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)

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)

His beatification of equivalent canonization should be at least mentioned. Reparare (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2024 (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)

Very much understood, and share the sentiment! This, coins, and possibly the equestrian statue are probably the closest we have to getting a real view of what he may have looked like. I wanted to make sure I wasn't jumping the gun using Fried in exclusion of better sources in this case. Thanks for improving the caption, and replying to the talk quickly. Best, Seltaeb Eht (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

About "Karl" and "Karlus"

The page had for years on and off listed "Karl", the modern German form of his name, as the form that would've been used by Germanic speakers at the time. I can find evidence of this out on the internet, but not in any scholarly sources. This makes me worried that it's out there as a WP:CIRCULAR reference back here. The last time it was added [1], it was cited to Fried's biography, but Fried makes no such claim on page 2, or anywhere else in the book. "Karl" is only used in the book in footnotes referencing titles of German-language sources. Even in it's appearances prior to this it didn't seem we had any RSs for it.

I replaced Karl with the form "Karlus", citing the following in Nelson's King and Emperor: "I call my subject Charles, or use one or another of the languages spoken by his contemporaries: Latin Carolus, Old High German Karlus or Romance Karlo." (Nelson 2019 p. 2). Nelson's is the most up-to-date comprehensive English-language biography, and she's a giant in Charlemagne scholarship. Frustratingly, though, this is in the introduction, the only part of the book where she doesn't provide footnotes. And except for this passage, she invariably calls him "Charles", never using one of these forms again.

So while I trust Nelson on this, it's tough because she doesn't have a footnote we can track down, and "Karlus" definitely seems odd as a Germanic form to us. And what you see on the web is that the evolution went something like keril or kerl -> Karl -> Karolus/Carolus. Our article on Charles mostly seems to claim this, although it doesn't look that well sourced to me.

Johannes Fried, Roger Collins, and Alessandro Barbero are all silent on a contemporary Germanic name. The only other of the major biographies I have access to that addresses the name at all is Becher, on p. 43:

But what did this name "Charles," which was uncommon in this period, actually mean? For a while it was thought that the name was taken from the root in "Kerl - fellowman" which meant "a free man without inherited property," or simply "man, married man, or beloved." This interpretation of "Charles" was used to support the now outdated theory that Charles Martel's mother Chalpaida came from a low-status family. Modern research sees the name "Carolus" as the Romanized form of "Hariolus" a pet form of the name "Chario." It also appears to have been an element in the name "Charibert" which was borne by two Merovingian kings. There is also some suggestion that the name may have been derived from "Crallo." This was the name of the father of Bishop Kunibert of Cologne, who had been a close ally of Pippin the Elder. In any case, there were no negative connotations associated with the name "Charles" at the end of the seventh century

So Becher, gesturing at "modern research" seems to represent that Carolus is the original form of the name as an adaptation of the (Germanic?) names Chario and Hariolus. And that the kerl origin is outdated scholarship.

Doubling the frustration though, Becher is again one of the foremost Charlemagne scholars. But his book was apparently written for a general audience. According to Roger Collins' review in The Historian, it's in a genre of German publishing called a "pocket book" "aimed at a serious but non-specialist readership that wants to be well informed on a wide range of subjects but not in too much detail and without any element of uncertainty". So it also doesn't have any footnotes and doesn't engage in debate over topics, really just presenting a "state of the subject".

So between Nelson and Becher, my best hunch (though entirely synthesis at this point) is that modern scholarship has arrived that Carolus (a Latin name though with Germanic roots) was actually borrowed back into German in the form Karlus, which then derived into Karl, Karel, etc.

I'd love to track down the actual scholarship on this but haven't been able to. I'm sure it's in some obscure German-language journal. I was able to find through Googling this paper: [2], which has a text his for "Carolus" "Chario" "Hariolus", but it's paid access. But it's probably working from the same scholarship Becher is so I might go to WP:RX to see if anyone has access and try to get someone to translate the relevant paragraphs. Finding the source for Nelson's "Karlus" hasn't turned up anything. So if anyone cares to research this, hopefully we can eventually track it down. But I highly doubt Matthias Becher and Janet Nelson are just making these things up out of whole cloth.

TLDR/The point Not being able to track down Nelson and Becher's own citations, they are still preeminent scholars and the best references we have. So unless we can give an equivalent modern scholarly source that gives Karl as the contemporary Germanic form, giving Karlus as cited to Nelson is our best-sourced option. Karl is either old scholarship perpetuated by Wikipedia, or a WP invention that got picked up elsewhere. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charlemagne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 04:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I am starting the review. I hope I can finish it in a week. During the review, I will make small edits. Please feel free to revert them. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka, Thank you! I know it's quite a long article to review. Thank you in addition for your copy edits. I will begin adressing your points. Cheers! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

General remarks

• Use a consequent style of citing. For instance, compare citations 1-7 and 8.
  • I can work on converting all the refs to sfns. I thought usually references only used once stayed as full footnotes for some reason, but I'll get to work on this.
• Perhaps a copy edit from editors active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors could improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've put in a request - good to know about this service! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Name

• ... he would have been known... Why not "was known"?
  • adjusted to was known
  • though looking at this again, the source quote in Nelson is: I call my subject Charles, or use one or another of the languages spoken by his contemporaries: Latin Carolus, Old High German Karlus or Romance Karlo. I think I chose "would have been known" because Nelson doesn't strictly say "people called him Karlus and Karlo", just that "these are the forms of the name in the languages spoken by his contemporaries." It's not a huge leap to say "was known", but I'd welcome your thought on whether it is close enough to the source since I'm a little torn.
    • I think the modified version is fully in line with the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I was certainly overthinking this
• ...in the Germanic dialect he spoke... Name the dialect if the cited source name it. If not, delete the wikilink.
  • simplified to Old High German
• The adjective "magnus" is not his nickname, but his epithet. (His nickname is Carolus Magnus.)
  • adjusted
• Ukrainan, Polish, and Slovak are not neighboring Slavic languages, and some of them likely did not exist during Charlemagne's lifetime.
• ... his name was adopted into neighboring Slavic languages as their word for king... This is not a fact but only one of the two theories mentioned by Fried.
  • reworded per these points - let me know what you think. I cut the Caesar point because on reflection it seems like a bit of a non sequitur.
    • I would delete the adjective neighboring, because neither Polish, nor Ukrainan is descended from languages that were spoken near the Frankish Empire. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Neighboring is gone, very good point

Political background and ancestry

• Introduce Clovis I.
  • glossed as "Frankish king"
• ...Catholic conversion of Clovis I... I would rephrase: "the conversion of Clovis I to Catholicism...".
  • adjusted per suggestion
• Francia, ruled by the Merovingians, was the most powerful of the kingdoms that succeeded the Western Roman Empire,... Which exact page does verify this statement? Could you quote Collins' words?
  • I had left this paragraph mostly unchanged in my rewrite but should have more critical here. Reworded and replaced with a more neutral statement cited to Heather. Let me know what you think of the revision.
• Link Low Countries.
  • linked
• Francia was often divided into several sub-kingdoms under different Merovingian kings, due to ill-defined succession laws. The cited source does not explicitly make connection between the divisions of Francia and ill-defined succession laws.
  • Changed to due to the partible inheritance practiced by the Franks, better reflects Costambeys et al.
• Link "mayor of the palace" when it is first mentioned.
  • linked
• Link the Battle of Tertry.
  • linked
• I would delete the adjective "saint" when mentioning Arnulf of Metz, and would explain that he was venerated as a saint shortly after his death in a footnote.
  • I removed entirely, I don't think it's necessary. One of the artifacts of a more hagiographical tone of the article before the rewrite.
• Why the Merovingian kings' authority was waning?
  • added due to the divisions of the kingdom and several succession crises.
• Charles was able to ... be succeeded... Rephrase.
  • Revied to Charles made plans to divide the kingdom between his sons Carloman and Pepin the Short, who succeeded upon his death in 741

Birth

• Who is Bertrada of Laon?
  • "his wife". Unless you think more explanation is needed
    • I would introduce her as an aristocrat or something similar.
      • "a member of an influential noble Austrasian family."
• Replace reference no 9 with a footnote.
• replaced
• Charlemagne's place of birth is also unknown but may have been at Frankish palaces in Vaires-sur-Marne or Quierzy. Rephrase. Perhaps: "Charlemagne's place of birth is also unknown; the Frankish palaces in Vaires-sur-Marne and Quierzy are among the places suggested by scholars."
  • rephrased per suggestion

Language and education

• Einhard wrote from his experiences in Charlemagne's court in the 790s onward. This looks out of context in this section. Perhaps in the previous section it could be mentioned when it refers to Einhard's limited knowledge of Charlemagne's early life.
  • Revisited this and decided to just remove. I was clumsily summarizing an explanation of Nelson's—that Einhard only reported one native language, probably German, because by the time he joined the court Charlemagne based the court mostly at Aachen and campaigned mostly in other Germanic-speaking areas; but his youth was (probably) spent largely in Gaul, and he would have used Romance as a youth that he had no reason to from the 790s onward. But it's not really a necessary point for the article and as you say is out of place as written.
• ...at Pepin's court ... Where?
  • hmm I'll think about best way to phrase this. Pepin didn't keep a single seat, so it's more "the court" as an institution vs. a physical place.
  • clarified that Pepin's court was itinerant.
• ...this is not abnormal... Perhaps unusual/uncommon?
  • went with unusual
• Introduce and link Johannes Fried.
• Introduce Paul Dutton. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • both done. If you have a suggestion for a different phrasing to avoid the repeat of "historian" I'd certainly be open to it
    • For me acceptable the use of historian twice, but you may change one of them to scholar. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

    Going to leave as-is. While the repetition is a little awkward, giving different titles could be confusing - readers might wonder why one is a scholar and one a historian, when really both of them are both (as well as medievalists). Seltaeb Eht (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Accession and joint reign with Carloman

• Charlemagne appears only sparsely in the Frankish annals before death of his father. I would rephrase: "Charlemagne is only sparsely mentioned in the Frankish annals during his father's lifetime."/"There are only sparse references to Charlemagne in the Frankish annals during his father's lifetime."
  • went with your second suggestion
• Link "annals".
  • linked
• Consolidate references 21 and 49.
  • I think numbers changed around, so I'm assuming you're referring to the two references after the sentence "By 751 or 752, Pepin deposed Childeric and replace him as king." I will consolidate these to pp71-72. Side comment, thanks for your improvements to this section by removing the unnecessary "moved to" twice
  • consolidated
• Early Carolingian-influenced sources claim that Pepin's seizure of the throne was sanctioned by Pope Stephen II, but modern historians dispute this. I understant that modern historians only dispute whether Pepin's accession was authorized by the pope before his coronation. It is clear that Pope Stephen II sanctioned the coronation during his visit in France at the latest.
  • I can see how the first sentence is unclear. Insterted "beforehand"
• ...anointed Pepin as king... Link "anointed" to anointing.
• linked
• Charlemagne was sent... Why not past perfect?
  • Are you suggesting "Charlemagne had been sent"? Charlemagne's escort occurs in the narrative "currently" in the past tense. Stephen travels north to Francia, Charlemagne meets him, Charlemagne escorts him to Pepin, the anointing occurs. Does the initial fact that Stephen traveled to Francia cause confusion, implying Charlemagne met him outside Francia (in Rome?). If so, I'll revise this to make the time and space more clear.
    • Yes. In the previous sentence, Pepin and his sons were anointed by the pope, and I assume that Charlemagne had greeted the Pope before the ceremony. Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Did this, it does read better
• Drogo's brother comes out of the blue.
  • The source has What’s more, around the same time Carloman’s sons (Drogo and an unnamed brother) were sent to a monastery. Really, only the existence of a second son of Carloman is attested, and nothing else. Would you suggest removal of the mention here, or somehow integrating a mention of the second son into "Political background and ancestry"?

• • I think Drogo's brother could be introduced in section "Political background and ancestry". The fact that we do not know his name should also be mentioned.

• • • Dropped a mention earlier
• ... joining his father on campaign... Where?
  • clarified
• ...separate spheres of influence... Could these be clarified?
  • Added an explanatory sentence - it's not entirely clear who ruled what but reported what the sources have
• The summary of the events in Aquitaine is confusing for me. For instance, the last sentence in the paragraph informs us that Hunald was the leader of a rebellion. I would rephrase the whole paragraph.
  • I introduced Hunald earlier, during Pepin's reign. I'll take another look to see if it can be clarified better.
• Carloman abandoned the campaign... Why?
  • This, I believe, is well addressed in the next paragraph. "It is uncertain why Carloman did not join Charlemagne", then two theories given.
• Carloman abandoned the campaign... vs ...Carloman did not join Charlemagne... Contradiction?
  • Perhaps a semantic difference. Carloman marched and met Charlemagne, but backed out before any fighting occurred. So he "did not join" any fighting, but also "abandoned" something he had apparently implicitly agreed to. I don't see a contradiction here, but appreciate the reader may. I will work on presenting this more clearly.

• • I think it is still contradictory.

• • • Removed did not join and switched around some wording, hopefully it reads more clearly now.
• The brothers reported to the pope... When? Name the pope.
  • Going back to McKitterick, she's not very clear on this (in context, it's Stephen III), and she is unique in trying to sow some doubt on whether the brothers were in that much conflict. So I just removed this point
• ...potential strife... Is the adjective necessary?
  • nope
• The political affairs of Italy became a focus of Charlemagne's. Delete (unnecessary).
• ..., as the ability of the Byzantine Empire to control Central Italy was fading. Delete (out of context).
  • It looks like Dcdiehardfan is watching the GAN, and has removed this. I would prefer it remain. In my opinion, it's important for the reader to understand why the Popes turned to the Franks as protectors - because the emperors in Constantinople could no longer meaningfully project power into Italy. I agree it needs rephrasing, but I think the fact itself is important for the reader to note.
    • In this case, the information should be presented in the Background section, and be introduced with a reference to the Byzantine protection of the popes against the Lombards. Without an introduction, the reference to the Byzantines comes out of the blue. Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

      @Seltaeb Eht Apologies for the deletion. I agree that it is a bit of a jarring intro, but think Borsoka's solution is a good fix, or alternatively a footnote. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

      • I removed these two sentences, and the paragraph indeed works better without it. I'll look and see the best place to put the info in the background.
• Introduce Himiltrude as the daughter of a powerful aristocrat.
  • Dcdiehardfan has implemented this, though I will probably revise this. I don't think we know enough about Himiltrud(e) to make this claim. Nelson says:
    • "skeletal evidence survive[s] to demonstrate the stature that was conventionally deemed a sign of nobility" (Nelson p.91)
    • "Himiltrud, was a noblewoman ‘of the same [Frankish] people" (Nelson p.108 - interpreting Stephen II's letter)
  • Neither Fried nor Collins address her status. Point being, we can't say Himiltrude was the "daughter of a powerful aristocrat", because we don't know her background. We don't know her parents. We could say that she was probably noble, and most likely a Frank. If you believe a gloss is necessary, I'm most comfortably with with Frankish woman Himiltrude or with with Frankish noblewoman Himiltrude
    • Sorry, I misinterpreted a reference to Hildegard's father. Yes, "Frankish woman" is a good solution. Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
      • No worries. In my initial readings of Charlemagne's biographies I found myself doing double takes at the two "H" wives. I went with "noblewoman" because I feel that's supported enough by the source (and intuitive - the king of the Franks wasn't marrying commoners).
        • Himiltrude is called "a noble girl" (nobili puella) by Paul the Deacon. Reference in Carl Hammer, "Pipinus Rex", p. 250. Srnec (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

        Thanks, Srnec, I had just saved and set aside "Pippinus Rex" not too long ago for reading and work on the Pepin the Hunchback article, and read that same quote not too long ago in Goffart (1986) but it slipped my mind. So both Paul and Stephen II call her noble, and Stephen calls her Frankish, but beyond that I don't think we can say anything beyond that. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce Hildegard as the daughter of a powerful Frankish aristocrat Gerold. Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Is this not sufficiently addressed by the last sentence of the section: a move to secure the support of Hildegard's father Gerold, a powerful magnate of Carloman's kingdom.?
    • Yes, but she should be introduced first and the last sentence could be modified accordingly. Borsoka (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Did this
• Carloman's wife Gerberga and their children fled to the court of Desiderius as Charlemagne moved immediately to secure his hold on his brother's territory. Rephrase. Perhaps: "He moved immediately to secure his hold on his brother's territory, forcing Carloman's widow Gerberga to flee to Lombardy with their children."? Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I will revisit this. The sources to my understanding support the temporal relation in the way presented here - that Carloman's family fled preemptively, before Charlemagne made a move on taking over Carloman's lands.
    • Actually, rereading this today, your version is more clear and better reflects the cause and effect. Implemented your phrasing as suggested

• • I've left questions on clarification of some of your suggestions, but agree with most of the rest. I will work on implementing these shortly, hopefully tomorrow morning (EST, ~ 10 hours from this comment) Seltaeb Eht (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Annexation of the Lombard kingdom

• Explain "irminsul" with two or three words.
  • "pagan irminsul shrine"
• "Vassal" may be an anachronistic term in the article's context because it is closely connected to feudalism. Perhaps "retainers"/"men"/"supporters"?
  • Good catch, I feel supporters works best
  • I caught two more uses of vassal later on that I preemptively removed
• ...to continue the siege Perhaps a reference to Pavia?
  • added
• Name the historians who describe the annexation of the Lombard kingsom as "extraordinary" and "without parallel".
• named. For better sentence flow, I introduced Costambeys et al. simply as "the authors of The Carolingian World.", but if you don't think this works I'll try to restructure to make naming all three more natural.
• ...was able to secure the support of the Lombard nobles and Italian urban elites... How? Borsoka (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • We don't really know, but I added potential explanations from McKitterick and Collins

Frontier wars in Saxony and Spain

• The Saxon magnate Widukind led the Saxons who would resist Charlemagne and fled to Denmark. I am not sure what the sentence means. Perhaps: ", but the Saxon magnate/aristocrat Widukind fled to Denmark to make preparations for a new rebellion"?
  • rephrased per suggestion
• Introduce al-Andalus as Muslim Spain.
  • I think the term is familiar enough, but I added a parenthetical.
• These included the son and son-in-law of Yusuf ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri, who had been ousted from rule in Cordoba by Abd al-Rahman I in 756, sought Charlemagne's support in the restoration, as well as rulers from northern Spain who wished to leave al-Fihri's rule. An unclear sentence. Perhaps: "These included the son and son-in-law Yusuf ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri, the former governor of Cordóba, who had been ousted by the Caliph Abd al-Rahman in 756. They sought Charlemagne's support for al-Fihri's restoration. Also rulers from northern Spain who wished to [?].. al-Fihri's rule came to Charlemagne."
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I think the version I just arrived at is much more clear.
• The reference to the Spanish March is anachronistic.
  • altered
• ...ended in defeat... Frankish defeat? Borsoka (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • yes, corrected (thanks DC)

Building the dynasty

• ...an ongoing famine... Is the adjective necessary?
  • no, thanks for removing
• ... to receive more submissions at oversee more baptisms I do not understand the statement.
  • That is indeed completely garbled.
• ...(leaving Pepin and Charles at Worms)... Is this necessary?
  • I do think it helps keep track of Pepin the Hunchback and provide background to his revolt later. But I'm not attached to it if you think it's unnecessary
• ...other honors given to Hildegard's tomb I do not understand the statement.
  • limited it to just the daily mass, that's the detail emphasized
• Introduce Fastrada.
  • Done

Saxon resistance and reprisal

• ... and lead other Saxons in revolt... Is this necessary?
  • nope
• Introduce Alessandro Barbero.
• Introduce the Capitulatio. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks like you did these, thank you.
    • It is a mystery for me. :) Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Benevento, Bavaria, and Pepin's revolt

• ...Charlemagne's viceroy in Italy... Name him.
  • named as Rotpert
• ...had accused Tassilo of conspiring with Widukind... Why past perfect?
• no reason, gone.
• ... based in Regensburg... Based?
  • as in "had as his primary center of operations", or "had as his main residence."
• ...heresy... A PoV term.
• The council confirmed Regensburg's positions on Adoptionism... We are not informed what was the Regensburg council's position.
  • I think I hit these both in one go, by introducing Adoptionism more neutrally and noting the Council declared it a heresy.
• ... formalised the deposition of Tassilo... I do not understand the statement. Perhaps "confirmed"/"reasserted"?
  • maybe recognized is best. Basically, Charlemagne had Tassilo appear to confess his supposed crimes again, and had the assembly declared the takeover legal
• ...among many other religious, political, and economic measures Delete (if these are not highly important, no reference to them is needed, if they are important, they should be mentioned).
  • the Council's final document had 51 chapters. I noted a few more major ones than what I had, but if you don't think it's needed to note there's dozens of other small measures I'll remove
• Introduce Luitgard.
  • introduced

Coronation

• In April 799, Pope Leo III, who had faced difficulties since his accession in 795, was attacked in Rome, accused of various crimes and attacked by political enemies, who attempted to remove his eyes and tongue. Rephrase.
  • hopefully more clear now
• In which church was Charlemagne crowned emperor?
  • (Old) St. Peter's Basilica, added
• Introduce Henri Pirenne.
  • okay
• One of the earliest narrative sources, the Annals of Lorsch present the position of Empress Irene, a woman, on the throne in Constantinople as an absence in the imperial title that Leo and Charlemagne could therefore fill. Rephrase. For instance, we are not informed that Irene had deposed her son, and the sentence does not make it clear that her gender raised doubt about the legitimacy of her rule.
  • Should be explained more clearly
• ...king-maker... A strange expression when writing of an imperial coronation.
  • Haha, excellent point. Swapped for "power broker", which doesn't have quite the same punch, but unfortunately emperor-maker isn't a phrase.
• Introduce Mayr-Harting.
  • ok
• ...a repudiation of the Byzantine singular claim to imperial title as preeminent among Christian rulers I do not understand the statement.
  • Hopefully more clear now
• Charlemagne may have had a more limited view of his role... This PoV should be attributed to a scholar. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • attributed to James Muldoon

Governing the empire

• ...after judging several ecclesiastical disputes... Perhaps "giving his judgement/ruling on"?

 Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

sounds good to me

• ... and further stops in Ravenna, Pavia, and Bologna... Is this necessary?

 Removed Feel free to change if necessary -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

fine with this

• ...stationary rule... I am not sure I understand it. I think the sentence suggests that Charlemagne set up his permanent seat at Aachen. The reasons of this choice could also be mentioned.

 Comment: Changed to passive, I think it indicates that the person was more relaxed during his tenure. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope, Borsoka was right - it's a reference to Aachen being a more permanent seat vs. the relative itinerant rule of 771-c.795. I don't think passivity is the best characterization here. I swapped in "sedentary" which is used by Costambeys et al., hopefully a little clearer

• ... through the issuing of laws and capitularies... I would delete it.

 Removed Feel free to change if necessary -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

good with this

• Link Spanish March and introduce it.

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• ..., finding success where Charlemagne's own war in Northern Spain had ended in defeat... Is this necessary? If yes, it should be rephrased.

You're right that it's extraneous

• Charlemagne did not campaign in either 802 or 803. Is this necessary? That he rarely participated in military campaigns is already mentioned.

extraneous and removed

• ...called the "programmatic capitulary"... By whom?

It's just the common name in scholarship for it. I removed the quotes which should remove the implication it's a singular view.

• ...requiring a loyalty oath to the emperor to be taken by all free men under his rule... Rephrase.

 Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

and I took another pass here

• In addition to the missi, Charlemagne also ruled the empire through his sons as sub-kings. I think this is misleading. I guess parts of the empire were ruled by his sons under his authority. Could some explanation be also added?
• Pepin and Louis had been appointed kings of the Italy and Aquitaine respectively in 781, though both were children at the time and were ruled by regents in their minority. Delete (repetition).

I combined these sentences, so it should be clearer exactly what's being referred to without repetition

• The Divisio also addressed the death of any of the brothers... How?
• ...urged peace between them and between any of their nephews who might inherit Rephrase. Perhaps: "...urged his descendants to keep peace/live in peace with each other/do not wage war against each other"?

I rewrote this to make it more clear that it stated that their sons would inherit their share, and rephrased the peace point.

Conflict and diplomacy with the east

• ...A Byzantine chronicler... Who? Is it a contemporaneous report?

Clarified it's Theophanes the Confessor

• ...peace negotiations commenced in 810. Charlemagne's envoys made peace with emperor Michael I, who had succeeded his father-in-law Nikephoros. Consolidate the two statements. When was the peac treaty signed? Why Michael was ready to make peace?

 Partly done Sentences are merged, didn't do the other stuff as I'm not an expert -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Took a pass here. Nikephoros made the peace and died, then Michael confirmed and sent Charles' envoys back

• Charlemagne began diplomatic contact with the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid in the 790s... Does it mean that he sent an envoy to the caliph, or the caliph sent an envoy to him?
• ...due to their mutual interest in affairs in Spain I assume the statement refers to the fact that the Emirate of Cordoba was the enemy of both Charlemagne and the Abbasids.

clarified

• Harun obliged... I am not sure this is the best wording. I would delete it.

 Fixed Rephrased the prose a bit for further clarity -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Cordial relations were retained with the Abbasids during the first decade of imperial rule. Harun, himself at war with the Byzantines during this period, sought to ensure Charlemagne's relations with Nikephoros remained poor. I would consolidate and shorten the two sentences.

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• ...nominal rule... Are you sure?

I'd say that's a pretty good parse of Fried's characterization of the gesture being "devoid of any practical substance". Charlemagne didn't have the means to actually exercise real jurisdiction over a building in Jerusalem , so al-Rashid didn't give up any real practical authority.

• The souring of relations with Baghdad after Harun's death may have been the impetus for the renewed negotiations with Constantinople that would lead to Charlemagne's peace with Michael in 811. This PoV should be attributed to a scholar.

 Done Attributed to Johannes Fried -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The monks appealed the dispute to Rome... Who? The Frankish monks or they and the Greek monk together?

clarified

• Leo went so far as to commission two silver shields with the creed in Latin and Greek... Why was this is an act of bravery or provocation? Which version was written on the shields?

clarified the version. removed "went so far as" as unencyclopedic.

Wars with the Danes

• ..., who the Franks called nordmanni ("northmen")... Is this necessary?

 Removed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Scandinavia had been brought into contact with the Frankish world through Charlemagne's continuous wars with the Saxons. I think this could be an excellent introductory sentence in the section.

 Done and Scandinavia wikilinked -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• ...Gudfred's Slavic allies... They are not mentioned previously.

introduced

• ...the effects of this war and earlier expansion in Saxony would help create the factors for the intense Viking raids across Europe later in the ninth century Costambeys et al do not refer to the expansion in Saxony, and they are more specific: they write that the wars destabilised Denmark.

The full quote is "the destabilising pressure placed on the Danes by Charlemagne’s conquest of Saxony played a material role in creating the preconditions for the Viking raids of the ninth century". The destabilization is directly linked as a consequence of the Saxon Wars, which I think is a key part of concluding the narrative of the most prominent conquest Charlemagne undertook. Maybe there's a better way to phrase it

Final years and death

• ...Pepin the Hunchback and Charles the Younger both died...The deaths of Charles and Pepin of Italy... Do you refer to two, three or four persons?

 Comment: Wikilinked PtH and PoI, and clarified by using full names -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I combined the 810-11 deaths into one sentence to eliminate the distance between the mentions of Pepin of Italy. P the Hunchback's death was a loss, but didn't have a bearing on the succession (he was already excluded). All blame on Leo III renaming Carloman to Pepin of Italy to make writing about this all more confusing!

• ...astronomical phenomena, and other misfortunes... Such as? Borsoka (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

added a few that Nelson focuses on. Einhard lists a slew of them

• @Borsoka I was travelling this weekend so will be playing a little catchup - will try to get through the rest of these soon. Thanks DCdiehardfan for the assistance. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Political legacy

• ...the empire was divided between West, East, and Middle Francia... By whom? Link the Treaty of Verdun. Between?

Treaty of Verdun wikilinked -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

added detail

• A reference to Germany when mentioning East Francia?

added

• ...a series of non-dynastic Italian rulers Why "series"? Arnulf of Carinthia was a member of the Carolingian dynasty, and he was not Italian.

Good point here on it being poorly worded. I'll revisit this, because Costambeys et al. emphasize Charles III's deposition as the break point, but you're correct it's not accurate as written/

• ..."at least until the final end of empire in the West in the early nineteenth century." Could you check the quote?

The quote's accurate to Davis (she's referring to the HRE poetically as the "empire in the West"). I refactored it quote a different part of the page and keep the argument.

• During his reign, groundwork was laid for the process of concentration of power in military aristocrats that would characterize the later Middle Ages. I am not sure I understand the statement. What is "later Middle Ages"?
• ...would continue to hold their German coronations at Aachen through the Middle Ages Rephrase, and connect the statement with Charlemagne (Charlemagne was not crowned at Aachen).
• ... association with Charlemagne by French kings continued until the monarchy's end I am not sure I understand the statement.

Carolingian renaissance

• Which is the better form: "Renaissance" or "renaissance"?

Replaced To Renaissance, more accepted spelling -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• ...outlined Charlemagne's policies and his aims in... Is this necessary?
• ..."the broadest level of Carolingian society." Who said this?
• The Carolingian minuscule script developed and popularized during the renaissance endured in medieval copying and influenced modern typefaces. Rephrase?
• Introduce John J. Contreni.

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Memory and historiography

• ..."can be said to have revived the defunct literary genre of the secular biography." Who said this?
• Introduce the Visio Karoli Magni.

 Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Dissensions war?
• Introduce Matthias Becher. Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

now introduced in "Birth" Seltaeb Eht (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Religious impact and veneration

• ...and his successors... Delete.

 Removed There were two instances, I removed the first one -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• The condition of all his subjects as a "Christian people" was an important concern of Charlemagne. I am not sure I understant the statement. Borsoka (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Query

• @Seltaeb Eht: I hope everything is OK with you. Do you think you can address the pending issues by the end of the week? I would like to complete the review in a week. Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Borsoka, it looks like they've gone inactive. Do you think you can pass the review in this state? It looks like lots has already been done. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, lots have already done, but some pending issues remained. I think the prose could be improved, many images had copyright problems and too many images depicts his imperial coronation. Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think the prose is so bad it merits failing the GA? I could fix the images. I could also do some minor prose fixes if there's anything egregious. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Er, actually, could you point out which images have issues? Maybe I've missed something but they seem fine? -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think the prose is not so bad although it could be improved. There are open problems yet. I think if the copyedit is completed, the article could again be nominated. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  The criteria is the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, so "it could be improved" is fine, so long as it meets those criteria well enough. Can you point out any parts that still have issues? -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are several pending issues above, and at least one section has not been reviewed. I think the article could be renominated after the copyedit is completed. Borsoka (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Could you please point out those parts that still have issues? I am offering to fix them, but it is not clear to me what still needs to be fixed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I see, you did finally fail it. That would have been helpful information to point out. -- asilvering (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• My first answer above says: "the article could again be nominated". Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Latin in the Carolingian Renaissance

Hi there, a note that Latin was standardised on the basis of Classical Latin texts during the Carolingian Renaissance, a change which began the "fixing" of Latin, and the realisation that modern Romance languages were no longer the same thing as Latin as a formal written and spoken language. This is a very important change that had implications for the development of vernacular languages as well as ensuring that Latin was fit to serve as the pre-eminent language of learning for the coming centuries, so deserves a line or two. Jim Killock (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)