NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Wolfgang Köberer
Date: 2009 Nov 4, 10:56 +0100
As may well be known on
the list I rather sympathize with George’s notions of trying to be
precise – so put me in the bag of “self-appointed pedants
extraordinaires” that Peter has opened, too.
And as such let me point
out that Peter’s “learned” statements about languages are
nonsense, which could be explained by the fact that he looks at
Wolfgang
Von:
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. November
2009 08:38
An:
Betreff: [NavList 10424] Re:
Portuguese shipwreck question
After making some enquiries and giving this matter more thought, I
don't think that Laon can be reasonably discounted as the Frankish capital
alluded to, although Aachen in modern Germany; Charlemagne's capital, is
another possibility, if an outside chance as it does not seem to have remained
a Frankish capital over an extended period.
To complicate matters further, Charlemagne nominated Rome as the joint
capital (with Aachen) of the Frankish empire, and upon his somewhat doubtful
coronation in Rome as Holy Roman Emperor (where everybody concerned seems
to have been confused about what was going on and what the significance may
have been, not least Charlemagne himself) in theory he inherited Byzantium
as the recognized capital of the Roman Empire, although that notion was
furiously disputed by the then Byzantine powers-that-be. As you would,
short of successful invasion and occupation by the barbarians. The Franks
typically spent all their lives fighting, but never got quite that far,
although it was a huge empire. Which reminds me that the idea of a
capital, or 'Seat' is
unlikely to have had for those rulers the significance it has for us, as those
pugnacious leaders spent so much time in the saddle, with a relatively small
supporting administrative base, and all of these places were small towns by
modern standards.
Perhaps the most powerful evidence for someplace other than
Paris is the choice of appellation: 'Seat
of the King of the Franks'. Paris, which was in
1140 the relatively new capital of the relatively new dynasty of French
kings, was for centuries earlier, since Roman times, an important
centre but never seems to have been recognised as the capital of the
Franks.
George argues sweetly:
"I presume that the
intervening 150 years would allow time for that news to
reach Marseilles."
The same period would have just as presumably allowed news of the
change of regime to filter through. Perhaps the chronicle is deliberately
worded 'Seat of the King of the Franks'
to exclude Paris, the then impudent upstart capital of the emerging French
nation.
As one illustration of how France and the Frankish
empire were not quite the same thing, as the words George uses implies,
the most common language of the Franks was the lingua franca of the Rhine (literal
meaning: Frankish language !) or Low German, whose descendants today
are Flemish and Dutch. The French language, then as now, was based on a
corrupted form of Latin.
George, as a self-appointed pedant extraordinaire, there can be little
excuse for misquoting your own source. You claim:
"No, not [Laon] after 987AD, when Hugues Capet shifted the capital
of the Franks to
Paris. Or so says the reference to Laon in Encyclopedia Brittanica"
Well, this is what the EB has to say on the matter:
"Laon was the medieval capital of the Carolingian kings. Hugh Capet, however, who
became king in 987, seized the town with the connivance of the local bishop and
then moved the capital to Paris."
Kindly note that the date for the move, after taking the town, is
not stated, although it presumably occurred before 996 when this first French
king died in Paris. I realise its a minor point but I know how you
like setting straight minor points; the more minor the merrier.
Laon remained an important centre for some centuries, as the EB goes on
to recount:
"In the 12th century Laon revolted against the authority of the
bishops, but Louis VI quashed the
rebellion. During the Hundred Years’ War
(1337–1453) Laon changed hands a number of times but was finally retaken
by the French king. The bishopric was abolished in 1790 during the French Revolution."
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Peter Fogg wrote:
George says:
No, not [Laon] after 987AD, when Hugues Capet shifted the capital of
the Franks to
Paris. Or so says the reference to Laon in Encyclopedia Brittanica (it's a
period about which my own ignorance is total).
I presume that the intervening 150 years would allow time for that news to
reach Marseilles.
I've
been troubled by similar doubts since I wrote earlier. Its true that
Laon's period as capital belongs to the first millennium. By 1140 the era of
the French kings had got underway and, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica says, the capital was moved by
them back to
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
NavList message boards: www.fer3.com/arc
Or post by email to: NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList+@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---