Talk:Siege of Paris (885–886)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Duke of France?[edit]

"... The chief ruler in the region around Paris (the Île-de-France) was the duke of France (also count of Paris), whose controlled the lands between the Seine ..." Is "Duke of France" an anachronism in 885? If the person in charge in 885 were identified, this might be better. --Wetman 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The region around Paris (the Île-de-France) was then called "Francia" informally, because it was the original Francia from where the Franks spread out over the rest of Gaul and Germania. This term evolved into France and when Hugh Capet ascended the throne, his titles of dux Franciae and rex Francorum merged into roi de France as we know it. So it is not anachronistic, though perhaps in need of a little explanation. In 885, it was Odo of course. Srnec 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Source requested[edit]

The Vikings asked the twelve to surrender, but they refused. Eleven were killed and the twelfth captured. He broke free and killed many men before he was finally stopped. This sounds a bit unbelievable.. is there any source for this statement? -- Obradović Goran (talk 02:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

to holger D.[edit]

You have to prove the wrong. The fact is the vikings in France were and were called Danes, by them and by them self. Actually there is no facts or sources of other norsemen in that siege. But some historians believe that there were others norsemen recruited, the same thing about the "Great Heathen Army" of England. The Danes was enemy of the Franks that time, and had many fights in years before and after the Siege, Mostly about the Saxony territory, that was an important territory for trading. --Arigato1 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoring some clearer, more specific, more accurate previous wording[edit]

The following should be clear to everyone (Wetman 05:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)):

  • "adjacent regions in Gaul and Germania." Better former version "adjacent regions in Gaul and Germania, areas where many navigable rivers offered access." The Viking invasion routes were up the navigable rivers, an important piece of information.
  • "the duke of France" Better former version "the duke of Francia" The "duke of France" is a nonsensical anachronism.
  • "West Francia (modern France)". Better former version: "West Francia (the kernel of modern France)" Modern France, after all, also includes Brittany, Aquitaine, Septimania, Burgundy and Provence.
  • "Hopes were raised with this unification". Better former version "Hopes were raised with this reunification" Reminding the reader that the Carolingian kingdoms had formerly been unified.
  • "Odo was prepared for the arrival of the Vikings. In terms of fortifications, that is, for he had two towers guarding each bridge." Better former version "Odo prepared for the arrival of the Vikings, by fortifying the bridgehead with two towers guarding each bridge." A complete sentence rather than an awkward fragment added as if an afterthought.
  • "and plea with Charles." Better former version "and plead with Charles" The verb is to plead.
  • "For his inaction Charles was despised in his western realm. He was deposed in 887." Pointlessly deleted.

franks flag[edit]

is there a flag for the Franks (Francs)? strange there is no french version not even a stub about this french history event. Paris By Night 14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Vikings TV series[edit]

Season 3 of the Vikings TV show covers the 845 siege of paris, not the 885-86 siege as stated in this article.

Here's a partial reference to this, but a read of the synopsis for season 3 shows quite clearly that it is the 845 siege.

http://www.tvinsider.com/article/555/vikings-history-raiding-paris/

Richard BF (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Typographical error that I'm unsure how to amend[edit]

Penultimate paragraph under section "Siege" a sentence reads; "The besieged forces sallied forth and to obtain supplies." Obviously this is incorrect, and likely simply needs either the "and" or the "to" removed in order to agree with the subject, but it is still a little lacking in substance. I'll leave it to someone who might have a bit more insight to make any alteration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.137.160 (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)