Birth and death of Charlemagne

Question

The current discussion re Take out the garbage: Delete all unsourced pre-1400 profiles? caused me to think about getting beyond the seemingly endless and fruitless discussions about some of these pre-1500 profiles. Due to his preeminent role in European history I think it is time to clean up Charlemagne's profile. As a first step I'm proposing to correct his birth place and death date and place.

• His birth place is not known. Stefan Weinfurter: Karl der Große. München 2013, p. 56; Johannes Fried: Karl der Große. München 2013, p. 35; also English, German, and French Wikipedia with additional sources cited.
• His death date is generally given as 814, not 813 as we have it. See Einhard, Vita Caroli 30.
• While Aachen is the right place, neither did "Rheinland-Westfalen" (ever) exist nor Deutschland as a political entity before 1872. "Rheinland-Westfalen" appears to be a mix-up of Nordrhein-Westfalen, the current German state Aachen is in, and Rheinland-Pfalz. Since none of these political entities existed in the 9th century I propose replacing them with Fränkisches Reich (based on the assumption that Charlemagne spoke Ripuarian Frankish, a West-Germanic language).

I will make those changes, let's say in 2 weeks, unless somebody can come up with good documentation that this should not be done. 

Comments

Helmut,  (and probably Isabelle) this is a question from ignorance and curiosity. I know that Aachen is the modern town (my son spent a year at University there)   I knew it from (old) history books  as Aix-la-Chapelle. Looking on the internet I find recent journals, in English and in French still referring to it as Aix. Do we know what it would have been called at the time

(how did I miss Andrew's answer below? but I'm still curious, would it have been called Aachen? )

---

It was called most often only Aquae in pre-Carolingian times, then Aquæ Gran[n]i, Aquæ villa, Aquis, Aquis Granum, Aquis Grana, Aquisgrani, Aquisgranum, Aquasgranum, [Aquis aut] Granum palatium, Aquensis urbs, Palatium [aut Granis] aquae, Grani aut Aquense palatium and so on. French made Aix out of anything Latin Aqua, but today's Spanish name is still Aquisgrán, Polish Akwizgran, Italian Aquisgrana. The local dialect which might still be the closest to what the common folks called it is Oche, Luxembourghisch Oochen, Dutch Aken, Limburgish Aoke.

BTW, English use is changing, used to be Aix-la-Chapelle after the French name but recently has adopted Aachen (see Wikipedia).

---

You still see Aix on French maps and road signs. But the tradition developing in modern Europe is that people are using the local names, whatever they are, in more cases.

---

And the French Wikipedia entry for London is still under Londres.

---

Yes, and we still say Mayence, Moscou, Rome and even Pékin. Translated names for more obscure places tend to disappear though.

---

Thank you, gives food for thought about the feasibility of always using the location name that an individual might have used.

Answer 1

Just in the spirit of thinking with you about what name to use for the country, the Frankish "homeland" country in this period can perhaps still be called Austrasia (similar to later Lotharingia).

Looking for a smaller unit there is a theory about the "die Dukate" which can be found in Ewig and Nonn. But was Aachen in the Ribuarian ducatus or the Tungrian/Maastricht/Liège? I think it was the latter. (I just had a quick browse in both sources and did not find a clear answer quickly.)

In terms of language, I suppose it is worth mentioning that Aachen is right on the corner point of three languages, and might at the time have been more connected to Dutch and French speaking areas today, than to Cologne. But in terms of practical reality I think German, the language there today, is the obvious choice.

Comments

I deleted the name of his death place from Aachen, Rheinland-Westfalen, Deutschland.  Even as someone who argues for some modernization of names I can’t really go with Charlemagne dying in Deutschland.

I went with Aachen, Austrasia, Francia which may not be 100% correct, but is certainly better than Aachen, Rheinland-Westfalen, Deutschland.  I am not sure that Austrasia still existed as a separate administrative territory within Charlemagne’s Frankish kingdom in 814, but it still conveys the idea of the city Aachen, within the region known as Austrasia, part of the Kingdom of the Franks.

---

I think your notion of region may be right, most of my literature says that Austrasia and Neustria as administrative entities went out of use under Charlemagne but they certainly were still usable as regional descriptors.

---

There must have been some kind of continuity, because Lotharingia (after Charlemagne) was clearly basically based on the same rough boundaries as Austrasia which were in turn apparently based on Roman districts (which the churchs kept using).

Austrasia and Lotharingia were more or less Germania Inferior plus the civitas of the Nervians (which was a boundary marking area of forests, the Silva Carbonaria, and rivers, especially the Scheldt, which remained the boundary between the Reich and the French kingdom throughout the middle ages).

---

I cleaned up the profile to give it a more consistent look and style throughout the profile.  I also cleaned up the sources section.

---

The name fields were a jumbled mess of names and titles written in 5 different languages (English, French, German, Dutch and Latin).  It was very confusing, difficult to read and difficult to look at.  I have changed his name so that it looks like what I think it should look like in wikitree:

Charlemagne (Karolus Magnus) "King of the Franks, Emperor of the West" Carolingian

It is still a bit long, but I think it is far less confusing to the casual user of wikitree.  His many other names and titles are in a name section where they can be added to and discussed as needed.

---

I really dislike the use of photographs as tiled background images.  I find them distracting and not very visually appealing.  Anyone have a better background image?

---

Maybe something using Aachen cathedral? (It has some rather nice geometrical views both inside and outside.)

---

Something from the Palatine Chapel then (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interior_of_Palatine_Chapel_in_Aachen), because the rest is much more recent than Charlemagne ?

I agree the current background is ugly. If nothing better is found, you may consider removing it altogether...

---

Joe, I might be a little nitpicking here but following the general style rules of WikiTree the use of English conventions for the locations strikes me a bit out of place. Perhaps for the time before the split into East and West we should use Latin (Regnum Francorum) since Latin was not only the administrative language but was also used by Charlemagne in his letters to his wives for instance, and it is a well established name for the state. As the progenitor of both France and the Holy Roman Empire we cannot use both French and German for locations at the same time.

---

I changed the background to something which is supposed to look like an illuminated manuscript.  If you think it looks too busy, I agree with Isabelle that we can change it to nothing or something much more plain.

Helmut, I am not sure if you are talking about the place names or the titles.  Do you mean to replace the word Francia with Regnum Francorum?  The very fact that I am a little confused is the reason why I would not want to use Latin.  Very close to zero percent of the readers of this page read Latin.  I think I might actually prefer the term Frankish Kingdom.  I know you are really well read on Charlemagne, but neither your nor even me are really the target audience of this profile.

Answer 2

Stewart Baldwin in The Henry Project argues that his birth date is probably 2 April 748.

Christian Settipani in his La Prehistoire des Capetiens also has 2 April 748 as his birth date using the same sources.

Settipani also has Charlemagne's birth place as near Aix-la-Chapelle (or Aachen) but I'm not sure of his source for that.  He also states that Charlemagne was baptised by Saint Bonifacius, Archbishop of Mainz (Mayence) but again I can't see a source cited.

Answer 3

Can I add that because Charlemagne's profile is so important both historically and genealogically that any changes must follow WikiTree style and standards, including sourcing exactly.  There can be no changes to what we might all individually prefer.

Thank you

Comments

John, I can remember having raised the issue of his unknown birthplace and the misnaming of birth and death places at least 2 years ago in G2G and nothing has happened since. Maybe the threat of actually doing something about these obvious mistakes gets things finally rolling. I do agree, though, that changes need to be sourced, but that standard should also apply to what is in the profile right now.

Answer 4

Be bold (I can't wait two weeks)...

The profile now reads ( I will add additional discussion and sourcing later):

Birth

Born: Probably 2 April 748

The day of his birth as April 2nd comes from Lorsch Calendar ("IIII. Non. Apr. Nativitatis domni et gloriosissimi Karoli imperatoris et semper Augusti.") and is widely accepted.^[3] It is the year of his birth which is uncertain. The contemporary historian Einhard wrote that Charlemagne was about age 71 at his death in 814. For this reason, the year of his birth is frequently given as 742. However, there are problems with this date and it does not match other records. He was certainly not born before the marriage of his parents which occurred in 744. The year is given as 747 in Annales Petaviani; however, there are reasons to think this is also wrong. The entry immediately before the birth of Charlemagne discusses the departure of his father for Rome which could not have been before 15 August 747. Also, 2 April 747 was Easter Sunday, and it is unthinkable that Charlemagne could have been born on Easter without it being a widely known and celebrated fact. Bercher points out that if Easter was being used as the beginning of the New Year, then 2 April 748 would still have been 747 in that calendar system. For these reasons, the most probable date of birth for Charlemagne is 2 April 748.

Place of birth: Unknown.

The place of birth of Charlemagne is not given in any contemporary document. He is often assumed to have to have been born in Aachen ( in present day North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) which was the center of Charlemagne's Frankish empire, but this not actually known. The royal court of the Franks frequently traveled from place to place, so Charlemagne could have been born in any of several cities. The best that can be said is that he was born in Francia (Kingdom of the Franks), almost certainly in the territory known as Austrasia.

Comments

Thumbs up! As to his birth date I'm trying to find a report I read a while back that forensic pathologists examining what is believed to be his cranium estimated the age as 66 years which would be another argument against the 742 based solely on Einhard saying he was 71.

For his place of birth there are some French historians arguing for Quierzy-sur-Oise (Abbé Caillet, Comité Archéologique et Historique de Noyon) which was in Neustria.

---

I could add even more ambiguity to his death place if you like.  I will say that I do not believe the arguments on that web site you gave.  I reads like someone championing a location based on modern nationalistic pride rather than sticking to the facts.  The problem I have with the argument is two fold.  It is based on presuming where Pepin was for Easter in 742.  However, I think most every modern historian now rejects the 742 birth year.  (Also, the author is saying that April 2 was Easter in 742 which I am pretty sure is wrong.)  Finally, as noted on the Henry pages, by Berger, and now on wikitree it is unthinkable that Charlemagne could have been born on Easter without it being widely known - it is one of the reasons to use the date 748 instead of 747.

It is not a bad approach.  If we use the year 748, we might ask where  was Pepin for Easter in 748?  I don't think this is known.  It probably still would not provide us with an answer however.  Easter in 748 was on April 21, so if Pepin was in say Aachen on Easter 748 that doesn't really tell us where he was on April 2nd.  Also, even if we know where Pepin was, we cannot assume that Bertrada was with him and gave birth to Charlemagne in the same location.

---

I agree with your interpretation of nationalist pride as the motivator for the article quoted, I'm just not sure that that didn't play a role in much of the other speculations regarding a birth place. I certainly would not advocate for Quierzy as birth place, just as a nod to our French friends maybe leaving the door open for the possibility that he was born in Neustria.

Answer 5

As for sources, here is what Cawley's Medieval Lands has to say on his birth and death and the sources the information came from:

CHARLES, son of PEPIN "le Bref" King of the Franks & his wife Bertrada [Berta] "au Grand Pied" ([near Aix-la-Chapelle[57]] 2 Apr [747/48]-Aix-la-Chapelle 28 Jan 814, bur Aix-la-Chapelle, Chapelle Sainte-Marie).  He is named first son of King Pépin and Bertrada in the Cartulaire of Saint-Bertin[58].  A calendar from Lorsch records the birth “IV Non Apr” of “Karoli imperatoris et semper augusti”[59].  The year of his birth is open to debate.  The Annales Fuldenses record his death in 814 at the age of about 71[60], which would suggest [742/43] which is inconsistent with the suggested marriage date of his parents (see above).  The Annalium Petavianorum Continuatio record the birth in 747 of “Karolus rex”[61].  Settipani suggests that this date should be considered “Old Style”.  This assumes (1) that the Lorsch calendar correctly records the day of his birth, (2) that the order of entries for that year in the Annalium Petavianorum Continuatio is chronological (the preceding sentence records Carloman’s departure for Rome which is dated to after 15 Aug 747[62]), and (3) that 2 Apr 747 was Easter Sunday which he suggests would have been noted in sources if it had been the emperor’s date of birth[63].  It seems preferable to indicate [747/48] as Charles’s possible date of birth.  The conjectures about Charles’s place of birth were discussed at length by Hahn in the mid-19th century[64] ... The necrology of Prüm records the death "814 V Kal Feb" of "Karolus imperator"[69].  The Annales Fuldenses record the death "814 V Kal Feb" of "Karolus imperator" at Aachen at the age of about 71[70].  The necrology of Saint-Germain-des-Prés records the death 814 “V Kal Feb” of “domni Karoli imperatoris”[71]. 

The footnotes are as follows: 

[57] Settipani (1993), p. 191. 

[58] Saint-Bertin, p. 56. 

[59] Mabillon, J. (1704) Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti, Tome II (Paris), p. 116. 

[60] Annales Fuldenses 814 MGH SS I, p. 356. 

[61] Annalium Petavianorum Continuatio, 747, MGH SS I, p. 11. 

[62] Halkin, J. & Roland, C. G. (1909) Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Stavelot-Malmédy (Brussels), 18, p. 51 [not yet consulted]. 

[63] Settipani (1993), p. 192, footnote 3 continued from previous page. 

[64] Hahn, M. ‘Sur le lieu de naissance de Charlemagne’, Mémoires Couronnés et autres mémoires publiés par l’Académie Royale des Sciences, des lettres et des beaux-art de Belgique, Tome XI (Brussels, 1861).  

[69] Annales Necrologici Prumienses, MGH SS XIII, p. 219. 

[70] Annales Fuldenses 814 MGH SS I, p. 356. 

[71] Longnon ‘Obituaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Germain des Prés’, p. 23. 

I think by European Aristocrats Project guidelines, a box for Medieval Lands should go at the bottom of the profile.