Sparked by LiR's mentioning of Charlemagne and the later division in 843 I did some quick search as it was for me one of the first history lessons in chidhood at school (with a big educational map hung up at the blackboard).

To start with the close entourage at the court of Charlemagne, which influenced him a lot...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einhard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angilbert
And his mother Bertha
which I remember from school as : Bertha met de brede voeten (or: de grote voeten) with the broad feet (the big feet)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrada_of_Laon
And his daughter, also a Bertha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrada_of_Laon
and after Louis the Pious, dividing Charles' empire along Frankish custom
https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesEurope/FranceMapAD843.htm



And that event had big persecutions in European history.

PS. And I forgot: Angilbert "retired" to the abbey of Saint Riquier
"In 790, Angilbert retired to the abbey of Centulum, the "Monastery of St Richarius" (Sancti Richarii monasterium) at present-day Saint-Riquier in Picardy.^[4] Elected abbot in 794,^[4] he rebuilt the monastery and endowed it with a library of 200 volumes.^[1] It was not uncommon for the Merovingian, Carolingian, or later kings to make laymen abbots of monasteries; the layman would often use the income of the monastery as his own and leave the monks a bare minimum for the necessary expenses of the foundation. Angilbert, in contrast, spent a great deal rebuilding Saint-Riquier; when he completed it, Charlemagne spent Easter of the year 800 there. In keeping with Carolingian policies, Angilbert established a school at Saint-Riquier to educate the local boys.^[5]

And to study the Charlemagne era more in depth I have the intention to buy
https://www.amazon.com/Era-Charlemagne-Frankish-State-Society/dp/0882759051

Tomorrow my comments...

Kind regards from Paul.

To reinvigorate my thread, as I see now my title is to broad a subject to comment it as a whole, I would rather ask nordmann, to change to a narrowing of the eventual discussion to only the Palace school with the teachers that I mentioned and who Charlemagne had invited from allover Europe to start with Alcuin of York. If nordmann want to do that, he can perhaps use : "Charlemagne and the Palace school" or the "Carolingian Renaissance" or a more appropriated title from himself.

I did last evening already some preliminary research to stuff such a subject.

Kind regards from Paul.

Paul, as author of the thread's opening post you can always change the title yourself. Just go back to the post and use the "edit" button. Not only can this be used to edit your opening text, but since you are the author you will also see that the title itself is presented in an editable form.

Personally I can't suggest any alternative title for this thread - mainly since I don't know why you brought it up except to present us with loads of links to various internet articles about a man whose history we are all here largely familiar with and can see no significant departure from that standard history in your opening posts.

A discussion thread works best, regardless of subject matter, if one opens with a proposition for debate. Once this is established then you can knock yourself out with how many links and quotes you wish (at the risk of boring the reader of course and defeating the purpose of the exercise). But for me to suggest an alternative title I would first need to know what your proposition might be in this case, and I don't.

My renewed interest in Charlemagne sprang as I said from my having forgotten that half of Lorraine in France spoke a sort of German called platt or francique.  That was about a year ago.  I realised that I personally only had a somewhat skeletal knowledge of Charlemagne's life - other contributors to this site may and probably do have a more in depth knowledge of the subject.  I've finally got around to looking at primary references for Charlemagne which was why I asked the question (which nordmann kindly answered) about the meaning of "lent" in the late Mr Turner's translation of Einhard's work.  I'm mostly doing my study of work of Einhard on Charlemagne off this forum, though if there is something I don't understand I hope I won't be discouraged from asking the question.  Nobody is obliged to answer any question of course.

That's a perfectly valid approach to a discussion about Charlemagne, LiR, and I hope you aren't thinking that I am trying to discourage it. In that case maybe Paul can change the topic to something like "Charlemagne, who was he?" and then his opening posts and almost all questions raised following your own criteria are in perfect accord and the ensuing discussion makes sense. In fact there is much about Charlemagne that people think they know, or assume incorrectly that they know, to justify just such a discussion on a history board thread, and not only for people approaching the subject from a point of admitted ignorance about the man or his place in history.

Paul's apparent wish now to concentrate on Charlemagne's role in invigorating a renewed intellectual renaissance in Europe (or at least that bit under his control) represents in fact a very typical area of common misconception about both the man and the times he lived in. I for one would welcome just such a narrow discussion as it would allow me to reiterate points I have made before about general scholastic levels and influences that existed in his day and which are often badly under-represented in conventional histories.

However a general discussion first about any or all other such misconceptions that might also highlight where conventional history fails us with regard to Charlemagne is also welcome. So, as I said, it is really up to Paul to define the scope of the conversation he wishes and therefore arrive at a suitable thread title himself.

Einhard is a perfect launching point for many aspects to that kind of discussion in fact. He is simultaneously the source of much of what we know about Charlemagne as well as many of the misconceptions that have entered conventional histories about the same man. So I look forward to both Paul's refinement of his original intention with this thread and any input from yourself, especially given your recent reacquaintanceship with this particular source.

I know summarising is not necessarily my strongest suit, nordmann, so I didn't go into detail when I mentioned Einhard on another thread, but Professor Rosamond had pointed out that Einhard was a friend of Charlemagne and therefore there wouldn't be anything negative about Charlemagne in E's life of C.  I had to start somewhere and a short work like Einhard's seemed a good enough place to start (and I see above that you are in agreement with that).  I realise that some of the people who contribute to this board have history qualifications and knowledge of primary sources.  However looking at primary sources is new to me.  I can enjoy a historical novel (and even a modern non-fiction work about a period of history) but I have to try to be aware that novelists sometimes bend the facts for an entertaining yarn.

I've found another translation of Einhard's Life of Charlemagne on archive.org, this one by A J Grant (1862-1948).  It's still in an old-fashioned style but (as far as I can tell) AJG isn't trying to copy Suetonius' (Suetonius's) style of writing.  He uses the translation "Pippin" for the name "Pepin" (Charlemagne's father)*.  It's a bit unfortunate that "pippin" makes me think of apples.  I think nordmann said the other translator I'd looked at, S E Turner, should be cut some slack because he was after all trying to write in the style of the work he was translating.  I had forgotten - if I ever knew - that Charlemagne's father had usurped the throne, with apparently some connivance from the then Pope.

I was interested to read that Pepin had at first ruled jointly with his brother, Carloman, ** but that Carloman had given up the throne to become a contemplative monk.  Of course, I wondered if Pepin had ousted Carloman but reading through the text it does seem that Carloman's desire to live quietly was genuine.  Many Frankish nobles going on pilgrimage to Rome would make a detour to visit their former king which didn't suit his wish to live a quiet life.  "For, seeing that the number of his visitors interfered with his purpose, he left Mount Soracte and retired to the monastery of Saint Benedict, situated in the camp of Monte Cassino in the province of Samarium".

* I realise most people will know who Pepin was but I was thinking of all eventualities, say if a visitor to this site landed on this post.

** It was confusing (to me) as Pepin had a son called Carloman as well as a brother so named.

Edited: if this comment seems a bit quirky in relation to this thread I posted it originally when the thread was still a general thread about Charlemagne and not the palace school.

A celebrated rebus re Pepin :







                                                                                               G

Alas, the celebrated rebus isn't showing up on my computer screen, G....or is it supposed to refer to the "Air on a G String" tune.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

Alas, the celebrated rebus isn't showing up on my computer screen, G....or is it supposed to refer to the "Air on a G String" tune.

Err, LiR and others, that "Air on a G string" put a picture in my head that might be smelly. 
I'd rather be without that, if you don't mind.

___________________________________________
|                                                                   |
|                                                                   |
|                                                                   |
|                                                                   |
|                                                                   |
|                                                                 G|
___________________________________________

Still puzzled? Try http://graner.net/nicolas/desdi/roi-pepin.html

Oh Gilgamesh,

With puzzles I don't even do soduko.

Now I've seen the link I understand

"gemit* dans son coin" - groaned in his corner

* should be an acute accent on the e.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

Oh Gilgamesh,

With puzzles I don't even do soduko.

Now I've seen the link I understand

"gemit* dans son coin" - groaned in his corner

* should be an acute accent on the e.

Gil, 

I join LiR, with your "puzzles" we have always trouble ...remember Lichfield Cathedral...and others about a wooden tree...and yes that Adhemar (our dialect: Ademaar) seems even worser than you

Yes LiR an "accent aigu" is needed...

Kind regards to both from Paul.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

I've found another translation of Einhard's Life of Charlemagne on archive.org, this one by A J Grant (1862-1948).  It's still in an old-fashioned style but (as far as I can tell) AJG isn't trying to copy Suetonius' (Suetonius's) style of writing.  He uses the translation "Pippin" for the name "Pepin" (Charlemagne's father)*.  It's a bit unfortunate that "pippin" makes me think of apples.  I think nordmann said the other translator I'd looked at, S E Turner, should be cut some slack because he was after all trying to write in the style of the work he was translating.  I had forgotten - if I ever knew - that Charlemagne's father had usurped the throne, with apparently some connivance from the then Pope.

I was interested to read that Pepin had at first ruled jointly with his brother, Carloman, ** but that Carloman had given up the throne to become a contemplative monk.  Of course, I wondered if Pepin had ousted Carloman but reading through the text it does seem that Carloman's desire to live quietly was genuine.  Many Frankish nobles going on pilgrimage to Rome would make a detour to visit their former king which didn't suit his wish to live a quiet life.  "For, seeing that the number of his visitors interfered with his purpose, he left Mount Soracte and retired to the monastery of Saint Benedict, situated in the camp of Monte Cassino in the province of Samarium".

* I realise most people will know who Pepin was but I was thinking of all eventualities, say if a visitor to this site landed on this post.

** It was confusing (to me) as Pepin had a son called Carloman as well as a brother so named.

Lady,

"I had forgotten - if I ever knew - that Charlemagne's father had usurped the throne, with apparently some connivance from the then Pope."

In my opinion it was not Pepin (Pippin) (we say: Pepijn de Korte (the short)), but his father the major domus of the Merovingian kings who had prepared the ground for Pepin and was already de facto ruler during the Merovingians. I have to say after a lot of fight and intrigues and yes already as later his son, with the help of the Church. 
But it would only under the clever Pepin that the cooperation with the Church would be sealed by his anointment. And that was important while this was the start of the marriage of lay power with church power, as the king now anointed would rule on earth with the grace of God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepin_the_Short

"But it would only under the clever Pepin that the cooperation with the Church would be sealed by his anointment. And that was important while this was the start of the marriage of lay power with church power, as the king now anointed would rule on earth with the grace of God."


I read it several times in other historybooks, but here the trick is also well explained:
"As mayor of the palace, Pepin was formally subject to the decisions of Childeric III who had only the title of King but no power. Since Pepin had control over the magnates and actually had the power of a king, he now addressed to Pope Zachary a suggestive question:
In regard to the kings of the Franks who no longer possess the royal power: is this state of things proper?
Hard pressed by the Lombards, Pope Zachary welcomed this move by the Franks to end an intolerable condition and lay the constitutional foundations for the exercise of the royal power. The Pope replied that such a state of things is not proper. In these circumstances, the de facto power was considered more important than the de jure authority.
After this decision the throne was declared vacant. Childeric III was deposed and confined to a monastery. He was the last of the Merovingians.
Pepin was then elected King of the Franks by an assembly of Frankish nobles, with a large portion of his army on hand. The earliest account of his election and anointing is the Clausula de Pippino written around 767. Meanwhile, Grifo continued his rebellion, but was eventually killed in the battle of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne in 753.
Pepin was assisted by his friend Vergilius of Salzburg, an Irish monk who probably used a copy of the "Collectio canonum Hibernensis" (an Irish collection of canon law) to advise him to receive royal unction to assist his recognition as king.^[4] Anointed a first time in 751 in Soissons, Pepin added to his power after Pope Stephen II traveled all the way to Paris to anoint him a second time in a lavish ceremony at the Basilica of St Denis in 754, bestowing upon him the additional title of patricius Romanorum (Patrician of the Romans) and is the first recorded crowning of a civil ruler by a Pope. Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. 1. New York: Oxford University 
As life expectancies were short in those days, and Pepin wanted family continuity, the Pope also anointed Pepin's sons, Charles (eventually known as Charlemagne), who was 12, and Carloman, who was 3.

And yes Carloman brother and Carloman son.

Kind regards from Paul.

Are you dismissing Zachary as "conniving"? I am a little worried (and I am no fan of popes) that you are dissing one of the good ones (the guy who eventually abolished Roman slavery and used up all his money to "buy" all the slaves in Rome - maybe even the last bona fide Christian pope in fact) as someone whose efforts to quell Merovingian rivalries and set himself up as an honest broker in matters European regal, which did indeed facilitate the rise of the Carolingian dynasty in a then peripheral territory, should be seen as "conniving" or playing a "trick". Irish monastic tradition might have a huge reason to dislike his European interventions, but even then they spoke highly of the guy.

The Frankish elevation of what had been a local dynastic school to elevate sons of nobility into a full court role up to a quasi-seminarian college to train future kings in the art of pan-European obeisance to a Roman spiritual ruler may be seen in some quarters as "proof" that they had "come of age" in how "proper" rulers should behave. But in Ireland it was seen amongst the missionary monasteries as a dangerous move by the Roman authorities against what Rome blatantly thought of as maverick theologies. I'm not sure Charlemagne (for whom no Irish word exists) was ever popular outside Roman Europe, and certainly his "palace school" was seen as anything but a school in the educational sense by those who, for about 500 years already, had long defined and operated "schools" in that part of the world already.

Lady,

to come back on Charlemagne's palace school.

Was it the genius of Charles that was responsable for "collecting" the renowned literate men from allover Europe, especially from Italy and England, Ireland and to have made a school with them, under the lead from Alcuinus? Or was Charles just one of the many as the Merovingians, the Pippinids, who had also palace schools?

As I read it, Charles' school under the leading Alcuin was a bit as a boys band, where there was a non formal way of teaching. Every one had nicknames from classical and bible narration.
http://ilsalottobistro.com/ilcau/curriculum6ke/alcuin-scholar-advisor-and-friend-to-charlemagne-annotated-47.html
From this site:
"Alcuin joined an illustrious group of scholars that Charlemagne had gathered around him, the mainsprings of the Carolingian Renaissance: Peter of Pisa, Paulinus of Aquileia, Rado and Abbot Fulrad. Alcuin would later write that the Lord was calling me to the service of King Charles.He was welcomed at the Palace School of Charlemagne in Aachen (Urbs Regale) in 782.
It had been founded by the king’s ancestors as a place for the education of the royal children (mostly in manners and the ways of the court). However, Charlemagne wanted to include the liberal arts and, most importantly, the study of the religion that he held sacred.
From 782-790, Alcuin taught Charlemagne himself, his sons Pepin and Louis, the young men sent to be educated at court and the young clerics attached to the palace chapel. Bringing with him from York his assistants Pyttel, Sigewulf and Joseph, Alcuin revolutionized the educational standards of the Palace School, introducing Charlemagne to the liberal arts and creating a personalised atmosphere of scholarship and learning,"

And further about Alcuin:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alcuin
From the site:
 "In 781 he met Charlemagne in Italy and accepted his invitation to Aachen, where the king was gathering the leading Irish, English, and Italian scholars of the age. The school, where Charlemagne himself, his family, his friends, and his friends’ sons were taught, became a lively centre of discussion and exchange of knowledge. Alcuin introduced the methods of English learning into the Frankish schools, systematized the curriculum, raised the standards of scholarship, and encouraged the study of liberal arts for the better understanding of spiritual doctrine."

"Alcuin introduced the methods of English learning into the Frankish schools"
And this is more a question for nordmann...
I read that in England and Ireland, the Latin teaching and former Roman methods survived more than in continental Western Europe, where there was a bigger gap with the former Roman empire and thus also the Roman teaching methods? And also that Latin speaking and studying Latin texts survived more there than on the continent?

And further about Alcuin for those interested:
http://scihi.org/alcuin-york-carolingian-renaissance/

But enough about Alcuin and back to Charlemagne. After all it was Alcuin's most ardent student.

Charles seems to have been very eager to learn. Although he never could write, he mastered Latin and Greek and could probably read.
There seems to be many visions about who Charles really was and what he has achieved.
If you read German sources, he is many times "de hemel in geprezen" (praised into the heaven) (they translate with: said to have been an amazing guy)
It is unbelievable how nowadays, even among history buffs, there is still a modern nationalistic feeling, where one nation or another claim Charlemagne for their own.
I once took part in a debate on a French forum about: Was Charlemagne German? I and a lot of others replied that in that time there was only one conquested new regio called Francia. And then they asked what language the guy spoke? In my opinion he had not one language but was multilingual, perhaps with some preference for some Germanic dialect?

Also about the Carolingian Renaissance there are many opinions. I read a French standard work about the middle ages and there these renaisance was a bit belitled, as indeed when one compare with the later achievements it was only a small start around this Carolingian palace school for later bigger advances, as perhaps the Ottonian renaissance. But in my humble opinion it set the trend in the Frankish kingdom, from which later bigger knowledge blossemed further.

But yes, when one compare with the "House of Wisdom" in the Arab world from plus minus the same time, this arab school is towering high above the Carolingian palace school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom
From this site:
"Following his predecessors, Al-Ma'mun would send expeditions of scholars from the House of Wisdom to collect texts from foreign lands. In fact, one of the directors of the House was sent to Constantinople with this purpose. During this time, Sahl ibn Harun, a Persian poet and astrologer, was the chief librarian of the Bayt al-Hikma. Hunayn ibn Ishaq (809–873) an Arab Nestorian Christian physician and scientist, was the most productive translator producing 116 works for the Arabs. The patron of this foundation was under Caliphe Al-Ma'mun. Al-Ma'mun established the House of Wisdom, putting Hunayn ibn Ishaq in charge, who then became the most celebrated translator of Greek texts. As "Sheikh of the translators" he was placed in charge of the translation work by the caliph. Hunayn ibn Ishaq translated the entire collection of Greek medical books, including famous pieces by Galen and Hippocrates.^[18] The Sabian Thābit ibn Qurra (826–901) also translated great works by Apollonius, Archimedes, Euclid and Ptolemy. Translations of this era were superior to earlier ones, since the new Abbasid scientific tradition required better and better translations, and the emphasis was many times put in incorporating new ideas to the ancient works being translated.^[10] [19] By the second half of the ninth century Al-Ma'mun's Bayt al-Hikma was the greatest repository of books in the world and had become one of the greatest hubs of intellectual activity in the Middle Ages, attracting the most brilliant Arab and Persian minds.^[13] The House of Wisdom eventually acquired a reputation as a center of learning, although universities as we know them did not yet exist at this time — knowledge was transmitted directly from teacher to student, without any institutional surrounding. Maktabs soon began to develop in the city from the 9th century on, and in the 11th century, Nizam al-Mulk founded the Al-Nizamiyya of Baghdad, one of the first institutions of higher education in Iraq Al-Mutawakkil"


Was Charlemagne another Al-Ma'mun?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27mun

And again as with the example of the Germans above, there are big discussions and now even among real historians. On a French forum the discussion about:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/world/europe/28iht-politicus.2.12398698.html
Aristote au Mont Saint Michel by Gouguenheim had to be closed due to the vitriolic exchanges...
Even French historians clashed in the universities and on the political national level 
I tried to bring the discussion to the Anglo-Saxon world with my thread on the BBC: No Renaissance without Islam?
Again it is unbelievable how mostly rational persons becomes irrational in such discussions. One can compare it with, perhaps better known in the Anglo-Saxon world, of the Black Athena discussions and Sheik Diop and if I recall it well also a Black Nefertite...

Kind regards from Paul.

Sorry, nordmann, crossed posts. And now too late to react. See you tomorrow.

Kind regards from Paul.

nordmann wrote:

Are you dismissing Zachary as "conniving"? I am a little worried (and I am no fan of popes) that you are dissing one of the good ones (the guy who eventually abolished Roman slavery and used up all his money to "buy" all the slaves in Rome - maybe even the last bona fide Christian pope in fact) as someone whose efforts to quell Merovingian rivalries and set himself up as an honest broker in matters European regal, which did indeed facilitate the rise of the Carolingian dynasty in a then peripheral territory, should be seen as "conniving" or playing a "trick". Irish monastic tradition might have a huge reason to dislike his European interventions, but even then they spoke highly of the guy.

The Frankish elevation of what had been a local dynastic school to elevate sons of nobility into a full court role up to a quasi-seminarian college to train future kings in the art of pan-European obeisance to a Roman spiritual ruler may be seen in some quarters as "proof" that they had "come of age" in how "proper" rulers should behave. But in Ireland it was seen amongst the missionary monasteries as a dangerous move by the Roman authorities against what Rome blatantly thought of as maverick theologies. I'm not sure Charlemagne (for whom no Irish word exists) was ever popular outside Roman Europe, and certainly his "palace school" was seen as anything but a school in the educational sense by those who, for about 500 years already, had long defined and operated "schools" in that part of the world already.

nordmann,

I had first to search the translation of "conniving" and "dissing" (yes after all those years reading English books and seventeen years on English language messageboards)

"I read it several times in other historybooks, but here the trick is also well explained:
"As mayor of the palace, Pepin was formally subject to the decisions of Childeric III who had only the title of King but no power. Since Pepin had control over the magnates and actually had the power of a king, he now addressed to Pope Zachary a suggestive question:
In regard to the kings of the Franks who no longer possess the royal power: is this state of things proper?
Pepin was assisted by his friend Vergilius of Salzburg, an Irish monk who probably used a copy of the "Collectio canonum Hibernensis" (an Irish collection of canon law) to advise him to receive royal unction to assist his recognition as king"


No, not Zacharius I saw as the conniving guy, but rather Pepin as the clever culprit...and he knew that Zachary was in a difficult situation with his Lombards...
And Pepin was assisted by his friend Vergilius of Salzburg, an Irish monk who probably used a copy of the "Collectio canonum Hibernensis" (an Irish collection of canon law) to advise him to receive royal unction to assist his recognition as king.


Those Irish seems to be mingled a bit everywhere in European affairs? Was it because they were on a high level of knowledge at that time in Ireland? I asked something in the same trend in my message of yesterday, as if the Anglo-Saxon world of those days was on a higher level, perhaps together with Italy, than the rest of Europe?


But in my opinion not only the unction was important, although perhaps as I said for later ages as the king by the grace of God, but also the lay Germanic customs, as the raising on the shield, by "his" magnates.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30224250?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


And now I see for the first time in my life, that also a Roman emperor was raised on the shield and it later came custom in Byzantium...
We, 8 years old, were teached the "raising on the shield" with beautiful pictures (i see now that it is called "schoolplaten" or "wandplaten" and if you want to see them you have to type this entry in Google) hanged before the blackboard as such one:


Kind regards from Paul.

I was taking "raising on the shield" as more along these lines, Paul :

Though not to do with the palace school, I am still working my way through Einhard's Life of Charlemagne on a little but often basis and while I admire Charlemagne's achievements on one hand, there does seem to have been something belligerently imperialistic in his character concerning his wars against others.  It's one thing to go to war in defence of one's own land, quite another to go to war against another country just for the sake of "land up for grabs".

Green George wrote:

I was taking "raising on the shield" as more along these lines, Paul :

Gil,

yes that Franco-Belgian cooperation (although I have still the impression that it was rather Belgo-French cooperation) has resulted in great work, as Lucky Luke and the Daltons. I have read that many in the time.

I read in the time that the Asterix work was rather sticking to accurate representations. But see now this article from:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8884175/Asterix-history-debunked-but-Gaul-myth-will-endure.html
Asterix history debunked but Gaul myth will endure
I let it ot nordmann to decide if it is a myth overhere...I think that it is a myth according to nordmann's lessons...
And a less rigorous report than those French academici..
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/ancient-history/real-asterix-the-colorful.html

Always those nitpicking historians...are we overhere also from such a "genre"? Nothing better than a good story, especially in cartoon strips (bandes dessinées)

And at least that "raising on the shield" seems to be historical. Seemingly original from the Germanic peoples, but perhaps a custom taken over by the Gaulish...if even the Roman emperor took it over...

I tried to verify as with the article of "Raising on a shield" from "Hans Teitler", but there you had to pay nearly 50 Euro on Jstor to read it. Also for others you have to do all kind of actions to have access and I think even pay...for one you had to give the name of your company otherwise you had no access..
https://en.calameo.com/books/000675905c178c371ac7a
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02901555
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225641332_Raising_on_a_shield_Origin_and_afterlife_of_a_coronation_ceremony

No it isn't anymore as in our BBC times...now you have to pay for everything...and I have not such a device to pay (and that is perhaps a good thing) and for that I have to ask the grandaughter or grandson...and they have also their life...the more since this question is not life threatening...

Kind regards from your friend Paul.

PS. As I am always that serious , "I have not made myself" ("ik heb mijn eigen niet gemaakt" Dutch expres​sion(or Southern Dutch?)). Both!!!my parents said they did it...

deleted

LadyinRetirement wrote:

Though not to do with the palace school, I am still working my way through Einhard's Life of Charlemagne on a little but often basis and while I admire Charlemagne's achievements on one hand, there does seem to have been something belligerently imperialistic in his character concerning his wars against others.  It's one thing to go to war in defence of one's own land, quite another to go to war against another country just for the sake of "land up for grabs".

Lady,

"his character"?

They were all the same, otherwise they became no leaders and rulers...
And Eginard had to make an eulogy for Charlemagne, thus he had certainly to include these facts as they were really important for the esteem of his magnates and lesser people...


Kind regards from Paul.

deleted

Green George wrote:

I was taking "raising on the shield" as more along these lines, Paul :

Gil and Paul,

Here by my side, metaphorically - but still in my possession, I have most of the first Danish editions of Asterix albums.
A wiki article on the translation claim that the first translator put it/them very close to the basic Danish-Latin tutorials of the time.

LiR and Paul,

The claim that Charlemagne was imperialistic and then your comments following are, in my humble opinion, an attempt at judging him and his times by todays morals and values, which, again imho, after more than a millenium is a serious mistake.

My regrets, Paul, that I repeat you just in other words.

I was thinking of something in chapter 20 of Einhard's Life of Charlemagne where reference is made to a conspiracy in Germany where some of the rebels were banished unmutilated but some were blinded.  That seems cruel to me.  I know Charlemagne was not the only dark ages/medieval ruler whose ruthlessness had a streak of cruelty.  Einhard says Charlemagne may have been influenced by his wife, Fastrada.  Of course empires were always built with a streak of savagery including the British Empire.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

I was thinking of something in chapter 20 of Einhard's Life of Charlemagne where reference is made to a conspiracy in Germany where some of the rebels were banished unmutilated but some were blinded.  That seems cruel to me.  I know Charlemagne was not the only dark ages/medieval ruler whose ruthlessness had a steak of cruelty.  Einhard says Charlemagnecmay have been influenced by his wife, Fastrada.  Of course empires were always built with a streak of savagery including the British Empire.

Lady,

thanks to you I learned about Fastrada.
Yes the ladies were a match for the men. And I join Nielsen: you have always to look to the mores of the time to make a judgement...I think...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastrada
But that lady of that other time was perhaps no better?
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Agrippina

Kind regards from Paul.