Talk:Carolingian dynasty

Grand Strategy

The whole "Grand Strategy" section reads like an essay written by a high schooler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:8A3A:8480:554B:6CD:204B:16DE (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2023 (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. Student editor(s): Rdkellyasu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m a direct descendant of this family. I have the dna test to prove it. 38.135.219.34 (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the above statement before making an account. But yes I have a dna test proving I’m a descendant. Bwmguy (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo from 2001

From the article:

were the ruling dynasty until I minor branch of the family

Is that a typo? Should that be Henry I or something? I'd have tried to fix it, but I don't know for sure what the original intent was. Frankly (har har), I'd not heard of the Carolingians until today. -- ansible

Nah, even a simpler typo than that -- 'a'. --MichaelTinkler

[Summary

If someone were to summarize the Carolingian Dynasty, what would you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.64.100.240 (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

issues in this article

• carlovingian looks like a mistake
• there are two contradictory explanations of the origin of the term carolingian in this article, one near the top and the other at the bottom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.140.161 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• French version of this article states that the name carolingian comes from Charlemagne and not from Charles Martel. Where is the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.0.22 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Theywere called Carlovingians until the XIXth century. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I looked on a lot of french websites, the consensus is that the name is from Charlemagne, even if Charles Martel is the father of the first Carolingian king. Since that is what I learned at school too. I don't modify the article though, I have a reasonnable doubt since the explanation of the name seems pleasible. The French school textbooks however credit Charlemagne (Ref: [1]) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm editing the article to reflect that change -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following, since I found no evidence of this on the Internet and there is no source:

The term Carolingian (and the variant "Carlovingian") is from Medieval Latin Carolingi (var. "Karolingi", "Carlovingi", "Karlovingi"), formed from the Latin "Carolus" and the Germanic suffix "-ing", meaning "people of" or "descendants of." Hence, the term literally means "descendants of Charles Martel."

Umm, I don't see how your argument amounts to saying that the term literally means "descendants of Charles Martel". It literally means "descendants of Charles". The name itself doesn't tell us WHICH Charles it refers to. From the name alone, Charles (Carolus) Martel and Charles (Carolus) The Great (a.k.a. Charles Magnus a.k.a. Charlemagne) are equally good candidates. I believe the dynasty is named after Charles Martel, but I disagree that the name "Carolingian", alone, makes this obvious.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

-- lucasbfr ^talk 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the material I have read in my lifetime holds that this dynasty is named after Charles Martel, NOT Charles Magnus (i.e. Charlemagne). Try

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Carolingian_Dynasty

if you'd like a source. There are others.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Descendants

What about dynasties with claims of origin from Carolingians? It seems House of Flanders claim to be Carolingian branch. I think it was not lonely in this question.212.86.230.114 (talk) 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A section on the Carolingian afterlife would make an excellent addition to this article. A few paragraphs of well-written prose explaining the various dynasties, families, and individuals that claimed Carolingian descent, through whom, and why, what it gained them, in short, the phenomenon of Carolingian descent, not just a list of dynasties that claimed such, is what is called for. If you can do it, or start it, please go ahead. If you can merely assemble a list which can help direct other editors, that is fine too. I will probably think about writing something on this soon if nobody else does, since it is a rather interesting and important facet of the Carolingians. A paragraph on the Carolingians after 987 is also needed. In general, this article could be expanded. Srnec (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article should be expanded. Adelaide is mentioned as the last Carolingian (although I always thought that a wife took her husband's titles upon marriage, so I'm assuming this means she was the last person to die who was born as a Carolingian - minor point, but not so minor when you look through the list of Carolingians and Louis of Lower Lorraine is then named as the "last legitimate Carolingian" and of course, Adelaide was not illegitimate in the usual sense of the word (her parents were married). The question is whether or not the court of barons had the right to strip Odo of the title of Count of Vermandois and give it to Adelaide. If not, then Louis of Lower Lorraine "wins." It cannot simply be the case that a younger daughter suddenly gets inserted into this outline of Carolingians, she is special because she inherited her father's title (unusual) while her brother still lived and she did not inherit it or have it legitimized by her father. I am guessing that the article is taking the view that the court's decision to set aside Odo is legal and therefore legitimate (so the words after Louis of Lower Lorraine should perhaps be removed?) In the case of Bernard of Italy (who was illegitimate), he managed to be born while Charlemagne was still alive, and Charlemagne legitimized him - setting a precedent that it was the King who legitimized - which is why Adelaide's claim is perhaps not quite proper. It seems possible that Charlemagne's son Pepin had other illegitimate sons, but it was only Bernard who was legitimized and Charlemagne specifically left Italy to Bernard after legitimizing him. And because I really like encyclopedias to be crystal clear, there is the problem of Peter of Vermandois, as well, whose death date and possibility of legitimate children seem to be unknown. While it is doubtful he outlived Adelaide, and it seems someone should have noticed if he married, I can't find any information about him beyond the fact that he existed (so perhaps a "died without issue?" including question mark should be put next his name. I'm guessing (and I shouldn't have to be) that the reason Louis of Lower Lorraine is listed as the last "legitimate Carolingian" is that his is the only line from Charlemagne where a son born out of wedlock doesn't appear (even though Charlemagne legitimized Bernard). Or is someone questioning the council of baron's decision? But it is confusing that two last Carolingians are on the same page (and that Arnulf, Archbishop of Reims - who also has no bastards in his line - isn't mentioned as the last legitimate Carolingian since he outlived his cousin Louis of LL, according to this article). Confusing to those of us obsessed with details.LeValley 21:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Though this discussion is stale, I just want to confirm that the reference to Louis being the last legitimate Carolingian is indicating legitimate birth throughout his line of descent, not legitimacy to hold a crown/title, and that the Vermandois line is excluded because it derives from the illegitimately-born Bernard of Italy. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Table rather than list

I object to the list. It covers 12 generations, which means the editor had to come with 12 systems of enumeration. Even if you use the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, Carolingian and Roman, upper and lower case, you don't have enough. So, the editor repeats systems. As an organizational system it is meaningless and unuseful. Even the mathematicians don't require 12 systems of enumeration. I found a tabular way to organize it. The entries get placed in a grid 12 cells wide. Everything is lined up in a matrix. If you want to know what generation the lookup is in you count cells from the left. I'm building the table in a comment. If you want to take a look uncomment it and preview it but DO NOT save it. When I finish it I will uncomment it and comment the unusable outline. Now, I would not mind putting the outline in the grid if we had 12 unique and comprehensible numbering systems. But we don't, unless you want to do the whole thing in a numbering scheme containing 12 hexadecimal digits, which is what you look as though you are aiming at. Each Carolingian would have a unique number that would specify what generation of what branch he was in. Although that would be great software massaging it is not so great for us ordinary persons. I think my matrix is much more readable. Anyway it will be in there as soon as I can get it done.Dave (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

France box

If we are going to have the list of Carolingians the France box gets in the way. It takes up the entire right for far down the article. Furthermore, it does not align with the box above it. We could make it align by allowing entry of the width parameter but that would leave even less width for the body of the article. I suggest the topic of the box is redundant with the boxes on the bottom and furthermore most of the topics in the box do not concern the Carolingians. The Carolingians were not French nationals as such. I think it is one box too many and as soon as I get the table done will take it out to make room for the table. You wanted to put 12 generations in and those require pretty much the whole width of the article.Dave (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Severe problems

This article suffers severe problems. It lacks content and detail, to begin with. Worse, the newly added section, "Rise to Power and Military Organization," directly conflicts with the existing History section. The History section states that the traditional view of a long rise to power is now rejected in favor of the aspirations of Pepin as a singular driving force. The new section sets out the long rise to power view, directly contradicting the prior section. I am trying to copyedit the page, but the writing is often too vague to simply clean up, and the direct contradictions necessitate significant re-tooling. I'll attempt to reconcile the sections, primarily through paring the new section down to the material on Military Organization. But the article needs a lot of work and better grounding in the source materials. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carolingian dynasty. 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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources and Citations

Would it be possible to have a larger and more diverse range of sources for such an important historical topic as the Carolingian Dynasty?

Rdkellyasu (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)rdkellyasu

Non-Agnatic

There is no good reason to list other families that supplied French royalty in the infobox of a page about a specific family that also ruled Germany, Italy and various other territories, all of which had their own dynasties and ruling families, some of them related to the Carolingians, some not. We certainly aren't going to list them all, and there is no good reason to list any subset of them. This page is about the Carolingians, not France. Agricolae (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree, I don't know how this is "relevant information", virtually every European house could trace their lineage back to the Carolingians. Why would the Robertians even be considered a cadet branch? It doesn't seem like the marriage Robert I of France and Béatrice of Vermandois was bilateral, unlike the marriage of Albert Azzo II and Kunigunde of Altdorf. Also, the members of the Lombard branch were barely Carolingian, considering Bernard of Italy was illegitimate. --Go-Chlodio (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent expansions

I am a little uncomfortable with the degree this article is being expanded this week. Each of the people named have full pages of their own, and it is unnecessary to try to give detailed accounts of everything they did in their lives here. We really should be relying much more on Template:Main here, rather than expanding this article into a bunch of redundant full biographies. 10 paragraphs on Charles Martel is way overboard for someone with their own article. Agricolae (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

And now it is at 20 paragraphs on Charles Martel alone. He has his own article. We should be sending people there, not trying to create a longer biography of him here than on his own page. @GDK98: scale it back or I will. Agricolae (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)