Talk:Charlemagne/Archive 3

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Iv read lots of info that says that the big C carried the Lance of Longinus as his l and aparently he lost his first battle after dropping the lance int he river. I think it was the venice lance of longinus that he carried. I couldnt find any reference to this in the article, dont you think its kinda important seeing how he may of used a weapon that peirced a God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.24 (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any possibility that Alpaida was born earlier than 794, perhaps closer to 775?
Odin of Trondheim (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The section on Charlemagne's date of birth discusses dates in 752 and 757, but the info box at the top right seems to be showing dates in the 740s. Which is supported by the evidence? EdChem (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been fixed. EdChem (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever it was who wrote this article on Charlemagne sure liked Einhard. o_O Snick! (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Einhard made the only contemporary account of him, just after his death. He was part of Charlemagne's court. Nokter the Stammerer wrote about him a few decades later. They are the only sources we have of the time period about him. Staples11 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While Einhard is undoubtedly one of the most important sources, he and Notker are not the only written primary sources for Charlemagne's life and reign. There are capitularies, for instance, which emanated from his chancery, and then there are chronicles, like the Reichsannalen. These are just two examples. Srnec (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In favour

• Richard Tol (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Against

• Srnec (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the following piece of dubious information from the article,

The Germanic variants (den Store, de Grote, de Grutte, der Große, and de Groussen) also refer to the fact that Charlemagne was tall (seven of his own feet, or 1.93 m (6 ft 4))^[1].

Names of other Carolingian rulers also refer to their physical features. For example Pippin the Short, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, and Louis the Stammerer.

There also was a footnote to the first passage that run, Which means that Charlemagne had modern European shoe size 44 or American shoe size 10.

This information is questionable for several reasons (and therefore does not belong into the article):

• The information that Charlemagne was 1.93 m tall is outdated. It is derived from a measurement when Charlemagne's shrine in the cathedral of Aix-la-Chapelle was opened in the 19th century and his bones were measured. In the 20th century, the shrine of Charlemagne was again opened and his bones were measured again, but then, with improved forensic methods, it was discovered that he was "only" 1.82 m tall.

• Besides, the removed information mingled the first outdated measurement of Charlemagne's bones with a fact reported by Charlemagne's biographer Einhard, namely that Charlemagne was seven of his own feet tall (Einhard, Vita Karoli magni, chapter 22). Then to speculate in a footnote out of Einhard's "seven-feet"-remark combined with the outdated measurement what Charlemagne's shoesize might have been today is truly dubious and constitutes original research.

• Moreover, it is one-sided (and again constitutes original research) to conclude that Charlemagne's epithet/cognomen "the Great" (den Store, der Große or whatever) therefore referred to his physical tallness. It did not necessarily, because AFAIK modern historians agree that his cognomen "the Great" (which had already been given to Charlemagne by his contemporaries) was mainly a name of honor and an allusion to his political significance.

--Consputus (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job! Srnec (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no such concept as Byzantine Empire in 800 either. But note that the version I want does not say (though it does link) "Western Roman Empire", but rather "Roman Empire in the West", which is accurate. Charles' coronation was a revival of the concept of the imperium Romanum in the West(ern Europe). The Roman Empire had been ruled by two emperors in the past, so crowning a second emperor is not ipso facto secession. Besides, the pope tried to justify it. It may be a 1200-year-old POV, but it's still a POV that it was a "secession". On the other hand, "attempted revival of" is accurate. If don't want the link to W. R. E., remove it and just link Roman Empire; I won't mind. But to refer to Charles' coronation in 800 as a secession from the Byzantine Empire is misleading to most readers. Besides, you haven't specified what, if not the Franks, was seceding. The pope? He can't secede because "the papacy" isn't a part of a state, like Byzantium. The duchy of Rome? Sure, maybe, but that's not nearly as relevant to Charles' coronation as the revival of a Christian idea of "emperor" in Western Europe. And, of course, Rome was de facto outside Byzantine control and had been for a long time. Srnec (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First you're not right that Rome was ouside Byzantine control at the time. In fact the papacy tried to secess even earlier - at 727 when Gregorius II condemned iconoclastic edicts of imperator Leo III. But then imperial general Eutychius suppressed the upspring and recaptured Rome. After Irene denounced iconoclasts there was no trench between Rome and Constantinople until the proclamation of Carolus emperor in 800. Second. You're right that Byzantine empire is also a concept invented in much later time, so we indeed better to use the term Roman empire. But if such, then no "revival" of Roman empire could be, because from point of view of contemporaries Roman empire never ceased to exist. How one can attempt to "revive" what is not dead? In fact it was rather an anti-imperial move, a move against Constantinople's dominance.--Certh (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Rome was de facto outside Byzantine control. It was ruled by the Popes on a day-to-day basis and Byzantine attempts at influence in the ducatus Romanus were sporadic at best. My chief problem with your edit (besides the word "Byzantine") is the word "secede": it may be technically true in a legal sense that the ducatus Romanus was "seceding" from Byzantium, but it is misleading to state it outright, since most readers will not know the finer points, they will assume that some entity (and your edit does not make clear what) was leaving the Byzantine Empire when in fact the entity was a small one which Charlemagne had never before ruled and which was not under Byzantine control at the time anyway. The word "revival" is meant to connect "Roman Empire" to "in the West". The Empire did not cease to exist, of course, but it ceased to be recognised in the West: the Franks didn't recognise it (as the political authority), nor the Goths, nor the Lombards. The move was only anti-imperial from the Constantinopolitan point of view, but from Charles' and Leo's it was the only imperial possibility, since God was (clearly) smiling on Charles and Constantinople was out of His favour. But we could debate this—as historians still do and I did once before, see Talk:Charlemagne/Archive 1#Roman Emperor, East and West—until we're blue in our faces, so I just suggest we find a compromise wording superior to both versions. How about this:

During his reign, he conquered Italy and was crowned [Imperator Augustus] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) by Pope Leo III on 25 December 800 as a rival to the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople and the first Roman Emperor in the West since 476.

It has the advantages of including mention/links of Byz. Empire, Const., and W. Roman Empire. It also changes "secede" to "as a rival", which gets the point across but I don't misleads the reader as much. Finally, it also explains what "revival" really meant. What do you think? Srnec (talk)

Franks and Lombards were outside of the Empire and the Gothic kingdom had dispeared centuries before 800 (it was defeated during the rule of Justinian I). Imperial authority was recognized in Rome (where the Pope was located). We have no reason to say that the empire had no control over Rome. Also I object your wording because of the following:

• It was not 476, but 480 when the empire was reunified after the death of Julius Nepos.
• But even if we change it to 480 it would be incorrect. You state that Carolus was the first Roman Emperor in the West since the end of 5th century. In fact, Phocas, Maurice, Constans II all visited Rome and made orders there. So they were Roman emperors in the West. There was no such title as "Eastern Roman Emperor" - all of them were simply styled "Roman emperor".--Certh (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to Western Europe in general, not just Italy or Rome. Imperial authority had evaporated everywhere but parts of Italy, where it was constantly waning. (I meant Visigoths.) In Rome itself it was, to my knowledge, weaker than it had been in either Ravenna, Naples, or Bari. If you have sources to state otherwise, please bring them to the table.

As to the date, I chose 476 because Nepos was in Dalmatia until 480 and that area is not part of Charlemagne's empire and so is not relevant. Constans II died in 668, long before 800 and much had changed in the interim. You have too high an idea of Byzantine power in Italy during this period: they were "Roman Emperors" until 1453, but they did not hold Rome during all that time. It wasn't to the emperors that the pope cried for help in the 8th century. Byzantine power in Italy would not see a real resurgence until the reign of Basil II, and that was brief. How about just chopping of the Western empire stuff:

During his reign, he conquered Italy and was crowned [Imperator Augustus] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) by Pope Leo III on 25 December 800 as a rival of the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople.

Does that suffice? Srnec (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many uses of Charlemagne, yet there was no Charlemagne (disambiguation) until now. In the intro, only a link to some band was given. Webcruft galore. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a great many issues that may need to be addressed. The first and most noticable of these problems is sourcing; some parts of the article are barely sourced at all and in others sourcing switches between the ^[2] inline citations and the less popular (Harvard p. 42) citations. These should all be made to conform to one single citation system (I prefer the former, but will be happy with the latter so long as the article is consistant). If someone takes responsibility for this problem and begins to fix it then I will work with them to deal with the other problems that beset this article, which include poor prose and incorrect formatting. I will check back and if progress is being made and issues are being addressed, then work can continue. If no one has come forward in the next seven days however, this article will be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No work in the last week, this has been delisted from GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The sational anthem of Andorra says that Andorra is "the only remaining daughter of the Carolingian empire". Any truth in this? I thought France, Francia occidentalis, was the only remaining "daughter" of the empire. Aaker (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is based on a legend. France is no more the daughter of Charlemagne, however, than Andorra. France is the daughter of Verdun. Andorra is the daughter of a paréage. Srnec (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the idea behind the list? Is there a reason not to include Charlemagne's Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian names, for example? --88.114.160.75 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He never ruled those places, or fought with the locals. It is very long however, so I have moved it to the end. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why doesnt this article have a section at the top right with a portrait of Charlemagne and his date of birth etc (as other articles have)... seems like Charlemagne is a pretty important character for the article to look like this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whimsickal (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He's that important. Srnec (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But there has been a mini-revert-war about the box, and I could not make it stick (and I don't really want to see myself in the wikipedia lamest edit wars hall of shame :) ). But yes, there should be an infobox.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No there shouldn't be. The so-called "infobox" contains the least important information about him. His parents, wives, children, and dates of birth, death, and reign. This is not unimportant information, but it is not as important as his conquests, his administrative and legal reforms, and his patronage of scholarship ("Carolingian Renaissance"). And all the information in the box is organised neatly in the article already. Srnec (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point of an infobox. The point is to have those informations available immediately for those who are just looking to locate a given ruler in time/space/family. Yes, those information are not "interesting", but this is a remarkably weak argument not to put the infobox.CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Charlemagne can be adequately located in time by the dates in the very first line. And I never used the word "interesting", did I? Srnec (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No you said least important. The fact remains that starting from the last king of France, or the last emperor of Germany (or a good part of European nobility), you can go down to Charlemagne, as a series of successors to various titles. And pretty much all those rulers have infoboxes. So why have Charlemagne be different?CyrilleDunant (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The better question is: why do any have infoboxes? Srnec (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, if all the other articles jumped off a bridge, would you suggest the Charlemagne article jump too? Srnec (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoth Scott Adams (adapted): if pretty much all those other articles have jumped of bridges and said they enjoyed it, then perhaps there is something to it. See there are flaws and biases in this wisdom of crowds thing, but as there is no obvious disadvantage to the infoboxes and they seem to be enjoyed by most readers, or at least a substantial minority, then the onus is really on you to convince the crowd it is wrong.CyrilleDunant (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Disinfoboxes

A box aggressively attracts the marginally  literate eye with apparent promises to contain a  reductive summary of information that can't be  neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time-  line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers  a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance.  As a substitute for accuracy and complexity a box  trumps all discourse.                —courtesy of User:Wetman

Can you provide any evidence they are enjoyed by readers? I know editors love them. I don't think it matters. My argument against them is this: they arbitrarily select that information which fits their format, which tends to be information of lesser importance, and place it prominently at the top of the article—always redundantly—squeezing text to one side, making it difficult to place images near the top of the article (unless they're in the box), and implying a summary of the article's contents, which they never provide. A few infoboxes at Wikipedia are useful, I admit, but not monarch infoboxes. Srnec (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - fine for sportspeople, species, films, hurricanes and articles with no pictures. Otherwise, local editors should decide. He has no fewer than 5 succession templates at the bottom, which are the important thing for rulers and the like. Most larger monarch articles don't have infoboxen I think you'll find. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I am not edit-warring. However, if one wishes to be consistent, why would the succession boxes not be redundant? I do not think that you make people read by only providing them with the full text, and no back-covers. That is the use of the infobox, provide pre-formated-information which will hopefully incite the reader to plunge into the article. If this infobox is containing rather pointless informations, then certainly it is not the concept of an infobox which should be attacked, but rather the content of that specific template.CyrilleDunant (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead should provide the proper summary; the table of contents should help readers find specifics. Even if I refrain from attacking infoboxes in general (and I don't, but I do refrain from attacking them universally), then it still is not appropriate to place the infobox here until its format is updated to be more useful. I do not encourage it, however, as I do not think the type of information that is important about Charlemagne can be got in an infobox, but perhaps we could work on improving his lead section? Srnec (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The final line in the Saxon Wars section "The heathen resistance in Saxony was at an end" seems a particularly biased way to conclude the section. Should Wikipedia really be using words like 'heathen' outside of quotes? I don't see the September 11th article talking about the 'deaths of infidels' after all. The line itself also seems unnecessary, since it does not include a date and simply seems to follow up on the quote above it. The quote however looks odd without something after it so I will replace it with "Saxon resistance to Charlemagne's rule was at an end," though I welcome any improvement because that doesn't really satisfy either. 71.52.12.206 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Anonymous Peruser

I have removed the central alignment tags of the article's hatnote, because I have never seen such practice before and do not think it is MOS:-compliant (at least, the closest I could find to a policy note about it, WP:HNP, does not mention centering), and in addition I didn't see anything on this talk page explaining the tags. If there is an issue with the tags' removal, then please do bring it up here. It Is Me Here (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The image used to be facing left. Someone moved it right and didn't left-align the dabnote. Srnec (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough. Well, if everyone is happy, then that's fine by me. It Is Me Here (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

According to someone on another site, a German biography says he may have spoken Gallo-Romance and I'm pretty sure that an English biography I've read said that he did speak Gallo-Romance (I don't have the book on me). Is there anything someone can add to the languages section? 41.241.15.131 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to do editing. So someone might want to change the link in the fifth line from "Catholic sh*t church" to "Catholic church". Apologies if this is the wrong place to bring this up but I thought it needed to be pointed out. Thanks, Mike. 13/1/09 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done ;-) If you want to learn about how to edit Wikipedia yourself, just click on this link to go to the Editing tutorial. Thanks for letting us know, and hope you enjoy editing in the future! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are two personal photographs of deniers of Charlemagne with imperial effigee. Feel free to insert them into the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And another coin of Charlemagne (a denier minted in Tours). Cheers PHG (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I rather prefer the photograph of the laurel-wreathed denier to the oddly coloured drawing. How would we describe the coin? Armoured, crowned by a laurel wreath, but is it "classical" or "Roman" or what? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a good defence of neo-Roman could be made, but it is almost certainly OR. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors keep removing the ancestry section. This is a key feature of virtually any monarch's page, and is crucial to understanding his familial relationships and how he came to power. How anyone can say, with a straight face, that one's ancestry is irrelevant in a hereditary monarchy, is beyond me. Charlemagne's importance to history no doubt came through his conquests and consolidation of power, but he almost certainly would have never become king had he been born to a common peasant. I will keep re-adding until someone can explain to me the irrelevance.Dpodoll68 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He was a parvenu. No glorious line of ancestors stretching back into the mists of time. His father made himself king. Other than being his father's son, and Charles Martel's grandson, his ancestry is of no real importance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You have made my point for me. The fact that Pepin was his father, and Charles Martel his grandfather, are exactly why his ancestry is important. To use the term "parvenu" is ill-informed at best, and laughable at worst. His direct male-line ancestors served as Mayors of the Palace for several generations, an office that was more powerful than the king at that time in Austrasia. The Pippinids and Arnulfings were both very influential families for at least 150 years before Charlemagne was even born. Let us not forget that on both his father and mother's side, he traces back to Arnulf, one of the most important power players of the late 6th/early 7th century. Dpodoll68 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So? This is all irrelevant. What is the importance, when trying to learn about Charlemagne, in knowing that his grandfather was Charles Martel? And how does the table you added convey this importance? The table is arbitrary in length and unsourced (I see no reason to trust any early medieval family connextion at Wikipedia that I don't independently know or is footnoted). And he was a parvenu. His family never succeeded in reestablishing a hereditary right to throne like that of the Merovingians they replaced. See what happened in 887/8? And in Germany for the whole rest of the Middle Ages. The greatness of his ancestors explains why Pepin was so well positioned to become king, but it does not in any way show that he had a right to the throne. This is why it is irrelevant as data. An ancestry table might be important in an article on a claimant to a throne with an established succession, but not here. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just answer me two questions: if his father and grandfather had been goatherders, then a) would he have become Imperator Augustus? and b) would we be talking about him right now? Dpodoll68 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I answered those questions with this: "The greatness of his ancestors explains why Pepin was so well positioned to become king". You have missed the point. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I must be confused. How can you say that Charlemagne's ancestry is irrelevant, and yet "the greatness of his ancestors explains why Pepin was so well positioned to become king." Pepin was Charlemagne's father!! Am I taking crazy pills? I never once said that either of them had a right to rule based on their pedigrees. What is unquestionably true, however, is that they were able to attain their positions because they came from a family background of power and prestige. If you look through Wikipedia, you will notice that virtually every monarch has a 3- or 4-generation ancestry table. This is to illustrate either: a) their hereditary right to rule; or b) the circumstances that allowed them the ability to gain power. For an example, Henry VII gained England by conquest; nonetheless, it is interesting to note that he was the first English king to have a largely Welsh heritage, and that he was descended from Edward III through the formerly illegitimate Beaufort line. Certainly, that had no bearing on his rise to power, but it does help explain his ability to gain a coalition of power in the Welsh lands, and to somewhat pacify those who required a "noble" ancestry. By the same token, Charlemagne's ancestry helps to explain his heredity of the throne, and ability to grow it into something much bigger. That is my point. Pray tell, sir, what is yours??Dpodoll68 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My point was that an ancestry table explains nothing. Srnec (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading medieval history for a very long time, and to claim that Charles's ancestry is meaningless is, to me, ludicrous. But quite apart from your opinion or mine on the subject, this is an encyclopedia. Charles is an important figure in western history, and therefore "famous," and his own ancestry is therefore of interest to many, including students (like me) of royal genealogies. There is no reason why it ought not to be included here; it is not necessary that it "explain" anything. I repeat, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it makes no sense to discard a sizable chunk of historical knowledge of interest to its users. Include it and leave it alone.

Personally, I consider all the articles on Wikipedia about such things as characters in computer games and players on minor sports teams to be ephemeral and quite pointless, but other people regard those articles as useful, so I would not recommend they all be discarded -- on an assumption that my prejudices are preeminent. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The information presented in the table is not the problem. It's synthesising it and putting it here that is the problem. Wikipedia could have thousands of articles of genealogies, but it is not necessary. All biographical articles can and should mention relevant genealogical details and parental/marital/filial relations, and articles on dynasties and related things can (and probably should) contain family trees where possible. But not every biographical article should do your homework for you. If you wish to know about his ancestors, click on the link to his father, then on that of his grandfather, etc. You will, within a few minutes, have surveyed his entire family tree as presented here, and probably learned a lot more too boot. Srnec (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Those who do believe in the value of genealogy, see Wikia Genealogy. Srnec is quite wrong, by the way, when he claims that "[h]is family never succeeded in reestablishing a hereditary right to throne" as basically all European royals (and quite a few US presidents for that matter) descend from Charlemagne. Richard Tol (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The US presidency is now relevant to a discussion of hereditary succession in early medieval Europe? Descent does not prove hereditary succession. The principle of royal election outlived the Carolingians. Srnec (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point. The male line of Charlemagne's descent may have vanished into insignificance and extinction, but the children of his daughters and grand-daughters continue to rule the world till today. Family connections were paramount then and are still very important today. Richard Tol (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually these genealogies don't explain much, although there are exceptions. In some cases (e.g. most of the pre-Conquest kings of England), the tree ends up being more like a stick going up the male line, suggesting the individual was king because his father was king, and having a whole tree seems a little pointless. More importantly, a table is a poor format by which to adequately display the debate that circles around some of the relationships shown. There are whole books discussing the minutia of Charlemagne's great-great-grandparents, and they all tend to disagree with each other. Half of the names on the Charlemagne table were based on such hypothesizing and POV interpretations. You would need a whole page for each relationship just to cover the debate with neutrality and adequate references, and all of this is swept under the rug when it is put in a table format. When you remove this debatable material, as I have done, there is little left to carry out this hypothetically important role of explaining who Charlemagne really was. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually compiled the infobox, not perfect so far, but for some reason it disappeared twice. Charles patently needs some royal template, I think. --Brandспойт 09:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The infobox does no justice to Charlemagne, or, more importantly, the reader. Srnec (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Curious why. The dude held at least three royal offices, not to mention other merits. Poor Charlemagne :) Brandспойт 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

the date of his birth and his death and were his birth was and were his death is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.167.160.226 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was Charlemagne always depicted with a beard of some form when the coins from his regn show him beardless? 95jb14 (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does a reference to Charlemagne on Familypedia border on advertisement? Familypedia is non-commercial (unlike some other genealogical sites). It is a wiki run on the same principles and the same software (albeit a later version) as Wikipedia. The difference between Wikipedia and Familypedia is that the latter focuses on people and their family, including people and families that are not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Thus, Familypedia has pages for each of Charlemagne's children, grand-children, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren; and for many descendants of later generations, famous or not. This is not true for Wikipedia, so people who are interested in genealogy would benefit from a link to Familypedia -- just as Familypedia refers to Wikipedia for an account of what Charlemagne did with his life. Richard Tol (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not each of Charlemagne's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren could sustain more than a stub of encyclopaedic information, but if there is any case of one which could and does not have an article, the proper resolution is to create such an article. The Familypedia link exists under "External links", as it should. External links do not belong at the top of sections or embedded in text. Also, Familypedia is not a reliable source by our standards, and so cannot be used as a reference. (By the way, I see advertisements at Familypedia, but I meant only that your insistence on such external links borders on advertisement of Familypedia itself.) Srnec (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Familypedia works on the same principles as Wikipedia, and should be treated as an extension rather than an external source. With regard to genealogical relations, the quality standard at Familypedia is at least as high as on Wikipedia. Richard Tol (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a tertiary source and a terrible one at it. The Charlemagne article there contains only one reference, which ultimately leads to an unreferenced online 'source'. Until someone fixes the problem, it has no place in our 'External links' section, let alone anywhere as high up as the top of the article. Cavila (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There were no "K"s in latin, thus it cannot be Karolus - this, I think is the Germanised spelling. Perhaps it should be removed? Kalaracey (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Karolus is certainly the normal form of the name as it appears on the Latin charters after his coronation as emperor in 800. If I'm not mistaken the spelling Carolus was more common before that time. (And of course, it is a Latinized Germanic name, and not the other way round.) Iblardi (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"K" is a Latin letter, a borrowing from the Greek alphabet for the transcription of Greek words. It was later used to transliterate Germanic ones as well. Simple as that. I would like to know, though, if Iblardi is right about a preference for one spelling dominating over another after at different periods in Charlemagne's reign. Srnec (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

K was only used in a few instances (Kalendae, Karthago and a few others). Greek kappa was normally transliterated as C. According to Lewis & Short, some grammarians found it correct to always write K- instead of initial C- before an -a-. Perhaps this is the reason for the usage under Charlemagne, considering the literary renaissance which was being promoted by Alcuin c.s. I think I picked up the difference Carolus/Karolus from the MGH, but I'm not sure. I can look into it later today. Iblardi (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: confirmed in Diplomata Karolinorum I, 77. The chancellary used the spelling Karolus from 801 onward, along with the new title. Before that, according to the source, only the form Carolus had been used. Iblardi (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Carolus is the correct Latin form and has been used since shortly after the Romans, at least, as the Latin Form of Charles or (C/K)arl. The Latin Scholars of the Carolingian period may have used a K to demonstrate the hard C sound (as they still do in German), I don't know. Just to confirm, K was not a Latin letter per se until the borrowing of words from Greek, which used the letter Kappa (Κ,κ). It still was not widely used until after the end of Roman rule but is still rarely used in the latin language. 17:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

C before "a" is never softened; this only occurs before -e- and -i-, and contemporaries would have known it. As for the frequency of K for "c" in Latin, actually the opposite seems to have happened. The character K was used for the k-sound in early Latin until it was displaced by the C, which originally represented the g-sound but was itself replaced by G (cf. "Caius" for Gaius). Also, it would be anachronistic to speak of one "correct Latin form". Apparently the form Karolus came to be preferred at some point and was used not only by Charles' own chancellary but also by his biographer Einhard and later writers. Iblardi (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne is the French name. Since the English at that time had no direct contact with mainland Europe, they used the French language as a guide language for European things. The proper English name should be Charles the Great (Oh well, even Charles is taken from the French). As a Frank (= German) Charles I used the Frankish name Karl (or Karel) among relatives and in official documents the Latin variant Carolus. The person who like a robot reverted my edit should have thought of that. Another avatar (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually IP # 76.65.240.91 is raising an interesting point. When Einhard says that Charlemagne learnt to speak Latin ("orare", he says), does he refer to the post-classical variant written by the intellectuals of the time, or to the Romance that was spoken in Gaul? I am inclined to believe the former to be the case, but there appears to be room for ambiguity. Even so, I think it makes more sense to link to the more general article on Latin than to the more specific Vulgar Latin, because the latter would imply that we are making a choice for the reader which does not clearly follow from Einhard's text and is also otherwise unsourced. (That Einhard uses "Romana locutio" elsewhere in the book [in a different context] could be interpreted in favour of either option.) On the other hand, Latin is already linked to at the beginning of the article. Any thoughts? Meanwhile, I am reverting to the status quo ante. Iblardi (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

report for duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.53.198 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he was in the popular video game Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Reqium should be mentioned in this artice. He was murdered in the game therefore I think we need to explain that this didn't happen in reality. —User:DDRickyDD (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of his children have birth or death dates that differ noticeably from dates given by published researchers who seem to have consulted ancient writings.

One in particular is "Ruodhaid (775-810), abbess of Faremoutiers". Some publications seemingly based on study of ancient documents, such as Medieval Lands, agree that she became abbess about 840 and died on 24 March 852. Her death in 852 is recorded in at least two religious buildings in France and must therefore be potentially fairly accurate. The French and German Wikipedias have "852". Where did the "810" come from? I haven't looked at all of the possibly thousands of edits to see which one introduced that date. I hope someone reading this will know or will be confident enough to change it. Her birth is possibly also later than shown. "Medieval Lands" says "784". French Wikipedia says "790" on Charlemagne's page but "784" (curiously in view of the stated date of the liaison) on her mother's.

Robin Patterson (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

did charlegmane have any children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.72.57 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hibernicus Exul was an anonymous Irish poet who lived in Charlegmagne's court, and penned odes to his glory. Wikipedia has two articles on him, one under Hibernicus exul and one under Exul Hibernicus. These should be merged and one deleted, but my wiki-fu skills aren't up to it. Would some knowledgeable someone care to undertake this chore? Thanks. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. I deleted the content of Exul Hibernicus (which is of little value) and created a redirect to Hibernicus exul instead. Cavila (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought Charlemagne and the franks came after the fall of Rome, not during. That was how the Islamic caliphates, visigoths, ostrogoths, anglo-saxons and the Franks came to occupy the land previously owned by Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertocs (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

He did come afterwards. However, like the Byzantines in the east, he held on to the glorious name of Roman, to raise his own prestige. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Rome did not fall as much as popularly assumed. Even the Germanic Kings of Italy, for most of the time, did not even dare to act otherwise than on an Imperial mandate. What happend in 476 precisely speaking was, that Rome ceased to be an effective Imperial residence. Justinian the Great was not far from reestablishing the old unified Empire of Theodosius. When in 800 the throne was vacant, and it was since the constitution, which we may not like but which was in effect, didn't allow women to occupy it, the Pope reinstituted an Emperor in the old Residence. That of course may seem arbitrary but if we look on the effect of the thing, the very idea of an Empire governing though not really, but virtually all the world, under the Roman law, etc. etc. did indeed remain by 1806, and maybe even in some respect by 1918, speaking of the fall of Austria-Hungary. --84.154.84.103 (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Charlemagne is a historical figure specific to the monarchies of France and Germany, so his German name should be included in the introduction. Charlemagne's Roman Empire soon became the Holy Roman Empire which was ruled by German monarchs continuously from Otto I in 962 until Franz II in 1806. It was a German empire in all but name until the 16th century when it was officially named the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. On German Wikipedia he is referred to as Karl I, der Grosse, meaning that Germans officially regard him as their first monarch. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Charlemagne is a pivotal historical figure to all of Western Europe - not just France and Germany. Will the Letzeburgish translation be added? Secondly, it doesn't matter what the Frankish Empire became, Charlemagne didn't rule it. George Washington came from Virginia, but nobody's going to describe him as first President of the Confederacy. Thirdly, it wasn't a German Empire in all but name - just ask the Flemish, Swiss, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Danes, etc. etc. Forthly, Henry the Navigator was never king of England to my knowledge, but this is how the English-language Wikipedia refers to him. Fifthly, this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the German, or the Dutch, Lezteburgish, Danish, etc. etc. Sixthly, we've been over this already. Slac speak up! 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Slac - most of what you just wrote is nonsensical and irrelevant. Following your logic (this is the English-language Wikipedia...), then ALL non-English names and terms should be removed. But they won't be, because this is an "Educational" tool. I've been following you and your anti-German attitude is very transparent. Of course it was a German Empire, and his German name should be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barking1 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire was a German empire ruled by German emperors from beginning to end, and Charlemagne was Karl I, der Grosse, of the Holy Roman Empire. Are you going to remove Pyotr Velikiy from the Peter the Great article for example? --Hereward77 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply not true. Charlemagne was not a German, and did not speak German. The Ru ssian language (and Russia) at least existed during the lifetime of Peter the Great. Slac speak up! 09:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He didn't speak German? Surely that is wrong. (Obviously, he didn't speak modern German, but he spoke a Germanic dialect). john k (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what harm would come from including his German name in the article. john k (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Slac - here you go again with your anti-German attitude. He was a Frank, spoke a Frankish language, Franks, among other Germanic tribes, evolved into the Germans, and their Germanic languages evolved into modern German (and some others, such as Dutch). I know you don't dispute that. But just because some Germanic languages evolved into other languages doesn’t mean Frankish isn’t a German language. Yes, the egg isn't the chicken, but they are one and the same, just in different form. Anyone disputing that has an agenda (what's your’s Slac?), or is being pedantic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barking1 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In the simplest possible terms: the problem is that it's an anachronism. We don't know what Charlemagne's native language was, whether it was Frankish or Old Low Franconian; either way, it wasn't the ancestor of Modern Standard German. We might as well give Henry VIII's name in Dutch and say it was close enough. And to reiterate for the Nth time, Germans aren't the only people who claim heritage from Charlemagne: why are they, and not any one of half a dozen other peoples, singled out in the opening sentence of the article? Slac speak up! 00:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Slac - you are truly amazing - the amount of obfuscation your generate is impressive. What does it matter if he spoke Frankish or Old Low Franconian? They are BOTH of Germanic origin. If you were a serious and unbiased contributor, you'd refrain from only knocking-down others arguments and present alternatives. How about starting with explaining what the Franks, and their language, evolved into? Hint - it wasn't the Italians, and though some of the Franks blended into the French, it wasn't the French either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barking1 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have an argument here, Henry VIII wasn't king of Holland. Charlemagne was officially numbered Karl I of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation) and the Holy Roman Emperors named Karl were numbered after him. BTW, Germany was named by the Romans 2,000 years ago, and the Frankish people were from Germany. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", and we're talking about Charlemagne. You're obviously missing the point. And I don't really see what the Romans naming Germany 2000 years ago has to do with it. The Romans were surely not talking of the Germany as Charlemagne knew it. No, Charlemagne was never officially numbered Karl blablabla in his lifetime. He was crowned Carolus, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, period. This Empire became "of the Germans" 62 years after his death and is different of the Carolingian Empire, founded by Charles Martel. Slac has already answered your question. Anyway, I see there's an article about the names of Charlemagne, you should be happy, no ? Somwherelse 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.32.207.68 (talk)

Actually, he wasn't crowned Holy Roman Emperor at all - that title would not exist for centuries. Slac speak up! 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a very strong anti-German bias here. It doesn't seem to matter the Franks were a Germanic tribe, and that the Germanic tribes are the fore-fathers of the Germans (and French, btw). - History is written by the victor: Latin Proverb Barking1 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's strange, in the proper meaning of that word, that English Wikipedia uses the French Charlemagne rather than the established Charles the Great or the documented Latin Carolus Magnus. I'm adding Karl der Große to the intro, and the etymology of the name, found at Churl. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

pretty sick all the arguments that are being brought up against Karl der Große could be also applied against Charlemagne. I mean it would be more logical to defend Charles the Great against Charlemagne and Karl der Große. But Charlemagne yes, Karl der Große not? That´s stupid. Why don´t you move it to Charles the Great and include his German and French name in the introduction? Everybody would be happy.--Tresckow (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Charlemagne" is his English name, see the English literature. The French and English conventions are the same. "Charlemagne" is not modern French for "Charles the Great", that would "Charles le Grand". Srnec (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, "Charlemagne" is his French name. He's called that in English-language popular writing . . . but the more scholarly sources generally refer to him as "Charles I." Personally, I would prefer that. It feels very peculiar to be talking about the early life of Charles "the Great" -- the implication being that he was born great. Also, referring to Charles (and the language he spoke) as either "French" OR "German" is entirely anachronistic. He was a Frank and he spoke Frankish. He would not be easily understood by modern Frenchmen or Germans. Most of the above arguments bickering is therefore a pointless exercise in nationalistic jingoism. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

i dont get the anti-German argument here. I get that he a is a figure head of Western Europe as a whole and thats fine but that would only validate an arguement to include his name in all of western Europe's languages not just French and Latin. He is very clearly an important figure in German history and it is actually very clear that the language of choice for the ruling class of the Frankish Kingdom, aside from Latin, is a GERMANIC, Old Frankish language. Now this is not modern German of course but i dont see what the big deal is about adding it in German afterall there are many articles on wikipedia that put what would probably be considered by those arguing against "Karl der Große" unnecessary languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacman7922 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We just don't need more clutter in the lead, that's all. The fact is, the German name is never seen in English literature, so there is no need to familiarise the English reader with it. If the English reader is going to read about Charlemagne in German, he might as well go to the German Wiki. The French name just happens, because of history, to be the English name. The Latin name is included because one is likely to encounter it in the English literature and it is the origin of his English name (Carolus Magnus → Charlemagne). Srnec (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is to be done the same way as it is in the other articles of the like, a French rendition of the pronunciation must be given, and the German name Karl der Große. The Franconian Empire was later divided into exactly two kingdoms, France, and Germany. It is inaccurate to call the Benelux States successors or Switzerland successors of this Empire, as they are successors of counties of these kingdoms, having become independent. I am not speaking of Italy, as it was indeed a somewhat independent part of the Holy Roman Empire, but then again, Charlemagne at least was a foreigner in Italy. Likewise, the question of Austria is one of its own (whether Germany or Austria is to be called successor of the German part of Charlemagne's Empire), but fortunately the Austrians speak German too. --84.154.98.67 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

i don´t get the point of the discussion. "We just don't need more clutter in the lead, that's all. The fact is, the German name is never seen in English literature, so there is no need to familiarise the English reader with it. <" (Srnec, 13.12.08) is this thing here an encyclopedia? why do you decide if there´s a need for that or not?

btw, take a look at the disambiguation for Charlemagne: People: - * Charles the Great, (742/747 – 814), King of the Franks 78.50.51.229 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 78.50.51.229 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not add the Chinese form of his name? Because it is irrelevant? Exactly. So is the German. Srnec (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

why are you so angry? life´s so sad? poor boy (: 78.50.51.239 (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

but i think i got it; there´s his name used in the english language, the "original" latin name and a propper translation (i can image there must have been a long struggle aganst your eiditing until you acceptet that one in your article); i won´t edit anything - you are allowed to resume playing wow. mfg 78.50.51.239 (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the German form is not irrelevant, and the French is neither.--84.154.56.188 (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely not irrelevant. Besides that he presumably really was called Kar(e)l and not Charles or even Charlemagne or something else and this name does not even appear in the first stanza of the article, there's two major reasons why we should end this discussion and add these three words:

1. Charles definitely IS officially seen the founding father of Germany and

2. Charles palatinate and homestead is Aachen which is a city of Germany (where btw. people today speak German)

That is definitely enough reason to add his name Karl der Große.

I cannot see the reason for this long back-breaking discussion. Every other article mentions the name of the person in the language of the country for which the person is most important (we got French already). Take for example Alexander the Great. He was not even Greek! But every article in every language in Wikipedia, also the English one, mentions his Greek name, because of his importance of the Greek history. It would be ridiculous to delete his Greek name with the justification of he wasnt really Greek. LowerBavaria (talk)

Alexander's Greek name is mentioned because it is the origin of his English name. The sources are in Greek. The origins of Charlemagne's name are also mentioned. They are Latin, as are the sources, and Charlemagne's probable native Germanic name is mentioned at the appropriate point in the text. It is, after all, hypothetical. Charles spent a lot of time in a lot of places, Aachen being only one of them. And it wasn't in Germany then and they didn't speak modern German there. Charlemagne is not the "official" founding father of Germany any more than he is of Andorra, which actually calls itself the last daughter of Charlemagne in its anthem. So where's his Catalan name in the lead? Srnec (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get the point. There's a difference between the importance of his German name and his name in other languages. You can argue as long as you want, but the fact will remain, that Aachen is the spot in Charlemagne's live for a lot of reasons that i already mentioned. Probably he wasn't born there, but definitely he died there, lived there, had his residence and homestead in Aachen and not to forget: He lies there since he's dead for 1.200 years in German soil, in a German city, his capital, where people since at least 1.500 years speak German or some kind of ancient German.

Charlemagne after all is a historical heritage that was important for all of Europe - but is (and is owned by) German(y), as you will realize when you once mabye will go "on-site" to Aachen - where people speak and ever spoke (modern or some kind of ancient) German (incl. Charlemagne himself).

For whatever reason you don't like this info about his person, please stop the deletion every time someone tries to add it. It's not your article, it's our's as well. LowerBavaria (talk)

wow!!Seriously ? Charlemagne after all is (and is owned by) German(y).Charlemagne was not german!! He was Frankish!!!German didn't exist, neither Germany or France or whatever, so please, it seems you relly like Germany and german people but don't get completely crazy and stay reasonable. Because it becomes nonsense.

I think Karl der Grosse should be added, as KdG is a central figure in German history and many a German would not know that the "English" name of KdG is Charlemagne. A simple translation would help many readers. Richard Tol (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

He is a central figure in the history of a lot of places where a lot of languages are spoken, but neither Germany nor the German language as it exists today existed in his time. What's so special about it? He probably spoke a low German dialect, making Dutch a better candidate to be his "modern mother tongue". For German readers we have the German Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia and his German name is not relevant. Aachen is important to an understanding of Charlemagne, but why should the language spoken in Aachen today have anymore bearing on what names we present in the lead than the language spoken today in Rome, where Charles was crowned emperor, arguably more important than anything he did in Aachen? Srnec (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The people of Aachen in the year 800 do not read Wikipedia, so we do not need to accomodate their language preferences. The people of Aachen in the year 2009 do read Wikipedia and most of them would not get that their "Karl der Grosse" is one and the same as "Charlemagne".

Charlemagne affected a lot of places. However, his realm was by and large limited to modern-day France, Western Germany, Northern Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. Given him a name that is comprehensible to the peoples of these countries is common courtesy.

We do not need to add "Karel de Grote", because every Dutch speaker would get "Karl der Grosse" (but not "Charlemagne"). Most people in the Netherlands and Belgium would know that their country was part of "Germany" until about 1500, and would therefore (grudgingly) accept that one of their national heroes is referred to by his German name on an English site. Richard Tol (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not need to accomodate the language preferences of anybody not reading English. Whether they are in Aachen in 2009 or in Rome in 209 BC.

English Wikipedia does not deal in courtesies for non-English readers.

And every German speaker would "get" Karel de Grote. And they should know that "German" was not always synonymous in English with "High German". Srnec (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, and I will put this matter to a vote. Richard Tol (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't run by votes, but by arguments. And you have none, which is why you haven't responded to my rebuttals but have instead tried to set up a poll. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the same about your "arguments". They are utterly unconvincing to me. I think that adding four words "German: Karl der Grosse" would greatly enhance the value of the article to those who want to read about Charlemagne in English but did not grow up in Germanic speaking environment. I think that four words is a small price to pay for a great return.

As to your latest "argument". Indeed, German-speakers would understand "Karel de Grote" just as easily as Dutch-speakers would understand "Karl der Grosse". So, there is no need to include both. As there more German speakers, that is the logical choice. Richard Tol (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Replacing the content of the page with the words "The end" would greatly enhance the value of the article to those who do not want to read about Charlemagne in any language. I think that two words is a small price to pay for such a great return: after all, most peope on Earth probably do not want to read about Charlemagne. Srnec (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep this discussion serious? Richard Tol (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't get it. I am parodying your argument's form. If your argument goes through, why doesn't mine? The reason is that both neglect the very purpose of the encyclopedia. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdam is a valid debating technique, but I fail to see how it works in this case. Richard Tol (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what some particular reader might want, but what certain readers need. An uninterested reader or a poor reader, a non-English speaker or even children are not our concern. The German does not help the competent English reader interested in learning about Charlemagne, because it says nothing about Charlemagne and the reader need no be familiaries with it to learn about Charlemagne in other English sources. Srnec (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This argument would hold for many languages, but not for English. English is the prime language on the internet, and the prime secondary language in general. Articles in English therefore need occasional support for non-native speakers in much the same way as it common courtesy to translate American terms for English people. And that's all that we do. We use four words -- four words! -- to improve an article for a large group of people. Richard Tol (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, because at the moment the tally of the votes is in favour of including the German name. Richard Tol (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"not important information about Charlemagne" I don't agree with that comment, as you know. My rationale above is still holding. --LowerBavaria (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Karl der Grosse" tells us about modern German language conventions, but not about Charlemagne, his reign, or his life and times. Srnec (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat from above:

1. Charles definitely IS officially seen the founding father of Germany and

2. Charles palatinate and homestead is Aachen which is a city of Germany (where btw. people today speak German)

and:

You can argue as long as you want, but the fact will remain, that Aachen is the spot in Charlemagne's live for a lot of reasons that i already mentioned. Probably he wasn't born there, but definitely he died there, lived there, had his residence and homestead in Aachen and not to forget: He lies there since he's dead for 1.200 years in German soil, in a German city, his capital, where people since at least 1.500 years speak German or some kind of ancient German.

Charlemagne after all is a historical heritage that was important for all of Europe - but is (and is owned by) German(y), as you will realize when you once mabye will go "on-site" to Aachen - where people speak and ever spoke (modern or some kind of ancient) German (incl. Charlemagne himself).

For whatever reason you don't like this info about his person, please stop the deletion every time someone tries to add it. It's not your article, it's our's as well.

Greetings, --LowerBavaria (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Smec's edit again as no new arguments were offered. Richard Tol (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

LowerBavaria just repeated himself without addressing my last argument. You pointed to some "poll", which appears to be stuck at no consensus for change, so the original state of the article remains. Srnec (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that Srnec again deleted "Karl der Grosse" without providing new arguments or support. Richard Tol (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And again. I called for a third opinion. Richard Tol (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I again reverted Srnec's revision. Counting the people above, its Slac, Somewhereelse and Srnec (3) against Hereward77, john k, Barking, Matthead, Tresckow, Pacman7922, two anons, and myself (9). The third opinion below also tends towards inclusion. Richard Tol (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Charlemagne is a major historical figure who is known throughout the English speaking world by that name. It appears that he is also a major historical figure in Germany, where he is known by the name Karl der Grosse (which I did not know - shows what they teach us in history this side of the Atlantic!). If there are reliable English sources that attest to his importance in Germany and to his Germany name, then the German name should be included in the article lead. If, however, there are no reliable English sources for his German name, then my suggestion would be to leave it out. Would, for example, an English language history of Germany refer to him as Charlemagne or as Karl der Grosse? (I see no sources at all in the discussion above.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an English reference that shows that the German name of Charlemagne is indeed Karl der Grosse: http://books.google.com/books?id=8SQIAAAAQAAJ&q=%22Charlemagne+%28Karl+der+Grosse%29%22&dq=%22Charlemagne+%28Karl+der+Grosse%29%22

Here's an English reference to the importance of Charlemagne to German history: http://www.amazon.co.uk/France-Germany-Legacy-Charlemagne-Lauret/dp/B0007DF9TM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254766646&sr=8-1

Then I see no reason why a parenthetical reference to his german name should not be included in the article. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(I've seen it on 3O too, but didn't take it first!) - My opinion is that it can be included, but given the nature of the above debate, I guess that one could try to find the name in the original language of the subject himself. Is there any idea on that? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion of Charlemagne's native language on the main page, under "language". We have a reasonable idea of the language spoken at the time in the region where he was born, but as part of the ruling elite he may well have been brought up in a different dialect. The records of the time are all in Latin, so we'll never know. Richard Tol (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not start an edit war on whether "Karl der Grosse" should be in the first or in the last sentence of the first paragraph. The difference is minor, and not worth figthing over. Richard Tol (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

When the Normans invaded England in 1066, the ruling class spoke French for many years. That's why many English words today sound French. In fact, in many cases, there is a romantic word and a germanic word for the same thing. For example ship is germanic, vessel is romantic. I believe that's why the English word for the first Holy Roman Emperor is Charlemagne. I'm convinced if they had not been conquered by the Normans, the English would be calling him Charles the Great, as do the Germans. Just my opinion. No reference to back that up. BTW, after reading the comments above, its interesting to see how many do not understand that the primary aboriginal inhabitants of Europe were germanic peoples, at leat in central and western Europe. Most of Europe is the result of the mixing of germanic tribes with invaders. For example, the French are primarily a mixture of germanic tribes and Romans. Charlemagne was germanic.Filipzik (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the germans jealous that the "french name" ( in fact it's not even french, in french it would be charles le grand ) is used in english language and not the german equivalence ? Is it really important ? Because I really don't understand what all the fuss is about, if the english speaker call him "Charlemagne" it's because it's his "english name" we don't considere it "french", it just appears that the french and the english call Carlus Magnus the same way because of History ( 1066 etc...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by me 11:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the discussion is about.

The point is: Charlemagne is a German historic person. So: should his todays German name be mentioned in the first line or not?

To answer this question we have to discuss the contentious point:

Does Germany has a special claim on Charlemagne? The different opinions about this are listed above (like the points i mentioned: his palatinate and homestead is in Germany, he was speaking a German dialect, founding father of Germany and France etc.)

LowerBavaria (talk)

I don't know what you mean by "special claim", but he was Frankish not German, and I think that if anyone has a "special claim" to the greatest Frankish ruler, it would be the people of Frankreich.Eregli bob (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I´m a little bit concerned about this discussion. Is there an "anti-german resentiment" in some points - I don´t hope . Or just a not-knowing? Please keep in mind: There was no Germany or France at that time and there was neither a (modern) english, french nor german language at that time an no Germany and France. He was a king later emperor of Frankish Empire. Charlemagne is his common name in english and french language and literature. Ok, thats in use and english and french speaking people know him as Charlemagne. But thats a french/english transmogrify of "Carolus Magnus". That wasn´t his name and he wouldn`t knew who "Charlemagne" is. His latin name was "Carolus or Karolus Magnus" and that comes from the old germanic "Karl" or "Karal". We don´t no exactly, but very probably his language was frankish (an old germanic one) and he belonged to the Franks (an old germanic ethnic people). So his original name was Karl (or similar). Thats still a german prename and germans call him Karl (der Große). So I think it´s historically correct and a matter of fairness to mention not only the english/french and latin name, but also the german one.Kleeblatt (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)).

Please see the discussion above. We had to call in arbitration to solve an edit war. Please do not start all over again. Richard Tol (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

After the discussion still yielded no result and i see that the German name still is not added, but instead the French pronunciation was added, i propose to either add it now or delete the French pronunciation again.

Otherwise i really get the feeling that the importance for Germany compared to the one for France is beeing supressed and therefore i would charge this article as not objectiv.

If no objections are postet, i am going to edit the article by adding "Karl der Große" to the various expressions-bracket.

LowerBavaria (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, go for it. Don't let nuthin' stop you. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no problems with adding his German name. After reading that long discussion (which was so contentious it was ridiculous) I did not see any VALID points for not including it. Germany is clearly tied into the history of Charlemagne (although not as much as the French) and "Karl der Große" is a valid name to put into the introduction. Vyselink (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. LowerBavaria (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

_____

Srnec I agree with you that it's best to limit the title to Charlemagne and Charles the Great, but I think its inevitable that someone will add the german prononciation again. That's why I thought a solution might be to include all his names by the countries he ruled. As you mentioned it makes no sense to include a German name and then exclude the Dutch name. Grey Fox (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Should references come from the fact that Charlemagne is the direct ancestor of the Capets, Bourbons, Valois, James I of England, Henry VIII and his tudors, The Plantagenet through Henry II, House of York, Lancaster, Windsors, Hapsburg and Savoy? And I think William the Conqueror's descendants through his wife Mathilde of Flanders. Or the fact that Charles Martel's wife was the descendant of Childeric and Clovis. Also I believe that the Oldenburgs and Portugese wife of Charles I's family.--Blood3 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

See Familypedia. Charlemagne is the ancestor of all monarchs of France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, England, Luxemburg, Austria, Portugal, Brazil, Mexico, Romania; and most of Spain, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Scotland, Poland, Hungary, Russia. I tried to make that point earlier, but others argued that this is irrelevant. Richard Tol (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Statistically, with somewhere around forty generations to work with, just about anyone with European ancestry is likely to have Charlemagne as an ancestor. That alone would be a more interesting and noteworthy point to put in the article than mentioning anyone who can claim his ancestry. It's kind of funny that one person is mentioned in the article (Christopher Lee) as if it's worth noting, when there are potentially hundreds of millions. Rainfrog (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rainfrog: That is actually not true. The noble families of Europe all descended from Charlemagne, but their rate of intermarriage is such that the number of living descendants is counted in the hundreds of thousands. Over at Familypedia, we are trying to count them. Richard Tol (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The rate of intermarriage of noble families is not a good backing point for your very low estimate, nor is a link that shows that the count of only the first 5 out of 45 generations are complete. Read this: [1] A complete count (if it were even feasible or practical) would show numbers that increase more along the lines of exponentially, even with conservative allowances for intermarriage and low birth rates. This would be especially true for the last 25 generations or so, by which time a majority of his descendants would likely be well outside the realm of noble families (the gap only widened by their marriages practices!)

Furthermore, considering only the marriage practices of nobility says nothing of their procreation practices. Illegitimate children are more of a rule than an exception in genealogical research, and just one of them enough generations back -- and among his descendants, there are far more than just one -- could have produced millions of living descendants. One child. In only 20 generations. That's far fewer generations than we have to work with in Charlemagne's case, never mind far fewer illegitimate children. Well over a billion living people (maybe twice that) are of at least some recent European ancestry. With over 40 generations it is highly unlikely that under one tenth of one percent of those billion-or-so, as your claim would mean, have no links to European noble families whatsoever, and in turn to Charlemagne.

Consider for example that 40 generations ago one person would have roughly 1.1 trillion thirty-eighth great-grandparents. This is enough to be a direct descendant of every living person on the planet at that time, a couple thousand times over. Obviously, that isn't the case, as your ancestors would more likely be confined to only a fraction of the Earth's regions. However, that only makes it much LESS likely to NOT be related to a given person within that geographic area, regardless of their nobility. So how likely is it that 99.9% of over a billion people have no links whatsoever to a given person 40 generations ago, when all 1.1 trillion of those slots have to be filled and a very limited number of people were available to fill them? Rainfrog (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an empirical question. The only estimate to date (by Ton Deunhouwer) has thousands of living descendants. Our work on Familypedia (complete for the first 9 generations) suggests that Deunhouwer's estimates is too low. The growth rate between generation 8 and 9 was 41%. Extrapolating that to generation 35 makes 2 mln, and 11 mln for generation 40. The aristocracy in Europe is a largely isolated ethnic group. Anyway, I will not argue with you, as this is an empirical question. Time will tell who is right. You are welcome to join our project. Richard Tol (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking legitimate descendants? Even article on German Kings, mentions they are all related(which is relative anyway) Of course by German Kings, do they mean every monarch with the title King, who has ruled a German speaking state? Anyway, while the fact that every modern monarch is related to him is not as relevant that many monarchies have been occupied by his descendants since his death. Has there been any ruling dynasty not descended from him that ruled in his former empire? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How likely is it that Betrada of Prum is a Merovingian and his great grandmother? If we accept her to be Caribert's mother and the daughter of Theuderic III is that the only was he can have Merovingian blood? I remember there was some other claim, but this one might be genuine. Any thoughts?--I am the Blood 11:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

sounds great, source? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read in one of the Horrible Histories books that Charlemagne was left sitting on the throne for a number of years after his death, but the article makes the apparently unreferenced claim that he was buried on the day that he died. Is there any reliable reference for either statement? 138.130.85.69 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of that story. According to this source, which cites Einhard, he was indeed buried on the same day he died. Iblardi (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting, if trivial: GERMANY: Imperial D.P., Time magazine June 11, 1945. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the IMPERIUM section of the page on CHARLEMAGNE please provide a wiki-link to to German city of Paderborn 78.148.19.255 (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done by GaneshBhakt (talk). GaneshBhakt (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the statement 'This temporarily made him a rival of the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople' in the lead paragraph should probably be removed for three reasons. Firstly it strikes me as unnecessary in summing up the article. Secondly it is strictly incorrect as the ruler of Byzantium at the time was the empress regent Irene. Thirdly the use of the word temporarily is misleading and needs qualification of the sort that cannot be included in the lead. Any thoughts please? Reichsfürst (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As this seems to be generating little interest I'm going to go ahead with the edit but if anyone subsequently disagrees please feel free to instigate discussion here. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Right given that the page is semi-protected I'm going to have to wait three days - so IGNORE ABOVE comment please. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The section on educational reform strongly implies that Charles' motivation was an interest in learning for its own sake which goes against the vast majority of historian's work in the last two decades who see it as a consequence of his attempts to improve the administrative efficiency of the Carolingian Church - any thoughts on a potential rewrite? Reichsfürst (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In reference to my undoing of Senjuto's edit. I have also posted this on Senjuto's talk page.

The vast majority of edits were of spelling and grammar which simply enforced American English where innappropriate. The capitalisation of emperor is incorrect unless followed by a name. You also removed a large chunk of text without explaining why. In future please try to give an edit summary to explain why certain actions have been taken. Reichsfürst (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might be useful to have a new article on 'Charlemagne's wars' as Julius Caesar has Military campaigns of Julius Caesar as this would also enable us to look into more detail at motivations and consequences. Any contributions please? Reichsfürst (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I encourage you to start it if you can. Srnec (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The birth date has not been suspected of being a pious fiction as far as I know. You'd need a ref for that. Its being a pious fiction is a counter-pious fiction. Let's keep the masked ideology of the editor out of it. The source given looks pretty good despite being a web site. It cites its sources. It is not however accurately represented by our write-up. I could look all this stuff up in books and cite them but the source given has already done that so I'm going to rewrite a few sentences to eliminate the pious fiction and recapture the source better. If you aren't happy with that then we will have to get into the books.Dave (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This section contains a number of interesting assertions but there are two problems with it. First, there are no references in it. I do not know what that one ref is, as it does not ref anything. Second, these assertions are pretty much disorganized. In fact, you can't really follow the line of thought. Is the language known or not? What is the most likely language? The lack of refs has been noted by one sparse tag. I feel that this lack and that tag give us a license to rewrite it. Before I can make the initial effort however I need to collect some refs in my collection bag. Then you can have it, if in fact you do not move first.Dave (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

R.E. Keller (1964) has argued that the Carolingians spoke "the Rhenish Franconian dialect of High German", which, according to him, by that time already had "a characteristically developed, identifiable form" ("The Language of the Franks", in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester 47.1 (1964), 101-122; esp. 122).[2] The fact that his opinion is followed without discussion in a recent work of mainstream scholarship (Rosamond McKitterick, Charlemagne: the formation of a European identity (2008), 318: "Charlemagne himself probably spoke a form of Old High German close to Rhenish Franconian")[3] suggests that this is a generally accepted view. Iblardi (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

All right. I found some oaths before and after Charlemagne that demonstrate the language was changing rapidly. However the section was getting longer and longer, which did not make me feel comfortable. I had not seen the article now given as a main article. I'm just as happy to offload all that, which means that the unreferenced previous assertions commented out have to go. As far as I can see from the oaths, the OHG consonant shift was happening all during Charlemagne's lifetime, a situation parallel to the creation of Middle English in a very short time. So, the language he learned from his mother probably no longer existed at his death. This is the topic of an independent specialized article not a section in this article. As you have found some definite assertions in creditable sources I am just as happy to let that stand and get on to the rest of the article. The goal of course is to straighten out the references and get this to the point where we might restore the good article status. However for me this is a logical break point. I'm getting back to ius, which I was working on before. I'll be back later when I feel like it. Since you are inclined to work on this article I suggest you go on with it but that is of course your perogative.Dave (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit misleading. Einhard knew Charlemagne well and wrote from memory. True, he didn't write in Charlemagne's lifetime but he did write a few years after from personal memory. He is a primary source, not a secondary; this is an eyewitness account. So, I'm altering that a little.Dave (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Charles is well known to have been fair-haired, tall, and stately, with a disproportionately thick neck. The Roman tradition of realistic personal portraiture was in complete eclipse in his time, where individual traits were submerged in iconic typecastings. Charlemagne, as an ideal ruler, ought to be portrayed in the corresponding fashion, any contemporary would have assumed. The images of enthroned Charlemagne, God's representative on Earth, bear more connections to the icons of Christ in majesty than to modern (or antique) conceptions of portraiture. Charlemagne in later imagery (as in the Dürer portrait) is often portrayed with flowing blond hair, due to a misunderstanding of Einhard, who describes Charlemagne as having canitie pulchra, or "beautiful white hair", which has been rendered as blonde or fair in many translations."

1) Need some refs

2) Parts of this repeat the previous referenced

3) Parts of this contradict the previous refed. Can we or can we not rely on contemporary portraiture?

It seems to me this part was not written at the same time as the previous. As the previous is refed and this is not I am taking this out. My suggestion is, if you want this sort of thing in, and have some refs for the opinions and assertions, you might want to do a section on representations of Charlemagne, so we do not confuse the real appearance with the representational appearance. "It is well-known" is generally a nein-nein on WP.Dave (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you would balk at this scurrilousness when WP is quite a source of pornography for the schoolchildren, taking in hand their street education in the facts of adult life. Why bother with porn sites when you can see it on WP. I oppose that of course. Bertha? Charlemagne had a sister named Bertha? But, we just finished saying he only had Gisela as a sister! What, is the incest taboo so strong you cannot even mention it but have to continue on with imaginary relatives and more modern mythology? Time to face this thing. I have seen Charlemagne called bastard! in the sources, which might in one credible interpretation of the sources be true. In case you have not seen it yet, a second more serious charge is that Charlemagne fathered Roland on his sister Gisela after which she retreated to a nunnery in shame. If it did not occur in some ancient sagas it would not even be worth repeating. It certainly cannot be true. The main source is in fact a Scandinavian saga and the Scandinavians hated Charlemagne with a passion, one of the main reasons being that after he depopulated northern Germany of such Saxons as did not escape to Britain he invited the Slavs to live there (who were Christian). The Scandinavians built a wall across Jutland and said all sorts of evil scurrilousness about Charlemagne. His sister went to a nunnery to escape a marriage of state being arranged by her mother. Charlemagne did not quite escape. He was still listening to his mother in those days. Gisela became a leading scholar, the manager of the place, worked closely with Alcuin, was a valued advisor to her brother on matters of state and sometimes assisted him in ambassadorial affairs. There is not one word anywhere about her raising a son. I do not believe the Scandinavians for a minute. These sagas, they were like ballads, they said anything the common folk wanted to hear. John Dooley over and over, or Jessie James. However, that is not the worst said of Charlemagne. He had several daughters, which he did not allow to marry even though their beauty was sung far and wide. Why not? Well, you read the tabloids, take a guess. Even Einhard mentions the bad things that were being said. If we get into this nasty business at all let's keep it to a footnote. No, I don't believe that in addition to all his wives and mistresses he kept his daughters on the string in the midst of a busy palace life deciding the policy of an empire. Some of these "scholars" are no better than yellow journalists themselves. Anything to sell a book, so they can retire from professorship or else snag one.Dave (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The main sources for this article are the Life and the Annales and they seem to have been the main sources for EB 1911 and some others as well (wouldn't you know it, what a coincidence). However, they are not enough. Writers of the times draw from multiple annals, which are not as extensive as the one mentioned but cover some incidents not given in the others. This is the case for Hatto, blinded by his brother Hunald. Don't look for him on WP because he is not there. Other Hattos are. We have to be careful not to accord WP the same status as the scholarship of the publications. Hatto is not there because no one has put him there, not because he is a questionable character. He should be there but I have to draw the line somewhere so I cannot do the work. This is like fly paper, you can't get off unless you just take the scissors and cut yourself off. I will however put in a source for just Hatto. The general source I gave on him is substantiated by other more modern books. This poor unfortunate victim of a royal brother's hasty and violent temper cannot of course be any other characters on the disambig page and has no article to be linked by disambig.Dave (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Aquitaine section is bloated. Almost none of it has to do with Charlemagne. Why are you talking about Hatto? Srnec (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Hatto information from the Annales with my translations:

735: Eodo dux mortuus est. Quod cum audiret invictus princeps Carolus, adunato exercitu Ligerem fluvium transiit, usque ad Garonnam et urbem Burdigalensem et castra Blavia occupavit. Illamque regionem cepit et subiugavit cum urbibus ac suburbanis eorum. Ducatumque illum solita pietate Hunaldo filio Eodonis dedit, qui sibi et filiis suis Pippino et Carolomanno fidem promisit.

[Duke Odo died. When the invincible Prince Charles heard, he crossed the river Loire with an assembled host, went as far as the Garonne and occupied the city of Bordeaux and the castle of Blaye. He subjugated and captured that region with its cities and suburbs. The duchy also, with his usual piet, he gave to Hunald, son of Odo, who to him and his sons Pepin and Carloman promised fidelity.]

744: Eodem quoque anno Hunaldus dux germanum suum nomine Atonem per falsa sacramenta decipiens de Pictavis ad se venire iussit, cui statim oculos eruit, et sub custodia retrusit. Nec multo post idem Hunaldus corona capitis deposita et monachi voto promisso in monasterium quod Radis insula situm est intravit filiumque suum Waifarium in principatu reliquit.

[That same year, Duke Hunald, deceiving by false oaths (?) his brother named Hatto, ordered him to come to Poitiers, immediately pulling out his eyes and throwing him back into custody. Not long after, this same Hunald, the crown on his head having been thrown aside and the vows of a monk sworn, entered the monastery located on the isle of Ré; and his son Waifar was left in charge of the principality.]

The dates are from the Annales. As you can see, Hatto is associated with Hunald's leaving, but not with Odo's death. Some scholars apparently believe this is not chronologically credible and place Hatto's blinding much earlier. I'd be wary of building an article out of a 9th-century annal without the best secondary sources. —Srnec (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)