Talk:Charlemagne

Can the editor add some citations to his claim?

Article states, "He also campaigned against the Saxons to his east, Christianizing them (upon penalty of death) which led to events such as the Massacre of Verden." But no sources are cited for this claim. (AltheaCase (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC))

Added citation and cleared it up. The source was already in the Massacre of Verden article. Momgamer09 (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Christian Ethics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 4 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AdiraMavros (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brian (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove or Edit Sentence?

Under the Aquitane section, there is a passage stating "The French name Gascony derives from Vasconia. The Romans were never able to subjugate the whole of Vasconia. The soldiers they recruited for the Roman legions from those parts they did submit and where they founded the region's first cities were valued for their fighting abilities. The border with Aquitaine was at Toulouse." I don't understand the intent or syntax in "The soldiers they recruited for the Roman legions from those parts they did submit and where they founded the region's first cities were valued for their fighting abilities." There's no citation and it doesn't seem relevant to this article, or even the rest of the passage. I vote to just delete the sentence but maybe someone understands what could be written instead? 144.121.186.250 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

removed it. Momgamer09 (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Legitimacy

The article mentions in a few places that Charles was most likely born "out of wedlock," before his parents' 744 marriage, etc., making him illegitimate. However, it notes that they did have some kind of contract to marry prior to his birth. I don't know who the sources were for the debate here. I'm a historian and I studied this time period, and in particular, the differences between standard modern practices and what were considered standard practices in the Middle Ages. It seems to me that the texts, books, and sources I read in graduate school agree that, in at least the Middle Ages, if not beyond the Renaissance, a betrothment could legitimize a child. Travel was not as easy then as it is now, resources were not as available or reliable then as they are now, and often - since marriage, particularly among the upper classes, was a financial contract, not a social or romantic act - the betrothed couple could have had a large age difference, or geographical separation, or other obstacles that even necessitated marriage by proxy or lengthy betrothments. As long as there was a solemn promise to marry (it wasn't like today's engagements, it was much more formal), the couple was considered in a legal & binding status; using a term that I am making up right here and now, it was kind of like a pre-marriage, but practically as binding as marriage (only in the event of death or some major political upheaval that negated the terms of contract, could the contract be broken without similar legal concerns as if a spouse died or a marriage ended). Children conceived and born in this time of betrothment were considered to be legitimate. What I'm saying is that it's anachronistic to say, the parents were betrothed or otherwise had a contract to marry, but weren't married, so he was illegitimate. In that time, if there was a contract to marry, he was legitimate.Kelelain (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Cool story, bruh." Doesn't matter what you think. Sources. 109.70.84.130 (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Reorganization?

Hi all, taking a look at this article, I personally believe it could do with some reorganization and cleanup to improve readability and facilitate some improvements to the article. For such a key figure, it'd be great if we could bring this article up to GA standards, and I think a reorg might be a good first step to build off of. This is based off organization of some other pre-modern ruler bios, and (admittedly), personal opinion of what might be a better flow. I'd propose something along the lines of the following, based on the article as it stands now (including some renaming of sections and maybe looking where we're duplicating info or maybe providing more than is necessary):

• Names and nicknames-> Name
• Early life and rise to power
  • Ancestry and political background
  • Early life -> Birth
  • Ambiguous high office -> **Joint reign (with Carloman?) - This section is a little odd to me. The first three paragraphs seem to duplicate and expand on information in "Political background" on how Pepin became king. Good info, but maybe better served there. Really, the key info at this point in the article are the last two paragraphs regarding the brothers' accession and how the kingdom was divided administratively. There's also room for expansion on the point (currently unsourced) "Charles was 26 years old, but he had been campaigning at his father's right hand for several years, which may help to account for his military skill." If we can dig up some sources on his activities in Pepin's reign, would be good information to add either here or a section detailing these activities.
    • Aquitanian rebellion - Of the eight paragraphs here, only the last actually deals with events during Charles's reign. The preceding are ~100 years of background on Aquitaine's history. While it's definitely good to give readers context for events, I wonder if this background material can be trimmed (and preserved either at Aquitaine or Carolingian Empire?)
  • Marriage to Desiderata - Needs sources, and as the content stands currently in these three sections, I think they can condense to one covering 768-771 for now
• (Sole?) King of the Franks
  • Italian campaings
    • current subsections
  • Carolingian expansion to the south -> Southern expansion(?)
    • current subsections
  • Eastern campaigns
    • current subsections
• Imperium -> (Reign as?) Emperor
  • Coronation
    • Debate
  • Imperial title
  • Administration
    • current subsections (for now, some of these probably need to be cleaned up)
    • Imperial diplomacy
    • Danish attacks
    • Death
• Appearance - some here could maybe fly to other sections - i.e. Language into early life?
• Wives, concubines, and children (issue?) - personally would ditch the table here in favor of a list format, but just my thought
• Cultural impact (Legacy?)
  • current subsections
  • Beatification

Beyond the early sections, not proposing any major content changes. I'm digging up resources I have as well as acquiring some more so I can put some work into expansion of some of the thinner sections and (especially) adding citations to what we have. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

And wow, doing an rewrite of the sections up to 771, and a source used in "Ambiguous high office" is "Boot Camp & Military Fitness Institute - not only did it flag as a low quality source, but clicking through the article there is actually a mirror of this article. The article probably needs a top to bottom overhaul. I'm basing the early life section mainly on McKitterick, which I own, and am waiting for Janet Nelson's King and Emperor in the mail, which I hope should really be able to boost the article up. It looks like Nelson is currently used only a handful of times in the article.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sketch image

User:SergeWoodzing, good call on removing the hairstyle info from the caption - was indeed too much and I should have eliminated it when I moved it to the new section. On "thought to be of" - the image is sourced to Fried's biography (p. 262), where it's captioned:

"FIGURE 29 Image from the inside front cover of the Fulda codex of the Aix capitulary, now held at the Herzog August Library in Wolfenbüttel, Germany. This quick sketch is thought to be of Charlemagne."

I based the caption off of this. Do you know of a source that makes the more specific claim that it's definitely of Charlemagne? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you for checking that! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've also fixed this now on the image page at Commons. Being a bit sensitive, because many so-called "historians" hardly consider any portrait older than the 16th century to be an authentic likeness, I overreacted a bit. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)