Talk:Charles the Fat/Archive 1

Numbering
Sorry, but no one's been able to prove to me that Charles the Fat doesn't count as Charles II of France. Minimax 20:31 30 May 2003 (UTC)

The ordinal tradition was not in use in their days. It is a later invention. The ordinals came to use apparently in 15th (or already in 14th) century. These earlier monarchs were numbered using hindsight. However, the "correct" ordinals were important to kings of France who began to use them. Thus, they created an official canon of "rightful" kings. To them, French monarchy began from Clovis (whom they claimed as an ancestor in female line) - Carolingians were interlopers. Charles the Fat did not leave a good reputation. And he was a sideline person to reign France. Thus, he was left out from the canon. Whereas Charlemagne was really important, thus he was Charles I in that canonical numbering. The next was Charles II the Bald. Charles III the Simple was the last of that name before Capetians. And, Charles IV, youngest son of Philip IV, was the first Capetian with carolingian name Charles to ascend the throne of France. I try to say it again: These ordinals come from late medieval canon ordered by then kings. We cannot alter that fact. 217.140.193.123 16:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Man, what an ass Minimax was about this. Nobody's been able to prove to him? What a jackass. Charles the Fat did not get a number.

From the above; "Charles the Fat did not leave a good reputation. And he was a sideline person to reign France. Thus, he was left out from the canon. Whereas Charlemagne was really important, thus he was Charles I in that canonical numbering. The next was Charles II the Bald. Charles III the Simple was the last of that name before Capetians. And, Charles IV, youngest son of Philip IV, was the first Capetian with carolingian name Charles to ascend the throne of France. I try to say it again: These ordinals come from late medieval canon ordered by then kings. We cannot alter that fact."

If that is so, then why is not Charles the first or as you write it "Charles I" not refered to as "Charles "Ier?" Can any of you explain why "ier" became a known abbreviation for the word "Premier?"  69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes john k 22:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's French. And they mean the same thing. Emerson 07 (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a source for why Charles the Fat isn't numbered? This should be explained in the article. And possibly in Charles the Simple's article too. Richard75 (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Why "the Fat"?
Can anyone tell me why he was called "Charles the Fat"?

Could I make the obvious assumption that he was overweight, or is there another meaning?

I notice that a king further on was also called this name. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.161.16 (talk • contribs).


 * It's a twelfth-century nickname. Who knows how fat he was. He is the only Charles the Fat of which I know. Srnec 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Still that is funny. --66.218.23.59 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles the fat is called "Chales the fat" because Charles is fat

Because he was originally called "the Grosse", or "the Gros", etc., or as some have called it "the great!" Can anyone explain the difference between "fat" and "great" or "large?" Anyone? Why should we consider one "great" and the other "fat?" 69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

As an aside, Charles le Pinguis!" just what does "pinguis" mean?  Maybe this might help some of you who are too lazy to check your sources?

http://www.online-dictionary.biz/latin/english/meaning/pinguis

Thus, with little effort some of you might well have known that his name could just as well mean "sleek!" or "smooth!", etc.! Shame, shame! 69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald l. Hughes

Also why not consider this man? http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.geni.com/people/Charles-le-Gros-duc-de-Basse-Lorraine/6000000001669662426&ei=tCdVS_mAG8-vtgegt4yjBQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBUQ7gEwAzgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcharles%2Ble%2Bgros%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADBR_enUS315US315%26sa%3DN%26start%3D10 He seems to be somewhat related? 69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I would even consider that this site http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_III_le_Gros translated, has a good deal of good information? Here it says; "In October 886The Normans invaded Neustria and beset Paris. Arriving from Germany with an army of relief, Charles the Fat'd rather deal with these barbarians by allowing them to move to sack the Burgundy (who was in revolt against the central government) and by paying them a ransom of 700 pounds of silver the following year. These decisions profoundly preyed upon his prestige." I believe it is said in other places that the Saracens were also placated? And the above site also says, via translation; "After losing all power, it becomes obese, and epilepsy after suffering a 887 in February trepanation to relieve its suffering[5],[6]. He died January 13 888At the Cloister of Neudingen located along the Danube. His body is buried in Monastery of Reichenau with all the honors due his rank." So, we have to consider that "trepanation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanation  Was practiced upon this man? 69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I think there ought to be some discussion in the article of why he is known as "the Fat," including, if it's really in dispute among historians, whether that's a mistranslation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.176.218 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seal
Is a photo of Charles' seal, visible at Britannica Online, in the public domain? Srnec 03:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If one is pictured as "overweight" and is now considered as "fat" then one has moved modern views of the body, back into the past! That is, fat was considered, in the past, as healthly! I.e. "well fed" or "rich!" 69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

New map?
Perhaps, you might well consider that this map, supposedly from the times of Carloman the Great or Charlemagne, might well also be considered as a good map for the same area controlled by "Charles / Carloman the Fat / Gros?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Growth_of_Frankish_Power,_481-814.jpg 69.92.23.64 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

The elephant in the room
Fat? Elephant?! Geddit!??!? Never mind. Most people looking at this article are going to be wondering why Charles III has this unusual byname. This should be mentioned up front in the article, and not in a note. The note format has very poor usability, especially on a mobile device (phone, tablet...). It's also worth mentioning that the name is similar in other languages (Charles Le Gros, Karl Der Dicke) but not in the lead. --Cornellier (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles the Fat. 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/20100226063634/http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/fulda.htm to http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/fulda.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100226063634/http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/fulda.htm to http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/fulda.htm

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) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Holy Roman Emperor
I appreciate the reason for the recent edits changing Holy Roman Emperor to Carolingian Emperor, but they obscure the fact that he did have the "Roman" imperial title too, and the article ought to inform the reader of that fact. Can we find a way to include both matters? Richard75 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It gets complicated. The lead now says "the ruler of the Carolingian Empire from 881 to 888", which is not really true. His brother Louis was still around until 882 and there were other kings in West Francia until 884. What's more, he lost his power effectively in November 887. He was the sole ruler in East Francia only from 882 until 887 and the sole ruler of the empire only from 884 until 887. What he was from 881 until his death was the emperor. And that was his title: imperator augustus. I don't believe he ever called himself emperor of anything, but I'd have to check what the chronicles used. Srnec (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Well it's not disputed that he was Holy Roman Emperor and he's listed in the article about that title, so I've added it back in, because not every reader will be aware that "Carolingian Emperor" means the same thing. Richard75 (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * And the way you did it was awful. You made it look as if he was two kinds of emperor at once. Srnec (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)