on a legend. France is no more the daughter of Charlemagne, however, than Andorra. France is the daughter of Verdun. Andorra is the daughter of a paréage. Srnec (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Names

What is the idea behind the list? Is there a reason not to include Charlemagne's Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian names, for example? --88.114.160.75 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He never ruled those places, or fought with the locals. It is very long however, so I have moved it to the end. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No Sidebar?

Why doesnt this article have a section at the top right with a portrait of Charlemagne and his date of birth etc (as other articles have)... seems like Charlemagne is a pretty important character for the article to look like this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whimsickal (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He's that important. Srnec (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But there has been a mini-revert-war about the box, and I could not make it stick (and I don't really want to see myself in the wikipedia lamest edit wars hall of shame :) ). But yes, there should be an infobox.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No there shouldn't be. The so-called "infobox" contains the least important information about him. His parents, wives, children, and dates of birth, death, and reign. This is not unimportant information, but it is not as important as his conquests, his administrative and legal reforms, and his patronage of scholarship ("Carolingian Renaissance"). And all the information in the box is organised neatly in the article already. Srnec (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point of an infobox. The point is to have those informations available immediately for those who are just looking to locate a given ruler in time/space/family. Yes, those information are not "interesting", but this is a remarkably weak argument not to put the infobox.CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Charlemagne can be adequately located in time by the dates in the very first line. And I never used the word "interesting", did I? Srnec (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No you said least important. The fact remains that starting from the last king of France, or the last emperor of Germany (or a good part of European nobility), you can go down to Charlemagne, as a series of successors to various titles. And pretty much all those rulers have infoboxes. So why have Charlemagne be different?CyrilleDunant (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The better question is: why do any have infoboxes? Srnec (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, if all the other articles jumped off a bridge, would you suggest the Charlemagne article jump too? Srnec (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoth Scott Adams (adapted): if pretty much all those other articles have jumped of bridges and said they enjoyed it, then perhaps there is something to it. See there are flaws and biases in this wisdom of crowds thing, but as there is no obvious disadvantage to the infoboxes and they seem to be enjoyed by most readers, or at least a substantial minority, then the onus is really on you to convince the crowd it is wrong.CyrilleDunant (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Disinfoboxes

A box aggressively attracts the marginally  literate eye with apparent promises to contain a  reductive summary of information that can't be  neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time-  line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers  a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance.  As a substitute for accuracy and complexity a box  trumps all discourse.                —courtesy of User:Wetman

Can you provide any evidence they are enjoyed by readers? I know editors love them. I don't think it matters. My argument against them is this: they arbitrarily select that information which fits their format, which tends to be information of lesser importance, and place it prominently at the top of the article—always redundantly—squeezing text to one side, making it difficult to place images near the top of the article (unless they're in the box), and implying a summary of the article's contents, which they never provide. A few infoboxes at Wikipedia are useful, I admit, but not monarch infoboxes. Srnec (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - fine for sportspeople, species, films, hurricanes and articles with no pictures. Otherwise, local editors should decide. He has no fewer than 5 succession templates at the bottom, which are the important thing for rulers and the like. Most larger monarch articles don't have infoboxen I think you'll find. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I am not edit-warring. However, if one wishes to be consistent, why would the succession boxes not be redundant? I do not think that you make people read by only providing them with the full text, and no back-covers. That is the use of the infobox, provide pre-formated-information which will hopefully incite the reader to plunge into the article. If this infobox is containing rather pointless informations, then certainly it is not the concept of an infobox which should be attacked, but rather the content of that specific template.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead should provide the proper summary; the table of contents should help readers find specifics. Even if I refrain from attacking infoboxes in general (and I don't, but I do refrain from attacking them universally), then it still is not appropriate to place the infobox here until its format is updated to be more useful. I do not encourage it, however, as I do not think the type of information that is important about Charlemagne can be got in an infobox, but perhaps we could work on improving his lead section? Srnec (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

'heathen resistance'?

The final line in the Saxon Wars section "The heathen resistance in Saxony was at an end" seems a particularly biased way to conclude the section. Should Wikipedia really be using words like 'heathen' outside of quotes? I don't see the September 11th article talking about the 'deaths of infidels' after all. The line itself also seems unnecessary, since it does not include a date and simply seems to follow up on the quote above it. The quote however looks odd without something after it so I will replace it with "Saxon resistance to Charlemagne's rule was at an end," though I welcome any improvement because that doesn't really satisfy either. 71.52.12.206 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Anonymous Peruser

Hatnote

I have removed the central alignment tags of the article's hatnote, because I have never seen such practice before and do not think it is [[MOS:|MOS:]]-compliant (at least, the closest I could find to a policy note about it, WP:HNP, does not mention centering), and in addition I didn't see anything on this talk page explaining the tags. If there is an issue with the tags' removal, then please do bring it up here. It Is Me Here (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The image used to be facing left. Someone moved it right and didn't left-align the dabnote. Srnec (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough. Well, if everyone is happy, then that's fine by me. It Is Me Here (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gallo-Romance

According to someone on another site, a German biography says he may have spoken Gallo-Romance and I'm pretty sure that an English biography I've read said that he did speak Gallo-Romance (I don't have the book on me). Is there anything someone can add to the languages section? 41.241.15.131 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Swearing on the fifth line

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to do editing. So someone might want to change the link in the fifth line from "Catholic sh*t church" to "Catholic church". Apologies if this is the wrong place to bring this up but I thought it needed to be pointed out. Thanks, Mike. 13/1/09 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done ;-) If you want to learn about how to edit Wikipedia yourself, just click on this link to go to the Editing tutorial. Thanks for letting us know, and hope you enjoy editing in the future! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Coin

Charlemagne, denier, 812-814.

Charlemagne, denier, Mayence, 812-814.

Charlemagne, denier, Tours, 793-812.

Here are two personal photographs of deniers of Charlemagne with imperial effigee. Feel free to insert them into the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And another coin of Charlemagne (a denier minted in Tours). Cheers PHG (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I rather prefer the photograph of the laurel-wreathed denier to the oddly coloured drawing. How would we describe the coin? Armoured, crowned by a laurel wreath, but is it "classical" or "Roman" or what? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a good defence of neo-Roman could be made, but it is almost certainly OR. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

Editors keep removing the ancestry section. This is a key feature of virtually any monarch's page, and is crucial to understanding his familial relationships and how he came to power. How anyone can say, with a straight face, that one's ancestry is irrelevant in a hereditary monarchy, is beyond me. Charlemagne's importance to history no doubt came through his conquests and consolidation of power, but he almost certainly would have never become king had he been born to a common peasant. I will keep re-adding until someone can explain to me the irrelevance.Dpodoll68 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He was a parvenu. No glorious line of ancestors stretching back into the mists of time. His father made himself king. Other than being his father's son, and Charles Martel's grandson, his ancestry is of no real importance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You have made my point for me. The fact that Pepin was his father, and Charles Martel his grandfather, are exactly why his ancestry is important. To use the term "parvenu" is ill-informed at best, and laughable at worst. His direct male-line ancestors served as Mayors of the Palace for several generations, an office that was more powerful than the king at that time in Austrasia. The Pippinids and Arnulfings were both very influential families for at least 150 years before Charlemagne was even born. Let us not forget that on both his father and mother's side, he traces back to Arnulf, one of the most important power players of the late 6th/early 7th century. Dpodoll68 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So? This is all irrelevant. What is the importance, when trying to learn about Charlemagne, in knowing that his grandfather was Charles Martel? And how does the table you added convey this importance? The table is arbitrary in length and unsourced (I see no reason to trust any early medieval family connextion at Wikipedia that I don't independently know or is footnoted). And he was a parvenu. His family never succeeded in reestablishing a hereditary right to throne like that of the Merovingians they replaced. See what happened in 887/8? And in Germany for the whole rest of the Middle Ages. The greatness of his ancestors explains why Pepin was so well positioned to become king, but it does not in any way show that he had a right to the throne. This is why it is irrelevant as data. An ancestry table might be important in an article on a claimant to a throne with an established succession, but not here. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just answer me two questions: if his father and grandfather had been goatherders, then a) would he have become Imperator Augustus? and b) would we be talking about him right now? Dpodoll68 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I answered those questions with this: "The greatness of his ancestors explains why Pepin was so well positioned to become king". You have missed the point. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I must be confused. How can you say that Charlemagne's ancestry is irrelevant, and yet "the greatness of his ancestors explains why Pepin was so well positioned to become king." Pepin was Charlemagne's father!! Am I taking crazy pills? I never once said that either of them had a right to rule based on their pedigrees. What is unquestionably true, however, is that they were able to attain their positions because they came from a family background of power and prestige. If you look through Wikipedia, you will notice that virtually every monarch has a 3- or 4-generation ancestry table. This is to illustrate either: a) their hereditary right to rule; or b) the circumstances that allowed them the ability to gain power. For an example, Henry VII gained England by conquest; nonetheless, it is interesting to note that he was the first English king to have a largely Welsh heritage, and that he was descended from Edward III through the formerly illegitimate Beaufort line. Certainly, that had no bearing on his rise to power, but it does help explain his ability to gain a coalition of power in the Welsh lands, and to somewhat pacify those who required a "noble" ancestry. By the same token, Charlemagne's ancestry helps to explain his heredity of the throne, and ability to grow it into something much bigger. That is my point. Pray tell, sir, what is yours??Dpodoll68 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My point was that an ancestry table explains nothing. Srnec (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading medieval history for a very long time, and to claim that Charles's ancestry is meaningless is, to me, ludicrous. But quite apart from your opinion or mine on the subject, this is an encyclopedia. Charles is an important figure in western history, and therefore "famous," and his own ancestry is therefore of interest to many, including students (like me) of royal genealogies. There is no reason why it ought not to be included here; it is not necessary that it "explain" anything. I repeat, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it makes no sense to discard a sizable chunk of historical knowledge of interest to its users. Include it and leave it alone.

Personally, I consider all the articles on Wikipedia about such things as characters in computer games and players on minor sports teams to be ephemeral and quite pointless, but other people regard those articles as useful, so I would not recommend they all be discarded -- on an assumption that my prejudices are preeminent. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The information presented in the table is not the problem. It's synthesising it and putting it here that is the problem. Wikipedia could have thousands of articles of genealogies, but it is not necessary. All biographical articles can and should mention relevant genealogical details and parental/marital/filial relations, and articles on dynasties and related things can (and probably should) contain family trees where possible. But not every biographical article should do your homework for you. If you wish to know about his ancestors, click on the link to his father, then on that of his grandfather, etc. You will, within a few minutes, have surveyed his entire family tree as presented here, and probably learned a lot more too boot. Srnec (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Those who do believe in the value of genealogy, see Wikia Genealogy. Srnec is quite wrong, by the way, when he claims that "[h]is family never succeeded in reestablishing a hereditary right to throne" as basically all European royals (and quite a few US presidents for that matter) descend from Charlemagne. Richard Tol (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The US presidency is now relevant to a discussion of hereditary succession in early medieval Europe? Descent does not prove hereditary succession. The principle of royal election outlived the Carolingians. Srnec (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point. The male line of Charlemagne's descent may have vanished into insignificance and extinction, but the children of his daughters and grand-daughters continue to rule the world till today. Family connections were paramount then and are still very important today. Richard Tol (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To Srnec

I actually compiled the infobox, not perfect so far, but for some reason it disappeared twice. Charles patently needs some royal template, I think. --Brandспойт 09:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The infobox does no justice to Charlemagne, or, more importantly, the reader. Srnec (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Curious why. The dude held at least three royal offices, not to mention other merits. Poor Charlemagne :) Brandспойт 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

charlemagne

the date of his birth and his death and were his birth was and were his death is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.160.226 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Portrayal

Why was Charlemagne always depicted with a beard of some form when the coins from his regn show him beardless? 95jb14 (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)