Talk:Robert Guiscard

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


Possible copyright infringement: This article appears to be a copy of ("Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight"). Mrwojo

Shouldn't the 1910 copyright be void already? The online edition copyright only protects the links and the page layout which was not copied. -- JeLuF 11:31 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)

Due Dilligence[edit]

While the original 1910 article is in the public domian, the edited derivative would not be. The Catholic Encyclopedia does update articles, as well as adding new articles. While I expect that this article is probably pure 1910 untouched public domain, I would want to verify it before stealing an updated work. Either comparing the article to the 1910 version manually, or getting a signoff from new advent itself.

    Good luck

Robert Guiscard (dead in 1085) was not described by Anne Comnène (born in 1083) but she described the son of Guiscard, Bohémond de Tarente during the 1st Cruisade. CALABRIA Geoffrey (France, 27/02/2005)

Robert Guiscard's page says his lst wife, Alberada is the aunt of Girard and her page says she is his daughter, I vote for the latter. Witenmote

According to GA Loud, Alberada is is Girard's aunt, so I'd go for that. ~Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What is a pied-à-terre?[edit]

I assume this is a French expression which is ok but many of us don't speak French. Does it mean something like foot on the ground? Perhaps this term could be replaced by with something that most people would understand?

davidzuccaro 05:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a fancy way of saying "a home". -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It's in both of my English dictionaries. Perfectly acceptable for use in English-language Wikipedia, I'd say.


I changed Western Christianity to Latin Christianity b/c it is not clear to me that all Greek Christianity is non-Western. I also removed a reference to a supposed shift from Constantinople to Rome. The Greeks of southern Italy were pretty close to Rome. Also, "Roman Empire" and "Greek Orthodoxy" belong to different periods. In English, for the time period, we say "Byzantine Empire". I also removed the ridiculous remark about "the few [Muslims] the Normans didn't kill in battle", which implies that most Muslims in Sicily were killed in battle. They weren't. Many became mercenaries and the practice of employing them continued as late as 1181 (perhaps later). Srnec (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Srnec, were you not an atheist, you'd know that Western Christianity does not include the Eastern Churches, read the article on it; "Latin Christianity" is a neologism you've just made up on the spot. Eastern Christianity includes the Balkans and Eastern Europe (where the Orthodox Churches are from). Christianity on the island of Sicily was specifcally Orthodoxy before the Normans[1], the Orthodox Church existed long before the 1054 schism, as the first Bishop of Byzantium (Patriach of Constantinople in the modern day) was St. Andrew the Apostle).
Also for the love of god, stop with this hippy dippy sanitising of ancient warfare just because it was between radically different cultures. The Normans in the name of Christianity (with the backing of the Pope) went to Sicily and did kill muslim overlords in warfare who were holding the native Sicilians under harsh taxes. This happened, its a war. Guiscard killed muslims with his sword, he reconquered the island through warfare. If it was up to you I'm sure you'd try to pretend James the Moor Slayer's[2] nickname was instead "James the Moor Bestfriend" or something of that manner. Write about the history that is there, do not rewrite history to match your own modern ideals. - Gennarous (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Gennarous, I respect WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY even when breaking them would, in my opinion be justifiable.
Here are four books that use the neologism "Latin Christianity" in their titles: The Origins of Latin Christianity by Jean Daniélou, D. Smith, and J. A. Baker; Church, Book, and Bishop: Conflict and Authority in Early Latin Christianity by Peter Iver Kaufman; Prefaces to Canon Law Books in Latin Christianity: Selected Translations, 500-1247 by Robert Somerville and Bruce Brasington; and The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity by Peter Brown.
Orthodox Christianity is not defined by the bishop of Byzantium's existence, but by a schism with the church of Rome. Eastern Christianity exists from an early point (not the apostolic period, though), but not Eastern Orthodoxy.
The Normans no doubt killed many Muslims (thousands) during their invasion of Sicily, but they did not kille very Muslim in the island nor do I have any reason to believe they killed most. Sicily was not just garrisoned by Muslims, it was inhabited by some too.
Stop levelling ridiculous accusations at me. James was neither the Moor's best friend nor his slayer. I am not an atheist and it wouldn't matter if I were. I am a Christian. Srnec (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Prior to the East-West Schism, clear-cut identifications as "Roman Catholic" West or "Orthodox" East are hard to make if not anachronistic. Have either of you considered identifying pre-Muslim and/or Norman conquest Italians and Sicilians as Chalcedonian Christians? This was the previous major division of Christianity into factions. Dimadick (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but this isn't really about factions so much as about different "institutional cultures". There is a linguistic component too, but I think that we can speak of at least some of the Greek churches of southern Italy in the 8th through 12th centuries as definitely "Western". West/East is cultural and historical, not factional, in my opinion. Does that make sense? Srnec (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The real question here is what language the liturgy was conducted in. There weren't major theological differences between the Greek and Roman churches at this point, just minor variations in liturgical observance. My sources tend to refer to the pre-Norman conquest churches as "Byzantine," suggesting that the liturgy was in Greek. I would rather not use the term "Chalcedonian," as it implies a Christological difference that did not then exist, especially in the West. I propose changing the wording to "an area that historically followed the Byzantine rite." Kafka Liz (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased content?[edit]

This article seems to transgress WP:NPOV with the following section: "Guiscard's last enterprise was his attack on the Byzantine Empire [...] In this enterprise Guiscard crossed swords with his most redoubtable opponent, the only one worthy of himself, in a clash of swords that would become legendary in the years after. In this struggle he met his nemesis in the person of the greatest man of the age: Emperor Alexius." Any thoughts on this? Why is the Byzantine emperor the 'greatest man of the age'?

Furthermore, the article states that Robert Guiscard took up the cause of Michael VII Doukas, but Anna Komnene ostensibly claims that he actually supported Raiktor, a fraudulent impersonator? If so, the article ought to reflect this. (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly at sixty-six he was still well able to wield a broad sword, and come to blows with the emperor, haha, all joking aside; I've not found anything to suggest that the man he called Michael VII was actually Michael VII and the Byzantine sources tend to refute that (mind you I only know the Byzantine sources), that being said, honestly who can say? The Alexiad, while a great source, is clearly biased in favor of Alexios Komnenos, and so maybe Anna just made it up, but this is now entering speculation, but one piece of evidence to put toward it is how would she know his name? But anyhow, I edited the page, and referenced her history in regard to Raiktor/Michael VII, if the guy actually was Michael VII would my mind be blown? No, but I agree that with the sources I have the only identity stated is Raiktor. In regard to, "Why is the Byzantine emperor the 'greatest man of the age'?" As far as the Eastern Roman Empire is concerned, I think it's fair to say Alexios Komnenos was the greatest man of the age, he restored stability, reconquered territory lost, and installed a stable dynasty, but the greatest argument is really who else was there? George Maniakes was great, but alas died before he could accomplish anything truly great. That being said this is all opinion, and I wouldn't mind the statement being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcibiades979 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)