Talk:Carolingian Dynasty

ktsquare, I'm sorry if my changes offend you, but I've been looking through the Carolingian stuff, and a lot of it is simply inaccurate. I've made some changes accordingly, and will continue to do so. also, you made a change to the Carolingians article that made little sense. The point of using Carolingian Empire was in fact to point out that the Carolingians HAD an Empire. In fact, the reason that there were general pages on the Cartolingians and Merovingians (rather than on dynasties, per se) was VERY intentional. What you have added is very nice, and looks good on paper, but makes little sense in terms of explaining the ins and outs of Frankish (or in fact any early Germanic) kingship. THe Merovingian list is especially misleading, because of the Neustria/Austrasia thing...

The kind of lists you have made up work nicely in a world where primogeniture, or even single inheritance, is the norm, but was not applicable for the Frankish monarchs. I changed Charles the Fat back to Charles the Fat, by the way, because, according to the way we've been doing titles, Charles would be listed as Emperor, not "of France" since that was the highest title he attained. Of course, this falls apart when one gets to the interregna of Odo and Robert.

Welcome to one of the joys of wikipedia...finding out that there are lurkers with odd specialities who nitpick about their fields... ;-) JHK
 * I think that may be my fault -- I was trying to make sure that the rulers had the appropriate "of" country, so I put "of France" in a couple of things. Sorry if I made a mistake.  -- Zoe
 * I think it's actually a couple of people, Zoe -- ktsquare misunderstood something Maveric said, and it seems to have blossomed from there. You might also want to take a look at the History standards page -- maveric suggested that it was getting too confusing, so I did a kind of update and digest for people to agree to (or disagree with)!  JHK

209 -- I don't know who you are, because you don't log in, bt here's why I keep changing this back. First, this page is itself really weak, and I for one would like to see it removed. Why? It's a misnomer, basically.

It really doesn't make sense to discuss a Carolingian Dynasty -- this should perhaps be a list of Carolingian Rulers, and really should include Eastern Francia and Lotharingia. You and others seem to be making an incorrect assumption that the Carolingians belong exclusively to French history, when, in fact, they don't. The lists that have been used as sources are all well and good, but we have the opportunity to correct oversimplifications here. I intend (if no one else takes it on) to write a suitable introduction, but frankly, most of the information already existed under Carolingians.

More problematic is the inclusion of non-Carolingians in this list -- perhaps distant cousins, but not members of a dynasty in the sense that we understand it for, for example, the Capetians, who passed on the monarchy from father to son for umpteen years. Dynasties tend to rely on primogeniture -- something that didn't really exist for most of the Carolingians, and something that helps explain why Odo, Count of Paris is in the mix.

So, 209, unless you can come up with good reasons to add the Capetian link in again without proper introduction and conclusion, I would very much appreciate your leaving it out. JHK

In its easiest terms, the Carolingians are considered Kings of France, even though the boundaries and terrorities and all our "usual" rules changed repeately. This fact is recognized by those Carolingian members and the ensuing Capetian/Valois etc dynasties by their making certain to be buried with the other monarchs in Saint Denis. This is what connects them. The Carolingians were my kings as were the Capetians and no one else in between. If we want, we set aside most every dynasty anywhere because of changing boundaries, treaties etc. In order to give some sense of what happened next (after the Carolingians) doesn't it make sense to link to the next group who ruled "France" just as they did? Or, do we declare whatever kingdom the Carolingians ruled as no longer existing? Most people using an encyclopedia are looking for knowledge. To stop giving them an understanding of time lines and rulers, is not fitting with the word knowledge. Suggest perhaps making any explanations for linkage within the details of ythe individual ruler rather than shutting the door. I note also, that there was little work adding to the French line prior to mine in the past few months. Maybe use your time to expand the Wikipedia instead of tearing it down. I am a French citizen. ... 209
 * I sympathize with that, and think you've done a marvelous job on many of the entries you've made. My feeling is, however, that it's best to leave it as is, only until a comprehensive introduction can be written that explains that Charlemagne was not French in the modern sense of the word.  It is true that for many years it has been the norm to consider Frankish history "French" -- perhaps because, especially from the 19th century on, we have tended to think in terms of nations.  It is also true that there is certainly continuity -- and that it is even perhaps appropriate to consider France as having its modern beginnings with the Treaty of Verdun -- although that is indeed debatable.


 * I am certainly not trying to deny that the Carolingians are part of French history, only that they are equally a part of German history. Anyone here on the site can tell you that I am also a strong opponent of glossing over facts to try to make a more fluid (but inaccurate) pertrait of Germany in the Middle Ages.  I believe that, as far as my view on the Carolingians goes, I am perhaps trying for something not usually found in encyclopedias, but definitely supported by recent scholarship.  I would say that you can find similar discussions in the great Pierre Rich&eacute;'s Les Carolingiens and especially in the most recent works of Patrick Geary -- especially in Before France and Germany.


 * As I said before, this page was misnamed and perhaps misguidedly created from the beginning, because the Carolingians not only ruled in fact before 751, but also because the dynasty founded by Pippin the Short (or Charles Martel, or Charlemagne -- another point of contention) provided kings and emperors for three separate regna -- not counting Aquitaine and Bavaria.
 * I am not attempting to detract from France's Carolingian legacy -- only to put it in proper context for the times in which the Carolingians lived. Undoubtedly there were changes over time, and between the regna of the Empire -- but that must be reflected.  Not a French citizen, but a Medieval Historian who specializes in the Carolingians. JHK

Someone please link this page forward so that anyone interested in learning about the evolution of French history doesn't need to already know what name to type in the "search" bar. Without a link, how does one find it?.... DW

I've added a second list for the Eastern Carolingians. Some joint rules have been glossed over. The Central Carolingians, who are ignored in far too many sources, will have to be added a well, but things are even more complicated here and I wonder if flat lists are the way to go.


 * Thanks, Josh -- I've added Lotharingia, but would like to point out that this is Exactly why, from the beginning, I've been saying this is a stupid and unnecessary page. It is overly complex and I'm frankly tired of trying to fit something that exists on its own merits into artificial constructs so that people of several various nationalities (and this is not just the Carolingians, but all of the wacky Central European articles as well) can claim these people as "their history".

I sympathize wholeheartedly. I think it would be best to kill this page, and replace it with something explaining the various divisions and reunifications between the Carolingian domains (heck, Verdun isn't even mentioned here). Do you have any idea where such a text might go? Carolingian Dynasty seems wrong, Carolingian Empire implies only those parts which kept the imperial title, but Carolingians itself is unfortunately about the word rather than the house or country.


 * Actually, I added Verdun with Lotharingia. I think it's ok this way -- with lots of disclaimers.  Frankly, it's so unimportant to have a list -- really a tree would be good, but that would be even more complex -- also, from what I see on the many (IMHO) genealogical sites of sad people who need to prove they're descended from "Royalty", most people don't get trees anyway.  BTW -- did you know that at least one of the people who borre the title of comes(which people inaccurately translate to count) under Charlemagne was a slave?  AARGH! JHK

Didn't the position of the comes eventually become that of the count when society changed in the later Carolingian period? I'd looked for material on that and the administration of the Germanic successor states in general, but found very little I could handle.

Is Lotharingia really the best thing to call the central region from Verdun? I've never heard it applied to anything except the northern part, received by Lothar II, now correspondingly called Lorraine. Louis II never ruled so far north. Wouldn't it be better to keep Lotharingia, Burgundy, and Italy separate, or at least point out which kings of central Francia corresponded to each?


 * Um... if you look at the division at Verdun, both Burgundy and Northern Italy were part of Lotharingia -- that's the name of the kingdom. There weren't separate kings of Burgundy and Italy under the Carolingians, except in the same way that there were occasionally kings of Aquitaine and Bavaria -- usually, teenaged sons got to go rule these places under their father -- partially to have a family member on site, and partially to strengthen family ties to the people in that area -- not to mention the fact that it helped keep the sons occupied and generally kept them from trying to overthrow dear old dad.  Remember -- partible inheritance is a bitch, but that's how it was done a lot of the time! JHK

Sure, but be careful here. Perhaps the name Lotharingia originally applied to the entire central reason, but I see good reason to suppose it did not very long.

Above you say the rulers of Burgundy and Italy were initially under the Lotharingian kings. However, the lands ruled by Louis II directly were all in Italy, while the low lands up north were held under his brother Lothair II. Further, they never returned to his jurisdiction, but instead were partitioned between Charles and Louis at Mersen.

So were the realm of Louis called Lotharingia, one would expect that name to have been retained for something in the south. Instead that became Burgundy and Italy, while the name Lotharingia - since changed to Lorraine or Lotharingen - was fastened to the northern area that he had never controlled. As such, I expect that it was not Louis but Lothair II whose country was called Lotharingia. Which would make sense, because the name basically means the realm of Lothair.


 * Lord, Josh! I'm sitting here looking at maps, and frankly, it's a big ol' mess.  Lotharingia is there, then it splits off and Italy is separate, then most of both are sucked up by Charles the Fat (who's emperor, so it's not like somebody else took the lands over) and Louis the Younger, then it's back then both the Kingdom of Burgundy and the Ducatus Burgundionum exist together with Lotharingia and Italy, then Boso gets himself recognized as king of a breakaway kingdom...


 * My vote is to leave it as is, unless you want to track down the treaties and delineate each division -- but it really doesn't make that much sense, because for these people, boundaries were fluid and really reflected the need to keep viable candidates for power happy. They expected this kind of thing -- it's only because we have really rigid ideas about maps that it's hard for us.  Plus, it really screws up the numbering.


 * Oh -- and you're basically right about comes. JHK

Thanks. I've seen the maps and trees, and I agree that to demand the full details would be unreasonable, but what stands right now seems vaguely inadequate. If you don't mind helping me out - how does Zwentibold figure into the Treaty of Mersen?
 * Josh, off the top of my head, I'm not sure, but I'll see if I can find out. Frankly, it might not have anything to do with it, because it may not have been a matter of contention. As for putting in more detail, I think that's a bad idea, becaue most every "Dynasty" article is simply a list with links to more explanatory articles.  That's what this already does.  i would much rather people who wanted to know more went to History of france or Germany or Carolingians for a bigger picture. JHK

Regret, a map is undeniable except for those who are too blind to see so they can remove it in the computer age. You are wrong and promoting your Germanic ancestry by distiorting/deleting is unacceptable. I will return and fix your mess. Please use the training you have to enhance Wikipedia rather than a platform for what appears more and more as a wasted intellect. AND, you know zilch about the title "Count" which, out of courtesy is "Comte".... DW
 * You know nothing about Julie, or her work here, or you wouldn't be making this accusation--she has, in fact, been one of the main voices for a neutral viewpoint against German revanchism. Also, this is an English Wiki, so it's "count", just as Louis XIV is "king" rather than "roi". Vicki Rosenzweig


 * DW, I strongly recommend you read the articles on Wikipetiquette and Wikipedia policy in general. Your approach to discussion is not in line with the standards of courtesy we try to maintain here, and JHK, far from being Germano-centric, has, as Vicki points out, been a constant voice of restraint against pro-Germanic revisionism in history. If you come at this process in a combative mode, with no knowledge of long-developed policy agreements or user contributions, you're likely to run headlong into trouble. Why not avoid all that by familiarizing yourself with the material, first? -- April


 * THanks, Vicki and April. I feel like I've been here before ;-) I think DW was actually talking about my use of the Latin comes -- which is appropriate for the time period.  Once the title becomes both heritable and tied to a parcel of land, it is appropriate to use whatever the local version (for us, Count) is.  The same is true for dux -- a roman title appropriated by various germanic peoples, which much later becomes our word Duke (or Duc or Herzog). JHK

Yikes! French irredentism! How exciting!

To slide a LONG way back in the discussion, DW (or 209?), lots of the Carolingians are buried somewhere other than in St. Denis - Charlemagne for one. He was buried at Aachen/Aix-la-Chapelle. MichaelTinkler, who is kind of glad, seeing this, that he took up blogging to satisfy his internet fix and gave up on this interesting, but finally not very useful, enterprise.
 * Oops! You'd think I'd have brought up Aachen.  Now that I think about it...yes, I have just checked the Annales Fuldensis -- Louis the Pious is buried at Metz.  Lothar I becam a monk at Pr&uuml;m and died there.  Louis the German is buried at Lorsch.  Charles the Bald was buried at Nantua in Burgundy, because his corpse smelled so bad they couldn't move it all the way back to St. Denis.  JHK


 * Yes, once again 'pop history' or 'high school history' - though in DW's case it might be 'lycee histoire' loses a round to scholarship. Of course, this being Wikipedia she'll just change the subject.  MichaelTinkler

Re the reference to rulers of France or the Frankish Kingdom being buried at Saint Denis is, I think, a demonstration that these Carolingians who Ms. HK says are not French, were almost all in fact born, raised and then buried in the region now known as France. Note, the reference to the other places like Charles Martel's burial site. I think certain well-meaning people have written an enormous amount of banter and missed the point. Example: the History of the United States bears that official title in government records but in fact begins several centuries before when it had several native names, a Spanish name, a French name, and a British name. No one publishes any references as the "History of Kamgoyan." It is always the US, being the starting point today and going back. All scholars (and I consulted a Chair of a University History Dept., Rhodes Scholar to Oxford etc.) and when dealing with ancient rulers irrespective of time, use the location name of today ALWAYS as the point of reference. Also, the term Carolingian dynasty (denounced above) is used by:

'''
 * The Encyclopedia of World History
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica
 * Bibliothèque nationale de France
 * The United States Library of Congress
 * Oxford University Press'''

Plus too many others to count. Thank you. .... Elliot


 * Thanks Elliot for that response - it was more balanced than some I've seen. However, there is a significant difference is using the location name of today and using the concept 'King of France'.  That is an irresponsible generalization.  Some of these kings controlled all of what is now France, some controlled less, some controlled more.  Many members of the dynasty never controlled any territory in what is now France.  You don't really address K's list:
 * Metz - surely you admit that this is a controversial point!
 * Pr&uuml;m
 * Lorsch


 * Burgundy one can discuss. It sure isn't "France" in any period that interests ME, but it's France nowadays.  These big name Carolingians were not buried in France.  Charlemagne's preferred palace (according to Einhard) was Aachen (yes, I'm using the German spelling intentionally - that's what it's called nowadays).  Louis the Pious's was Ingelheim.  Charles the Bald ruled west Francia, but spent his entire career scheming to get the rest of the empire back under his control - and was QUITE happy as Roman Emperor.


 * Please don't think that JHK and others have it in for 'France' or 'frenchness'. She is more German-centered in her research, and I am more France-centered, but we come from the same school of contemporary historiography best summed up in the title to Patrick Geary's Before France and Germany.


 * For the record - I don't mind either "Carolingians" or "Carolingian dynasty", but it should be one or the other. MichaelTinkler

Last point that I want to make. We always refer to George Washington as the President of the United States, not of 13 States, or of part of the U.S. when the English captured Washington (the capital) under President Madison. Simply put it is our history, whether it be France with many changes or the USA or others. Likewise for the ensuing Presidents, they are always called President of the United States, not each referred to as President of the 28 States or 33 States etc. Even Lincoln is called President of the United states yet like so many rulers in Europe, the boundaries of his country changed during his time. As such, scholars don't try to create descriptions in studing a country because they are so subject to change. Effectively, if one wishes to learn of a history of any country, we start with what it is today. And that then makes it the history of the United States, of the History of France etc. Same thing applies to the title of President of or King of. ... Tired Elliot


 * I really do not understand this point at all. Yes, the borders of the United States have changed over time.  But the crucial matter here is that "The United States" was a real entity by 1789 (and arguably, starting in 1776); there is no question that George Washington was the president of "the United States" because that is what contemporaries called him.  But was John Hancock president of the United States when he presided over the Continental Congress in 1775?  Can you really say Benjamin Franklin or John Adams were "born in the United States?"  I do not think so.  This is the real issue -- not that "The United States" borders have changed, but that "The United States" has not always existed; the history of this part of the world is not solely the "history of the United States."  Slrubenstein


 * The question is do we draw the "from here on, France" line with the Capetians or with the West Frankish kingdom? There is certainly no question in any scholarly book that Charlemagne was not the 'king of France' (there's an entire chapter in my dissertation on his preferred titles, by the way, and that's not one of the options).  There are many ways to settle the question.  JHK and I favor a way that is the current state-of-the-profession - which is to call the Carolingians and their domains something other than France.  The Capetians get to rule 'France' - and there's evidence to support that decision.  MichaelTinkler


 * Or to put it another way - if I understand correctly - It's perfectly reasonable for a "History of France" to refer to the Carolingians; but not for the Carolingians to be filed under "History of France."  The Carolingians were ruler of, among other things, what is now France.  Hey, the Francophiles should cheer up... France was a contiguous country long before Italy became the nation as we know it today. :)  You don't hear me saying we have to count the Roman Emperors as Kings of Italy... ;)


 * With reference to the GW comparison, that's way off. GW was the first "President of the United States" because he was the first so designated by the Constitution presently-in-force. You'll notice that we habitually ignore a few "presidents" who governed the 13 states under the Articles of Confederation, even though they governed the exact same territorial region. We start from GW becasuse he's the first under the US as presently constituted. By analogy, although the Carolingians ruled, among other things, the territory now known as France (but not, if I recall correctly, then known as Franc) they did not rule over France as presently constituted. The Capetians have a much better claim to that in terms of the emergence of an identity of "France" as "France", separate and distinct from, e.g. Germany.   Historians, feel free to smite me if I've misstated anywhere. -- April

It is not a question of being more Frenxch or more Italian or more German. If I am born in Timbuktu, then my Kings of Timbuktu are anyone who ruled over me regardless of what else or wherelse they ruled. So, in certain cases, as a German, I might list one of my kings as the same as someone in France. Both of us are correct simply because it is our history. April, you too missed the point: We do not call GW President of the 13 United States. We give every Pres the exact title even though boundaries, no.of states etc changed over time. Same thing applies to kings with ever-changing domains. ... very tired Elliot - Thanks.


 * I think you still miss the point. Yes, if there is a king of Timbuktu, that person is a king of Timbuktu even if he happens to reign over other places as well.  But was he even "king of Timbuktu?"  What does it mean "I am born in Timbuktu?"  God did not create all the fishes, birds, plants and animals -- and then "The United States," "Timbuktu" and "France."  Timbukty -- like The United States and France -- is not a place, it is an idea that people associate with a particular place at a given time.  Like I said, Goerge Washington may have been president of the United States, but he was not born in "the United States." Slrubenstein


 * So, following that argument, does the line of the Kings of Italy begin with the Roman Emperors? Or perhaps the Etruscan chieftains? Where does one draw the line?  I'm curious to know exactly what the standard is.   For that matter, the post-Caesar Roman Emperors should be counted for France, too.  And before that, the chieftains of the Gauls. How far back does one go, and why? -- April


 * April, I love you -- that is exactly the point. Elliott, I'm sorry, I don't know you, and this is not the best way to start, but herer goes.  Who is your History Chair?  Is he a specialist in Frankish history?  I am, thank you.  I am a PhD who specializes in Ancient and Medieval, especially Carolingian History.  I am very tired of being second-guessed by people who (unless they are also specialists in the area like Michael Tinkler) have not put in the immense amounts of study that I have, nor are up to speed with contemporary scholarship in the area.


 * The fact of the matter is, people who are professionals in a field generally have done more work and learned a lot more about those fields than people who aren't. The work is also at a different level.  Many times, there are amateurs who know enormous amounts about very specific subjects -- for example, Civil War re-enactors often know details of battles much better than professional Civil War historians, but dollars to doughnuts, the professional knows more about American History and the Civil War overall.


 * You may also not have noticed that we don't use, e.g. 'Quierzy, France' in a paragraph where it would be anachronistic, but do say, Quierzy, in what is now France -- and the link is to Quierzy, France. That's how it works, and I really can't see an objection.


 * Please, before criticizing, read through the discussions, etc. And also, you might note that, if you were to read German reference works, you'd get an entirely different Carolingian dynasty.  That is why this page is problematic, and why we are trying to revise it in a way that reflects a more current scholarly view -- one that to some extent denies the confines of the artificial constructs of 19th c. nationalism. JHK

Eliot, what you suggest implies that we need an entry for each domain that the Carolingians ruled, actually. Carolingian kings of France who were also kings of (what is now but seldom was in the past) Germany? How do you solve that one? Not tired, but curious - MichaelTinkler

I think it is sad to see someone obviously frustrated with the way history has played out take control of a site and insert their own views. Check the Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. and 999.9% of all authenticate, published sources, and the listing for the history of France shows the formation of the country at the time of Clovis. Too, ALL of these respected resources, (good Lord, folks, just do a Google search and see) as well as 99 % of ordinary people refer only to PEPIN, with a very minor reference to an aka Pippin. Yet, here to, an individual with an certain domineering point of view, who wants their opinion and spelling, uses Wikipedia as their platform.


 * DW, I'm sorry that you don't like it, but I've explained that Pippin is becoming used more and more often in English SCHOLARSHIP. There's a difference between current research and reference books, which are very conservative.  Since I had already started using Pippin and creating links to Pippins, it makes sense to keep it consistent. This is especially true because we already had a disambiguation page for Pippin, and there are two popular English-language  works of literature (Pippin! and the Steinbeck novel) that use the Pippin spelling.  This doesn't mean you'll stop seeing Pepin any time soon -- the two are interchangeable -- but for consistency's sake, it needs to be one with the alternate (not correct -- alternate) spelling in the lead line.


 * The same is true for your French kings bit. We have the opportunity to make this a reference work that actually keeps up to date with scholarship -- why do you object?  The only reason I can imagine is that you have some kind of sad attachment to a picture rooted in what we now know are misguided national(ist) ideas of history.  And by the way, if people thought I was out  of line, they'd let me know.  The truth is, however, that I actually do know what I'm talking about.  You just don't like it. Try reading some of the books I have (few of them controversial, BTW), and tell me that leading Carolingian scholars haven't come some distance from the picture you want portrayed. JHK


 * I think JHK makes an excellent point -- that one of the major advantages of Wikipedia over other encyclopedias is the ease with which it can keep up with current scholarship. It is not just that print Encyclopedias become dated as soon as they are published; making extensive revisions is extremely expensive, so revisions tend to be conservative.  If DW wants to evaluate JHK's claims, DW should not look at other encyclopedias but rather the most recent articles in peer-reviewed journals. Slrubenstein