This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Supplinburger dynasty page were merged into Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor on 23 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Genealogy is useless enough, but "(with von Haldensleben family connection)" was an especially useless aside. In ALL EUROPEAN LANGUAGES there is a space between punctuation and the SUBSEQUENT word. He's Henry the Lion, not Henry the Lyon. MichaelTinkler
What's more, he's Lothar II until someone can tell me when there was an Emperor Lothar II between 855 and 1125. And lose this idiotic surname nonsense. He was count of Supplinburg: he didn't go round introducing himself as "Lothar Supplinburg". User:David Parker
"He is sometimes referred to as Lothair III." This needs to be expanded for the Wikipedia reader who may be wondered why? -- Wetman 11:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The Staufens, who had the support of their own lands plus support in many imperial cities, Austria, and much of Lower Lorraine, raised Conrad as antiking Conrad III." I don't understand the last part of this particularly 'antiking'. Rogertudor 18:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
The summary box at the bottom of the article has Lothair III as King of Italy, from 1128 - 1137, with a minor, very confusing sentence within the article itself. This is incorrect - Conrad III was crowned King of Italy when he travelled down to Italy in 1128, and renounced the title in 1135. The error in the article looks like it arose due to some of the text in this article (the part dealing with his coronation by the Archbishop of Milan) originally coming from Conrad III's article. This has now been fixed. Oatley2112 ( talk) 05:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure were in the article to stick this information. I leave it to more experienced wikipedians:
Lothar died on December 5th, 1137 in Upper Bavaria and was buried 500 Km north, at the castle of Koenigslutter. Transportation of the body probably took several weeks. To avoid decay and putrefaction the body was defleshed and boiled for about 6 hours. This was proven by a chemial analysis of his remains. The paper names him "Lothar I".
J.L. Bada, B. Herrmann, I.L.Payan and E.H.Man (1989) Amino acid racemization in bone and the boiling of the German Emperor Lothar I. Applied Geochemistry, vol. 4, pp. 325-327. Pergamon Press.
Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.241.2 ( talk) 21:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. I note that this is reversing a previous move 19:12, 21 May 2005 Cosal Lothair II, Holy Roman Emperor moved to Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor, and that this move took place during the discussion #III vs. II: Can there be only one? above. But consensus now is clear, and the arguments and participation adequate IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 16:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor →
Lothair II, Holy Roman Emperor – The numeral "II" is more common. It is the one preferred by the Britannica, for instance, and it is more common in books on Google, according to
this Ngram. (Note that decapitalising "emperor" in the Ngram yields 0 results for the numeral "III".) The results are the opposite when the spelling "Lothar" is used. My impression is that this is mostly found in German scholarship and is passed into English from there.
There are clear benefits to using the numeral "II". He was without doubt the second emperor of his name, but in what way was he uniquely the third? There was another intervening Carolingian, himself sometimes numbered
Lothair IV, which is only possible by recognising
Lothair II of Italy as "Lothair III". In the latter case, we wisely use the numeral "II" because he was the second Lothair to rule Italy. Only by regarding Lotharingia as a part of Germany or by disregarding the western and southern parts of the Carolingian Empire can one justify numbering the emperor "Lothair III"
Srnec (
talk)
21:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
These seem to be exactly the same date, viz. 9 June 1075. We say that he was born "shortly after his father's death", which would generally indicate anywhere from a few days to a few months after. But if it was only a matter of a few hours later, on the very same day as his father died at the Battle of Langensalza (1075), shouldn't this be noted explicitly?
Unless, of course, someone has been making it up as they went along and has just plugged in some date rather than reveal a gap in our knowledge. Nah, nobody would ever do that. :) Either way, can this please be looked at closely and resolved quickly? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
"He was a posthumous child, born at Unterlüß in 1075 shortly after his father,"
What on Earth?
How was he a dead child born at the same time as his father??? 68.45.174.58 ( talk) 20:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Supplinburger dynasty page were merged into Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor on 23 August 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Genealogy is useless enough, but "(with von Haldensleben family connection)" was an especially useless aside. In ALL EUROPEAN LANGUAGES there is a space between punctuation and the SUBSEQUENT word. He's Henry the Lion, not Henry the Lyon. MichaelTinkler
What's more, he's Lothar II until someone can tell me when there was an Emperor Lothar II between 855 and 1125. And lose this idiotic surname nonsense. He was count of Supplinburg: he didn't go round introducing himself as "Lothar Supplinburg". User:David Parker
"He is sometimes referred to as Lothair III." This needs to be expanded for the Wikipedia reader who may be wondered why? -- Wetman 11:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"The Staufens, who had the support of their own lands plus support in many imperial cities, Austria, and much of Lower Lorraine, raised Conrad as antiking Conrad III." I don't understand the last part of this particularly 'antiking'. Rogertudor 18:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
The summary box at the bottom of the article has Lothair III as King of Italy, from 1128 - 1137, with a minor, very confusing sentence within the article itself. This is incorrect - Conrad III was crowned King of Italy when he travelled down to Italy in 1128, and renounced the title in 1135. The error in the article looks like it arose due to some of the text in this article (the part dealing with his coronation by the Archbishop of Milan) originally coming from Conrad III's article. This has now been fixed. Oatley2112 ( talk) 05:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure were in the article to stick this information. I leave it to more experienced wikipedians:
Lothar died on December 5th, 1137 in Upper Bavaria and was buried 500 Km north, at the castle of Koenigslutter. Transportation of the body probably took several weeks. To avoid decay and putrefaction the body was defleshed and boiled for about 6 hours. This was proven by a chemial analysis of his remains. The paper names him "Lothar I".
J.L. Bada, B. Herrmann, I.L.Payan and E.H.Man (1989) Amino acid racemization in bone and the boiling of the German Emperor Lothar I. Applied Geochemistry, vol. 4, pp. 325-327. Pergamon Press.
Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.241.2 ( talk) 21:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. I note that this is reversing a previous move 19:12, 21 May 2005 Cosal Lothair II, Holy Roman Emperor moved to Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor, and that this move took place during the discussion #III vs. II: Can there be only one? above. But consensus now is clear, and the arguments and participation adequate IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 16:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor →
Lothair II, Holy Roman Emperor – The numeral "II" is more common. It is the one preferred by the Britannica, for instance, and it is more common in books on Google, according to
this Ngram. (Note that decapitalising "emperor" in the Ngram yields 0 results for the numeral "III".) The results are the opposite when the spelling "Lothar" is used. My impression is that this is mostly found in German scholarship and is passed into English from there.
There are clear benefits to using the numeral "II". He was without doubt the second emperor of his name, but in what way was he uniquely the third? There was another intervening Carolingian, himself sometimes numbered
Lothair IV, which is only possible by recognising
Lothair II of Italy as "Lothair III". In the latter case, we wisely use the numeral "II" because he was the second Lothair to rule Italy. Only by regarding Lotharingia as a part of Germany or by disregarding the western and southern parts of the Carolingian Empire can one justify numbering the emperor "Lothair III"
Srnec (
talk)
21:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
These seem to be exactly the same date, viz. 9 June 1075. We say that he was born "shortly after his father's death", which would generally indicate anywhere from a few days to a few months after. But if it was only a matter of a few hours later, on the very same day as his father died at the Battle of Langensalza (1075), shouldn't this be noted explicitly?
Unless, of course, someone has been making it up as they went along and has just plugged in some date rather than reveal a gap in our knowledge. Nah, nobody would ever do that. :) Either way, can this please be looked at closely and resolved quickly? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
"He was a posthumous child, born at Unterlüß in 1075 shortly after his father,"
What on Earth?
How was he a dead child born at the same time as his father??? 68.45.174.58 ( talk) 20:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)