This is an archive of past discussions about Charlemagne. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What is up with wikipedia? the article rating system is not working. how can this article be only "good". this has got to one of, if not the best, articles of charlemagne on the internet, yet apparently "other encyclopedias could do better". i would say this is the same with countless other articles (the amazing french revolution article is "b-class"?). something needs to be doneYoungKeta23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Language?
Does anyone know what language he spoke? He was king of the Franks when they were still a Germanic tribe and the French and Germans both maintain their own names for him. Both names may just be the Latin translation, but his biographer's name, Einhard, is decidedly German. Anybody know?
Well, nobody knows for sure what Charlemagnes native language was, but it was most likely wasn't Frankish as Charlemagne was born in 742 or 747 and Frankishj went extinct during the early 7th century.
It's most likely he was born in Liege, that could indicate that he spoke Old Low Franconian (or less accurately Old Dutch) nativly. Some also suggest he was born in or around Aachen, but that would have not made a difference linguistically at that time.
The references to the Netherlands were removed because to include it leaves the question of why Belgium, Luxembourg, Catalonia, and Switzerland are not also included. The fact is that all these nations are essentially historical breakaways from a larger French or German state, thus, they are coverred by the understanding that, in this historical context, France and Germany are not used to mean the states exactly as they are today. Srnec04:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry?! BREAK AWAYS from France and Germany?! Watch your words there, The Netherlands (the country) was establised in 1581, Belgium in 1830, luxembourg in 1839 ALL older than Germany for one.
Not to mention that I used 'the netherlands in the broader sense, ie the low countries.
I would like to remind you that Europe does not and has never been formed by France or Germany alone. Calling smaller countries, including my one country the Netherlands, mere breakaways from Germany or France is a big insult.
Sander10:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the division of Charlemagne's empire at his death (and understand that Lotharinghia only lasted a few years) you will note that there are two main entities, one which will become France and the other, Germany. I don't know how to exactly formulate it, but it should make this clear. CyrilleDunant15:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The Western Empire, as divided at Verdun, 843. From the Atlas to Freeman's Historical Geography, edited by J.B. Bury, Longmans Green and Co. Third Edition 1903.
And this map tell me ...? It's not about lotharius here, it's about charlemagne.
SanderTesi samanunga is edele unde scona15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The map tells you that upon Charlemagne's death the empire gives birth to _two_ viable entities. That they become France and Germany is obvious. Now, The Netherlands are nowhere on the map, nor is Switzerland. The question is not that Charlemagne is France's or Germany's "father", but that those two entities are directly traceable to the division of the empire upon his death. If you do not like my edit -- which is perfectly understandable -- what do you suggest in stead? CyrilleDunant16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No that's not obvious. I don't if you have some problems reading that map but if you only see 2 countries, Germany and France, on that map then something is realy wrong with your eyes.
Germany was created in 1871 not in 871 ... I don't know what you call directly but that ain't it.
The Netherlands, mind you that the Dutch (together with the Flemish and Afrikaners) are the only ones to speak a language whose ancestor is Old Frankish, the language of the Franks.Also, the ancestry of nearly of the Dutch and Flemish goes back to the Franks.One of the most powerful tribes making up the Franks came from the Netherlands.
If there is one country/area that has most links to the Franks or their legacy it's the Dutch speaking area of Europe.Flanders and the Netherlands.
You seem to have a serious issue with seeing Europe as Germany and France. I hope I popped your bubble.
81.205.216.19 17:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That was me ^ (Sander) I just had my username switched.
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. For one I am neither German nor French. Second, The concept of Europe being made out of France and Germany _is_ preposterous. What I mean, is that:
it is reasonable to say that France comes from Charles' share.
it is reasonable to say that the Holy Roman Empire comes from Louis' share.
it further reasonable to say Germany is built on the on the reuniting of the HRE.
the Netherland have nothing to do with that.
So. If you feel offended by the mention of France, remove it. If you feel offended by the mention of Germany -- remove it. But please do not mention the Netherland, because it makes no sense :) CyrilleDunant18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's reasonable to say France comes from charles the balds share. Then say Charles is the father of France, not Charlemagne.
By the "yes" I assume you know that the holy roman empire wasn't really an empire. Even at it's downfall it included parts of Germany,Czech Republic,Austria, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Belgium, and Luxembourg, Poland and small parts of the Netherlands and Croatia.
Far from 'just' Germany you see.Apart from that there was no or little imperial rule especially later on.It cannot and must not be seen as the predecessor of Germany as nation state or a unified country.
I believe you ignoring the France/Charles question means you agree on that?
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Read better, I even said "Yes, I agree". As for the HRE, yes, I know. And eventually, Prussia becomes proheminent and reunites all the small principalties leftover. Anyway, this is besides the point. I allready edited the paragraph in the direction you wished. Edit-it further to your liking !CyrilleDunant19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I will look in to it.
To say that Germany was created in 1871 is a historical error. Germany existed long before that in some form or other from the time of the Treaty of Verdun. In 843, Germany was created by the division of the empire of Charlemagne into three parts, the eastern of which was a union of mostly non-Frankish Germanic tribes: the stem tribes. This united kingdom (originally within an empire) evolved into Germany with complete political continuity until the end of the Middle Ages and the Protestant Reformation which destroyed the kingdom, but not the title. The kingship of Germany existed until Francis II's abdication of 1806. A title for rule over all Germany (then reunited) was recreated in 1871 and from then on we have political continuity to the present Federal Republic of Germany. To say that Germany was created in 1871 is as erroneous as say it was created in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Now on to France. To call Charlemagne the father of France is probably silly. He was the successor to a long line of kings of the Franks. His successors continued to rule differents kingdoms, one of which closely approximated the original extension of the Frankish realm: the kingdom of the West Franks (Treaty of Verdun, 843). The Middle Kingdom between "France" and "Germany" did not long survive and by the Treaty of Mersen, all the territory of Charles' empire save Italy and Provence was in the hands of the West or East Frankish monarch. This includes the present Netherlands and all other countries between modern France and Germany. France has national (though not political) continuity to this very day.
Finally, as to the Holy Roman Empire, it was an empire encompassing different kingdoms at different times: it variously included the kingdoms of France, (Upper and Lower) Burgundy, Aquitaine, Italy, Bohemia, etc. The term "Holy Roman" is itself newer than the empire. "Canada" was once called the "Dominion of Canada," but even with the minor name change it's still the same country. Similary, Germany has experienced a name change since 1871, but its the same nation. The Holy Roman Empire really begins in 800 and continues for 1,006 years until Francis II's abdication. By then, the title Holy Roman Emperor had little, if any, significance.
I hope this explains to all why the change I made was made. The present state of the article is probably best, though it bears noting that Charlemagne is usually considered to be the founder of France and Germany and both nations have hearkened back to him as a founding figure. The Netherlands has in time past been a part of these nations. Srnec21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Francis's title of Holy Roman Emperor had considerable significance, as did the Holy Roman Empire itself. It's just that that role did not have the significance normally associated with being a head of state, and the empire did not have the significance normally associated with a modern state. But that certainly doesn't mean that the title or the empire was irrelevant - serious people thought the Holy Roman Empire was a viable political entity, and the Emperor's role within it was significant and necessary. john k22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Smec, let me be very very clear.Germany was founded in 1871.That was the only time in history it became a nation state.No other form in the past presents that, not the area of germania, not east francia and certainly not the holy roman empire.
The Netherlands have never been part of France or Germany before its founding.France + Germany isn't Europe.Got that?
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona12:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
To john k: I meant practical significance, not theoretical. Does that make sense? All powers he still held were wildly impractical for day-to-day or even year-to-year governance.
This is a bit of carping at the sidelines, but the Holy Roman Emperor had a fair amount of practical significance, just not the same kind of practical significance that an actual monarch had. When the Diet declared war, for instance, the Emperor was in charge of the Imperial Army, which was formed by each of the princes and free cities sending a contingent. The Emperor's representative presided in the diet. I believe that the Emperor retained various judicial functions. Again - Francis II's role in the Holy Roman Empire in 1792 wasn't the same as Louis XVI's role in France in 1788. But it wasn't an empty title. The Holy Roman Empire existed, it had various institutions, and the Emperor had a specific role to play in many of these institutions. john k22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
To Rex Germanus: why do you think that stating an opinion is a defence of it? The Holy Roman Empire and Germany are two different things, I explained that. France and Germany do not equal Europe, I agree. Germany was founded in 843, dissolved for the period 1806-1871, and divided for the period 1945-1989. The Netherlands were born of the Seventeen Provinces which had at some point or other been part of either France or Germany. Some were inherited Burgundian properties (Burgundy was technically part of France) and some were within the Holy Roman Empire, specificall the German kingdom. Hence, the Emperor Frederick III offered the duke of Burgundy Charles the Rash a crown within the Empire, separate from Germany. He refused. The Netherlands gained their independence later, through wars, declarations, and treaties. Srnec14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
My god! You're not stupid are you? Germany was founded in 1871!!! Not 843.There was no Germany before 1871.Hence the Netherlands were never part of Germany when will you understand that?!
The Seventeen Provinces originated from the Burgundian Netherlands, that were inherited by Maximilian I of Habsburg in 1482. His grandson and successor Charles V united all 17 provinces under his rule, the last one being Guelders, in 1543. Most of these were fiefs under the Holy Roman Empire, of which Charles became Emperor himself. Two, Flanders and Artois, were subjected to the French king, he and the Holy Roman Emperor agreed to release all seventeen from the largely nominal and by then anachronistic ties to both realms. This was called the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549.
I suggest you reread WP:NPA. After that, you might want to consider whether Germany might, possibly, have existed prior to 1871. The fact that many historians think that it did could be a clue. Angus McLellan(Talk)15:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
To Rex Germanus: why do you think that stating an opinion is a defence of it? I have explained twice already why you are wrong. Please read it again if you don't understand it. There is political continuity for a German state from 843 to 1806. This state was reunited to form the German Empire in 1871. This state was divided in 1945 and reunited as a different political entity in 1989, giving Germany as a nation a continuity back to the union of the tribal duchies under one ruler separate from the rest of the Frankish realm in 843. Srnec17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You just don't get do you Srnec? You just don't want to see that you are wrong.Every history book will tell you there was no Germany or a single German state prior to 1871.Just accept the facts and go on.
Why do you think that stating an opinion is a defence of it, Rex Germanus? In The Dark Ages 476-918 for one, Charles Oman calls Louis the German the first king of Germany and Charles the Bald the first king of France. That's just one example. Why does the Germany of 1871, which underwent major changes in 1919 and 1933, before its dissolution in 1945, count as Germany? Maybe only post-1989 Germany is really Germany?
Anyways, your obstinacy and bigotry borders on the absurd and to suggest that it is I who is not accepting the facts when I have in fact presented them and defended my interpretation of them is beyond the pale. I would be happy to see that I am wrong, but you have not attempted to prove that I am. Please, accept the facts when they are presented. Finally, I think you have a nationalist bias. Srnec00:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
First I suggest you read W:NPA .Secondly you apparently don't understand the concept of a nation state.Germany, for the last time, was founded in 1871.There was no Germany before that.This doesn't mean there were no Germans, just as there are kurds but no there is Kurdistan.I think it is you who has a nationalistic bias.You keep claiming that all the small countries bordering France or Germany were once part of them.Nonsense.
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona08:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, this is ridiculous. The concept of nation state is from the XIXth century. Some of the nations of Europe existed in some proto-state longer than the Netherlands. That you are a bigoted nationalist -- I don't mean that as an insult but as a fact that is now documented by your various interventions -- changes nothing of the facts. The breakup of Charlemagne's empire leads to the creation of a proto-France and a proto-Germany. Not a proto-Netherlands, or a proto-Italy, or a proto-Belgium, or a proto-Switzerland.CyrilleDunant09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder, while looking at the comment above who is the nationalist here...
Essentially your saying that western europe ones was (Proto) Germany and (Proto)France.That makes me laugh and cry at the same moment.Your comment is ridiculous, because if there was a Proto Germany or France (also a ridiculous terms) then of course there must have been proto-Netherlands,proto-Italy, proto-Belgium, and proto-Switzerland, after all nothing is created from thin air.
Switzerland is born from the HRE. more or less four centuries later. So yes, I claim it existed not at all at the time. In any shape or form. For example... CyrilleDunant14:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, its probably your lack of historical knowledge that made you make this comment:
>>The breakup of Charlemagne's empire leads to the creation of a proto-France and a proto-Germany. Not a proto-Netherlands, or a proto-Italy, or a proto-Belgium, or a proto-Switzerland.<<
Could you then explain to me what Middle Francia was?
ps. If you continue call me a nationalist, "not meant to insult" or not, I will report it as a personal attack.This is not a threat but a fact.I'm sick and tired being insulted just because people can't 'win' on arguments.
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona10:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you call someone who is being aggressive, vindictive, and defending a point of view which is, as far as I can tell, opposed to the concensus? Note also, that I am not the first to call you a nationalist. Unlike you, keep my username constant throughout the discussion... So maybe you are not, but you sure come out as such.CyrilleDunant14:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, you would not get insulted if you remained civil throughout the argument. And you should do well to understand that the goal is not to "win" but to establish a reasonable concensus. You seem only interested in pushing your point...CyrilleDunant14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, there was a proto-Italy in the Middle Ages, in the form of the Kingdom of Italy, which did not, admittedly, comprise the whole of Italy, but only the northern two thirds or so. We should perhaps also note the Kingdom of Burgundy, which was another one of the states born of Charlemagne's Empire (or reborn out of it, maybe), but which never really ended up doing much. Lotharingia, the last part of Middle Francia, was quickly absorbed by Germany. But the original Frankish state most certainly did not include a proto-Netherlands (note that the modern Netherlands was divided among the stem duchies of Lower Lotharingia and Saxony, as well as Frisia which wasn't part of either), or a proto-Belgium (Belgium was actually divided between France, which had Flanders, and the Holy Roman Empire/Germany, which had the rest as part of the stem duchy of Lower Lotharingia), or a proto-Switzerland (Switzerland was, as I understand it, divided between the stem duchy of Swabia and the Kingdom of Burgundy). There was, arguably, a proto-Luxembourg, in the form of the County, and later Duchy, of Luxembourg, which was originally part of Lower Lotharingia, I believe. john k15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This is going to be one of my last posts as I think this "discussion" is just totally ineffective (not caused by me btw), and the fact that I already got changed what I wanted.
Nevertheless, some important facts that others seemed to forget:
Germany was founded in 1871, not 843.
Therefore:
The Holy Roman Empire cannot be seen as Germany
East Francia cant be seen as Germany.
Countries founded earlier than Germany (such as the Netherlands,Belgium,Luxembourg and Switzerland) cannot be seen as ever being part of Germany.
Historic empires or areas like Francia or the Holy Roman Empire,that contain multiple modern day countries or parts of them, should and can not be seen as "proto versions" or predecessors of a single country today.
Congratiulations to CyrilleDunanton completely evading the points and facts presented in my post previous to this one, and defending your personal attack instead.
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona15:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Rex Germanus, you do not seem to understand what your opponents are saying. You call it a fact that Germany was founded in 1871 and never previously existed, but this is just the "fact" that everybody else disputes! Nobody agrees with you. Of course, if Germany were the creation of 1871, the Netherlands were never a part of it, but Germany existed before the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 and therefore, the Netherlands could have been (and were, in my opinion) a part of it.
Let me explain further. East Francia was Germany, it underwent many changes (political, cultural, geographic, etc.) before the loss of a true national polity in 1806. Many of the kings of East Francia bore the title rex Teutonicorum or "king of the Germans." While it wasn't a nation state, most modern polities don't really fit this category either: for example, Canada is two nations in one state. Germany was a state (a federation) of several nations (the stem duchies). By 1448, when the term German Nation comes into being, it was indeed a nation state before the aforementioned Pragmatic Sanction.
Let me ask you a question: are you the same person as on the day you were born? How so? Every atom in your body has probably been replaced by now. What makes you still the same person? The fact is, things change in part but remain one thing based on more abstract (but no less real) qualities. In this case, namely your mind (among other things). In the case of Germany, while some portions of the old East Francia were lost and some territories were added to it, the political system remained the same (legally): an elective monarchy over the several duchies and other states. Why is the 1871 creation Germany if it underwent three major changes (far more significant than even Francis II's abdication), indluding the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the 1945 division, and the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall? Is the modern state Germany? Let me put this another way:
The Netherlands are not a split off of the modern Germany state as it is today, but they are a breakaway from Germany (and France) as those two nations have a wider historical definition.
Finally, I am not claiming that the HRE is Germany. It was not. I am claiming that Germany was a state from 843 to 1806, again from 1871 to 1945, and again from 1989 to the present. These last two periods represent recreations of the first state in a very different form, but much was consistent, such as the nation and the heritage. If the Netherlands were created in 1549, out of what were they created? Srnec22:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
>>Let me explain further. East Francia was Germany<<
>>The Netherlands are not a split off of the modern Germany state as it is today, but they are a breakaway from Germany (and France) as those two nations have a wider historical definition.<<
Let me tell you this, this historical definition of which you speak is purely based on territory controlled by that country at this moment.That's just nonsense.The Neherlands were never a part of France or Germany at the time of its creation because they did not exist.
Germany was created in 1871, German culture and language might be older Germany isn't.Countries created before 1871 (nearly every country in Western Europe) can never have been a part of Germany before that date.
>>kings of East Francia bore the title rex Teutonicorum or "king of the Germans."<<
My Latin is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure Teutonicorum , or Teutonic mean GermanIC not German.
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the point is that in popular culture, Charlemagne is a father of France and Germany. At least in France and Germany. Wether that is historically true or not is irrelevant. It is obvious why it is so, and worthy of noting. That is all.CyrilleDunant12:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you CyrilleDunant!!! You just wrote down the biggest difference between us. You say: "Wether that is historically true or not is irrelevant" while I disagree with that completely.
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
you will note that the article does not say "is" but "is considered". Which means something different. Charlemagne is an important historical figure, but also an important popular one. You seem concerned that this be the case, but this I cannot help. I can only tell you that in france and Germany, Charlemagne is "considered" a founding father. This fact (the position in popular culture) is I believe not disputed. As long As the article does not say "he's the guy who started the whole France and Germany business", which is a debatable position, I don't see what your griefs are. Except that you seem intent on being right.CyrilleDunant19:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
France isn't mentioned as of having a father.The Father of Germany is Otto von Bismarck.
The only reason why previous historians might have claimed charlemagne as their herritage is because of his deeds, thus for nationalistic purposeses.
Also, after a google search I found no pages saying to claiming that Charlemagne is the father of Germany, or France.In other words: "[citation needed]"
I will not revert now, because of the 3 revert rule.But I assure you this is far from over.
Note:I have a strong suspicion that User:130.223.213.2, is CyrilleDunant in other words a sockpuppet.
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You never answere my arguments in full, Rex Germanus. Why is 1871 so special and why not 1989? Or 843? Let me explain:
Germany as we know it refers to a west central European state. This state was formed in 1989 from two states that we know of as West and East Germany. These states were of the same nation and therefore there is continuity between the united Germany before and after them. Germany before the division of 1945 is known as the Weimar Republic until 1933 when the Nazis took over, but that was just a political change. The Weimar Republic was still officially the German Empire as formed in 1871, but on a democratic, not imperial, footing. The Empire of 1871 was formed primarily by the work of the Prussian Otto von Bismarck, who sought to reunite Germany, which had previously existed. The idea of a unified Germany was not new with him. The Germany he was reunited had been torn apart in fact since the Protestant Reformation, but in theory only since 1806 when Francis II abdicated his royal title and all pretensions of authority over the various German states. The Germany he dissolved had been extant since 843, when the Treaty of Verdun divided the empire of Charlemagne and created a polity in the East. This Eastern polity (called East Francia) was Germany, it simply wasn't called until a while after. But before the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549, it was so called. Therefore, Germany existed before 1549. It was not the exact same thing as today's Germany, but than, as I showed, you aren't the exact same thing you were yesterday and you claim continuity with yourself anyway. Srnec21:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
An elaboration on my comment immediately above:
On the title rex Teutonicorum translates most literally as "king of the Teutons." But who are the Teutons? The Germans, of course. We could say Germanic peoples, but that would have included the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, the Franks, and Lombards. In the reign of Henry IV, the term was first used unofficially. It certainly referred to a German nation and its people.
I want to elaborate also on the issue of why the Treaty of Verdun represents the formation of Germany. The treaty established a specific geographic region under one king (one state within a larger empire). This state was a sovereign and independent state in fact (and practically in law as well, the concept of empire being rather vague). It was the first state of its kind in history. No single state ever corresponded to its territory (basically the four duchies of Swabia, Saxony, Bavaria, and Franconia) before and there is no separate regnal line before the establishment of Louis the German on the throne there: it was a new polity. Later on it absorbed some territories over time and some territories were lost, just as in the history of all nations and states. The state continued until 1806 with major and minor changes on the way, just like all nations and states. What it did retain was a continuity of rule (a continuous succession of governments) and a territory based on the same duchies. This was legally shattered in 1806 with the abdication of the title "King of Germany," which basically made the separate states of the federation independent. This independence was ruined by the reunion of these states (with modifications) in 1871. The rest of the history is elaborated above (several times). I hope eventually you'll be convinced. Srnec03:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
(geographical rant part)
Liege and Aachen, two prominent cities in both CM's life. (resp possible birth region and where he was buried) are in Belgium (almost a bordertown to the current Netherlands, so not the French border), and on the German border (to the same current Netherlands region). The Franks and France should be kept apart. The Franks original realm was simply more northern than France.
(Non rant geographical part)
Metz is said to be Austrasia's capital, but Pippin and CM are both said to be born much more northern (Liege), and buried (Aachen, Pippin the Short is not mentioned) Is this due a difference between capital and royal residence? In the CM birth part, Liege is even said to be the origin of both the Merovingian and Caroligian dynasties.
It's the Frankish Empire. Verious 'regna' made up the Empire and the names and relative boundaries changed through the Carolingian period. This entire discussion is nonsensical. Suggest that where there is confusion, the insertion of 'today's country X" be added. JHK03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with sentences one and two, but how does that make this entire discussion nonsensical (though it makes some arguments nonsensical)? Only if the past has no relation to the present (an obvious absurdity). Srnec04:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Length
This Article is extremley long (87 kilobytes) and much of the information is a history of Charlemage's empire not about him. The article took about 5 mins. to load on My computer, Therefore for tecnical and practical reasons i thik it should be split into a no. of smaller articles. (Ken20:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
Actually 57 Kb. Perhaps it is long, but most of the article (as far as I can tell) is about Charles himself and his actions personally, not about the state of his kingdom. Also, most of it has its own articles already, but some information must appear here as well. Finally, your computer must be old! Loads in a second or two on mine. Srnec22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that was the lentgh of the talk page, that time was for pictures aswell as the text. (Ken23:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
Yes of course, the article must be split, it is way too long. Charlemagne should provide many topics, as he is the man who came closest to unifying the Germanic tribes.Dave12:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No one ever came close to unifying the Germanic tribes, not even charlemagne.
Rex GermanusTesi samanunga is edele unde scona15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not gonna argue with someone who calls himself Rex Germanus about the unification of the German tribes, but is anyone else worried about the fact that an article this size and importance has only one footnote? And that one just a minor quibble. This really isn't my period, but has anyone read McKitterick, e.g?
I agree that the article has, by comparison with others, very few referencing. The majority of the narrative text describing his career was written by me from various sources. What sources should be noted when many sources give all the available information? This is not obscure or controversial stuff. Some of the stuff in the sections other than "Life" needs footnoting, the "Imperial coronation" section does have Harvard references, and the "Life" section could use more scholarly references, but of whom? Srnec22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Dates
The single year dates were all de-linked recently: is this proper, it seems unusual by the standards of most other history articles? I could find nothing at WP:DATE about it. Srnec18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There are many references to the "caliphs" of Al-Andalus, in fact, the ummayad Caliphate of Spain began in 929, not before, so should be changed the references to the caliphs by "emir" (post 756)
First let me say this: I really hate to dispute the factual accuracy (and POV) of that section for the reasons I am, but I feel I must. First, the editor who added the "Language" section has shown himself (at this talk page, in fact, see above) to have a bias and POV which affect his edits. Second, the section contain(s)(ed) several statements at variance with previous versions of this article or comletely unsubstantiated and unreferenced, to date:
That Charlemagne did not speak Old Frankish.
That he could not have spoken Gallo-Romance (why not?).
Frankish went extinct during the early 7th century.
"This" was an area of great linguistic diversity: the are of Liège or Aachen?
*"This" was an area of great linguistic diversity: the are of Liège or Aachen?
Please rephrase this question.It's unclear to me what you mean.
I also believe that every single thing I said here was mentioned in the text.What's your problem Srnec?
Rex08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I also wonder, Srnec, why you have added the NPOV tagg to the article. It mentioned a totally unsources claim before, that didn't seemed to bother you.
Rex08:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
While every statement would be supported by reliable sources in a perfect world, disputed ones definitely need to be. I'm sure it'll be easy to find reliable sources which tell us that Charlemagne spoke this or that language (Proto-Poldernederlands or whatever it happens to be). As for Old Dutch, which doesn't link to a language/dialect, who was it who added that to the Old Frankish language article ? Angus McLellan(Talk)13:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"Proto-Poldernederlands", hahahaha brilliant! But seriously, I don't know who added an Old Dutch link to Old Low Franconian, and I recall the once was a genuine "Old Dutch" article but it seems to be merged with Old low Franconian now.
Rex13:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To clear up, the article used to say that Charlemagne spoke Old Frankish — two opposing unsourced claims. I don't know which one to believe. How do we know he did not speak Gallo-Romance as a native language? Is the area around Liège or Aachen or both an area of great linguistic diversity? Srnec15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No no, the article used to say he spoke a Old High German dialect influenced by Old Frankish, not Old Frankish itself.Gallo Romance language, like the name says, was a Romance language and he just didn't speak it natively.Nothing to explain on that. At that time Both Liege/Luik/Lüttich and Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle/Aken were the scene of linguistical diversity.
Rex15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but can you source any of this? How do we know Gallo-Romance wasn't his native tongue? Srnec16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not ordering you around, I was merely saying that you could source that. In other words, I'm asking: who says? I think these claims need substantiation. Srnec18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you said "source that" that was your sentence.Nothing else.
Why it is highly unlikely is that Charlemagne was a Frank. Gallo Romance was spoken by Romanized Gauls.He wasn't raised by Gallo Romans but by Franks.That's why.
I think one problem is coming about because the contributors so far do not seem to realise that there is a whole range of dialects which are between Low and High Franconian, and they have a name: I would have thought the Germanic dialects of the area around Liege and Aachen, and quite a distance around, would normally be called Middle Franconian, at least in modern dialectology. High German would not have been a standard language even in Cologne at this point in time. I think it is highly unlikely that Charlemagne would not have been fluent in both Middle Franconian and Gallo Romance, as both were widely spoken in the region mentioned.Andrew Lancaster13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What is Germany
I want to elaborate on the issue of why the Treaty of Verdun represents the formation of Germany. The treaty established a specific geographic region under one king (one state within a larger empire). This state was a sovereign and independent state in fact (and practically in law as well, the concept of empire being rather vague). It was the first state of its kind in history. No single state ever corresponded to its territory (basically the four duchies of Swabia, Saxony, Bavaria, and Franconia) before and there is no separate regnal line before the establishment of Louis the German on the throne there: it was a new polity. Later on it absorbed some territories over time and some territories were lost, just as in the history of all nations and states. The state continued until 1806 with major and minor changes on the way, just like all nations and states. What it did retain was a continuity of rule (a continuous succession of governments) and a territory based on the same duchies. This was legally shattered in 1806 with the abdication of the title "Holy Roman Emperor" and all its subsidiary titles which basically made the separate states of the federation independent. This independence was ruined by the reunion of these states (with modifications) in 1871. This formed the German Empire, which lasted until 1943. In 1989, Germany as we know it was created. It is a reincarnation of the old German Empire (Weimar Republic), which is itself a new state, but based on the older idea of German nationhood, which had existed since at least the eleventh century. Historians speak of Germany all the time before 1871 and the Holy Roman Emperors were also kings of Germany. This is established fact. East Francia is regularly referred to as Germany after the breakup of Charles the Fat's empire in 887 and especially after Henry the Fowler's accession in 919. Srnec18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that "FranconiaA" was not a distinct duchy, but merely the part of the Frankish homeland (Austrasia) which was inherited by Louis the German. The rest of Austrasia was inherited by Lothar, and became Lotharingia. I would just add a couple of things about the 19th century - the elimination fo the Holy Roman Empire was far from popular in Germany, and at the Congress of Vienna there were serious interests that wanted to restore it and give the title back to the Habsburgs. Metternich was not interested, but a different Austrian foreign minister (Stadion, for instance) might easily have pursued it. Second, before 1871 the idea of a German Empire was always seen as a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, even if the structure would be completely different. The Frankfurt Diet, which first proclaimed a German Reich, appointed a Habsburg, Archduke John, to be "Imperial Vicar" - a title deriving from the old title held by the Electors of Saxony and Palatinate during an interregnum. The Grossdeutsch idea, in particular, was pretty closely tied to the old Reich, but the Kleindeutsch also looked back to the Holy Roman Empire to an extent. Recall also that the Empire founded in 1871 was referred to as the "Second Reich," clearly indicating an attempt to claim continuity with the old Reich. A last point is that the German States were not fully independent during the period from 1815-1866. The German Confederation represented genuine restrictions on the sovereignty of the member states. Aside from Prussia and Austria, who had territory outside the Bund (and also, I suppose the King of Denmark and the King of the Netherlands, who were members of the Confederation in their roles as Duke of Holstein and Grand Duke of Luxembourg), it's my understanding that the German Confederation members really had no leeway to pursue alliances of their own outside the bounds of the Bund, or to conduct very much diplomacy in general. If anything, the member states had considerably less freedom to do this than they had in the 18th century, if only because small states in general had less freedom in the 19th than the 18th century. In the 18th century we see states like Bavaria and Saxony allying with France or Russia against one or both of the German powers. This simply doesn't happen in the 19th century, because, for most of this period, Austria and Prussia worked together to manage Germany. Even when they were competing, the result was generally inaction on the part of the Bund. I can't think of any real instances where the middle states had any real leeway to conduct an independent foreign policy in the way that the middle states of the old Reich did. Obviously, the German Confederation was not an Empire, but it was a genuine polity in its own right. john k23:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Germany
Germany is a country formed out of various German duchies and small states under Prussian dominance in 1871.
Rex18:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
My point is, that it is ridiculous to call historic entities as sole predecessors of a single or a couple of modern countries today.
No matter what Srnec says: East Francia and the Holy Roman Empire weren't Germany as much as the Roman Empire wasn't Italy.THAT'S my point.
Rex20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The modern Netherlands, or Belgium, or many other modern states, had no equivalents in the Early or High Middle Ages, but Gaul, later France, Italy and Germany did exist as geographical expressions, if nothing else. As for your take on Germany, if I accepted it, I'd be left wondering what it was that Henry the Fowler was king of. I suppose you might say Ostfrankreich and, true enough, that would be East Francia. But what might Regnum Teutonicum be in English ? For something that didn't exist, Medieval Germany is remarkably common in book titles. Angus McLellan(Talk)21:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I would probably never say "Ostfrankreich", but "Oost-Frankenrijk". Regnum Teutonicum would be "realm of the Germans", but does this equall Germany?I think not. I am not going to deny the fact that East Francia and the HRE are often refered to as Germany, but it's still wrong.
Rex21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, I would say that regnum Teutonicum is, for Wikipedia purposes, Germany, so long as there is some mention of the fact that it's not the same thing as modern Germany where necessary. I have far less problem accepting East Francia as Germany than I do with Merovingians and Carolingians being used for period of "French" history as is currently the case. Or with the templates History of France and History of the Netherlands as they are. Clearly there are problems here, but I'd like to solve them rather than argue endlessly. Angus McLellan(Talk)22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Angus McLellan. It is quite obvious that "Germany" (not identical, of course, to modern Germany) existed as a polity of some sort in the middle ages. It was combined with "Burgundy" (which has no modern equivalent) and "Italy" in the Holy Roman Empire, although eventually all of the Italian and Burgundian parts (save Savoy) ceased effectively to be part of the Empire, leaving only the German parts, which had always been the center of gravity. The Low Countries in the middle ages were not seen as a distinct country, but were divided between France and Germany - Flanders being in France, and the rest in Germany. The Netherlands only became a distinct entity in, at earliest, the 15th century, with the Burgundian unification of them, and, more legalistically, with the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549, or whatever. Pope Adrian VI, who was from Utrecht, is traditionally listed as a "German" pope. The idea that there was no such thing as "Germany" before 1871 is absurd - there was obviously not a Germany which was the same as the Germany that emerged after 1871, but there was a polity called Germany, which was within the Holy Roman Empire, until 1806. And from 1815-1866 there was the Bund. The fact that a particular state came into existence in 1871 is meaningless. I think there's a better case for stating that "Italy", as we now understand it, really did come into existence in 1861. Although there had been polities known as the "Kingdom of Italy" before, they had never controlled the whole peninsula, at least not since the time of the Ostrogoths. The medieval kingdom of Italy, to be specific, never included the south, which was divided among Lombard, and later Norman, petty states, then unified by the Hautevilles into the Kingdom of Sicily, which split into the two Kingdoms of Sicily, which remained as independent polities until 1861. "Italy" as a state incorporating the whole peninsula really was a new thing in 1861. If anything, what was new about "Germany" in 1871 was that it was less inclusive than earlier conceptions of Germany. excluding as it did the Habsburg lands. john k23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The following was written before john k's comments, so it may be redundant:
The entire Carolingian empire was divided between Italy, East Francia, and West Francia after the Treaty of Meerssen of 870. What happened to these states? The line of succession for each of them (they were kingdoms) is unbroken until well into the Modern Age. The abdication of the Emperor Francis II and the execution of Louis XVI ended the polities, though the latter (West Francia) continued to this day under various governments (not all monarchic). The fact that these nations are not always referred to by the terms Italy, East Francia, and West Francia means little about their existence, nor does the fact that the name of these realms changed.
The Germany we know today is officially the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, which is translated as the Federal Republic of Germany. It was created in 1990. It was a reunification of a preexistent state: the German Empire, which was created in 1871 and dissolved in 1945, though the term fell out of official use in 1943. The Empire is never referred to as such in English after the Treaty of Versailles (1919), thereafter it's the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich (both informal terms). Why is 1871 so significant, when there are other dates of importance along the way to the current state of Germany? Because the prior German state was not a nation-state and was not entirely independent, it was part of the Holy Roman Empire. That's why. There are other types of states besides nation states, like feudal states, for instance. Germany was a kingdom within the Empire until 1806. It has its beginnings in the Treaty of Verdun of 843. The state created there, East Francia, becomes known as Germany over time, the same way West Francia became France. It would be mighty difficult to deny that modern France grows directly out of West Francia.
The solution to the problem is to recognise that the Frankish state broke down into just three components by 870: Italy, East and West Francia. The first was not a Frankish creation, but a Frankish annexation. The latter were Frankish states and they were newly created by the treaties of the ninth century. The developed into Germany and France. What is today the Netherlands was then a component of East and West Francia. To speak of the Carolingian Empire dissolving into France and Germany is sufficient, because Italy existed earlier than the Carolingians and all other states within the territory once within the Carolingian Empire (such as Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Switzerland, etc.) come broke away from those two states. I hop we can solve the "problem," instead of arguing about it, but note that Wikipedia is not original research and the fact that most historians and medievalists recognise a medieval German state should be enough to silence dissenters. Srnec23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say the Kingdom of Burgundy was another distinct component, even if it was temporarily submerged in Italy in 870. It reemerged after 887, and remained separate until 1032, a point in time when Italy had been submerged in Germany/East Francia for several generations. john k09:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
East Francia develped in to an array of modern countries, just because Germany is the largest of them today doesn't mean can claim East Francia completely.
My point remains. There was not Germany before 1871. Before this there were German states, kingdoms, duchies, etc.There were Germans and there was a German language, but no Germany in what form whatsoever.Period.Rex07:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Some guy, in 1871 decided he would invent a state. And since he didn't know how to call it, he picked a piece of paper from a hat. And poof! there was Germany. You really should edit the Germany article, 'cause in the light of what you say, it is obviously a load of bollocks.CyrilleDunant09:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Rex is a broken record. Can we stop arguing with him? A final point - even if we say that, as a polity, the Holy Roman Empire (or non-Kingdom-of-Burgundian and Italian parts of it) cannot be described as "Germany," there remains the fact that "Germany" was clearly a geographical term. And that geographical term clearly included most of the Low Countries (except for Flanders) until at least the 15th, if not the 16th century. john k09:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
CyrilleDunant, I prefer a more mature way of saying it, I hope you can follow.
Germany, wasn't invented out of thin air. The idea to unite the German states to create a strong state in central Europe of course precedes the actual founding of the Germany. When we talk about "medieval Germany", we usually talk about event that happened on what is now German soil or which soil was then inhabited by Germans.Which is 100% correct.But calling any entity preceding 1871 and earlier form of Germany is not.If you cannot accept that, then that's your problem.
john k , about Burgundy, yes it was a separate entity throughout much of the Middle Ages, but it was part of one of those three components (an integral part, that is) in 870 and only resurrected later to become one of the three constituent kingdoms of the HRE. I have not considered it to be a part of Germany in this discussion, I have considered it as a separate part of the HRE. Rex hasn't noticed that yet, though.
Rex, do you ever read what the other people here write? You never actually try to counter my arguments, you just restate your opinion (which is contra the opinion of almost every scholar in the field). Certainly you know that the Low Countries were not always independent. Before their independence (1549), of what were they a part? Of the Empire, yes. But certainly you know that the empire was comprised of kingdoms and that most fiefs were fiefs of one or another of these kingdoms (Italy, Burgundy, Germany, and Bohemia) and not just of the emperor. The Low Countries were mostly a part of Germany (Flanders was part of France). Srnec16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Bohemia exactly qualifies as a constituent kingdom the way the others do. It was an independent slavic state which was incorporated into the Empire at a relatively late date, and, unlike the other constituent kingdoms, had its own separate king (although the two were frequently in personal union from 1347 onwards). But otherwise, yeah. In terms of 870 - yes, indeed, just wanted to point out that 870 is a a somewhat random date - also, wasn't much of Lotharingia given to Charles the Bald after Lothar II's death? I was under the impression that it wasn't finally incorporated into Germany/East Francia until the time of Otto I or so. And it was briefly an independent kingdom again under Zwentibold at the end of the 9th century. john k23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Lotharingia bounced around a lot and was much disputed. It was divided at Mersen but fully incorporated into France in 910 and then Germany in 925. It was fought over by Lothair of France and Otto the Great. I picked 870 because it shows that Middle Francia was broken up and incorprated into East and West Francia. This explains why there is no present-day nation like it (something Rex brang up several times before). Srnec02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
" ... to bequeath the world France and Germany"
I have totally had it with you two, especially Srnec.
That line was not discussed.The subject wasn't even touched, and still you 2 pretend it has been! You have gone too far.
You might like to make it seems I'm some delusional little nationalist, but it is you who are constatly and deliberatly editing this article in favour of Germany and France.No more!
Charlemagne died and when he died he left West, Middle and East Francia NOT France and Germany those are modern states, and IF they are includen then by god so will every other modern state that lies in the former Frankish Empire!
Not really, but I'm not sure I have long enough to wait for you to offer a citation or a coherent argument to support your position. Modern entities, and all of those you included to make your WP:POINT aren't found much before early modern times, have nothing to do with Charlemagne or the Carolingians. France and Germany do, and we know that because historians tell us that. What, exactly, do you dispute ? Improper use of dispute tags is vandalism. Angus McLellan(Talk)18:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, I'm supposed to get a citation saying the countries I listed came out of the Frankish Empire? You need to get over the idea that the Frankish Empire consisted of Germany and France, and that they are the only ones that have inherited matters from it.
If there's one country that hasn't been founed before early modern times, it Germany. As for France, I'd say Gaul laid stronger base than West Francia.
My dispute tag was correct, and apart from that (just a reminder of course) that tag was first used on this article by User:Srnec, I suppose the tag was in order then?
But that's not the point, the point is the article now says the Frankish Empires break up created Germany and France, nothing else, which is ridiculous. I understand how large countries all want the biggest pieces of succesful world history, but in this case, they have to share.
So you don't have anything except original research. Well, that's ok. I have plenty of historians who talk of France and Germany in the C9th. Would you like some cites ? Angus McLellan(Talk)21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Research? For what? To claim that much more modern countries came out of the Frankish realm? I don't need sources for that, I got rock hard proof right here:
Rex22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call that map "rock hard proof." In fact, you made it. What is most pathetic, perhaps, about your claims, Rex, is that it is so obvious that you do not understand your opponents' arguments. No one disputes that Andorra or Switzerland lie on land once within the Carolingian Empire. But how does that translate into "Andorra and Switzerland rose out of the Carolingian Empire"? The Carolingian Empire was long dead when Andorra and Switzerland first arose as independent polities. Charles Oman, for one, refers to Charles the Bald and Louis the German as the first kings of France and Germany respectively. That's just one example from an English historical work (The Dark Ages 476-919) which I find particularly useful (and accurate). There are many, many more. Srnec14:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked it up to be sure: "To pass (something) on to another; hand down." The Carolingians passed on France and Germany to other dynasties, handed them down, if you will. By creating them as separate polities, they handed them down to subsequent generations and "bequeathed them to the world" so that they exist at all. There has never been a Carolingian ruler of Andorra or Switzerland or the Netherlands. Srnec16:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Hahahaha, there has never been a Carolingian ruler of the Netherlands? Lotharius II would begg to differ. As for Andorra and Switzerland.The first was part of West Francia and the latter of Middle and East Francia.Of course they had carolingian rule.
As for the mistake you keep and keep deliberatly making ... the carolingians passed on East, West and Middle Francia... not Germany and France. I keep repeating myself so it would seem.
Rex09:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and you fail completely to convince anyone. Mostly because what you are saying boils down to such assertions as “there was no French Carolingian Dynasty”. Which is silly. For example in the France article, one can read “Existence as a separate entity began with the Treaty of Verdun (843), with the division of Charlemagne's Carolingian empire into East Francia, Middle Francia and Western Francia. Western Francia approximated the area occupied by modern France.”. Or in the Germany article: “the Holy Roman Empire (or the Old Empire) —stemmed from a division of the Carolingian Empire in 843, which was founded by Charlemagne on December 25, 800, and existed in varying forms until 1806, its territory stretching from the river Eider in the north to the Mediterranean coast in the south.”. Why don't you go and edit those too? I'll add a citation from History of the Netherlands: “The history of the Netherlands is closely related to that of the Low Countries; it was not until the 16th century that an independent state roughly corresponding to the present-day country was established.”. So please, stop being vindictive.CyrilleDunant09:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I never said that there wasn't a French Carolingian dynasty, you people just need to accept that Germany and France just didn't exist back then, neither did the Netherlands or any other country mentioned in this discussion.
Note how the France article says "west Francia" and not "France".Why? Because France didn't exist back then, same goes for the German article. Is it that so hard to understand?
Rex10:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
C's empire -> west Francia -> France. C's empire -> HRE ->Germany. Bequeath. Of course, according to you, when C dies, so goes his empire, as though he never existed. And then his successors die, same thing. There is such thing as causality in this universe, you know... Entities have links to the past.CyrilleDunant10:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
And thats were you go wrong again ...
West Francia isn't France, just an historical realm which covers most of Modenr France and the HRE and East Francia were just historical empires/realms that covered a lot of modern Germany.Indeed entities have links to the past, I never said they didn't.I'm just saying the HRE and East francia can't be Germany, and West Francia can't be France, just as the roman empire can't be Italy.
Rex10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're free to add your fascinating theory to the article, just so long as you add references to support it. If you add it without references, or remove the existing referenced version, then it is very likely that it will be reverted as WP:V requires. Angus McLellan(Talk)10:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Hahahaha, there has never been a Carolingian ruler of the Netherlands? Lotharius II would begg to differ.
. . . Germany and France just didn't exist back then, neither did the Netherlands . . .
Does anybody else see a contradiction here? If the Netherlands didn't exist when Lothair II did, how can he have ruled it? You fail to understand that there is a connection between West Francia and France, between East Francia and Germany other than the territory they stood on. There is no connection between the state created with the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 and previous states: it was a new entity entirely. The German Empire was also a new entity, though it was consciously an attempt to reunite the German states which had previously formed a united country, namely, the kingdom (not empire) of Germany. If Germany does not predate 1871, of what were Henry the Fowler, Conrad III, and Richard of Cornwall king? Of what were Otto II, Henry III, Henry IV, Henry V, and many other emperors crowned before their imperial coronations? If not Germany, what? Certainly next to nobody speaks of East Francia after the fall of the Carolingian Dynasty. They speak of Germany, that's just a fact. You may dispute the claims of next to all historians, but you may not remove cited information with numerous respectable sources to back it up. Srnec19:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a contradiction, if we would give Lothair a map of Middle Francia, and a modern map, it wouldn't be long before he recognised the Netherlands and said "I rule those lands".
If you wan't to think of East Francia as Germany fine, but do not that if it is Germany... why bother to call it East Francia? Guess where Kingdom of Germany redirects btw.
Rex10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"Those lands" is different from "that country", "that state", "that nation". Of course he ruled over the same territory, but not the same state. Why bother to call it East Francia? Because terminology changes over time, just as you may have heard in light of the recent Mexican election, the Institutional Revolutionary Party ruled there for 71 years, but under three different names: it was not always the PRI. Similarly, the state we now call Germany has been divided on two occassions since its formation (1806-71 and 1945-90) and gone by many different names, some official, some historiographical, including East Francia, Kingdom of Germany, Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, German Empire, Weimar Republic, Third Reich, and Federal Republic of Germany. Finally, nobody is arguing that modern Germany and East Francia are the same thing, but they are related things and not totally separate identities. Srnec17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't, but apart from that you again called the HRE Germany... seems you 'll never get it.
Rex17:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No what isn't? As to equating the HRE and Germany, I did not do so. I merely pointed out that its name was merged with that of the Holy Roman Empire at one point, indicating that the entities were at that point inseparable and the king of Germany was necessarily emperor: hence the reference to a "German nation" whose existence you have consistenly denied. Can you please kill your asinine, imbecilic, and childish comments as to what the scholarly majority "doesn't get"? Citations have been provided (and innumerable more could be) to prove that it is not just my point of view, but the view of most historians who ought to know. Srnec20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Worse, you never knew what the hell we were talking about. . . That's why you resorted to childish remarks and name-calling, and stating your belief as if that's an argument for it. Srnec20:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
No, Angus McLellan, I think it's a bit of a mix between nationalism and personal pride vs realism.
The only correct answer to the question "What did the Frankish Empire bequeath the world?" Isn't "Germany and France", but "East, :Middle and West Francia". That's the whole point.Nothing more and nothing less.
Rex21:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Give you a rest CyrilleDunant? In this whole discussion, you only made 3 comments, the one above included, and you are tired? Apart from that, you make it seem as if you're confined to discussing with me.Well let me just say you're not.
Rex09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In this discussion, you are the only one not talking sense nor trying to reach an agreement. I completely agree with snerc, or angus, so I don't need to contradict them, do I?CyrilleDunant11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That's you personal opinion Cyrille, I am talking sense, and I am trying to reach an agreement. But I tell you again, if you completely agree with Srnec and Angus, then why do you even bother to post? And how does this tire you?Rex11:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I simply note that there are three users of one opinion versus yours and you still edit the article in _your_ direction. This is annoying. Plus you seem to feel invested in some sort of holy crusade...CyrilleDunant11:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Rex, very briefly: West Francia is France. They're the same state, with complete continuity. The political unit that you call "East Francia" was known as "Germany" for most of its existence, although there was a discontinuity from 1806 to 1815, and again from 1866 to 1871, so that the modern Germany cannot be considered to be the same state as East Francia/Germany. john k12:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
John, I ask you. If East Francia was Germany and West Francia was France then why do we use East and West Francia?! Very childish question I know... but that what it come down to.
Rex15:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The old kingdom of Francia was divided into three parts - West, East, and Middle Francia - by the Treaty of Verdun. The Kingdom of West Francia gradually came to be known as "France," and the Kingdom of East Francia gradually came to be known as "Germany." States didn't really have official names in the early middle ages, so it's not as though there was an official name change. Even if there had been, I don't see how that matters. Did Upper Volta become a different country when it changed its name to Burkina Faso? How about Rhodesia and Zimbabwe? Or Burma and Myanmar? The fact that the western state established by the Treaty of Verdun in 843 is sometimes called "France" and sometimes called "Western Francia" is completely irrelevant to whether the two refer to the same entity. john k17:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Me, I think claims need referencing rather than mediating. If I were Sander, I'd be looking for historians like Francis Rapp (clio.fr) who don't see a continuity between Carolingian and later Capetian/Ottonian polities. Well, I don't have a problem with using East Francia as the name of the thing ruled by Louis the German, Charles the Fat, et al, between the Treaty of Verdun and Henry the Fowler's election, just so long as we don't lose sight of the fact that it was in Germany, an imprecise area between Gaul, Denmark, the Alps and the Slavs which included several modern countries in whole or in part. What's to mediate ? Angus McLellan(Talk)21:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
What's to mediate here is innacurate and nationalistic choice of wording over a neutral variant.
Rex21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
But there are sources, Rex. You call it inaccurate and nationalistic, but don't level that charge at us: level it at Oman and Gibbon (and many others). I will provide more sources if necessary, but it's such a peripheral issue to an article on Charlemagne. Srnec21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Lots of authors seem to share my nationalist French/German bias (odd in Scotsman), for example this search ("Henry I" + Germany, date 1990-2006, publisher name includes University = 986 pages), or this one ("Charles the Fat" + Germany, date 1990-2006, publisher name includes University = 157 pages), or this one ("Charles the Simple" + France, date 1990-2006, publisher name includes University = 172 pages) or this one ("Charles the Bald" + France, date 1990-2006, publisher name includes University = 631 pages). As usual, there will be many false positives, but that's Google Books for you. Angus McLellan(Talk)22:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Save it for the mediation guys. All I know is that a certain section of this page displays a clear pro FrancoGerman bias, which ends in inaccuracy.
Rex09:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Being neither French nor German in any way, I find my Franco-German nationalism lacking a solid base. Rex, if sources are provided, what is your beef? If most historians agree with me, what can you possible do about it? Write your own history of the Carolingians and their successors and try to convince the scholarly world otherwise, but until then, Wikipedia demands verifiability. Finally, you still fail to make the necessary distinctions to understand why the Carolingians created France and Germany, but not the Netherlands, and why the Germany of today is the direct descendant of East Francia. What will this mediation solve? How can a mediator order properly-cited text removed? If you have anything contradictin the sourced claims, add it and source it. Srnec16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering,that Charlemagnes official title isnt here anywhere (von Gott gekrönte König der Franken und Langobarden).
New Babylon
At the top of the article it says "king of the Franks" and "king of the Lombards". His official title was rex Francorum et Langobardorum, which translates "King of the Franks and Lombards". His imperial title changed over time but is given in that section of the article (Charlemagne#Imperator). Srnec18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)¨
Glad you could join us. "What's up" here is principally that there is a sentence within the article that I find unacceptable and have atempted to modify various times, but which others have blocked, most notably Snerc, fueled by (what I believe are) personal motives.
The sentence in question;
"The new dynasty spread to encompass an area including most of Western Europe and, through various treaties and divisions of property, laid the groundwork for the French and German states."
Which made me wonder, why just the French and German states? There's a lot more space left of the Frankish Empire when they are left out. So I added a number of other countries. They were deleted.
After a very long discussion on this page; ending in ... well nothing really, a "kind of mediation/new discussion" took page on the talk page of Oldwindybear of which the conclusion was that ... yes many more states can be added. Why? very simple, the key here is the word "groundwork" (used to be "foundation"), the groundwork being nobles in charge of various regions of the Empire, these lords, dukes, counts, etc. are the "groundwork". Which mean many more modern day countries should be included. A good example of this are the Netherlands and Germany. The Netherlands were you see first part Middle Francia and later East Francia (very short time in between), Germany was also incorporated in East Francia (East Francia would even start to be called ,kingdom of Germany further on, but the base of these countries was the same: Frankish royals effectively ruling the land, giving city rights, building roads, warring etc. The same groundwork, the only difference is that the Netherlands became an independant nation much much earlier than Germany (which territory was to be incorporated in the Holy Roman Empire for another 200 year) but I don't see how this affects the socalled "groundword". So far nobody involved in this discussion has had the time (sarcasm) to explain why there should be a difference, and are effectivly "avoiding" my arguments why they should be included while provinding little to no arguments themselves why they should not be included.
I had no part in the original dispute but have come to know Germanus elsewhere and thoug I might as well give the opposing view (which I think is more or less shared by Germanus' opponents Srnec and Oldwindybear).
Germanus objects to the mentioning of France and Germany in this context, demanding either the removal of the entire sentence or the inclusion of a whole lot of other countries, most notably his native Netherlands.
However, it is a historical fact that the Frankish Empire's division resulted in the creation of four different entitities: the Western Frankish Kingdom, the Eastern Frankish Kingdom, the Kingdom of Italy, the Kingdom of Burgundy. One can also count a fifth entitity: Lotharingia.
The Western Frankish Kingdom developed into the state called France (taking the name of its chief component, the Duchy of Francia (formerly called Neustria).
The Eastern Frankish Kingdom developed into an entity with a variety of names. Because after 919 the rulers were no longer of Frankish but of Saxon origin, Eastern Frankish gave way to the word "theodisk", which denoted those speaking the Germanic vernacular as opposed to Latin or the Romanic vernacular. In Latin this term was transcribed using the word "teutonic", hence the kingdom was called "Regnum Teutonicum" - this realm, as a part of the Holy Roman Empire, developed into modern Germany (though the road was more rocky than in the case of France).
The Kingdoms of Italy and Burgundy became the other parts of the Holy Roman Empire, but as the Empire's power crumbled disintegrated into various principalities. The is no real continuity between the medievaö Kingdom of Italy and the modern Italian state.
Lotharingia was first disputed between Eastern and Western Kingdoms and finally joined the Eastern realm as a duchy. It remained so, disintegrating further, finally being divided between mainly between France (Lorraine), Germany (Rhineland) and Belgium (Brabant) with parts going to Luxemburg and the Netherlands.
However, there is no direct line from the Frankish Empire/Kingdom to the Netherlands (or Belgium, Switzerland, Austria etc.), as all these entities were created only later out of the substance of the original entities.
Charlemagne (as this is his article after all) today stands at the top of the traditions of the two nations of Germany and France (France however including the Merovingian rulers as well). For the tradition of the Netherlands, see here.
Please, Srnec and Oldwindybear, if I have ommitted something or misrepresented anything, feel free to correct me, but I thougt that the Mediator should get this information ASAP. Str1977(smile back)09:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Before this turns into yet another vulgar discussion;
The count of holland was one of the many nobles in the present day low countries, eventhough his name suggests otherwise; see Netherlands (terminology)#Holland for more info.
As for "tradition", I can assure you Charlemagne has the same position in the history of any other Western and Central European nation.
Also User:Str1977 resorts to difficult names etc, AGAIN evading the main question: What does it matter in terms of foundation or groundwork?!
Rex 09:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Rex 09:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Angus et al., sorry about having forgotten you guys.
Germanus, if this turns to vulgarity it will not because of me.
Of course, Holland is not the Netherlands. Still, the NL did not come out of the Frankish Empire. Period.
If Germanus claims that Charlemegane holds the same position in all these nations, then he is mistaken. Ever heard someone talk about "Charlemagne, first King of the Netherlands" or "Charlemagne, first King of the Belgians"" or "Charlemagne, first ruler of Switzerland" or ""Charlemagne, first president of the Czech republic"? (the last anyway has no share in Charles' empire) - but you do hear "Charlemagne, king of France" and ""Charlemagne, first German Emperor". The latter title is of course not accurate but still, the tradition is there.
The Netherlands did not came out of the Frankish empire? Please explain this then Str1977:
Seriously though you have no point here. Charlemagne, was Charlemagne was the king of the Franks, king of the Lombards, Imperator Augustus and the first ruler of the Holy Roman Empire.
But this is not about charlemagne, it's about the frankish empire.
Rex 10:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Germanus, just because you have created a parallel universe doesn't mean that other have to live in it. So, you created your little map. Only it doesn't prove your point at all and it also faulty in parts (Denmark, Czechia).
The Netherlands were founded in 1581 (I guess you prefer that to 1815) - the Frankish Empire was divided in the 9th century. How can something come out of another thing 700 years after the end of the first thing? Rather, the NL split from the the Spanish Netherlands that were a part of the Regnum Teutonicum. So there's a connection (I never denied that) but not a direct one. You know all this, so please don't pretend you didn't understand me. Now, let's wait until the Mediator chimes in.
And no, this is about Charlemagne (see the article's name) and yes, his titles were King of the Franks, Kinf of the Lombards (the last of that title) and Emperor of the the Romans. Str1977(smile back)10:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I remember something you said just a moment ago: "if this turns to vulgarity it will not because of me" I hope that wasn't a promise because you just broke it.
That map simply indicates which modern countries were positioned in the Frankish Empire are you going to deny it?
File:HRR 10Jh.pngHRE 11th century I'd like to thank Rex for posting his map here. I'd also like to put on record, again, my objection to original research being advanced to support his nationalist position. The map appears at Holy Roman Empire, but, oddly enough, Rex doesn't show the other map in that article. Either the county of Holland was part of Germany in the 11th century or this map is wrong. Now, given that I have seen many other maps which show the modern Netherlands as part of the Kingdom of Germany, I think we can assume the map is ok and the problem is with Rex' original research. Angus McLellan(Talk)11:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear angus, that's not original research that's just a wikipedia map I modified (note that original is still present on wikipedia and that this map is only included on a talkpage) so that people could no longer deny regions of modern countries were never part of the Frankish empire.
Just for the record, I am not denying the region now called the Netherlands were part of East Francia, the later Kingdom of Germany, why would I say that dear angus? In fact the map you provided has been modified by me, as the province of flevoland was included.
You can drop the whole original research thing, as I'm not claiming anything new. But please explain to me that if the Netherlands (just to pick one) were a part of East Francia, just like what would become Germany was a part of it, how does this affect the "foundations"? Aren't they equall?
Rex 12:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So, Germanus, I am guilty of vulgarity? We must be having different definitions.
Your little map doesn't prove what you like it to prove. Anyone can see which countries now exist on the once Frankish territory. There's no big deal in this and no one denied that modern NL exists on once Frankish soil (the only disagreement in that regard would be what you call "Southern Denkmark" - not based on your actual map, as there's no Denmark on your map - and Czechia, on which your map is somewhat wrong - Bohemia was some kind of vassal, but not part of the Frankish Kingdom, and anyway was an entity of its own, that later became a part of another Kingdom - the Regnum Teutonicum).
However, the issue is that none of these other countries/states was directly created out of the Frankish Empire. Your inclusion of the tiny states, even if only created in 1929, is just plain ridiculous. Str1977(smile back)12:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
But you've got it all wrong (again) Str1977 because we're not talking about what came out of what, which I could continue for decades, but about foundations.
Rex 16:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not an "attitude" is simply a fact, as this simply about the mentioned "foundations" and not about the matters you present. That's not dictating, that's just making sure we're discussing the right thing.
What's there to repeat (or hide for that matter) when you did not answer in the first place Str1977? I hate to repeat myself but I fear I have to: We're not talking about what came out of what, but about foundations / Groundwork what's the difference in foundations?
Don't worry Cyrille, the thought that no one is seemingly/willingly able to answer the question honestly (thereby proving I'm right, and this is just a case of wikipedia bullying) keeps me going. Rex 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a misconception: we're not here to answer your questions. The burden of proof lies with you as you're the one who wants to deviate from the verifiable (verifiability, not truth, remember) simplification Francia -> France/Germany. Angus McLellan(Talk)17:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No angus, not at all. You are the ones saying only germany and France have foundations going back to the frankish empire. We've determined these foundations lie in ruling by nobility and now I ask you why is their case different from lets say the low countries? Rex 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh... Let us be precise: you determined that. Not us. And the difference is that there is no lines of lines of rulers of the low counties going back to Charlemagne. Because that is, for example, the case of France where the Carolingians were replaced by the Capetians, replaced by the Bourbons. All rulers of some entity known decidedly as France nowadays.CyrilleDunant05:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to be precise, than saying the nobility of the low countries had no links to charlemagne is of course ridiculous (more than half his family was borned in the low countries). As for the "difference"-question, after all the quarrels I finally asked it, and no one seemed willing to answer even now no one has done it. Why? Because they know that if they do, they'll "lose" the discussion. It's a bit said that you're therefore evading the question but oh well ... Rex 08:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You want to be precise, so let's be precise, G.
"You are the ones saying only germany and France have foundations going back to the frankish empire" - no we are not.
What we are saying is that France and Germany are the two entities that originated from the division of the Frankish Empire and still exist today (Burgundy and Italy haven't made it).
You wrote: "saying the nobility of the low countries had no links to charlemagne is of course ridiculous" - that might be so, but you are the only one entertaining that line of reasoning.
Cyrille wrote "there is no lines of lines of rulers of the low counties going back to Charlemagne.", which is a completely different thing.
And, of course, he is correct: There is no line of rulers which includes Charlemagne at the top and Beatrix at the bottom. Which might have something to do with the fact that the Netherlands or Low Countries only were united as an entity in the 15th century by the Burgundians - and that the state currently known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands started with the rebellion of 1581.
No Str1977, the article says it literally: "The new dynasty spread to encompass an area including most of Western Europe and, through various treaties and divisions of property, laid the groundwork for the French and German states." you are just claiming that. (Strange though that he can be the father of Europe but yet - accoriding to you- only "created" - that's the terminology you prefer- France and Germany...)
Anyway that's not the point, because as opposed to what Cyrille says, I'm not claiming the Carolingian empire gave "birth" to something recognisable as the Netherlands, I'm just saying this: If the countries that are now Germany and the Netherlands (and in that way many others) were once part of East Francia, where according to the article Germany's foundations lay made of nobility, then how can these be different from those in the Netherlands? (See, the big question -again, and again until someone has the guts to answer-)
Rex 09:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You are not saying that but we are saying that and the article is saying that. Just because you wish it to be different is no argument.
"Father of Europe" is a contemporary term (9th century), which has been transported into the 20th century. And, in case you haven't noticed, it is not meant literally.
You're only making it worse ... origins? Not acceptable. Because it still is the same essentially, which again forces me to ask what's the difference? I will continue to ask this question until it is answered or until this little franco-German party ceases to exist. Rex 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Rex 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Rex is right in that there needs to be a little more inclusivity in such a general overview. Adding a couple more countries wont hurt sentence flow, and a footnote can include links to a more full list. The distinctions between groundwork and foundation are minimal such that if the ambiuguity between these terms presents a problem we can replace them with another. There should not be ths much debate over the notion of inclusion - particularly as based only on the interpretation of a word. -Ste|vertigo18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That's because it's not a debate only about the interpretation of a word, but a debate about the interpretation of history, and about what the sentence is trying to say. Nobody debates that Charlemagne's empire included the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and such like. But it is wrong to imply that those modern states actually arose out of the Frankish kingdom. The Frankish kingdom was split into three units, two of which became France and Germany (the third unit quickly dissolved and has no modern direct descendants). This is worth mentioning, as a specific fact on its own. If we want a separate bit to say what parts of Europe were within the Carolingian Empire, that would be fine, but it's not the same thing. john k21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
And, Ste, no one here objected to a general reference to Western Europe - the problem is that Germanus wants to have a list of even tiny statelets rather than stating the fact that, as John said, France and Germany originated directly in the Frankish Kingdom. Str1977(smile back)21:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ghum now you're really just lying there.
>>And, Ste, no one here objected to a general reference to Western Europe <<
I just made that reference, and you deleted it.
Also my main point isn't that many more nations should be separatly mention, but that it's not just germany and france are mentioned.
Germanus, it was you deleted the fact that France and Germany had their direct origin in the Frankish kingdom, because your anti-German hatred doesn't allow for that. Think that an attack, consider what you wrote above (and what your user page used to say). Str1977(smile back)21:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Str1977, my anti German hatred? That is ridiculous I think you should put away your personal hate for me and read a book on objectivity and getting ridd of a bias. What I do hate however is people trying to use wikipedia articles for nationalistic purposes, especially if those people make the following comment:
no one here objected to a general reference to Western Europe
Well, my comment is based on my experience with all your edits which seem to revolve around one single issue.
I myself have not a nationalistic bone in my body.
Though I have explained myself above, let it repeat to you again: "NO ONE DOES OBJECT TO A GENERAL REFERENCE TO WESTERN EUROPE - IF YOU WANT TO ADD ONE, ADD ONE - BUT DO NOT DELETE THE FACT THAT GERMANY AND FRANCE TAKE THEIR ORIGIN DIRECTLY IN THE FRANKISH KINGDOM" - Get it now? Add, but don't delete. Str1977(smile back)21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Your comment is based nothing but your own incompentence to discuss matters with proper arguments alone! So instead you make constant attacks on my credibility, well let me tell you this: there is a limit to my patience.
A general note is more than enough, foundations are the same and mentioning france and germany besides western and central europe double.
This argument is apparently based in the definition of a word phrase, namely its a choice between "directly", "indirectly" or "eventually" regarding what would lead to the foundation of the article.
The characterization of Rex as wanting a full laundry list out of context would appear to be out of place, as Rex himself appears amenable to a shortlist of 5 countries. Two sentences is not improper, however, one to list those whose states were directly founded and another for a list of indirectly formed states. An overview is not improper. This is incestuously feudal Europe here; causality is not exactly defined.
That said, Rex you need do as Str suggests and add the second sentence. Leave proper facts alone and work off them.
-Ste|vertigo22:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Stevertigo - what on earth is an "indirectly formed state"? How is Belgium, a state formed in 1830 due to a revolution in the southern Netherlands, in any way a descendant of the Carolingian Empire? How is Switzerland, a state formed out of a loose confederation of free peasant and city state polities in the valleys of the Alps, to be compared to France, which boasts a 1200 year continuity back to Charlemagne? Saying that Charlemagne's Empire encompassed the areas of modern France, (most of) Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Austria, most of Italy, and part of Spain would be fine. But we should also say that the modern French and German states are more or less direct descendants of Charlemagne's Empire. None of the other states is even vaguely descended from the Frankish Kingdom (except maybe Italy, but the Kingdom of Italy founded in 1861 is pretty clearly a new entity unrelated to the old Kingdom of Italy to an extent that Germany was not. john k02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Rex doesn't even see a neccesity for 5 countries a simple reference to western and central europe is more than enough. Rex22:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I had another go at a compromise. I restored the valid, incontrovertible and sourced info on Germany and France, but added a sentence on Western Europe. Str1977(smile back)06:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that "most" is vague, and in fact not true. Fact: germany and France come out of the division. Fact: The empire covered most of western Europe. So except for geographical concomitance, there is no political link...CyrilleDunant07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so the context of the statement, and therefore the criteria, is political? That clears things up. I had thought the context was historical. <sigh>-Ste|vertigo17:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The foundations are the same. When Charlemagne divided his empire, he did not created France and Germany, he created West middle and East Francia. The rulers of these countries were in control of an area similar to france and germany. However, that's not by far the only thing. See, the division of the empire did not only result in 3 kings, no, it resulted in 3 kings and an enormous amount of little regions ruled by nobility. And it was the nobility in these smaller regions that proved to be the backbones of modern countries. (this goes for the unification of germany, the counts of Brabant and Holland as well as the rulers of Ille de France)
The foundations, a word of which im getting pretty fedd up with, are the same. Therefore removing every country, or even a general remark is not based on facts, merely nationalism or pure hate for another editor. Isn't that right Cyrille?
Rex20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm late. The fact is that the Carolingian Empire (not a formal name) remained as a state until 1806, but its constituent kingdoms were constantly in flux. These were created by divisions over the period of Louis the Pious' reign. They were finalised in the treaties of Verdun (843) and Meerssen (870). By then, there were only two political entities left: East and West Francia. Italy was an older polity absorbed into the Carolingian Empire. These two polities are Germany and France. We just don't call them that yet. All other nations which share some geography with the Frankish empire are political breakaways from France or Germany. Srnec06:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Foundations .... remember? I wonder though ... if Germany were of the size the netherlands are now and the Netherlands were as large as Germany is now ... would we call "East Francia" The Netherlands? Hmmm ... nice philosophical discussion there, but hé.
Question for snerc though, around the 1700's the Holy Roman Empire consisted of over 1800 separate immediate territories governed by distinct authorities, were they all "breakaways" too or not just because they still accepted the ceremonial purpose of the Holy Roman Emperor?Rex09:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to reply to Germanus' post and make a proposal:
I don't know what you mean with your East Francia the size of the Netherlands speculation and do no care much. As for the 2nd paragraph: these 1800 entities were all parts of the HRE and the German Kingdom, subject to the Emperor(yes, his power was waning but it was not merely ceremonial) and the Diet and the Reichskammergericht. These entities (or rather the ones that survived the turmoil after the French Revolution) achieved complete sovereignity only in 1806. The United NL did so already in 1648 but before that they legally were a part of the German Kingdom as well, albeit since 1581 one in rebellion. Which highlights the point that the NL emerged out of the German Kingdom and not out of the Frankish Empire.
Now, my proposal is this: This kingdom's division, out of which the states of France and Germany emerged [2], also indirectly laid the foundations of many modern states in western Europe.
indirectly? the foundations are the nobility and AFAIK, that nobility was there from the start. Rex10:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"Indirectly", because all the other countries emerged not out of the Frankish Kingdom but out of later states at a later date.
What nobility are you talking about, Germanus? There was no nobiltity of the NL as there were no NL in the 9th century. Not even all of the provinces that constituted the NL did exist in the 9th century. And even if your "nobility" angle worked, it would still be indirect.
Which countries emerged directly out of the Frankish Empire? I dare to say those were middle, west and east francia (which later was called kingdom of germany, germany as in 'kingdom with inhabitants speaking germanic languages'. So "germany" had a step in between itself.he he.
There was nobility in the Netherlands, naturally ... how could you deny that? Just because there is a modern country with a partly shared name with an ancient kingdom doesn't mean that's the only heir to its legacy. Foundations are equall, for Germany, Austria the netherlands, switzerland ... all the same, just because 1 country kept faithful to a powerless emperor longer than the rest shouldn't matter.
Rex13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Which countries emerged directly: the Western Kingdom (=France), the Eastern Kingdom (=Germany) and the Middle Kingdom, comprised of Italy (didn't survive), Burgundy (didn't survice) and the reast, later called Lotharingia, which broke into two duchies. So we have two existing states, two defunct and another entity that didn't emerge directly.
Read properly. Of course there was nobility - but which are you talking about. The NL (or rather Low Countries, to avoid confusion) as such were a creation of the Dukes of Burgundy and their successors, the Habsburgs. So we have a couple of territories inside the Kingdom of Germany being united under a single ruler, from which later some provinces split and later attained sovereignity ... sounds pretty indirect to me.
And finally: neither was the Emperor powerless at that time, nor is the Emperor the same as the Empire (and we are talking states and not people here), nor should the faithlessness of one go unrewarded. Strike out the last bit, that wasn't serious. (BTW, if your faith to the Emperor would be my reasoning, Austria should be preferred, since they only broke faith in 1918. Str1977(smile back)14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Str1977, you miss the point (again if I might add) because this isn't about splitting etc etc, or which person was emperor of what, but about foundations.Clear and simple and they are the same. Wether the country became one in 1568 or 1871.
Rex15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for dictating again what the point is. Since you haven't grasped it yet: YOU DON'T DECIDE THAT. And in light of what you have posted above, please reread my above proposal. Str1977(smile back)15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Didn't you understand? The only problem is that Rex will not question himself. Ever. Not if pages of arguments are written. Not if no-one agrees with him. He is a troll, pure and simple. All the cogent argument as been put forward above. He was not convinced (not that we had a chance). Now I suggest we ignore him.CyrilleDunant15:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You are not an hopeless case of optimism you're just missing the point, maybe we both are, I'm not talking about various kings or some form of continuity, I'm merely talking about the basic stuff, the nobility, the primal power within the empire which was the same in every part of the kingdom of east francia.Those are the foundations, they are what kept the empire together, giving cities rights, providing justice, armies regulated agriculture. That's what I mean with foundations, maybe you use a different context... though I wonder; which one?
Rex16:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by the nobility as the foundations? East Francia (or Germany) was a monarchic state, as was West Francia (or France). It was a new polity which had never existed before 843. After 870, all the territory of the Frankish Empire (Italy excluded for it preexisted the Frankish state) was either part of West Francia or part of East Francia. Other historic regions such as Burgundy and Lotharingia did elect their own kings at times, but they were just as often held within one of the other kingdoms. The fact is that you can name no modern state besides France or Germany which has a continuous political history (as a sovereign state of its own) dating back to the breakup of the Carolingian Empire. The Netherlands do not. Switzerland does not. Luxembourg does not. Austria does not. Belgium does not. Andorra does not. The Czech Republic does not. Monaco does not. Need I continue? Nobody is claiming that the Netherlands appeared out of thin air in 1548, but they appeared out of Germany and France, which in turn appeared out of the Carolingian Empire. Srnec18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I actually think that diagram clarifies your point. Nevertheless, I think you're still wrong. The smaller breakaway is a new and different entity while the remaining entity is just the same old polity as before the breakaway. It just got smaller. We're talking about breakaways not divisions. Srnec19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I could discuss the matter of "same old polity" for ages, seriously I could, but that is not my point. My point solely concerns "foundations" which, are the same aren't they? As both entities once were a part of a larger encompassing empire.Rex19:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, one is a direct descendant, the other is created through some other historical unfolding of events, disconnected from the original division. And If it were not France and Germany, you would agree to that.CyrilleDunant19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
A short note to all: What CyrilleDunant recently said about me has deeply offended me, and I do not plann to speak with him any time soon.Rex19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Are the foundations of the second floor the same as those of the first floor? Yes, of course, ultimately. But the second floor was built on the first, not on the foundations. I see your problem more clearly now Rex, but I think your starting to get nitpicky if this is what it's all about. The fact is that the Carolingian Empire split into France, Germany, and Italy. Middle Francia never lasted for long. Burgundy arose and divided and reunited again, but has no modern equivalent as it was all practically absorbed into Germany, France, or Italy at some point or other before 1806. Italy preexisted the Carolingian or even the Frankish Empire for that matter. France and Germany, however, are the two divisions of the Frankish realm. They are premodern states, but they still exist today. All other modern states that share geography with the old Carolingian state are breakaways from France or Germany at some prior point in their history. Therefore, it is correct to say that the Carolingian state broke down into France and Germany. I have accordingly reworded the article. Srnec01:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The foundations evolve as time passes by, naturally, but there is no denying they are the same. It doesn't matter which piece of land had what name, at that time or at present, not for the basics and that is why I say, the Frankish empire laid the foundations for many diffent countries that are and aren't here today, it does not matter if they weren't independant at the time, just like a house with just foundations isn't a house, but it has foundations nevertheless.Rex09:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Germanus, you are missing the point. No one disputes that the Frankish Kingdom is the foundation on which most of Western Europe, including your NL, is built. But only France and Germany take their origin directly in the Frankish division and survived (before Middle Francia is brought up again). These are two issues and the IMHO the blurring of the two is the reason behind all this squibbling. Str1977(smile back)09:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If no one disputes that I wonder why there has been an ongoing dispute for the last month or so. I am not missing the point I am defending what this is all about. Which isn't about the largest chunks of forlorn empires. I have changed the article to a version "no one disputes".
There is no dispute, there is you going against the concensus. For months. Against quite a few editors. Which got you blocked already. Thus my assertion of what you are. And note that unlike you, I can take other people's disparaging opinions (of which you profered quite a few already).CyrilleDunant10:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
To avoid misunderstandings as of why I'm not responding to the post above, see the short note for an explanation.
Rex11:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a dispute if no one disputes what I said? Because you, G., insist on removing information, on removing the fact that France and Germany were directly born out of the division of the Frankish Kingdom. You should, if you want to take my advice, construtively add your info about the foundation of all Western Europe, instead of removing other valid info. To refuse to do so is not constructive, especially since it goes against the consensus of all other editors. Str1977(smile back)12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That fact is supposably proven by that source isn't it? Now, I'm going to find out if a source from a nearly 100 year old book is valid, but in the mean time; is this version acceptable for you?
Rex12:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I hate to rain on this parade, but I think the current version is not acceptable for the following reasons:
The Frankish Empire directly gives birth to the two aforementioned states. All other modern Western European states were born out of these or were not born out of the Frankish Empire at all, therefore the statement is unnecessary and redundant if France and Germany are understood in their proper historical context.
Why is the Frankish Empire more the foundation for any of these states than say the Roman Empire or the tribe which settled their during the Volkerwanderung?
Some things are a distinct and special heritage of the Frankish Empire, others are not. Switzerland is not, the Netherlands are not: these nations arose out of different circumstances and were not created by the Franks, but later. Austria is and Catalonia is: these nations were created by actions of the Franks, by the creation of an eastern march against the south Slavs and by the reconquest of non-Basque Spain north of the Ebro and giving it a Frankish, Christian government. As independent nations, Austria and Switzerland grew out of Germany, but one has foundations in the Frankish state. Switzerland has a geographic and linguistic relation. Catalonia isn't even independent yet, but it is more a Frankish heritage than Belgium (as an independent state).
Srnec, I moved your post to the accurate section - the one below is strictly concerned with a single small issue.
Now, you may consider it redundant but please don't block a compromise when he have found one. (I hope we have!)
It doesn't say that the FE was "more" of a foundation - it just says that it was. And given that the FE/FK itself was based on the Roman Empire ...
Also, I don't that one can deny the Frankish heritage in any of countries later formed on the soild of the FE ... and some even have such heritage without resting on that soil. Str1977(smile back)15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes compromise is a good thing. I've been known to compromise on my choice of wine (for the sake of a woman), but that can lead to disappointments and I don't want that here.
I think that the Frankish empire cannot be considered to be the foundation of most modern Western European states in an especially meaningful way and therefore I would simply remove that line. I agree with your last point about Frankish heritage and Frankish soil, but it just goes to show how indefinite a thing "Frankish heritage" is. When talking about political entities (states), it is proper to say that France and Germany were (ultimately, but not immediately) the only two states formed out of the Frankish empire and that both still exist today, though with modifications (if it matters, Canada exists only in a modified form of its original 1867 creation as a state but nobody denies that it's the same entity).
I did not change the article because I don't want to upset the compromise, but often compromise is just a euphemism for "less than the best". Srnec16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If I were you I wouldn't under estimate the Frankish legacy found in the netherlands or Belgium snerc.
Rex16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I'm talking politics, not culture, not customs, not language, not geography, not anything else. Simply put, the Belgian and Dutch states are not the product of a Frankish state and are consequently not a Frankish legacy, at least not in the same way as those states created out of the Frankish state (France and Germany) or those create by the Frankish state (like Austria, which later became an independent entity to be considered on par with France, Belgium, etc.). The Frankish Empire is not the foundation of the Netherlands in the same way it is of Catalonia, and not of Catalonia in the same way as of Germany. We can safely say that France and Germany were formed by the divisions of the Carolingian empire: of no other states still extant can that be said, and for most of history there were no other states of which that could be said at all. The Frankish Empire has its contribution to the formation of Western Europe and Europe in general as we understand them, but so do many other entities which spanned much of the continent. The Frankish state does not have preeminence over other contributing factors in my opinion and regardless has no bearing on whether or not France and Germany were formed out of Carolingia. Srnec20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Many vs. Most
I see that RG has written "many", which I changed to "most", which Cyrille changed into "many" again. Now I'm not insistent on this and certainly will not war about it but I think that indeed most Western European nations are founded on Frankish heritage. Considering which nations aren't I can come up with the UK, Ireland, Portugal and partly Spain. Denmark, if that is Western. The rest of Scandinavia is nothern, Poland and Czechia are and anything to the east either Central or Eastern. But again, I won't force this. Str1977(smile back)13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Is that "most"? And what about throughout History? Frankly, it seemed more conservative that way, but I am certainly not religious about that.CyrilleDunant18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Most of Western Europe. Remember that among proponents of European Unification one group was called "Carolingians". But I don't want to force this and in dubio pro many. Str1977(smile back)18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Frankish heritage mostly gives you the six original EU countries, plus Switzerland and Austria (Slovenia was also part of the original Frankish kingdom, but is not western European). The Spanish state as it is now arose not out of Charlemagne's Spanish March, but out of the Kingdom of Asturias, which existed prior to Charlemagne's intervention in the Iberian peninsula. The Spanish March became the County of Barcelona, aka Catalonia, which, er, has never been terribly pleased with its position as part of the Spanish state. So you've got Spain and Portugal, Scandinavia, and the British Isles which arise independently of the Franks. That seems like enough to say "many" rather than "most". john k20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have boldly and perhaps rashly reworded the attempted compromise to read thus:
The Frankish Empire and its periphery defined Western Europe and the central position of Francia defines the character of the entire region even today.
I think I can defend this statement and its value. It implies not "most" or "many", but "all". However, it leaves the issue of the vague and ambiguous word "foundation(s)" out. It is in full accord with the statement that only France and Germany were direct products of the Carolingian division. Srnec20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I will remove and the central position of Francia defines the character of the entire region even today. Which is a bit unfortunate, and not really necessary as the geographical extent of the empire is well described.CyrilleDunant20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I equivocated on the use of the word "define". But note that I say that "the central position of Francia" is what defines the "character of the entire region". As to the rest of your rewording, I'm afraid I still think my prior wording is better. I doubt this debate will ever be resolved. Srnec20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what is the "character" of the region? But you are right, I am not happy with my version either. "laid the groundwork for"? Tell me, without any attempt at compromise, what your version would be?CyrilleDunant05:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The following version looks good to me:
The division of that kingdom formed the states of France and Germany, though they were not called that at the time.[1][2] The Frankish Empire and its periphery defined Western Europe and the central position of Francia defines the character of the entire region even today.
I don't think we should give the impression that East and West Francia are something like "official" names. I also think it is perfectly alright to say that the division of the Carolingian Empire formed France and Germany with no need for words like "origins" or "foundations". Finally, the character of the entire region, including the periphery, is defined by Francia insofar as it was her monasticism and monastic reforms which spread out and determined the nature of the church in the West. Also, feudalism can be said to have developed first in Francia and spread from there. First England, Lombardy, and Navarre were affected and then more outlying regions like Scotland, León, and the Mezzogiorno. The whole region however can be defined as part of what was once Francia or part of its periphery. I think that what gives Western Europe is distinct flavour has a lot to do with the central position of Francia. Srnec15:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, I see what you mean. What about:
The division of that kingdom formed the states of France and Germany.[3][4] The monastic reforms and the birth of feudalism originating from a centrally positioned Francia made an imprint on Western Europe which lasts to this day; indeed the Frankish Empire and its periphery defined Western Europe.
My only problems with your version are that I think we may have to specify that France and Germany are not contemporaneous names for those who are unfamiliar with this history and your modification to the "central position" and "character of the ... region" part is now too precise: there's more to it than just monasticism and feudalism. Srnec22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok.
The division of that kingdom formed the states currently named France and Germany.[5][6] The religious, political and artistic evolutions originating from a centrally positioned Francia made an imprint on Western Europe which lasts to this day; indeed the Frankish Empire and its periphery defined Western Europe.
Better? The problem I have with the character is that it is much too vague, it might mean "the geometrical shape of the region", true, but thoroughly trivial :)CyrilleDunant05:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't who's going to be more shocked, you or I, but I like (or can live with) it. All I ask is for an Oxford comma after "political". (And I would still say "France and Germany, though they were not called that at the time" as opposed to "currently named".) Srnec06:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok then.
The division of that kingdom formed France and Germany, though they weren't called that at the time.[7][8] The religious, political, artistic evolutions originating from a centrally positioned Francia made an imprint on Western Europe which lasts to this day; indeed the Frankish Empire and its periphery defined Western Europe.
Are you certain about the comma? it seems a tad odd... Otherwise, I am not shocked that you might like it, as you did not strike me as being innaccessible to discussion (unlike some other). But certainly, I would prefer a version the you would like, rather than just could live with. And I am not religious about the current proposal, because frankly, I think it rather lacks in literary quality.CyrilleDunant06:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hallo guys, I'd agree too except for the addition "though they weren't called that at the time" - I think it unnecessary and in the case of France also downright false. Also, I am not so please about the reinclusion of Gibbon. I know there is a strange fascination on the net with this inadequate and long long superseded book, but do we really need to quote pre-critical historians? Quite apart from the fact that his notion of preexisting nations is ridiculous and not accepted by any contemporary historian. Str1977(smile back)08:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"and its periphery defined Western Europe"?! Seriously what is this?!Periphery? I didn't spend nearly a whole month, if not more, to make my point about foundations only to replace it by the totally incorrect term "periphery".
Rex10:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The division of that kingdom formed France and Germany.[10] The religious, political, artistic evolutions originating from a centrally positioned Francia made an imprint on Western Europe which lasts to this day; indeed the Frankish Empire and its periphery defined Western Europe. It also laid the foundations for many other Western European nations lying within its boundaries.
'The division of that kingdom formed France and Germany.[11] The religious, political, artistic evolutions originating from a centrally positioned Francia made an imprint on Western Europe which lasts to this day; indeed the Frankish Empire and its periphery defined Western Europe and laid the foundations for many other Western European nations lying within its boundaries.
The accuracy of this is indisputable. All I was trying to do was appease some people who can't comprehend that we're talking about political history and nothing else and it still didn't work. Srnec21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The age of a statement has no necessary connection to its truth. I have many times defended that statement and my in-depth arguments are found scattered over several talk pages. Srnec22:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No not neccessarily, most do though. Nevetherless, I definatly, and totally, oppose Srnecs solution.
Rex22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The division of that kingdom formed France and Germany;[13] and the religious, political, and artistic evolutions originating from a centrally-positioned Francia were foundational for the whole of Western Europe.
Make it :
''The division of that kingdom formed what were to be France and Germany;[13] and the religious, political, and artistic evolutions originating from a centrally-positioned Francia were foundational for the whole of Western Europe.
The division of that kingdom formed France and Germany;[14] and the religious, political, and artistic evolutions originating from a centrally-positioned Francia are central to the foundings of Western Europe.
Found \Found\, v. t. imp. & p. p. Founded; p. pr. & vb. n.
Founding. F. fonder, L. fundare, fr. fundus bottom. See 1st Bottom, and cf. Founder, v. i., Fund.
1. To lay the basis of; to set, or place, as on something
solid, for support; to ground; to establish upon a basis,
literal or figurative; to fix firmly.
[1913 Webster]
Must we really speak of foundations? It seems that we can't quite agree on what is the foundation of what. The Frankish Empire is not foundational politically to any modern states but France and Germany. It is foundational culturally and in other ways to most states in Western Europe. What type of foundations are we talking about? I say avoid "foundations." Srnec18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The Frankish Empire indeed did lay the pollitical foundations of practically the whole of Western Europe and not just of Germany and France, there is no denying that.
Rex19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I deny it, or I deny that it did in the same way of "practically the whole of Western Europe" as of "Germany and France". We cannot speak of the Carolingian Empire laying the political foundations of all of Western Europe in the same way it laid them for France and Germany. We equivocate on the meaning of foundations and political if we do so. I have reworded the section in accordance with the agreed-upon form above (and no Gibbon citation). It should be acceptable to you except that it does not mention foundations. We can continue to discuss how these can be brought in here, however. Srnec19:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
^Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Hans Friedrich Mueller (ed). Random House, 2003. p. 888. Indeed, Gibbon regards the kingdoms of France and Germany as preexisting though integrated. It is their separation under the Carolingians that is of historic importance.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
^Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Hans Friedrich Mueller (ed). Random House, 2003. p. 888. Indeed, Gibbon regards the kingdoms of France and Germany as preexisting though integrated. It is their separation under the Carolingians that is of historic importance.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
^Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Hans Friedrich Mueller (ed). Random House, 2003. p. 888. Indeed, Gibbon regards the kingdoms of France and Germany as preexisting though integrated. It is their separation under the Carolingians that is of historic importance.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
^Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Hans Friedrich Mueller (ed). Random House, 2003. p. 888. Indeed, Gibbon regards the kingdoms of France and Germany as preexisting though integrated. It is their separation under the Carolingians that is of historic importance.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
^Oman, Charles. The Dark Ages 476–919. Rivingtons: London, 1914. Regards Charlemagne's grandsons as the first kings of France and Germany, which at the time comprised the whole of the Carolingian Empire save Italy.
Karl der Grosse
Shouldn't the German variant of his name, Karl der Grosse, also be mentioned before the Latin derivation in the beginning?
that's the first thing I thought when I came to this article. does anyone have any objections to including it in the start? after all the lands he ruled wasnt only modern day France. My french is limited, but what does the second half of Charlemagne translate literally as? all the other "greats" i know of have been translated into French as le Grande
"Le Magne", if not translated as "The Great" would probably be translated as the Magnanimous or something similar. --The Gonz12:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"It is frequently claimed by genealogists that all people with European ancestry alive today are probably descended from Charlemagne. However, only a small percentage can actually prove descent from him."
Is this skepticism really necessary? It's commonly accepted that Edward III, for example, has millions of living descendants in England alone, and he lived just 650 years ago. This sounds like elitist POV genealogy bashing to me.--71.112.234.16809:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's POV, and I have to question whether what you claim is "commonly accepted". The problem with such outlandish claims, with no hard facts to back them up, is that there are too many unanswered questions, e.g. :
How likely is it that Charlemagne is an ancestor of every person of wholly or partly European descent alive today? Explain your answer.
How likely is it that a random person alive in Europe in the 8th century is an ancestor of any one person alive today? Explain your answer.
How likely is it that a random person alive in Europe in the 8th century is an ancestor of every person of partly or wholly European descent alive today? Explain your answer.
Is a random European any more likely to be descended from Charlemagne than from any other random European person who happened to be alive in the 8th century? If so, why?
There can be no "hard facts," as you put it, to back such an idea up. Most people were not nobility, hence, complete genealogies don't exist for most people. But really, there's nothing outlandish about the idea at all. Charlemagne existed about 48 generations ago. Simple math will tell you that children born today had (48^2) 281,474,976,710,656 living ancestors 48 generations ago. However, this is clearly impossible. The number of people who have ever lived on Earth is many orders of magnitude lower, and there were certainly far less people than even that during that brief window of time. Moreover, we're talking about just Europe. Clearly, any human born today has a lot of inbreeding in his ancestry, however distant. Given someone like Charlemagne, who had many children, whose children had many children, and who can be traced through the genealogy of virtually (perhaps not even virtually) every royal and noble family of Europe, the idea that he isn't the ancestor of all or most of Europe is what seems outlandish to me.--24.22.147.20208:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and to answer your (inane) questions:
It's pretty damn likely, as I just explained above.
That would depend on a lot of things, like social standing, health, prosperity, etc. As a rule, one is more likely to be descended from random noble x than random peasant y, because random noble x has (along with his entire class) better health and longer life, an easier way to feed and care for many children, a greater incentive to create heirs, and a greater incentive to marry people from a great geographical distance, resulting in a rather thorough mixing of blood lines.
Again, it depends. For somebody like Charlemagne (of high social standing, left many children) it's probably not unlikely.
You know, you really could have asked just one of these questions.
What's with the insistence on this hypothetical random person, anyway? Charlemagne is decidedly not random, and even among nobility he is a special case. Claiming descent from him would have been a point of pride among noble families, at least before it became exceedingly common, so there are many, many documented cases of descent from him.--24.22.147.20208:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Foundations of Germany (Part ad astra)
Will it ever end? Cyrille Dunant asked. I wouldn't know if "it" will ever end, but I known that this wont end until proper references arrive. As Cyrille reverted my edits I'm sure he has them. Die dulci fruere.
Rex21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I would very much like to know what the recent back and forth is about, Rex. Is it merely the "foundations of Germany thing"? I am asking since you removed the entire Saxon wars thingy. Str1977(smile back)11:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well you make an unreferenced claim, the fact that you used the "F-word" has little to do with it, it's about the claim as a whole. References please.Rex12:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Whaa... I just came in yesterday into this new conflict, in which you for while didn't even state your objection, removing undisputed stuff (the saxon wars). But hopefully it is now sorted out. Str1977(smile back)07:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I am obliged to write an edit summary to remove unreferenced material added by you.
Rex14:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe I am obliged to give any reason if I revert your removal of a big aspect of Charles' rule, his 30 year war against the Saxons, from the intro. But still, courteousy made me ask you about your objection. If we all insist only on rights and obligations, life will be impossible. And also, remember there is something like a "Fact" tag. Str1977(smile back)14:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
After you first deleted not only the bit you later revealed your objection to, but also the preceding sentence. Then you fact-tagged it, not indicating that you had no problem with the Saxon wars. Only after a lot of pushing did you articulate your objection. Str1977(smile back)14:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The "reference link" does not support Cyrille Dunants view, who claims that the only words found of non Latin origin in are there because they were untranslatable.
Naturally this is ridiculous. The earliest Dutch sentence was found in such a Germanic law and is "Maltho thi afrio lito" (I tell you: I free you, half free) which of course is perfectly translatable in Latin.
Please stop adding these ridiculous comments, they are unbased, have no references and are your own original research.
Rex20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is in vernacular as it it used to free a serf, it is not an explanatory comment, it is a formal statement. Note that the concept of serfdom does not exist in the law of the Roman empire, as slaves are attached to their owner, and not to the land. Note also what WP has to say about salic law (in the language section). So my take is:
The laws were in any case written in latin
They were interspersed with Germanic terms. More Old Saxonian than Old Dutch.
Don't tell me Latin doesn't have a word for serfdom. (For crying out loud the English word "serf" is derived from Latin servum). The laws are mainly written in Latin and interspersed with Old Dutch (in the case of the Salic law) they were not interspersed with Old Saxon (as you once again make a false claim) I ask you why would the laws of the Salian Franks be written in Old Saxon?
Look, This is what is stated in the WP page on the salic law, why don't you go fight the people there? On the subject of serf, there were no serfs in the Roman Empire slaves, yes, but no serfs. Serfdom is a very specific and precise legal construct. A Germanic one at that.
A citation (originally from the Britanica, I believe, but found at various places around the web):
some scholars hold that the Salic Law was originally written in the Frankish vernacular, and that these words are remnants of the ancient text, while others regard them as legal formulae such as would be used either by a plaintiff in introducing a suit, or by the judge to denote the exact composition to be pronounced. It is more probable, however, that these words served the Franks, who were ignorant of Latin, as clues to the general sense of each paragraph of the law. a fourth version, as amended by Charlemagne, consists of 70 chapters with the Latinity corrected and without the glosses. Though he added some new provisions, Charlemagne respected the ancient ones, even those which had long fallen into disuse.
As for Saxon, I mistyped. I meant "Old Franconian". Of course.
I suggest you stop being aggressive and get an education, so we can communicate more easily, and solve stupid issues such as this one faster and with less fuss.CyrilleDunant15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh believe me, I have an education do you? (you seem to have followed a personal attack crash course) You have nothing to support your ideas in fact you make them up stop adding them. How one can mistype "Old Saxononian" for "Old Frankish" (which is still incorrect) is wasted on me.Rex16:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, mild manners were not included. You have never, from the beginning ,tried to be agreable. You never even bother to indent your response. You never assume good faith.CyrilleDunant16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You're the last one who should talk about mild manners, questioning my education in a absolutely loathsome way. You add unreferenced nonsense to wikipedia and refuse to accept you're are (so) wrong just because I'm on the opposing side. You're an open book to me: terriblypredictable. The reason why I am not agreable is because there'snothing to agree on, you're last edits were simply unreferenced nonsense, you edit summaries speak for themselves why I don't assume good faith with you anymore.
Rex16:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
So be coherent, revert them. I assume English is not your mother tongue, so you might want to mellow the expressions you are using, as you write things way beyond what you probably mean.CyrilleDunant17:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
yeah you'd like me to revert them wouldn't you, because then you can report me for breaking the 3RR, like I said you're predictable.Rex19:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Note that unlike you I have never reported anyone. And if indeed my edits are silly, then you should have no problem convincing some other user that you are right. This is the reason of the 3RR: it prevents a single user from going against a concensus.CyrilleDunant05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. “loathsome” is a remarkably strong word, normally reserved for the description of some heinous crime. Which I don't believe to have committed :) CyrilleDunant05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Rex, this is quite enough. This page is devoted to improving the article about Charlemagne, not to ego wrestlening. As for now, I see absolutely nothing Cyrille can say without you shouting at him. I strongly urge you to tone down and reconsider your "don't assume good faith with you anymore". You will not "lose the argument" by behaving rationally. Rama07:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if admins on wikipedia are still required to be impartial ... hmmm. That said, CyrilleDunant, your edits are ridiculous (not silly) but that's not the main issue here is it. Like I said before your edit summaries speak for themselves. You continously try to make my wikipedia work impossible and try to make my edits seem like vandalism, I wonder what ever happened to objectivity.Rex14:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"Making your work on WP impossible" ?? I wish I had that kind of power :) No, I simply contest your edits whith which I do not agree. And in general, those are always related to the Netherlands, for which you seem to have a slightly blinding love.CyrilleDunant17:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it's much easier (the first lines of your previous posts were sad really btw) you just seem to hate the word Dutch. Franconian is okay, but as soon as "Dutch" shows up it's all hands on deck and a full broadside. The edits you made are still not correct. A barbarism isn't accurate here and your reference isn't an English source which is discouraged.Rex21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And why, Rex, your obsessive pushing of the word "Dutch", when it is clearly misleading? The preceding sentence said Old Low Franconian and you added "also called Old Dutch". That was okay. But why should we use that term as the default term? Str1977(smile back)21:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not a default term, the salic law was written in Latin and Old Dutch, not Latin and Low Franconian. Rex21:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
But the article says it was written in "Old Low Franconian (also known as Old Dutch)".
But now that a clear distinction is made, we should be precise, no? And in any case, the "original" version of the law is lost. The only versions we have are written in latin interspersed with malbergisms, which are not in any case "Old whatever" but latinised vernacular expressions. The other thing being that Charlemagne had the laws rewritten with corrected latin. Actually, this famous sentence of yours, I could not find it in the original text. Do you happen to have a version containing it?CyrilleDunant05:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I added an explanation which was (and is) not original research. As it happens the considerations on how and why the salic law is written the way it is are readily apparent on the reference I gave. That is the part in French. However claiming my reference is in french misrepresents my point completely: my reference is in (bad) Latin. Which illustrates the point completely.CyrilleDunant14:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I never said the source was bad because it was French, it is bad because it isn't English.
Furthermore the reference I'm aiming at is of course the one in your first edits. Which did not support your views (orginal research) at all.
Rex14:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sons and titles
In the children's section, tThere are two way we can do it. Either we mention the sons' titles or we just leave them to their respective articles, with of course the exception of Louis's eventual succession to Charlemagne. However, we should do it correctly. Pippin was not ever ever King of the Lombards - Charlemagne was the last of that title, all successors are King of Italy. Str1977(smile back)00:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say this before i ad this that if Charles the Younger was King of the Franks like his father from 800 to 811 he should be in the box thing that you click on in stead of Louis the Pious twice and Pepin in the middle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkem (talk • contribs)
Charlemagne was King of Franks until 814. Charles the Younger died in 811. Please do not make this change again. — ERcheck (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
name?
Charlemagne meant Charles the Great (no duh!) Well was this his name or a later given name? So could he have been born Charles or whatever? Jim Bart23:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
But "Charles" is a French name.. and "Carolus" is Latin. What was Charlemagne's Frankish name? If you had lived in the year 775 and made reference to him, what would you have called him? Nan Hawthorne hathorn@ drizzle.com http://blueladytavern.blogsoft.com 1i November 2006.
I propose that this page be moved to Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor, considering that (1) his name in English is Charles, and this is the English-Language Wiki, and that (2) he was the first ruler of that name which ruled the H.R.E, and is commonly and often known to have begun that empire.--The Gonz09:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this term from the description at the beginning of the article twice now. The first time, my edit was removed while the reverter stated that they simply were 'barbarians', as well as pagan and Germanic people. A second time, I gave further reasoning in the edit and it may have been lost in a larger rollback, albeit no reason was given - so here I am stating my case in the talk page.
Now, down to the meat. First of all, "Barbarian" is something of a slur, particularly when you get into pre-Christian subjects remaining during the process of Christianization. Not only is it a term used to describe a notion of stupid, uncultured, loincloth-wearing and horrible-smelling people of various regions, it's sometimes mistakenly used when describing Germanic tribes generally by those less than familiar with the subject.
Not only is this historically inaccurate, it's extremely historically inaccurate. The Germanic tribes deeply influenced the modern western world in almost any way you can think of. They produced intricate art and poetry, complex societies and extensive legal systems - this before the long and bloody process of Christianization of Germania. It is a deep mistake to describe these people with a slur.
Not only that, it doesn't exactly sound neutral to me. This article may be about Charlemagne, whom may have viewed these tribes in this way but, perhaps fortunately, Wikipedia is not written from the point of view of Charlemagne.
Secondly, the jumble of descriptors for a specific subject needs to be changed to a link to that very subject in my opinion - which is the fact that they were Germanic pagans. I can understand why you'd want a link to Germanic peoples there but you can get there pretty simply from Germanic paganism, which is far more specific than paganism combined with Germanic peoples.
Now that you know specifically why, I will remake these changes. Please tell me why if you feel this is not reasonable. :bloodofox:05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
"Barbarian" is not a slur. It is a descriptor. Germanic peoples were barbarians because they were not a product of the Greco-Roman world. There were plenty of barbarian Christians, their paganism has nothing to do with it, nor does their art or their legal system (both of which were surely less developed than the Greco-Roman in many ways, though not necessarily better). Srnec17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The term is most certainly used in modern usage as an insult or slur towards anyone towards anyone 'uncultured' or 'inhumane', which is what my argument against the usage of the term in this article stems from. Unlike "Heathen", it has not been reclaimed in a way due to the fact that it still has questionable origins and affiliation with Germanic paganism. :bloodofox:01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted to compromise a little on this by linking directly to the section in barbarian that refers to a functional definition of the term. That said, the functional definition itself is pretty terrible, and could use a lot of work, but it's a start. I also put the word in quotes.
I know where the author who referred to them as barbarians is coming from but we do have to keep modern context in mind -- barbarian, stated w/o qualifications, is to modern readers a strong perjorative. I don't think it matters that the Romans called them "barbarians" -- they called the Huns all kind of appalling things (and later Europeans did the same regarding the Mongols), but you don't see the Mongols being referred to on their page as "savage demons." Because the Romans chose to exclude everyone who was not Roman with a descriptive slur does not make it right, or accurate. It would be like calling Americans gaijin on the USA page because the Japanese use that reference for all foreigners. Larry Dunn15:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Barbarian is simply the term used by historians to describe non-Romans, especially Germanic peoples, of the sub-Roman peroid. See, for example, these scholarly publications: [http://www.amazon.com/Barbarian-Tides-Migration-Empire-Middle/dp/0812239393/sr=8-1/qid=1163547737/ref=sr_1_1/104-2961537-8899138?ie=UTF8&s=books Barbarian Tides, by Walter Goffart], [http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-History-Barbarians/dp/0195159543/sr=8-6/qid=1163547818/ref=sr_1_6/104-2961537-8899138?ie=UTF8&s=books The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather], [http://www.amazon.com/Charlemagne-Barbarian-Emperor-Derek-Wilson/dp/0712602178/sr=8-1/qid=1163547917/ref=sr_1_1/104-2961537-8899138?ie=UTF8&s=books Charlemagne: Barbarian & Emperor by Derek Wilson], and so on. Lostcaesar23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
All sorts of authors have printed all sorts of things regarding this period but the point is that the term is, indeed, considered a slur in modern usage. The use of the term at all in this context violates the WP:NPOV by outright describing the Germanic tribes from a specific point of view, whom would consider them 'Barbarians.' Did they consider themselves this? No. Did the neighboring Celts consider them this? No. So why are we using this term that not only denotes insult, historically incorrect imagery but also a non-neutral point of view? :bloodofox:03:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it is a slur in common usage, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and her articles are scholarly. Barbarian is acceptable in this context in scholarly writing. The link should prevent misunderstanding if the barbarian article is properly written. Srnec04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It was a slur in ancient usage as well. Its only value is to distinguish the Greco-Roman civilization from everyone else. Your argument that Wikipedia is scholarly actually cuts against the description of the Franks as "Barbarians," as I know of no historian of Ancient germanic culture who would call the Franks "barbarians." For instance, the auhor Richard Fletcher, in his The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity, when he describes barbarian Europe, puts the term "barbarian" is quotes, to show that it was a Roman description and that the other Europeans were simply so-called. See also Gary Byron's Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature in which he writes (on page 2):
Ethnic-othering was a common literary tool used to stereotype and slander those perceived as threats (eg, religious, military, economic, etc.) within the ancient world. It was a prevalent and persuasive discursive practice within Greco-Roman writings because of the existance of so-called barbarians. The Greek term barbaros was used by the Greeks to designate one who speaks a strange language. The apostle Paul uses barbaros in this way: "if then I do not know the meaning of a sound, I will be a foreigner (Barbaros) and the speaker a foreigner (Barbaros) to me" (1 Cor 14:11). The term later developed into a geographical and ethnographical reference for a foreign or strange race (ie, anyone who was not Greek). After the rule of Augustus, Romans assigned the name barbarus to all tribes that had no Greek or Roman accomplishments. Most of the studies about barbarians emphasize a traditional view of antiquity, which assumes the dominance of Greeks and Romans within the empire. This in turn leads to constructing within Greco-Roman literature other peoples and cultures as "barbarians" when they present any type of threat to the empire. Greek and Roman authors used so-called barbarians as ethnographic tropes, which led to stereotypical depictions of many different ethnic groups throughout various strands of Greco-Roman literature.
The authors mentioned are historians, and their use is in no way insulting — neither is it intended to be nor is it understood as such by their audience. Its not an insult, simple as that. And it is neutral, as the historical community uses it in this context. And why would it be historically incorrect? I just don't understand. I think you are working with a misunderstanding of what the word means in this context. Lostcaesar08:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You're taking the historians' use of the term out of context. They refer to the tribes as Barbarians because that is how the romans referred to the people the Romans saw as such. It was meant to be as insulting then as it is now. It was a garbage-pail perjorative used by the Greeks and Romans to mean all people not us, and so has limited use as a descriptive. Frankly (pardon the expression), it's not appropriate at all, but putting the term is quotes is probably the best compromise.Larry Dunn15:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"Barbarian" literally means something like "blah-blah-er", i.e. "someone who speaks a language that we do not understand and so when he talks it sounds like 'barbarbarbarbarbarbar'." No, not all Romans spoke badly about barbarians. Tacitus spoke highly of them in his Germania. When these people began migrating / conquering into the Empire, yes they were spoken of badly. But "goth" was no more or less flattering than "barbarian". And obviously historians do not mean anything negative when they use the word, witnessed by the sources above, one of which specifically calls Charlemagne a barbarbain in the title! Lostcaesar16:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no comparison between the term Goth, meant to describe a specific tribal confederation, originating out of a specific place, and barbarian, which was meant as an exclusionary reference to everyone not Roman or Greek. Again, modern historians use the term only in reference to Greco-Roman perspective. At the very least, that makes the term inapplicable to the Franks of Charlemagne's time, as this was long after the fall of the empire in the West. Classical historians used the term, and applied it as judgmentally as did the Romans themselves. The term Barbarian is not otherwise a useful descriptor.Larry Dunn16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
So when Einhard, in his life of Charlemagne, called himself a barbarian, he was using the term prejoratively and in an inapplicable way?? "I [Einhard] submit the book. It contains the history of a very great and distinguished man; but there is nothing in it to wonder at besides his deeds, except the fact that I, who am a barbarian, and very little versed in the Roman language, seem to suppose myself capable of writing gracefully and respectably in Latin, and to carry my presumption so far as to disdain the sentiment that Cicero is said in the first book of the Tusculan Disputations to have expressed when speaking of the Latin authors. "
The term "barbarian" has a different meaning and connotation in antiquity, in Einhard's day and today. Also, note that we are writing English and not Latin, the language of both antiquity and the vita karoli magni. In modern English it has indeed a derogatory effect. Self-deprecation like Einhard's is also no reason to use it in reference to someone else. Having said that, there might be occasions were the term is the best we can do, but if it can be avoided, we should avoid it. Str1977(smile back)17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Einhard is not using it in a derogtory way, he is saying "I am sorry that my French is not very elegant but I am not a Frenchman", only replace "French" with "Roman". The word in English has different connotations depending on the context. When we read, for example, in the KJV that one is to "suffer the children to come to me", we know that "suffer" means "allow" rather than "inflict pain" because of the context. Words have widely differing meaning due to context - this is only a problem if someone does not know all the meanings. Lostcaesar19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that barbarian is not used by historians derogatively and so should not be a problem here. "Barbarian" has a different meaning in different contexts in all times and places. It could be used as a slur or simply as a descriptor. "Goth" or "gothic" has been and is often used as a slur, but it is no less useful for describing the peoples it originally described. Same with "barbarian". I agree that Einhard is only be self-deprecating in that he is admonishing the reader that his Latin is not good: because he is a barbarian, ie not a Greco-Roman whose first language is Latin. Srnec20:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the term "Barbarian" should be used here. This is why: You're going to be hard pressed finding anyone in modern times with a serious interest in Germanic paganism or the history of the Germanic tribes who actually use the term "Barbarian" as a descriptor outside of when referencing what these outside cultures referred to the Germanic people as or denouncing the use of the term as a slur - as it is most commonly used today.
Again, why is this article being written from this antiquated point of view from an ancient culture? What happened to WP:NPOV? This is not a neutral descriptor. Under the original usage, which has been cited as to why this term is being used in the first place, the term could be applied to every single culture outside of these Hellenic cultures. So why isn't it on every single other article describing every single contemporary culture? Because the term inherently is a slur in modern context - it should be removed. And why the insistance on using it in the first place? Look all over Wikipedia, you're not going to see this word used for Germanic pagans practically anywhere else - and it's not because I've removed them, as this is the first time I've encountered this insistence on using it.
When you say the term is not used elsewhere you are simply out of touch with the historical literature about the sub-Roman peroid. I cited three recent scholarly publications in the field that used the descriptor. What are you worried about here? Do you think that editors [and historians] are out to slur Charlemagne or something? Why? Was Walter Goffart out to slur Bede, Peter the Lombard, Paul the Deacon, and Gregory the Great when he wrote his book called "The narrators of barbarian history" about them? Are we all Roman senatorial snobs or something? I mean - what's the motivation? Personally Charlemagne is one of my heros and, for the record, I happen to think he is a saint. I will put the term back with the quotes around it, as it was, in compromise, until this dispute is settled. Lostcaesar00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I have no particular fondness for Charlemagne - nor does my opinion about him matter. I'm not out to slander anyone or boost anyone, I'm interested in keeping things neutral here , which is why I keep citing WP:NPOV - the term is loaded and is definitely not neutral, even in quotes. The fact that it's got a quote around it doesn't make it any better, it just makes it look unpolished and unreferenced.
I was referring to Germanic pagans, as the term is being used to describe the Germanic pagans as a whole here - as Charlemagne's ancestors. You're going to be hard pressed finding this term used elsewhere on Wikipedia as I've stated as it is, indeed, a loaded term and insulting term - even the term's original usage was a slur with negative cannotations.
This article needs to be neutral. That means, descriptive terms must also be neutral - I'm not at all concerned how Goffard referred to them nor the impression he wished to give about these tribes - I'm concerned about the usage of the term in this article. :bloodofox:00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If the term barbarian is footnoted with a citation of Goffart, what will you say then? Barbarian is a value-neutral term in scholarly historiographical contexts. Furthermore, it has no relation to paganism. Barbarian Christianity existed. NPOV policy should not be taken to the extreme lengths of assuming Wikipedia readers cannot discern different shades of meaning. Srnec04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I support Srnec postion. In this context, barbarian means of non-Greek/Roman civilization. If the reader knows this meaning, all is good; if the reader does not, the link will explain the meaning of the word barbarian in this context.--RedMC11:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would say - How about a source regarding Germanic paganism to describe Germanic pagans instead of a source focusing on a figure that was extremely intolerant of said subject and very clearly would mean nothing but the most cannotations with terms such as Barbarians?
To be honest with you, I have no idea why there's this drive to keep this term on this particular article. The descriptor is unecessary here at all - it does seem overkill giving the passing mention ("Germanic pagan" isn't enough? It seems to be everywhere else.) - and there's clearly an amount of us here that strongly feel it can be read pretty easily as an outright slur in both ancient and modern context. It's not used on any of the pages the links go to, the term is from a Hellenic (and later Hellenic-influenced post-conversion "civilized") standpoint and it really just adds to the word count here. All in all, these reasons alone should be enough to edit it out. :bloodofox:07:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that I do not see a good reason to remove it. It is necessary, because it describes the origin of Franks, and is not redundant, since it is not related to Germanic pagans. Don't take it personally, but I do not consider the possibility that some people take it as a slur a good reason to remove it either. The word describes how the Franks were considered by other populations - and most likely considered themselves. For these reasons, it should not be removed.--RedMC19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The "origin of the Franks" is in no way described by calling them "barbarians." You comment about non-redundancy is not clear. Could you please provide some evidence that, say, the Alemanni, or the Huns, or the Frisians, considered the Franks to be "barbarians?Larry Dunn21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The attempt at compromise having failed, I've removed the word "barbarian" altogether. It is a completely useless description and so is not encyclopedic -- aside from the term Barbarian being overbroad and a form of slander, it is not in the least bit necessary here: they are described as being pagan and Germanic people who crossed the Rhine in the fifth century. Were there pagan, Germanic people who crossed the Rhine in the fifth century who were not so-called "barbarians?" Larry Dunn23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It may never have been necessary, but the reasons given for removing it were poor and so I opposed them. Barbarians is what the Franks were, before and after crossing the Rhine and before and after conversion to Christianity. This is what others called them, then and now, and what they considered themselves. Srnec03:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
As stated even by its proponents in this article, the word barbarian meant anyone who was not part of Greek or Roman civilization, which means everyone on the planet at the time but those somehow connected to Greco-Roman civilization. This therefore includes such people as African tribesmen of the Sahara, Tibetans, Maya, Pacific Islanders and Goths. That is what happens when you try to make objective a slur meant to be exlusionary -- it has no definitional relevance. The fact that the word is a useless descriptive is anything but a "poor" reason. If it was never necessary, it should come out. There is no holy precedence in Wikipedia. Larry Dunn16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That is not part of the definition of barbarian -- the definition is people who did not obtain the benefits of Roman civilization. Read over the postings above again.
Another point (and I ahve left a warning on your talk page) -- you have reverted three times in a less than 24 hour period. If you do it again, you could be subjected to temporary blocking from Wikipedia.Larry Dunn21:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Expect articles to be edited on Wikipedia. The default over a dispute is not to automatically favor your particular position.Larry Dunn16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The default action in a no-consensus situation is the status quo ante. Your removal of the word was challenged, you lost, you can't remove it.--RedMC20:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Dunn was correct to do this. The term is unnecessary, no matter which side you take - the current descriptors are quite enough to sum it up nor is the term itself specifically accurate for the subject it describes, it's a blanket term, as Dunn notes that many here have also noted. This alone means that it would logically simply be removed, regardless of any 'for' or 'against' argument. :bloodofox:20:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Fox, I respect you opinion, but you should respect other people's. We work by consensus, and no consensus was achieved: for this reason (and not because I support it) the word must stay.--RedMC20:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
So far we have several arguments going. I will simply mention my thoughts on each of them, for whatever it is worth, and then give my conclusion.
A1: Barbarian is a slur and should be dropped
This has been refuted by reference to historians who have used the word in this context in an academic and non-derogatory manner, and also by the use of the term by barbarians themselves, as shown above. Someone understanding the term in a derogatory way in this context is making a mistake based on ignorance (see below).
A2: People might, due to an equivocation, misunderstand the term
This has been refuted by the observation that the term is linked, and therefore any misunderstanding is due either to an insufficiency in the main article, or intellectual laziness on the part of the reader.
A3:The word is a judgment on the unrefined nature of Germanic paganism
This has been thoroughly shown to be inaccurate because term describes something wholly independent of religion, observed by showing that there were Christian barbarians as well
A4:The term is not a useful descriptor because it is hopelessly vague, including such people as African tribesmen of the Sahara, Tibetans, Maya, Pacific Islanders and Goths
This argument is false because it is based on an improper understanding of barbarian in the given context and thus results instead from an anachronistic use of the term. In the history of the sub-Roman period it does not refer to any of the above groups except Goths
A5:The term is unnecessary because there were no people who were Germanic and pagan at the time who were not likewise barbarian
This is perhaps the only argument with a possible case, in my view. Though there may perhaps be some exceptions. For example, Germanic people who had been settled in the Roman empire as early as the second century, and in later times were Christian and thoroughly Romanized, sometimes found themselves or their children sold into slavery beyond the frontier. That would make their children Germanic, Christian, but not barbarian.
In conclusion I will say that there is simply no good grounds for removal of the term. The employment of quotation marks around the word seems a reasonable compromise. This is the decision I will support, and my position shall not change unless another argument has been advanced, or until my reasoning above is shown to be in error. Lostcaesar21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A1, A2 & A3- The term barbarian is a term with negative cannotations (slur) in both ancient and modern context. The word is most commonly used in modern terminology as a slur or insult, despite being used from a Hellenic point of view by some scholars to describe the relations between Rome and anyone outside of it. You will not find this term used outside of this context in any way but a slur and this is not how the term is used in this article.
A4 - Nonsense, the term applies to all non-Romans. See the article itself: Barbarian.
A5 - Not to mention that the term itself is overkill as a descriptor for a subject this article mentions on passing. Germanic pagan not only links to two different articles about the same subject, it also neutrally describest he subject. It's adding to the word count, causing controversy and sticks out like a sore thumb in terms of lack of necessity, particularly to anyone versed on the subject of Germanic paganism. :bloodofox:22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The term is not a slur in this context, and that is all that really matters. Your characterization of its use by scholars is not in accord with two of the sources that I have provided you, or with the primary source quote. The term does not apply to all non-Romans, e.g. Persians and Jews are neither barbarian nor Roman (or Greek) in the context of the sub-Roman peroid. Lostcaesar22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A1, A2 & A3-you are pushing you pov on the argument. There is no consensus that it was a slur.
A4- nonsense. The definition of barbarian requires to set a population that defines the barbarity of the other civilizations. Maya were not "barbarians" because the Romans never met them. I know it is difficult to accept it, because this argument goes against you POV pushing, but this is the truth.
A5- Germanic pagan does not say anything about barbarism: the Romans were pagans, but not barbarians; Germanic chiefs introduced to Roman civilization were not barbarians.--RedMC11:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Your comments above do not address arguments contra which have already been made in the discussion above (and you did not discuss them above when they were made), and either insinuate, or openly state, that users who disagree with your position are ignorant, which brand of debate is deprecated on wikipedia.Larry Dunn21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Historians of the sub-Roman peroid use the term in a technical way, and in no way as a slur. I proved this with sources above. If someone doesn't know this, then call it what you will. Lostcaesar22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Larry, you are discriminating based on the timing of answer, and this is not acceptable. You did not address Lostcaesar's points, and assuming that your POV is true even if no consensus has been achieved.--RedMC11:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Dbachmann removed content. This is not something I am happy with. Less content is not "less specific"; and from the point of view of this discussion, he simply accepted your POV, by removing the word "barabarian". You and Larry are unilaterally removing the word, even if _no_consensus_ has been achieved: this is not the way Wikipedia works.--RedMC11:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
While Dbachmann's edits appear to be acceptable — the paragraph is no worse and possible quite improved — the word "barbarian" should not be avoided as a slur and it is not acceptable to simply remove it against opposition for that reason. It has been shown several times that barbarian is not derogatory in this context. Bloodofox above falsely stated that its nonderogatory usage is primarily "from a Hellenic point of view" and "to describe the relations between Rome and anyone outside of it". Firstly, the viewpoint of most scholars employing this term is hardly Hellenic and neither is the primary usage of the term in the medieval world. Secondly, it is not the relations between "Rome" and "anyone outside it", the term is not based on a negative, it refers to certain peoples and not others, not "anyone outside Rome". In Charlemagne's time, it primarily referred to those who did not speak (vulgar) Latin as a first language. I don't want the word back in the article, but I want those who are shown to be wrong to simply admit it. Srnec19:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, the word barbarian is indeed a slur -- and I even took the time to bang in an extended section of a specialized history on this subject to indicate that. Historians who refer to certain peoples as Barbarians are not using the term objectively, but are writing from the perspective of their primary subjects, the Romans, who considered these peoples to be Barbarians. This is not a page about the Roman Empire -- if the Franks were being seen from a primarily Roman perspective, it would conceivably be appropriate to describe them as "barbarians," and then only to a very limited extent. In the future (when the wounds are less raw), historians may very well refer to African slaves held in the antebellum south as "niggers" because that is the way the Southerners referred to them, and that is even how the slaves often referred to themselves. That does not mean it is helpful or descriptive from an encycloedic perspective to refer to them as such in and of themselves, just as it is not helpful to refer to these German tribesmen as "barbarians" when not looking at them from a Roman perspective.Larry Dunn20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What you call "bickering" should be "debating", but you do not address the points raised by your interlocutors. Srnec05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
"Historians who refer to certain peoples as Barbarians are not using the term objectively, but are writing from the perspective of their primary subjects, the Romans, who considered these peoples to be Barbarians." — and on what basis do you say this? Honestly, totally unsupported claims are really of no profit. Lostcaesar20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, the only time you encounter this term is when it is: a.) When it is being used as a descriptor by Hellenic societies. b.) When it is being used by new converts or those within Roman society to refer to themselves in accordance to these societal standards. c.) Historians describing these peoples using these societal norms, usually surrounding some sort of conflict or subject regarding these tribes having involvement with these specific subjects. d.) And, most of all, as an insult and descriptor for all sorts of atrocities - All of which comes down to thes original slur. Did these people describe themselves - prior to the obvious bias of Christianization - in this way? Absolutely not. Did their neighbors? Nope. So why are we? Well, well.. It is an article about a major figure in Christianization, now isn't it? Connect the dots.
Wikipedia is neutral, thus our descriptors must remain neutral. A major focus and interest of mine is Germanic paganism and the history thereof. Terms such as "Barbarian" are completely loaded, almost as in the way 'Heathen' once was. Unlike 'Heathen,' however, the term has not taken a different meaning or gained popular support. It is widely seen as an insult - And especially regarding a subject involving Christianization - one must be careful how you approach portraying these tribes. Inaccurately describing them as uncultured monkey-men who accomplished nothing prior to the divine hand of Christianization does us no favors, violates many a Wikipedia policy and simply follows the lond standing tradition of post-Christianization literature that has filled many shelves the world over, however inaccurate.
All this besides, the term is hardly necessary and despite any discussion, this should be enough of a reason to remove it from any field, regardless of what type of insinuations may be brought to the table. :bloodofox:21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
BF, if only you actually knew the material, you would understand that barbarian is used in other ways by historians. I cannot convince you, and you won't look at the material, so what can I do? Lostcaesar07:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You refuse to acknowledge that the term is used by historians with no bias for or against Greco-Roman civilisation. The descriptor can be neutral and, in this context, clearly is. An interest of mine is the spread of Christianity and I think I can say that there is nothing about its spread among Teutonic peoples which changed their view of themselves as Germans which earlier contact with Rome had not already changed. Christianity changed their religion, their philosophy, their ethics, and their relationship with the rest of the wider world, but they were as happily German (or not) after as before. Srnec04:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I clearly acknowledge the various usages of the term above - Including modern usage and ancient origins. Again, I stand by my points. I suggest you do more research regarding Germanic paganism and the misinformation around the subject - then reexamine your usage of terms. :bloodofox:16:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
To what are your referring regarding the misinformation around Germanic paganism? Frankly, the barbarian status of the Franks is unrelated to their paganism. You have not addressed the issue of historical, scholarly context adequately. "Barbarian" has several independent meanings. Srnec22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"Barbarian" has absolutely nothing to do with either paganism or Christianity. When the term was first used to describe those who didn't share Roman or Greek culture, all parties involved were pagan in the modern sense of the word. Different kinds of pagans, of course, but that doesn't really relate to the point Dunn and fox are trying to make. (The predecessor to pagan, "pagani," simply meant someone who lived in the countryside.) After Christianity became Rome's official religion, the term barbarian was used just as before. And although some Germanic tribes converted to Christianity, they continued to be referred to as barbarians. (Alaric, the Visigothic chieftain who led the sack of Rome, was himself a Christian.) There's really no basis for the claim that the term barbarian has anything to do with the paganism of the germanic tribes, let alone that it's some kind of anti-pagan slur. It's akin to arguing that the present day use of the term "Asian" to describe Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and other, well, uh, Asians, is some kind of anti-Asian slur.Theotherkg20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Go up the page a bit and read Gary Byron's quote to see why your final assertion is incorrect. Also, your analogy does not work. "Asian" and the earlier "oriental" are generalizations used in the West to refer to people based on where they come from. There is no value judgment there. Barbarian was a term used to say that the people speak jibberish. It has more in common with the term "gook" than it does with the term "Asian." Larry Dunn23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Canonization
Could we add something about Charlemagne's canonization? The article at present does not mention that he is a Saint. Lostcaesar23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies - I searched for the american spelling of "canonization" rather than the British "canonisation". I just moved to this wonderful isle and I am still getting used to these things. Thanks. Lostcaesar08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This appeared on the main page in "On this day...": "800 - Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor, a title that had been out of use in the West since the abdication of Romulus Augustulus in 476." I was wondering what "the West" was referring to - "Western Europe", "Western Roman Empire" or "Europe", - and whether it includes areas under the rule of the Eastern Roman Empire, as areas like Iberia and Italia had been at some time under the rule of the Eastern Roman Empire (for instance, during Justinian I's reign). This would mean that the title "emperor" had indeed been used in some parts of "the West" since 476. Aran|heru|nar04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
"The West" in this context refers to the Western Roman Empire. To be technical, the title Emperor of the West had been out of use since the abdication of Augustulus. There is some question over whether Charlemagne was in fact emperor only of the West: one of the many reasons why Leo III crowned Charlemagne as emperor was that Empress Irene was ruling from Byzantium, and Western Europeans denied the legitimacy of a female Emperor. Slacspeak up!05:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Recently User:Matthead readded the German variant of Charlemagnes name. Would he care to explain what a German name is doing in the intro of the English wikipedia and given as an alternative of Charlemagne, and what gives the german language the right to be placed in the intro and others not?Rex17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, in the German wikipedia, you find the names in German, French, and Latin. Same goes for the Italian and Dutch. Why should this information be removed from the English WP?CyrilleDunant17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
What interests me is why nobody has bother to explain why he is Carolus Magnus in the article. Our poor readers might come away with the impression that it was intended to mean "Charles the Great". Likewise "Hugh the Great". Angus McLellan(Talk)18:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I must confess I don't understand what you mean. I was under the (apparently misguided) impression the Carolus Magnus really meant Charles the great...CyrilleDunant09:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Because ... this is the English wikipedia. If, in all fairness, we include his name in all the languages of his empire we would end up with an intro of names, rather than information. That's why. His names are Charles the Great and Charlemagne, not Karl de GroBe, in English. Either all or none.Rex18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Again Matthead what do you add? You attempt to attack my integrety but you fail. Try to focuss on the matter at hand instead of trying to make ad hominem attacks. You readded the German title after I removed it and explained why, now you can explain your actions. I bet you had great reasons to remove my edits so please share it.Rex19:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I explained before (but it seems you're to busy trying -well failing-to make me look bad) I gave my reasons for the inclusion, and alphabetically ordened the names. Still this is no reason for making German some special case here. EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS OR REFRAIN FROM EDITING.Rex19:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not be loud. I will simply add that Karl der Große redirects to Charlemagne (as it should) and that searching "Karl der Große" on google will yield a lot of relevant English language links, which is not the case for "Karel de Grote". So probably, for the users of wikipedia, it is a good idea to leave the German name.CyrilleDunant19:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Karl der Große was (is, and will be) among other names in the lead of his article since 2001, and many editors approved of this since. Removal without a clear majority is not acceptable. He is a kind of controversial figure, claimed by both francophone and "non-francophone" (to avoid German) cultures and countries as well. The English language is already baised by having chosen the francophone Charlemagne, rather than the neutral and proper Carolus Magnus. The German Karl der Große is a least of equal rights with the french version - if not of older rights, as Carolus and Charles are derived from Karl/Kerl/Carl (name)/Churl, names which were used before, eg. by Karl Martell and Karlmann. The distinction to the prior Karls is also a reason why Karl der Große was called the Great. -- Mattheaddiscuß! O 19:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said before Cyrille. Either all or none. Every language of the Charles' empire has the same right to be in the intro. It's your choice.Rex22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
No, this article now has a French and German bias, and it will not stand. All langauges spoken during Charles' reign have just as much right to be in the article as do modern French and German. Unless you see some reason why those other languages are inferior.Rex10:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following names belong into the article. Charlemagne (english), Carolus Magnus (latin), Karl der Grosse (german), Charles le Magne (french). An italian variant might also be reasonable, though I doubt Charles played a similar role in their history. Inclusion of names in languages of non-sucessor states is not reasonable. By the way, it is plain ridiculous to claim that there was no Kingdom of the Germans (or of Germany) prior to the 19th century. By the way, at least one count of Holland (William II) was king of Germans. This title is obviously not identical with that of Emperor (which was only conferred at Rome). If needed I'd recommend a poll to see which names belong.--Caranorn13:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
That was meant to be. They belong in the lead section of the article rather then the current section and link. I will gladly remove the Luxembourgish entry I added to said section once a solution has been found for the lead section. By the way, this character has been so central to European history that one might argue to include hundreds of variants based on local dialects. But the reasonable way would be to include only usage in the countries most directly related to Charles the Great (and obviously English).--Caranorn14:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Like I said before, either all or none. Every language spoken in Charlies Empire has the same right to be in the intro. (Though I suggest a modern standard form would be pro) the current sollotion is as neutral as no names at all, but more informative.Rex14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The "Names of Charlemagne" section is stupid. Do we really need any more than the English versions? I say, let the reader click on the interwiki if he desires to know Charles' other names. The modern Slovene form of his name is irrelevant to a study of his life, reign, and legacy. (The old footnote was fine, though. But even that was unnecessary.) Srnec19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, exactly really. But some people here wanted to include the contemporary German and French versions of his name, that's a bit unfair to all the other languages spoken in his realm. My suggestion was "all" or "none", the pro-users didn't remove them so here we are. I would not object to the removal, as long as all foreign names are removed as well.Rex19:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The French etymology makes sense (as in "From the Old FrenchCharles le Magne (compare modern frenchCharlemagne)"). I believe the German name is also useful, if only because it is used a lot on the internet. As I remarked above a google search of "Karl der Große" yields many relevant English links which makes this a useful information for the readers of the article.CyrilleDunant19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I agree with Cyrille and all the others who support to add also the German name of Charlemagne, ie Karl der Große. Beside the arguments already stated in favour of the name Karl der Große, it should also be mentioned that all other Wikisides concerning Charlemagne (french, italian, spanish, dutch, russian, turkish, etc.) do cite the German name Karl der Große. This may serve as an additional indication that the name Karl der Große is also frequently used in other languages but the German. Hence, I will reinsert Karl der Große in a couple of days provided nobody opposes such an action in the meantime. (194.9.5.1015:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
If you'd read the discussion above you'd already have seen I object to such an edit. When Charlemagne lived there were no Germans, no Germany, the Second Germanic consonant shift was still busy evolving and expanding, Charlemagne wasn't even born in present-day Germany, and by my information did not speak German, let alone modern standard German. Same goes for France, it did not exist, neither did the French. The French language oldest phase (old French) wouldn't appear for another 200 years after the death of good ol' Charlie. In fact the only language that was spoken at the time and is still here is Latin. That said, no matter how much 19th century nationalist/patriotists claimed them when they wrote modern history of both nations, the German and French language have no more right to be included in the article than any other language.Rex17:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rex, I love to discuss with you... Well, you are definitively right from your perspective as a linguist. Notwithstanding, we should keep in mind that the normal Wikiuser who visits the site at hand is predominantly interested to obtain information with regard to the historic person Charlemange. As Cyrille has already mentioned, "Karl der Große" is frequently used also in English sources concerning Charlemange. By knowing also the German notion, ie Karl der Große, the user has therefore more options to find more information via internet, etc. That the notion "Karl der Große" is popular in many languages may be proved by comparing the respective Wikisides in French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Russian, etc.
ps: You should keep also in mind that you have removed the German notion from the site without discussing it also the right way would have been to keep it as it is and propose a change an the talkpage. Matthead has in so far reinserted the original version. (194.9.5.1017:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC))
No I removed the German and French version quite some time ago, that was the original version (as far as something like that exist on wikipedia). I can't image English speakers looking for Karl der Große on the English wikipedia, and Cyrilles statement isn't well based. Even if it's true then Karl der Große is doing fine as a redirectpage. Rex18:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is talking about renaming the page to Karl der Grosse which would at best be silly. The question is whether the German and French names should be in the lead (actually first paragraph of the lead) considering how influential he was in the creation of those two modern states. All of that regardless of linguistic considerations.--Caranorn22:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
His role was minimal, afterall it was the Frankish custom of dividing ones property amongst ones sons that caused the division. Despite that, "his" role is already explained in the article. The names in the intro add nothing, and only make other languages look inferior.Rex13:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
His role - at least as far as Germany is concerned - was not minimal. Besides the fact that he included Bavaria and Saxonia into the Reich, he inter alia re-organized the administration, abolished the system of tribal dukedom, started the christinastion of the German tribes and established a dense net of castles, monasteries and abbeys in order to strength the power of the crown and the church. By the way, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do not want to rename the site to Karl der Große. I merely think that his German and French name should be mentioned in the beginning as he had a big influence on these two states. (194.9.5.1013:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
Why not? Even if the "modern" name did not exist while Charlemagne lived, it is the name which is used in literatur, science, etc. since centuries. As Caranorn has already said, you should try to contemplate the discussion not mainly under linguistic considerations. And when you say, to quote merely the French and the German name but no others in the intro would mean that other languages appear inferior, one could argue that it is eg a discrimation of all other languages as well to only cite the Spanish name of Christopher Columbus, ie Cristobal Colòn, on the respective site. What do you think? (194.9.5.1014:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
Cristopher Columbus spoke Spanish and was in the service of the Spanish crown and claimed America for Spain. I dont remember Charlemagne speaking either french or German, being in the service of anyone let alone of non existant countries. The literature comment is of course a bit odd. As if only French and german books are/were written on Charlemagne ... which is ridiculous.Rex16:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But is the point not rather that the Spanish name of Cristopher Columbus is cited as there are strong links between him and Spanish history? Furthermore, I know that there exists a lot of literature concerning Charlemagne in eg Dutch, Italian, Russian language but you should consider that Charlemagne has very strong links to middle European history, ie Germany and France, in the first place and that is why it can be presumed that many literature exists especially in German and French language. Maybe you have a idea how we could find a proper compromise concerning the problem? (194.9.5.1216:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
France does not lie in central Europe. The historical links to charlemagne exist in nearly all European countries, not just Germany and France. There already is a compromise: All languages are mentioned.Rex16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, France is Western Europe if this is more correct but that is not the point, is it (even Germany is Western and not Central Europe puting into account that Europe ends at the Ural Mountains)? Anyway, you can put it however you like, Charlemagne is one of the most important persons in early German history if not even the most important. The article is eg within the German Wikiproject which may serve as another indication for the significant role he played in German history. However, you are actually the only one here who is against the citation of his German name within the intro (although even the Dutch article cites it).Maybe anyone else likes to give a statement or we could even have something like a poll? (194.9.5.1216:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
Other wikipedias are not references. The "significant" role he played (already explained in the article) does not even slightly explain why the German version of his name should be mentioned ... Rex16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Charlemagne has been traditionally been viewed by both the French and the Germans as the founder of their respective nations (note the word "viewed" and the word "nation" instead of "modern state founded in 1871). The Dutch, on the other hand, don't view him as the founder of the Netherlands, nor do they even claim him as Dutch. And this is important because Charlemagne's significance is at least as much cultural as it is political -- far more so, I'd say. Although modern boarders don't bear too much resemblance to his empire, he still has a firm place in the French and German pantheons. Any article on Charlemagne that doesn't mention this is missing most of his significance. As such, it makes perfect sense to mention the name the Germans call him by, especially since in English usage the French one -- which is really no more accurate -- has come into common usage. That he's called by a different name and that under that name he's been traditionally thought of as a founder of Germany should be mentioned. The Dutch, on the other hand, give Charlemagne no such significance, and so there's no reason to stick their name for him in there. Theotherkg09:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you know very little about Dutch history. Charlemagne plays a significant role in it. Besides that, that's not the point here. This isn't about including Dutch, it's about excluding French and German from the lead. Either all or none of his names. The ideas of 19th century nationalists about their "nation" ancestry should not play a role here.Rex10:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
How exactly are you able to deduce what I know and don't know about Dutch history based on the simple and indisputable remark that Charlemagne isn't viewed the same way in the Netherlands as he is in France and Germany is beyond me, but I'll take your word for it, since it's such a great contribution to the general tone of the discourse.
Moving on, this isn't limited to the views of simply nineteenth century nationalists. The tradition of looking back to Charlemagne as a kind of founder goes all the way back to the middle ages. Both kings of France and the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire looked to Charlemagne as not only an ideal and a model, but as their own precursor. However important Charlemagne was in other countries, this was the case only in France and what eventually became Germany.
Next, you say that what you really want is to remove the French and German names of Charlemagne. The former would make very little sense in an English language article, as the man's French name is the one by which he is best known in English. And since we're is bound to use the French name owing to a quirk of history, the name used by the other group that gives Charlemagne the same special status is worth mentioning. The "regarded as founder of both France and Germany" bit is already in the lead, and I don't see the harm in the name being there as well. Theotherkg19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
People make up their own history. History is written bij the victorious and the powerful. Modern history was written in the 19th century. I once again suggest you read the article and this discussion. I want the German and French names to stay removed from the lead, not the article. If you look at the article you'll see the name section, which doesnt discriminate.Rex19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
When I see it right, Rex, you are the only one here who resists the citation of the French and German name of Charlemagne in the article`s intro. Furthermore, I have the impression that your motivation is not only driven by linguistic reasons. (194.9.5.1009:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC))
He has stated a fact and and impression. Very politely at that. And I will add that the impression is probably shared by many other contributors. If it where for linguistic reasons, we would have a Latin title, and Charlemagne would be a redirect.
You be very carefull with your remarks too cyrille, snide insinuations are PAs as well. The fact of the matter is that none of the above "arguments" explain why German and French are superior in any way to all other languages of Charles' empire. Rex20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Insinuating that other people are fascists is a personal attack -- in case you have not noticed, you have juste done that a few times. Menacing people is also a personal attack (the expression you be very careful is a menace). Expressing frustration when a debate is not advancing is not. No one has advanced any argument based on “superiority” except you. I think the French Etymology makes sense, because I believe etymology is interesting. I also believe the German name is relevant (but less so) as it is used in a important corpus of relevant material. CyrilleDunant20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Show me where I insinuated/called you were a fascist Cyrille and I'll leave wikipedia. You however clearly insinuate I have some hidden agenda. Rex20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
You said more than once that I believed French and German to be superior for some intrinsic reason. By my book, this is calling me a fascist.CyrilleDunant21:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Which books say that fascists also believed French and German to be superior for some intrinsic reason? I'm no expert, but I pretty sure that idea isn't a part of fascism I've hence never called you a fascist as you claimed with much bravure. Good night.Rex21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Rex is right, that is not an accusation of fascism. However, I think I can provide evidence that French and German are superior at least in some respects to many other languages of Charlemagne's empire, none (incl Fr and De) of which exist now in comprehensible forms to modern speakers anyway. French and German have far more speakers than the other languages of the Empire. They have larger corpuses of literature. They have more speakers who also speak English. (There are more Anglophones who also speak French and/or German.) They have a greater historic influence on other languages and a greater influence in world politics and trade today. They are superior in some respect, but not intrinsically so in many. Certainly, German is more flexible vocabulary-wise than many Romance languages and French is considered a more beautiful-sounding language to Anglophone ears than most Germanic languages. I have nothing against Catalan, Dutch, Italian, or Breton, all of which have a place in Charles' empire, but they are certainly inferior to French and German in some respects, how else do we explain the fact that those two have so many more speakers? (By the way, to indicate my lack of bias [and preempt any attack based on perceived "nationalism"], I am a Canadian. I can speak no German and do not want to! I can speak very little French, though I can read it competently. I am an Anglophone almost capable of speaking Spanish. I have no French or German ancestry. I am Slavic and British/Celtic by ethnicity.) Srnec23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the essential point is that in deciding to add Modern French and Modern High German, and yet not add other languages, we have to have recourse to arbitrary criteria, which, however valid these criteria might be on first principles, is a violation of neutrality. Slacspeak up!04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality is the representation according to relative notability. Thus simply from the respective populations, French and German should have priority. However, this is not so much my point, as that the etymology of Charlemagne (Charles le magne) has its place in the intro. Which should prove relatively uncontroversial.CyrilleDunant07:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
German and French should have nothing. French didn't even exist at the time of Charlemagne and the first records of semi-High German texts were being written. Modern French and Modern German are not better/superior to any other language. and have no special right to be in the intro, neither does the etymology of the English word (French isn't the ultimate origin of Charlemagne) because that can all be deal t with in the name section.Rex13:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As for the "number of speakers remark", in that case we should add "查理大帝" in the intro. After all over 20% of the worlds population calls him that.Rex13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Rex, you completely missed my point. You also have a penchant for simply stating your positiong ("French and Modern German are not better/superior to any other language") without any argumentation or evidence. I was not arguing that modern French and German were actually better languages, but they are certainly superior to your beloved Dutch in terms of number of speakers. (Note that I was only comparing languages within Charlemagne's empire and I admitted that no modern tongues existed then anyway. Read!) As to your nonsensical and out of place remark that "German and French should have nothing", to what are you referring? I too would remove all foreign languages from this page with the exception of the Latin, from which Charlemagne derives through Old French (albeit his first name is Frankish in origin). As to the etymolog going into the intro, that is pointless. Charlemagne is itself a French term and it is clear that adding a "le" does nothing to clarify for the average reader. Pointing out that Charlemagne is French for "Charles the Great" might make sense, though. Srnec23:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"You also have a penchant for simply stating your positiong ("French and Modern German are not better/superior to any other language") without any argumentation or evidence."
Are you actually saying I should prove other languages are equal to German and French?! The name "etymology" added to the intro by cyrille Dunant is completely unnecesary, it adds nothing that isn't there already (and better). I removed it and explained why in the edit summary but Cyrille, being a model wikipedian, reverted without an edit summary and instead accused me of calling him a fascist on the talkpage. To me its a case of all or none. None is fine to me as well, a German and French bias however isn't.Rex15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Says the man or woman who censored the Latin name... Tell me how it is not interesting that the name used in English is the French one, itself a portemanteau of the Old French (which, yes, has Latin roots, among others). Tell me also how a short etymology is in fact such a horrible idea in an introduction. And finally, tell me how “all or none” is a reasonable way of approaching a debate.CyrilleDunant18:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Again you make ridiculous accusations, where did I censor Latin? Your etymology is pointless. It just says "from Old French". What does that tell? It should go from the Germanic names to the Latin title and only then through French ... which already was explained in the name section. I told you this in my edit summary when I removed your surpluss "etymology" you replied "(m) rv".Rex18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
In your rush to create a section with all names, you did not forget Dutch, but you did forget Latin, which another wikipedian had to add... Plus it should not go from Germanic to Latin to French (you probably mean Old French: magne would very much be an archaism, today). It is one way of expressing it which you prefer, which is perfectly legitimate, but please, express it thus. And note also that some of us enjoy WP's multiculturalism which you seem to hate so much.CyrilleDunant18:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
haha, multiculturalism. That means, multiple. What you want is trioculturalism, English French and German. Who hates what now?Rex18:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"Charlemagne" entered the English from the French, from which it evolved from Old French "Charles le Magne". This was itself a combination of a Latin eptithet (Magnus → le Magne) and a Germanic given name (Charles, a Gallicised form of a name we only know from the Latin Carolus). So the English form of his name is both Romance and Germanic, though more clearly the former. I think that only the Latin name, which is important, should be in the lead if at all. I can support removing the section, but I would also support a section on the etymology if desired.
Finally, Rex, I do think you must clarify what you mean by equality. French and German are not equal to Spanish. The latter has more speakers, smaller vocabulary, and is closer to Latin. They are also not equal to Hebrew, which is in a different family, has a small vocabulary still, is written in a different alphabet, and is older. That languages are unequal is a given. But perhaps you meant equal in value? This too does not hold water. French is more valuable than Spanish in the aeronautics industry, as France is a leader in this technology. Spanish is more valuable than German in the music industry, as there are far more Spanish professional musicians than German. But perhaps you were appealing to an intrinsic value, unrelated to the actual status of the language in the world? Also baseless. As said above, a majority of English speakers definitely regard French and the Romance languages in general as more pleasing to the ear than the Germanic ones. Also, German, by its nature, can accomodate more technical jargon than the Romance languages. French also has a greater literary history than Dutch or Romanian. The past cannot be changed and the fact that some languages have more illustrious historical literatures cannot be denied, though almost every languages has its masterpieces. This is all just to say that it is unclear what you mean by equality of languages, not that anybody is better or worse for speaker one or another. Srnec04:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
All languages are equal. It doesn't matter if it's spoken by 2 people or 1,3 billion. Nor does it matter if it's the "language of diplomacy" or of a couple of villages in Central Africa. There is absolutly no language superior to another. Differences is another thing, but the fact that Dutch has a total vocabulary of 60 million words doesn't mean it's superior to a language with less words, let's say French. Rex12:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
All languages are not equal and I demonstrated that. This translates into superiority and iferiority at various tasks. A language of diplomacy is more important to diplomats than one spoken in "a couple of villages in Central Africa." You need to look up "equality" and "superiority" in a dictionary, though note that I have not claimed that any languages is superior to any other in all respects. (And Dutch has nowhere near 60 million words! See its own Wiki article. It has less than English.) Srnec03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Srnec, I'm sorry to say, but your comments above are linguistically under-informed. Most of the differences you cite above are not linguistically based at all, but rather reflect cultural viewpoints, social conventions, and in some cases baseless popular prejudice (e.g. "French is more mellifluous than English"). An aeronautics manual written in French is not inherently easier to understand or use than one written in Guarani - the differences stem from the socio-cultural perspectives of the speaker. At any case, I don't see how these points relate to the inclusion of French or German. Slacspeak up!07:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Dutch, has a total vocabulary of 60 million words. This is based upon the Dutch taalbank, who record every single Dutch word, wether a verb conjugation, headword or compound. As for your remarks, it's clear you don't understand ... no language is superior to another, you cannot prove that; it's impossible because it's totally and utterly subjective. You might say, okay English has like 1,5 billion speakers, and that that is the reason it's superior to let's say Dutch. What if I told you that Dutch is superior to English because it hasn't got a word for "gezelligheid" then who's right?Rex12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Simple. If he is looking to learn a language to communicate with many people, he will choose English. If he needs to express warm cosyness, he'll pick Dutch. Easy. Saying all languages are equal is like saying all Turing-complete languages are equivalent. It is true in a sense, and absurd in an other. You have just proven his point. He is not saying that some languages have more value than others, simply that some languages are more relevant depending on the context, which is rather obvious : lost in the mountains of Afghanistan, Pathan will help you more than, say, Japanese :) CyrilleDunant13:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does. And lost in the street of Tokyo the reverse would be true. The absence of an absolute scale does not imply the absence of relative scales. Only you think this implies value in an absolute sense. CyrilleDunant17:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It just proves that certain languages have certain qualities, it means they're different, it doesn't make them superior.Rex17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they are equall. The differences between them just makes one more useful in a certain situation, not superior. Languages cant be compared on supposed superiority, hence no classing exists.Rex18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou, Cyrille, for explaining my point. (If we tabulated English words that way, I'm sure we could top 60 million.) To Slac:
Most of the differences you cite above are not linguistically based at all, but rather reflect cultural viewpoints, social conventions, and in some cases baseless popular prejudice (e.g. "French is more mellifluous than English").
I fail to understand. Is the language unaffected by culture and social conevention? I also fail to see how some of the differences I noted are anything other than linguistic. Is vocabulary-size not linguistic? We are talking about languages as they are and not as they theoretically could be. Of course, French may some day exceed German in ease of creating new technical jargon, but it doesn't yet.
An aeronautics manual written in French is not inherently easier to understand or use than one written in Guarani - the differences stem from the socio-cultural perspectives of the speaker.
Having a reference to the pronounciation of "Charlemagne" could help non-English speakers. I know it'd help me. --Kizor09:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Charlemagne's family
Someone who knows for sure should clarify this section. When I read it he had either three wives, five concubines, and seventeen children, or five wives, or no children by his second and last wife (or should that read "second and last wives"?71.98.119.20017:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
(Latin: Carolus Magnus) or (English: Charles the Great)
Clearly, "Charlemagne" is used in the English speaking world almost exclusively and "Charles the Great" is merely forced and formulaic. The Latin "Carolus Magnus" is much more appropriate up top. Evidence the title of this article, AND the oddity of having an "English translation" follow the proper (in English) name on the English Wikipedia. Carolus Mangnus is widely used. István03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Under Which/Whose Calendar Was Easter = April 1st in 747?
Under the section "Date and place of birth" is the sentence "In that year, April 1 is Easter."
I would be very interested in knowing how this date is known to be Easter in the Carolingian era. Did someone try to calculate this date (how?), or is there a written reference of this date being celebrated as Easter from the year 747? I found this section to be really interesting BTWAquitanus13:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Names of Charlemagne
Other than:
"Because of the number of languages spoken within his Empire, Charlemagne's name has been preserved in many different languages in different forms. The language of Charlemagne itself does not exist anymore, but evolved into the Franconian languages. "Charles" derives from a Germanic stem meaning "man" or "free man".[3] It is related to the English "churl". In many Slavic languages, the very word for "king" derives from Charles' Slavicised name."
is it necessary to include a list of Charlemagne's name in other languages? All one need do is click on the respective article in the language sought.
If it must be kept, maybe it could be moved to the end of the article.
Overall, the list of names seems to detract from the otherwise smooth flow of the article. EboracumN23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should not have jumped in here so quickly. Now I've been accused (not by you) of starting an edit war. That was not my intention. To clarify: I just noticed the inconsistency within the article in the spelling and nicknames for Pippin, and thought I would fix them. Then I got the message from you explaining that you had changed my Pippin spelling back to Pepin because you initially thought I was only changing some of the Pepins to Pippin, while leaving other Pepins as Pepin. You added that you now saw that I was changing all of them, so I should feel free to revert. So I did. In the process I also reverted your reverts to my changes in the Pippin nicknames, not realizing that you had made these for a different reason. Srnec, I'm sorry I didn't see that you had made two sets of changes instead of one.
Now that we've cleared that up, on to the substance. I see what you mean that changing Pippin the Short to Pippin the Younger could result in confusion with Pippin of Herstal, who is also sometimes called Pippin the Younger. The only reason I initiated the change was to be consistent with the "Carolingian Dynasty" table, where Pippin the Short is called Pippin the Younger. I don't have any strong feelings about the appropriate name, I was just trying to go for consistency. But if you'd prefer I'll just bow out. I certainly didn't want to cause trouble.
As the party who "accused Aldrichio of starting an edit war," I wanted to chime in. I was patrolling recent changes and observed his edits. A glance at the history showed that he was adding content which was repeatedly being removed by another editor, Srnec. I placed an appropriate warning template about 3RR and discussing changes on the article Talk page, and I resumed patrolling recent changes. Aldrichio later took umbrageon my talk page, suggesting that I was "interfering" with his edits. He's right, I was...and I would do it again in the same situation. Most things that look like edit wars are edit wars. There are several edits per second on Wikipedia. At that speed, change patrollers don't always have the luxury of looking for the few exceptions. If Aldrichio had made a similar post after the first time Srnec reverted him, the article's edit history wouldn't have caught my attention. Best, Dppowell15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Constantinople to Charles
Srnec, I saw your question in the checkin comments
does "constantinople to charles" make sense?
and wanted to answer you. I'm not exactly sure how you meant the question. I agree that the phrasing is a bit awkward. I was trying to be concise. Feel free to rephrase. I was simply pointing out (motivated by a link from another article) that whereas the popes had never challenged the validity of the emperors in Constantinople being called Imperator Romanorum, at this time Leo explicitly said that the Roman emperor was Charles and not anybody in Constantinople (and claimed that he had the right to do so). At that time, of course, the emperorship in Constantinople was somewhat in dispute so Leo took advantage of the situation to claim that there was no emperor at the moment with sovereignty over Rome and he was invoking his right to declare the next Emperor (and in so doing, of course, creating a situation where de facto control of Rome moved from the "Byzantines" to the Franks). I said "from Constantinople to 'Charles'" because it would be debatable if I tried to name a particular person it was transferred from since Leo claimed nobody was emperor at the time. So it seemed either I had to add more sentences or else use this awkward phrasing. Maybe more sentences are appropriate?
--Mcorazao17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think more sentences might be appropriate and if I have the time, I might take a stab at rewording it. Thanks. Srnec20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion on referencing
I notice the occassional case of providing references by directly including a source in the text, e.g.
"...as Charles Oman described them ..."
I'd like to suggest that this is inappropriate. In the above particular example, there is nothing directly in the text to suggest who Oman is which makes it doubly inappropriate. That aside, it makes the article harder to read for a novice since one can become confused between the historical figures and the researches who are describing them. IMHO, an article should be about what its about, not about who researched it. If there is something particularly relevant about a researcher on the topic that bears explicit mention this should generally occur in a separate section of the article created for that purpose (one exception is cases where a particular aspect of history is hotly debated and a brief mention of the lack of scholarly consensus is required).
--Mcorazao17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, at least in part. I think that because Wikipedia is not about original research, all its articles are only about their subjects insofar as others have discussed them. I also think that the link to Oman allows andy interested reader to find out quickly who he is and why his opinion is present in the text. I think that sometimes a quotation is nice, but if you think the citation ought to go in the footnote, I can understand that. However, it doesn't seem to me that the quotation takes away from the reader's experience, though perhaps from the encyclopaedic tone. But then, I'm not exactly sure what Wikipedia's tone is supposed to be. Srnec20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedic tone. Good question. I have not really seen a solid definition of that so this is certainly a case of my interjecting an opinion. IMHO, an article should read kind of like a story. E.g., a rewrite of "Alice in Wonderland" would not sound right if it said "and then she met the Cheshire Cat, according to Lewis Carroll." Footnotes are great in that they can be easily ignored and separated by the reader from the narrative. Yet if the reader wants more info, the reference is readily available. Generally that is sufficient. There are circumstances where the research on a particular subject bears more discussion than is appropriate in a footnote which is when another section would be appropriate.
"Perhaps Pippin regarded Charlemagne as the better warrior, but Carloman may have regarded himself as the more deserving son, being the son, not of a mayor of the palace, but of a king." The second part is unclear. Weren't both of them sons to the same father? 89.138.13.5916:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the German Name of a Person who was born in what is today Germany, died in what is today Germany, laid base to the German state and spoke a Germanic language be mentioned in the first sentence?
That seems to be more a view held by user Rex. As France and Germany claim him as the founder of what would become Germany and France, by the way neither Germany nore France dispute the others right to do so, it would be more than natural to include his german name. The argument that it cant be mentioned because of readability is rather strange.--Tresckow (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Charlemagne is victim of many fake references since the Middle Age
Anyhow since the 10th century, many people referenced to Charlemagne with fake documents to proove their faulty pretensions. Lately even it was said in the german news ( http://www.bild.de ) about Paris Hilton beeing a relative of Charlemagne, which is of course ridiculous.
hemmerling04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
How so? It's established that people of European descent in this day and age can conceivably trace their ancestry back to Charlemagne. As this article states, or used to. Slacspeak up!04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Herbert Illig is what historians call a crank. If you believe is "hypothesis", I've got a novel by Dan Brown to sell you. Srnec03:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
POV
I have put disputed tag because wikipedia is having 2 different story about 1 event. In article Charlemagne is writen: "Emperor Michael I Rhangabes recognised his status as Emperor under the title of Imperator Romanorum gubernans imperium"
In article Michael I Rangabe is writen :"In 812 Michael I reopened negotiations with the Franks, and recognized Charlemagne as "basileus (emperor) of the Franks"
I now reading book Georg Ostrogorsky : Byzantische Geschichte 324 - 1453 which speak about 3rd version and I think that this version is speaking truth. In story from this book Byzantine envoys in 812 has called Charlemagne emperor (real title basileus) and nothing else. They have not called him Imperator Romanorum gubernans imperium but only basileus. After hearing this words Charlemagne has been thinking that they have accepted him for Imperator Romanorum gubernans imperium but on other side in Byzantium Michael I is speaking that they have refused his demands to accept him for Roman emperor. In this solution nobody is defeated and everybody is happy. Simple this is politics ... I have put disputed tag in both articles.Rjecina19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
