Talk:Charlemagne/Archive 4

Karl's etymology
I see the link went dead. That is probably because it should have, and that is what comes of using Internet sites as sources. The Internet surely is the Matrix. Think what you want. Anyway there have been some good Internet sites. We just lost one of the best, Pokorney at Leiden University. This is akin to losing the American Heritage Dictionary online, which you can't get now. You have to buy the very expensive book. Money wins in the end, you see. Ideology is only a way station to that goal. I see someone at Leiden, I won't say who, is going sell Pokorney for over 500 dollars. I also see Leiden is advertising for new experts. Well well. If you can get a second-hand copy anywhere, better jump on it. These people who do the Internet, you know, they are not going to do this for free forever. Anyway, what can I get for you in etymology now? It turns out Lubotsky at least for the time is giving us Pokorney updated. Better download him now, I don't know long THAT will last. And for more detail we can still get Koebler. The etymology that's in there - well, close but no cigar, and it is gone now anyway. We don't know who the perp was. Since it is now unrefed I am going to rewrite it to correspond to Lubotsky's Pokorney and Koebler. There's a U. Texas site too but it is only a list. No detail. I guess Lehmann started something he was unable to finish, quite a common story. Reminds me of WP.Dave (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here is the sad story. Brill made Lubotsky an offer he couldn't refuse. All of a sudden hundreds of WP links have gone dead without notice. Par for the course today. Lubotsky made the best management decision he could. He put the project first. Bad luck for us but probably good luck for history. The universe is not spatial, it is time-spatial. We have to consider the future. Lubotsky has released a pdf of the new Pokorny. I can't give you the link because it is blacklisted on WP. I did cite the work without the link. You can find the pdf for yourself if you try with less trouble than getting a library book. Otherwise we will have to start citing the original book.Dave (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Things happen fast around here. The Russians are not leaving us high and dry. A bunch of new sites have appeared; for example, Pokorny. There might be a font problem. In the Leiden site you could install Starotsin's fonts.Dave (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I came here because some vandal named Lord Deleter just deleted a huge section of this article, and this was on my watch list. However, before hitting the Undo button I looked to see what got deleted. That's when I read the part about the etymology of the name Karl. I used to have Julius Pokorny's Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (and yeah, it was about $500 or DM 1000) but here is my point: what "Karl" meant circa 3700 BCE is completely irrelevant to what it meant in 8th century Frankish, and therefore has no place in this article. Plus, the English version of Pokorny in an appendix to the American Heritage dictionary is more accessible. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted the apparent vandalism. A brand-new account deleting nearly 12K characters without so much as a word of explanation deserves an immediate revert, in my experience. If the edit was something that was discussed, I missed it and apologize. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 04:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Charlemagne: French, German?
Perhaps I haven't read enough detail yet, but it seems to me this article doesn't make clear an obvious question of why he has a French name, while apparently he had little to do with the French - he was Frankish, spoke German, Latin, etc. Is there an explanation of how the French version of his name was chosen to refer to him?Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. Well, it is a little more complex. Actually he did not speak either French or German as those languages did not exist as we know them today. They were somewhere in the earliest stages of development. Naturally the Franks spoke Germanic. When they moved into Neustria, which was full of Romance language speakers, they blended the two languages together, much in the same way English is a blend of Norman French, Anglo-Saxon and early Danish. It seems pretty clear that the subsequent division of his empire was based on language differences. When Charlemagne spoke to his mother, what language did he speak? I don't know, I have not checked on that yet. Why do we use the French form instead of Karl? Well I would guess we had two choices. We could pick our own native language, much of which is adapted from the French, or we could decide, no, we like the German one better. I suppose we could have gone for the Dutch. Sometimes in this world we do not get a choice. When the Germans and French got to fighting over the territory formerly in Lotharingia feelings ran high and the fighting was bitter. If the French took a German-speaking canton they absolutely forbad the speaking of German and vice versa. Well, what are the citizens to do? All of a sudden you can't speak your own language any more. So I do believe, seeing that much of English is French, the English perforce had to use the French form. But of course, with today's freedom of speech, you may call the man anything you like! Use the Swahili form if you know what it is. Here on the English WP we are somewhat limited. Most readers expect it mainly to be in English and Charlemagne is English. The English dictionaries per se use Charlemagne. I encourage you, however, to fight for your rights. Don't let society tell YOU what name to use. I am pretty sure the Supreme Court would back your use of anything you like! Another factor to be considered is the French literature we all have admired so much. The Chanson de Roland uses Charles le roi, it doesn;t use Karl. I don't know what there is to explain here. Everything I just said is common knowlege, not encyclopedic knowlege, I do believe. I could be wrong. Why do we anglicize foreign names? What's it to us or us to it? We just do it a certain way and Charlemagne is the way we do it. Well anyway if I see any locus where that could be made clear without becoming non-encyclopedic I certainly will exploit the place.Dave (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just looking for the simple historical reason (probably only a sentence or two) that would fit into the article and meet Wikipedia standards for accuracy/reliability.Jimhoward72 (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the German article actually states it clearer in the introduction, saying something like "both the Germans and the French trace the beginning of their national history back to Charles the Great." The English apparently went along with the French version.Jimhoward72 (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Charlemagne is what English-speaking people call him. It is not what he was called in his own day, just as "Alexander the Great" did not have the English word "the" for a middle name. Obviously we English speakers borrowed the word from French. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I would say his name wasn't "Charlemagne" because this means actually "Charles Great" (literally translated). I think his name was "simply" Karl or Charles (French/English). Since you've mentioned Alexander the Great I have to say his name wasn't Alexaner the Great either, but simply Alexander. I noticed the English wikipedia even calls the Karlspreis "Charlemagne prize" which is totally wrong because it translates simply as Charles Prize! I'm just saying this to fuel the discussion a bit, so think about it! --82.113.103.164 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The English language borrowed a huge amount of vocabulary from French, perhaps that's why he became known as Charlemagne. Machinarium (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Aquitane
I'm not sure why this page features a partial history of Aquitane? Muskeato 18:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Muskeato, I agree with you. Someone took the pain to expand liberally a related topic, but sorry, it doesn't belong in this article. Sometimes edits are accepted to avoid a discussion, but definitely this is not the place. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Death of Carloman
From the summary: sudden death of Carloman in 771, in unexplained circumstances

Does this mean that in the present day we have no knowledge of how he died, or was it a mystery to his contemporaries back in 771? I don't want to be picky, but there would be a difference. If we simply don't know how he died, that's perfectly in keeping with our general level of knowledge of the period. As written, it implies a suspicion about his demise. The phrase seemingly of natural causes is likewise ambiguous. I'm not a historian, still less a scholar of 8th Century Europe, but if anyone is, please contribute. Rob Burbidge (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been a mystery then and now. Some historians have suggested foul-play (largely due to the convenience of the death for Charles rather than any evidential basis) but contemporary sources don't appear to allege this, though the reasons given for his death differ. Reichsfurst (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I would suggest that someone (more qualified on the subject than I) might like to explain this in the article. Think of it as a friendly suggestion, for I am no historian Rob Burbidge (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Dates Appear to Be centeries out
King Charlemagne (Karl Die Groete, son of King Pepin) reined sometime during the 1500's as far as I know. I know for a fact his now day descendants are about 14-16 generations down the line. Taking into consideration the dates which have been suggested by this article, that makes the average age gap between generations about 76 years, which is practically IMPOSSIBLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.184.91 (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You might be confusing Charlemagne with Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor in the 1500s. Charlemagne, the subject of this article, definitely lived much earlier. Rob Burbidge (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You also have the number of generations incorrect. I just counted one line, name by name, and got 40 generations, which gives something more like 30 years, a typical average given that it would involve younger children, late second marriages, etc. Agricolae (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
I have reworded the introduction of the article. Previously I felt the introduction felt as through many authors had written it (which is in all likelihood true). This gave the introduction a very disunited feeling, with many "voices" speaking at one time. My goal with rewriting the introduction to give it the feeling of a singular prose essay, providing a general chronological outline of his life. I also expanded his infobox by adding a section detailing each of the three major offices he held during his life (Frankish King, Italian King, and Emperor). This pattern of addressing each office individually is consistent with other royal and political figures (Queen Victoria and Barack Obama as examples).

The infoxbox addressing his information as Christian Saint I moved to the section of the article addressing his canonization in order to cut down on the clutter associated with the introduction.

I hope these changes help the article's overall flow. - Rougher07 (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you want to call him "founder of the Carolingian Empire" in the lede? I think it is wrong to call him the founder of the Carolingian empire. What were Charles Martel, Pepin the Short and a couple of Carlomans doing if not forming the same empire? It would be better to specify his actual titles: King of the Franks from 768, King of the Lombards from 774 and Emperor of the Romans from 800. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of the three individuals you identified (Charles Martel, Pepin the Short, and Charlemagne), only Charlemagne would appear to be the "founder" of the Carolingian Empire. It is important to note that my references to the "Carolingian Empire" is merely a modern construct. The Carolingian dynasty would have known their realm simply as "Francia". I use "Carolingian Empire" to distinguish this period of the Frankish realm from its pre-Carolingian period.
 * Charles Martel, while the founder of the Carolingian dynasty of Western European rulers, never ruled the Frankish Kingdom outright: he was the most powerful figure in Francia but was still (at least nominally) subservient to the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings. Given that he never obtained a "royal" status, he fails to meet the basic threshold for consideration as the "founder" of the Empire.
 * Pepin the Short was the first Carolingian to actually rule Francia in him own name. His overthrow of Childeric III, the last Merovingian king, in 952. While Pepin did campaign in Lombard-controlled Italy, he never annexed it officially. He did campaign in Septimania along the kingdom's southern border, but its annexation was only completed by Charlemagee. Similarly, Pepin spent a considerable period of his reign focused on the Duchy of Aquitaine. During his reign, however, the Duchy was never annexed into direct Frankish rule. This was only accomplished (under Charlemagne) in 769. While Pepin laid the groundwork for the Carolingian Empire, his claim as "founder" is better than his father Charles but this claim is still weak in my mind.
 * Charlemagne is the best candidate to be the "founder" of the Empire. Charlemagne expanded the Frankish realm's borders further than any other of the Carolingians, and this is especially significant for Lombard Italy. When he deposed the Lombard King Desiderius in 774, Charlemagne ruled both Italy and Francia as a personal union. This is evidenced by him holding the title "King of the Franks AND of the Lombards" (emphasis added). These were two otherwise separate polities. Charlemagne's coronation as Emperor in 800, however, officially unified all the territories under his control into a single political entity: the entity modern historians know as the Carolingian Empire.
 * I am leaving out the two Carolmans. Caroloman the Elder, son of Charles Martel and brother of Pepin the Short, was, like his father, a "royal" figure as he never ruled Francia outright but as a court official. Also, in 747, he with drew from public life (five year before Pepin would begin his reign). Carloman the Younger, the son of Pepin and brother of Charlemagne, was co-king with his brother but only ruled for three years, and spent most of that reign in competition with Charlemagne.
 * Perhaps the best analogy I can give it this: Julius Caesar played a critical part in the formation of the Roman Empire but never ruled over that entity as modern historians understand it. Caesar, instead, ruled over the Roman Republic. Instead, Augustus was the one who founded the Roman state we know as the Empire. If you will, Charles Martel, Pepin the Short, Carloman the Elder, and Carloman the Younger all play a similar role for Charlemagne as Caesar did for Augustus. I hope this helps. - Rougher07 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am aware, but this is all original research. You'll need sources. But would it not be better just to say that he ruled Francia from 768 and was crowned emperor in 800, like the longstanding version? Srnec (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you view the article for the Carolingian Empire itself, the article has made reference to the Empire's founding in 800 under Charlemange since "July 18, 2002". While I concede this could be a mistake, the Wikipeida community's has apparently accepted the idea of the Empire's founding in 800 for over a decade. This would appear to me to be sufficient evidence for naming Charlemagne as the "founder" of the Empire on the article dedicated to him. - Rougher07 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Which Carloman?
Could someone please clarify: "In 753 Pope Stephen II fled from Italy to Francia appealing for assistance pro iustitiis sancti Petri ("for the rights of St. Peter") to Pepin. He was supported in this appeal by Carloman, Charles' brother." If this is Charlemagne's brother, they are very young in 753. The article for Charles Martel gives his brother as Childebrand. Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51

Karl der Große
It really seems to hurt you damn lot to include his German name (Karl der Große) included in the introduction! This would not matter if you'd keep his name(s) and titles in English, because this is the English language Wikipedia, but as soon as you start mentioning versions of the name(s) in other languages you must mention all of them since all of them are relevant!

Karl der Große has NEVER been "King of France", as this article implies, nor has he been King of Francia or Franconia! He became FIRST King of Austrasia (Austrien/Austrasien) then, after the abdication and death of Karlmann, he became the King of Neustrien too, and has therefore been King of the Francs, a GERMANNIC tribe! He didn't even speak Old French! He spoke Old High German, like it or not! This article is biased and just another proof of the English Wikipedia being highly anit-German! All Wikipedia articles, even in English, must have a neutral point of view (NPOV policy), if you've ever heard of this, that is!? --82.113.122.166 (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, :-) I don't see your point. AFAIK Karl is known as Charlemagne in English, maybe as a consequence of the influence the Norman conquest had on the English language. I guess the same applies to Louis the German (Ludwig der Deutsche). However, one could probably dispense with the French pronunciation in the introduction.Drow69 (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is from german wiki: "Karl der Große, auch Karl der Erste genannt, lateinisch Carolus Magnus bzw. Karolus Magnus, französisch und englisch Charlemagne". They mention his common names in german, latin, english and french. And of course, his original name was´nt Charlemagne... Why is it not accepted to mention his german name, which is the one he probably used himself: Karl? What is your problem guys?
 * I totally agree with you. The fact that he was German means that his name should be listed here. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * He wasn't German. Srnec (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He was.--Kürbis (✔) 09:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There were neither Germany nor France (as nations) at that time. Karl was Frankish. The Franks were a germanic tribe (or people). They and other tribes, mixed with Slaves, Celts and others, became Germans. Between 850 - 1000 Frankish Kingdoms became France and Germany.(and other states). Karl spoke Frankish, which was a germanic language. The Franks were a kind of "proto germans", but it doesn´t make any sense to claim he is "german" or not. And of course, this kind of chauvinist thinking ignores Karl´s importance for both France and Germany and Europe at all.ManfredV (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct because Germany and France are STATES, not NATIONS. Nations are peoples - the nations are the French and the Germans.  The Germans were established as a nation during the Roman Empire.  The Franks were a German tribe that moved into Gaul and fused with the Gallic peoples there [Romano Gauls (Celts)].  When referring to Charlemagne, it's best just to refer to him as a Frank.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but there is another consideration. That Charlemagne’s name in German was Karl de Große is not the issue. But by omitting it as an a.k.a. we are introducing bias into the article. It’s taking a side in the longstanding question of were the Franks German or French. The question itself is not important to the article. And he was and is also known as Karl de Große as well as Charlemagne. So by removing that name in German would create an issue with NPOV. 95.211.27.99 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fifty Years?
If he was crowned emperor in 800, and died in 814, why does it say in the lede that he "ruled as Emperor for almost fifty years"? Rojomoke (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote in "Aquitanian rebellion" section.
There's a quote there which reads:


 * "In those times, to build a kingdom from an aggregation of small states was itself no great difficulty .... But to keep the state intact after it had been formed was a colossal task .... Each of the minor states ... had its little sovereign ... who ... gave himself chiefly to ... plotting, pillaging and fighting."

I find all those ellipses very confounding. particularly the way that 'who' is stuck out there like that. May I suggest a fuller quote with less edited out? --bodnotbod (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Borders are lines not points.
"The border with Aquitania was Toulouse." Toulouse was and is a city. It was I believe the capital of Aquitania, as it was of the Gothic Kingdom of Toulouse. I don't know the Southern borders during Charlemagne's time; they may have been along the Garonne. Nitpyck (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Millennialism and Exhumation
I would want more than the single source but this article at Boston University both and It doesn't much get into why he was exhumed or what people were expecting, though. Anyone know? — Llywelyn II   06:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * details the importance of Charlemagne's AD 800 crowning within the context of a calendar system that placed that year as the 6000th since the founding of the world and of a popular belief that expected the next thousand to be a kind of Genesis-inspired 'rest'
 * mentions the exhumation of Charlemagne's grave around the AD 1000 after Bede had succeeded in changing the era; the Karlings had fallen to usurpers; and a Saxon had been crowned in Rome.

Persistent Vandalism
What is it about this page that draws so much childish vandalism? Over 90% of the edits to this page are vandalism/reverts, going back months. The vandals always use anon or sock accounts. Should the page be semi-protected? I'm not even sure how that can be requested or accomplished, but it appears warranted. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support request for semi-protection. --IIIraute (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy?
Hard to believe this article doesn't have a "legacy" section. I wonder if this is due to the anglo-saxon frame of mind, so obvious at wp-en sometimes while pretending to represent the impartial arbiters of world history. There's no denying that Charlemagne and his empire had a lasting influence on many levels, both as political aspiration (the model of a "Christian empire") and even more culturally, but of course this in more visible in mainland Europe than in the history, education and traditions of England and its daughter nations.83.254.151.33 (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have input sufficient to create a non-POV legacy section, be bold and write one. Just be sure to provide ample citations to support any claims.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Carolinum
Hi, as just 'school knowlede' referring to Charlemagne, what about a section or a short reference Carolinum in the wiki? imho at least in the late European Middle Ages some educational institutions, p.e. within EN-WP as of November 2014 the Universitas Carolina Pragensis (=Charles University in Prague) and Carolinum, Zürich, haven been named after Charlemagne. Please feel free to link/mention, as not my 'focus' within Wikipedia, thx and kindly regards, Roland zh 08:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just note. Charles University in Prague wasnt named after Charlemagne, but Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor--Yopie (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thank you, -) You're right, of course, as mentioned i'm not familiar with Carolus's history, for the last time, many and seriously really many years ago in school. btw: according to DE-WP there seem to named any/many education institutions in Germany as Carolinum, that's why i supposed so, and linked Carolinum accordingly. Kindly regards, Roland zh 06:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for indefinite semi-protection
This page since the start of this year has undergone over 20 counts of vandalism, nearly all by unconfirmed users. Few of the edits have been constructive, the percentage is far greater than the usual 5%. As the page has been semi-protected over 10 times in the past, I propose the page is indefinitely semi-protected. I wish to build a rough consensus so please comment if you agree or disagree. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Southeast Slav expeditions politicised?
The section, Southeast Slav expeditions, appears to have been politicised as individuals and regions historically identified with the nascent Croatian state are here listed as Serbian. They should be either referred to as Croatian (consistent with the rest of Wikipedia) or, if this is in dispute, generically referred to as Slav. There appears to be no historical basis upon which to refer to them as Serbian. 2405:B000:303:20:0:0:20:74 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)A.T. 23/03/2015

Macedonia?
From the paragraph "Submission of Bavaria":


 * however Charlemagne went on acquiring other Slav areas, including Bohemia, Macedonia, Moravia, Austria and Croatia.

With a reference of:


 * Historical Atlas of Knights and Castles, Cartographica, Dr Ian Barnes, 2007 pp.30&31

What is Macedonia doing in that list? I have never seen a map of the Carolingian Empire (including the three present in this article) that extends either the empire itself or its vasals that far to the south-east. Nor does the linked article about the region of Macedonia mention any Carolingians.

--Martijn 2001:980:4818:1:200:FF:FE4E:353A (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange. The statement is clearly wrong, as Macedonia was either Byzantine or Bulgarian during Charlemagne's reign . Maybe the editor intended to write Pannonia, although it is already mentioned elsewhere in the text. Iblardi (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Imagery: paintings and coins
There's currently a disagreement about the accompanying image of Charlemagne on this wikipage. One user wants to use a painting created long after Charlemagne was dead while another user insists that's inaccurate and wants to use an image of a coin minted around the time of his reign. Both images, to me, look like idealizations of Charlemagne: the painting, since it was done later in a Romantic style; the coin, since it makes Charlemagne look like a Caesar from 1st century CE Rome. I'm curious what other people think about this. Does the main image of Charlemagne need to be historically accurate? If so, how do we know it is? Do either of the images have a place on the page? Yojimbo1941 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, its better to use contemporary (or near contemporary) images - whether from coins, manuscripts, statues, or whatever - than to use idealized images from long after the time period. The problem with using 1000 year later images is that the reader may think that it's based on some sort of description or that it depicts the subject accurately. With a coin image (or other non-realistic-looking image) it's clear that this cannot be an accurate likeness, which avoids misleading the reader. A coin image at least shows the subject as it would have been most familiar to people of the time period. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse the brevity, but I'm typing by mobile phone. I'd echo Ealdgyth's comments on this one. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting points, thanks. Yojimbo1941 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Literacy or lack thereof
I'm finding conflicting information on whether or not Charlemagne was illiterate. The one source that indicates this in the article is one I don't have access to and the ones I've found through Google aren't solid references. This also conflicts with a source I found indicating that he was literate: https://books.google.com/books?id=hbnY8GTet_kC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=charlemagne%27s+children+education&source=bl&ots=xTdZhRpKl8&sig=cayY2Zyj3PGntzS9yL9BC8klPR0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8memSscXLAhVCx4MKHa4MBl4Q6AEIfDAU#v=onepage&q=charlemagne's%20children%20education&f=false Does anyone have a good primary source or scholarly article that could solve this? The edit I made leaves it pretty much at "highly regarded education" which seems to be consistent among sources. Yojimbo1941 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any sources off hand (I shall look later), but I do recall that Charlemagne was able to pen his signature, but was too old to learn to adequately read and write at all even though he desired to.--  Sıgehelmus   (Talk) &#124;д=)  18:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Yeah, I saw that too but it seemed like it was more of a popular opinion than a scholarly one, at least from the sources I was able to find.  Although, without seeing more scholarly works I can't really back that statement up.  I'm not proposing that the entire section be rewritten but now I'm really curious about his level of literacy, especially since he was such a proponent of education.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Charlemagne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131117074120/http://mdzx.bib-bvb.de:80/francia/Blatt_bsb00016275,00115.html to http://mdzx.bib-bvb.de/francia/Blatt_bsb00016275,00115.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131117074146/http://mdzx.bib-bvb.de:80/francia/Blatt_bsb00016296,00047.html to http://mdzx.bib-bvb.de/francia/Blatt_bsb00016296,00047.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309083226/http://www.assumptionaz.org/studies_in_orthodoxy/studies_orthodoxy/378 to http://www.assumptionaz.org/studies_in_orthodoxy/studies_orthodoxy/378
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716095849/http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1983_34_04_Bray_FilioqueInHistory.pdf to http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1983_34_04_Bray_FilioqueInHistory.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111224205023/http://www.chronique.com/Library/MedHistory/charlemagne.htm to http://www.chronique.com/Library/MedHistory/charlemagne.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140423080431/http://euregio-aachen.de/mein-karl-2014/ to http://euregio-aachen.de/mein-karl-2014/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

speculative ancestry
As can be seen by looking up Wikipedia's own articles for the people involved, the ancestry tree at the bottom of the article is including speculative ancestors with no remarks about them being speculative. In some cases the speculations are not the only well-known ideas. I think those individuals should be removed or at least annotated in some way to show that they are speculative?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the ancestry tree is kind of a mess, and someone just changed Hugobert von Echternach to Hugobert von Hammond with no explanation.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Categories
Seriously?? We don't even know where he was born and nationalists still feel they should ascribe nationalities to him. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * French Roman Catholics
 * German Roman Catholics
 * The point is here that he is listed in these Categories, which form a tree like "people by religion" -> "Christians" -> "Roman Catholics" -> "French/German Roman Catholics", with the chief use being that the categories don't get too big. So, as fits in both Categories, he belongs to both categories, without any need to speak of suspicion of nationalism.--131.159.76.231 (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charlemagne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mdzx.bib-bvb.de/francia/Blatt_bsb00016275%2C00115.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mdzx.bib-bvb.de/francia/Blatt_bsb00016296%2C00047.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117151907/http://www.karlspreis.de/preistraeger/seine_heiligkeit_papst_johannes_paul_ii/ansprache_von_seiner_heiligkeit_papst_johannes_paul_ii.html to http://www.karlspreis.de/preistraeger/seine_heiligkeit_papst_johannes_paul_ii/ansprache_von_seiner_heiligkeit_papst_johannes_paul_ii.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stgeorgegreenville.org/OrthodoxLife/Chapter1/Chap1-7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Article conflicts with itself.
Under Date of Birth: ; "Pepin and Bertrada were bound by a private contract or Friedelehe[18] at the time of his birth, but did not marry until 744"

Under Ancestry:, "although some state that this is arguable,[22] because Pepin did not marry Bertrada until 749,"

WithGLEE (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Warning: Porn on this page
I was looking up info, whilst not signed-in, and under the map directly is a very ugly naked woman! So I signed-in, and looked at the page, and it was gone. To make sure it was gone, I signed-out then pulled it back up, and there it was again. I then hit edit without sign-in, but I couldn't locate the pix. Just thought you should know... Dasempress (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not showing up for me while not logged in... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it's gone. Also, the text under the map has changed from what it showed before. It had a #REDIRECTED underneath it when you were viewing it whilst signed in, but when the additional picture was showing (When you weren't signed in), the second picture was directly underneath the picture of the first map, with no room for any writing. Dasempress (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is his name not listed?
Why is his name not listed here? I added it, and it was deleted. This article is about "Karl der Große", but his name exists nowhere! Pure RACISM! 119.92.93.84 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Re-added it. Everyone knows his name was Karl. BTW-even ultr-retard wikipedia lists his name: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne lol 119.92.93.84 (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you stick to the "ultr-retard Wikipedia" if you truly believe that, over 1200 years ago, he called himself Karl der Große, that the language spoken then in what is now Germany has more in common with modern German than with English (or Dutch, etc), or that the words der and Große existed as such in the 8th century. Surtsicna (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And where is it now? Doesn't it seem a bit silly even for the biggest french hardliners, that the german name "Karl der Große" is not even mentioned? And yes i believe that the language spoken over 1200 years ago has more in common with modern German than with English. We have the Wikipedia in Ripoarisch for example, an old-frankish dialect close to Karolus' language. You still have that dialect in Aachen, where Carolus lived. I can understand this language as a german, can english people say the same?


 * And to follow your argument about the language changes over the years. Why do you use his name "Charlesmagne" then? Did the french language even exist 1200 years ago? And why are so many (for example slavian) languages that use "karol" as word for king and not "charly"? The coin in the article also has a "karolus magnus" print, not charlesomething. The german name "Karl der Große" definetly needs to be inserted. I don't mind if the spanish call him Carlos and the english call him Charles. But if the german name of a frankonian emperor, who was speaking a frankish language (neither english nor french and before he learned latin), and made a city to his capital that also still exists in germany doesn't even get mentioned in this article, then something is definetly wrong with it. Maybe it would also increase the chance to become a featured article, like the other articles that contain his german name "Karl der Große". For better neutrality I would also suggest to use the neutral latin name "C/Karolus Magnus" as first. 77.5.89.32 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. In English, this figure is referred to primarily as Charlemagne. Acknowledging that does not require anyone to be a "French hardliner", whatever that is supposed to mean. That said, I don't see any reason not to mention the German Karl der Große, especially as his capital was in what is now Aachen, though if we are going to list many names by which he is known, I think it would be better to do so elsewhere than in the intro sentence. Eric talk 23:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good questions on top. The answers of Eric shows that the writer owns little respect compared with the origin of historical people. Coracias garrulus (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose listing the German name. Charlemagne did never call himself "Karl der Große". His language was a Franconian dialect, whereas standard German comes from High German. Both are about as much related as Franconian and (Old) English. If you really want to add another language, add Dutch, which actually does come from Franconian. Or better yet, find out what the Franks themselves called him. "Karl der Große" has as much value to this article as "Karel de Grote", "Karel de Grutte", "Karl de Grote", "Karel de Groete" or "Karel de Groussen", all Germanic languages of which most are much more closely related to Old Franconian than German. It has even less value than شارلمان (what his Cordoba enemies called him) or Carl Micela (what his English contemporaries called him). As for the name Charlemagne, it indeed comes from Latin Carolus Magnus and as such is not Germanic, but it happens to be his English name, and this happens to be the English Wikipedia article. Aethelraed Unraed (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Karl never called himself "Magnus" or any other equivalent of "der Große" at all. That's an epithet that only came up in the 10th century. He probably called himself simply "Karl", "Carolus" or perhaps "Carles ~ Charles", depending on the language he was speaking. His native language was probably a Franconian dialect of Old High German, and he also spoke Latin and perhaps Early Old French. Compare the Oaths of Strasbourg, which are in all three languages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See Charlemagne. The assumption that Charlemagne, more than 1200 years ago, spoke Modern German (some modern dialect or even Standard German) in any shape or form is pretty hilarious, though it's also sad that most people have no clue how much languages change over such a long time. Decades ago, having attended a German school, I think you were likely to be confronted with a sample of Middle High German at least once and had at least a vague and very general idea about the history of German. Apparently some people haven't even heard of Old and Middle High German or at least have no real idea of their significance. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree also that his German name should be added. I cannot even believe this is a discussion.HeinrichMueller (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The cipher with which his official documents are signed has the letters KRLS. No C.  No -magne.  I agree that the discussion is absurd. I am astonished that there is such a discussion on languages and dialects in the 8th century in the absence of evidence, and the heavy presence of ethnic patriotism. The Emperor is a known promoter of Latin.  --Vicedomino (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, this article borders on revisionism. His current German name is just as relevant as the current French name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.149.178.147 (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Even english wiki is infiltrated by german bolschewiki-activists of the far-left stasi. Ridiculous - he signed documents with KAROLUS and KARL.

And this is from german wiki: "Karl der Große (lateinisch Carolus Magnus oder Karolus Magnus, französisch und englisch Charlemagne;..." they mention his german, latin, french and english name. Thats fair and correct. Both Germany and France have their roots in Frankish Empire and Charlemagne/Karl. Of course he neither spoke modern german, french or english but an old frankish language which was a germanic one and modern german and dutch are related to it. He called himself Karl or Karel (Karl is still a german name today!). In modern english he is known as Charlemagne, but whats the problem to mention also his other famous and common names? Some ridiculous and infantil anti-german antipathy? ManfredV (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Age of Hildegard at marriage?
The unsourced claim in the article is 13: "Less than a year after his marriage, Charlemagne repudiated Desiderata and married a 13-year-old Swabian named Hildegard."

How does the editor know it was 13? The Wikipedia article on Hildegard seems to say 17, not 13. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC))

Nominating this for a Good Article
I am considering to nominate this for a Good Article. Does anyone have any objections to this? Do you think this would fail? From what I see it meets the criteria for a good article.--Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Does it have enough reliable sources? Are all the claims backed up by 2 or more reliable sources?  (PeacePeace (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC))


 * I think it lacks a couple of references in just one area. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Odd part of intro
The last paragraph (In 2014, Italian history professor Giovanni Carnevale...) of the introduction seems odd. I would have thought that it would belong in it's own section. Also, it could be clearer.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Birthplace
should the birthplace not be unknown instead of Aachen? Nothing proves he was born in Aachen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.92.89 (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

New scientific study on the remains of Charlemagne
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X18301825?via=ihub Autopsing history: the Mummy of Charlemagne (c. 747 – 814 AD), Father of Europe Joachim H. Schleifring, Francesco M. Galassi, Michael E. Habicht, Frank J. Ruhli https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2018.11.002

Abstract In this article, a complete history of Charlemagne’s mortal remains is outlined, including the first publication reporting on the most recent tomb opening in 1988. Besides exclusive bioarchaeological details – namely that his body was indeed mummified - a full clinical interpretation of the Emperor’s final illnesses and death is given: a likely combination of osteoarthritis, gout and a recurrent fever caused by an infectious disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.46.169 (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"the Pope crowned him Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans") in Saint Peter's Basilica. In so doing, the Pope effectively nullified the legitimacy of Empress Irene of Constantinople"
This statement is utter nonsense. How could the Pope nullify anything happening in Constantinople, in a different state (a state neither he, nor Charlemagne, had any no control over), by doing something he had never done before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.108.34 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Would a rewording work? The historiography beneath it seems to suggest it was an attempt to undermine it. It could say instead: "the Pope attempted to nullify the legitimacy of Empress Irene of Constantinople"? Mechimp (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the main problem is the word "effectively." Do we understand that a pope can write anything down he wants, and make any declaration he wants, be many will shrug the shoulder at the pope's opinion.  (PeacePeace (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC))


 * I've changed "effectively nullified" to "rejected" which I think fits the reality of it better. Skeletor420 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Frisian?
Hi folks. I just accepted an edit by. I note that there may be some dispute regarding the edit. As a reminder, my role in reviewing pending changes is to determine whether or not the edits are vandalism. Since the subject edits are appear to me to be a bona fide effort to improve the article, I have accepted them. I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute, but would encourage everyone to discuss here on the talk page rather than engage in a revert war.  Uninvited Company 20:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the edit in question wasn't any sort of vandalism, and so should be accepted as such. In fact, I accepted the first version of this edit, and then reverted it, as a good faith but poor edit.


 * My main concern simply using the text "Saxon" for the link to Frisian; anyone following that link will be confused, with no explanation given; thus this fails WP:EASTEREGG.


 * My secondary concern is that I'm not sure why Saxon really means Frisian in this case. Is there some further explanation (beyond just edit summaries), and especially a source for this confusing change?  I'm for reverting this change until some substantial explanation is provided.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Is anyone in favor of keeping the change of "Frisian" to "Saxon" ? If not, I'll revert it.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging . --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This was an interesting edit and I'm not sure either. "During this war, the Saxons were finally subdued and a large part of their fleet was burned. The war ended with Widukind accepting baptism."  Now, Widikund did ally with the Frisians during this time (according to his WP page) but it's unclear if the Frisians' fleet was burned or if the Saxons' fleet was burned.  It does look like, however, that Saxons and Frisians are separate ethnic groups, so I don't think making them synonymous in this article is accurate.  I think it might help to note that Widikund allied himself with the Frisians but the statement about the fleet (from what I can find) seems to apply to the Saxons.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If the Saxon fleet was burned, then the link should be "Saxon" . If it was the Frisian fleet, then it should stay "Frisian" .  Even if it was somehow both Saxon and Frisian, we should link both (if we can explain how it's both).  If we aren't sure, then the whole phrase should be deleted; better to give no information than incorrect information.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  00:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been unable to verify the event in question (fleet burning in 783–85), but I only looked at a few obvious books. It could be Frisians or Saxons that is meant. I'd revert the edit in question and put a  tag on it. Srnec (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That sounds best. Done.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  15:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Even better, Drmies edit added a ref and removed the whole burnt fleet thing. Now let's burn this entire thread. ;) --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  23:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

persistent sexist language
I object strongly to the persistent sexist language ("repudiate" and "put her aside") used to characterize Charlemagne's ending of his relationships with his consorts. These sections read like old-timey Bible verses. I edited "put her aside", once, only to find that it has been re-introduced (Ealdgyth didn't like my choice of words). If my phrasing isn't optimal, neither is the current one. I don't know whether "divorce" applies, but, if it does, then it should be used, instead. Shrinkydink07 (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How are those expressions sexist? Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with "put aside", that's something that's still used. Yes, it's "objectifying" the concubines, but that's kind of the point. They are not mistresses, but women who were either taken as captives during raids or given as gifts. Go-Chlodio (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

These expressions are sexist, because they never apply, the other way around. Chlodio, the fact that "put aside" is objectifying is the point: wikipedia does not need to endorse, in its descriptions, objectification of women. And, no, it's not something that's still used, not in contemporary academic circles. And these women were not concubines: this is an article about a Christian king in the Middle Ages. Shrinkydink07 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They never apply the other way around because that would not reflect the reality of the time. That Charlemagne put his concubines or wives aside tells the readers about the balance of power in his relationships. A wording that implies equality or mutual decision to end the relationship would be misleading. And yes, he did have concubines. The article says so clearly. Early medieval Christian kings frequently did. And yes, such wording is still used by contemporary academics, including those cited in this article. Here is one written by a member of the Society for Medieval Feminist Scholarship. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The time period when Charlemagne was ruling did in fact objectify women and it would be historically inaccurate to word things such that readers would not get that information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "And yes, he did have concubines. ... The article says so clearly. Early medieval Christian kings frequently did." Naturally. The Christian church frowned on polygamy, but did not particularly care if Christians kept mistresses or slaves to use for sex. We even have medieval legislation concerning concubines in the article Polygamy in Christianity:


 * "The Roman councils of 1052 and 1063 suspended from communion those laymen who had a wife and a concubine at the same time.
 * "In Scandinavia, the word for an official concubine was "frille". Norwegian Bishop Øystein Erlendsson (ca. 1120–1188) declared that concubines were not allowed to accept the sacraments unless they married, and men were forced to promise marriage to women they had lain with outside of wedlock. In 1280, the Norwegian king Eirik Magnusson (1280–99) declared that men were exempted from having to promise marriage to the frille if they went to confession and did penance. The Church answered by making several declarations in the 14th century, urging men to marry their concubines. In 1305, King Håkon V (1299–1319) issued a law that declared marriage to be the only lawful way of cohabitation, and declared that only women in wedlock were allowed to dress as they pleased, while the dress of concubines was restricted. " Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on ancestry in the article of Charlemagne
Please be invited to Template_talk:Ahnentafel, where the until recently included ahnentafel of Charlemagne is discussed within a larger context of such generic repudiations across Wikipedia. PPEMES (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable source: Cantor, Norman, "Civilization of the Middle Ages"
The book "Cantor, Norman F. (2015). Civilization of the Middle Ages: Completely Revised and Expanded Edition, A. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-244460-8." is used as a source for one of the notes (currently note number 96), but it is completely unreliable as a source, as I'm about to argue.

The text is completely devoid of notes, and is very biased. In its first pages, for example, the author says Latin is "basically an awkward, inflexible language" in the middle of its attempt to critize the roman educational system (which educated children in such a way that "many of them in fact grew up to be sadomasochists").

The text is full of, or is even entirely built upon, unverifiable claims, many of which have the apparent purpose of highlighting the moral corruption or inferiority of historical figures and institutions that are seen as adversaries of the author's personal beliefs.

Thus I think it should be avoided as a source of information for Wikipedia. Actually, the issue maybe should be dealt with on the whole of Wikipedia since the text seems to be somewhat common reading and it could emerge in other pages credited as "source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.84.40 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Name
The name section is missing the German form 'Karl der Grosse'. It is clear that this is one of the historical descriptors for him. There is even a wikipedia redirect from Karl der Grosse to the Charlemagne page. Encyclopedia Britannica has Alternative Titles: Carolus Magnus, Charles I, Charles le Grand, Charles the Great, Karl der Grosse in https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charlemagne.

but edits to this effect in Wikipedia are reverted, even on the talk page, without clear reasons given. —Mattymmoo (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 March 2020‎ (UTC)

Yes, historical revisionism at it's finest. That's wikipedia in 2020 for you. Karl or Karel was about 1000 times closer to modern Dutch and Germans than he was to the gallo roman peasants he ruled over in the western part of his realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're pinpointing the exact problem with this editor's request. Do we then use the Dutch or German name? Low German or High German? Do we try to approximate the original name? If you hold your mouse over the little [a] after "Charles the Great", the Latin, Italian and German name are even mentioned there. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange wording
"Subsequent emperors of the Holy Roman Empire considered themselves successors of Charlemagne, as did the French and German monarchs"

Is strangely written. The Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire were German monarchs(German Kings). So this is kind of mentioned twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk)
 * It probably means proper Germany (the German Empire), but I agree that this needs to be specified. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

History of Lotharingia
Political background

The following content is incorrect:


 * "The middle kingdom had broken up by 890 and partly absorbed into the Western kingdom (later France) and the Eastern kingdom (Germany) and the rest developing into smaller "buffer" nations that exist between France and Germany to this day, namely the Benelux and Switzerland."

Lotharingia actually fell apart in 855 (Treaty of Prüm). Followed up by the Treaty of Meersen in 870 and the Treaty of Ribemont in 880. The last one marks the end of Lotharingia. Lower Lotharingia became part of Eastern Francia (not Germany!) under the name Duchy of Lotharingia. Burgundy and Italy became independent kingdoms for a while. In 955/962 Italy was incorporated into the Eastern Frankish Kingdom (which was soon renamed into (Holy) Roman Empire). In 1032 Burgundy joined, too. So the whole of Lotharingia became part of the eastern kingdom. In the end, the western kingdom got nothing. There was no medieval "buffer zone". The Benelux is no nation. It's more likely a modern geograpical category consisting of 3 nations: Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. All of them were part of Eastern Francia/(Holy) Roman Empire. The Netherlands declared formal independence in 1648. Belgium became independent in 1815. Luxembourg became fully independent in 1866. There is no continuity in their existence as independent countries and remnants of Lotharingia between the western and eastern part of old Francia as mentioned above. At no time Switzerland was part of Lotharingia but was a part of Alemannia. Switzerland declared independence in 1648 due to long lasting conflicts with the habsburgian emperors. --Prolaps (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Western parts of Switzerland belonged to Lothar I`s reign and later to kingdom of Burgundy. Southern parts belonged to Lothar and later to Kingdom of Italy. Not exactly but generally today's language borders in Switzerland show to which reign these areas belonged.ManfredV (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Image Belgian Railway Line 37
This image is supposed to show the area where Charles might have been born, somewhere around Liege and Aachen, as the text says. But the map doesn't show Aachen on it. Thus, the map has no meaning, unless you know that Aachen would show up some miles east of the end of the map. Could that map be improved or deleted? It is just confusing otherwise. Thanks.Michtrich (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Death and Legacy
This page should contain about his last times, burial and Legacy. Please fellow wikipedians help me in this matter. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

In Britain "Carlwayne" is a nickname for "Carl the Great"
Should I bother listing to the article the hereinabove?


 * Never heard of such name, but the contemporary "Karolus Magnus" still is missing. 94.217.0.216 (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Jews in Charlemagnes Realm (Correction of old vandalism)
This section has a fair bit of old vandalism and uncited/ fabricated claims.

First sentence (uncited) claims Charlemagne assisted Jewish monopoly of money-lending in 814ad, no source, which contradicts the second sentence which is actually cited with the Capitulary For The Jews, a set of laws that persecuted Jewish money-lending and engagement in commerce, in the same year 814ad. First sentence removed, second sentence rewritten and a new source added as well.

Last sentence regarding Charlemagne sending letters to Jews to invite them to settle in his kingdom is fabricated. It is cited with 3 sources, not a single one of them which actually even included the word "letter" in the article, nor even a mention of them. Searching elsewhere will give you absolutely no results. Not sure where this claim gets it's origins as the only mention of these letters across the internet is this wikipedia entry itself and nothing else. Fraudulent claim and sources removed.

Microeconomic reforms claim was uncited, added a citation. Employment of Isaac by Charlemagne due to his unique ability to speak both Old Frankish and Arabic, added and added with a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansel reinhart (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In fact, Charlemagne explicitly banned all money lending activities based on interest rates. He even seems to have very profoundly discussed this topic with experts of his time, including advisors of king Alfred the Great - and they all agreed to ban this business. The same thing seems to hold true for slave trade, as Charlemagne adopted the view of his advisors, in particular clergy men citing the 1st Letter of St. John. 94.217.0.216 (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Europe in 814, Charlemagne, Krum, Nicephorus I.png


 * This map ist quite fine. Regarding frontiers and border lines, I would rather doubt the acuracy of the map "Moorish Hispania in 732". 94.217.0.216 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Misleading Info in Section "Political Background"
Currently, at the end of the section it says "The middle kingdom had broken up by 890 and partly absorbed into the Western kingdom (later France) and the Eastern kingdom (Germany) and the rest developing into smaller "buffer" nations that exist between France and Germany to this day, namely Benelux and Switzerland.". That is extremely misleading, especially regarding Switzerland. Today's inhabitants - as well as all relevant Swiss historians - would define their country as anything but a "buffer state between France and Germany". In fact, the founding fathers of Switzerland had political and religious reasons to object to Habsburg rule. This happened about half a millennium later. Additionally, please take a look at the map, Switzerland rather lies between today's Italy and todays Germany and definitely not between France and Germany. For more information on the "birth" of Switzerland please see []. Meanwhile better do not let a Swiss person read your article ;)  136.219.16.35 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Emperor of the Romans" in lede and succession box
The title "Emperor of the Romans" is used in the lede and in the infobox here. It is also used on subsequent emperors Louis the Pious, Lothair I, Louis II of Italy, Guy III of Spoleto, Lambert of Italy, Louis the Blind and Berengar I of Italy, but strangely not on Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat and Arnulf of Carinthia. I understand not wanting to use "Holy Roman Emperor" (though some of the emperors do?) since it is more associated with post-Otto I emperors, but "Emperor of the Romans" is a POV term. As it stands, the Byzantine Emperors (who were also titled "Emperor of the Romans" and later "Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans") use "Emperor of the Byzantine Empire" in their infobox (with their "actual" title presented above - see for instance Manuel II Palaiologos). I propose that the same thing be done with the pre-Otto I emperors in the west; with "Emperor of the Romans" presented in the title field of the infobox and "Emperor of the Carolingian Empire" being used in the succession field for emperors from Charlemagne to Charles the Fat, and "Emperor of Italy" or "Emperor in Italy" (the term most commonly used for them at least in German historiography) being used for later emperors up until Berengar. Otherwise there is no reason why the articles of the Byzantine emperors should not also use "Emperor of the Romans" in the same way as these emperors do. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have much knowledge of the actual reasons behind why one title vs another. From the perspective of a reader I find the usage of "Emperor of the Romans" really confusing. I read this, and then looked up the article of roman emperors. It's really a misleading title to include in the start of the article. Jclaxp   talk  17:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat misleading since Charlemagne's empire was not the Roman Empire and he did not rule the Romans but it was his official title from 800 onwards. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that title is due to an old prophecy saying that in order to avert the "Great Apocalypse", the Roman Empire had to be transformed into the "Holy Roman Empire" which is Christian. This "Christian Holy Roman Empire" was to be kept up - which is perpetuated for all future - by "righteous rule" i.e. "truly Christian Emperors". These "righteous, truely Christian Emperors" were supposed to be representatives of Jesus Christ himself, as they would rule on behalf of Him and His "Sacrum Imperium", which is the true kingdom of God, "le royaume des cieux". Karolus Magnus claimed exactly this titel and this position. 94.217.0.216 (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no such prophecy (if there was the Byzantines wouldn't be caught so off-guard by Charlemagne's coronation???); the excuse for crowning Charlemagne was the actual Roman Emperor, Irene of Athens being a woman - i.e. sexism, not weird prophecies. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Man, we are talking about the enthusiastic Christian medieval epoche! In fact, an enormous amount of prophecies had been existing, but those relevant on a political stage for the matter discussed, had not been aknowledged by the Byzantines for obvious reasons. In fact, no "excuse" had been needed anyway, as the Byzantine Emperors deserted large parts of the former Roman Empire. Of course, according to Byzantine, non-Byzantine, anti-Byzentine, as well as Carolingian, non-Carolingian, anti-Carloningian, or papal, non-papal, anti-papal sources, existing prophecies were appreciated or not, and had different value. Prophecies partially reflecting older prophecies from the 4th and 5th century (time of the fall of the original Roman Empire) and new ones. No matter what you think about "prophecies" and no matter how you like to turn it, as the Byzantine Emperors left Rome (including the pope) unprotected and undefended to massive Muslim aggression (especially raids for slave-hunting and looting, abducting large parts of the younger population at coastal lines and beyond) all Christian European population had been longing for a "true Emperor" and the "righteous rule". The Byzantines had obviously failed. They flopped so drastically that they lost their credit. You don't like the idea? Never mind. The Byzantines would have been pissed anyway, by any action or development impairing their attitude of narzissism and illusionary superiority. 94.217.0.216 (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're spouting some pretty strange ideas without backing them up with any sources. Obviously, the real reason for crowning Charlemagne was to be rid off the influence of the Byzantines; anything else (Irene as a woman being the most prominent as per most sources I've read) is just excuses. If you want to add anything about prophecies to this article or any other, you'll need to provide reliable sources that back up what you're saying, I've never heard about this before. To dismiss the Byzantines as "obviously failing" and as having "narcissism" and "illusionary superiority" is very strange. They were the rightful Roman emperors - ruling from Constantinople, capital of the Roman Empire since the time of Constantine the Great - the HRE emperors could be accused of narcissism and illusionary superiority to much the same degree. That they had "obviously failed" in keeping control of Italy can hardly be blamed on their capability of ruling - they were from the 7th century onwards engaged in a battle of survival as Islamic armies penetrated into their core territory, repeatedly threatening Constantinople itself. Worth mentioning that the HRE also proved unable to control Italy, as the peninsula fragmented into a numer of (quite often infighting) smaller states during the Middle Ages. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely wrong. Prophecies had been important in medieval times. What you are trying to deny can be read in the Book of Daniel. Please read the prophecies of the empires emerging and vanishing. Reception of these prophecies has produced various additional prophecies, especially in Christian traditions regarding the end of the Roman Empire. Obviously, historical facts might appear strange to people who have no adequate historical knowledge, but distorted conceptions of a world coined by ideologically biased pseudo-scientists, especially by certain half-witted masons within British national-occultist movement. For details about the prophecies of the four empires and their reception, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_kingdoms_of_Daniel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translatio_imperii  188.104.45.35 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Was Charlemagne an opium addict?
Was Charlemagne an opium addict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.219.215 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No. There is absolutely no historical information on this. His contemporary biographer describes him as a sober minded and smart person, always with a clear and sharp conscience. However, as an old man, he suffered from multiple health problems including massive rheumatic pain. He had been treated by physicians of his time with geothermal mineral water and herbal essences. So probably he had been under medication regarding willow extract, but nothing worse ;-) 205.56.162.41 (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Revision needed on wrong political assumptions: Swiss Independence, the BENELUX, so-called "Buffer states" and today's Europe
The article has not been corrected yet, but the comment was sent to archive without being worked on. So again: What happened to the question of misinterpretation of Swiss independence from the Habsburg rule, and so called modern time "buffer states", mainly created by Napoleons i - iii ? Why does the article say this modern time situation regarding Swiss democracy and creation of BENELUX by 19th century French expansionist concepts should be seen as related to a kingdom existing 1200 years ago? Please blame French expansion/ French nationalism and the Napoleons on this, not Charlemagne. Charlemagne and his followers had neither created Belgium, nor the BENELUX. Swiss Cantons had been established because of massive conflicts of democratically orientated Swiss population with authoritarian Habsburg rule way later on! How can Switzerland be situated "between France and Germany" as "a buffer state? Where do all these weird theories come from? Any sensible person with some historical knowledge from inside the EU would doubt such theories. British "scientific" view might be different, as they strongly tend to remodel history according to their political needs and projects. A behavior seen by many as inacceptable. Please correct the article concerning these misconceptions. 136.218.13.141 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Weird map of "The region of Aachen-Liège"
This French map, called "The region of Aachen-Liège (contemporary borders, trade- and travel routes)", is not adequate. First, it shows ahistorical French names for various places. A lot of the names were created for modern French nationalist expansion and ethnic cleansing project "la Grande Réunion" in the 18th, 19th and 20th century. Second, and even worse, the map shows anything but Aix-la-Chapelle, which is Aachen. The map urgently should be replace by an appropriate item, depicting correct original names of locations and especially the correct region including Aachen. 94.217.0.216 (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a map of the region in modern times to showcase where everything is, since places are referred to by their modern names in the text (for obvious reasons?) this should be okay? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The new map is no better than the old one, for when I checked it, the old map was the Herstal region, but didn't show Aachen at all. Unfortunately, so doesn't the new one. At least, the new map also shows the Merovingian Frankish center of administration Herstal, which is fine, but it still doesn't show Aachen, his favorite residence and preferred center of administration activity either? 132.25.97.109 (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The British are coming! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe be Big (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are talking about an invasion? ;-) 205.56.162.41 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Talking about the map... How come they put a map on the page that does NOT show Aachen? The city of Aachen is absolutely essential for any historical consideration on Charlemagne. 188.104.34.212 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision needed for Jewish section
Given that my edit will surely be removed, we need to talk about how the Jewish section is full of contradictions and references without any academic credibility. I noticed that someone had already tried to correct it only for it to be removed being accused of Vandalism when such person did accurately portray the life of Jews in Charlemagne’s kingdom.

Going back to my point about academic credibility, the websites cited to somehow prove Charlemagne invited Jews to live in his kingdom:

a) Do not mention letters b) Do not give where the letters can be found c) Are outright bogus websites without any academic substance

It is particularly concerning how dismissive many were to the previous edit by Hansel Reinhart when this was the version prior to an edit around 2013 which seemed to face no scrutiny or academic scepticism to his drastic changes. Warmrain123 (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I just checked the three sources which were claimed to suport the deleted content. None of them contains support for the existence of letters inviting Jews to move to or live in Charlemagne's realm. Haploidavey (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC) And here's the disputed material, plus the inline citation that doesn't support it:


 * "Letters have been credited to him that invited Jews to settle in his kingdom.  "


 * The better of these sources claims that Charlemagne invited Jews from abroad to form trading communities as his clients, within his realm, (thus founding the early Ashkenazi population in Provence and what became Rhineland/southern Germany); so I've reinstated an amended version in the article to reflect this. But it needs a decent source, so I've also tagged it as needing citation.


 * PS - Ended up using Scheindlin (see 1 above) as a scholarly source, if a wee bit over-condensed for an OUP publication (and seems to have moved publisher.


 * Is there really scientific proof on that? We should not spread legends, so it is better to mention only ABSOLUTELY reliable sources. Yes, legends might be more seductive than facts, I know ;-) 132.30.81.117 (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a pure fancy. There is absolutely no historical proof on this, but obviously it is perceived as an attractive and very cute legend. 188.104.34.212 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

John Julius Norwich as a reliable source?
Norwich is described as "a popular historian, travel writer, and television personality" spreading British national narratives ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Julius_Norwich ). Should he be seen as a reliable and independent source? What degree of knowledge did he really have on situation of 8th and 9th century continental Europe, e .g. on Charlemagne's thoughts on Empress Irene? 132.19.202.40 (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly speaking, obviously Norwich didn't have a clue. Further, he didn't have any secret knowledge of historical details such as Charlemagne's thoughts on Empress Irene. But he had been a very popular TV personality in GB for years - and he still seems to have fans & devotees. 188.104.34.212 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone want to add in anything about the broadway play Pippin?
It is about Charlemagne's eldest son, Pippin, as well as his grandmother, Bertha, as well as other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doglover truthfinder (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Charlemagne's Children
I am myself aware of two legends surrounding Charlemagne's children:

One involves a knight, D'Eon de Hambys, who - while on the way to Charlemagne's court - attacked and killed a man who attacked him and who, he later discovers, was one of Charlemagne's sons. He is sent by Charlemagne to acquire the Saracen King's teeth and beard.

A second legend involves a girl who falls in love with a knight she is later separated from for years. She is found by Charlemagne and taken to Paris, a city that she recognizes. It is then revealed that she is the missing daughter of Charlemagne, who has been searching for her for years. Taken to his court, she escapes disguised as a bard and then sings of her life to the knight, who revealed that he has never stopped searching for her and still loves her. She then tells him who she is and they marry. In the lay in which this story is recounted, she is referred to only as Maite ("Maiden" in Old French, apparently).Glammazon (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh those are all nonesense stories. Karl as his kids had old german names. Those are probably stories made up hundreds and hundreds of years later to fit some french narrative. 178.24.247.1 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct Original Name Still Missing
The original name, in Latin letters something like "Carl", "Karol", "Charol", or further latinized "Karolus Magnus", is still missing. Instead: "Charles (the Great)", which is completely ahistorical, as both, modern name "Charles", as well as the delayed creation "Charlemagne", are kind of mutiliated dog latin versions of a name, contemporary Gallo-Roman clergy men were unable to spell in Latin letters and unable to pronounce adequately. From 800 A.D. when "Karolus Rex" was crowned in Rome, it took another 800 years to establish "Académie Francaise" which started in the year 1600 A. D. to create a language that lead to what we now know as "modern French". 88.66.65.116 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The original name is in the article (if you look at notes a and b after "Charles the Great" in the lede. If you want to change anything you'll need to provide sources, not just say stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What I understand he is trying to tell you: Latin-script letters do not reflect the original pronunciation. This is true. And: Today's names like "Charles" would not have been understood by their supposed name carriers in that time. That's a fact. 136.219.16.35 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but the modern names Charles I, Charles the Great and Charlemagne obviously have to be the most prominent since that is what people call him today. The two notes after "Charles the Great" clarify more contemporary names; note A gives the Latin Karolus or Carolus, note B gives the Frankish Keril, Karil or Karal. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the text says "He was named Charles in French and English, Carolus in Latin, after his grandfather, Charles Martel". This might be read as indication that he had been named such during his life span. But obviously, these names and other names had been given centuries after his death. So there should be a hint, that modern names were given by historians way after his death. 136.219.16.35 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should not the Frankish name also be given in the name section, along with the English, French, and Latin? He WAS, after all, Frankish, was he not? Or was Gallo-Romance his native tongue, and King of the Franks merely his title? Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to recommend mentioning the original Frankish name, as Frankish was his native tongue and that of his parents, relatives and most of his closest friends. 188.104.34.212 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, his name was not today's "Charles" - especially not regarding modern English version with a pronounciation falsely including an "s" or "z" sound. Modern French "Charles" is a little bit closer to the original name, but doesn't match it either. 188.99.27.209 (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There should be some more explanation about his Frankish name und the original pronunciation... 188.104.33.45 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Order introduction box
Why is it backward? He was first King of the Franks then of the Lombard then Emperor, but it is displayed the other way around, makes no sense to display it like that Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Well I fixed it and used the chronological order since there's absolutely no reason not to use it Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * oh and in the middle of the translations for his nickname Charles the Great there was alternative dates which obv have nothing to do there, here's what was removed, if anyone wants to add it anywhere it may belong (not in the name translations..):
 * 2 April 747 – 28 January 814 Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Pompous asshole
No offense to the original author of this text, but this isn't written like the average Wikipedia article. It reads like an armchair historian trying to sound knowledgeable. I am working on a small project for uni and found that this page is incredibly weird in some parts.

For example, under Ambiguous High Office: "According to the Life, Pepin died in Paris on 24 September 768, whereupon the kingship passed jointly to his sons, "with divine assent" (divino nutu). The Franks "in general assembly" (generali conventu) gave them both the rank of a king (reges) but "partitioned the whole body of the kingdom equally" (totum regni corpus ex aequo partirentur)."

That sentence could be compressed by 2-4x times and would still keep almost all of its value - and most of the article is written like this. A rewrite banner might be necessary..? Onkoe (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wives, concubines, and children
In the Wives, concubines, and children section, there is discussion of European nobility tracing their ancestry to Charlemagne. This is silly nonsense. The truth is, everyone in Europe traces their ancestry back to Charlemagne. For the explanation, see: https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford Optimismofthewill (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's delete "first" where not supported by the citation
Delete "first" in "first emperor of the Romans" as Charlesmagne was not the first emperor of the Romans & the citation does not support that style. It might be re-written, with sufficient citations to establish it, that he was the first "Holy Roman Emperor." (AltheaCase (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC))

Wiki Education assignment: Christian Ethics
— Assignment last updated by Brian (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

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


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

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)