Talk:Robertians

Variance with German Wiki

I have linked the German version of this article. It seems (in typical German fashion), very thorough, well researched and documented. Unfortunately, it varies from the English article. I don’t know which is more correct, but over time the differences should be looked over.--CSvBibra 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I went to a research library got a hard copy of the primary reference of the German Wikipedia article.

• Schwennicke, Detlev. Europäische Stammtafeln: Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der Europäischen Staaten, Neue Folge. [European Family Trees: Family Trees for the History of European States, New Series.] BAND II, Tafel 10: Die Robertiner I und die Anfänge des Hauses Capet, 922-923 König der Westfranken, Marburg, Verlag von J.A. Stargardt (1984)

This is modern thorough source on the Robertiner and it is consistent with the German wikipedia but not the current genealogical work in the English Wikipedia. Is there any reason not to change the English wikipedia to comply?--CSvBibra 00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the German version, by Detlev, is accepted and standard enough that one will usually find it cited simply as ES(NS). to differentiate from the original by Prinz Isenburg, (ES). In English, the family is usually referred to as the Robertins. This is in keeping with the modern scholarly practice of naming the Corolingian (and sometimes Merovingian) sections of Franco-German noble families of the pre-millenial era after the first notable member or the most common recurring nmale name in the patrilineage of the family.

The English version, I found to be, (though others, as, for example: the author thereof, may, (and some, undoubtedly shall) disagree, foreshortened, (the family can, tentatively, be traced back to a 'Chrodobert' of the sixth or seventh century, under the Merovingians), simplistic, understated, (which can be unhelpful in a supposedly informative piece), and repetedly redundant. No, that's not punning. More than once things are said more than twice. With all due respect and appreciation, (and I know that neither is often enough given), SMOMMSS 16:42, 5 September 2015 (CDT)

I realize this discussion is stale, but it should be pointed out that part of the reason the German version is so much more detailed is that it is following one author's specific reconstructions, but much of this material is highly speculative, constructed from the assumption that people named Robert or Lambert should have been related to each other, not based on evidence that they were. As a result you get as many different versions as there are authors. In such circumstances, one can always write a more elaborate, detailed pedigree based on one source than based on the whole body of sources, because it lets one gloss over all of the uncertainties. (Compare to French Wikipedia, where the hypothetical basis of many of these connections is more clearly highlighted.) There also have been different historiographical schools of thought on some of the big-picture groupings, with French and German sources tending to favor different alternative reconstructions. If we simply recapitulate German Wikipedia, we would be inevitably biasing the article in several ways. Agricolae (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Move

This article used to be called Robertians. So far as I can tell, Robertians is conventional and Robertian dynasty is not. A similar gulf separates the two on Google scholar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator noteSince there've been no objections, I'm moving the page.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 18:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

'With fealty (sometimes mixed with rancor) to the Carolingians they held the power of West Francia through the whole period of the Carolingian Empire; and from 888 to 987 theirs was the last extant kingdom of that house until they were succeeded by their own (Robertian) lineage, the house of Capet' seems a confusing sentence.

Does this mean they they were powerful in Western Francia once it had emerged within the Empire in 843 until the death of Charles the Bald in 888, after which they were powerful in post-imperial Western Francia? But the sentence could be misunderstood as meaning that they were powerful in the western parts of the Empire from the time of Charlemagne, which wasn't the case. It also skips the reign of the Robertian (not Carolingian) Odo of France from 888 - 898.

I'm uncertain about 'held the power', too, as it suggests a level of dominance which no family had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.155.65 (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC) 105.224.155.65 (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Tree at end

An IP has just shuffled around the relationships in the table of Robertians at the end of the article, saying they are showing the 'correct' relationships. They don't cite any sources, and under normal circumstances I would revert, but the thing is, the original cited no sources, and I can't say the new arrangement is any less 'correct' that the previous version - the real problem is that it is all just so speculative that there are as many different reconstructions as there are people who have written on the subject, and I would question whether any specific tree isn't simply an arbitrary choice from among a web of contradictory solutions. Agricolae (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)