Talk:Charlemagne

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jumpy542 talk 22:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Charlemagne owned an elephant which he received as a gift from the Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid?

• Source: Paul E. Dutton, Charlemagne's Mustache: And Other Cultural Clusters of a Dark Age, pp. 59-61

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Seltaeb Eht (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Seltaeb Eht (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The hook and the article have no problems; this is my second review, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. TheNuggeteer (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

To Prep 1

Details on Charlemagne campaigns

I am wondering what happened to the extra details on the campaigns [] of Charlemagne. I believe that we should bring back the sections of the campaigns. Or at the very least have subsections. I do not believe that Seltaeb Eht getting rid of the sections had merit. Zman19964 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I think you'll find that, after the reorganization of the article, the same information is present. However, it is organized chronologically rather than topically - i.e., rather than narrating all wars against the Saxons at once, and then those geographically near it (an odd structure), these events come up chronologically as they come up in Charles' life - a more appropriate structure for a biography. The old structure of the article caused the timeline to constantly jump back and forth, making it difficult to construct and follow the biography of the person the article is about. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Seltaeb Eht here. A chronological structure for a biography offers several advantages over a thematic approach, particularly when the goal is to trace historical development, preserve narrative integrity, and foster contextual understanding. First, chronology enables the preservation of causality by situating events in their actual temporal sequence, allowing readers to see how early experiences influenced later actions. This reinforces a realistic sense of progression and embeds the subject within their historical milieu. Hermione Lee notes in Biography: A Very Short Introduction that such a structure helps readers grasp the evolution of identity over time, offering a more nuanced view of the subject’s transformation across life stages. From a methodological standpoint, chronology aligns closely with the documentary record; primary sources are produced sequentially, and organizing them accordingly preserves evidentiary transparency.--Obenritter (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Karlus

The article currently states that Charlemagne was known to contemporaries as Karlus in the Old High German he spoke. This claim is sourced to Janet Nelson's King and Emperor, but it strikes me as dubious. According to Wiktionary, the OHG form of the name was the same as the modern form: Karl. Where is the Latinate ending coming from? Zacwill (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary isn't a source. Janet Nelson is. I wrote a little bit about what she and Becher each discuss here. We need to report what our reliable sources do. I also lay out my entirely OR opinion on what I think is going on there, but that's not really releveant for the article. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Becher's notion that the true etymon is Hariolus (which apparently originated with a scholar named Henning Kaufmann) is dismissed by Germanische Altertumskunde Online as "hardly tenable". GAO has no doubt that the name derives from the word karl, meaning "man" (see this entry also), but unfortunately it does not explicitly state that Charlemagne would have been known to his contemporaries as Karl. I still find Karlus dubious. Zacwill (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I share your notion that it doesn't seem quite right, but I don't know that that's grounds to consider it dubious unless we have another source that call it into doubt. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

By which I mean - the only source I've been able to find that explicitly says "Charlemagne was known as ________ in German" is Nelson. On the flipside, I don't know that Nelson has any specialization in German linguistics, and as it's in the introduction to the book it isn't footnoted. It's a difficult issue. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There's no reason—considered the period of Charlenmagne's life—to be surprised that there was a Latinate version of his name among people other than the Germanic tribesmen themselves. For instance, we know for sure he is referred to in some period sources as rex Carolus (St. Giles' Vita for example), so an abbreviated Karlus is not a leap. To this end, he is referred to as Karlus in a fifteenth-century work. [See: Hafner, Susanne. "Charlemagne’s Unspeakable Sin." Modern Language Studies 32, no. 2 (2002): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/3252039 (pages 1 and 10)]. There's also a medieval coin bearing the inscription DNKARLVSIMPAVGRFETL, which stands for the title Dominus Karlus imperator augustus rex Francorum et Langobard [COUPLAND, SIMON. “Carolingian Single Finds and the Economy of the Early Ninth Century.” The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) 170 (2010): 287–319. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42678894 (see page 311)] Such evidence indicates to me that whether Nelson is a Germanic linguistics specialist or not, her contention is not unfounded. --Obenritter (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the form Karlus existed, it's whether it was used in Old High German (or whatever you want to call the Germanic dialect that Charlemagne spoke). Zacwill (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

From the numismatic evidence, there's no reason to suppose it's entirely unfounded. Whether or not we can actually know this is another matter. If you find a source that outright refutes it, add the commentary accordingly. Ermenrich if you are free, can you check around on this matter? D.H. Green does not mention this anywhere in the sources that I have and I've neither read as much of the Germanische Altertumskunde Online recently as you, nor am I up on Germanic linguistics to your degree. I only know the modern Germanic languages (aside from some rudimentary Gothic from my research in Late Antiquity), but I know your expertise is much more extensive than mine. Any thoughts?--Obenritter (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

My first reaction is that the idea that Charlemagne was called "Karlus" in Old High German is more than dubious - words ending in -us are Latin, not Old High German. I don't think that Charlemagne himself is referenced in any Old High German texts, but Charles the Bald is attested in the Strasbourg Oaths as "Karl" in Old High German. Karlus appears there to, but in Proto-Old French. So my conclusion is that Nelson identified that form as the wrong language and extrapolated that Charlemagne's name would be the same - which is also not certain, since then why is his name always "Carolus" with an extra syllable in Latin? Language changes over time.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Seltaeb Eht - Given the feedback provided by both Zacwill and Ermenrich, I think you should probably omit/delete Nelson's observations. While I think it possible such a form may have existed, it is probably less likely and that Nelson was in error. It's not like it's well-supported anywhere else.--Obenritter (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be better if we could replace Karlus with a more accurate reconstruction of Charlemagne's Frankish/German name, but unfortunately, there seem to be few or no sources that address this. Zacwill (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Zacwill From what I have researched on this, you seem 100 percent correct; in that, there is no well-attested or widely accepted form of Charlemagne’s name in the Frankish vernacular preserved in any contemporary source—nor has any major modern philologist formally published a definitive version of it as it would have been spoken in Old Frankish. Einhard’s Vita Karoli Magni (early 9th century), the most intimate biography of Charlemagne, never names him in Frankish—only in Latin: Karolus (subject) or Karolum (object). Dennis H. Green, in Language and History in the Early Germanic World, discusses Frankish naming practices and confirms the usage of Karl as a Germanic name of widespread nobility, but this is not definitive either. While Rolf Bergmann and Stefan Sonderegger, in studies of Old High German and early Germanic anthroponymy, confirm that Karl derives from karilaz, common across early West Germanic dialects, they offer no clear statement on the matter either. In the end, I think it best to omit Nelson's potentially erroneous suggestion and leave this aspect of the article out until a scholar with the appropriate linguistic background mentions it. --Obenritter (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I removed it. I wouldn't be the only small error in Nelson's otherwise great book. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Seltaeb Eht We all agree that the late Janet Nelson's biography on Karl der Große is great, just cleaning up a small error. Your work on this article has been spectacular IMHO. --Obenritter (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Giving Charlemagne's Romance and Latin names while ignoring the language he spoke natively strikes me as somewhat unbalanced, but there isn't much we can do about that without sources. Zacwill (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, he probably spoke an early form of Old French too. It's only the reign of his grandsons when the Strasbourg Oaths are sworn bilingually - with the "Germans" swearing in Proto-Old French and the "French" swearing in Old High German (rather than in the native language of their half of the empire).--Ermenrich (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Phantom Time Conspiracy Theory

Should the Phantom time conspiracy theory be referenced at all on this page? the central argument of the Phantom Time Conspiracy Theory is that Charlemagne wasn't actually real in the first place. I feel like it might be at least worth mentioning, possibly with an explanation for how we know that Charlemagne actually was real. ~2026-17100-88 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• That sounds like a lot of work for a ridiculous theory that needs no refutation and gets no significant airplay. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Charlemagne's Issue Link

While I myself am neither well-versed in editing links or Charlemagne, I found that under his issue in the infobox at the top, "Luitgard" is listed. Luitgard is also listed under spouses. I do not know whether he actually had a daughter named Luitgard, but either his wife was mistakenly listed in issue, or his daughter's name mistakenly links to his wife's page. EpicTevan878 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Charlemagne defending Christianity

Why is Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great, citied as promoting Christianity when he explicitly followed his fathers rule and promoted the PAPACY? He promoted CATHOLIICISM, NOT CHRISTIANITY. Those are 2 very distinct and SEPARATE things. The Catholic church does not fully adhere to the teachings of the Christian Bible and they have very different views as to what Jesus taught and what they think is right. Charlemagne was a cruel leader who DEFINATELY DID NOT follow the teachings of the Bible. He defended the Catholic Church which is a wholly and separate thing. Christians who belive in teh Bible DO NOT belive in the PAPACY. They DO NOT belive in the Catholic religion which has become mostly demominc in our eyes because they do not follow the Bible. They follow what they determine it says. It's NOT up for determination. It means what it says. You should not be claiming Charlemagne, Charles the Great, defended Christianity when in fact he was defending Catholisim, which is a totally separete thing!!

I have printed my response with the date and time to both Wikapedia and the History channel and exptect HISTORY to start writing what is truely so. You are portraying him in a light adverse to Christianity because of the atrocious things he did during his reign. ESPECIALLY TO WOMEN!! This is something that needs to be crucially seen to because it IS NOT TRUE!!! ~2026-39005-78 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

"what Jesus taught and what they think is right." So what? Beyond the four canonical Gospels, Jesus barely has any presence in the other books of the New Testament and no presence at all in the Old Testament. The character's "teachings" and any other acts or words attributed to him represent less than half the Biblical canon. Christians have been free to draw inspiration from writings attributed to Paul the Apostle, Saint Peter, John of Patmos and any number of Old Testament writers, who typically had more of a cultural impact than Jesus. For example, when it comes to using Homosexuality in the New Testament as an excuse to persecute and execute homosexuals, Christians are typically citing passages by Paul and not by Jesus. When it comes to using the Antisemitic texts of the New Testament as an excuse to persecute or execute Jews, Christians typically are citing the antisemitic statements in the Pauline epistles and the Book of Revelation, rather than Jesus. I don't recall any Biblical passage where Jesus asks anyone to kill someone else, but Christians seem to conveniently overlook that. Dimadick (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)