Talk:Lothair II, Holy Roman Emperor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Initial comments[edit]

Genealogy is useless enough, but "(with von Haldensleben family connection)" was an especially useless aside. In ALL EUROPEAN LANGUAGES there is a space between punctuation and the SUBSEQUENT word. He's Henry the Lion, not Henry the Lyon. MichaelTinkler

What's more, he's Lothar II until someone can tell me when there was an Emperor Lothar II between 855 and 1125. And lose this idiotic surname nonsense. He was count of Supplinburg: he didn't go round introducing himself as "Lothar Supplinburg". User:David Parker

III vs. II: Can there be only one?[edit]

"He is sometimes referred to as Lothair III." This needs to be expanded for the Wikipedia reader who may be wondered why? --Wetman 11:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wondered that myself when I wrote it, but as I understand it, there was a lot of claiming of ancestral blood that wasn't real and titling oneself with more numbers then were realistic. I know there were several of these but I can't find any explanation for Lothair. --TheGrza 17:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
I am extremely confused as he is called Lothair II, HRE by the encylopedia britannica. Lothair II of Lotharingia was never emperor so he wasnt counted thus this Lothair III should be II.-- 6 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)
He is most commonly known as Lothair III. --TheGrza July 6, 2005 04:11 (UTC)
I added a paragraph at the beginning explaining the confusion with the ordinal, which I think is important to prevent bafflement based on the varying ordinals in the links that might bring the reader here. I don't know enough about this fellow to know what numbering for him is most common among contemporary historians; if there's no consensus, John K's "Lothair of Supplingburg, HRE" is probably a good idea for a title to this page. --Jfruh 13:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


I've have seen him numbered as II and III. I will note that the spelling I am most familiar with is "Lothar." Perhaps Lothar of Supplinburg, Holy Roman Emperor would be a more non-disputable title? john k 6 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)
It probably gets down to whether one wants to count kings or emperors; if one counts kings, it arguably makes sense to count Lothair II of Lotharingia since his kingdom fell to the eastern kingdom after his death. Since emperor was more of a ceremonial title than an office, one could also argue that king status is the one that should be counted. It would be interesting to find out which was the historical numbering. -- About Lothair/Lothar: Britannica says Lothair in the full edition and Lothar in the concise edition, so no help there. Not knowing which is more common in English, I would prefer Lothar since it is closer to his historical (Latin) name, Lotharius. --Chl 9 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
Lothar is the proper name in English and in German and much more common in English (8.3m Google hits v 0.197 for just Lotha(i)r, 2240 v 3(!) for 'Lotha(i)r von Supplinburg'). Further, of those many fewer hits for Lothair, many of them come from these articles. Wiki is inconsistent and has some articles with each name, but the naming policies clearly suggest fixing this. OTOH, fixing the current mess should involve not just this "Lothair" article but all the others and the ones mentioning or linking to them. So it'll take some doing. - (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


"The Staufens, who had the support of their own lands plus support in many imperial cities, Austria, and much of Lower Lorraine, raised Conrad as antiking Conrad III." I don't understand the last part of this particularly 'antiking'. Rogertudor 18:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

King of Italy?[edit]

The summary box at the bottom of the article has Lothair III as King of Italy, from 1128 - 1137, with a minor, very confusing sentence within the article itself. This is incorrect - Conrad III was crowned King of Italy when he travelled down to Italy in 1128, and renounced the title in 1135. The error in the article looks like it arose due to some of the text in this article (the part dealing with his coronation by the Archbishop of Milan) originally coming from Conrad III's article. This has now been fixed. Oatley2112 (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Lothair have been crowned King of Italy during his Italian expedition of 1132-1133? john k (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
No, according to all my sources, he was crowned Holy Roman Emperor when he came down to help Pope Innocent II, the position of emperor being a much more prestigious title than just simply 'King of Italy', not to mention that he was already crowned 'King of the Romans' in 1125 anyway. Conrad appears not to have been stripped of his title during this time, and only relinquished it when he submitted to Lothair in 1135. Oatley2112 (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Many of the German kings would proceed to Pavia to be crowned King of Italy (sometimes with the Iron Crown of Lombardy) before proceeding on to Rome to be crowned emperor. The article Iron Crown of Lombardy contends a fairly small number of such coronations, but fails to provide a source. The coronation of Henry VII in 1311, which Britannica says is the first clearly documented coronation with the Iron Crown, is not mentioned in the wikipedia article, so I see no particular reason to trust it. But there were certainly coronations at Pavia prior to 1311, and it was typical for a German king proceeding from the Alps to be crowned at both Pavia and Rome. Also, what are your sources? john k (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I think royal coronations sometimes took place at Milan or Monza. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst most early medieval German Kings were crowned ‘King of Italy’ or ‘King of the Lombards’ at Pavia (and occasionally at Milan or Monza, depending upon the state of Italy’s ever changing internal situation), this was not always necessarily the case. The sequence would usually be, crowned ‘King of the Romans’ in Germany (Aachen), ‘King of Italy’ at Pavia, and then, if possible, Roman Emperor at Rome. In the case of Lothair III, however, I can find no evidence that he was crowned King of Italy at Pavia or Milan or Rome in either of his Italian expeditions. Conrad III was crowned at Milan in 1128, but neither Lothair’s entry into Italy to support Pope Innocent II in 1132 (where he was crowned emperor), nor his return in 1136 to fight Roger of Sicily is there any mention of a crowning as King of Italy at Pavia or Milan.
As for sources, I have checked Robert Comyn’s "History of the Western Empire, from its Restoration by Charlemagne to the Accession of Charles V, Vol. I. ", (pg. 191) who quotes from Struvius, "Corpus Hist. Germanicae", pg. 359 (source for the coronation of Conrad III) and Ludovico Antonio Muratori, "Annali d’Italia" (for Conrad’s relinquishing of the crown). James Bryce’s "The Holy Roman Empire" also states Conrad III was crowned King of Italy, but not Lothair.
The most comprehensive source for the activities in Italy in this period that I possess is Horace Mann’s "Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages, Vol. IX: 1130-1159", covering the pontificate of Innocent II. Here it makes no mention of Lothair receiving the Iron Crown or being crowned King of Italy during his journey to Rome. Innocent crowned him emperor at Rome in 1133. It does, however, state that Innocent crowned Lothair at Liege, on March 29, 1131, but it doesn’t state what he was crowned as. My reading of it is that he was again crowned as ‘King of the Romans’, as being crowned by the Pope would be far more prestigious that his being crowned by an archbishop at Aachen. Again, it makes no mention of Lothair being crowned during the second expedition into Italy prior to his death in 1137.
I also have consulted Sismondi’s "History of the Italian Republics in the Middle Ages". It too says Conrad III was crowned, and states (pg. 51) that Lothair could not besiege Milan in 1132 due to the small army at his disposal. It makes no mention at all of Lothair receiving the Iron Crown at Pavia or anywhere else. Oatley2112 (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that seems fairly convincing. Unless a source can be found which states that Lothar was crowned king of Italy, such a claim should not be in the article. john k (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This source says Lothair was crowned king of Italy in 1125. It's a really old source and includes some obvious mistakes. But I don't see a good reason to think he wasn't king. Being crowned king of Italy was done routinely as part of the imperial coronation ritual. It wouldn't necessarily be mentioned separately in general histories such as those listed above.
  • While they were preparing for Henry VII's coronation in 1311, the people of Milan searched for the Iron Crown. But it was nowhere to be found. Perhaps it had rusted away, or maybe it had been removed by the Guelphs. But it is more likely that there never was any such crown. In any event, a new crown was made for the occasion. By the 16th century, this crown had also rusted away. Charles V, and later Napoleon, were crowned with a relic kept in Monza Cathedral. This relic dates from the 8th century and was mistakenly believed to be made from a nail of the True Cross. It is too small to be worn as a crown. Perhaps is was originally intended for use as a bracelet. In short, it is unlikely that there was an Iron Crown in Lothair's day, so he could not have been crowned with it. Greatness Bites (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC) SOCK

Boiled after his death![edit]

I'm not sure were in the article to stick this information. I leave it to more experienced wikipedians:

Lothar died on December 5th, 1137 in Upper Bavaria and was buried 500 Km north, at the castle of Koenigslutter. Transportation of the body probably took several weeks. To avoid decay and putrefaction the body was defleshed and boiled for about 6 hours. This was proven by a chemial analysis of his remains. The paper names him "Lothar I".
J.L. Bada, B. Herrmann, I.L.Payan and E.H.Man (1989) Amino acid racemization in bone and the boiling of the German Emperor Lothar I. Applied Geochemistry, vol. 4, pp. 325-327. Pergamon Press.

Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I note that this is reversing a previous move 19:12, 21 May 2005‎ Cosal Lothair II, Holy Roman Emperor moved to Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor, and that this move took place during the discussion #III vs. II: Can there be only one? above. But consensus now is clear, and the arguments and participation adequate IMO. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Lothair III, Holy Roman EmperorLothair II, Holy Roman Emperor – The numeral "II" is more common. It is the one preferred by the Britannica, for instance, and it is more common in books on Google, according to this Ngram. (Note that decapitalising "emperor" in the Ngram yields 0 results for the numeral "III".) The results are the opposite when the spelling "Lothar" is used. My impression is that this is mostly found in German scholarship and is passed into English from there.
There are clear benefits to using the numeral "II". He was without doubt the second emperor of his name, but in what way was he uniquely the third? There was another intervening Carolingian, himself sometimes numbered Lothair IV, which is only possible by recognising Lothair II of Italy as "Lothair III". In the latter case, we wisely use the numeral "II" because he was the second Lothair to rule Italy. Only by regarding Lotharingia as a part of Germany or by disregarding the western and southern parts of the Carolingian Empire can one justify numbering the emperor "Lothair III" Srnec (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. There is no question that this subject is the second emperor to be named Lothair. He is called “Lothair III" simply to avoid confusion with an earlier Frankish king. Britannica's corresponding article is entitled "Lothar II (or III)". This ngram shows II and III running about even. So we can use the form of the name that allows for greater logical consistency. Greatness Bites (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date of birth vs. father's date of death[edit]

These seem to be exactly the same date, viz. 9 June 1075. We say that he was born "shortly after his father's death", which would generally indicate anywhere from a few days to a few months after. But if it was only a matter of a few hours later, on the very same day as his father died at the Battle of Langensalza (1075), shouldn't this be noted explicitly?

Unless, of course, someone has been making it up as they went along and has just plugged in some date rather than reveal a gap in our knowledge. Nah, nobody would ever do that.  :) Either way, can this please be looked at closely and resolved quickly? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


"He was a posthumous child, born at Unterlüß in 1075 shortly after his father,"

What on Earth?

How was he a dead child born at the same time as his father??? (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sentences end at periods, not commas. HTH, HAND. Choess (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)