Talk:Grimoald the Elder

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Srnec in topic Major dates in Grimoald's life

Name of Grimoald edit

I'm completely ignorant of a Grimoald the Younger, since plain Grimoald won't do for the title of this page. I look forward to at least a stub. --Wetman 11:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

The link goes to Grimoald II on the aforementioned disambiguation page. --King of All the Franks 13:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Grimoald the Younger is Grimoald II. I've never seen him called "the Younger". Srnec 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Whether called Grimoald the Younger or Grimoald II—indeed one might have predicted such a person simply from the locution "Grimoald I"— this figure is still perfectly obscure to me. --Wetman 03:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I didn't start Grimoald II, so I'm not sure who he was. --King of All the Franks 13:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I was merely stating that he is not called "the Younger" in English (he is in German). But of course from the byname "the Elder" it is obvious that a younger Grimoald existed. His article, a stub, has been created at Grimoald II (by me). Srnec 22:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ah, okay. I guess Grimoald the Younger is a redirect, then? --King of All the Franks 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Major dates in Grimoald's life edit

Richard Gerberding, in The Rise of the Carolingians and the Liber Historiae Francorum, says that Grimoald's coup was 651 and that he died before Clovis in 656.

Patrick Geary, in Before France and Germany, has proposed by contrast that the Liber Historiae Francorum made a spelling error: in which case, Chlothar annexed Austrasia in 661, deposing the young usurper and executing them both the next year. Geary otherwise did not address Gerberding's findings directly.

There is a rather good lemma on the topic in "Carolingian Propaganda: Kingship by the Hand of God", the Senior Thesis of one Isak M C Sexson.

He prefers Gerberding's dates, and in my view lays out an excellent case for them. -- Zimriel 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

But we must keep all scholarly propositions in the article. Srnec 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply