|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
How is this called the Carologinan Renaissance
Honestly, how would anyone with a decent knowledge of history, describe the Carolingian or Frankish introduction to manuscripts in general and some historical manuscripts of Western Tradition (on a limited basis), a renaissance? How does this possibly in any sense of the word constitute a revival? I mean the Franks were either living in caves or living in the woods prior to this period. They or their ancestors had never read a book, or for that matter any printed word, so how would in any possible sense the event of Charlemagne's adoption of books, a quasi-Christianity (his daughters lived with him and their unmarried husbands; he spawned more children from his concubines than he did from his wives) and the organization of a state (where there had been none) qualify as a "renaissance?"
We need to stop calling it a Renaissance simply because the population of 1200 years ago ignorantly or wantingly called it a Renaissance. This is a tradition that has been handed down for 50 generations, it is not an exemplification of a reality. Paris was nothing in 600 or 700 CE and never had been. Language was not even in this area until Boniface showed up. It was an entirely pagan area. What is being revived? The Roman Tradition that only reached here in a minimum presence and was completely wiped away by the population dynamics of shifting tribes? This is simply the perpetuation of an illiterate comprehension of history and this article should be rewritten to reflect that... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- To begin to get a grip, you might ask yourself some questions like "In what ways would the career of Rabanus Maurus have been impossible if he had been born a century and a half earlier, ca 630? And you might tackle The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. II c.500-c.700, to get some context for John J. Contreni's essay chapter, "The Carolingian renaissance: education and literary culture". Because you can't assess what a renaissance is until you know what's being revived and against what contrasting background. Remember, too, your own reactions are probably irrelevant at this primitive stage: just read a bit, and listen to what some sensible text written by knowledgable people is telling you.--Wetman (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's defined as a Renaissance by historians, not by this Wikipedia article alone. While the Carolingian Renaissance indeed was small in scale it was still significant in terms of legacy. Some important accomplishments during this period: The Carolingian miniscule, survival of Latin literature, Romanesque architecture, redefinition of Papal authority... Abvgd (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The following sentence clearly needs grammatical correction. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter at hand to attempt said correction, however. (From the Intro) "With the moral betterment of the Carolingian renaissance reached back for models drawn from the example of the Christian Roman Empire of the 4th century." CaptainNurple (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
A "rewrite" tag was applied in this edit:
No specific indications were provided as to what needs to be fixed. I think first of all this page tag needs to be assessed by someone versed in the period, so I've replaced the flag with expert-needed. — MaxEnt 22:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Change to referenced information
- "Alcuin led this effort and was responsible for the writing of textbooks, creation of word lists, and establishing the trivium and quadrivium as the basis for education."
Per The Civilization of the Middle Ages, Norman F. Cantor, page 189, "He[Alcuin] wrote textbooks, prepared word lists and made the trivium and quadrivium a firm part of the curriculum of the Carolingian school."
Therefore the change to:
- "Alcuin led this effort and was liable for the calligraphy of textbooks, creation of word lists, and establishing the third and fourth basis for education."
More correction needed: Currency edition
It would be great to have the exact names given and weights given or linked, but the livre tournois postdated Charlemagne by centuries and was not the value he used. — LlywelynII 06:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Charlemagne certainly wasn't responsible for the currency reform. (His father was.) There are probably similar errors elsewhere on the page that should be corrected. — LlywelynII 06:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The source presently given notes that the value of the gold solidus in silver currency gave it its value. This source, however, says that the value of debts in gold solidi had to be multiplied by 3 before equaling their value in the new silver units of account. It may be generally true or it may have been a by-product of the situation in Frisia and its originally independent currency, which that text is examining. — LlywelynII 08:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)